Datasets:

generalization

/

sst2_Sampled-p_05

like 0

Without a doubt one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years. The story focuses on four women driven to robbing banks who we are somehow supposed to sympathize with. It's tough to sympathize with characters who keep making such stupid decisions. Oh no, the cops are on to us, they know who we are, what do we do?...Let's rob one more bank then we're outta here! What!?! Every character is a stereotype and it's easy to tell who's gonna end up dead.

trimmed_train

This film, by Oscar Petersson, is unique. Its uniqueness doesn't lie in the story, since many a half brained Hollywood production has served us comparably miserable plots, but rather in the thorough way that complete and utter lousiness in one aspect is joined with equal lousiness in all other aspects.<br /><br />The dialog is worse than embarrassing. Rotten acting and abysmal direction are thrown into the mix. Bosnians speaking English with heavy Swedish accents add an unintentional element of humor. Uninspired lightning and camera-work are icing on the turkey film cake. As a sort of surprise for the audience, there are a few completely unmotivated slow motion sequences where you'd least expect any. To add insult to injury, the whole thing is cut by someone devoid of any sense of timing.<br /><br />The "bad guy henchman turns good after hearing good guy's speech" scene in the church, is the point at which is time to dethrone Ed Wood from the position as the worst director of all times; Move over Ed Wood - here comes Oscar Petersson!

trimmed_train

Witty. Quirky. Genuine. Surreal. Butterfly wings? One could ask what all of these words best describe, and some (those in fuse with the international film community) may quickly say Happenstance, but others may jump aboard the more American train and immediately yell, The Butterfly Effect. Strangely, I would be one of those screaming for that sci-fi Kutcher film mainly because none of those words that I initially mentioned at the start of this paragraph accurately depicts the Tautou feature that I witnessed. Sure, we all loved her in Amelie and thought she was the daughter of Jesus in The Da Vinci Code, but in this film first-time director (of a feature film at least) Laurent Firode doesn't give Tautou the opportunity to shine. Sadly, he gives nobody the opportunity to really demonstrate themselves because he is too delicately caught up in the moments of "random chance" to bring this film to anything but just a shimmer (never a true boil). Firode has ample, and I use "ample" as a small word, moments throughout this film where he could have built us a fantastical story, a genuinely whimsical fairy-tale of love and coincidence, but instead he fell face-first into a mud-bucket of chaotic intertwining that overwhelmed us with inconsistent characters and a story that left us gasping for less.<br /><br />Tautou's beautiful face adorns the cover of this box, but do not be so taken immediately as I did in assuming that this was going to be another monumental journey into Tautou's French cinema. Tautou is in this film, do not get me wrong, but one could argue that she is not at the center of this story. Firode's job is to create a series of random events that eventually will lead to an audience friendly (albeit confusing) ending which exemplifies that meaning of refreshing "melodrama". He utterly, utterly fails. Firode fails by giving us, the audience, too many characters. With too many characters he gives us too many random interventions, and by the end you don't really care who is who, or what is what, or how is how; your main focus happens to be centered solely on the ending credits and the time destination of their arrival. Tautou could have saved this film from the disaster it was if only Firode would have given her the center. Alas, he did not, but attempted to seemingly force a group of 12 through a theoretical film hole about the size of a penny. It just didn't work and we were left with a jam in which we were completely stuck.<br /><br />Firode fails because he focus' so intently on the minor details that, for one of those rare film occurrences, he actually forgets the central focus. I can say that there was no defined central focus to Happenstance. In the beginning he attempts to create one with our two supposed main characters discovering that they share the same birthday and their horoscope promises love by the moonlight, but we never go back to that throughout the film. Instead, again, we are bombarded with new characters, stuffy scenes, and meaningless drivel obviously chosen to direct us away from an actual story and more into a world full of "ifs, ands, and buts". I couldn't do it. I couldn't believe this film. Writer Firode (yes, the same guy directing this garbage) uses a technique so primitive in this film that I immediately felt like ending it immediately. He must have been assuming that many of us were incapable of actually following the storyline (or the scientific premise) because he grabs the aid of a homeless person to actually fill in the respective blanks. I didn't need this, nor do I think Firode needed to belittle his audience in this matter. While there were other elements that just didn't seem to work for me at all (again, felt like a jumbled Parisian collage of shredded paper), this was the icing on the cake. I don't need my hand held through films.<br /><br />I will give this film one star for credit. This is a rather difficult genre to master successfully. Time travel films are especially hard because of the innumerable amounts of possibilities that are never accounted for, but with Happenstance it works because Firode semi-explores the different avenues. While I will counter with saying that he does not do it well, it did make for at least five full minutes of enjoyment. I liked where Firode was headed with this film, he had a genuinely diagramed story, but the final execution just blew this film to shreds. Firode could have saved this film if he would have strengthened his characters, while lightening up his premise and story. I think my overall mood of this film would have changed if just these two simple directions were taken. Oh, how I only wish I could time travel back to the production of this film to show Firode the errors of his ways.<br /><br />Overall, for the first time (and probably last), this was a Tautou film that I must say utterly disappointed me. From the choppy opening to the apathetic ending, I just felt that Happenstance failed due to Firode's leadership and horrid marketing. Marketing is something that I didn't mention before, but why would anyone purchase this film thinking that it was an Amelie 2 (per the title released in Hong Kong), and why would you place Tautou squarely on the cover knowing full well that she wasn't carrying this film at all. I believe that from the first minute that passed on my DVD player, this film was in shambles. While I will applaud his subject, everything else was well below the level of mediocrity. I cannot suggest this film to anyone.<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****

trimmed_train

This movie is probably my favorite movie of all time. Miriam Flynn is excellent as Bunny Packard. Zane Buzby as Delores is comic genius. The rest of the cast is amazing, and the film is really really funny. A definite satire of horror films, with a zany twist. If you enjoy a fun, comedy filled evening, then go and rent this classic. You'll laugh all the way through!

trimmed_train

Back in 1994, I had a really lengthy vacation around the Fourth of July - something like 17 days off in a row what with two weeks paid vacation, weekends and the holiday itself. I stayed in town during that time, hanging out at my parents' house a lot.<br /><br />I didn't have a TV in my apartment so I used to watch my parents' tube. I had just finished watching a segment of the X Files when a program came on called Personal FX. I was hooked instantly. I had always been fascinated with items in our home that had come from my parents' family homes and through inheritances from relatives' estates, and often wondered about their history, value, etc.<br /><br />After my long vacation, I used to go to my folks' house on my lunch-hours just to catch Personal FX.<br /><br />I can remember one episode during which co-host Claire Carter announced that the New York apartment in which the series was filmed was being renovated and that once said renovations were complete that Personl FX would return to the air.<br /><br />It never did! Personal FX was the first -and best - of the collectible shows. And it vanished from the air! Almost fifteen years later, I'm still sore.<br /><br />Way to go, FX.

trimmed_train

I am Puerto Rican and this is one of the worst documentary of I've ever seen of any type. You can see that the people on it are clueless. They don't know much about Puerto Rico and its culture. They claim to be Puerto Rican because they are from Puerto Rican descendants, but they probably know less than others who are not from there. You can see while they are talking that they are contradicting themselves. If you would like to see a real, and I mean a real, genuine documentary from Puerto Rico, then you must see "Mi Puerto Rico". That's a serious, real documentary. Not like this piece of junk. Rosie Perez based this documentary on herself. I thought it was suppose to be about Puerto Ricans. They keep repeating I didn't know. Well, that's about the only thing they got right on this so called documentary. I hate to see such a piece of garbage being done using the name of the Island. It brings down the standards.

trimmed_train

The majority of Stephen King's short stories are little gems, with original ideas that don't take a long time to develop; basically lean and mean--he sets them up quickly in a scarce number of pages, you read 'em, and you're finished before you know you've begun. They're like the equivalent of a carton of McDonald's fries--they taste Really good and you know there's not much nutritional value in them (re: from a literary standpoint, they don't say much about the universal human condition), but you're still gonna scarf 'em down, just don't be a pig and go for the extra-super-sized portion and fill up on too much grease ("too much grease" is a metaphor for the prose in King's novels when find yourself reading one of them and saying come on--enough with the pop-cultural observations or clever Yankee asides--get on with the story already!) He has compiled four books of short story collections. I've read them all--from NightShift to the latest, Everything's Eventual, and they all display an efficiency of getting-to-the-point which is sometimes sorely lacking in his tome-sized novels.<br /><br />But his short stories never overstay their welcome...which brings us to the TV adaptations of Nightmares And Dreamscapes...<br /><br />How in the hell did they (the series' producers) get a green-light to turn stories that usually averaged 15 pages into 50 minute episodes? I'll tell you how--two words--"Stephen King." Stories with his name on them probably didn't come cheap, and one hour shows enable more advertising than half hour ones, so...what should have been an anthology of mostly 23 or 24 minute episodes is turned into double that length, and double the commercial time...Ka-Ching!<br /><br />I'm not going to waste time synopsizing the plots of these stories--this review supposes you have already read the stories and/or seen the show; what follows is merely my gut reactions to what TNT presented... Of the four installments so far, here's my ten cent assessment (from first to worst): <br /><br />Battleground-- Not a classic by any means, but hey, how could anyone argue with keeping William Hurt from opening his trap by filming this episode without a single line of dialog? And the tongue-in-cheek reference and destruction of the killer Zuni doll from Trilogy Of Terror proved to me the producers (and the writer of the teleplay, who is Richard Matheson's son--the writer of TOT) knew their mission with this one was to make the action deadly, yet at the same time, fun. It took longer to get to Hurt's apartment than it should have, but I think it fulfilled it's objective. 8/10<br /><br />Umney's Last Case-- Liked this one primarily because of William H. Macy's performance. I think the writer/Umney should have appeared in the story sooner into the private eye/Umney beginning because he was the actual reality of the story, and anyone familiar with the King short story (probably half, if not more of the audience) knew the Chandleresque set-up was due to get interrupted by the writer's reality, so let's get on with it already, and cut-out the cute and clever hard-boiled repartee' Private Dick banter already. Once the writer/Umney's family tragedy began to reveal though, I thought the show developed an emotional connection that made the viewer (me, at least), feel sympathy for the real-life Macy's attempt to escape his sorrows by usurping his fictional creation's exciting life. 6/10 <br /><br />The End Of The Whole Mess-- Uh, this title is how I felt about this episode when it was over. After twenty minutes, I was ready to scream at the TV--OK, we get it already, the younger brother is a Mega Mensa Genius Prodigy Extraordinaire! We know from Ron Livingston talking to the camera ("time is running out for me"--not fast enough, I thought) that the young whiz kid is going to discover something really bad for humanity--we know this because he's already built an airplane but almost died because he couldn't steer it out of the path of a tree; and, he blew up his chemistry lab while teaching himself chemistry (to think the end of the world could have been prevented if only this kid had some more parental supervision). So much time was wasted on establishing the uber-genius of Henry Thomas, when we finally get to the resolution of his discovery--the end of the world through unintended idiocy--how much do we get to see of the world "ending?"--a cheap video shot of a reporter starting to forget what she's reporting on, and brief radio broadcasts announcing the day of judgement is at hand. Oh, and the brother's parents drooling and singing old songs. My point is, if your story is really about the "end of the whole mess (world)", I wanna see the "mess" as it goes up in flames and crashes and burns. Talk about ending with a whimper, indeed. 2/10 <br /><br />Crouch End-- This episode just ticked me off totally. I could have lived with the taking-forever exposition of the happy couple arriving at their hotel, playing slap-and-tickle, having lunch, and getting a taxi (that was half the episode right there), if once they finally crossed-over into Crouch End the episode delivered the chills, but it failed miserabley. Not only wasn't it scary, it was practically laughable. Ooh, look--a kitty...wait, it turns...oh my god! Look at it's scary eye! Uh-huh. They could have gone a long way towards filming the Crouch End sequence at night instead of in daylight, too. Things you might unintentionally find funny can become scarier when you see them in the night shadows. But I guess the budget wasn't high enough to shoot at night on the fake London sets they slapped together for this one. On the page, this is a very scary story about tourists wandering into places they shouldn't and the terrible things that might lurk just around a corner there. The only terror in this adaptation was the directing and acting--those were truly horrifying. 1/10 <br /><br />Overall Series Average (so far): 4/10

trimmed_train

This was one of the worst movies EVER!!!!!!!! It was so bad, I was laughing through the WHOLE movie! The plot was SO cheesy; especially the end. This movie turns from an end-of-the-world-disaster to save-the-eels! I mean, c'mon! And I swear...I think they use SOCK PUPPETS for the eels! And there was this horrible kiss scene in the middle with the two main characters who happened to be divorced. How predictable! It was SO terrible that my mom, my sister, and I couldn't finish it, and when we DID finish it, it was about a year later! The second time we watched it and we finished it this time, we did MST3K-like comments throughout the movie.<br /><br />Summary: Only watch this if you're a movie basher! Make hilarious comments, watch this at a sleepover for laughs, and I mean HUGE laughs. Also watch for mockery. The metaphor that explains this movie: This movie is a very shallow field full of cheese and sock puppets!

trimmed_train

David Mamet's film debut has been hailed by many as a real thinking-man's movie, a movie that makes you question everybody and everything. I saw it for the first time recently and couldn't understand what was supposed to be so great about it.<br /><br />The movie is about a female psychologist named Margaret who is also a best-selling author. Margaret has become disillusioned by her profession and her inability to really help anyone. She tries to rectify this by helping settle her patient's gambling debt to a shark named Mike (played by Joe Mantegna, who is the only reason to watch this film). She discovers that Mike is actually a professional confidence man when she nearly falls victim to a scam he pulls immediately after meeting her. Intrigued, she returns to see him and asks him to show her how con artists operate (she plans on using this as the subject of a new psychology book). She then falls for him and accompanies him on a long con that he and his associates have set up.<br /><br />I don't feel like going into details, but at the end of the film it is revealed that the events of the whole movie were an elaborate con by Mike and his cronies to swindle Margaret out of $80,000.<br /><br />First of all, the big twist towards the end was VERY predictable. Any scene where the con men were operating was made very obvious by the stagey acting and weird line reads. Not only that, but the audience (and the main character) knows that they're dealing with con men, so is it really such a big surprise when we find out that Margaret has herself been conned? Besides, Margaret is supposedly an intelligent psychologist who is an expert at reading people, yet she allows herself to be duped far too easily -- and keep in mind, she knows full well that Mike is a con artist.<br /><br />Secondly, we are led to believe that Margaret was conned from the very beginning, yet in order for the con to ultimately work, she had to do several things that the con men couldn't possibly have predicted that she would do. First, she had to decide to help settle her patient's debt, allowing her to meet the con men in the first place. If she hadn't done this, the entire con would have failed. I just have to say that it's pretty unreasonable to assume that a psychologist is going to take it upon herself to settle a patient's gambling debt. Not only that, but what are the odds that the con men would be at the right spot on the very night she decided to show up? Did they simply show up at that bar every night, hoping she would come and see them? Another thing that had to happen that couldn't have been predicted is that Margaret had to return to see Mike again and ask him to teach her the tricks of his trade. What are the odds of this happening? And yet the whole con is based on this premise.<br /><br />Another problem I had is with the ending. Margaret finds out she's been conned and decides to get revenge on Mike. At first, Mamet leads us to believe that she's going to con the con, but that falls through, so the ultimate ending is her gunning Mike down in an airport baggage area. Somehow that just felt like a clumsy and inept way to end a movie about con artists plying their trade. Not only that, but she didn't even take back the money he stole from her.<br /><br />Ultimately, the movie leaves you feeling empty and unfulfilled. And if you, like me, predicted ahead of time that Margaret was going to be conned, you will find this revelation just as unsatisfying.

trimmed_train

Great entertainment from start to the end. Wonderful performances by Belushi, Beach, Dalton & Railsback. Some twists and many action scenes. The movie was made for me! Funny lines in the screenplay, good music. Dalton as the tough sheriff and Railsback as "redneck-villain". I must recommend this film to every action-adventure fan! 10/10

trimmed_train

This is an excellent, heartbreaking movie. It is by far the best I've seen that depicts the current reality in Latin America...kidnappings, corruption, ruthless and greedy police officials and heartless mayhem towards innocent victims. Denzel Washinton gives the most moving performance in his career, in my opinion. Dakota Fanning is an amazing young actress. The relationship between Washington and Fanning is wonderfully written and portrayed, I believed every minute. The cast is brilliant, Christopher Walken, Mickey Rourke are great as always. Walken lights up the screen for me like no other actor. I would have loved to see more of both of them. The authentic locations are remarkable. The camera work is interesting and different. There are many famous Latin actors in the cast, making it all the more interesting for people familiar with Latin American cinema. I highly recommend this movie.

trimmed_train

(48 out of 278 people found this comment useful, and counting...)<br /><br />People are such suckers for image and looks - as much as for the intellectually hollow "idealism" that lurks behind Communism. Che's charisma and looks have as much to do with his iconic stature as the misinformation that has been spread by Leftist propaganda (such as this movie) about him.<br /><br />I don't know what's worse: being captured by one of Che's murder-squads or having to sit through 4 hours of this typically Soderberghian garbage. The question isn't why this pet-project was made but what took them so long. By "them" I'm referring, of course, to Left-wing Hollywood and its "secret" love of Marxist tyrants (Lenin, Castro... take your pick). I am fascinated that it took decades for one of Tinseltown's least talented liberal directors to finally take on such an irresistibly biased propaganda project. Where was Oliver Stone all these years? Robert Redford? Tim Robbins? Warren Beatty? Alan Pakula? George Clooney? Barbra Streisand even? It's a mystery. All these overrated "artists" have often indulging themselves in similar, politically one-sided projects, yet somehow Che Guevara, who is arguably the most popular and well-known Communist, hasn't been a film topic of theirs yet.<br /><br />"Guerrilla" has all the hallmarks of an American truth-bending story of an epic scale; there is as much factual detail to be found here as in other similar Hollywood big-budget political fairy-tale bios such as "Malcolm X" or "Gandhi", i.e. almost none. The movie stars Del Toro as the famous Argentinian revolutionary. Nevertheless, however controversial and criminal this man's actions may have been, one thing nobody could take away from him: he was an intelligent manipulator who came from a rich family - which is why Del Toro fits the bill only visually. Del Toro may be an interesting, charismatic actor and he may resemble Guevara physically, but he exudes no intellectual qualities whatsoever, hence he makes Guevara come off as too primitive. Casting such mediocrities as Bratt, Philips and Franka Incompetente only underlines the director's lack of sound judgment.<br /><br />The movie is to the most part extremely slow (no surprise there), and visually uninteresting. Even a director as brilliant as Kubrick would have carefully considered releasing a movie that goes beyond the 3-hour mark, so it's quite telling that this Soderbergh, who has only made one or two solid movies and early on in his career, would think that His Oceanic Grandness was up to the task. If you think the film's length indicates that a bulk of Che's life has been shown here - then think again. Soderbergh focuses on Che's last phase, and a lot of the movie is tedious jungle nonsense, full of Guevara's alleged idealism. (Psychopaths don't have ideals.) I do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteemed director has to have to actually choose to ignore some of Che's earlier life. Did he actually consider it too uninteresting? A massacre of 600 people holds no interest for the viewer, huh? Amazing. Some much better directors than this over-praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biographies into a 4-hour movie.<br /><br />Soderbergh, in a sense, becomes an accomplice by never addressing the negative, dark side - which is more than 90% - of Guevara. By spreading this kind of historical inaccuracy, consciously ignoring the ugly truth (God forbid he should taint the holy image of Che), Soderbergh proves himself not a humanist - a fake image which most Hollywood and pop music personalities struggle very hard all their careers to uphold - but the opposite: that he cares only about ideas, never about the people on whom these ideas are tested (like on guinea pigs). Soderbergh and the like are elitists of the worst kind; such people often have a latent contempt for the "proleteriat" (what a stupid term) they're supposedly siding with.<br /><br />Half of all students around the world wear Che's image on their red and orange shirts, but without ever knowing why. He has become an iconic figure for clueless, uninformed, very often young people, who think that by having this man's face on their chest that somehow makes them appear "edgy", intellectual, hip or interesting. In reality, wearing a Che shirt only underlines one's overall shallowness and total disinterest in self-education. (Wouldn't YOU want to find out more about a person before you start advertising his/her face to the world?) Wearing Che's by-now cliché image has become as common as having a Bart Simpson coffee cup. All those "Che-wearers" probably know more about Marge's blue hair than they'll ever read up on about Fidel Castro's dead ally.<br /><br />After everything that'd been done in the name of Marx, one would think that these mongrel "ideals" would be finally laid to rest. It seems mankind will never learn. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu, the Iron Curtain, a hundred million dead, more than a billion ruined physically and/or mentally through this system... so none of that matters, huh? <br /><br />The fact that Del Toro won a Cannes Award should only surprise those who are absolutely clueless as to how Cannes and other European festivals work - and vote. Hint: Sean Penn headed a jury not long ago.<br /><br />For my music-related rants, go to: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Fedor8/

trimmed_train

Main theme in this Dirty Harry is that revenge is a dish best served cold. Sandra Locke is as cold in this film as she is beautiful. Locke is an "8" normally, but, with a deadly pistol in her purse, "cocked" for the bad guys, she climbs all the way up the scale to a "10". Having been gang-raped, along with her younger sister, some years ago, Locke, as Jennifer Spencer, has tried to block out the attack from her life, as best she can. Her sister, tho, is almost comatose as a result of the trauma, so the memory is never far from her mind. One day, Jennifer sees one of her attackers on the street in S.F.; she buys a pistol, follows him to a bar, lets him pick her up, then when they're alone in his Cadillac, beginning to make love, she shoots him....once in the genitals, once in the brain - - this in the opening scene!! Ya gotta love this spunky lady. She's got her priorities straight. Plus, Jennifer is a professional artist, putting all her anger on canvas UNTIL NOW. After executing her first perp, Jennifer curiously watches Det. Insp. Harry Callahan process the fresh crime scene after the body is found in the Caddy. Then, she insults some creepy teenage bucks who are hassling women on the street, visits her sister in a nursing home, then goes a'hunting in San Paolo, CA "up the coast" where the rape event took place years ago. With more bullets in her suitcase and more resolve in her mind, our heroine relives the rape inside her head with vivid recall, as she comes closer to executing each subsequent rapist. Not uncommon to us right- wingers, when it comes to sentencing or executing a violent criminal, don't be sorrowful for his own wretched humanity, we REMEMBER the CRIME and the SUFFERING he inflicted. Such recalled events steels Jennifer to pull the trigger on each of her attackers - once in the genitals, once in the brain. Throughout the movie, scenes of Jennifer's revenge are interspersed with good, IL' Dirty Harry blowing away some gangstas in a coffee shop, remember "Go ahead. MAKE my day."? Later on, he threatens to step on a punk kid (who'd just insulted Callahan) in a courthouse elevator like he'd step on dog- s**t....leaving a young female govt employee staring after Clint as if to say "I want to have your baby." My favorite scene is only about 30 minutes into the action, when Harry threatens and frightens a murderous Mafia boss named Threlkis into a fatal coronary during his granddaughter's wedding reception at the Mark Hopkins hotel. Michael Grazzo (Pantangeli in Godfather II) does a wonderful job as the sinful Mafia Don, even if he's only in one scene, dying in a most-convincing manner. However, Harry's troubles aren't over with yet! The elevator punk's gang AND Threlkis' henchmen each attempt to assassinate Harry in two close-ordered scenes, and most of them bad guys end up dying horribly. Yup, some of the gun-play comes off as uninspired screen violence....looking like Clint the Director may have been tired that day of shooting this movie. But, there's only so many ways you can dispatch a man with bullets. The punk kids die much more creatively, though, as they both burn to death and drown in S.F. Bay. Warms my heart. With so much violent intent directed at Insp. Callahan, his bosses send him to San Paolo to try to get some background on the "22 caliber vasectomy killing" as Jennifer Spencer's crime is now known, but not before Harry delivers one of his famous sermons-to-the- chowder-headed-liberals. Love that Harry. While our hero' up annoying the local cops and citizens in San Paolo, two more murders happen, same M.O., on a sleazy, lazy fisherman and on an equally-creepy hardware entrepreneur. Then Harry meets Jennifer! They find they both agree on subjects such as Law and Order, Making the Guilty Pay, etc. Could a hot, love scene be in the offing soon? We're led to believe just that. Characters abound in this Real-Man meets Real-Woman crime drama, and we get to meet a brassy bull-dyke named Raye Parkins who's both irritating and entertaining. Raye set up Jennifer's rape for her "boyfriend" years before, and she'll get hers eventually. The San Paolo Police Chief, played by reliable Eastwood co-star Pat Hingle (the Hanging Judge in 'Hang Em High'), is strangely at odds with Callahan's detective work related to the 22-cal vasectomies, until we find out that his own adolescent son was one of the gang of rapists. Much like Jennifer's sister, Chief Janning's son is now a comatose adult, but driven mad by guilt. It can't end here, though. The dyke's rapist boyfriend, Mick, now a kinky-sex jerk of a criminal, drives in from Vegas becuz Raye's dropped a dime on Jennifer, summoning him up to San Paolo to prevent more executions. Mick sleeps at Raye's house, but his timing is all wrong, and he's arrested before he can spend more time with Raye, mostly due to the fact that she's since been sent to the Island of the Eternal Lesboes by a shot from Jennifer's revolver. Psycho Mick makes bail at long last, with Jennifer gunning for him. A desperate chase ensues, as Harry tries to keep these two from killing each other. It all turns out well in the end, with the good gal and the good guy walking off into the sunset together to a beautiful Roberta Flack blues song.

trimmed_train

I first saw this film when it aired on the now defunct Trio Channel a few years ago, and recently watched it again--sans commercials--on Sundance. I was impressed the first time, and found it even more engaging on second viewing. Yes, some of the segments are far from perfect--Amos Gitai's hysterical commentary stands out like a sore thumb--but taken collectively, 11 09 01 is a total success. Best of show: Shohei Imamura's amazing final segment, which contemporary critics such as the thick-witted Mick LaSalle somehow misinterpreted as an attack on 'the terrorists', but now stands revealed as a masterful anti-war polemic; Samira Makhmalbaf's opening piece that manages to blend deep empathy for the victims of 9/11 with a prescient concern for the children of Afghanistan; and Idrissa Ouedraogo's amusing children's crusade for Osama Bin Laden--a hunt almost as serious and successful an undertaking as the one for the REAL Osama. Youssef Chahine's segment is a noble if failed experiment which at least has the guts to remind the audience that Bin Laden and al'Qaeda are basically creations of American foreign policy and the CIA, and though Sean Penn's character study seems out of place, it's still an effectively bittersweet piece of film-making. All in all, essential viewing, and a darn sight better than Oliver Stone's reactionary World Trade Center.

trimmed_train

OK, the story - a simpleminded loony enters a life of bored to death young chick and her kid brother and wreaks havoc in their lives - is mildly interesting one. Anyway, ideas are nothing (everyone has some...) - the execution is everything.<br /><br />This is what bothered me with this flick. And it did bother me immensely. The rhythm (directing, editing) was slow, the pace was uneven and the climax expected. We have seen those frigging highways five, six, seven times - why? Norton character's troubles were seen as a childish game, not enough deep to understand his problems / soul / blah and to root for or against him. Is he a coward, a manipulator or just a loony? References to the "Taxi Driver" were ridiculous and unnecessary and for certain not in favor for this flick (or to E.N. for that matter).<br /><br />And IMHO, it is cowardly executed at the end. Cheap emotional tricks for teenage lovers somewhere in Mid America. This guy should have killed the kid, blamed the father, create a real havoc. Or the kid should have killed the father at the end etc., but no, we have gotten cheesy ending where kids miss the loony, the father is puzzled over his own life and relationship with them and the loony, of course, dies. The happy dysfunctional family stays unharmed, safe and happily bored again so we could enjoy our pop-corns, undisturbed.<br /><br />And that scene where the loony enters the movie, oh my God, I would have to think long and hard to find something stupider than that! You do not shoot such a scene with a hidden camera and hidden crew. Creators of that movie probably thought that was a good idea but it was more than annoying. Again, if you're a 16 years old girl somewhere in Kansas nowhere or whatever-where and dream about having sex with a crazy man twice your age, OK, then you might enjoy this movie and its "message".

trimmed_train

I am a relative latecomer to the transcendent work of film auteur Yasujiro Ozu, whose masterfully understated views of Japanese life, especially in the post-WWII era, illuminate universal truths. Having now seen several of his landmark films such as 1949's "Late Spring" and 1953's "Tokyo Story", I am convinced that Ozu had a particularly idiosyncratic gift of conveying the range of feelings arising from intergenerational conflict through elliptical narratives and subtle imagery. It is Taiwanese director Hou Hsiao-hsien's keen aspiration to pay homage to Ozu on his centenary with this generally enervating 2003 film. Among with co-screenwriter T'ien-wen Chu, Hsiao-hsien appears to get the visuals right but does not capture the requisite emotional weight that would have made the glacial pacing tolerable.<br /><br />The story concerns Yôko, a young Japanese writer researching the life of mid-20th century Taiwanese composer Jiang Wen-Ye in Tokyo after coming back from Taiwan where she taught Japanese. After 25 drawn-out minutes of character set-up, she reveals to her father and stepmother that she is pregnant by one of her students in Taiwan. At the same time, Yôko's coffeehouse friend Hajime, who runs a used bookstore, has an obsession for trains and seems likely to be in love with her. Hsiao-hsien connects this slim plot line with a series of shots held for inordinately lengthy takes as the frame composition changes. There are also long stretches of silence as well as an abundance of scenes featuring trains. While these techniques are consistent with Ozu's style, Hsiao-hsien cannot seem to dive into the characters' psyches the way Ozu did with maximal fluidity and minimal theatrics, in particular, Yôko's plight seems rather non-committal in the scheme of the drama presented and her parents' reaction overly passive to hold much interest. In fact, the whole film has an atmosphere of exhaustion about it, which makes the film feel interminable.<br /><br />The performances are unobtrusive though hardly memorable. J-pop music star Yo Hitoto brings a natural ease to Yôko, while Tadanobu Asano is something of a cipher as Hajime. The rest of the characters barely register, even Nenji Kobayashi and Kimiko Yo as Yôko's parents. Cinematographer Lee Ping-Bing provides expert work though he violates a cardinal rule of Ozu films by not keeping the camera stable during shots. Hitoto speak-sings the fetching pop song used over he ending credits, "Hito-Shian". The DVD includes an hour long, French-made documentary, "Métro Lumière", which actually does help provide some of the context for Hsiao-hsien's approach to the film. It includes excerpts from Ozu's films, in particular, "Equinox Flower", to show the parallels with this film though surprisingly no mention of either "Tokyo Story" or "Early Summer", the obvious basis for some of the scenes and situation set-ups. There are also edited interview clips of Hitoto, Asano and Hsiao-hsien, as well as the film's trailer.

trimmed_train

This movie was like any Jimmy Stewart film,witty,charming and very enjoyable.Kim Novak's performance as Gillian,the beautiful witch who longs to be human,is splendid,her subtle facial expressions,her every move and gesture all create Gillian's unique and somewhat haunting character,she left us hanging on her every word.I should not fail to mention Ernie Kovacs' and Elsa Lanchester's highly commendable performances as the scotch loving writer obsessed with the world of magic(Kovacs) and the latter as the lovable aunt who can't seem to stop using magic even when forbidden to.The romantic scenes between Stewart and Novak are beautifully done and the chemistry between them is great,but then again when is the chemistry between Jimmy Stewart and any leading lady bad!

trimmed_train

Hawked as THE MOST OFFENSIVE MOVIE EVER, GUARANTEED TO OFFEND EVERYONE- Guess what? It worked, I'm offended that we shelled out money to rent this. Two friends and I were bored and decided to see if all that bull about the movie that we saw on TV was true. Curse Comedy Central and all the other networks that pushed this garbage on us! It was by far the worst movie I've seen since Hollow Man. I generally avoid the crappy ones, but got sucked into this one. We have since beaten the prick who suggest we rent it, and his movie picking privileges have been revoked. There is nothing remotely funny about this movie...even the "adventures of dickman" scene was sophomoric at best.. Color me p***ed. Thought maybe the production value was crap for some important reason...no..it just sucked. NEVER WATCH THIS! for any reason whatsoever. Not even with copious amounts of illegal substance would this movie be funny. That's saying ALOT. Please for the love of all that is holy, if you cherish your sanity- never view this movie. It's many things- stupid, pointless, and worthless to name a few. But the main thing it was aiming for: offensively funny- it failed miserably. Crash and burn....

trimmed_train

A lonely depressed French boy Mathieu (Jeremie Elkaim) on vacation in the summer, meets and falls in love with Cedric (the gorgeous Stephane Rideau). Quiet and slow this is a very frustrating movie. On one hand, I was absorbed by it and really felt for the two boys. On the other I was getting annoyed--the film constantly keeps flashing around from the past to the present with no rhyme or reason. It's very confusing and pointless. <br /><br />SPOILERS AHEAD!!!<br /><br />Also there are tons of plot holes--Mathieu, at one point, does something that ends him up in the hospital. What is it--we're never told! Then he breaks up with Cedric and tells everybody else he's living with him. Why? We're not told. Then he hooks up inexplicably with another guy at the end. Why? No explanation. It's clear Cedric loves Mathieu and Mathieu is living in the same town so... However it is a tribute to the film that you really care about the characters so much. If only things were explained!<br /><br />Elkaim as Mathieu is not good. He's tall, handsome and has a nice body--but he can't act. His idea of acting is sitting around with a blank look on his face--all the time. Rideau, on the other hand, is great. He's VERY handsome, has a very nice body and is one hell of an actor. Also he has an incredible sexual magnetism about him. There is full frontal male nudity, lots of kissing and a fairly explicit sex scene in the movie which is great--most movies shy away from showing male-male love scenes. This one doesn't and it helps to see how the characters care and feel for each other.<br /><br />So, a frustrating film but somewhat worth seeing--especially for Rideau's nude scenes--that is, if you like good-looking nude young men!<br /><br />

trimmed_train

Jake Speed (1986) was an amusing parody of Indiana Jones and other adventurer films that were popular during the eighties. Wayne Crawford stars as Jake Speed, an adventurer who's always battling evil doers wherever he goes. With his assistant Desmond Floyd (Dennis Christopher) they globe trot looking for some action (and some decent story lines). The duo meet a young woman named Margaret (Karen Kopins) who's sister has been kidnapped by an evil white slaver trader (John Hurt). Can she find and convince Jake and Desmond to help her rescue her sibling?<br /><br />A sappy and cheesy film that doesn't pretend to be something that it's not. I have to give this one a recommendation. That's if you enjoy movies that like to have fun and for those who don't take everything at face value.<br /><br />Recommended.

trimmed_train

One of the best true-crime movies ever made and very faithful to Truman Capote's book which invented the true-crime novel genre. Haunting Quincy Jones musical score and terrific acting by Scott Wilson and Robert Blake as Dick and Perry, the killers. Why Wilson didn't go on to be a big star after this movie is a mystery to me.<br /><br />The black and white cinematography and editing in this movie are top notch. The re-creation of the murders is frightening and since it leaves the actual murders to your imagination, even more scary than if they had shown the shotgun going off. The movie was filmed in the actual Clutter house which had been sold to another person after the murders. The movie has a very documentary feel---besides the scenes at the actual Clutter home other scenes were filmed at the gas stations and stores the killers actually went to. Nancy Clutter's beloved horse, Babe, is even in the movie. Will Geer has a great turn as the prosecutor in the short trial scene which is not only filmed in the actual courtroom but has several of the real Clutter murder jurors portraying themselves as the jury for the movie. <br /><br />This is a solid movie, scary every time you see it.

trimmed_train

A friend of mine lent this video to me and I was fairly excited to watch it, but after ten minutes of James Hetfield's slow pitched vocals and Lars banging on his drum set in what appeared to be slow motion I began to think, `Why am I watching this?' That question will be coursing through your minds in 5 – 10 minutes after you hit Play. I gave the tape back the same day, as you would suspect, not worth buying or watching!<br /><br />Just my opinion!<br /><br />

trimmed_train

What a good movie! At last a picture revealing a unknown side of rock: illusions of fame. Well-known Rockers are getting old and forgotten, not the music. And with a good sense of humour. Have you ever danced on Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock?<br /><br />Anyway, Still Crazy is probably the best movie about rock n'roll I have ever seen. Far much better than Spinal Tap for instance. Why? Because in Still Crazy, people are mature. They have a different point of view about rock, about love and about life. They want to catch up with their crazy youth they miss so much. Beyond the story itself, we see characters with their own personality, weaknesses and dreams. Like anyone of us.<br /><br />Spend a good time watching this (listen to the awesome soundtrack! )and finally thinking of your own future.<br /><br />Bye!

trimmed_train

I was VERY disappointed with this film. I expected more of a Thelma and Louise female-buddy crime movie. Instead, the women prison escapees in this flick, had no sense of loyalty to one another. They were an extremely vulgar pack of hyenas, who beat each other up, double-crossed each other, and even committed lesbian rape against other women in the film.<br /><br />Instead of being shrewed thieves, who stuck together to plan their escape and find the hidden stash of money, the women escapees were too selfish and vicious, to trust each other for long. These women weren't liberated in a positive sense. They just ended up being a bunch of loose-cannons, incapable of respect for themselves, or each other. If you like 70s female crime caper films, skip this bomb, and see The Great Texas Dynamite Chase, which stars Claudia Jennings and Jocelyn Jones.

trimmed_train

The makers have chosen the best people for the job, and set the scene wonderfully. Every interior is full of detail that tells you all about the people who live in it. Whether the period is the 20s (the first story), the present (ie 1950) for the middle story, or the 1910s (the last), costumes and settings are lovingly observed and created. I love the fussy costumes of the two old ladies in the sanatorium - exquisite lace overlaid by the finest Shetland shawls. Roland Culver as Ashenden is very appealing, but never mind the soppy young lovers, it's Raymond Huntley as the man who resents his wife's health and independence who harrows our emotions. He usually played comical, pompous types, but here he is subtle and convincing and very impressive. The China Seas (great 30s film starring Gable and Harlow) stole the plot from the Mr Know All episode (and also nicked a story by Kipling). I wish we saw more of Naunton Wayne as the jealous husband - though he has a good moment looking melancholy in a Mexican hat. I love that posh bird who plays his wife, too.

trimmed_train

Mr Michael Jackson is an artistic phenomenon. His short movies, i.e. music videos, are simply the best. I do not care if I get a sane sci-fi feature from this man, but I do care to get a medley of his crazy dancing, shriek yells, cool crowd choreography, and some bits of CGI and animation. There also should be a few uninterrupted videos. Everything I've mentioned is here. Stupid plot and over-the-top "vanity fair" are not a problem when I witness Mr Michael Jackson in action. To me he will always be the ultimate king of music videos (not "king of pop" which sounds moronic, especially for us, Russians, because "pop" sounds like the Russian word for "arses" and MJ is definitely not "king of arses"). I can re-watch his best music videos (which are artistically beautiful) and I never get tired of them.<br /><br />My first impression of this film was "What is this...?" (bits of different videos, some drawn images, unsettling jumps from one theme to another, absence of any cohesive plot line, some kids fooling around, etc.) but as I watched it till the end, I could tell that it was great and really nothing like anything else shown on TV nowadays. What I like here too is that it never shows any shameful material and can be watched by kids easily.<br /><br />Without Mr Michael Jackson the universe of music videos would be rather poor. Even the best classic videos of other artists cannot come very close to the energetic hyperbole of MJ musical insanity and artistic quality. He knew how to get the audience of different ages and he knew how to remain a man with moral principles.<br /><br />When I see a proper DVD release with Mr Michael Jackson videos I know that it deserves to be purchased even if some clips have already appeared in some other previous release. "HIStory I", "HIStory II", and "Moonwalker" are all great, though only "Moonwalker" is more like one movie (with a solid "Smooth Criminal" theme, "paparazzi" topic, and a few weird spoofs and twists).<br /><br />Being no fan of MJ I can still give this "film... like no other" a solid 9 out of 10 (I've been hit by "Smooth Criminal" for sure and my major complains are the following: initial segments of the movie could have been dropped while the main "MJ anti-drug campaign" should have been given more "sky-rocketing insanity and stress" and there should have been more "moonwalking" itself of course). Thanks for attention.

trimmed_train

A real classic. A shipload of sailors trying to get to the towns daughters while their fathers go to extremes to deter the sailors attempts. A maidens cry for aid results in the dispatch of the "Rape Squad". A cult film waiting to happen!

trimmed_train

Such a masterpiece as the first of these two Snowy River films was, the sequel to The Man From Snowy River is everything that a follow-up should be. It does not tread on the toes of its predecessor, preferring to leave the legend that was the first film live on in some unique immortality.<br /><br />The Man From Snowy River II is based upon the return of Jim Craig to the Snowy River country after a three year absence. The film subtly tells a tale of change in the nineteenth century, of Australian history, legend and horses. The storyline demonstrates a touch of Hollywood in lighter shades, an aspect that was absolutely absent in the first film, yet this blends uniquely with the a distinct sense of Australian patriotism. The plot is far more vibrant than the first film, and much more showy, with particular aspects of the previous incorporated into the film, yet The Man From Snowy River II possesses every essential characteristic of the first film; sensationally beautiful cinematography, a stunning focus of the Australian high country, the second most impressive footage of horses ever filmed, and a fantastic and deeply moving soundtrack by Bruce Rowland which equals the first in every way. Geoff Burrowes has done a superb job with this film, and it is highly worthy of recognition, especially with regard to the quality of the Australian Film Industry. The lead cast, from Tom Burlinson to Sigrid Thornton, and a well-replaced Brian Dennehy, carry off their parts with as much passion and distinction as the first film. As far as sequels can go, The Man From Snowy River II is a masterpiece; a deeply moving and inspirational experience yet again.

trimmed_train

**** WARNING: here be spoilers **** Why do I waste my hastily fleeing years watching garbage like this? This film is an impressive collection of clichés, poor writing, worse directing, and then we haven't even got to the acting yet. <br /><br />And of course, you can predict the whole story from beginning to end.<br /><br />Hero expert fights against stupid, corrupt and incompetent henchmen. One avalanche goes off, burying all the heroes who somehow manage to get out alive in spite of going through all sorts of cliffhanger perils. Corrupt partner who caused the whole thing gets fried alive together with his payoff money. Second avalanche heroically deflected by renegade expert's adventurous experiment. Evil henchmen in the end turn out to have a heart as well. Troubled teenager falls into the arms of her crusty stepmother after being saved by her. Etc, etc, etc, etc, on and on it goes. <br /><br />In fact, there's little reason to warn for spoilers. You could probably work the whole plot out if I gave you the basic ingredients. At least, I wasn't too wide off the mark most of the time, anticipating what would happen next.<br /><br />And then we haven't discussed the factual errors.<br /><br />I agree with a previous commentator that even though there are usually SOME redeeming features even of a bad movie. you'd be hard pressed to find any in this one. I suppose I gave it 2 out of 10 for some nice scenery shots, but that's it.<br /><br />It's been some time since a film made me groan, but this one certainly did.

trimmed_train

After some of the negative reviews i heard on this movie, i was doubtful of giving it a go, but i had £3.99 in my wallet & thought id gamble on buying a budget like movie & saw this and gave it ago & I'm glad i did, i enjoyed it. Directed by The star of films such as Chain Reaction, the Ring, Bourne Identity,(Brian Cox) i had to gamble with this even if it was rubbish but it weren't at all, i found some of the humour quite funny especially Alfred Molina the star of Spider-man 2 the Character Doc Ock. He was excellent the most enjoyable part of the film. Of course like many other people which bought this movie i saw Matthew's name, and that made me get it! and no his part isn't big at all, it's very short at the very end of the film, it's not a big part which makes me believe thats why people hate the film. I suggest you give it a go. Some parts are a pit poor that needed polishing, the acting, and a bit more action. But it's watchable.

trimmed_train

Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn would roll over in their graves if they knew this Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Rip Off was actually in theaters. Along with Sidney Poitier and Katherine Houghton these four brilliant actors made a great cultural statement with Director Stanley Kramer's 1967 master piece. This present day rip off is a joke. So a white guy from an overly stereotyped Italian family in Rhode Island brings his African American girlfriend home (Insert GASP here) to his grand father's funeral. His family members reactions were of course....predictable. This movie was so painfully telegraphed from start to finish my girlfriend actually started fake snoring to signal to me that she wanted to leave. Do yourself a favor and rent the original. Take a pass on Wake.

trimmed_train

This movie was my first touch with Mr Sica so I really didn't know what to expect. But what I saw just broke all my expectations - in a good way.<br /><br />The storyline is not complex and shows us a life of found boy- orphan and particularly his connection into the community of poor people who together built themselves a hood of simple metal plate houses. This little city in another city lives own life and things are going fine. But one day there is a water resource found and a rich nobles man is getting interested in the buying the place. But as the title of the movie hints - there is a miracle taking place. Our character gets a wonder dove from his dead mother. What is he going to do to protect his friends and all built city as well?<br /><br />It was just a masterpiece of natural comedy. There is shown the behavior of poor people and how money and property can talk and play with people. Also many funny moments and scenes are included - at the beginning with the spot where sun is shining and many more.<br /><br />So according to the fact that I m not a comedy lover you should see this movie because I liked it much <br /><br />I

trimmed_train

I first watched this movie on its release in 1987 and was greatly affected emotionally, through a combination of guilt at what my fellow white human beings could do to innocent people and the reluctance of the outside world to really investigate these atrocities against man.<br /><br />Particularly moving was the Funeral of Steve Biko, made even more vivid and hard-hitting by the South African Anthem played at the time. I have long believed that this movie achieved what nobody else had managed - to open the eyes of the world to what was really happening in South Africa. I consider myself to be a normal right thinking person and I can attest to how this film changed my whole way of thinking about not just South Africa, but how we as white people perceive black people. I have never seen any difference between people of any colour or creed, but after viewing this film I physically changed my life and have spent the last 17 years living in a predominantly black country and helping many people rise above their present standard of living and achieve that which they would not have thought possible. The greatest reward I can honestly say I have received - to be able to say that in my own small way I have contributed and redressed the balance a little. But if more people thought like me and actually DID something to help black people without seeking reward then the entire black population of this planet would be a little better off.<br /><br />I challenge any right thinking person to watch Cry Freedom from beginning to end and not feel that emotion tugging at your heartstrings as you witness the 700 schoolchildren brutally shot dead in Sharpville for refusing to learn Afrikaans, the senseless murder of Steve Biko, such a champion for his own people's rights, and then, ultimately, to understand that all this is not merely a film, albeit a magnificent one, but that it all actually happened and less than 30 years ago.<br /><br />Yes, my friends, watch this movie and then see if you can go out afterwards and party hard. I couldn't. I was too upset at knowing the truth. That is the hallmark of a great film. It was obviously the intention of Sir Richard Attenborough to get this message over about South Africa. Of course he has achieved it. Unless you happen to support apartheid. God help you.

trimmed_train

i love bad shark movies. i really do. i laugh hysterically at them. and the scifi channel was having a marathon of them, culminating in the premier of their new original picture, hammerhead: shark frenzy. based on the previews, it looked like it was going to be HIGHLY amusing. essentially a remake of benchley's creature, really. it was prefaced by a showing of shark attack 3: megalodon, which is shark movie hilarity at its best. i was in the mood; i was ready to go. bring it on, hammerhead-mad-scientist-man! oh, god, was that movie wrong.<br /><br />wrong, wrong, wrong.<br /><br />sick. twisted. MESSED UP.<br /><br />this is theoretical reproduction at its very worst, my friends. when a drugged-out girl is brought out of suspended animation and strapped to a table screaming her head off because the shark-human hybrid fetus the absolutely insane "scientist" deliberately implanted in her womb wants OUT... Jesus monkeys. that's what i call disturbing.<br /><br />that's really how the plot works: hmmm, thought the mad scientist. my son died of cancer, but i brought him back to life by combining his dna with that of a hammerhead shark, because sharks don't succumb to cancer and further hammerheads reproduce via placenta. oh, look! a perfect amphibious being! i've created the next evolution of the human race! I KNOW! let's make him reproduce! but darned if all those shark genes have't made my son bloodthirsty; instead of raping the hot babes i keep sending into his little jungle paradise, he keeps eating him. but check this out! among the random people who have, by way of some unimportant plot twist, ended up on my research island, is the woman to whom my son was engaged before he died! i bet he'll do HER! all this leads up to an extremely touching and heartfelt reunion: woman: you're going to impregnate me? mad scientist: no. he is. (indicates thrashing shark-person in tank) how sweet.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. ever.

trimmed_train

I have read the short story by Norman Maclean, and the movie did justice to Norman Maclean's writing. My husband tends to reread it occasionally, and I myself have read it over and scenes of the movie keeps coming to mind. We have videos of many of Redford ‘s movies and we have watched "A River runs through it" many times. Redford is part of the "famdamily" as he is always around. We never get tired of Redford's perception of Norman Maclean writings, and the beauty of Montana. The script reminds me very much of my own upbringing as my father had the same calling as Mr. Maclean's father. According to "A River Runs Through It," "Methodists are Baptists who can read," a line which by the way is not in the short story, but I think that is a funny line! My husband and I are well-read Baptists!<br /><br />I have heard a movie critic state that the pace of this movie is too slow. I disagree. As one search for inner peace, this is the type of movie that will make you contemplate the beauty of nature in three/four rhythm of the metronome. The photography is outstanding! The acting is great. I love the scene where Norman and Paul as boys talked and wondered whether one could be a fly fisher or a boxer! Then as adult Paul played by Brad Pitt (Se7ven) is the "perfect guy" who needs help with his alcoholism but will not accept it. The same applies to Neal Burns, who uses worms as bait, he also needed help but would not accept the fact that he needed help. The scene where Paul refuses to eat oatmeal and the entire family has to wait an eternity to say grace! Finally after hours, they all kneel around the table to say: "Grace!" and they all leave. But the oatmeal stayed on the plate! That scene where the two love birds and their tattoos on their posteriors! That is funny! The sunburn! The drive back home where Jessie Burns (Emily Lloyd) decides to go via the train line! Beautiful dialogue when Norman proposes to Jessie because he wants her to come to Chicago with him!<br /><br />Redford himself does a superb job as a narrator. I could not stop myself from comparing Brad to the young Redford (Barefoot in the Park). The nominated Director, Producer, Actor, is a visionary who deserves to be praised for his advancement not only in the cinema in the US but around the world. I am glad to live in nineteen hundred because I have seen the beginning of the black and white television, the movies and all the technology and special effects, to be able to watch videos at home and to live in the same century as Redford because I have had the chance to see his works. Redford needs no special effects to show us the beauty of Montana in this masterpiece. The river to me means that line that separates life from death, memories and realities. Redford shows the hands of the Creator so magnificently and a river runs through it.

trimmed_train

I think that can sum up this show about as well as anything. Batman TAS may be the worst thing to ever happen to cartoons based on comic books because everything that comes after will be compared to it and nothing has measured up yet. It's just too damn good. Was Batman Beyond good? "Yeah, but it was no TAS." Is Justice League good? "It's not too bad, but it's no TAS."<br /><br />The Batman is certainly no TAS, either, but I won't hold that against it. It would be unfair and besides, it has plenty of other problems with it.<br /><br />The concept of a younger, less experienced Batman fighting crime is a fine one, and at times the art is very nice. But all of the rest of the time, the art is worthless Americanime, and this betrays a lot of the flaws of the show itself. It is paced, written, and designed like an Americanime. If I wanted to watch Jackie Chan Adventures, I'd watch Jackie Chan Adventures. Or I could just bang my head into a wall any time and get the same effect. The Joker is a homicidal, mentally unstable clown in a suit who uses his wits, unpredictability, and clever gadgets to fight Batman. When he is forced to fight hand to hand, he will either resort to something cheap or be totally outmatched. He is not meant to be a monkey with dreadlocks who knows kung-fu and can leap into twenty feet into the air, accompanied by speed lines. If they had wanted to do that with a villain, there were other less important characters they could have used or *gasp* they could have created a new one entirely. And it's not that re-imaginings are a bad thing, don't get me wrong. TAS (there I go again) took Mr. Freeze from your standard icegun-wielding B villain and made him into a memorable and morally complex character. Of course Freeze wasn't exactly a classic villain at the time and they performed an upgrade, but the point stands. What The Batman does is it takes everything you liked about Batman comics and lore and takes a large, smelly dump on them. Guess what? They were eating corn.<br /><br />It's obvious this show can't stand against TAS but stand it on its own legs and it still doesn't work for me. The plots aren't good and they don't develop any better. They've been written for the demographic of children under twelve. Should children be able to enjoy a show? Of course they should. This shouldn't be an adult show with swearing, nudity, and gratuitous violence. But the mark of a truly good show is that it can be enjoyed on different levels by all ages. This show misses that mark.<br /><br />Is this show a TAS? No, of course not. The problem is it's not even a JLU.

trimmed_train

I don't know whether to recommend this movie to the fans of " Tetsuo " or not . Why " Tetsuo " ? Because you can easily label some things about this movie as a very obvious " Tetsuo " rip - off . The concept is similar , editing is equally frantic and fast - which is good because , aside from making the movie more dynamic , it obscures some flaws caused by low budget and other factors .<br /><br />There is lot more gore , less eroticism and , in the case of " Meatball machine " , the transformation of human being into a creature that's partially a machine( sounds familiar ? ) called " Necroborg " ( very original ) is caused by slimy little aliens .<br /><br />These slimy little scums from outer space actually use human beings as vessels for their gladiator games that they play with each other . They infest the body , somehow manage to put an insane amount of mechanical parts in it pulling them seemingly out of nowhere and turn it into a killing machine that targets other Necroborgs . Their aim is to defeat another alien who is in another Necroborg , rip it out of the corpse and eat it .<br /><br />All in all , the plot sounds somewhat silly and I didn't expect much , but at the end I actually enjoyed this film .<br /><br />As I said before , this is a low budget flick , but it's still relatively decent . Don't expect much from actors , they're mostly not very good , but it can be tolerated . I liked the atmosphere and gore , certain bizarre situations and the way the movie is directed and edited . Although the story is not too original , it possesses certain charm - to me at least .<br /><br />7 out of 10 .

trimmed_train

I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors "funny" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is.

trimmed_train

the only word i can think of to describe this movie is: Ordinary.<br /><br />The plot line about Gary sinise's character attempting suicide is a ridiculous premise and c'mon..living as some sort Salingeristic hermit or recluse in a shack driving golf balls into the ocean because he couldn't handle life in the lucrative pro/am golf community? cry me a river. I wish these were my problems. I do enjoy Dylan Baker and Sinise but this movie was clearly a bad choice or a pay check for Sinise. The scene in which little Timmy Price gets verbally abused by the other club member in front of his father during the tournament is so over the top that i am embarrassed to watch it

trimmed_train

I wasn't sure what to expect but am I glad I went to see this. A smart, slightly twisted comedy that makes you think. I wasn't quite sure how a director can create "nothing", but leave it to Mr. Natali and the brilliant individuals at C.O.R.E. to create another low budget set that looks real (as real as nothing can be). Well worth your time and money, if you have the opportunity to see this, please go. You'll be glad you did.

trimmed_train

Goodnight Mister Tom is so beautifully filmed and beautifully realised. It isn't completely faithful to the book, but does it have to be? No, not at all. John Thaw is mesmerising as Tom Oakley. His transformation from gruff to caring was so well realised, making it more believable than Scrooge in Christmas Carol. After Inspector Morse, this is Thaw's finest hour. He was matched earnestly by a young Nick Robinson, who gave a thoroughly convincing portrayal of an evacuee traumatised by the abusive relationship with his mother. The script and music made it worth the buy, and you also see Thaw playing the organ. Amazing! The most moving scene, was Willie finding out about Zak's death, and then Tom telling him about his deceased family who died of scarlatina. Buy this, you'll love it! 10/10 Bethany Cox

trimmed_train

I got this film about a month ago and I am now a fanatic fan of Drew Barrymore's. I love a happy ending and this film gives a brilliant one with the truths of Red Sox slotted in! It's about a maths teacher who takes some promising kids on a maths trip to a company where the successful Lindsey(Drew) shows them some information. This then leads in the Ben(teacher) and Lindsey dating. But it isn't all simple when he confesses he is a massive Red Sox fan. <br /><br />First of all things are fine but then his baseball gets in the way of Lindseys life. It's all fine in the end and It took one shot to get Drew running across the field!! I got it for two quid in Blockbusters so I was happy. If you like films like this I suggest you see some more of Drew's work like Charlie's Angels and 50 first dates or even her new film with Hugh Grant in called Music and Lyrics.

trimmed_train

Here is one of those educational short films made to learn the unknown people out there about facts of life. This time the target audience is preteen girls, the fact of life is menstruation. This animated film, created by Walt Disney Pictures, apparently with some sponsoring from Kotex.<br /><br />It starts with explaining how hormones make you grow and develop. With the help of animation and a female narrator it shows us how the body, especially the ovaries, uterus and vagina, work and why this all leads to menstruation. It is almost amazing, becoming the comic note here, how the subject of sex is avoided. Even the word is never mentioned although "furtilized" will pass once. I don't really know why I saw this, but since it is one of those rare short films that could give an impression of an innocent time, you might want to give it a try.

trimmed_train

One two three four five six seven eight and back, haha. This is a must see, first of all to see the work out. There are a lot of work out shown, see those close ups, man you will enjoy it. A few years ago a video clip was surely based on this movie. It's a slasher but without suspense. The ending is funny too, and the clothes she's wearing in the wood confronting the copper, Jesus, looks like a clown. The killings are mostly done off screen, the blood flows but never too gory. There are a lot of fight scene's too, and hey, no one got hurt. And what about the weapon to kill, never seen a big one like that, won't spoil it, you must see it. And being a slasher there's a lot of T&A too. To guess who's the killer you will be trapped a few times and that's the best part, but what about the story of the copper in the woods, huh! But still due his cheesiness this one is still one that many would like to have. I'm glad that I have my copy, one of those slasher failures. But man, those clothes and not to mention the hairstyles! If you are in your 40's then this is one is back to memory lane.

trimmed_train

Veteran director and producer Allan Dwan, whose huge string of films includes both the utterly forgettable and the recurrently shown (for example, John Wayne in "Sands of Iwo Jima") tried his hand at a big musical with "I Dream of Jeanie." Harnessing a lead cast of singers with little past film experience and, as it turned out, virtually no future, he spun a fictional and in no small part offensive story about the great American songwriter, Stephen Foster.<br /><br />Bill Shirley is the young, lovestruck Foster whose kindness to slaves includes giving the money saved for an engagement ring to pay the hospital cost for an injured little black boy. His intended is Inez McDowell (Muriel Lawrence) whose pesky younger sister, Jeanie (Eileen Christy), is slowly realizing she's in love with the nearly impecunious song-smith. Foster is in love with Inez who is revolted by the composer's Number 1 on the Levee Hit Parade Tune, "O Susannah." Enter minstrel Edwin P.Christy (Ray Middleton) to help launch the profit-making phase of Foster's career.<br /><br />This is, by the musical-film standards of the early Fifties, a big production. The sets are lavish in that special Hollywood way that portrayed fakes with all the trimmings. The singers aren't half bad and the Foster songs are almost impossible to ruin.<br /><br />But this is also a literal whitewash of the antebellum South. The biggest number features black-face for all on stage, an historical anomaly and a contemporary piece of unthinking racism. Were these portrayals of blacks anywhere near reality, the abolitionists would be rightly condemned for interfering with so beneficent an institution.<br /><br />"I Dream of Jeanie" apparently sank into the studio's vault with barely a death whisper. Now revived by Alpha Video for a mere $4.99 it's a period piece with charming songs and repulsive sentimentalizing about the victims of America's great crime, slavery.<br /><br />This was what Hollywood was putting out two years before Brown v. Board of Education. Must have warmed the hearts of some moviegoers who wore their bed linen to the theater.

trimmed_train

The novelty of hearing clean-cut Jay Leno spout four-letter words is the only memorable aspect of this formulaic mismatched-police-partners caper. In COLLISION COURSE, the pelican-faced comedian teams up with the late Pat Morita to track down a stolen prototype turbocharger (think car lover Leno played a hand in the plot?). The two leads try hard, they really do, but Leno is no actor and Morita's fish-out-of-water routine gets old in a hurry. The film carries a bit of cheesy '80s appeal, but its worthy moments become increasingly scarce as it fills out its overlong 100-minute running time. Fans of Leno's considerable comedic talents will feel let down; everyone else will just be bored.

trimmed_train

Overall an extremely disappointing picture. Very, very slow build up to the basic storyline. The role of Maria Schrader searching for her families secret past. (Every take seems to last forever…. There is really no rhythm in the film.) ***SPOILERS*** Her Mother Ruth is rescued from the Nazis, by a German woman, played by Katja Riemann. The entire character of Ruth is so one dimensional, so stereotypical. ***SPOILERS END*** The film cuts back and forth between present day New York and Berlin and Berlin 40s something. Please when you do that, give the audience an indication of what time exactly the story takes place. There is never a clear indication of time – very annoying. Worst part is, the end. ***SPOILERS*** The entire show and jabber about the Jews being so terribly tormented, simply by a bureaucratic accident! Give me a break. That's how the Jews got out of the Rosenstrasse? The question of who freed the Jews is NEVER answered. Was is Goebels who freed them? Did Lean Fischer sleep with Goebels? In Venice the film won an acting award for K. Riemann, why? – I have no idea. Must be the Jewish theme…

trimmed_train

Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.<br /><br />There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.<br /><br />And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.<br /><br />Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.

trimmed_train

The Internet Database lists this as a TV show. And yes, it was a series on MTV shown on the "Oddities" program, after "The Head" and before "Aeon Flux" if I recall correctly. But the version I watched this time was a VHS tape with all the episodes run together into a film without annoying credits in between or having to wait a week for the next fifteen minutes.<br /><br />You have the story of the Maxx, Julie Winters, Sarah and Mr. Gone. The Maxx is a super-hero or a bum, Julie a social worker or a leopard queen, Sarah a girl who should listen to less of The Smiths and Mr. Gone a guy who can't seem to keep his head on. And then there's the other weird creatures...<br /><br />I use "or" with Maxx and Julie, because part of the fun is trying to figure out which parts of the story are real and which are dreams. Maybe they're all real or dreams. Maybe one of the characters doesn't exist. Maybe only one exists and dreams of the others. You'll have to wait and find out.<br /><br />I had the comic books before the show came out, and it was one of my favorites. The artwork was spectacular and the story was original -- unlike anything you'll find in Superman or Batman. It will bend your mind, and has strong adult overtones without being obscene or offensive. And the show used basically the same exact artwork (only now it moves) and the same story... guaranteeing that the beauty intrinsically found in the comic would be faithfully reproduced. This was the best show to appear on "Oddities", hands down.<br /><br />If you like comics of a darker nature or need a good mind trip, this is a show to check out. It's "Donnie Darko" before there was ever such a thing.<br /><br />The most astonishing thing is that this never went on to become another movie or television series, but I don't say this in disappointment. By keeping it simple, they have sealed this movie in gold and kept it free from the blemishes brought on by successive failures.

trimmed_train

Loved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest...

trimmed_train