niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
an 18-foot - high , 43-foot - long dragon is the computer - generated co- star of this strictly - by - the - numbers sword ' n ' sorcery flick .
as voiced by sean connery , " draco " is a surprisingly expressive creation who is well - deserving of his 23 minutes of screen time .
he walks , talks , flies , fries , and even fakes his own death , all with the help of 96 computer - aided animators . too bad that ilm ( industrial light and magic ) could n't spare some special effects for dragonheart 's * human * co - stars .
a bearded black hole exists where dennis quaid should be .
he 's a near - total loss as he growls glumly through his role of a disillusioned knight .
david thewlis ' evil king has a high hiss factor ( hf ) , though he 's more of a mumbling oddity than anything else .
oh , and there 's some redhead in a ' 90 's wig , who runs around either screaming or scowling , depending upon if the particular scene has her playing the woman in peril or the put upon peasant .
the fringe flourishes include pete postlethwaite as a wandering monk with literary ambitions , julie christie ( ! )
as the good queen mother , a band of mercenaries that appear dressed for ye olde heavy - metal concert , and , believe or it not , the speaking spirit of king arthur . bring out your dead !
unfortunately , when we add it all together ( draco + fringe bits - quaid - thewlis ) , the sum total amounts to zero
.
dragonheart is , well , too much of too little .
director rob cohen
( dragon : the bruce lee story ) has made a big , expensive movie that , while ambitiously plotted , is both murky and predictable .
and overscored . and self - important .
and the list goes on .
( i must ask : did screenwriter charles edward pogue intend that * every * character be stabbed , lanced , or sliced at least once ?
keep that man away from the knife drawer ! )
the last five minutes of this movie are the worst , with some silly celestial nonsense that would be laughed out of any planetarium light show , much less a summer movie .
save your money .
Output: N
1989 's " major league " was a delightful surprise .
i did n't expect much of it when i decided to watch it on cable , but it proved to be fresh and funny .
however , when the appeal of a movie is its freshness , the sequels are virtually guaranteed to be stale .
that 's certainly true of " major league ii " and the most recent entry , " major league : back to the minors .
"
the title is , of course , a contradiction .
should n't it be " minor league ?
" that contradiction suggests the lengths to which writer / director john warren has gone to squeeze a third movie out of the formula established by the first movie .
original stars charlie sheen and tom berenger ( who returned for " major league ii " ) are not around , leaving corbin bernsen the only original headliner to make the third movie .
the other veterans who return ( dennis haysbert as voodoo - inspired batter cerrano and takaaki ishibashi as tanaka , who was introduced in " league ii " ) seem to be around just to lend legitimacy to the enterprise .
the only returning cast member who produces any laughs is bob uecker as radio announcer harry doyle ,
inexplicably broadcasting the games of a minor league team far from his home turf .
the protagonist this time around is retiring pitcher gus cantrell ( scott bakula ) , who is hired by minnesota twins owner roger dorn ( bernsen ) to manage the twins ' aaa team , the buzz .
you can write the movie from here
: he finds a group of misfits who need to learn how to play together as a team in order to win .
there 's a future superstar whose ego keeps him from growing ( walton goggins ) , an ex - ballet dancer ( kenneth johnson ) , a broken - down old timer ( thom barry ) , twin outfielders both named juan ( the difilippo triplets ) , and a couple pitchers with throwing problems ( judson mills and peter mackenzie ) . along the way , gus picks up cerrano and tanaka ( gus is supposedly an old teammate of theirs , even though he was n't in either of the preceding films ) .
sum total : none .
the entire enterprise is artificial , and the cast is not ready for the hollywood majors .
gus ' antagonist is twins manager leonard huff ( ted mcginley ) .
leonard is a slimy , sniveling little egotist , and the twins are lazy , spoiled , and full of themselves .
( even watching the first movie i wondered why any real - life team would lend itself to being caricatured in this manner ) .
gus challenges leonard to a match , the buzz vs .
the twins .
( wanna guess who wins ? )
" back to the minors " is a movie that has no reason to exist .
there 's hardly a laugh in it ,
the cast is weak , and the first movie left no room for even one sequel .
Output: N
here 's a rarity : a children 's film that attempts to tackle a weighty subject , is there a god ?
done well
, it could have been a gem among the wasteland of modern children 's cinema .
unfortunately , it is n't . with jumbled messages , and an unclear audience , wide awake was better left asleep .
fifth grader joshua beal ( joseph cross )
is in the middle of a moral crisis .
his beloved grandfather ( robert loggia ) has died , and joshua has begun a quest .
he wants to find god , to discover why bad things happen .
this religious quest is slightly disturbing for his parents ( dana delany and denis leary ) , but they do their best to cope with their son as he explores different religious faiths .
at his catholic school , his favorite teacher , sister terry ( rosie o'donnell ) , tries to give him guidance , but this is a journey he must make on his own .
meanwhile , he is having the most momentous year of his life .
he has several adventures with his daredevil best friend dave ( timothy reifsnyder ) , he gets his first crush , and begins to wake up to the world around him while he is on his spiritual journey .
it is somewhat confusing
as to what the real audience for wide awake is expected to be .
on its surface , it appears to be a kid 's film .
however , it deals with serious issues , and is likely to be boring for today 's instant - gratification kids .
and while it might seem heartening to see that someone is trying to produce something thoughtful for the kidvid audience , wide awake asks serious questions , but only delivers a cheap gimmick for an answer . if there were a bit more meat in the story , adults on a nostalgic bent might get a kick out of the movie .
the actors who might have created a great cast ( o'donnell , leary and delany ) are wasted in roles that amount to little more than cameos .
the nostalgic elements ( best friend , favorite teacher , first crush , etc . ) have been done much better in other movies , and actually seem more like filler here .
the film 's strongest scenes are some touching flashbacks depicting joshua 's relationship with his grandfather .
they show more depth than is present anywhere else in the movie .
maybe the film would have been better if , instead of playing the relationship through flashbacks , it were set entirely during joshua 's last year with his grandpa .
it certainly would have been more entertaining .
wide awake can best be described as a failed experiment .
it starts out with noble aspirations , but never delivers on its promise .
parents who do take their children to see this one ought to be prepared to answer some tough questions .
. . that is if their kids are n't bored to death first .
Output: N
this is crap , but , honestly , what older american audience is going to be able to resist seeing jack lemmon and james garner as bicker- ing ex - presidents ?
especially when their supporting players in- clude dan aykroyd as the current commander in chief , lauren bacall as a former first lady , and john heard as the dan quayle - ish vice president .
yup , you 're talkin ' pre - sold property here and , for warner brothers , the perfect fit into their now - ritual grumpy old men holiday slot .
for the non - discriminating viewer , my fellow americans is fine .
the raw star power alone will have audiences applauding this atrocious political- thriller road - comedy .
( they did in mine , heaven help us . )
for the rest of us , the movie is immediately tiresome .
the tone is terrible and the banter is worse .
forget
wit-- lemmon and garner merely exchange profanities through most of the movie .
( has anyone counted the number of first penis references ? )
sure , some of the bits are absurdly funny , including a men 's room macarena joke , the appearance of an elvis impersonator on a trainload of tarheels , and an all dorothy marching band performing " over the rainbow " at a gay men 's march .
the get there from here , though , you have to submit to one of the most offensively overbearing musical scores of all time .
judas priest , is there a single moment of silence in this film ?
even the dialogue gets drowned out .
what a waste .
Output: N
although i had not been a viewer of the " rugrats " television series , i went into their first animated feature film , " the rugrats movie , " with a positive attitude .
the trailer looked cute enough , after all .
after seeing it , i think the words in my recent " antz " review , in which i stated that it was the worst film of its type since 1995 's " the pebble and the penguin , " were a bit premature .
" the rugrats movie , " is
bottom - of - the - barrel children 's fare at its worst , and starts to make , " antz " look good in comparison .
as in the show , " the rugrats movie , " is about a group of very little friends , ranging from babies to a three - year - old .
the head of the group , tommy pickles ( e .
g .
daily ) , becomes distraught when his mother has a newborn baby named dill ( get it ?
dill pickles ? . . .
hardee - har - har ! )
and is informed by his three - year - old cousin , anjelica ( cheryl chase ) , that the new babies always take all of the attention away from the other children .
when the other children , chuckie , and twins lil and phil , suggest taking dill back to the hospital , tommy goes along with it , but on their way there , they crash in the forest , and become lost , running into wolves and circus monkeys , among other things .
"
the rugrats movie , " judging from the idea of being lost in the woods , could have been a potentially fun family film , and there were many different things that could have been done with the story .
so what did the writers choose to do ?
why , they set up a protracted , cliched scene where the children almost go over a waterfall , of course !
for the youngest of children ( ages 3 - 7 ) , " the rugrats movie , " may very well entertain them , judging from the audience
i saw this with .
of course , if you looked around at all of the older kids and their parents , they were all desperately struggling to stay awake , and that included me .
for an adult , " the rugrats movie , " is a piece of garbage .
the plotline is unoriginal and the writing has absolutely no wit or charm .
there is n't one laugh to be had in the film , nor is there any excitement . if anything is even marginally good in the picture , it is the bright animation style , so it is especially unfortunate that it was n't to service a more quality film .
"
the rugrats movie " is doa from the start .
i am all for a worthwhile family movie , but sometimes an animated film comes along that is simply awful .
as said before , young children may like it , but even they deserve better than this . for adults , it is a nearly unbearable , excruciating chore to sit through .
as for me , " the rugrats movie , " is not the worst of the year , nor is it the most deeply hated , but
it is the most boring .
parents : do yourselves a favor and take your kids to see the rerelease of , " the wizard of oz .
"
that is a picture that contains a great deal of magic and wonder , two things of which , " the rugrats movie , " is completely missing .
Output: N
plunkett & macleane is a period piece mired down by modern mtv pretentions .
i have nothing against the mtv approach to filmmaking -- used properly it can save a movie ( see stigmata ) -- but
it ruins this one , making a muddled , incoherent mess out of a potentially interesting premise .
there are certain genres that just do n't go together .
the film opens with a sequence that i still do n't understand .
it involves some sort of prison outbreak , a robbery , and a gem that keeps being eaten .
in any case , the caper ( whatever it may be ) brings together plunkett and macleane ( robert carlyle and johnny lee miller , respectively ) , two happy - go - lucky brits with no way to make a living .
they make a pact to steal money from the rich and give it to themselves until they earn enough money to buy a ticket to america .
their first heist involves a young debutante named lady rebecca ( liv tyler ) ; a woman macleane was especially friendly with at a party just earlier .
his decorum when stripping her of her valuables earns our two crooks the name " gentleman highwaymen .
" lady rebecca also happens to be the niece of the lord chief justice , a glaringly arrogant man nearing the end of his political career .
he demands that the robbers be caught and punished immediately , leaving the job in the hands of the devious chance ( ken stott ) who has a few more things on his mind than catching criminals .
meanwhile , macleane falls in love with rebecca infuriating the businesslike plunkett , who does n't want his plans to be foiled by his partner 's mindless romantic travails .
director jake scott , son of ridley scott ( alien , blade runner ) , has his father 's knack for setting up atmospheric shots but
none of his skill in actually moving the camera .
most of the action scenes are filmed in such a rapid , jerky way that it 's impossible to comprehend what 's going on
.
the camerawork is even more nauseating
than in the purposefully dizzying the blair witch project due to its lack of fluidity .
instead of utilizing panning shots to impress upon us the scope of the events scott uses attention - deficit - disorder edits .
he barely ever holds a shot for more than ten seconds and during the faster scenes it seems more like a couple frames between each cut .
the weird , almost defiant lack of dialogue
( there are no -- no -- conversations lasting over , say , 20 seconds )
undermines character definition and our two protagonists come off as ciphers rather than characters .
the love affair between macleane and rebecca is no different , emotionless and unrealistic .
when the script calls for macleane to decide between going to america and going to meet his lover , there is no reason for us to believe it would be worth it for him to abandon his goal ; he and rebecca barely even speak to each other throughout the film .
plunkett and macleane wants desperately to be a triumph of style over substance but since its style , quite frankly , blows , the film has no hope of succeeding on any level .
i wanted to appreciate this movie on the basis of its admittedly kinetic pace
but i could n't -- it was so kinetic
it gave me a headache .
Output: N
they should have stuck to the promise emblazoned on the original movie 's poster : " no sequel .
"
scary movie 2 is nowhere near as funny as its predecessor , and it is not because the wayans brothers , shawn and marlon doing the writing and keenen ivory behind the camera , do n't try .
what defeats them is the genre they have chosen to spoof .
the first movie - an outrageous , low - brow , savage satire of teen slasher flicks such as scream
and i know what you did last summer - succeeded because of its take - no - prisoners attitude toward a type of film that was in vogue , familiar and popular .
in scary movie 2 , the filmmakers take on the haunted house - ghost story format which , if you look at the grosses for such recent lame offerings as the respective remakes of the haunting and house on haunted hill , did not draw audiences nor enter the cultural psyche as did the various teen slasher series .
scary movie 2 does start off promising with a wonderful spoof of the exorcist , featuring james wood in the max von sydow role and veronica cartwright lampooning ellen burstyn .
of course split pea soup is the punch line - an overabundant amount , which offers the hope that the rest of the movie will be just as tasteless and excessive .
but this pre - credit sequence has nothing at all to do with the main action , which features the cast members from the original signing up to spend a weekend at a creepy haunted mansion as part of a university class project .
some of the jokes are as scatological and offensive as in the original , but they lack that take - no - prisoners bite that raised scary movie to the heights of burlesque .
scary movie 2
merely lurches from one lame sendup to another , offering weak spoofs of that nike shoe ad in which everyone does acrobatics with a basketball , and the films what lies beneath and hannibal ( features that only faired adequately at the box office ) , john woo 's mission : impossible 2 and charlie 's angels .
it is as if the wayans and their team of writers - at least seven are credited - just threw ideas in a blender and hoped they 'd coalesce
.
they do n't .
while the pace of the original left you breathless , the sequel moves with the speed of an 18-wheeler carrying two tons of concrete up a steep mountain road .
you can almost hear the reels panting .
scary movie 2 tries very hard to live up to its original , but it falls very short
.
it 's a dissatisfying spectacle , a very weak sister of a very good movie .
the really scary aspect of this sequel is how disappointing it really is .
Output: N
apparently , when crap calls , jim carrey answers .
here he is , mugging it up in countless unfunny ways for the fifth time , his second go - around in the role of pet detective ace ventura .
that means more talking ass - cracks , penis jokes and cries of " al - l - l - l - l - l - l - l - l - l - lrighty then .
"
it all adds up to a sequel that makes the original resemble schindler 's list in terms of dramatic merit , or lack of .
granted , there are a few laughs amid the constant barrage of pre - school humor , but anyone who appreciates good comedy will bang their head against the wall ten times for every minor chuckle .
it 's a painful experience for anyone with a brain .
ace is distraught after accidentally dropping a racoon into a canyon ( in a parody of the opening scene of sylvester stallone 's cliffhanger , jim carrey being the only person who can make stallone look like a college professor in terms of intellect , or lack of ) and decides to retire to the mountains of tibet to gain a higher level of consciousness ( or , in his case , a level of consciousness ) .
but he is pulled out of retirement to the tune of $ 20 , 000 to retrieve a sacred white bat for an african tribe .
why africa ?
so carrey can disguise himself nude inside a fake rhino and later climb out the rear end as a tourist family watches ( " look , the rhino 's about to give birth ! " ) .
if that seems like hee - haw humor to you , by all means , see the movie .
if not , claim your place in human civilization with the rest of us .
obviously , there are quite a few nonmembers of civilization who made this movie , like the first ace ventura film ( i use the word " film " only because it was filmed ,
not because there 's any level of artistic merit . ) , a huge success .
in fact , carrey only has a career because of the decline of intelligence in our culture .
you may say to me , " but andrew , look at jerry lewis .
he was born with a negative i .
q . and look how popular he was thirty years ago .
"
maybe , but i still say jerry lewis is a notch or two up on the comedic ladder because he never actually did an impression in a movie of a rabid bulldog biting off a man 's testicles . . .
lewis at least had the dignity to save that performance for when company came over .
Output: N
this movie about two dysfunctional families never really gets off the ground , despite some good performances from a basically competent cast .
eddie ( sean penn ) and maureen ( robin wright penn ) are a not - so - happily married couple down on their luck .
living in rented rooms in the seedier part of an unnamed city , they spend what little income they have at the local bar , owned by shorty ( stanton ) , eddie 's best friend , and his wife georgie ( mazar ) .
maureen and eddie share an odd relationship marked by eddie 's frequent disappearances .
on his return , he promises her the world and professes his undying love .
their manic reunions all too soon lead to new lows , as eddie disappears again .
like a junky craving the next high , maureen suffers through the lows to reach the next high .
their relationship is further complicated by maureen 's pregnancy .
she wants the baby and the father , but deep down seems to sense the inevitability of losing the latter .
during one of eddie 's absences , maureen is attacked by kiefer , her neighbor , who gets her drunk ( with her cooperation ) and then insists on intimacy .
she leaves badly bruised and in fear of what eddie might do -- not to her , but to kiefer .
she lies about what happens to ensure that no harm will come to eddie as the result of his inevitable rage .
he lashes out as she expects , and ends up in an institution for what he believes to be 3 months -- but in reality is 10 years .
during this decade , maureen divorces eddie and remarries a more solid and reliable individual , joey ( travolta , in a small role ) .
her life falls apart again when eddie is released from the institution and comes to find her .
joey insists on bringing eddie into his home and making his wife choose between her husband ( and father of two children ) and stability ( joey makes a good living , drives a cadillac , and they live in a large house in the suburbs ) and the love of her previous life .
she chooses her past , and sacrifices not only her new life but her old ( by giving up her and eddie 's daughter to joey ) .
but the eddie that she knew is gone , replaced by a mere shell of the man he was .
maureen is herself a mere shell , more an automaton than a woman -- as if she had gone through whatever therapy and treatment eddie was given along with him .
perhaps these two really do need each other and can find happiness ( or maybe the lack of sadness ) together , but the movie 's denouement was not convincing .
Output: N
michael richards leaves his spot as kramer on the infamous seinfeld tv sitcom for a stint as a lanky , goofy best friend to jeff daniels ' lawyer character in this ill - fated , and unfunny , " comedy " .
plot : richard the actor ( richards ) has to take the place of charles the lawyer ( daniels ) in a real court case , after charles is left unintelligible from a night of heavy drinking at his bachelor party .
the film follows the antics of the two men as they try to get away with their tomfoolery .
critique : this movie did not make me laugh once
.
perhaps it was because i was tired when i watched it .
perhaps .
perhaps it was because i had seen richards perform most of the same schtick a thousand times on seinfeld .
perhaps .
perhaps it was because the movie just was n't funny . absolutely .
the lack of humour was n't the only issue that i had with this film either .
the movie attempts to weave a couple of love stories through its vision , but unfortunately , they are also lacking in conviction , believability and credibility
.
they are contrived and appear to be placed into the story for convenience sake .
the actors were all adequate enough in their roles , but the problem did n't lie in the acting .
i wish i could find one good reason for you to see this waste of time , but i ca n't .
unless of course , you need something playing on your tv set while you waste some time around the house .
overall , this movie stinks .
on the good side , charlize theron is darn cute , and the movie is no longer then 90 minutes . on the bad side , this movie is not funny , interesting or enjoyable in any which way possible .
a person would n't even enjoy his nachos while watching this emptiness .
please skip it .
little known facts : jonathan lynn earned a degree in law from cambridge before becoming an actor / director .
charlize theron grew up on a farm outside benoni , south africa , as the only child .
at the age of 18 her mother made her go to los angeles to try a career in the movie industry .
she came to la without knowing anyone in the city but after two weeks when she was standing in line on hollywood boulevard an agent gave her his card .
after eight months in la she got her first part .
since then she has taken acting lessons and her career has skyrocketed , specifically in devil 's advocate ( 8/10 ) .
charlize was narrowly beat out by elizabeth berkley for the lead role in the " movie " , showgirls .
she was quoted as saying " it was like i had some guardian angel .
"
Output: N
jackie chan kicks his way into van damme territory with twin dragons , an embarrassingly bland action comedy of mistaken identities .
chan plays separated - at - births boomer and john ma , whose drastically different paths . . .
aw , forget the plot description , it 's not even worth the space .
but let 's face it .
no one goes to jackie chan movies for the plot anyway .
the scenes where nothing happens in chan 's films have always been little more than glue thriftily spread to hold the action sequences together .
in the case of twin dragons , however , the tiresome plot - driving scenes fritter away so much of the movie that you almost want to shout ( at the risk of demeaning the artistic value of cinema ) , " get to the good part already ! " most of the film is devoted to showing the brothers ' efforts to hide the other 's existence from their own acquaintances .
why it is necessary to do this is not satisfactorily explained , but neither are a lot of aspects of the plot .
the twins ' love interests , demure club - singer barbara ( chan - film regular maggie cheung ) and lusty bride - hopeful tammy ( nina li chi ) , get disoriented in all the brouhaha , yet strangely seem not to mind that they are not sure which brother they are in love with .
the scenes describing the boys ' bumbling antics get stretched so thin
we stop caring who chan is supposed to be in any given shot ( in several shots , in fact , even the make - up and hair people seem to forget which brother is which . ) .
even chan 's so - corny - it's - funny humor is off - kilter in this outing .
some of the gags are so carefully innocuous they 're annoying .
a case in point : whenever anyone sees the brothers together , they fall to the ground in a dead faint .
are we laughing yet ?
as usual , the final showdown is the film 's jewel , a tour de force display of chan ' s agility and grace .
never mind that it 's not clear how the brothers end up fighting suited bad guys inside an automobile crash - testing facility .
it 's all good fun , but too little too late .
perhaps chan 's next movie should just be a collection of the last fight sequences of all of his movies .
they could call it jackie chan 's the final fight scenes , and everybody would go home happy .
reviewed april 14 , 1999 at loews theaters white marsh , white marsh , md .
Output: N
what happens when you put martin lawrence in a fat suit in real life ?
you get martin lawrence in a coma ( the comedian thought he was getting fat , so he put on numerous layers of heavy clothing and went jogging in 100 degree heat , ending up in a coma ) .
so what happens when you put martin lawrence in a fat suit in the movies ?
you get an audience in a coma .
in big momma 's house , lawrence plays a fbi agent who 's a master of disguises .
when a naughty , naughty man escapes from jail and seeks out his former girlfriend ( the very sexy nia long . . .
the only thing worth looking at in this movie ) , she flees to georgia to stay with her rather large southern aunt " big momma " ( ella mitchell ) .
the fbi follows her in order to recover the large sum of money stolen in the bank robbery that sent the naughty man to jail .
however , big momma is called away on an emergency .
sensing that they could lose their only chance to capture the criminal , lawrence goes undercover as big momma .
and let the comedy begin !
big momma 's house is the definition of a " gimmick " movie if there ever was one .
the plot can basically be summed up as " martin lawrence dresses up as a fat woman " . . .
and even that description is too wordy .
you can just see this script plotted out on a chalkboard with martin lawrence / fat woman in the middle of the board with a big circle around it , and
all sorts of clich ?
d , " humorous " situations pointing to it .
fat woman plays basketball !
fat woman takes a dump !
fat woman kung fu !
well they left one off the board .
. .
movie critic slips into coma !
paul giamatti ( private parts , the negotiator ) plays lawrence 's partner and as much as i enjoy his work , even he ca n't inject life into this lifeless comedy .
hell , the greatest performers on the planet could n't make this material work . . .
it 's just that awful .
Output: N
synopsis : lifelong friends rafe ( affleck ) and danny ( hartnett )
join the us air force and are stationed at pearl harbor , hawaii .
rafe goes to england to fight alongside british pilots and is seemingly killed in action .
danny falls in love with rafe 's girlfriend , evelyn ( beckinsale ) , but rafe survives and returns to confront his former friend .
meanwhile , the japanese sneak attack is imminent . . .
review : " pearl harbor " is a perfect example of movies as product rather than as art .
it is little more than a crassly - calculated attempt to woo the masses , enticing them with big stars , big effects , and a big setting -- but no heart .
it is difficult to criticise the actors , because they do everything the movie demands of them . sadly ,
this amounts to barely more than reciting dialogue of such sheer banality that it makes one eager to see the script randall wallace wrote with his right hand at the same time as he was writing " pearl harbor " with his left .
the plot here is pure cliche , and the wartime setting simply a convenient backdrop .
there is no genuine exploration of what pearl harbor meant to the united states , and no insight into its vital role in inciting that country to join world war ii . instead , there is just an assembly - line love triangle , some empty patriotic rhetoric , and a laughable attempt to placate japanese viewers via the inclusion of some reticent imperial commanders ( when one intones , " i fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant " , i nearly fell out of my seat ) .
to the movie 's credit , it does include a fantastic portrayal of the attack itself , an exciting and dizzying hour which plunges viewers into the war .
if only the remaining two hours had been crafted with such skill , perhaps this memorial day non - event would have been worth watching .
Output: N
this is a film that i was inclined to like at the outset : the two main characters had been involved with the fine television drama st .
elsewhere for several years , and i had understood that the director / screenwriter had written for the show on occasion also .
i am sorry to report that the results were not up to my expectations , nor were they satisfactory .
if i had to list a reason why . .
. .
but that would be getting ahead of myself ; besides , it 's not immediately clear , as there are so many problems with the film .
adam arkin plays a grade - school teacher who is sardonic , cynical , and somewhat abrasive , but a good teacher .
he spends his lunches playing basketball by himself on a nearby court .
one day , he meets a drifter ( david morse , who plays jack morrison on st .
elsewhere ) in the park , and inveigles him in a game of one - on - one basketball .
morse turns out to be good , and a friendship slowly develops between the two , as their respective professions progress on the screen -- arkin 's teaching , and morse 's selling of paper flowers to passing motorists .
so far , my major complaint would be the lack of dialogue , and the constant intrusion of the musical soundtrack .
good music to be sure , but it does n't replace the dialogue for setting the mood or telling the story
-- it makes the film somewhat minimalistic , a technique i rarely admire
.
suddenly their friendship is interrupted by morse 's introduction to a fellow teacher of arkin 's
, a woman arkin has long admired from afar , but it too reticent to approach .
it appears that she begins to admire morse ( who enjoys here attentions , but is n't sure what to do about it -- she does n't realize that he is a drifter , and knows nothing about his past ) , and this causes friction between arkin and almost everyone else .
until then , i had only a vague dissatisfaction with the film .
the conclusion is where it begins to evolve into a full - fledged failure .
the woman , at least to me , appeared to be fairly shallow ; i did n't realize how shallow until her final scene with arkin , where she reveals that she has been trying to make arkin jealous by her attentions to morse .
somehow , this is made to appear as if it is arkin 's fault , and it is left with him feeling somehow victorious that he 's gotten such a find of girlfriend .
frankly , dropping her on the spot would have seemed the most civilized action arkin could make ; punching her in the mouth not the least . after this , the childish confrontation between morse and arkin at the end seems almost natural . if i had to summarize a major gripe
, it 's that this is a story spread too thin , that creates semi - likable characters at the outset , and then suddenly jerks them into being 16-year - olds at the last moment .
it might be true - to - life with some people ; but that does n't mean
* i
* have to like it .
i do n't . .
avoid .
Output: N
the thirteenth floor is a bland , obligatory exercise in genre film - making .
if i had n't recently watched the matrix and open your eyes -- both of which are similar but far superior -- i might have been a little nicer to this picture .
craig bierko makes an adequate hero as douglas hall , the rich co - creator of a perfect human world simulation who is suddenly blamed for the murder of his boss ( armin mueller - stahl ) .
everything that was subtle and smart about the previously mentioned films is battered over our heads in this one , and characters stare at each other for maddeningly - long periods of time and refuse to communicate on any realistic level .
the acting is okay , but the film suffers from every logical flaw one could think of , and features a script ( co - penned by director josef rusnak ) loaded with cliches and stock characters .
there are individual scenes and ideas that work -- i like the thought of a sentient computer program -- but none of the film 's strengths are recognized to any meaningful degree .
producer roland emmerich , based on this and his previous directorial efforts , seems hell - bent on bringing us the ultimate standard in mediocre science - fiction .
Output: N
synopsis : original " jurassic park " survivor alan grant ( neill ) is tricked by paul and amanda kirby ( macy and leoni ) into leading an expedition to an island overrun by dinosaur , to rescue their stranded son .
grant 's team is picked off one by one as they encounter dinosaurs both new and familiar , and grant grows to realise that some breeds are more intelligent than he previously thought .
review : there is one reason why " jurassic park iii " is better than its immediate predecessor , " the lost world : jurassic park " .
the latter wasted 129 minutes of my life ;
the former , only 94 .
the first " park " was a marvellous film , full of awe - inspiring sights , interesting characters , and genuine thrills .
its two successors have been pale imitations , amounting to hundred - million - dollar b - grade horror movies .
at least this third entry realises it ; whereas " the lost world " tried to justify its existence with a ludicrous and overextended plot , " jurassic park iii " simply sticks its characters on an island with a bunch of dinosaurs and lets the mayhem begin .
there is a desperate sense of deja vu presiding over this movie ; the computer - animated dinos are no longer novel or exciting , and even the first - time presence of aerial lizards scarcely improves the situation .
remember that wondrous first trolley ride through the park in the original movie ?
nothing in this rehash even comes close .
add in execrable dialogue from screenwriters buchman , payne and taylor , and phoned - in performances by the normally capable macy and leoni , and
it is difficult to recommend the film to anyone but dino enthusiasts .
at least neill makes some effort to retain the dignity of his character , and there is much less gore than in " the lost world " , making this installment more suitable for children .
Output: N
around the end of 1998 , a japanese cartoon came to the usa television , and really was n't that big .
in fact not many people even knew what pokemon was , but in 1999 it hit big with kids and adults alike , and became one of the biggest franchises and merchandise seller of all time .
in fact it even spawned a big screen adventure pokemon : the first movie which for what it was , was n't all that bad .
it grossed $ 31 million in its opening weekend , and went on to make almost $ 90 million .
fans thought it was great and now is a second movie in the pokemon craze , " pokemon : the movie 2000 " which is far inferior to the original animated movie .
first up is the plot , which there really is n't much of , in fact the plot what there is : a bad guy trying to destroy the ancient
never before seen pokemon , lugia , is about it , except the fact that ash kethcum the worlds best pokemon trainer must try and stop him before he destroys this one pokemon forever .
well there you go , of course ash is followed by his friends misty , brock , gary and his pokemon friends , pikachu , squirtle , charizard , the usual .
even though the first movie was n't a great film , it was definately an enjoyable well - made movie with an actual thin storyline .
this new movie however is nothing but garbage ,
there is nothing good to it storywise , and its only good thing comes from some plush animation and colors .
compared to the first film , this movie is awfully bland , from its opening titles , to the end titles it tries its best to work , but fails miserably at every corner .
the characters are
1-dimensional , the story thin as chicken broth , and the writing very lame .
even the so called action scenes are extremely lame , and falls before it even gets a chance to go .
the voices even are n't that good and almost feels like the stars do n't want to be there , like they can tell that this is an extremel bad movie .
which it certainly is .
the film has one thing going for it
and that is the animation , although not up to disney standards , it is still very good with some interesting cgi 's and very colorful animation , the colors jump out at you very fast , and seem very nicely put on film .
why a film this bad got such a good treatment with its animation is still a question to be answered ,
hopefully pokemon 3 next year will be much better than this trash .
for now watch the first one .
its much much better .
Output: N
its a stupid little movie that trys to be clever and sophisticated , yet trys a bit too hard .
with the voices of woody allen , gene hackman , jennifer lopez , sylvester stallone , and sharon stone , this computer - animated yak - fest ( think toy story [ 1996 ] filled with used merchandising ) is one for the ant - eaters .
the main story is the independence of a worker named z ( allen ) .
he wants more to life than just digging away underground for the colony .
when he finds out about ` ` insectopia , " a mythical place where all insects can run free , z , along with his colony 's princess ( stone ) , journey out into the world to find a meaning for life .
about 15 minutes into the picture , i began to wonder what the point of the film was .
halfway through , i still did n't have an answer .
by the end credits , i just gave up and ran out .
antz is a mindless mess of poor writing and even poorer voice - overs .
allen is nonchalant , while i would have guessed , if i had n't seen her in the mighty and basic instinct , stone ca n't act , even in a cartoon .
this film is one for the bugs : unfunny and extremely dull .
hey , a bug 's life may have a good time doing antz in .
Output: N
after the recent animated debacles of , " a rugrats movie , " and " a bug 's life , " i am seriously considering raising my highly negative rating on dreamworks ' other insect film from october , " antz .
"
i hated that movie , and yet , it is so much better than these latest two excursions .
" a bug 's life , " is the second animated insect film in the last two months , and i hoped for the best , considering it was done in the wonderful style of pixar 's last film , 1995 's " toy story , " but in no way does , " a bug 's life , " even remotely match up to that .
flik ( david foley ) , an ant , who along with his many comrades , has the job every year of gathering up the seasonal harvest , only to have to give half of it away to the dominating grasshoppers , led by hopper ( kevin spacey ) .
flik , however , feels all alone and unwanted in the world , especially after he accidentally loses all of their food , and the ants are threated by hopper to gather up a whole other season 's load by the time the last summer leaf falls from the trees .
banished from ant island , flik leaves the colony in search of some strong reinforcement to help out , but through a misunderstanding , returns with a handful of helpless circus bugs , including a walking stick ( david hyde pierce ) , a dung beetle ( brad garrett ) , a gypsy moth ( madeline kahn ) , a male ladybug ( denis leary ) , and a caterpillar ( joe ranft ) .
"
a bug 's life , " has one thing going for it .
only one thing .
with its glorious , bright colors , the computer - generated animation is a spectacle to look at .
the film itself , unfortunately , is a lifeless , unamusing contraption without any of the flair or excitement of , " toy story .
"
the characters in , " a bug 's life , " are an assortment of either unlikable or dull insects without any charm or personality , other than to stand around and recite arbitrary and thoroughly unfunny one - liners .
the thin story was also stretched out to a nearly unbearable 94 minutes , and it often felt as if they ran out of ideas throughout , and so they made up pointless scenes to pass as time - filler .
after giving such scathing reviews to the animated films from this year , i was beginning to think that i had simply outgrown them , but then i realized this is just not so .
i still adore almost all of the older disney films , and many of the newer ones , such as 1989 's , " the little mermaid , " 1991 's , " beauty and the beast , " 1993 's , " the nightmare before christmas , " and yes , 1995 's , " toy story .
"
maybe this has just been a bad year for children 's films , and hopefully , the upcoming , " the prince of egypt , " will not be a disappointment .
as for , " a bug 's life , " i did not enjoy anything about it .
not the story , not the characters , and not even the voiceover work , which was far more lively in , " antz .
" " a bug 's life , " goes down as yet another failure for disney , and it is a sad state of affairs when their best film in the last two years has been the minor jonathan taylor thomas picture , " i 'll be home for christmas .
"
Output: N
the year is barely a week old , and there is already a candidate for the worst of 1997 - -the relic , a would - be chiller that 's more successful at making the audience laugh than scream .
in this ridiculous film from uberhack peter hyams ( whose last two pictures were dreadful jean - claude van damme vehicles ) , a creature that feeds on the hypothalamuses ( hypothalamii ? ) of humans and animals goes on a killing spree in a chicago museum .
how did this creature come into existence , and why does it feed on hormones ?
the " scientific " explanation cooked up by the four -- yes , four -- credited screenwriters ( amy holden jones , john raffo , rick jaffa , and amanda silver ) takes " suspension of disbelief " to new heights , even by monster movie standards .
but as cockamamie as the science is in the film , it is n't quite as hard to swallow as the casting of the clueless penelope
ann miller as a brilliant molecular biologist who specializes in evolutionary genetics .
miller acts as if she wants an oscar nomination , turning every scene that requires the slightest display of emotion into an overblown oscar clip , complete with piercing wails and glycerine tears .
give it up , penelope --
it 's a _
monster_movie _ .
on the flip side , tom sizemore just phones in his performance as a police lieutenant , but his role is so thankless that it 's hard to imagine it being played any more effectively .
it 's quite funny to see a film indulge , with the straightest of faces , in all those cheesy horror movie cliches that wes craven lampooned so well ( and so recently ) in scream .
for example , in one early scene , a museum security guard goes into a bathroom stall late at night .
ok , we all know what 's coming , but as if we did n't need any more confirmation , he pulls out a joint and starts puffing away .
everyone knows what happens to people who do drugs in a scary movie .
and later , miller frantically runs out of a museum exhibit after she hears some suspicious heavy breathing .
does she make a beeline for the front door ?
of course not -- she runs into the ladies room and cowers in a stall .
with all the cliches , it is only fitting the film 's climax offers what is perhaps the most overused one in recent film
: that of someone outrunning a fireball .
if the relic is truly " the next evolution in terror " as the poster states , then the horror film -- and humanity -- is in even worse shape than we thought .
Output: N
susan granger 's review of " two can play that game " ( screen gems ) since the success of " waiting to exhale , " there have been several romantic comedies about african - american professionals .
this female revenge fantasy , vivica
a . fox plays shante smith , a stunning ad exec who seems to have reached the pinnacle of success : a mansion , a sporty car and an idyllic relationship with a hunky , hot - shot lawyer , morris chestnut .
she 's at a point in her life when she dispenses advice to her grateful girl - friends (
mo'nique , wendy racquel robinson , tamala jones ) .
"
when your man messes up , no matter how small it is , " she smugly decrees , " yuh gots to punish him .
"
so when she catches her hot man dancing at a bar with a smart and sexy rival , gabrielle union , she devises her own version of " the rules , " a 10-day " tough love " emotionally punishing plan to get him back .
unfortunately , writer / director mark brown ( " how to be a player " ) breaks the cardinal rule of romantic comedy : you have to like the protagonist - and shrill , self - congratulatory
shante smith is a smirking , superficial , spiteful shrew who does n't realize that rational rules can not always be applied to love .
having her talk directly into the camera gets stale very quickly and the " day one , " " day two " title - card device underscores the tedium . comic anthony anderson scores as chestnut 's boisterous best - friend , and singer bobby brown does a cameo as a scuzzy mechanic who 's given a smooth makeover by ms . robinson .
but the out - takes over the closing credits contain more humor than the film itself .
on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " two can play that game " is smarmy if slick 4 , filled with misogynistic attitude and blatant product placements
( coca - cola , miller genuine draft ) but little else .
in this r - rated ( for explicit sexual language ) , pseudo - hip battle of the sexes , the audience loses .
Output: N