Datasets:

harpreetmann

/

imdb_max_500_test2

like 0

<br /><br />In 1970, after a five year absence, Kurosawa made what would be his first film in color. Dodes' Ka-Den is a film that centers around many intertwining stories that go on in a small Tokyo slum.<br /><br />The title comes from the sound a mentally retarded boy makes as he imagines he is operating a train. We slowly get to know more of the people in the small community, the two drunks who trade wives because they are not happy with the ones they have. The old man who is the center of the town who helps out a burglar that tries to rob him. The very poor father and son that cannot ever afford a house, so they imagine one up of their own. By the end of the film, the stories all come full circle, some turn out happy, others sad.<br /><br />Since this was Kurosawa's first color film you can see that he uses it to his advantage and it shows. Maybe too much. This movie goes in many different directions and it's hard to settle down and get into it. But don't get me wrong, Dodes' Ka-Den may not be Kurosawa's best, but coming from the greatest director of all time, it's much better than 99% of today's films.

I have seen the movie Holes and say that it has to be the best movie all year long. It brings out the child in everyone. I mean who would come up with the idea of having troublesome boys dig holes as their punishment? Louis Sachar thats who. Although the movie was different from the book it was still very good. For example Caveman/Stanley was supposed to be the biggest one there. Weight wise and height wise but ZigZag/Ricky was taller and Armpit/Theodore was bigger. Also X-Ray/Rex was supposed to be one of the smallest boys but wasn't. The only thing that I didn't like about the movie was that the flashbacks were rather persuasive and long. I would have rather seen more of the present than past but thats just my opinion. I especially like the work of the boys though. Like Squid/Alan who was played by Jake M.Smith was supposed to be a moody and tough kid. Jake M.Smith performed just that and did a great job at it as did almost all of the actors in Holes. So I would say if you havent seen Holes yet then you should definatly see it when it comes out again or you'll be missing out on a whole lotta fun.

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />I watched half of this movie and I didn't like it. <br /><br />First reason: Boring. Barely anything happens, the women sit around and discuss how terrible their lives are and how they have no hope, they smoke weed, read magazines, care for their sick friend, and cut up the occasional dead body. BORING!!!!<br /><br />Second reason: There are too many things left unexplained. Many scenes are dedicated to a zombie hunter who kidnaps random men, restrains them in a chair and interrogates them. Who are these men? How do they know anything about illegal activity concerning the diseased flesh eaters? Why does he kill one and let another one go?<br /><br />Also there is this dude who at first I thought also had the flesh eating disease but he puts his fist through a wall with superhuman strength suggesting he's not quite what we originally thought-never explained! How frustrating is that? <br /><br />Conclusion: I found the women annoying, the story uninteresting, the duologue tedious, and the action non-existent. Also the cover art is misleading since it makes you believe this movie is going to be cool when it clearly isn't. I rented this movie based on some of the reviews made by other people on this website, and although I respect the fact that some people might have enjoyed this flick, I will from now on make sure I read more than two reviews deep into a movie so as to avoid renting another movie I regret seeing.

If this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a "Moving Picture" before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.<br /><br />Now I like B movies. I just watched "The Giant Gila Monster" right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie. <br /><br />Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot.

I watched this again after having not seen it since it first came out (in '97), and it still made me laugh out loud. It's skillfully written, Kevin Kline and Joan Cusack are both perfect in their roles, and if you can look at Bob Newhart in this movie and not chuckle, you're more of a man than I.<br /><br />For that matter, I think the scenes where Tom Selleck kisses Kevin Kline, where Kevin Kline listens to the "How to be a Man" cassette, and the post-(almost-)wedding scenes w/ Joan Cusack are three of the funniest scenes in any movie.<br /><br />Sure, the last scene is a bit of an excuse for a happy ending, but...few movies are perfect.

This is a very low budget film, set in one location in a valley shielded by the effects of radiation. The cast, an older man and daughter, a handsome visitor, a couple (a tough buy and gal), a drifter, a donkey and a radiation affected man, interact during the after effects of a nuclear blast. Added to this is an entity watching the women take a bath.<br /><br />They all have guns, some of them get shot, some of them are told to have children, others are murdered and others just drift away and, well this is the movie. Harvey Cormann's first film, it shows a certain simplicity in movie making. To avoid expensive sets, actors go through curtains to enter and exit the house (ie the studio). The location shots filmed in the hills near Hollywood are the backdrop.<br /><br />I would not say this is worth going out of your way to see, but interesting to see how movies with human subjects were made in the 50s.

"Crimes of Passion" is a film that is disappointing on most counts. Where should I start from? The plot? It is despairingly simplistic and full of gaps. The direction? Reminds a cheap B-movie. The acting? John Laughlin is utterly terrible in his role as "well-intentioned-husband-of-a-frozen-wife" Bobby, Annie Pots is unconvincing as "frozen-wife" Amy, and it is only Kathleen Turner (above average), and Antony Perkins (excellent) which get passable acting marks. More specifically, Antony Perkins gives a great performance as the pervert reverend Peter Shayne, while Turner manages to portray the roles of sexy China Blue and frail Joanna Crane satisfactorily.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the performances of Turner and Perkins alone are insufficient to help get the film a grade higher than 4/10. Watch it if you want to see Turner in some sensational scenes (although even on this count the film can be easily matched by its competition-"Basic Instinct" for example), otherwise avoid.

The film is not for everyone. Some might think the acting is bad when it is actually understated and natural. There are no obviously evil acts and there are no stunningly beautiful moments. There is a lot of indecision, an lot of conflicting feelings.<br /><br />Actually this film takes a very honest look at a very complex subject, Sex with minors. It is complex because the characters are trying to deal with love and sex when her body and hormones are still developing and both of their minds and personalities are still developing. Complex also because society has very simplistic views of sex with minors, and complex, because the characters don't know if society is right or if their instincts are right.<br /><br />Some will not like the movie because it leaves unanswered questions. Questions such as who was really in charge of the relationship, who was damaged, did good come out of it, was it art, who was damaged more, did some of the problems with their relationship stem from it being forbidden by society, did some of the problems stem from their own immaturity, and probably most important, was this truly a crime?<br /><br />The film is resolutely neutral on all of this, and it is this neutrality that is its strength. It is the reason for the understated acting, the simple sets, the lack of background music, soft lighting, and the general "flat" presentation. The message is clear. We don't really understand this kind of relationship today, and quick judgments are bound to be shallow.

This film is about British prisoners of war from the World War II escaping from a camp in Germany.<br /><br />I find "The Wooden Horse" disappointingly boring. The subject could have been thrilling, suspenseful and adrenaline fuelled, but "The Wooden Horse" is told in a very plain way. It's a collection of plain and poorly told events, with no suspension and thrill. The first half plainly tells how the prisoners of war dug a tunnel, but the events are so plain, with not enough blunders and close shaves to make me on edge. The latter half of the film is even worse, they are just moving from one place to another without any cat and mouse chase. And could the characters talk a bit less and have more action in an action film! I am disappointed by "The Wooden Horse", it wasted the potential to be a great film.

Sleepwalkers are creatures who drain the life force completely out of humans to survive...but they can only use virgins (it's not explained why). Charles Brady (Brian Krause) is one such who needs to feed his mother Mary (Alice Krige). He goes after likable Tanya (Madchen Amick). Will she escape?<br /><br />On one hand this is a GREAT horror film. Fast-paced, plenty of blood and gore and a nice, twisted sense of humor. There are plenty of in joke references for horror buffs (Castle Rock is mentioned once). Also Krause is excellent (who would have thought he could act after "Return to the Blue Lagoon") as is Kirge and Amick. But I find this film annoying.<br /><br />It was written for the screen by Stephen King and it's maddeningly vague. The sleepwalkers are never fully explained. Where are they from? Why are they called that? Why does the son have to feed the mother? Why do cats hate them and can kill them? What are their powers after all (at one point Krause makes a car disappear AND change color and style!)? Why do they need to feed off peoples' life force? Why does it have to be only virgins? Why is the son having sex with his mom? None of these are explained leaving the story confusing. It's really too bad because, those questions aside, this is an excellent horror film. Excellent makeup and special effects too.<br /><br />Fast, gory and lots of fun. If only the script were better. Also a fairly explicit sex scene between Krause and Krige was edited (you can tell) to get an R rating. I can only give this a 7.