Datasets:

avsolatorio

/

mteb-imdb-avs_triplets

like 1

In Mexico this movie was aired only in PayTV. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life, is a true example about a good German and specially, about a good man. The conversations between Tukur's character and the Nazi prosecutor are specially interesting. A true ideas' war: two different Germans, both with faith in there believes. Bonhoeffer was a very complex person: man, freedom fighter, boyfriend, churchman and a great intellectual; Ulrich Tukur is outstanding as Bonhoeffer. I recommended this film a lot, specially in this difficult times for the planet. In Mexico we don't know a lot about Pastor Bonhoeffer life and legacy, this is a great work for rescue a forgotten hero.

positive

"The big goodbye" introduces us to the first holodeck adventure, in this case Captain Picard posing as private investigator Dixon Hill. This episodes creates some sort of standard pattern, repeated several times on TNG as well as DS 9 and Voyager. After entering the holodeck something goes wrong and the characters have to deal with the program under different circumstances beyond playing a game (represented by the failure of the holodeck's safety program). <br /><br />This concept is used to expand Star Trek's possibility and enabling a kind of genre-mix. Picard's Dixon Hill stories are examples of 1940s crime fiction and their representation on the screen are referred to as Film Noir often having the stereotype antihero in the lead (see for example Chandler's Marlowe stories or Polanski's all time classic "Chinatown"). Star Trek never focuses on the story (mostly it's a simple "how-do-we-get-out-of-here" scenario) but enables the actors to take a different approach to their characters. Those Holodeck "games" are commonly used for recreation and reflect the private interests of the crew members. Therefore the technical aspect is always neglected and from that point of view the stories are never sound (but did Star Trek ever had a technical, scientific point to it, I mean besides some utopic concepts?).<br /><br />"The big goodbye" shows a relaxed Patrick Stewart, a McFadden that hardly ever looked better in a Star Trek episode (at least the early ones) and Data has some great scenes, too (although I find it hard to believe that pulling the lamp's plug out of the wall would have really surprised him, for the fact that he'd done research on that period and its customs). Wesley continues turning peaceful Trekkies into potential murderers (why didn't they take him to the holodeck and let the gangsters finish him off?) but all in all this one's fun...

positive

Sadly IMDb does not allow me to rate Judges lower than 1. What a shame. This ghastly movie is so bad that I actually turned the damned thing off well before the ending. The script had a few bright moments, but the directing, editing, acting, audio quality, and especially timing on line delivery was so abhorrent as make Judges utterly unbearable.<br /><br />Judges was advertised as being like a modern day comic book style western, but in reality was nothing of the sort. What it is most like is dog poop on the bottom of your shoe. You can try to pretend it is okay, but it just keeps on stinking.<br /><br />Why video stores think it is okay to carry this kind of crap with constant gaps in the audio and worse than high school drama class acting is beyond me. We rent movies in order to see something better that what is on television. But Judges is worse than the most pathetic SciFi Channel original. I intend to demand my money back from Hollywood Video.

negative

In spite of sterling work by the supporting actors, and an intelligent script by Alan Plater, this film suffers from a fatal flaw - the lack of charm of the central character/actor. One of the characters describes Richard E Grant's character as "a whining little turd" and unfortunately this sums him up perfectly. There is nothing about him or his performance to make it credible that his girlfriend and upper-class publisher/friend would spend so much time and emotional effort on him. He is rude, arrogant, selfish, self-destructive and thoroughly annoying. The part called for an actor who can make you love him even when he is being a prate - a Ewan McGregor, for example.<br /><br />All of the witty satire on the class system etc was wasted, thanks to this irritating and thoroughly unlikeable performance. All I wanted to do was shake him and tell him to get over himself.

negative

It all started with True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse get the club to safety. Noble Heart Horse meet Dawn & John & took them to see True Heart Bear. Later, The care meter went down more & True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse check to see if it Dark Heart but they can't go unless the club at care for so they ask Dawn & John to care for the club. After True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse Come back, They send Dawn & John back to camp. Than the club & cousin bears have grown up to get ready to fight Dark Heart. At the end, Dark Heart kidnap all the care bear & the kids (Dawn & John) have to tell Christy that Dark Heart is evil. Than they work to together to save the Care Bears. Later, True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse found out it Dark Heart shadow & return to care land to find that their gone. The Kids (Dawn, John, & Christy) come but they was not powerful to stop Dark Heart. True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse come to help Dawn, John, & Christy to free the other care bears but Christy got in the way & was hit by Dark Heart magic. Than Dark Heart saw Christy got hit & stop fighting the care bear in order to help her but he can't because Dark Heart (himself) don't have the power of caring to save Christy. The care bears & the kids help Dark Heart save Christy. Now Dark Heart starting to care & became a real boy to fall in love with Christy. Dark Heart is now a real boy & help out Christy to work out in camp.<br /><br />This is a great move ever & the best Care Bears Movie I ever seeing.<br /><br />I like all the care bears movies & I can't wait to see "Care Bears: Big Wish Movie (2005)".<br /><br />Who like this movie?

positive

Booted out of heaven, a gang of horny naked female angels (with big plastic fangs) have taken up residence in a spooky forest where they feed upon any hapless souls who should wander by. It's not long before a group of friends on a road trip are falling victim to the bloodthirsty babes… An independent low budget horror made in the UK, Forest of the Damned takes an interesting premise and flushes it down the pan with some of the worst acting, effects and direction I have seen in a long time.<br /><br />Director Johannes Roberts shows some occasional flair behind the camera – the scenes in the delapidated house are fairly tense and there are some deftly handled 'shock' moments - but for the most part the film is technically amateurish. Throw in some truly awful performances from horror icons Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson, and you have one real bad movie on your hands.<br /><br />Some fun may be derived from the film's sheer shoddiness, and there is loads of female nudity for the guys to savour, but most will find this a chore to sit through.

negative

What can I say about it?It's another Hollywood's horror flick with very high budget(80 million dollars).Not scary at all,it offers us only a few thrills and one really creepy sequence with skeleton in the fireplace.A lot of computer generated special effects and nothing more.Catherine Zeta-Jones is beautiful as always,Lili Taylor is also a good actress.The architecture of the Hill House is amazing,all these monuments,statues,furniture...Delicious!However I don't like the ending because it was so luscious.Check this one out and form your own opinion on it.I give this picture 7 out of 10.

positive

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!

negative

This movie was bad. This movie was horrible. The acting was bad. The setting was unrealistic. The story was absurd: A comet that appears once in eons is set to appear one night. Most of the world's population decided to watch this comet. Then, the next morning everyone but a select few of people has been turned to dust from the comet's radiation. People's clothes are still intact, there are plants which are still alive, but the people were turned to dust. No bones, nothing. Thats ridiculous. How can radiation incinerate people but leave their clothes and other biological substances intact?<br /><br />Even better, the comet mutated some people into zombie flesh eating monsters. Their makeup would not have even looked frightening to a newborn child. The Insane Clown Posse scare me more...and they're supposed to look stupid.<br /><br />Then there were the survivors. People who had been surrounded by steel when the comet passed were spared from zombie-dom and death. How can steel block a comet's radiation that supposedly incinerates people in their tracks?<br /><br />Equally insulting is the 60's horror music playing in the background through parts of the movie, or the 80's hair rock which serves no purpose in the film and makes you want to shoot your television.<br /><br />The stupidest part of the movie, however, are the characters it focuses on: two Valley Girls and Chakotay from Star Trek: Voyager. These three characters were totally unrealistic. Who would go looting the day after an apocalypse with flesh eating mutants running everywhere? There were four 5 minute horror scenes in the entire movie, and most of them were dreams. In between these scenes is unsophisticated dialog which makes South Park seem intelligent. The silence in between the elementary dialog was painful. I could have made a better movie with four monkeys and a bag of Cheetos. Don't see this movie, ever.

negative

I did not watch the entire movie. I could not watch the entire movie. I stopped the DVD after watching for half an hour and I suggest anyone thinking of watching themselves it stop themselves before taking the disc out of the case.<br /><br />I like Mafia movies both tragic and comic but Corky Romano can only be described as a tragic attempt at a mafia comedy.<br /><br />The problem is Corky Romano simply tries too hard to get the audience to laugh, the plot seems to be an excuse for moving Chris Kattan (Corky) from one scene to another. Corky himself is completely overplayed and lacks subtlety or credulity - all his strange mannerisms come across as contrived - Chris Kattan is clearly 'acting' rather than taking a role - it bounces you right out of the story. Each scene is utterly predictable, the 'comedic event' that will occur on the set is obvious as soon as each scene is introduced. In comedies such as Mr. Bean the disasters caused by the title character are funny because you can empathise with the characters motivations and initial event and the situation the character ends up in is not telegraphed. Corky however gives the feeling that he is deliberately screwing up in a desperate attempt to draw a laugh from the audience.<br /><br />If Chris had not played such an alien character (who never really connects with the other characters in the movie) and whose behaviour is entirely inexplicable (except for trying to draw laughs) and the comedy scenes weren't so predictable and stereotyped - all the jokes seemed far too familiar) this movie could have been watchable. But it isn't. Don't watch it.

negative

First of all, this film was not released to theatres (TESTED POORLY THEY SAY),I say they figured the story of crooked cops, politicians & dedicated newspaper people had been done to death,just send it DVD & cable TV> & take the money & run.<br /><br />That being said I usually like this type of movie, especially with this named cast. Morgan Freeman, Justin Timberlake, Kevin Spacey,<br /><br />L.L.Cool J, Cary Elways, John Heard & on the distaff side, Piper Perabo & Roslyn Sanchez.<br /><br />The plot & story have been done to death, BUT the above cast brings life to this violent movie & it is actually watchable.<br /><br />Justin Timberlake Is good as the dedicated young reporter for a throw-away newspaper edited by Morgan Freeman, The others are either crooked Cops,& Politicians or somewhat decent guys, The 2 ladies are the girl friends of LL COOL J & JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE & do whats required, It is quite violent, many killings etc, not for children. By no means is the a great film, BUT for what it is & the cast It is definitely good,<br /><br />Ratings *** (out of 4) 86 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)

positive

Why is it that a woman cannot be a strong character in a movie without sleeping with the leading man? The campaign manager in this movie dreams of leading Tom Sellick to the White House. It's all she can think about. So, why on earth must she have had an affair with him? It added nothing to the plot and served only to demean successful women. The only value of that tidbit was the cute "we've all slept with your husband" scene. <br /><br />Also, couldn't the people who made this movie have watched the national conventions they were spoofing? Airing between the two major political conventions only served to highlight their total ignorance of the nomination and selection process.

negative

***SPOILERS*** On of the first WWII movies coming out of Hollywood that shows how the war effected those GI's, or in this case US Marines, who fought in it.<br /><br />21 year old Al Schmid, John Garfield, was just starting to live with a well paying job-earning some $40.00 a week-at the local steel mill and girl Ruth Hartley, Elenore Parker, whom he was about to marry when the Japs spoiled everything for him, and millions of likewise young Americans, by attacking the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Doing his duty as an American citizen Al immediately joined the US Marine Corps hoping to get back at the Japs knowing, correctly as it was to turn out, that the Marines would be the first American combat units to get a crack at them.<br /><br />Al finally got his chance when his unit, the 1st Marine Division, landed on August 7, 1942 at Guadalcanal in the far flung Solomon Islands to engage the Japanese who were were in control of it. It was during the battle of the Ilu River that Al almost single handed stopped a massive Japanese Banzai attack holding off, with his machine gun, wave after wave of suicide attacks by the determined Japs until help, or reinforcements, finally arrived. It was during the bloody fighting Al was hit in the face by a Jap grenade that ended up blinding him.<br /><br />Now back in the states convalescing at a naval hospital Al is faced with something far more harder to overcome then battling a battalion size attack of Japanese or German soldiers. He's faced with a future where he'll never see again and having to depend on others to look after, or for, him!<br /><br />We get to see in the film "Pride of the Marines" Al battle himself far harder then he did the Japanese troops on Guadalcanal in just coming to terms with his disability. Not wanting anyone, especially his girlfriend Ruth, to feel sorry for him Al in fact is the one who feels sorry for himself more then anyone else in the movie. It's with the help of Navy Nurse Virginia Pfeiffer, Rosemary DeCamp, and Ruth together with his US Marine buddy Lee Diamond, Dane Clark, that in the end gives Al the courage to face his blindness with the same strength that he faced wave after wave of Japanese troops on Gudalcanal. A courage Al thought he lost back in that God-forsaken island hell in the South Pacific.<br /><br />Based on the true story of US Marine Sergeant Albert Schmid "Pride of the Marines" showed what we were to expect from the tens of thousands of wounded US Servicemen coming back from the war. We get to see how it in many ways was far more difficult for those fighting the war to adjust to a peacetime America when they left something, like in the case of Al Schmid, behind on the battlefield. Al's battle with his personal demons was a lot harder then the Japanese that he fought in that they were part of him and thus had to fight himself in order to overcome and eventually defeat them. Despite the help that he got from both Nurse Virginia and his girlfriend Ruth as well as his Navy doctor-who has a striking resemblance to actor Gregory Peck-it still was up to Al to overcome the fears that he faced. Fears which he and only he had to both battle and overcome, like he was told by everyone in the movie, all by himself.

positive

this is the only movie i have ever walked out on. bad acting-- bad plot-- bad casting-- bad directing-- bad cinematography-- if they had set out to make a bad picture they couldn't have done a better job. i hope they are proud of his turkey. i'm surprised anyone associated with this film was ever hired again in hollywood. don't waste your time!

negative

What a disappointment!<br /><br />This film seemed to be trying to copy 'cutting edge' comedy but the direction and the script was sloppy, sickly and sentimental in the worst film tradition. Jack Black's acting/role was self-indulgent and self-regarding... and the other characters were equally unmasking and uninteresting. The soundtrack was tedious. We are ( WERE) fans of Black but none of us did more than mange a forced titter for the duration. Why did he feel he needed to make this mistake?<br /><br />We will not watch another of his films without reading reviews more carefully first!!<br /><br />Was he drunk when he read the script before signing up for this drivel?

negative

This film is great. As often heard, it is indeed very realistic and sometimes brutal, but unlike some other people I am clearly not of the opinion that it is depressing, negativistic or dismantling Austria as a proto-fascist society. Quite the contrary: While there are indeed some very heavy scenes in HUNDSTAGE and some characters are to be called very bad persons, at the same time you watch love, beauty and humor in Ulrich Seidls film. And that's exactly what distinguishes HUNDSTAGE for me from other films that try to show the lives of the 'ordinary people' in an intense, realistic way; their hustle, their wishes, their dark sides: Seidl clearly never tries to prove, that the lives of the working-class people are trash! In my opinion, viewers who come to this conclusion seem to be very afraid of admitting, that nearly nobody's live is as 'clean' and 'normal' as we would like other people to believe. And that every live has its dark and often depressing sides. The most beautiful scene: The old Viennese man, watching his old girl dancing 'the oriental way', as he is calling it. I think everybody who finds this scene ugly lacks a sense of beauty and should ask themselves what it is, that's proto-fascist: The characters in HUNDSTAGE or viewers, who are turned off by the body of a 70+ year old woman, dancing with all her charms for her lover.

positive

Fascinating downer about a would-be male hustler in New York City forced to live in a condemned building with a crippled con-man. Extremely bleak examination of modern-day moral and social decline, extremely well-directed by John Schlesinger (who never topped his work here) and superbly acted by Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. Packs quite a punch overall, yet the "fantasy" scenes--some of which are played for a chuckle--are mildly intrusive, as is the "mod" drug party. The relationship that develops between the two men is sentimental, yet the filmmakers are careful not to get mushy, and this gives the picture an edge it might not have had with a lesser director than Schlesinger. Originally X-rated in 1969, and the winner of the Best Picture Oscar; screenwriter Waldo Salt (who adapted James Leo Herilhy's book) and Schlesinger also won statues. ***1/2 from ****

positive

In our household, we are enormous fans of A Christmas Carol and watch virtually every version each Christmas, including the old 1938 Reginald Owen and the modern 1999 Patrick Stewart. Our overall favorite is the 1951 black & white classic, because Alastair Sim IS Ebeneezer Scrooge and his conversion rings the truest. However, this 1984 rendition has its own unique merits and makes a lovely & entertaining story, quite faithful generally to Dickens' novel. (See my comments on the other film adaptations, if interested)<br /><br />First of all, George C. Scott can certainly seem pretty crotchety and doesn't make a bad Scrooge. I adore his sideburns, his long topcoat & hat. He cuts the finest fashion figure of the lot, and quite a handsome gentleman. However, sometimes it seems Scott is enjoying his role as Scrooge just a wee bit too much and not taking it quite as seriously as he ought!<br /><br />This rendition has the best overall Christmas atmosphere, hopeful and optimistic. Somehow you know this story is going to have a happy ending. Filmed in the town of Shrewsbury, England, it just seems somehow very British. The film has a lovely musical score, with wonderful, lively caroling music throughout all the appropriate portions of the tale. Sometimes I could almost smell the chestnuts roasting and the pudding singing in the copper! <br /><br />Marley's anguished ghost (with his wonderful jaw dropping scene) and the three Spirits are all quite convincing. Christmas Past is a lovely ethereal lady, Christmas Present wonderfully giant and jovial, Christmas Yet To Come shrouded and foreboding as always. However, I found Scrooge's nephew, Fred, a wee bit quiet & grim, not nearly as jolly & hearty as he should be. I like the nephew's wife, whom they've named Janet, with her lovely, sprightly period hairstyle. Instead of blind man's bluff, they've concocted a game called Similes for the nephew's Christmas dinner party, which is a cute little touch, Scrooge getting right into the spirit of the thing.<br /><br />The Cratchits and their somewhat meagre (though much appreciated) Christmas dinner are well depicted, with Bob (David Warner) suitably sympathetic and long-suffering in his miles of scarf. Mrs. Cratchit is charmingly portrayed by Susannah York, who also starred with George C. Scott in the wonderful 1970 adaptation of Jane Eyre. Above all, this version has unquestionably the best Tiny Tim, not only an adorable & endearing little waif but sickly. With those dark circles under his eyes, the frail wee thing looks unlikely to survive the hour!<br /><br />This is a delightful & heartwarming version of the holiday classic. With its festive atmosphere, it's sure to put you in the spirit of the season.

positive

I can't believe I watched this expecting more. It starts out OK. This movie pushes the limits of reality way to far!! At least the first one was somewhat realistic. It rips off the first movie and even mentions the Joshua Project. Anyone who knows anything about computers will hate this movie. It does have one good message in it though, WATCH OUT FOR BIG BROTHER!!! The movie just makes it seem like Big Brother is way bigger than he actually is in reality. That was very aggravating. Even the make-up on the actors was completely bad. Some of the acting is pretty good. Some of the acting is really bad though. The script was OK at some points and completely messed up at other parts. This movie plays on convenience about every five minutes. Like I said, I can't believe I watched it expecting more. I think I am gonna pop in the original to get back to earth...Q

negative

The NSA, CIA, FBI, FSB and all other snoop agency in the world should watch this movie to gain information as to how to spy on people. (as MST3k Commentary states it..."Sanata has the dirt on every! Santa's Tentacles reach far and wide! There is no hiding from the Klaus Organization")<br /><br />From telescopes that can spy over millions of miles to ears that can hear everything. Its amazing that the CIA doesn't have Santa on the payroll. <br /><br />Satan's dance routine is hilarious. Pitch...he is so useless.<br /><br />The cheese factor in of this movie is tremendous. Very low budget but so fun to watch. I recommend watching the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 version for even more laughs.<br /><br />You even get a laugh at the missfortune of the good kids.<br /><br />I give this a 1 for production quality and a 10 for pure cheese and fun factor.

negative

I have watched some pretty poor films in the past, but what the hell were they thinking of when they made this movie. Had the production crew turned into zombies when they came up with the idea of making it, because you sure have to be brain dead to find any enjoyment in it.<br /><br />I am a fan of most genres and enjoy "shoot 'em up" games, but merging the daft scenes from the game just made this ridiculous and unwatchable.<br /><br />As most have already said, there was hardly any script and the acting was weak. I won't waste my time describing it.<br /><br />Anyone who rates this film above 4 has to be part of the production company or Sega, or else they have a very warped concept of entertainment.<br /><br />I must say, I was more annoyed with the video shop, who gave this a thumbs up, which led me to rent it. Thank god I had a second film to watch to restore some of my faith in movies.<br /><br />Comic book guy would be right if he said "Worst movie ever"!

negative

This movie should not classify as cinema. Although it is over 10 years old now, it should never, ever have gotten funding, and is a blight on the Australian Film Industry, which is now producing such brilliant films as "The Dish"<br /><br />The Actors cannot act, The music is.. to be blunt, not music, the storyline is completely nonexistent and is a struggle to sit through.<br /><br />Do not watch this film. It is a complete waste of your time.

negative

Life is really too short for movies like this. I knew it couldn't be good when I realized what I'd already suspected - that David Schwimmer would be playing the exact same type of person he plays in 'Friends'.<br /><br />Let's face it, either the guy can't play anything but a nerd or he is never offered any other parts. I have a feeling that it's a mixture of both.<br /><br />And I have to say that it is extremely difficult to like a movie that utterly wastes the considerable talents of Gwyneth Paltrow, Barbara Hershey, Toni Collette and Carol Kane!!!

negative

Having to have someone hold your hand whenever walk up or down stairs? Having others taste your food before you eat it? Facing an over-bearing mother? These are only a few of the obstacles which the young Victoria has to deal with in this film (there's also the various power struggles going on, as well as attempts on her life). Needless to say, it makes for very fascinating and informative viewing.<br /><br />I had only previously seen Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada (and little else). As she was in that film, she is once again the standout here. I was extremely impressed with her portrayal of the young Victoria, and thought she handled the role very well. She makes the transition from the young Victoria we meet at the start of the film to the Queen Victoria she becomes later entirely believable. Blunt is perfectly cast in the role, showing all the different sides (from the vulnerable, to the strong, from the young Victoria who makes mistakes to the Queen who takes control). Not enough can be said about Emily Blunt in this role. She's - quite simply - exquisite, commanding your attention every second she's on screen. She keeps you transfixed up to and including the final shot of the film.<br /><br />Rupert Friend proves to also be well-cast as Victoria's love interest (and eventual husband), Prince Albert. The actors have nice chemistry and you absolutely believe in their developing relationship. They have their disagreements, but you can tell that they are in love. Blunt and Friend are excellent in every scene that they share and keep you interested in what is happening between Victoria and Albert. The other actors in the film are also very good. Paul Bettany as Lord Melbourne, Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, Mark Strong as Sir John Conroy and Jim Broadbent as King William. There is not a single bad performance in this film. The less-focused-upon people are well-portrayed also, given what little screen time they have. Even Victoria's dog (a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel named Dash) is memorable and makes an impact in the film.<br /><br />Although the movie does tend to skip more than a few aspects of Victoria's life - especially at the end - and instead *tells* us what happened (with her and Albert) on screen, what matters the most is what we actually *see*. This is, after all, a film about 'The Young Victoria' (not 'The Middle-Aged Victoria', nor 'The Old Victoria'). While there are some embellishments made on history with this film, it remains focused on what it sets out to do - which is tell us the story of how the young princess rose to power.<br /><br />The movie looks amazing, the costumes Emily Blunt wears are visually stunning and the music only adds to the film, never detracts from it. It's exceptionally shot and, unlike a lot of films these days, this movie is actually a good length, as it doesn't run on so long that you lose interest or feel that it's needlessly being drawn out.<br /><br />It goes without saying that what makes this film so great is Emily Blunt. She's in fine form here, turning in another excellent performance and elevating this film above what it might have been, had another actress been cast in this rather important/historic role. This is one finely-crafted film, with excellent performances that should definitely be seen. If you have an appreciation for a fascinating look at a woman who was extremely significant in history, this is a must-see.

positive

The only reason I give this movie 8/10 stars, and not 10, is because 1) Sinatra is awful and 2) the love interest of Kelly's character leaves much to be desired, (IMHO). Do love that Dean Stockwell, Quantum Leap - Al, is the little boy. The dance sequence with Jerry Mouse is one of the most entertaining and amazing dance sequences I have ever seen. Tom and Jerry is still a personal favorite of mine and my daughter's. I'm 28 and she's 4, so while the character is less iconic than Mickey, he is still a favorite of many children and adults today. Kelly is as always captivating, his eyes full of fun and excitement. In every movie I have ever seen him in, he always steals the show. One of the best dancers of the 20th century. It is no wonder Paula Abdul "sampled" Kelly's moves. I would also list Gene Kelly as one of the most beautiful people of the 20th century. If you were to watch only one part, don't miss Kelly's dance with Jerry Mouse. You will NOT be disappointed.

positive

Directed by the duo Yudai Yamaguchi (Battlefield Baseball) and Jun'ichi Yamamoto "Meatball Machine" is apparently a remake of Yamamoto's 1999 movie with the same name. I doubt I'll ever get a chance to see the original so I'll just stick commenting on this one. First of what is "Meatball Machine" ? A simple in noway pretentious low budget industrial splatter flick packed with great make up effects and gore. It's not something you'll end up writing books about but it's nevertheless entertaining if you dig this type of cinema.<br /><br />"Meatball Machine" follows the well known plot. Boy loves girl but is too afraid to ask her on a date. Boy finally meets girl. Girl gets infected by a parasitic alien creature that turns her into a homicidal cyborg. Boy, in turn does also transform into said thing, and goes on a quest to save his love. Will he succeed? Who gives a damn, as long as there is carnage and death I'm satisfied.<br /><br />The plot is simple, relatively clichéd but it does it's job well enough setting the movie's course straight forward into a bloody confrontation between the two leading characters. There is a subplot focusing on how the parasite that infected the girl came into to their lives. And yes it too luckily shows more violence. I'm happy. Acting is what you would expect from a no budget splatter film. It's not exactly painful for the ears but it's not exactly good either.<br /><br />The movie's main attraction besides the violence and gore (like I haven't mentioned that enough already) are the cyborg designs. Done by Keita Amemiya who's work in creating outlandish creatures and costumes for both movies and video-games is well known. The necroborgs as they are called in "Meatball Machine" look stunningly detailed. Without the usage of CGI Amemiya's designs are a breathtaking fusion of flesh and metal, painfully awesome in their appearance. Able to transforms various parts of the body into cool weaponry such as saws, rocket launchers, blood-firing shotguns and so on and so on. Though you can easily recognize the cheapness of the film, necroborgs are A-movie class.<br /><br />"Meatball Machine" is "Tetsuo The Iron Man" mixed up with "Alien" all done in low budget and extra ketchup mode. It's an immensely entertaining film that disregards modern special effects and proves that the splatter genre is still alive and kicking.

positive

Aside from a few titles and the new Sherlock Holmes movie, I think I've watched every movie Guy Ritchie has directed. Twice. Needless to say, I'm a big fan and Revolver is one of the highlighted reasons why. This movie is a very different approach from Ritchie, when you look at it comparatively with Lock, Stock... and Snatch. Revolver sets us up for a psychological thriller of sorts as a gambling con finds himself at the mercy of a set of foes he didn't expect and a guided walk for redemption that he didn't know he needed. Along with seeing André Benjamin of OutKast fame strut his acting ability, other standout acts are Ray Liotta playing the maniacal Mr. D/Macha and Mark Strong playing Sorter, the hit-man.<br /><br />After being sent to prison by a tyrannous casino owner, Macha, Jake uses his time in solitary to finesse a plot to humiliate Macha and force his hand in compensating him for the seven years he spent. When he wins a card game and amasses a decent sum from Macha, Jake finds himself on the brink of death as he collapses and is diagnosed with an incurable disease that's left him with three days to live. A team of loan sharks, however, have an answer for him and a ticket to life- only if he gives them all the money he has and relents to working for them, all in a ploy to both take Macha down and show Jake how dangerous he has made himself to himself. Along with having the air of death loom, and a pair of loan sharks having a field day with his money, Jake also has to deal with having a hit put out on him, which introduces Sorter - a hit-man under Macha's employ. The depth with the story comes when Jake realizes that some co- convicts he spent time with in solitary may very-well be the loan shark team out to take him for all he has by crafting all of the unfortunate events that Jake seems to find his way into. When faced with this reality though, Zack (Vincent Pastore) and Avi show Jake just how twisted he has become from being in solitary, having only the company of his mind and his ego then makes it so that their actual existence is elusive even to Jake. The movie unravels to a humbling process for both Jake and Macha as they both come to grips with their inner demons.<br /><br />The style of the movie is top-notch as you get the gritty feel of the crime world represented and the characters it includes. Although a lot of nods at Ritchie's previous films are here it still has a presence of its own from the dialogue, the sets and the experimental take on the gangster genre. It's also a great trip on humility and recognizing when you can easily let your ego or a preset notion mask you ability to accomplish what you want or overcome what you should. The characters are well crafted in this movie with all sides being fleshed out and, true to Ritchie fashion, they're all tied in by some underhandedness that throws a wrench in everyone's affairs. I could and would like to go on about this film and its unique nuances but I don't want to take too much away from it if you haven't seen it yet.<br /><br />It may take a few sittings to get through all the intricate layers but it's a great movie and it should be seen. If you're lucky and you haven't seen the watered-down US release, see if you can get the original UK version as it will make for a great discussion piece among friends as you try to puzzle in your take. I saw it with my crew around early-2006 and we're still talking about it with little things we've picked up on today. It has garnered its cult status, and it's well- deserved as the film where Ritchie stepped out the box and broke his norm a bit.<br /><br />Standout Line: "Fear or revere me, but please, think I'm special. We share an addiction. We're approval junkies."

positive

First of all; it's very dilettantish to try describe way of history only from positions of guns, germs and steel. The same tried to do Marxists from economical positions.<br /><br />The reason of Western success can't be just dumb luck, the advantages of domesticated plants and animals. We see, that all around the world any advantages and bonuses are complete useless if they aren't wisely managed. In the Japan there isn't huge natural resources, but Japan is one of the top world economies, the same situation in Singapore, but in Nigeria, country with rich oil resources, there are only middle-low success. Both of this nations had and still have access to Western technology and inventions, but why such gap? <br /><br />In the end of movie Daimond declared, that it's very important to understand factors of guns, germs and steel, to UNDERSTAND. Maybe the main factor of world's difference is not geography, but people ability to understand and use things? The mental ability to understand. And in this case geography is only subordinated.

negative

A well-made run-of-the-mill movie with a tragic ending. Pluses: The way the story moves - begins with Soorya struggling to live followed by a long flashback about why he's there. The Music. A disinterested look at the life of policemen. Minuses: The violence and the gore, but I guess they add to the realistic effects. Still, having people's heads chopped off and sent in boxes and sacks could have been avoided.<br /><br />No complaints - 7/10

positive

Lovely piece of good cinema. This is one of those films that you see smiling and you do not know why. Well, one of the reasons could be that we are before one of the most surprising directors today, and he is able to film emotions.<br /><br />When you are watching the film you can feel what Mr. Straight was feeling when he took the decision to go to visit his brother with his "marvellous" John Deere. What changed in his mind?, what changed in YOUR mind when you watched this film?<br /><br />A beautiful fraternal love story.

positive

I had watched (and recorded) this a few years back on local TV and, having been underwhelmed by it, I subsequently erased the tape; however, when it was released by MGM as part of a "Midnite Movie" double-feature DVD of Curtis Harrington/Shelley Winters films for a very affordable price, I couldn't resist giving it a second look (this has since gone out-of-print). Actually, I received the DVD a few months ago but only now, with Harrington's passing, did I get to it; thankfully, this time around I was more receptive to the film and, in fact, now consider it one of the more satisfying WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962) imitations (with whom, incidentally, it shared screenwriter Henry Farrell).<br /><br />The film offers a splendid evocation of 1930s Depression America - with its child-star craze and sensational murders (exploited during the fake newsreel opening); it's stylishly made (kudos to Lucien Ballard's cinematography and the set design by Eugene Lourie') and boasts an effective David Raksin score. Shelley Winters, Debbie Reynolds and Michael MacLiammoir deliver excellent performances; the latter is especially impressive as the larger-than-life and vaguely sinister diction coach (though he ultimately proves a mere red herring!). Also featured are Dennis Weaver and Agnes Moorehead (hers is only a cameo, really, as the evangelist she plays is mostly heard over the radio).<br /><br />Many seemed to regret the inclusion of musical numbers by the kids (including an amusing Mae West imitation), but I personally wasn't bothered by them; the film does slightly overstay its welcome due to an unhurried pace and (perhaps needlessly) convoluted plot. Reynolds - a musical star herself - is ideally cast as the dancing-school owner and, despite their on-set rivalry, she and Winters work well together. The latter, in fact, gives a more balanced depiction of paranoia and insanity than in WHOEVER SLEW AUNTIE ROO? (1971); the narrative, then, comes up with a number of ironic twists that lead up to the expected Grand Guignol-type denouement. Apparently, the film was toned down (it originally contained more gore and even a suggestion of lesbianism!) by producer Martin Ransohoff - against Harrington's wishes - in order to get a PG rating...

positive

I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky. <br /><br />For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility. <br /><br />- A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher. <br /><br />- A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target. <br /><br />- I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert. <br /><br />- The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping. <br /><br />- Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there. <br /><br />- How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?<br /><br />There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.<br /><br />Many of the "surprises" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.<br /><br />Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?<br /><br />If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO instead.

negative

Lots and lots of information to digest, and if you've seen Zizek, you know his pace.<br /><br />Also if you haven't seen most of the films or at least some other films by the same directors mentioned in this doc, you will be somewhat lost. <br /><br />And the film list is long. Director includes Hitchcock (Psycho, Vertigo, Birds), Lynch (Lost Highway,Mullholland Falls, Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet ), Tarkovsky (Stalker, Solaris) and The Conversation(Coppola) <br /><br />There are some segway films like, Star Wars: Espisode III, Matrix ... but these I suspect are baits. To be sure, Zizek is never boring, but if you don't buy (or if you mind) the psycho analytics, then you'll be annoyed to no end. <br /><br />But you should not be, as the setting, clips, the way the film interleave with these clips, Zizek's points are never boring.

positive

Meryl Streep is excellent in her nuanced and stoic performance as the infamous Lindy Chamberlain who was accused and tried for allegedly killing her own baby Azaria Chamberlain and using her alibi of ravenous dingoes as her defense. Based on the book "Evil Angels" and titled so in its Australian release, A CRY IN THE DARK is an ugly film to watch. It presents a scenario that's all too real for us in America: the witch-hunt against a person deemed an easy target.<br /><br />Lindy Chamberlain was this woman. Being someone who spoke her mind, someone who didn't play the sympathy card, and someone who was just tough enough to move on with her life despite her horrific ordeal, she was labeled as suspect and hated beyond comprehension even when it was clear she didn't kill her own child. The media began a tightening noose and a progressive invasion of privacy that soon had the entire nation glued to their sets as they eviscerated this family piece by piece. And through it all, Lindy remained as stoic as ever, even when her husband Michael was falling apart.<br /><br />This stance, of course, is the power of strength, as unsympathetic as it may look like, and people happen to react strongly to that. They want to see a distressed mother cry and weep and occasionally faint at every turn, not sit there and look blank. People don't understand that not everyone grieves the same way and when someone decides to stand strong they begin speculations. Meryl Streep embodies this tainted woman to the hilt and in doing so creates a cold, but not unfeeling woman, one that stood by her convictions even if they cost her liberty. Because of her, Sam Neill is allowed to have his character slowly dissolve into despair -- someone has to, or the Chamberlains would be too detached, and no one wants to see that. Except the monster that has at the time of this writing become the news-media. They'll always eat train wrecks up and feed the mangled manure to the uninformed public.

positive

Short synopsis <br /><br />This film opens with soldiers being released from the company of men. One of them pursues another with a weird scheme the other repeatedly refuses. Later they both get trapped in an office building in which they want to crack a safe during the Christmas holidays. Hostility turns into playful banter and then into a desperate fight for survival (during the bantering they lose all drinkable liquids, so it is really serious). With exposed, well built and well oiled torsos they ram a hole into a wall and finally manage to escape – only to find out that they have been betrayed and set up by women. One gets caught, the other remains free and is not given away by his companion. A last encounter, a last light for a cigarette, adieu l'ami, farewell, friend.<br /><br />I found it hard not to see closet homosexuals in the two main characters, played by classical he-man superstars Alain Delon and Charles Bronson. They are obviously attracted to each other, their treatment of women is abominable and marked by contempt throughout. The whole story seems to have a strong symbolic undertow, a little like Deliverance. It is also very stylish. The safe the two men want to crack is in a – for the time – ultra modern glass and aluminum tower. It is the seat of a publicity firm, so there are many fancy posters and wall coverings around. The wardrobe is also very good. The ultra stylish Citroen DS (maybe the most modern and elegant car of all times) features large in this movie – perhaps a subtle kind of product placement.<br /><br />I can recommend this movie for the actor's performances alone. Delon and Bronson are really sharing the top billing, in a manner that struck me as very fair and sporting. Both do a considerable amount of acrobatics. I have never seen Bronson better than here, he really acts - and speaks French throughout, with a heavy accent buy very passably indeed. And it is certainly the man himself we hear. (So the French language version is highly recommended). The police inspector who pursues the two is played by on of my favorite Franch character actors, Bernard Fresson who was Gene Hackman's partner in French Connection II. He is the best brainy police inspector I know. Also very good is former child actress Brigitte Fossey as the young ingénue who, as it turns out, is not so Innocent as it first seems.<br /><br />Anyone who expects the „old in-an-out" of classical heist movies might be disappointed with this film. For those with a little patience this will be a rewarding experience, full of novel and original ideas and directorial quirks, although it my be a little too brutal and sadistic for its own sake.

positive

Dire. Just dire. The script is contrived, the acting painful, and the story just drags along. It is, without a doubt, a celebration of Sally Potter and little else. This wouldn't be so bad, but she's the director, writer and star of the film, and so is just self-glorification. I found myself not caring about the developing romance between the principal two characters, and the ending came not a moment too soon. It has two redeeming features. First is that a lot of the shots are really quite lovely, particularly in Paris, and look rather good in black and white. Secondly, whether you're a fan of tango or not, the music is by and large, excellent (except where Sally starts singing). Watch this film at your own risk, or if you need an unintentional laugh. I am sure it appeals to someone. Statistically, it has to.

negative

This is an attempt, by both author Edgar Rice Burroughs and filmmakers, at an Arabian "Tarzan of the Apes". But, this desert-set film shows none of the majesty present in Burroughs' more successful jungle adventure. The focus is on the love between handsome English noble Jon Hall (as "El 'Lion" Chatham) and exotic Arab beauty Kathleen Burke (as "Princess" Eulilah), with revenge happening to coincide with their urge to merge. The opening states that, although guilty of conduct unbecoming, the lad's mother is living - but, she never re-enters the picture. Unfortunately, "The Lion Man" has deteriorated, and is looks like it's missing footage.<br /><br />*** The Lion Man (1936) John P. McCarthy ~ Jon Hall, Kathleen Burke, Ted Adams

negative

I watched this film not really expecting much, I got it in a pack of 5 films, all of which were pretty terrible in their own way for under a fiver so what could I expect? and you know what I was right, they were all terrible, this movie has a few (and a few is stretching it) interesting points, the occasional camcorder view is a nice touch, the drummer is very like a drummer, i.e damned annoying and, well thats about it actually, the problem is that its just so boring, in what I can only assume was an attempt to build tension, a whole lot of nothing happens and when it does its utterly tedious (I had my thumb on the fast forward button, ready to press for most of the movie, but gave it a go) and seriously is the lead singer of the band that great looking, coz they don't half mention how beautiful he is a hell of a lot, I thought he looked a bit like a meercat, all this and I haven't even mentioned the killer, I'm not even gonna go into it, its just not worth explaining. Anyway as far as I'm concerned Star and London are just about the only reason to watch this and with the exception of London (who was actually quite funny) it wasn't because of their acting talent, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but I've also seen a lot better. Best avoid unless your bored of watching paint dry.

negative

Dave (Devon Sawa) and his friends Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael Maronna) have scammed their way through college. When creepy Ethan (Jason Schwartzman) discovers their secret, he blackmails them into helping him score with beautiful, good-hearted student Angela (James King).<br /><br />Stupid and incompetent "comedy" - a lot more groan-inducing than laugh-inducing. Movie tries appealing to its target audience with its disgusting gags - but NONE OF THEM WORK. What's more, it's full of worthless, unappealing characters - and Schwartzman's character is so repulsive he's a major turn-off. Movie even tries using 50's/60's sexpot/actress Mamie Van Doren in the movie's most outrageous scene. YUCK!!!<br /><br />Further bringing it down are its utter predictability and the waste (yet again) of veteran comedic actor Joe Flaherty's talent - when's this guy going to stop accepting every role that comes along and do something worthwhile?<br /><br />All in all, the only thing I liked was James (a.k.a. Jaime) King, who was very appealing - and deserved better.<br /><br />This gets no more than one out of ten from me.

negative

God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!

negative

I am commenting on this miniseries from the perspective of someone who read the novel first. And from that perspective I can honestly say that while enjoyable, I can see why it hasn't been rebroadcast anytime recently. More specifically, this mini has some serious problems, such as:<br /><br />1) It is terribly miscast. The actors who played the younger generation were all 15 to 20 years older than the characters. Ali McGraw (45 at the time) was playing Natalie Jastrow who was supposed to be about 26. Jan-Michael Vincent (39 at the time) was playing Byron Henry who was supposed to be about 22. The other Henry children, and Pamela Tudsbury, were also played by actors way too old for characters who were supposed to be in their 20's.<br /><br />2) Some of the acting was absolutely awful. Ali McGraw at times almost made this mini unwatchable. I have seen more convincing performances in high school plays. <br /><br />3) The directing was poor. To be fair to Ali McGraw, the bad acting and character development were probably the directing. The portrayal of Hitler was way overdone. His character came off looking and behaving more like a cartoon villain than the charismatic, sometimes charming, but always diabolical genius Herman Wouk painted him as in the novel. Some of the other characters are done so stereotypically (Berel Jastrow) they do not gain the depth of character that Wouk created for them.<br /><br />4) This mini is very dated. The hokey music, the pretentious narration (it sounded like a junior high school history film narration), and the entire prime-time soap opera feel of the mini made it almost comical at times. Also, too often Byron and Natalie are costumed and made up to look like they are in 1979 rather than 1939.<br /><br />Someone who watches this without the benefit of reading the novel first will probably not sit through it all, because it will come off more as a late 70's / early 80's "take myself too seriously" prime-time soap drama, rather than the television version of what is certainly a modern American classic.<br /><br />Remakes of older movies and the like are sometimes poorly done, but this is probably one case where a creative and inspired director could make a very stunning, memorable, and critically acclaimed production. I don't ever see that happening since a remake would have to be just as long (15 hours) or longer to do it right, and given the short attention span of most of the current American viewing public, it wouldn't fly.

negative

This film is an hour or so of good entertainment and has some genuinely funny moments. I loved the character of Matt, and also Tiny. They seemed the most engaging and funny characters, and certainly the most interesting. Matt is very good (as is his no good cousin), and the police woman and the blonde biker woman provide some welcome eye candy. I must say I saw striking similarities between Matt and another Aussie actor, Eric Bana. My personal favourite part was the brothel scene, loved that. Overall, I liked the film and it'll get about an 8 rating. The penalty however, I was disappointed in. It was a side foot curl, rather than the appropriate laces blast.<br /><br />I am of course kidding. :)

positive

This one came out during the Western genre’s last gasp; unfortunately, it emerges to be a very minor and altogether unsatisfactory effort – even if made by and with veterans in the field! To begin with, the plot offers nothing remotely new: James Coburn escapes from a chain gang, intent on killing the man (now retired) who put him there – Charlton Heston. While the latter lays a trap for him, Coburn outwits Heston by kidnapping his daughter (Barbara Hershey). Naturally, the former lawman – accompanied by Hershey’s greenhorn fiancé (Chris Mitchum) – sets out in pursuit of Coburn and his followers, all of whom broke jail along with him.<br /><br />Rather than handling the proceedings in his customary sub-Fordian style, McLaglen goes for a Sam Peckinpah approach – with which he’s never fully at ease: repellent characters, plenty of violence, and the sexual tension generated by Hershey’s presence among Coburn’s lusty bunch. Incidentally, Heston and Coburn had previously appeared together in a Sam Peckinpah Western – the troubled MAJOR DUNDEE (1965; I really need to pick up the restored edition of this one on DVD, though I recently taped the theatrical version in pan-and-scan format off TCM UK). Anyway, the film is too generic to yield the elegiac mood it clearly strives for (suggested also by the title): then again, both stars had already paid a fitting valediction to this most American of genres – WILL PENNY (1968) for Heston and Coburn with PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID (1973)! <br /><br />At least, though, Heston maintains a modicum of dignity here – his ageing character attempting to stay ahead of half-breed Coburn by anticipating what his next move will be; the latter, however, tackles an uncommonly brutish role and only really comes into his own at the climax (relishing his moment of vengeance by sadistically forcing Heston to witness his associates’ gang-rape of Hershey). Apart from the latter, this lengthy sequence sees Heston try to fool Coburn with a trick borrowed from his own EL CID (1961), the villainous gang is then trapped inside a bushfire ignited by the practiced Heston and the violent death of the two ‘obsolete’ protagonists (as was his fashion, Heston’s demise takes the form of a gratuitous sacrifice!).<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Michael Parks as the ineffectual town sheriff, Jorge Rivero as Coburn’s Mexican lieutenant, and Larry Wilcox – of the TV series CHiPs! – as the youngest member of Coburn’s gang who’s assigned the task of watching over Hershey (while doing his best to keep his drooling mates away!). Jerry Goldsmith contributes a flavorful but, at the same time, unremarkable score.

negative

1939 is universally accepted as the greatest year in Hollywood history, with more classic films released than in any other, and John Ford directed three of the best, "Stagecoach", "Drums Along the Mohawk", and this beautiful homage to frontier days and a young backwoods lawyer destined to eventually save the Union, "Young Mr. Lincoln".<br /><br />With the world plunging into a war that America dreaded, but knew it would be drawn into, Abraham Lincoln was much on people's minds, in 1939, as someone who had faced the same dilemma in his own life, and had triumphed. On Broadway, Robert E. Sherwood's award-winning "Abe Lincoln in Illinois", with Raymond Massey's physically dead-on portrayal, was playing to packed houses (it would be filmed in 1940). Carl Sandburg's continuation of his epic biography, "Abraham Lincoln: The War Years", was published, and quickly became a best seller. President Roosevelt frequently referred to Lincoln in speeches, and the Lincoln Memorial, in Washington, D.C., became the most popular landmark in town (a fact that Frank Capra made good use of, in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington").<br /><br />All this was not lost on Darryl F. Zanuck, at 20th Century Fox; as soon as he read Lamar Trotti's screenplay of Lincoln's early days as a lawyer, he designated it a 'prestige' production, and assigned John Ford to direct, and Henry Fonda, to star.<br /><br />Fonda did NOT want to play Lincoln; he felt he couldn't do justice to the 'Great Emancipator', and feared a bad performance would damage his career. Even a filmed make-up test, in which he was stunned by how much he would resemble Lincoln, wouldn't change his mind. According to Fonda, John Ford, whom he'd never worked with, cussed him out royally, at their first meeting, and explained he wasn't portraying the Lincoln of Legend, but a young "jackanape" country lawyer facing his first murder trial. Humbled, Fonda took the role. (John Ford offered a different scenario of the events, but the outcome was the same!) Obviously, they found a chemistry together that worked, as nearly all of their pairings would produce 'classics'.<br /><br />Unlike the introverted, melancholia-racked Lincoln of "Abe Lincoln in Illinois", Ford's vision was that of a shy but likable young attorney, who made friends easily, and misses the mother he lost, too young (resulting in a bond with a pioneer mother that becomes a vital part of the story). Injustice riles him, and he speaks 'common sense' to quell violence, interlaced with doses of humor. Both productions play on Lincoln's (undocumented) relationship with Ann Rutledge; in Ford's version, the pair are truly in love, and committed to each other. After her death, Lincoln would frequently visit her grave, to share his life with her 'spirit' (a theme Ford would continue in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon").<br /><br />A murder trial is the centerpiece of the film, and shows the prodigious talents of the star and director. Fonda deftly portrays Lincoln's inexperience, yet earnest belief in justice tempered with mercy, and Ford emphasizes the gulf between the big-city 'intellectuals' (represented by pompous D.A. Donald Meek, and his slick 'advisor', Stephen Douglas, played by a young Milburn Stone), and the informal, rule-bending country sense of Lincoln. With Ford 'regular' Ward Bond as a key witness, the trial is both unconventional, and riveting.<br /><br />With the film closing as Lincoln strides away into the stormy distance, and his destiny (dissolving into a view of the statue at the Lincoln Memorial), audiences could take comfort in the film's message that if a cause is just, good would ultimately triumph.<br /><br />"Young Mr. Lincoln" is a truly remarkable film, from an amazing year!

positive

I haven't yet read the Kurt Vonnegut book this was adapted from, but I am familiar with some of his other work and was interested to see how it would be translated to the screen. Overall, I think this is a very successful adaptation of one of Vonnegut's novels. It concerns the story of an American living in Germany who is recruited as a spy for the US. His job is to ingratiate himself with high ranked Nazi's and send secret messages to the American's via his weekly radio show. But when the war ends he is denounced as a war criminal but escapes to New York, where various odd plot twists await.<br /><br />If Mother Night has a problem it's that it tends to get a little too sentimental at times. But for most of the film the schmaltz is kept to a minimum and the very strange plot is carried through with skill and aplomb. And there are some fabulous moments of black comedy involving three right wing Christian fundamentalists and a very highly ranked Nazi in a prison cell. Very much recommended.

positive

Terrible film made on a budget of about $9.99. Very obvious miniature sets used, poor acting and an awful storyline concerning aliens who use discarded meat from a butcher shop as fuel for their spaceship. The film contains some blood (not enough to disturb) and a character with an eggbeater replacing one of his hands. (Yes you read that correctly.)<br /><br />One saving grace was a song performed at the "talent show" (how's that for irony?) by a punk/new wave band that I think was called "I'm A Heat Seeking Missile". Other than that, this is not worth your time, not even on a "so bad it's good" level. Watch if you are into cheesy alien films, but anyone else should steer clear. <br /><br />Rating: 1 out of 10

negative

Not to be confused with the Resse Witherspoon high school film of the same name, this is a stylised look at Hong Kong's triad gangs. Called election because a new leader or 'chairman' is elected by ancient traditions every two years. Two candidates are up for the position and through ego, bribes and past track record the race is tense to say the least. Expertly directed to introduce you to an expansive cast without ever being confusing the story twists and turns before revealing itself in all its brutal glory. The Asian godfather this is not, but it is an enjoyable thriller in a gangster genre that will leave you on the edge of your seat and wincing at the violence. Subtitled volume 1 I think its safe to say there will other instalments as we go deeper into the murky world of the triads and all their feuding and underhand business deals. Either way this is a good start and if there are no sequels a great film in its own right.

positive

I went into this movie hoping for the best. I like wartime musicals in general. Dick Powell and Lucille Ball did good jobs with their roles; however, the writers gave them boring dialog. The love-interest between the two of them was not given any real growth; just suddenly it was there. I did not think much of the music; the best number was the snippet we heard of Spike Jones with "Der Fuhrer's Face." The one complete number that Spike Jones did had little of his great musical comedy; pretty tame stuff,even with the monkey. Bert Lahr's comedy skits were interminable.<br /><br />There were parts to enjoy: Lucille Ball was quite a looker, and there was a good selection of bit players who really deserved more time on screen.

negative

OK, here it is: "Nazi mountaineer befriends the Dalai Lama." What we do is, first we get a major star with no idea whatsoever how to do a Germanic accent, and we let him flounder around between French, German, American, and British for over 2 hours. Then we concoct a series of wildly improbable events and space them apart very widely, so that the plot inches along almost imperceptibly. But just to make sure the viewer doesn´t fall asleep, we throw in details which are shockingly absurd, such as our hero smoking a cigarette at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Naturally, we must also remember that our target audience does not want to read too many subtitles, so we have every character, even the lowliest peasant in the forbidden closed-off city of Lhasa in 1943, speak perfect English, also with dubious accents. Of course, the trickiest part is how to handle the spiritual and political aspects of the story, so what we do is this: we have the Dalai Lama befriend the now-reformed Nazi because the latter is so good at fiddling with film projectors, radios, antique cars, and any other devices with represent the freedom of the capitalist west. In return, our hero learns from his young protegé a kind of vague, undefined Buddhism which is never really brought out or treated in a serious fashion. We also have lots of scenes with the hero flaunting all the marks of respects and protocol which the rest of the Tibetan society accords the Dalai Lama, even as we pretend that the hero has deep and profound reverence for these people and their spiritual leader. In other words, we just expect the audience to believe that this guy is now a Buddhist, sort of, in his own way, even though we ourselves don´t seem to know what his transformation entails or how far we want it to go. And last but not least, we hang a statistic onto the end of the film about how appallingly the Chinese have treated the Tibetans (which is certainly true), thus opening ourselves up to charges that we have made a "political" movie, even though it is nothing of the sort. So, zat ist my idea. Vat do you zink? Can ve make zis movie?

negative

This is not horror, as the first part was: This is ("campy") light and humorous entertainment. Like in so many sequels, the action starts right away with no explanations. But there's boobs, so I don't complain. And real boobs that is. If I understand correctly, those are quite rare today amongst the teenage girls in U.S. of A. Which brings to my mind the fact that the main actress here is Pamela "Bruce's sister" Springsteen.<br /><br />This cannot be thought without the first movie, so I compare this to it. Again there is too small clothing (mainly pants) and funny hair, it's not hard to tell what decade this film is made in. Again there is really strange characters, this time even more visibly "pathological" ones. Especially the personnel of the camp. It's like some mental rehabilitation summer camp. People are older: Most of the actors must be at least 25, but I think they're supposed to be 16 or something. Some "methods" used by the Evil Dyke are quite unpleasant. Actually this movie don't have much in common with the first part, and this is worse than it in every way.

negative

I saw mommy...well, she wasn't exactly kissing Santa Clause; he has his hand on her thigh and wicked thoughts in mind.<br /><br />This was enough to emotionally scar a young boy who wanted to believe. He grew up to be a bitter man who was upset at the quality of the toys being made, and the lack of Christmas spirit.<br /><br />Expecting a real slasher flick, I was very disappointed that less than a handful of people dies, and there was no nudity at all. What a bummer.<br /><br />I wanted to like this flick, but it was just too slow and really didn't have a good script. I didn't expect great acting, but I sure wanted some action. There just wasn't any.

negative

My wife and I started to watch this movie with anticipation. It looked warm and touching. It started out well; but, soon became boring and frankly idiotic after a while. It got so bad that we turned it off The movie was poorly acted and honesty, we couldn't really understand or wanted to understand what exactly why or how the hell they could put up with this woman! You lost sympathy for her after she was rude and acting wackos singing and cleaning. I would have had her committed. And, of course, like most movies and T.V series made in Hollywood we have to throw it a token "gay" character! This movie was boring. I was expecting more from Diane Keaton!

negative

The master of movie spectacle Cecil B. De Mille goes West. Using three legends of the old west as its protagonists (they probably never met),Gary Cooper is portraying Wild Bill Hickock,James Ellison as Buffalo Bill and Jean Arthur does make a nice Calamity Jane. The story serves only for De Mille to hang some marvelous action sequences on, like the big Indian attack.Scenes like that are extremely well done.If you don't mind the somewhat over-the-top performances of the cast this is an very entertaining western.Look out for a very young Anthony Quinn essaying the role of an Indian brave who participated at the battle of Little Big Horn.This part got him at least noticed in Hollywood.

positive

I have to start by telling you how I came across this movie.It was winter time in Alaska around the year 1990.A friend of mine from Australia was staying with me and my girl friend in a shoe box of an apartment.Winters in Alaska can be a bit brutal and most people stay indoors,drink heavily and watch anything that comes on the television.I had found this movie outside of a thrift store laying in a snowbank and right away new it was a treasure.It is quite possibly the best worst movie ever.We spent the next two weeks watching this movie and drinking like fish.We watched it so many times in fact that we would sometimes turn the television on its side or upside down for a more full filling effect.It is a true gem.The laughs will come nonstop and the memories last forever.If you see this movie for rent in a video store,steal it.You won't regret it!

positive

The Gospel of Lou was a major disappointment for me. I had received an E-Mail from the theater showing it that it was a great and inspirational movie. It was neither great nor inspirational. The cinematography was pretty iffy with the whole movie. A lot the scenes were flash backs that were done in a way that couldn't tell at times what they were about. The voices were often distorted for no reason. Also many of the people in the movie were far fetched. The relationship he has with his ex & son is never made clear. Also the whole movie has most him one way, and then all of a sudden BAM, he is cured and inspiring people. The whole movie seems to show that boxing is one of the things that is bad in his life, making him live his life the way that he is living it, but when he changes, he doesn't leave boxing, he teaches others how to box. Thumbs Down.

negative

Soulless milking of cash cow franchise. Generic superhero flick. CGI showcase. Gavin Hood's "A Series of Improbable Events." Combinatoric iteration of mutant fight scenes strung together by inane exposition justifying formation/dissolution of arbitrary alliances. I'm not expecting Shakespeare here but the cliché per minute meter was off the charts: Primal scream while looking skyward and kneeling over murdered girlfriend. Renegade military commander. Predictable double crosses. Revenge sought for slain lover. Erased memories. Evil character discovering morality at last minute. Misguided failures to execute nemeses after defeating them in melee. Lover not really dead. Lover actually acting as spy for hero's arch-nemesis. Girlfriend/spy actually falls for protagonist. Good people work for antagonist in order to save kidnapped family members. Evil mastermind fails to honor promises to reluctant employees. Kindly old couple care for weary hero and get murdered for their troubles. Certain deaths averted as third parties arrive on scene before coup de grace. Hero reluctantly joining secret government agency. Abandonment of elite squad in protest over slaughter of innocents. Scientists unable to control indestructible killing machine of their own creation. Outdated but lovable government 'secret weapon' kills off better designed but heartless successor. Hero strolls away from wreck and casually lights a trail of gasoline behind him. After everyone has given up, flatlined heart monitor picks up a pulse. Evil mastermind explains plans to hero he no longer sees as a threat. Hero refuses to kill defeated foe because he's "better than that". Transparent comic relief character makes hilarious understatements and offbeat comments. Cheerful psychopath revels in random murderous rampages. Nigh indestructible Goliaths hurl one another through a series of walls and other physical traumas that would kill a mere mortal. Man dispatches dozens of gun wielding enemies with nothing but skillful swordplay. Common sense and the laws of physics, biology and chemistry temporarily abandoned. Antagonist using loved one's murder as justification for misguided crusade.<br /><br />I could go on but this is just exhausting. If you're over the age of twelve and not living in mom's basement, there's probably nothing here for you. Depressingly enough, it's not too far off of par for superhero movies so discount all I've written if you can't get enough of the genre.

negative

Slashers.....well if you like horrors its definitely one to see, otherwise don't even bother.It is completely obvious that this film has an extremely low budget, For instance it looks as if the entire film has been shot in a warehouse somewhere, and on numerous occasions you will see the mike boom shadow and the camera mans shadow, trust me you wont need to look for them.Also try to ignore the cheesy actors, if thats what you call them!!The basic outline is a few people decide to go on a game show where they have to survive a night in a big maze due to their being 3 killers on the loose and whoever live's at the end gets rich. Now there is something about this film that keeps you watching and rarely do you find that with a cheap budget horror these days,For example when i watched it i thought to my self i would'nt mind having a go at this game! especially for $12.000.000. so anyway i would recommend you watch it and make up your own mind.

negative

This movie was terrible. Throughout the whole movie, I was puzzled and did not see any point to it. I had to go to this site and read the review to finally understand what it was about. This movie is not worth watching at all. Not only is it sick and revolting but totally STUPID! Please don't watch unless you are one of those that likes to watch bad movies. If this movie questions Japanese society and their values and roles, than this is a country that i would not like to visit or bother to know. This is a totally sick movie!!!!!!!! I did not enjoy it because it made no sense. My boyfriend and I sat there waiting to see if it was a horror because that is what it was listed under. It was total disappointment.

negative

'Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)' opens, appropriately, with Dana Andrews' and Gene Tierneys' names inscribed on the sidewalk, as dirty water streams down between the bars of a sewer grate. The sidewalk represents respectability, integrity and morality – only crooks and delinquents walk in the gutter. But even the most honourable of men have a tendency to misstep on occasion, and, when the sidewalk abruptly comes to an end, sometimes it proves impossible to avoid getting one's shoes wet. Mark Dixon (Dana Andrews) was born in the gutter, his father a professional criminal, and has spent his entire life clawing his way back onto the sidewalk, perpetually balanced on the edge of the kerb. As a police detective, Dixon wants nothing more than to display the decency and integrity that his father lacked, but he possesses a mean-streak that he can't escape. When his quick temper leaves a murder suspect dead, Dixon finds himself becoming the very father whom he despised, a cheap criminal who'll cheat and lie to cover up his offence.<br /><br />'Where the Sidewalk Ends' was the only film to reunite Dana Andrews, Gene Tierney and director Otto Preminger after the superb 'Laura (1944),' though the two films, as far as noir goes, couldn't be further apart. Whereas the earlier picture had the strong intimacy of a country-house murder tale, this film is more conventional as a gritty urban police drama. Given her ravishingly memorable performance as Laura Hunt, it's unfortunate that here Tierney is grossly underused, occupying the typical niche of the pretty, helpless romantic interest {much as she did that same year in Jules Dassin's 'The Night and the City (1950)'}. Andrews, on the other hand, has rarely been better, exhibiting a toughness and unhinged anger that I hadn't expected of him. Gary Merrill is suitably smug as the crime boss Scalise, but he doesn't seem mean enough for the role, and I think that an actor like Richard Conte (who played Mr. Brown in 'The Big Combo (1955)') would have better suited the character; I hadn't realised this, but Conte appeared just one year earlier in Preminger's 'Whirlpool (1949).'<br /><br />The tension, as Dixon attempts to cover up his accidental crime, is absolutely riveting – certainly among the most suspenseful sequences of its era – though I feel that the situation still wasn't exploited to its full potential. The taxi driver is the only person who could have decisively identified Dixon as the perpetrator, but Preminger hurriedly skims over the moment when he passes Dixon on the stairs. Had the witness been brought in as Dixon was re-enacting his own movements outside the apartment entrance, we could have had some genuine fireworks. And why, for that matter, couldn't the taxi driver's testimony have immediately absolved Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully) from suspicion of murder? Niggling inconsistencies such as these tarnish an otherwise excellent screenplay from Ben Hecht, who infuses his gritty criminal underworld with hard-hitting cops and wise-cracking felons. Andrews' seething and implosive law-enforcer, tormented by rage and remorse, has rarely been done better, at least the equal of Robert Ryan in Nicholas Ray's 'On Dangerous Ground (1952).'

positive

I don't want to spend to long here rambling about the plot- you've seen the trailer, and if you haven't its online. I don't recommend seeing it though- it was poorly crafted and didn't pack any of the laughs or magic from the film. So those avoiding this film due to its lousy trailer should give this one a chance. It's really funny. I was blown away by the cleverness and originality in this film. The first 40 minutes had me on the floor in hysterics- my only problem was that it unnecessarily evolved into a bad Austin Powers film in the final 20. This however, is one of the few films where the campy ending didn't make me dislike the rest of the film (which is normally the case). Everyone gives a great performance (especially Joan Cusack) and there are some really great moments throughout. I personally plan on seeing it again when it comes out- only to catch all the details which I was laughing over during the first viewing!

positive

I haven't seen this movie in a while, so I'm afraid I can't be very specific about details... It did have some interesting points. Ralph Bakshi's attempt at an animated adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's masterpiece was a very ambitious project, so ambitious in fact that it went bankrupt at some point during the production. Therefore, not only does it stop abruptly somewhere around the middle of the second book of the trilogy (with sort of a shade of a hint of a sequel that was never made), the film itself seems less than finished. It seems that some characters were animated while others were filmed, but whether or not it's intentional is hard to say. The whole thing seems shabbily made and undone, especially the Orcs and the Nazgul. Another problem, of course, is the huge gaps in the plot. Bakshi was in a rush to finish this movie, and he somehow hoped to cram a book and a half in little more than two hours (the new trilogy by Peter Jackson does it in about twice that time.) Far too many important bits were left out (and I don't refer only to Tom Bombadil, which, I think, was lovely in the book but would look silly in a movie.) And of course, the ending, which is completely sudden and out of place. I'm not even sure if Bakshi originally intended to end the film there, or if he even had any idea where he's going to end it.<br /><br />The characters... well, most of them were okay. The hobbits don't look so bad (except for the gay Sam. Did you know that the producers of the new trilogy originally wanted to make Sam a woman so there would be a feminine lead character?) If you're a Tolkien fanatic (like me), watch this movie (though I'm not too sure about buying it. What special features does the DVD version have, anyway?) But know in advance that you're not going to watch a real 'Lord Of The Rings Movie' but not much more than a historical curiosity, which probably looks not much better than the 60s version would have had the Beatles carried on with their plan (I actually think a psychedelic LOTR could have been quite cool. The idea was to cast George as Gandalf, Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam and John as Gollum.) If you didn't read the book or didn't like it much or don't like animation films or don't want to see a half-finished movie... stay away.

negative

The point of Wolfe's original novel -- indeed the point of the whole story -- is that things take place because of a carefully calculated sense of expediency. The goal is survival within a particular kind of life style. The novel is full of malice. The only relationship that rings emotionally true is that between Sherman and his daughter, Campbell, and that's only touched upon. That aside, everyone is out for what he can get in the way of publicity, power, money or self aggrandizement.<br /><br />Wolfe was criticized for hitting every character and every social segment of New York City over the head. His response was a denial. After all, he lived in New York himself and belonged to a neighborhood improvement committee and other admirable organizations, exactly the qualifications one would want on his resume in order to deny that he disliked New Yorkers. (Wolfe has a PhD in American Studies from Yale and is no dummy.) Those supposed weaknesses are what made the novel memorable. Nobody was any good. And Sherman McCoy wound up broke, a professional protester for social justice. The movie throws all of that away and imposes a moral frame on the story that simply doesn't fit. Wolfe did his homework. The novel was rooted in reality. Every event was not only possible but thoroughly believable. Wolfe might have made a great cultural anthropologist -- he knows how to get inside a system and record its details.<br /><br />Yes, any of us might have found ourselves, as Sherman and his mistress do, stuck in the South Bronx, threatened by a couple of black kids, and making a getaway after bumping into one of them. That scene is transferred neatly from print to celluloid. <br /><br />But after that scene the movie seems not to trust its audience and at times become frantic in its attempt to spell out its message, however nebulous the message is. <br /><br />Sherman might accidentally hit some kid and be arrested for it as he is in the novel, but he would not immediately upon his release from jail go back to his phenomenally expensive condo, take out a shotgun, and start shooting into the ceiling with it, as he does in the movee. In what's supposed to be a funny scene, ceiling plaster falls all over the party guests and they scurry away, shrieking. It simply would not have happened. The movie has left the novel's unspeakably detailed reality in the dust. Wolfe's sensibility, the work he put into capturing the real, has been lost. What we get instead is a noisy, fantastic, and silly scene that doesn't do anything except wake the audience up. Similar empty scenes follow, screaming out for Wolfe's verisimilitude.<br /><br />The movie also fails because it thrusts a lot of sin and redemption into an entertaining story of moral nihilism. Here we see "Don Juan in Hell" at the opera. We get lectures on redemption from a poet with AIDs. We see a lot of guilt in Sherman. A black judge who preaches from the bench and gives one of those final speeches about how we all have to start behaving nicely again. A reporter who feels sorry for Sherman after turning him into a sacrificial lamb. And a happy ending in which Sherman gets off by breaking the law with an idiotic grin. The scene sits on the movie like a jester's cap on a circus elephant's head. <br /><br />The movie not only makes points that are already trite and unoriginal, it overstates them, as if the audience were incapable of absorbing any subtleties.<br /><br />It's not the acting or the direction that's poor. The film's not bad in those respects. And the photography is pretty good too, including two rather spectacular shots -- the gargoyles of the Chrysler building and the landing of the Concorde. It's the script that is thoroughly botched.<br /><br />The first half of the movie, roughly, is okay in conception and execution. It keeps some of the little details from the novel. Sherman and Judy's dog is named Marshall. Who the hell would name a dog Marshall? It loses its focus almost completely in the second half and on the whole is barely worth watching.<br /><br />Wolfe's cynical redneck right-wingism may be offensive to a lot of people, but he's got the cojones to lay his percepts out. Alas the writers and producers did not have the courage to pick them up and thus blew the chance to make a fascinating study of New Yorkers.

negative

I barely remember this show, a little ,but I remembered it was great! My eldest brother, reminded me about the show recently and I had seen an advertisement for the D.V.D set coming out. The network, again screwed up in pulling this from the air, so that they could put what else in it's place? It should have gone at least 3 seasons. Why not, right? I think sometimes that the network executives think they are the 'gods' of the entertainment world. But they mis-guess and flat out miss good show placement from time to time. Let it be said that, they have a lot more flops than 'hits'. This was one of the poor decisions to cut from the line-up. Anyhow, I am getting this for my collection.

positive

This movie was great! It was an excellent rendition of an ancient myth. The animation was somewhat odd, but nothing new from Disney. It was definitely better than expected for a Disney movie with no singing.<br /><br />The background animation was magical. It was a different level of work for the Disney people. Some of the characters were a little boxy, but it was more than made up for with the beauty and lushness of the scenery. The music was largely instrumental but that was perfect for the movie. This was definitely not a film that needed the characters to bust into song.<br /><br />Perfect. 10 out of 10.

positive

I grew up with this as my all-time favorite film. The special effects are incredible for the era, and won awards. I can remember the dialogue as if I'd heard it yesterday. It is simply a great, timeless adventure. The music is by Miklos Rosza, who is cinema history's best. Sabu is the Thief. Conrad Veidt is the grand villain. I have a copy within reach, for the next trip down memory lane. Whoa there! Rex Ingram wants out of his genii bottle!

positive

Me and a friend rented this movie because it sounded really good. But we were wrong. First of the acting....wow...the acting was the worst, the effects were really bad as well, it seemed like a film a college kid made. The plot was pretty good, but it'd been done. The thing that ruined the movies the most were the actors. The main guy was the worst actor ever...it's a shame I'm even calling him an actor...The only good thing about this movie was it was so bad it was funny...so if you want a good laugh see it....but other than that...stay far away from this one. I usually love B list movies and such, but this one... I do not know how it was passed to even be put on video...this one is the worst I've seen..and I've seen some bad ones.

negative

I just watched it. A couple of laughs, but nothing to write home about. Jason Lee looked like he was having fun. The (long) DVD gag reel consists almost solely of him having fits of uncontrollable laughter. Selma Blair seemed to be punching a time clock, but then again, her character was supposed to be a stick in the mud, so "well done" I guess? Jim Brolin was surprisingly funny. (Being married to Babs can't be a picnic.) The soundtrack was hip, and eclectic. Larry Miller, who played Julia Stiles father (hilariously), in 10 Things I Hate About You is funny here as well. He's great, but the best aspect of this movie was the casting of Julia Stiles. I could spend two hours watching her fold laundry, and I feel like I just did.

negative

It is a Frank Zappa axiom that "music journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." If you ever needed proof that musicians can't talk, this is the film for you. Repeated attempts at profundity stumble over themselves to end up in monosyllabic comments delivered in awestruck voices: "Wow." (Thank you, Idris Muhammed.) This film is pretentious but, while much of the pontificating from Youssou N'Dour and his gang of merry men (and one token woman) grates, the music saves the day.<br /><br />The main idea behind the film (what I take to be the main idea, dredged out of the inarticulate commentary) is interesting. To gather a group of musicians from America and Europe and take them on a journey through the different styles of music that grew up in and out of slavery, back to their roots in the music of West Africa, and a concert in the old slave fort of Gorée off the coast of Senegal. We are treated to gospel, blues, jazz and variations of these, including some fantastic drumming both in New Orleans and Senegal. There's also a good deal of N'Dour's own compositions.<br /><br />Sadly, that's another weakness. It's never entirely clear what N'Dour himself wants to achieve. To some degree, the film appears to be an exercise in self-promotion on N'Dour's part. He wants to play his own music, jazzed up to some degree and performed in the company of a bunch of musicians he admires. He's clearly a little embarrassed by this and early in the film obtains the blessings of the Curator of the Gorée museum.<br /><br />The clash between the different agendas shows through in several other places. For example, somebody obviously felt that it was not possible to tell the story of black music without involving a gospel choir, but N'Dour and most of his mates are Moslems (a point made repeatedly throughout the film). The whole early sequence involving the black Christians is uncomfortable and then they disappear from the story until the close harmony group (the only black Christians who can hold a tone?) turn up in Dakar at the end of the film. (To be fair, they turn up triumphantly and perform the best piece in the film.) If the story of black music needs to nod in the direction of gospel, why not also in the direction of Latin America? Where are the black musical influences from the Caribbean and Brazil? Samba? Reggae? Then there's Europe. Here the black diaspora doesn't seem to have produced any musicians of calibre, since N'Dour chooses to draft in Austrian guitarist and a trumpet player from Luxemburg. Are they in the team just because N'Dour has played with him before? What I personally found most irritating, though, was the long sequence which tried to recreate a kind of 60s beatnik/black power/Nation of Islam cultural happening in the New York home of Amir Baraka (a.k.a. Leroi Jones). Hearing people talk about the importance of "knowing your history", and then in the next breath perpetuating ignorance. Why do so many African-Americans believe that taking an Arabic name is an assertion of their African roots? And why do they think Arabic Islam is so much more admirable than European Christianity? Who do they think established the trade in African slaves in the first place? The film doesn't have much to say about the situation in West Africa today beyond the platitude that "present conditions" are a consequence of all the brightest and best having been shipped away for 300 years. The Senegalese appear to be a poor but happy, musical gifted folk, friendly and welcoming, respectful of their elders (and not above fleecing the visiting Americans in the fish market). Is this ethnic stereotyping or just my imagination? There is no comment on the armed guard that N'Dour and the camera crew seem to need in the opening sequence as they walk through the streets of Dakar.<br /><br />There is also a strong implication in the film that the slaves who were taken from Dakar came from Dakar. The similarity between the folk drumming style of New Orleans and the folk drumming style of Senegal is cited in evidence. The last thing the slaves heard before they were shipped away was the drumming of their homeland, bidding them farewell. Except, of course, that by and large, the slaves shipped from Dakar did not come from Dakar. They were captured or traded from the interior by the coastal Senegalese and sold to merchants of whichever European power currently held the Gorée slave fort. The people of Dakar are not the descendents of Africans who escaped the slave trade, they are just as likely – more likely – to be descendents of the people who sold their black brethren into slavery and exile.<br /><br />The two agenda's clash again in the final part of the film. There are two separate endings. On the one hand, the concert which N'Dour and Co have been rehearsing and preparing along the way and which they deliver in the courtyard of the Gorée slave fort. The other end comes when the Harmony Harmoneers sing the spiritual "Return to Glory", in the seaward doorway of the slave fort. This is deeply moving, even if it is hard to believe the performance is quite as spontaneous as it appears.<br /><br />This is a film that is flawed. Unclear of the story it is trying to tell and tugged in different directions. Irritating, confusing, beautiful and emotional by turns. Watch it (listen to it) for the music and the feeling, but don't expect enlightenment or intellectual rigour.

negative

For all its visual delights, how much better Renaissance would have been in live action. The animation is fantastic in the big picture, yes, but the characters are cold and hollow, much like the story and the style of this film. With real actors, perhaps the world of the film would not have felt so lifeless. There is much to admire here, but at the end I found that all I could do was admire. I did not enjoy the movie that much, and it clarifies something that I did not see before: that the visual elements can be the defining positive aspect of a film, but without a good story and strong characters, it can all be for nothing. I will not go so far as to say that this movie comes to nothing, but sometimes it comes dangerously close. I love Dark sci-fi thrillers. Blade Runner and Dark City are two films I thought were wonderful. But Blade Runner had its tragic villain and Dark City had its thought-provoking story arc. Renaissance has shadow and light, but little else. I wish I could have liked this movie more, but the weak story and the empty characters stood in the way of that. The Renaissance was a historical and artistic burst of color and life. How ironic, then, that one of the most bleak and lifeless movies I've seen this year takes its title from the Renaissance.

negative

Paulie sounds like the most saccharine, lachrymose and sentimental garbage you could ever find, yet it's actually much better than you might expect. The daftness of the plot could so easily have set the tone for the whole film, but actually in most other departments the film is charming.<br /><br />In case you're wondering, Paulie is a parrot. Bought for a little girl with speech difficulties, Paulie becomes her best friend and goes everywhere with her. He even sits on her shoulder during speech therapy lessons, and eventually becomes a super-intelligent speaker himself. However, Paulie is sent away by the little girl's mother and he spends the rest of the film trying to get from N.Y.C to L.A to be re-united with her.<br /><br />So, why does this awful-sounding film succeed relatively well? Firstly, it boasts some interesting and impressive animatronic effects. Secondly (and far more significantly) it has the courage to embrace its ludicrous premise and tells a genuinely moving, often humourous story without worrying too much about the obvious flaws in the storyline. Thirdly, it has several surprisingly strong performances, including Jay Mohr as a wily crook, Gena Rowlands as a kind old lady, and Cheech Marin (yes, the dope-smoking Cheech Marin!) as a musical immigrant. It might not be a classic, but Paulie is sound entertainment for kids of all ages.

positive

In France, it's considered polite from French critics to genuflect to the apparently cohesive chain of films Brian De Palma left behind him. However, a good proportion of his films are marred by bombastic effects "Carrie" (1976), "the Fury" (1978) "Scarface" (1983) without mentioning his borrowings from Hitchcock. Here, in "Dressed to Kill", it's impossible not to think of "Vertigo" (1958) for the long sequence in the museum while the key moment in the lift makes inevitably think of the shower anthology sequence in "Psycho" (1960). About our involved film, I don't want to revive the old debate: does De Palma rip off Hitchcock? Instead, i would tend to be generous and to classify "Dressed to Kill" in the category of De Palma's winners alongside "Sisters" (1973) and "Obssession" (1976). With however some reservations and they're the ones I previously enumerated which fuel the bickering between De Palma's rabid fans and his detractors.<br /><br />If there's one sure thing in "Dressed to Kill" which can generate general agreement among film-lovers, it's De Palma's virtuosity in directing. He wields his camera just like a filmmaker expert is supposed to do. His sophisticated camera work brilliantly fuels the suspense which entails a rise of the tension and a discomforting aura. The audience is easily glued in front of the screen. This is helped by the use of several long silent sequences during which everything depends on looks and gestures. By the way, in "Psycho", there were also long silent, suspenseful parts...<br /><br />But the main drawback in De Palma's 1980 vintage is that the quality of the plot can't be found wanting and appears to be a rehash of many formulaic, corny ingredients pertaining to an incalculable number of murder stories. The prostitute is the sole witness of the crime. Then, she's suspected by the police and has to act on her own (with a little help from the victim's son from the scene in the subway onwards)) to track down the murderer and to prove her innocence. Apart from the fact that De Palma uses a type of character who for once isn't demeaned at all, it's a menu which smells the reheated. And the filmmaker ends his film on a sequence that echoes to the opening one. Yes, it's superbly filmed but when one discovers its real function, one figures: "it's almost gratuitous filler". Perhaps De Palma wanted to stretch his film beyond one hour and a half when at this time the viewer knows (and even before) who the killer is.<br /><br />The two central mainsprings in De Palma's set of themes articulate hinges on manipulation and voyeurism. The latter theme is well present in "Dressed to Kill" from the first scene onwards which makes the film almost look like a soft porn movie. And the filmmaker isn't afraid to film his main actress and wife Nancy Allen in her underwear. I find his approach about this theme rather doubtful. But maybe the first sequence was conceived to be a mirror of the viewer and De Palma wanted to stir his peeping tom side.<br /><br />I don't want to demean at all De Palma's work. His prestigious work in directing which entails a communicative treat to film redeems the global weakness of the story and its doubtful aspects. Twenty six years after, the controversy he aroused amid movie-goers isn't ready to subside.

positive

"The Tenant" is Roman Polanski's greatest film IMO. And I love "Chinatown", but this one is so much more original and unconventional and downright creepy. It's also a great black comedy. Some people I have shown this film to have been *very disturbed* by it afterwards so be forewarned it does affect some people that way. Polanski does a great job acting the lead role in "The Tenant" as well as directing it.

positive

This film is pure, distilled, unadulterated boredom. I knew nothing of it before I entered the dark room, took my seat. I was seduced by the "mysterious and suspenseful" blurb on the poster I suppose. Also, Lena Headey is nice and unconventionally sexy, and Richard Jenkins is always a reliable guy to have around, so the cast seemed reasonable. It may have been his name above the title that convinced me to go with this instead of whatever else was on. I should've gone to see Valkyrie for the second time instead.<br /><br />The thin plot revolves around Headley's Gina McVey, her boyfriend, her father, her sister and her sister's husband who for some reason are being stalked, in a very louche and unenthusiastic manner, by their evil doppelgangers who emerge from mirrors that mysteriously smash. There could be a great film behind this idea (not exactly an original idea, mind you, but still...) and in fact, if the filmmakers had shorn away all the supporting cast and simply stuck to Headey's character's story, The Broken could've made a reasonable 20-minute short. As it is, it is desperately unmotivated and boring, and terribly inconsistent.<br /><br />For instance, in one scene, a mirror smashes on its own in a room housing all the main characters; they look puzzled but quickly forget about it. In another scene, a mirror smashes in an empty room, and a doppelganger is visible as she "steps out" of the shards left hanging on the wall. So why did the first mirror smash if no creepy crawly was to come crawling out? Just for a little thrill? There are far too many scenes of the characters in the dimly-lit London flats, peering around corners cos they thought they heard something, but seeing nothing there and moving on. We begin to wonder, why doesn't this malevolent doppelgang actually ever want to try to scare them? Scare the characters and you have a chance of scaring the audience. But we, the audience, will need to start threatening each other, in the darkness of the theater, if we want to have any thrills during The Broken. By the way, once we've spent time with these evil doubles, we are totally bemused as to why anyone should be expected to be frightened of them - they just stand around, blank looks on their faces, perhaps totally harmless after killing their others.<br /><br />There are some nice moods and touches throughout, and I dare say director Sean Ellis could fashion a genuinely stylish and suspenseful mystery movie if he was to hire an imaginative screenwriter next time.

negative

I suppose all the inside jokes is what made Munchies a cult classic. I thought it was awful, though given the ridiculous story and the nature of the characters, it probably could've been a much better (and funnier) movie. Maybe all they needed was a real budget.<br /><br />Munchies, as many viewers have pointed out already, is something of a Gremlins parody. Hence, all the references to the movie. The movie begins somewhere in Peru during an archeological dig. An annoying dufus named Paul, aspiring stand up comedian who offers no sarcasm or witty jokes during the movie despite his career plans, is holed up with his dad in the caves. His dad is an unconventional kind of archeologist, searching the caves not for artificats or mummies or anything, but proof of U.F.O.'s. And that's where the Munchies come into the picture. Hidden in the crevice of a rock is an ugly little mutant that looks like a gyrating rubber doll with a Gizmo voice. They name him Arnold, stash him in a bag, and bring him home so Paul's dad can finally show proof of extra terrestrial life.<br /><br />Paul, the idiot that he is, breaks his promise to his dad to watch Arnold (a wager he made with his dad, if he loses, it's off to community college to get a 'real' career). The creepy next door neighbor with the bad rug, Cecil (television veteran Harvey Korman), wonders what his neighbors are up to. So, he and his lazy son, some airhead hippie type (who looks more like they should've made his character a biker or heavy metal enthusiast) to go and snatch Arnold. Why? A get rich quick scheme of course. And of course, even Cecil's son is too dumb to look after Arnold. And after a few pokes and prods at Arnold, he multiplies into more Munchies.<br /><br />This wasn't even a movie that was so bad it was good. It was just plain awful. I was hoping that the Munchies would've mutated and killed the morons that were always after them, even Paul and his girlfriend. At least it would be one way to get rid of all the bad acting in this movie that really hams up the movie. Not to mention poor special effects that look like hand puppets. And really bad writing all around--it wasn't even funny--not even that young cop who can really give you the homicidal twitch in your eye. Like I said, Munchies, if they had been given an actual budget and better actors, they might've been able to pull off a good parody. Pass.

negative

This is a movie that is bad in every imaginable way. Sure we like to know what happened 12 years from the last movie, and it works on some level. But the new characters are just not interesting. Baby Melody is hideously horrible! Alas, while the logic that humans can't stay underwater forever is maintained, other basic physical logic are ignored. It's chilly if you don't have cold weather garments if you're in the Arctic. I don't know why most comments here Return of Jafar rates worse, I thought this one is more horrible.

negative

...........as I was when I saw this movie) I will never watch this movie again, not because it is a bad movie, but because it scared me so much! As I said, I was 14 when my English teacher decided to show it to us; the reason for this is that we had read an extract from the book.<br /><br />All the girls in my class were TERRIFIED when the Woman in Black comes through the window and floats over Kidd's bed, although, just before that there is something that also frightened us, which was when Kidd finds the toy soldier underneath his pillow, and he hears a child's voice say "It's for you". That scene still haunts me to this day, nearly 7 YEARS after I saw the film.<br /><br />If you are easily scared, AVOID THIS FILM!!!!!!!!

positive

I am not a parent, neither am I a male. But I was able to identify with every character's heartaches and pains.<br /><br />This is a movie teenagers should watch. Maybe that way they will start appreciating the value of family again. I'm sorry for those that don't understand the value of love, family and friendship.<br /><br />It was very interesting to watch Patrick Duffy in a different role than that of Bobby Ewing. And it is great to see a 19 year old Ben Affleck giving his best in a moving and sincere performance. He showed at an early age, that he is capable of heartfelt drama. He should be offered more serious roles. Note Hollywoodland... his first serious role in years and he went out and won Best Actor at the Venice Festival in 2006.<br /><br />This movie can be appreciated by people of all ages. Maybe shouldn't be watched by children under 10 because they might get scared that the same may happen to their families, but I recommend it to the entire family.<br /><br />I bought this movie on DVD and have watched it with friends many times. Because it portrays the values that are important in life.

positive

To say this film stinks would be insulting to skunks. As the other commenter says, this movie is insulting to anyone over the mental age of 7 (it is especially, incredibly insulting to gays). It is awful - and not in a "so bad it's funny" sort of way either - it's just plain awful. No, I have to say it: IT STINKS! (sorry skunks).<br /><br />From the opening credits to the end titles there is hardly more than 10 seconds of this movie worth opening your eyes for. The "plot" is incoherent, the characterization non-existent, the acting is of the over the top mugging "look at me I'm being funny!" school and so it goes on. The set pieces are clumsily set up (if at all) and are badly executed, it's just awful on every front - apart from the music maybe, I don't remember thinking the music stinks (apart from the songs).<br /><br />To be fair to the makers, they lay their cards on the table pretty quickly: the opening credits include the title "Also starring Ertha Kitt as the voice of Betty the meteor" (since as the meteor in question turns out never never say anything but make an occasional purring noise they may well have lifted Ms. Kitt's contribution from one of her records) and the second line of the movie runs something like: "...and scientists have discovered new facts about the rings around Uranus." Uranus - "Your Anus" geddit? geddit? huh? huh?? Your Anus? The humour really is that cheap.<br /><br />It says strange things about the "comedies" of that period in that it was perfectly permissable for the hero to deliberately shoot people dead in the street but not say "sh*t" out loud.<br /><br />I paid fifty pence (about $1.00) for this movie in a sale. I feel ripped off.

negative

This is a German film from 1974 that is something to do with some women who come to a castle and beyond that, I can't really tell you their purpose or even what the purpose of the movie is. I can tell you that there's several women who also moonlight as servants at this particular castle who strip, put on body paint and gyrate to bongos like they were at the Goth Kit-Kat Klub, though, and that seems to be a good portion of the run time of this film. Yeah, there seems to be something with devil worship and vampires, and there's some girl on girl stuff, etc., but the main focus seems to be the painted babes gyrating away in the basement. I did rather like the eye-rolling of one of the main housekeepers/devil worshipers, that lent an authenticity to the proceedings and made her even more evil-looking. Was that Wanda the Evil Lesbian (as billed in the credits)? No matter. If you aren't too picky about your lesbian devil worshiping movies, you might like this, otherwise it's pretty dull stuff and I couldn't even finish it, I was so bored. 3 out of 10.

negative

Expecting to see a "cute little film" from mainland China, I was ill-prepared. Family dynamics, community and the inevitability of change have rarely been explored so expertly on film. Every character is solid and I was completely drawn into the story. The organization is much more complex than American audiences will be accustomed to. Yet, there is no difficulty following the progression, even while reading subtitles. Jiang Wu, as the retarded brother, is a constant shining light. Leave your cynicism in your locker. It will be there when you check out.

positive

From the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes Keanu "I'm so wooden I could be a Plank me" Reeves look like an Oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). The best thing about it is the box of eRATicate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and 'twist'). Wish I'd spent the £3.99 it cost me on something else, like erm.... Natural Born Killers: Directors Cut. If you do buy this, you're really in for a disappointment, do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. If you're looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. However if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere, like Dog Soldiers, Wolfen, Romasanta:The werewolf Hunt.

negative

Warning: Avoid this super duper awful movie...if you watched it you will be SOOOOOOOOO disappointed.<br /><br />Pam and Denise are grandma age now what are they doing? Trying SO HARD to be young innocent and sexy, just not working AT ALL. Pam and Denise act so horribly in this movie.<br /><br />Plus The script is absolutely atrocious, I can't believe someone can came out with such crappy ideas. With the development of movie industry, movie lovers are not as easy to satisfy as the ones in the last century. I bet the movie goers from last century will hate this too.<br /><br />Stay away from it. I think watch "White Chicks" from 2004 it's so much better that this...make no mistake at that time I thought that's the worst movie I have ever seen.

negative

For some reason, TV Guide gave this two and a half stars, plus Faye Dunaway is in it, so it definitely looked like something to see. My, oh, my, this may be the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. From its horrid acting (every time the girl asks the boy what's wrong with him, I shouted to the TV "I can't act!" When she asks what he needs, I yell "I need acting lessons!" to the unbelievably bad dialog ("Give me back my organs!").<br /><br />And the Brian DePalma wannabe ending, too, it was all just beyond awful. I wanted to like it. Dunaway is one of the best actors ever. And the production values were pretty good.<br /><br />But wowzers, this had me laughing, LAUGHING!, most of the time.<br /><br />Don't even bother out of curiosity, that was my first mistake. Staying with it was definitely my second, and third and fourth.

negative

I enjoyed the innocence of this film and how the characters had to deal with the reality of having a powerful animal in their midst. The gorilla looks just terrific, and the eyes were especially lifelike. It's even a little scary at times and should have children slightly frightened without going over the top. Rene Russo plays her role wonderfully feminine. Usually these type of Hollywood films that take place in the past feel the need to create a straw-man villain but the only adversary is the gorilla. It's an interesting look at how close some animals are to humans, how they feel the same emotions we do, and yet how we really can't treat them just like people because they aren't. Not many films venture into this territory and it's worth seeing if you want to contemplate the human-animal similarity.

positive

Pay no attention to the comments behind the curtain! The majority of people leaving positive comments about this film must be receiving royalties. This is a horrible film in every way. Imagine high school kids with no money and no sense of humor making a slasher/comedy video. They would receive a D for this. College kids would receive an F or asked to leave the school. Since this monstrosity was made by "Professionals" I believe there should be jail time or at least cinema probation. I enjoy watching bad movies Like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" but, this thing doesn't even fall into that category. The script, acting, sound, and directing are so bad that it is virtually unwatchable. If you enjoy watching bad films that are amusing stick with Ed Wood, blaxploitation, or 1970's horror films. After viewing this you get the feeling you've wasted an hour and a half of your life.

negative

DR. SEUSS' HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS / (2000) ** (out of four)<br /><br />If you desire to see a holiday movie that will inspire your seasonal spirits and continue the traditional Dr. Seuss classic fable, don't see "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas." If you are old enough to read this review, then you are probably too old to get any kind of enjoyment out of this motion picture. It contains lots of colors, creative production design and imaginative set and costume construction, joyous load noises, and the characters are made up to look like the actual inhabitants of the fictional village Whoville. Unfortunately that is where the movie's positive elements end; the rest of the production is nothing but an excuse for Jim Carrey to cackle on screen while giving a devilish grin, all while prancing through the overly broad screenplay with nothing much to do.<br /><br />Many people recognize the story of how the grinch stole Christmas from Whoville, so I will not waste my time in writing a detailed synopsis for you to read. However, I will say that the movie's story is executed in three major acts; the development of the grinch and setting, the Whoville festival, and the Dr. Seuss vision of the mean one robbing the Who's from their Christmas. There are many familiar names within the credits here, but no familiar faces. Like in "Battlefield Earth," I just do not see why the producers would hire expensive actors just to have their identities shielded by unrecognizable makeup and costumes. Regardless, there is SNL's Molly Shannon as Betty Lou, the wife of Bill Irwin, the later playing Lou Lou, the father of little Cindy Lou, played by Taylor Momsen. Jeffrey Tambor is the Whoville mayor, Anthony Hopkins lends his bellowing voice for the film's narrator, and Christine Baranski is the Grinch's lone lost lover.<br /><br />The filmmakers attempt to bring originality to the story by adding unnecessary subplots and focusing too much on the little Cindy Lou. The screenplay by Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman just feels like it goes everywhere across the movie landscape; there is little if any focus by director Ron Howard and the screenplay is predictable, too extensive, and contrived. The only character given any distinctions here is the Grinch himself, all of the other characters are puppets of the plot, shapeless and uninteresting. And the dialogue is overzealous and too corny to be anything but pathetic. Example-Grinch: Oh, the Who-manity!<br /><br />The movie's redeeming factors go out to the gifted production designer Michael Corenblith, the costume designer Rita Ryack, and the ample makeup department. "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is a very good-looking production. The sets and the atmosphere created by the filmmakers are detailed and imaginative; it is like the audience is visiting a world as in a dream. The people of Whoville are plastered with makeup, to the point in which we cannot tell the actor reciting the humorless lines. Although dazzling, I really can't give credit to the performances, for they are over looked to due the expensive technical department taking their place.<br /><br />Jim Carrey is one actor who I can talk about. His performance is what nearly destroys the movie itself He is way too egotistic as the Grinch, too exaggerated and comical to allow the story to be anywhere near recognizable as the work of Seuss. Surprisingly, although there are a few funny moments due to a few slyly clever sequences, no laughs come from Jim Carry's zany silliness. It is almost like the movie was wrote specifically for Carry to overplay his part. This factor only leads the movie to a wild but brainless comedy, which is only a pale shadow of the original Christmas classic "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."<br /><br />After this movie, historians should check the coffin of the late author, Dr. Seuss may have rolled over in his grave.<br /><br />

negative

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.

negative

I can't decide whether this is one of my favourite movies. It is a good thriller and has an emotional core but still I can't decide. I definitely liked it. This is the first movie of Terry Gilliam that I have seen. My first impression? I was engaged till the very end and it is not all that complex(to be confusing).<br /><br />The movie is set in the future. A man James Cole(Bruce Willis) is sent from the future in order to get some information from the past(1996 to be specific). A virus killed 5 billion people. He is sent from the future to get some information about it. Also involved here are a psychiatrist called Kathryn Railly. The love story is portrayed beautifully and you can really feel the longing in this love and longing for a regular life. The loose ends are tied up in a very interesting manner at the end.<br /><br />One thing I liked about this movie is that unlike other post-apocalyptic movies, the movie didn't prefer to give any boring social commentary and instead focused on this one guy and his longing for a regular life. "You want to see the ocean, be with her" is especially a poignant line in this movie. It chooses to focus on the tension and confusion in the person's mind. Therefore this is not exactly post apocalyptic movie but instead it could be described as a romantic sci fi movie with themes that range from time travel to blurred realities and so on. This is what makes this movie a special movie of the 1990's. The complex plot flows smoothly without adding too many characters.<br /><br />The performances are quite good. Bruce willis surprised me here as he didn't act the regular tough guy here but he gave a good performance of a confused man who is in love. His desperation in certain sequences is portrayed beautifully. I have to check out his other movies. The gorgeous Madeleine Stowe is quite a treat to watch. EVer since I saw this movie, I have become so obsessed with her. She has given a great performance of a woman who sympathises with her patient and finally falls in love with him. Brad Pitt is the real surprise though with his portrayal of a crazy man named Jeffrey Goines. His Oscar nominated performance is quite surprising considering that he doesn't have many critics who have kind words for him.<br /><br />The end is quite chilling and that is also another reason to watch the movie. The length or complexity is not as big a problem because this film is quite fast moving and there are enough incidents to keep people interested. And every incident in this movie has a meaning and nothing is there that is unnecessary.<br /><br />Good thriller 10/10

positive

I don't often give one star reviews, but the computer won't let me do negative numbers.<br /><br />The opening titles tell us we're in deep water already. Although this is a low budget exploitation film, there are 17 producers credited. No. No.<br /><br />At the beginning of the story abusive husband Kenneth comes home to his family in an upscale gated community. The house is a pigsty. His wife, Della (Kim Basinger) has let the children run amok all day.<br /><br />OK. We're already in deep water. Ms. Basinger was 55 years old when the film came out. Uh, are these her children or grandchildren? It's Christmas Eve. Della drives to the mall, a lengthy scene that could have been cut. To bludgeon home the idea of eeeeeeevil male aggression rampant in the universe she drives past football players in full uniform playing in pouring rain on Christmas Eve. Sure. For a bonus she sees a vehicle with a slaughtered deer tied to it.<br /><br />We get some actual suspense in the driving scenes, though. It's raining and traffic is bad. First we see Della try to drive and smoke at the same time. Then later Della tries to drive and talk on her cell phone at the same time, at one point turning completely around to check the cluttered back seat for the charger for the phone.<br /><br />She wanders the mall, sees an old friend from college, tries to buy stuff but her credit card is declined- gosh, maybe her husband is grumpy because he's going broke, but that's too complicated for the script to follow.<br /><br />In the parking lot she runs afoul of the most ludicrous gang in the history of films. One White boy (Lukas Hass watching his career go down the toilet), one Black, one Asian, and one Hispanic. Imagine a company of Up with People gone to the bad and you'll have the idea.<br /><br />Although they have a gun she gives them attitude. A mall cop comes to investigate the ruckus and they shoot him in the head, firing more than once. The parking lot is crowded as can be, people everywhere, and nobody notices.<br /><br />Della escapes in her car and rather than choosing a police station or well lighted safe area, she drives to a construction site, where she kills all four bad boys one at a time with simply the tools (literally) at hand.<br /><br />MAJOR spoiler ahead.<br /><br />She drives back home. The car poops out so she walks through the pouring rain. Checks on the children, goes downstairs, and when her husband petulantly asks what she got him at the mall shows him the gun and shoots him at point blank range.<br /><br />The experience with the four punks was supposed to result in personal empowerment for Della. Instead we know that her children will probably spend Christmas in foster care or a group home, because the State will collect them while she answers to murder one charges. The four punks can be classified as justifiable homicide in self defense. The husband, different story.<br /><br />I'm so glad I saw this on cable. If I'd seen it in a theater (did it get any release?) I'd have been furious. As is, I'm just sad seeing talents like Ms. Basinger and Mr. Haas waste themselves on garbage like this.<br /><br />One very good thing, though. This was written and directed by Susan Montford. Ms. Montford has not gotten another writing or directing credit since passing this turd. There is justice in the world.

negative

This wartime sitcom written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft, who wrote TV's best programme ever Dads Army, was not as good as Dads Army, but still very, very funny.<br /><br />It is about A concert band in India. Most episodes were about BSM Williams (Windsor Davies) trying to get the concert party, who he referred to as a bunch of puffs, posted up the jungle. He was always unsuccessful as the vague Colonel Reynolds (Donald Hewlett) and the stupid Captain Ashwood (Michael Knowles) were big fans of the concert party. The concert party consisted of Bombadier Solomans (George Layton), Ginger Rogers impersonator Gunner "Gloria" Beaumont (Melvyn Hayes), University educated piano player Gunner "La de da" Gunner Graham, a.k.a Padarouski (John Clegg), singer Gunner "Lofty" Sugden, Gunner Parkins (Christopher Mitchell) (Williams thought Parkins was his son, he was quite wrong), big eater Gunner "Nosher" Evans and animal impersonator's (Kenneth MacDonald), he was no Percy Edwards. Also, heavily involved in the adventures were faithful Indian servant Rangi Ram (Michael Bates), with the Char-Wallah and the Punkah-Wallah (Dino Shafeek and Babar Bhatti) giving Ram wonderful support. <br /><br />The show, just like Dads Army left many catchphrases. Rangi Ram used to say to his Punkah Wallah "Don't be such clever dickie" and he ended a lot of the shows saying "Here is a very old Hindu Proverb e.g When wife is having affair with best friend, it doesn't stop your house from catching fire" It was Williams though who had the most catchphrases. He would always shout "Shuddup!!!!!", say "Oh dear, how sad, never mind" and when talking to Gunner Graham, he would always sarcastically talk in a posh accent.<br /><br />This show doesn't enjoy the same recognition as Dads Army did. This is probably due to a question of taste: This is seen as being crude. Williams is homophobic calling his men "Puffs", though it has to be said Williams is a bore. Also, some people think there is a racial element in the humour, using the fact that Michael Bates was blacked up to play Rangi Ram (Bates was actually born in India though and spoke Urdu before he spoke English), so the BBC will feel a bit uneasy putting it on, even though the vast majority of people who have actually WATCHED the show would agree that the show isn't racist, I know someone who is half Indian, and they weren't the slightest bit offended and agreed like I did that it was a very funny show. When I see an episode for the first time, I laugh probably more than I do for any other sitcom, but when I see it second time round, I don't laugh all that much, but no matter how many times I see Dads Army, I laugh many times in an episode.<br /><br />Best Episode: The Road to Banu, series 1, episode 7

positive

Had the original casting idea been kept (hunting Rutger, not Ice-T), this movie might have worked. Sadly, racism had to come into the picture (literally) and mess it up. The predominantly black production staff couldn't allow the antagonist be black, so they swapped Rutger's and Ice-T's roles. This was only the start of the downward spiral of this film. Ernest Dickerson's news-room approach to 'directing' only verified that this was another affirmative-action job assignment. Master shot, close up, close up. Gads, 'Who's Line Is It Anyway' even uses more creative camera work. Eric's rewrite of 'The Most Dangerous Game' is at least an attempt at modernizing the classic tale, but fails to give us any motivations for why the characters are doing this. We are never given the reasons, other than "no one will miss these people", why the leader (re-written as Rutger) does these things. Aside from a heart-felt performance by John McGinley, and a fair job by Charles Dutton, do not bother with this one. One small bit of trivia, there was a real drunk-driving accident during filming that injured F.Murray Abraham, and resulted in the death of the intoxicated young driver that caused the accident.

negative

The Order starts in Rome where the head of a special order of priests who deal in ghosts & demons named Brother Dominic (Francesco Carnelutti) is found dead, cut to New York City where one of his order Alex Bernier (Heath Ledger) is contacted by top-brass Cardinal Driscoll (Peter Weller) who ask's him to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Dominic's death. Along with his girlfriend Mara Willims (Shannyn Sossamon) & fellow priest Thomas Garrett (Mark Addy) Alex travels to Italy to delve into his mentor's death, as the truth begins to emerge it appears that Dominic was a 'Sin Eater' someone who absorbed other's sins & lived with the burden of them so they could die peacefully & that the Church wasn't happy about his activities. Alex must do what's right even if it goes against what he believes...<br /><br />Also know under the title The Sin Eater this American German co-production was written, produced & directed by Bian Helgeland & didn't really do that much for me if I'm honest & I usually am, honest that is. Anyway lets start with the mess of a script that has some OK ideas but it's throughly predictable, excruciatingly dull & boring, really silly at times & it takes itself far too seriously. The whole concept is daft & while it thinks it's clever with it's oh so neat twist ending that ties everything up & brings the story full circle I thought it was the most obvious & lazy way to end things. There's the usual religious themes here, morality, sin, forgiveness, faith, belief, prophecy's, blah, blah, blah you know the sort of thing. Then there's the twists which aren't hard to see coming, there's the abuse of power by high ranking clergymen, corruption, greed, evil, etc. you know the sort of clichéd Hollywood ideals & themes that get reused every time it deals with the Church. The Order has nothing new to say & as a serious piece of film-making it sucks, a lot. I'm not too sure who The Order is meant to appeal to, as a die-hard horror fan I didn't see much horror in this at all, as a thriller it's less than thrilling, as a mystery it's too predictable & there's nothing here to really grip or maintain ones interest & for some reason I cannot figure out the IMDb also lists The Order as an action film which is absurd as it's as exciting & action-packed as the average episode of Sesame Street (1969 - present), harsh maybe but it's what I think...<br /><br />Director Helgeland does an OK job, the film seems to have a very soft lighting scheme & it all looks a bit drab, grayish & dull. For a supposed horror film The Order is very light on scares or horror elements, in fact there aren't any of either apart from two evil kids who can turn into a flock of birds for no apparent reason, don't ask. Forget about any gore or violence as there isn't any which is fine but it would have helped at least make The Order somewhat watchable. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section the release date of The Order was put back so some of the special effects could be improved because they looked unintentionally funny, all I can say is judging by the finished film the effects must have been really bad to start with because they aren't exactly brilliant as it stands now.<br /><br />I was amazed to see The Order had a budget of about $28,000,000 which is a hell of a lot of money & I just can't see where it all went apart from the sets & production design which are good. The whole film looks & feels very average & utterly forgettable. The acting is OK although the annoying fat guy who seems to be some sort of foul-mouthed comic relief irritates, a good actor such as Peter Weller deserves better than this.<br /><br />The Order, I prefer the title The Sin Eater actually not that it matters too much, misses all of it's intended targets by the proverbial mile as far as I'm concerned & is a pretty dull way to waste 100 odd minutes of your life so don't do it! Not recommended.

negative

'Baptists at Our Barbecue' is the best film ever made. Now, that I got your attention with that horribly inaccurate statement that should be a hanging offense if spoken, let me begin my short overview of this tacky, offensive, pretentious and boring hunk of junk I guess you could consider a movie. First of all, the low budget of this stinker is totally obvious based on the very poor and inexperienced direction of Christian Vuissa, and the tacky, overly preachy, whiny and stilted screenplay by F. Mathew Smith. I really despise the fact that it sends a very pro-Mormon, and sort of anti-every other religion message. Yes, the story is about a small town half full with Mormons and half full with Baptists. It shows all the main and role-model characters being Mormon, and being so nice and perfect, yet they are being picked on by the evil, conniving and very judgmental Baptists. It shows how beautiful Mormons are and how cold-hearted and ignorant Baptists are, instead of showing a little solidarity like would be appropriate and realistic. I'm a part of neither religion (I'm actually an atheist), but this offended me, along with another countless amount of Baptists most likely. It shows the Baptists as being very unopened and unwelcoming to the Mormons, and the Mormons being very accepting, when again, in reality there is a mutual like/dislike between them. Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a rant.<br /><br />Another aspect of 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' I didn't much care for, was the acting. The performances are very amateurish and unnatural, especially from the female lead Heather Beers. Miss Beers stumbles her way through her part without any passion or feeling for her role, and I wasn't too much impressed with Dan Merkley, who's the main character in this lackluster of a motion picture, but I have to say he's way more talented or shows more talent in this film then Heather Beers. Whoever played the town sheriff was awful also. Although there is maybe a tiny laugh deep within the film, it is full of clichés. For example, the main character, Tartan (Merkley), finds solace with a Native American who always gives him the best advice on things relating to a tribal way of life - how cliché is that? To make the situation even more of a pathetic cliché, Tartan buys the poor, lonely heathen a puppy dog. Ugghhh! <br /><br />If you want my advice, stay as far away from 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' as you can. I saw it on the shelf and thought it would be a cute and interesting little indie about religion. All I got was a, well, piece of crap. Grade: D-<br /><br />my ratings guide - A+ (absolutley flawless); A (a masterpiece, near-perfect); A- (excellent); B+ (great); B (very good); B- (good); C+ (a mixed bag); C (average); C- (disappointing); D+ (bad); D (very bad); D- (absolutley horrendous); F (not one redeeming quality in this hunk of Hollywood feces).

negative

Normally, I am a pretty generous critic, but in the case of this film I have to say it was incredibly bad. I am stunned by how positive most reviews seem to be.<br /><br />There were some gorgeous shots, but it's too bad they were wasted on this sinkhole of a movie. It might have worked if "Daggers" was purely an action flick and not a romance, but unfortunately the film is built around an empty love triangle. There is no chemistry between either of the couples, whatever exists between Mei and her men seems to be more lust than love, and for the most part the dialogue is just silly. This may be just a problem with translation, but the frequent usage of the word "flirt" in particular reminded me of 8th grade, not head-over-heels, together forever, worth-dying-for love; I also felt we were beat over the head with the wind metaphor. The audience is given very little about the characters to really care about, and therefore very little emotional investment in the movie as a whole. I was wishing for a remote control to fast forward, I was slumped in my seat ready to snore, but mostly I just cringed a lot.<br /><br />*******spoiler*****<br /><br />Now, the icing on the cake. Or rather, adding insult to injury. The ending was truly one of the most horrible, laughable ones I have ever seen. The boys are having their stag fight and screaming and yelling and hacking at each other. Oh, and then it starts to snow. Randomly. Oh, and then Mei (dagger embedded in heart) suddenly pops up out of the weeds. Then she throws a dagger that seems to take about 5 minutes to reach it's destination, even slowing conveniently midscreen to hit a tiny blood droplet. Wow, cool.<br /><br />Well, then Mei dies finally I guess because she threw the dagger that was lodged in her chest and bled to death. Jin sings, sobs, holds her body close, screen goes blank. I, and the people surrounding me, are chuckling. Not a good sign.<br /><br />Visually stunning, but ultimately a failure.

negative

This review may contain some spoilers.<br /><br />The remake of the classic 1974 car chase movie Gone in 60 Seconds begins well. Actually it is well acted and the plot moves quite well. But even a big Hollywood budget doesn't change the fact that the original plot was more believable. For those who don't know, the original plot had the thieves working as insurance inspectors. Who would suspect them. But even with a change to nearly every aspect of H.B. Halicki's original, the remake is a very good movie, until we get to the final chase scene, the part of the 74 version that made it great. The one in this version is watered down, only 10 minutes, and it culminates in a monster special effect that takes all believability out of the chase. Where the original chase was very believable, the star was a stunt driver who did all his own stunt, the remake falls flat in the last 15 minutes. My advice, if you want to watch a classic car chase film, fine the original in the bargain bin at your local rental joint and stay clear of the new remake.

negative

I remember when this piece of trash came out, all the newspapers were squawking about how it had taken Barbra Streisand years to get the film made. Well it couldn't have taken that many years; the play only opened in 1975, eight years previously. It made a Broadway star of the great actress Tovah Feldshuh, who probably should have been cast in the film, but NOOOOO...the Great STAR BARBRA HAD TO DO IT HER WAY. AND WITH MUSIC NO LESS! This film is a total disaster from start to finish. For one thing, Barbra was FORTY YEARS OLD when she made it and she looked every minute of it. There was no way anyone could possibly swallow her as a young girl yearning to study Torah. And then when she dresses up as a boy it gets campy. I get the impression that Streisand could not bear to be unattractive so she played around with the make-up; she is prettier as a boy than she is as a girl. And as if that is not bad enough, she gets involved with both her schoolmate Avigdor (Mandy Patinkin, whose best moment is the shot of his naked rear end) AND his fiancée (Amy Irving, who does her usual sleepwalker routine, a bit of schtick the poor woman always resorts to when the director ignores her and she does not know what she is doing). Yentl even goes so far as to marry the girl; I won't even bother to mention the "wedding night" scene.<br /><br />Then there is the music. Nine totally forgettable songs, all sung by Streisand via voice-over (presumably as a look inside her mind), and each one as intrusive and irritating as fingernails on a blackboard.<br /><br />I won't say that Streisand does not show a glimmer of promise as a director here; some of the visuals are lovely (Patinkin's backside especially), and she has a good eye for balance. The problem with this movie is that she won't get out of her own way. I did not believe her for one second in the title role; she should NEVER have added the songs, and on top of that the whole mess goes on for two hours and fifteen minutes. I was sick of the whole sorry mess after forty-five minutes.<br /><br />Awful, awful, awful.

negative

This is a badly made, poor remake of Bimalda's classic Parineeta. The story is based on Sarat Chandra's book of the same name and it is a distortion of the original. Well one can appreciate some degree of creativity but not sham creativity. The acting by everyone is affected and the entire movie is a sham. Shekar's father's choice of words in abusing Lolita ( Balan ) sounds cheap and morbid and destroys the spirit of the original story. Again the scene where Shekhar ( Saif ) slaps Lolita is quite out of place with the flow of the movie and the characters, is quite jarring to the senses, and could have been easily avoided. Similarly the sex scene between Saif and Balan is quite unbecoming the movie and a cheap gimmick to attract the audience. When a creative work is not faithful to the original and destroys it's spirit, the work falls apart. The song "piyu bole" is quite OK. Another silver lining in the dark cloud of this movie is the scene where Saif stands up for himself and rebels against his father. This is a positive departure from the original and deserves credit. On these counts this movie deserves 3 stars. The song and dance by Rekha smacks of artifice and it is a put on. The song is tuneful but I remember having heard it somewhere before and if Iam not mistaken the tune appears to have been plagiarized. <br /><br />Well, agreed the times have changed from then to now. But then this movie is not even reflective of the modern times.<br /><br />This is what happens when the modern Bollywood film makers get increasingly obsessed with impressing the NRIs and grabbing the lucrative NRI entertainment market. Such movies end up neither belonging to India nor to any other part of the world.

negative

I heard about this film and knew it wasn't real good. But I started watching the film (on my film-channel)and was interested. This could be a really great, darkly black satire on todays morals in media. The small featurettes on every contestent were good. It build up to something I wouldn't wanna miss. But when the so called show starts everything becomes implausible, cheap and rather silly. Here's where the writer should have added something that would make people think. But instead it's wrapped up and assuming people are this dumb.<br /><br />The ending is so bad I give it a 1. Even if the film starts of promising.

negative

The idea is nice. Bringing so many stars in one movie is great. But.... too many stories, too short and lacking really any sense. No connection between the scenes. There were some 3-4 brilliant stories... but these were out of 18. The frame reminded me of "All the invisible children" - a movie which I liked a lot. Compared to it, however, "Paris Je T'Aime" lacks the intriguing short story, which develops - starts and has its end. And it lacks the topic connecting all those - children. I do not find Paris enough of a topic to connect 18 short sketches together.Perhaps for people who know Paris it is interesting. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it...

negative

102 DALMATIANS [Walt Disney]: I wasn't a fan of the previous installment and this effort has all the weaknesses of the first, a silly padded storyline, terrible over acting by Glenn Close, who hams up every scene as though she's playing for her own amusement, and incredibly borring and uninteresting lead actors. Once more the dogs are the only "actors" that seem "real" and thats a stretch. Another wasted effort here. GRADE: D

negative