text,label "It may be harsh to say that Michael Winterbottom is one of the most consistently bad directors working today, but his emphasis on often counterproductive technique at the expense of story or character has resulted in an almost unbroken run of poor films from promising material – which in many ways is far worse than making bad films out of videogames. Ever the alchemist, once again he manages to turn gold into base metal with The Claim, a fairly lavish version of Thomas Hardy's The Mayor of Casterbridge relocated to the California mountains during the Gold Rush. While the basic story transposes rather well – a down on his luck prospector who sold his wife and child for a gold claim and rose to rule the town that grew up around it finds himself on the road to destruction when they reappear and he attempts to make amends – it's little more than an underdeveloped skeletal outline that never grips, feeling less an attempt at subtlety, more underwritten.

While it throws out the complexity of the source material, there's enough left here that could have made a good adult Western drama in other hands, especially in the neat turn around from genre tradition that sees Peter Mullan's all-powerful Mayor of Kingdom Come trying to persuade Wes Bentley's surveyor to drive the railroad through his town to ensure its growth. Yet it never gets to the heart of the story, playing the big scenes for less than they're worth (hard to believe any director could botch a scene of Mullan harnessing the whole town to manhaul his marital home across the snow and into the heart of town, but Winterbottom manages it) and constantly pushing characters and story into the background without ever placing anything in the foreground to compensate. Worse, no present-day action in the film has any real consequence, which is fairly disastrous for a morality play about consequences. It's the kind of film where people get killed and their death makes no impression on the emotions or actions of anyone around them leaving a dreary, inconsequential film with no drive.

Rather than story or character, Winterbottom seems interested in recreating the world of McCabe and Mrs Miller, but he's taken all the worst of Altman without any of the best. There may be an occasional improvised feel, but it's rarely harnessed to the film's benefit, feeling like undisciplined self-indulgence and all too symptomatic of the way that far too much of the film is played out of focus, both metaphorically and literally. Indeed, it often feels like a film whose few strengths have little to do with the director. Peter Mullan is superb as the Mayor, convincingly essaying the kind of man who can rule an entire town by sheer force of will alone, but while you understand his emptiness, the film never allows you to feel for it, leaving the finale a rather empty spectacle rather than genuine tragedy. If anything, the film's tragedy is that Mullan didn't get a film worthy of his performance. Unfortunately the supporting performances are rather dull and characterless: Nastassja Kinski has little to do but waste away, Sarah Polley isn't able to do much with her cardboard good girl, Milla Jovovich lacks the moxie her saloon manger cries out for while Wes Bentley tries to coast on charisma without ever having enough to do the trick. Instead they're outshone by production designer Mark Tildesley's superbly recreated snowy mountain town and a surprisingly powerful and heartfelt Michael Nyman score that abandons his usual mathematical masturbation for something more grandiose and passionate. And you know what they say about shows where you come out humming the scenery…",0 "This had to be the worst film of 2008 by far. The acting was not convincing and made it seem like a cheap version of the ""FBI Files"" or any Detective/Police TV show on a higher budget. No one call tell me that that a captain of the police will let a mentally insane ex-detective on a serial killer just because they were engaged? Then he wants to act all ""iffy"" because he might get demoted! Come on! Then the police plants evidence on this mentally ill guy because they were sure it was him; yeah right... It was clearly predictable, specially how the director placed the alleged killer/confidant around her throughout the whole film. I don't even want to get into the special effects...I can make things look scarier using a Polaroid camera. Get the picture.

The only thing this movie will be remembered by is for being Eliza's first topless movie after she said that she will never come out nude in any movie. This is the only reason why I gave it a 2/10.",0 "I'm doing a very, very slow John Stockwell Film Festival, and of course, I had to see one as part of the process.

I think liked his ""My Science Project"" a WHOLE lot better.

This is barely even digestible. More than a little bit too stupid than not. The detective motif didn't really make much sense. If they were locked away in a bomb shelter as little itty-bitty kids, just precisely how was it that they were able to read the books that they got their detective kitsch from? Who taught them to read if there was no one else but them in the shelter? Just being nitpicky here.

Apparently, money was saved by using the very, very, very, very cheapest film stock available at the time. Jeez, shooting it on video tape would have yielded a far superior quality visual. And even more money was saved by not bothering to use proper lighting. So much is so dark, i wasn't really too sure what was going on.

It verges almost slightly on the edge of being almost entertaining. But it was done so klunkily, it sort of flops around.

I'm impressed how Stockwell always talks out of the corner of his mouth. Not many actors do that. And he has his own unique style of enunciation that makes you wonder if he ever had to go to remedial speech classes and luckily the lessons didn't stick.

I can't truthfully say i recommend this ""movie"" to anyone who isn't doing a very leisurely John Stockwell Film Festival like i am. It's VERY klunky.",0 "This movie was one of Australia's 'attempts' at making a horror movie, Peter Jackson-style, but instead turned out a turkey that went straight-to-video.

The plot, (if you could call it that) is simple. A company manufacturing a 'health' drink in powder form decide to distribute it amongst a group of residents living in a cul-de-sac. Little do they know that anyone who consumes the 'health' drink end up mutating and dying in revolting ways that try to be humorous, but instead makes the audience groan in disbelief. This movie treads in the 'been-there-done-that' territory.

All the 'characters' are as usual, Aussie stereotypes played way over the top by renowned Australian TV stars, such as Lisa McCune (of ""Blue Healers""). One ridiculous storyline has a pair of young men ending up on a farm as captives by a group of mutated hicks. We even get to see the horny guy trying to hit on the big ugly sister which is really revolting.

The deaths themselves are quite ludicrous. One woman has her tongue swell up she chokes to death. Another woman gives birth to a mutant baby that crawls around the room like one of the 'face-huggers' from the Aliens series. One man's face literally 'melts' off. All of this is either supposed to make you laugh or cringe. Instead, you will find yourself rolling your eyes at how incredibly foolish you were to either rent this movie or watch it on Cable.

Give this movie a miss - there's nothing here to root for.",0 "Hong Kong's first fully-fledged computer-animated movie is, for the most part, a treat. Distinctly Chinese in its orchestration, the fantasy elements are played up for the kids, the humour a little too cagey to really laugh at, while the martial arts spectacles are really quite astonishing. The story concerns local hero Hung Lang, a kung fu supremo, who befriends a talking bird (of course) and is sent on a dangerous adventure to retain the sacred Dragon Blade from the mystically cavernous underworld known as Asteria, facing insurmountable peril along the way, in order to slain the Boar King, a giant pig-looking tyrant causing havoc in the town. The characters are a little wet, particularly our soulless hero, yet Karen Mok's engaging sidekick Ying Ying is a worthy substitute, and the delirious spurts of action make the whole experience quite compelling.",1 "Disappointed with this one. Let's start with the dubbing...it's terrible, I know Godzilla movies are supposed to be badly dubbed but they actually used professionals. Godzilla is missing for most of this movie and we have to watch boring characters we care nothing about blabber on and on about Godzilla but I want to see him fight and stomp Tokyo! The plot was even better in the American version. The ending is by far one of the worst and cheesiest I have ever seen and don't even get me started on the horrible CGI.

Overall, this was pretty crappy. Monster fights were minimal and there was even less stompage. **/*****",0 "This is a very cute cartoon, but not an especially interesting short on its own merits. The chief point of interest here is as the very first cartoon which Chuck Jones directed. As I will mention some details, there will be mild spoilers:

The basic premise of this short is that the regular night watchman, a full-grown cat, is sick and can't make his rounds and so the task falls to his young son. To say that the mice are less than concerned about the new night watchman would be an understatement. They're bigger, meaner and tougher than the little cat and bully him mercilessly.

This turn of events means that they have pretty much got free run of the kitchen for most of the short. There are a few cute food-related sight gags, but the short is a bit flatter and less energetic than you would expect, though, to be fair, if you look at it without comparing it to later work by Jones, it comes off looking a good deal better.

The ending is all rather predictable, though fun to watch for the most part. This isn't a bad short, it just pales in comparison to the work which would come later, though it does make clear that Jones was interested in the cute and sentimental from the beginning. This was probably the genesis of the Sniffles shorts done a bit later.

This short is available on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume 4 and is worth a look. The Collection, as with the previous three volumes, is most highly recommended.",1 "I thoroughly enjoyed all of the film. The two young actors are well cast. What originally made the movie stand out for me was the sound track. I had never seen,or heard, a film that used the music of Vaughn Williams before. I was flicking channels one night when the music made me stop and I watched the rest of the film. I have watched it twice since. Gloomy, moving and fascinating.",1 "Jenifer Lopez and husband Marc Anthony's latest film El Cantante about the Hector Lavoe and the birth of Salsa, is an Oscar nominated-wannabe biopic mess of a film.

The film follows the life of Puerto Rican singer Hector Lavoe, who came to New York in 1975 and became a mega star, starting the Salsa genre. Marc Anthony plays Hector and Jenifer Lopez his wife—Puchi. One of the many problems with this film was that Marc did not have a strong screen presence and his performance became overpowered by the amazing performance by Jenifer Lopez who did such a wonderful job I started thinking it was more about Hector's wife than about Hector.

One effective part of the film I thoroughly enjoyed was how the story cut back and forth through an interview of Hector's wife looking back on Hector's life story. The interview was shot in black and white contrasting with the rich colors of the rest of the film.

Despite this technique, the rest of the film was hard to follow. It seemed to follow a pre-made formula of music montage after music montage inter cut with short scenes of dramatic acting, as if the director was following a manual of how to make a musician's biopic film. Also the use of fancy, rapid editing was way overused and after a while seemed only there to give it a sophisticated look.

I love long films but this two hour movie had me checking my watch frequently. Overall it was a big disappointment and I felt the only thing that was good in the film was Jenifer Lopez's performance. Unfortunately even her Oscar worthy performance couldn't save this muddled film.",0 "I can not believe this was made into a movie. The concept I guess is good enough but the story. ugh. it reminded me of when we were kids and each kid will add a new line to the story. that's how this film is. it was slapped on together to make a movie that is so corny and has no sense whatsoever. first barry graduates and doesn't want to work in the the hive doing boring work. so he goes out to be a bum and found himself a project to sue humans for taking honey. and unbelievably they won. so all honey is returned to them. now all bees don't want to work. all flowers die. so barry goes to retrieve the last remaining flowers to revive the dead flowers. he does this through a plane which is carried by bees! so that's successful now the bees are back collecting honey. and all flowers live. now barry's job is to be a pollen/honey collector. which is what he wanted to be in the first place! so all the drama was for nothing. i mean if he wanted to be this pollen/honey collector, the story could have evolved to something more meaningful instead of this. this is a waste of time and money.",0 "An easy-going, boil-in-the-bag romcom. It relies a little too much on slapstick to fill out its 90 mins but, given its simple plot it's got enough wit and clean charm to make a go of it.

I've always been a Courtney Cox fan and she definitely gives us something in addition to regurgitating Monica Gellerisms. David Arquette is a sweet, chubby version of Adam Sandler. This slightly off-kilter duo, a real life couple, have a first-class straight 'guy' in Viola Davis (one of the better coloured actresses in Hollywood, doing the day job stoically).

There's nothing to it but it's not too sickly for a wet afternoon on the sofa. 3/10",0 "I believe this is my first one-star rating for an IMDb comment entry, and the only reason I award it one star is that there is no zero star setting. I watched an extremely rare Greek made video of this film last fall and only now have found the stomach to discuss it: I gave up at about the fifty minute point, depressed, sickened and feeling used. This is a movie that had no artistic urgency behind it's making, it was just an attempt by some producers and distributors to cash in on a notorious XXX rape fantasy movie made under the same title, FORCED ENTRY. The plot for both is the same: Demented psychopathic retard working at a gas station uses the opportunity and in some cases house keys left behind by his female customers to rape, torture, and then murder them. Are we having fun yet?

I have never seen the original version. Rape fantasy movies are about as useful to me as a hemorrhaging spleen or perhaps the decomposing carcass of a camel. But from all accounts the 1974 porn version of FORCED ENTRY is one of the harshest, most uncompromising and gleefully evil movies ever made, working as a sort of a warped commentary on the post-Vietnam era violence obsessed culture which bred it's lunatic murderer. Even if offered the chance to partake I would decline, I do not need to see such things when stuff like the complete H.R. PUFFNSTUFF box set is available, or the bathroom needs cleaning. Life is short.

The XXX version at least stood for something and was an original idea taken to it's logical extreme; It is filth for sure, yet at least the filmmakers had the guts to get down there in the trenches with their viewers. By contrast, the 1975 MPAA R rated film is a dismal, depressing slog ""livened up"" by moments of suggestively sick violence involving things like the bondage rape & murder of a 15 year old girl who stops by the protagonist's filling station with a flat tire on her bike. The attack is not shown in detail but in a suggestive manner that is perhaps even more disturbing in that it allows the viewer to complete the images in their mind's eye. The retarded animal at the center of the story is a general walking disaster area, every attractive young woman who comes in contact with him ends up dead after being mauled & mutilated, and after about the fourth murder I simply decided I'd had enough. To this day I have no idea nor do I care as to how the movie resolved itself.

The problem is that the film does not have the interest to be true to it's own convictions, and uses the MPAA R certificate as an excuse to back off from showing exactly what it is that it's target audience of vicarious sex criminals are tuning in to see. It is more interested in selling tickets than being true to its own nature, an incredibly irresponsible approach since there are some who probably took the suggestions seriously. We already had the urban legend of the service station attendant who uses the trust put in him by his female customers to compromise them. It seems to me that what this movie serves to do is provide a sort of blueprint to how you go about bringing that fantasy to life, but does not have the balsam to show the necessary payoff to complete the circle and evoke the sheer revulsion that the XXX version reportedly does.

Frankly though, I have wasted too much time on this pathetic, stupid, meaningless and unredeemable movie. Cult DVD company Code Red is supposedly preparing a DVD release, and my question is, why? Who on earth do they think is interested in seeing this? aside from uninformed James Bond fans hoping to catch a glimpse of Tonya Roberts' tits, and the contingent of sick, dangerous perverts who get their jollies out of watching movies that show women suffering. If that's the best they can do for a demographic then they have missed the point of low budget cult horror with an erotic tinge: There are SO many clever, interesting and sick, demented little horror movies out there waiting to be discovered that there is no excuse for making this available aside from sheer greed. The notoriety of the title might ensure enough sales to earn back their production cost and make a few dollars, but it will do so at the expense of a lot of goodwill. Starting with mine.

1/10: Complete garbage, without any redeeming qualities at all and that includes the early performances by the A-list actresses snookered into making the film.",0 "Echoing narration informs us about the ""diabolical"" new threat of voodoo on the island of ""Korbai"" near Haiti and a laughing, sneering midget in sunglasses cuts the head off a (real) chicken. Then Anabella (played by Julissa), a member of the International Anti-Saloon League informs some soldiers that, ""Modern science has proved that alcohol is responsible for 99.2% of all the worlds sins!"" She arrives on the island with others to visit her uncle Carl von Molder (Boris Karloff or his masked double).

Meanwhile, blue-faced zombies are overrunning the island. Voodoo cultists kill soldiers with a blowgun, strangulation and machete and regularly resurrect the dead with the help of the dwarf (who whips them). Rabid zombie women eat a man and one soldier adopts one as his girlfriend to scratch his back and fan him. (""Imagine a beautiful woman that can't talk. Every man's dream!"") The niece has an extremely bizarre dream of her evil double suggestively sucking on a (real, live) snake before kissing her (?)

Little of this movie makes sense and the ending stinks, but it has some weird, senseless stuff to recommend. It's one of four much-hated movies Karloff did in 1968 before his death, constituting his final film work.",0 "How can someone buy this film. My husband and I have been trying for two years but we can't find it. Is there a copy out there available, if so what is the price? It is not at all a cartoon but an excellent piece of Victorian art. The drawings evoke the sketches used in Dickens own time. There are moments that are intense, certainly frightening for young children.

The pacing causes one to feel as though Scooge has very little time left to mend his ways. The ghost of Christmas Present is much darker than in other versions. Ignorance and Want are included in a very effective and horrific manner. Marley's ghost is not to be missed.

This is anything but Mr Magoo or Mickey Mouse Dickens. Please post info as to where it can be found.",1 "I'd like to start off as saying that I, like so many horror film buffs, enjoy the cheap laughs to be acquired from B-grade trash. The film ""Campfire Stories,"" however, isn't even amusing accidentally. I'd love to know how badly Jamie-Lynn DiScala, David Johansen, and the Misfits needed money to partake in this utter waste of celluloid. I knew this one was going to be trouble when I saw a talking skull engulfed in flames at the beginning. From there on in, we have two annoying young men who can't tell a joke correctly get lost in the woods with a beautiful ""Sopranos"" girl, where they come across Ranger Bill, Buster Poindexter's evil alter-ego. He proceeds to bore them to death with three generic horror tales with relentlessly inane twists at the end of each. The first tale is of a nameless lunatic who escapes the Corbin Bernsen Institute of Dentistry, reestablishes himself as a Catholic high school janitor, and takes out four of the young men they randomly pulled off the street to play the most annoying bullies I've ever seen. The second tale involves three career criminals who rob a Native American spiritualist, smoke his peace pipe, and are tormented by legions of computer animations created by first-year graphic arts majors from a community college. The third tale involves a homicidal maniac whose identity you'll probably figure out long before it's ""revealed."" After sitting through these three sessions of ungodly torment, we're finally punished with a ""surprise ending"" which tries to tie everything together but fails miserably along with everything preceding it. ""Campfire Stories"" has no scares, no humor, and over all, no redeeming value whatsoever. If you want a real scare, light up a campfire and tell your own stories; they'll be a hundred times scarier than this waste of film.",0 "Eugene Lourie did not make socially important film like his fellow 1950's directors like Stanley Kramer, or Elia Kazan. Instead, Lourie made three exciting films depicting a giant dinosaur attacking a major city. His first was 1953's THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS, with classic stop motion effects by Ray Harryhausen. The best of this trio was 1960's GORGO, where a highly annoyed off mommy dinosaur rips London into shreds rescuing it's captive baby. Available in this box set is his 1959 Dino-fest, THE GIANT BEHEMOTH, the weakest of Lourie's monster movies, but still, a fun time at the movies. Before, after and during making his own films, Lourie as a art director for Clint Eastwood, Sam Fuller, Jean Renoir, and Charles Chaplin.

The behemoth problem with THE GIANT BEHEMOTH is that it is slow paced. 37 minutes in we get to see the monster's shoulder. It will take another eleven minutes to get to our first monster scene- where Behemoth raises out of the water, and attacks a Thames River ferryboat. One wonders how many animators worked on this film. One of the animators was pioneering stop-motion artist Willis O'Brien, who animated life into the silent THE LOST WORLD, the 1933 KING KONG, and many other exciting monster films. The stop motion animation varies from inventive,",1 "Phew! Well, this is certainly no bundle of fun. What an ugly film, was my first thought as I stared at the closing credits. As a seasoned film fan, one is always put on guard when a male lead tells his partner that she should experiment with sleeping with other people. He would not be jealous - oh yea! But here things go from bad to really awful and as someone else has noted it is almost inconceivable that one would be likely to choose to revisit this little number. Having said all that, to discover than long time Chabrol script writer, Paul Gegauff, not only wrote this nasty piece but plays the male lead in question. Not only that but his real life wife plays the appallingly treated partner AND that their actual daughter, plays their screen daughter, just about the only light relief this movie has. Hard to recommend to non Chabrol fans but certainly a powerful piece of cinema.",0 "Nowadays the ""Matrix Style"" is a common way to make an action-modern-kung fu movie, in most cases with strange results. But, damn, this ""So Close"" is SOOOO cool!! It has GREAT style and wonderful scenes. I gave it a 9 and I really think it deserves it. Of course, acting is not at the greatest levels of cinema history. But it's not bad and solves its object. Cinematography is great, with some scenes of pure beautiness. Direction is very good. Corey Yuen is really a good director (I also enjoyed ""the transporter"" another Yuen's movie) and uses the camera with great creativity. People who like action movies should be watching this movie now!",1 "Despite the interesting cast of Arthur, MacMurray and Melvyn Douglas, this film literally runs out of steam with the concocted ending it displays. Arthur marries MacMurray's business partner Douglas after the former is presumed to have drowned in an accident. Of course, a year later, MacMurray turns up alive and who shall Jean Arthur select as her husband. With the kind of ending we get, it appears that the film is a proponent of bigamy.

We've been down this road before in movies, but let's remember that when MacMurray shows up alive, her marriage to Douglas no longer legally exists. This is conveniently forgotten.

Douglas and MacMurray go through all sorts of silly ideas, even drawing lots to reach a conclusion.

Advocates for group marriage shall enjoy this, give me monogany.",0 "In 1942, in Warsaw, a Polish prostitute is murdered in a sadistic way. Major Grau (Omar Sharif), a man from German Intelligence that believes in justice, is in charge of the investigation. An eyewitness saw a German general leaving the building after a scream of the victim. A further investigation shows that three generals do not have any alibi for that night: General Tanz (Peter O'Toole), Maj. Gen. Klus Kahlenberge (Donald Pleasance) and General von Seidlitz-Gabler (Charles Gray). They three avoid a direct contact with Major Grau and become potential suspects. As far as Major Grau gets close to them, he is promoted and sent to Paris.

In 1944, in Paris, this quartet is reunited and Major Grau continues his investigation. Meanwhile, a plan for killing Hitler is plotted by his high command; a romance between Ulrike von Seydlitz-Gabler (Joanna Pettet) and Lance Cpl. Kurt Hartmann (Tom Courtenay) is happening and Insp. Morand (Phillipe Noiret) is helping Major Grau in his investigation.

The story ends in 1965, in Hamburg, with another similar crime.

The first time I watched this film, I was a teenager and I recall that I left the movie theater very impressed. Two days ago, a friend of mine saw this movie again and sent me an e-mail. I decided to watch it again, on VHS, since it has not been released on DVD in Brazil. This movie is really an excellent and very underrated European super production, having a spectacular international cast. Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif, from `Lawrence of Arabia', have another outstanding performance working together, highlighting the role of Peter O'Toole as a deranged man. It is amazing how Omar Sharif was a great actor in the 1960's. The story has war, mystery, crime, romance, drama and thriller, in right doses. Further, the character of Omar Sharif, as an ethic man who believes and pursues justice, no matter the price, is exciting. The reconstitution of the period is also fantastic, specially the scene of the madness of General Tanz in a block of Warsaw, when he burns and destroys many buildings. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): `A Noite Dos Generais' (`The Night of the Generals')",1 "I was extremely bewildered by the purpose of this film, but even more bewildered by the positive reviews a few people have left for it. It truly holds almost no value as a movie or social commentary at all. The acting is static and makes you feel like you are watching the first performance of several understudys. The subplot involving Merle Perkins' character Susan is unrelated and incomplete. The random black and white vignettes featuring the main character ""Christopher Bedford"" are intrusive and uninformative and I didn't care for a single one of the shallow, archetypical characters we were supposed to relate to.

The fact that people found some scathing commentary on the emptiness of the pretty boy ""gym-bunny"" gay lifestyle within this contrived film astounds me. Did I miss something? I saw a story about one man who sleeps around, cheats, and ends up lonely...Was that not an obvious conclusion? The emotionally charged ending seems out of place and adds 5 minutes of drama to a film that was an hour and a half of blah blah blah....YAWN",0 "This film was sometimes good, but far too often things got silly and it became hard to take the movie seriously. The more dramatic parts actually aren't that bad, but there are many pointless and fluffy moments in this film, and they really killed any momentum. About an hour in, it was clear that this film would only be good in brief spurts, so in addition to being irritated by dumb scenes, I was getting somewhat bored as well. And then there was the predictability of the whole story. So all-in-all, there isn't much to recommend about this film, and therefore I wouldn't suggest that anyone bother with this movie.",0 "Cliff Robertson set out to make two films in J.W. Coop (he worked on the screenplay as well as directed and starred), but in this case his effort winds up as only half a good movie.

He starts with an interesting premise -- a former rodeo cowboy emerges from prison c.1970, tries to pick up where he left off, and finds that both society and the rodeo game have moved on. The first half of the film is pretty good, dealing with J.W.'s efforts to adjust to his senile mama (Geraldine Page) and to a society where ""the kids, the commies, and the unions"" (so says one character) are ruining the country.

But when J.W. actually starts rodeoing, the picture shifts to an underdog-making-good-in-a-cutthroat-world scenario, as the old cowboy becomes an unlikely dark-horse contender for the national rodeo championship (competing against a younger rider with more corporate savvy). The ending of the film is unsatisfying and leaves us feeling incomplete -- there's more story to be told, but Robertson leaves us to feel sorry for a guy who, frankly, is not beaten down so much by ""the establishment"" as by his own pride.

Also unsatisfying is Page's role in the film. She appears in one scene toward the beginning of the movie, and then she disappears. Maybe that's reality, but art provides the opportunity to inject more of her story and her relationship with J.W. into the film. That opportunity is missed. We do learn some more about J.W.'s family as the film progresses, but there's no closure on his mom-and-pop issues, although I suppose one could argue that the lack of parental comfort has something to do with the end of the movie.

Robertson the actor is pretty darned good in this film, capturing J.W.'s initial bewilderment, suspicion and frustration with the '70s, and later his delight at having gained the love of a younger woman (Christina Ferrare). And Robertson the director has a nice eye for small towns and ""the sticks"" (there's a scene at a rural crossroads that's beautifully shot). But he's undercut by Robertson the screenwriter -- it's just difficult to buy J.W. as a contender for a major championship right out of prison (even if he has been rodeoing successfully there). And the film bites off more than it can chew in trying to comment both on social change and the rodeo life. This could have been a far stronger movie if it concentrated on one or the other -- and, to be honest, the encounter of a '50s guy with the early '70s was the far more interesting part of the film.",0 "This film was extremely well acted and cast, but the story is what I really enjoyed. Many people are commenting on the ""reincarnation"" aspect of the film - they've totally missed the point. The film isn't about reincarnation, it's about how credulousness and emotional fragility leads one woman into a dark, disturbing relationship with a lonely prankster, and ultimately about how one woman gets her revenge for a long-ago wrong.

The film is beautifully made, with a soundtrack that sets the mood instead of ""cu-ing"" you on how you are supposed to react to a scene (like so many soundtracks try to do these days).

If you like movies that explore the darker side of humanity, then you will really enjoy ""Birth.""",1 "I have been a fan of Randolph Scott westerns since childhood and enjoy most of his work, but this movie plods along so slowly that you wish that everyone would shoot each other early and end the misery.

The good guys & gals are too noble and self-righteous and the villains are obviously rotten, evil and stupid.

The best thing about the film is the color scenery.

1 * out of 5.",0 "Is it me or has Bollywood really stepped up to a new level these past two years. Performances, locations, directors, make-up and art direction are entering new heights of excellence. While this movie is not perfect, Kudos to Vinod Chopra and his production team in providing the cinema going public with a classy movie. Great locations, great back ground music and powerhouse yet subtle, nuanced performances make this a great watch in the cinema.

Bollywood actors seemed to have learned how to underplay and downplay the usual melodrama to give performances that leave a lasting impact. The Big B does not really have much dialogue but his protective and watchful presence can be felt throughout the movie even when he is not in the scene. Now for the Vinot Chopra regulars - After a good performance in the disappointing salaam namaste, saif has been cranking out great performance after performance ( being cyrus, omkara) and Eklavya is no different. He really holds his own against the big B. The supporting cast are all wonderful - Boman Irani was powerful, Jackie had a strong menacing role which was ably suppported by Jimmy Shergill, Vidya Balan mesmerizing as always. Raima Sen and Sharmila Tagore were effective and of course the always excellent Sanjay Dutt in a small role that lightens the mood somewhat.

Yes the movie does have a huge star cast but in my opinion the true stars of this movie are the director Mr. VV chopra and the astounding palace/fort location used for the film shoot.

This movie can be considered a novelty in Bollywood and I feel it deserves to be watched. It looks as if Yash Raj films, VC films and to a small extent RGV films seem to be at the forefront of Bollywood film making in terms of excellence, profitability and risk taking.",1 "Nobel prize winning novelist James Hanson (Richard Moll as Charles Moll) & his wife Claire (Faith Clift) who is a Doctor and has been suffering from nightmares lately, both set off for a holiday in Las Vegas. While watching some in house entertainment at a casino Claire is hypnotised by an English clairvoyant named Cecil Howard. Claire suffers a vivid hallucination about a sadistic SS officer named Olivier (Robert Bristol) in a Nazi concentration camp. After the show Claire talks with Howard and invites him to supper. Soon after she leaves Howard is killed by what appears to be a red light (don't ask). Meanwhile a old Jewish man named Abraham Weiss (Marc Lawrence) who is a Nazi hunter spots Olivier on a T.V. programme and recognises him as the man he has been after for years. Weiss immediately tells his story to bitter, overworked police officer Lieutenant Sterne (Cameron Mitchell) who lives just across the hall from him. Sterne agrees to look into Weiss's claims but eventually admits there is nothing he can do, especially after Weiss gives him some newspaper cuttings from 1944 which appear to show Olivier but since the paper is over 30 years old and Olivier would now be in his 60' or 70's and the guy on T.V. is still in his 20's & therefore Weiss's story is psychically impossible. That night Weiss is found dead in a parking lot. Lt. Sterne decides to take a personal interest and investigate even further. Claire is starting to lose her mind. Her husband James is about to publish a book called 'God is dead' in which James claims God does not and never has existed. Claire as a stout Catholic is deeply against the book and tries to convince James not to publish it. Olivier, who runs a cult of Satan worshippers, feels James would be a good person to have on board and attempts to convince James to join him and his organisation. A guy with a beard named Papini (Maurice Grandmaison) tries to warn James about Olivier, Satan and his book denouncing God. Various people die including Claire's nephew Jim (Klint Stevenson), Claire decides that she alone must put an end to Olivier and Satan himself. Claire and Jim's girlfriend Ann (Christie Wagner) conduct a bizarre plan that Claire believes will destroy Olivier for good, but will it succeed?

According to the IMDb's credit list Cataclysm was directed by three separate people, Phillip Marshak, Tom McGowan & Gregg C. Tallas as Greg Tallas. I am not sure if this information is correct but I don't think I've ever heard of a film directed by three different people and maybe that's why it turned out to be a bit of a jumbled up mess. The script by Philip Yordan tries something different and for that it should get at least an extra point. Even though at the end of the day it's still a mess with the story all over the place. Things just happen for little reason, characters aren't that likable and the dialogue in certain scenes isn't up to much. The story becomes occasionally confusing and unfocused. The script comes across as heavy handed at times with it's religious overtones and story arc. Almost as if Yordan wanted to make a thought provoking horror film with a message, obviously it fails, badly. Cataclysm starts out very interesting and draws the viewer in by not revealing too much, too soon. Unfortunately this decision to try and make the plot more mysterious back fires during the middle third as it gets somewhat boring waiting for something to happen but then things explode into a gore drenched finale. The acting is OK for this type of low budget nonsense, except Cift who seems to speak her lines really slowly compared to everyone else. And it's always nice to see genre veteran Cameron Mitchell. Some characters appear dubbed throughout. There is very little, in fact none, blood or gore in the film until the last 10 minutes or so when the red stuff is splashed everywhere. In this sequence there is some real surgery footage in a blood soaked over the top climax to round the film off. I think the film itself was shot on location rather than studio's and has a generally good feel throughout, the production values were much better than I expected. While not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination the photography, editing, special effects, continuity and music are all reasonable enough and I've sat through a lot worse. I'm sure a lot of people will automatically call this film crap as it's an easy target but for those of us who like this sort of off-beat grade-z low budget horror film from days gone by than this one may interest you and is probably worth tracking down. Just because it dares to try something a little different if for no other reason, it doesn't always succeed but at least those involved tried. Overall I'm glad I watched it, certainly not the best film in the world but then did anyone really expect it to be?",0 "OK I was devastated after I had watched this movie. I wanna run to the box-office and take back my money. What an overrated movie! There are countless of unrelated stuffs putting together. The FBI agent appeared out of nowhere. He even knew where L is and came to help(?).L trusted him(?) The REAL L would never trust an unidentified person like that. N solved a geometry problem and the answer is the plague's solution. Where he got that geometry problem? Why L didn't contact Raito's dad? Raito's dad would help, I am sure.

The acting is terrible. When F reported to L the situation at Thailand, he spoke English. If u notice, he was about to laugh (?) Even a non-native English speaker can realize the actors are speaking crappy English. Their English speaking is worse than my 16 years old brother. If the actors can not speak excellent English, please speak Japanese.

I have admired the superb L in Deathnote. His smart, his talent, his calmness are totally distinctive. However, in this movie, L solved the problem physically (?). He had to receive the help of the others to solve the problems. He never noticed why the girl's Dad ( I forgot her name, but she's one of the 2 children) asked her to do homework everyday and the homework was odd. Even the female doctor ( one of the villain in the movie) discovered that the homework is unusual at the first glance( why, L! u're stupid) Notice it again, L & N communicate through English. Becuz N is Thai. OK, that's fine. But why sometimes L speaks Japanese to the boy and he still understands (?) ( another wtf!).

The jokes are too lame and similar to many movies. That's why if its funny, I can not laugh, because that kind of jokes appeared too much in movies.

In the end, the villains died by themselves. So far, the greatest success of L is stop the airplane ( oh I remembered there is one time he showed his intelligence. It was when he noticed the co-writer's name in a dictionary. But yes, there is only one time). I have seen too many of airplane accidents in movies where our main characters always stop the airplanes not being crashed at the end. Lame storyline.

wtf is that huge title ""L CHANGE THE WORLD"". What change? Who change? L ? Everything Kenichi Matsuyama did is act cute. I don't have any problem with him acting L's distinctive style. I have problem with him spend too much time acting super cute in the movie. What for? The movie should change the title like ""L's cuteness"". ""CHANGE THE WORLD"" is a big word and doesn't suit with this time-consuming movie. The title acts like a window-dressing and nothing else.

On the final note, this movie is for those who love a cute and brainless L. For fans of the REAL L, u should watch it in a boring Sunday. Don't expect in it too much, and don't be deceived by the title. The world is still rotten after this movie.",0 "Well, it was a dark gloomy November night. I was sitting in my sofa thinking what shall I do. The clock's pendulum just made hands align on 1am. I reclined back, wondering whether by watching this movie, I become excitedly thrilled with action or my heart would throb with fear of the unknown powers of human mind.

None of these expectations fulfilled. First 20 minutes of the movie I spend figuring out whether it is screenwright's, director's, actors' or componist's fault. I guess it was a bit - sorry - a LOT of all. The screenplay - I can't talk about a story as there ain't a hint of story to this movie - is horribly shallow, purposefully missing all good hooks that could send a shiver down your spine. Even such a straightforward moment as a mortal duel between two best friends passes without the viewer barely noticing anything happened. Actors were - well, matching the screenplay's standards. They walked, talked, breathed to not to suffocate, but that was it. One could expect more at least from J. Reinhold. Regarding the guy behind the camera - I hesitate to call that one a Director of Photography - he could shoot nice sunsets or party pictures. Not a movie. Too many static shots, too many mistakes in picture composition. And the music - I am sorry. There was none. Just some two beats sampled off some stoned DJ's houseparty, pretending to accompany the movie.

I managed to watch this tragical attempt, but I'm still considering claiming a health damage insurance. Sleeping, I'd make better use of the time.",0 "An enjoyable quiet movie that examines people's perceptions of the world and themselves. Worthy of a watch. I enjoyed Gabrielle Rose's performance. She was good in ""The Sweet Hereafter"" and very engaging in this movie. The rest of the cast was equally good. I do have a problem with the title. I kept thinking this character is this sense and this one is that sense which distracted me from the unfolding stories. I think a more generic title like ""Sense"" would have been better. The ending was unexpected.",1 """The Petrified Forest"" at the time of this review is 71 years old. It has some painted outdoor sets, a very young, pretty Bette Davis, with Humphrey Bogart and Leslie Howard repeating their stage roles as, respectively, a Dillinger type criminal and an idealistic dreamer. It's less a film than a filmed play - and it's obviously a play, by Robert Sherwood. And guess what, it holds up with some wonderful acting and surprisingly refreshing themes.

Davis is Gaby Maple, who works in the desert café owned by her grandfather. It's there that she waits on Alan, who speaks loftily and listens to her dreams of leaving the hated Arizona desert, joining her mother in France and becoming an artist. In a short time, they fall for one another, but Alan has to move on. He hitches a ride with a wealthy man and his wife, the Chisholms, but on the way out of the desert, they run into the escaped murderer Duke Mantee and his gang, whose car has broken down. They steal the Henderson's car. While their chauffeur is attempting to fix the Mantee vehicle, Alan realizes that Duke and the gang are heading toward the café, and he walks back there. There, Duke holds everyone hostage, including the returning Chisholms, during which time, Alan comes to an important decision about Gaby, himself, and what his life means.

The film has two unusual aspects, the first being the surprising treatment of the black characters. One of the black men is part of Duke's gang and an equal member of it. When the chauffeur asks his boss if it's okay to have a drink, the gang member scoffs at his subservience. ""Haven't you heard about the new liberation?"" he asks him, shoving a drink in his hand. The second aspect is Mrs. Henderson's feminist counseling of Gaby. Mrs. Henderson urges Gaby not to suppress her dreams for someone else, in this case her grandfather, but to become an individual and know who she is and what she wants. She explains that she was in Europe and offered a stage role by the great Max Reinhardt, but acquiesced to her parents when they demanded she return to the states. She is now unhappily married to a selfish man and has no identity of her own. This is 1936, and acquiescing to what one's family expected of you and losing yourself in your husband's identity went on long, long after that.

Unlike today's films, ""The Petrified Forest"" is rich in dialogue with only a few action scenes. Nevertheless, it holds one's interest due to acting and wonderful atmosphere of this broken-down café with the wind whipping outside.

With his finely drawn, handsome features and British accent, Leslie Howard excelled at playing dreamers and philosophers, culminating in his role as Ashley Wilkes in ""Gone With the Wind."" As Alan, he's above it all, speaking of poetry and art to the wide-eyed Gaby and throwing even Duke Mantee off-balance. Mantee was Bogart's breakout film role, and he's fantastic. He studied John Dillinger's mannerisms to prepare for his stage role. Here he's fierce and angry as a man who knows he hasn't got a chance in hell of making it to Mexico but he's going to go down fighting. As Gaby, Davis conveys the character's fantasies, hope for the future, naive ambition, and love for Alan. Neither one of them belong in the desert, but while Alan is through with life's struggles, and Duke knows he's about to be through, Gaby is looking forward to them. Like the gas jockey who's in love with her (Dick Foran) she's willing to take risks for what she wants. Mr. Chisholm, the fat cat, just hopes nothing upsets his status quo. Mrs. Chisholm is stuck but vicariously roots not only for Gaby but Duke and Alan.

Allegorical in its themes, with no special effects, ""The Petrified Forest,"" its title referring to the nearby dead forest where several characters are figuratively heading, is a real treat for lovers of classic film, classic actors, and our country's history of depression and classism. I treasured every minute of it.",1 "Short Version: Japanese culture and American Wild West collide. The two concepts flow together very well. Plot is solid if a bit thin, but contains a few twists. Tone is laid back with some dramatic moments that'll keep you grounded. Characters are amazing and unforgettable.

Setting: The movie mostly takes place in a Wild West style settlement, the kind with one street and houses on either side. However, the architecture, the inhabitants, and the atmosphere of the town are all Japanese. Two warring clans, the Reds and the Whites, have taken over, but remain on their own sides of the town for the most part. A lone gunslinger wanders into the town, offering his services to the highest bidder. He soon realizes, however, that both clans are evil and need to be extinguished, and so the plot goes on.

Honestly, when you cut away all the fluff, the story boils down to a three-way war between the two clans and a couple of expert gunslingers. Fast-paced action and broken English can make the story hard to follow, but if you pay attention, there are a few twists and turns that'll keep you engaged.

Tone: The movie is moderately light-hearted. A couple of characters give some comic relief, and a good chunk of the movie is not rooted in reality. On the other hand, the motivation behind the characters is real enough. There are a few scenes and a large piece of the story that really comes into play later during the movie that grounds you. I'm not saying it's the perfect blend of mindless action with superb storytelling, but it does a pretty good job.

Characters: Personally, the characters went a long way towards selling the movie. There are a ton of them, and each one is unique and unforgettable. Both clan leaders are rotten in their own right, combine that with a Japanese Clint Eastwood, a sheriff with a very Gollum-esquire split personality disorder, a gun-toting granny, and Quentin Tarantino. You can't go wrong.",1 "For those of you considering the rental (or god forbid, purchase) of this movie, I have strong advice - DON'T DO IT. This movie should be on the all-time worst list. Where should I start . . . First, the actors in this movie are guilty of phoning-it-in and accepting a paycheck. If you're a Dennis Hopper fan and considering this flick, don't do it. It was determined a long time ago he would appear in ANY movie for cash and this movie is further proof. I suppose the actors shouldn't be condemned completely for their performance, as the writer, director and producers bear the weight of blame.

The dialogue - more often than not, makes no sense. And please don't try to tell me this movie is delivering some sort of powerful message of good vs. evil and the grey area in between. It simply doesn't. It completely relies on clichés, inaccuracies (the death chamber/electric chair is one example) and stereotypes. The gross mistakes and overly clever dialogue (which is in fact, borrowed completely and incorrectly from other, more successful movies) completely distracts from the attempted emotional examination of abortion, death penalty, etc.

Any talk of the ""hunk-quality"" of the writer/star of this movie should be immediately dismissed. If I were to note the ""beauty"" of some model in ""Beach Bimbos III"" I'd be considered a sexist. This person should not be able to make another movie again.

Honestly, what recourse do we have when we buy/rent a product of such inferior quality? With the exception of this site and others we have none. Movies like this piss me off. They promote/promise something they simply don't deliver. And if it were anything else, we could file a complaint with the BBB or return for a refund.

Don't get me wrong, my wife and I enjoy this genre. But this movie just plain sucks. Don't waste your time or money. Don't fall victim like we did. Don't watch this thinking it's an 'indie film' or some sort of psychological thriller. Don't be tempted by the cast. Just don't watch this movie. It's crap and everyone involved in this mess/deception should provide an apology for stealing our time/money.",0 "Battlestar Galactica is often dismissed as one of the most expensive turkeys in television history. Labelled a shameless Star Wars rip-off, the show exploded on to TV screens in the late 70s, only to peter out in its first season after audiences tired of increasingly lame scripts apparently built around the re-use of expensive effects footage. But to a generation of kids who could only tear themselves away from their Star Wars action figures for the weekly adventures of Apollo and Starbuck, it was the real deal. Now, like Star Trek before it, the much-maligned series looks set for a possible revival, with ongoing fan interest stirring rival camps to vie for production rights for a new series or cinema version. Battlestar Galactica was initially a major ratings success when it debuted in 1978 with a pilot episode detailing the destruction of human civilisation by the robotic Cylons - chrome-plated disco stormtroopers with metallic voices that were the last word in Casio home synthesiser effects.

Lorne Greene as Adama effectively reprised his patriarchal leader role from Bonanza, leading the wretched remnants of human civilisation as they fled their mechanical oppressors in search of refuge on a lost planet called Earth. Richard Hatch played his son Apollo, while a scene-stealing Dirk Bennedict played his roguish friend Starbuck. The two blow-waved heartthrobs were clearly moulded on Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, but worked brown velvet in a way their cinema counterparts never could. Early plotlines -- involving mass starvation, political corruption, class division and religious fanaticism -- effectively detailed the desperate plight of the refugees and caught the imagination of viewers. But when the pilot episode won huge ratings, the full-length series that was hastily rushed into production abandoned such complex and gritty storylines for more puerile scripts that inevitably involved lots of re-used clips of explosions. Character development largely went out the window. Blonde vixen Cassiopeia (Laurette Spang), introduced in the pilot as a prostitute rescued from a baying refugee mob by Starbuck, was inexplicably reassigned as a nurse and a generic love interest. A disgruntled Jane Seymour apparently demanded that her character, Serina, be shot dead by a Cylon at the first possible opportunity. Her wish was granted in the fourth episode, leaving fans wishing that her son, Boxey and his yapping mechanical dog, Muffet, had also fallen under Cylon swords. Human traitor Baltar, who had been so satisfyingly hacked to death by his Cylon allies in the cinema version of the pilot, was the subject of an absurd plot alteration that saw him leading the genocidal robots in their quest to finish off humanity. John Collicos camped it up as Baltar, chewing through his ridiculous dialogue with occassional style. Baltar's queeny power struggles with his lieutenant, Lucifer - a bitchy robot with an impressive wardrobe of capes - were an ongoing feature of the series. Amid the recycled dog fights and budget-saving plotlines that involved characters being regularly stranded on backward planets that inevitably resembled Earth, several excellent episodes were produced that have maintained fan interest to this day. Lloyd Bridges put in a star turn as the war-mongering Commander Cain and Patrick McNee appeared as a seductive alien who was probably Satan. Despite occasional dramatic flourishes, the often-puerile plotlines alienated advertiser-friendly demographics. The show was axed at the end of its first season, leaving the storyline unresolved and a generation of kids feeling ripped off. Many more were tempted the following year with the appearance of Galactica 1980, a ultra-cheap bastardisation of the original show detailing the arrival of the refugees on a contemporary Earth. It failed to attract even the very young demographic it was aiming for. Twenty years later, actor Richard Hatch, series creator Glen A. Larson and the Sci Fi Channel are all working on separate Galactica proposals. Although copywrite issues continue to cloud the possibility of a revival, many fans will retain their fond childhood memories of this much maligned show.",1 "I saw KINKY KILLERS on Showtime the other night; and, I thought the title was totally lame, especially given the content. I cannot believe this was rated TV-MA; it should have been R.

The film; and, its corn-ball 70s throw-back plot, just doesn't live up to its potential. The acting is wooden, the plot is twisted, non-sensical; and, drawn out to the point of boredom. Half the cast could have been played by the same person, they look that much alike. There is so much idiocy going on that you cannot tell who is whom; and, what they are doing.

And, what no one can look up ""Polycarp"" on the Internet... I mean how lame is it that the word is such a mystery?

Everything about this movie is one cliché after another -- the overworked cop, the inattentive spouse, the ""renegade cop,"" the manipulative shrink... oh, what a waste of time.",0 "I was watching this movie and it came to a point where it had dragged on so long that I was anxious for it to be over, so I checked the time and only fifteen minutes had passed since the beginning of the movie. I spent money to rent it so I kept watching it for another 45 minutes...still no plot after an hour. I would say what the movie is about, but I don't know that it's really about anything. It's a conglomeration of pointless scenes that don't make up a story. I was expecting a great film considering it's 8.0 ranking here at imdb, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how one person would think this movie is in any way good, let alone fifteen thousand. This one has apparently done well at the film festivals, so that should be enough of a sign to steer clear of it. Indie movies are indie for a reason...they suck. This is a great one to rent if you struggle with insomnia.",0 "Shocking! Every American needs to see this movie. A previous comment titled ""Duh"", at first glance, makes us all seem as though we are somehow keenly aware that civil rights are being denied...in America. But until I saw this movie, I couldn't parallel being arrested, tortured, and denied access to any outside help in China, to the same thing happening here. Somehow, the idea of these things taking place here didn't seem so terribly awful, and fearful, until I put myself in both of the actors roles as victim.

Strip Search is one of the best, thought provoking movies I have ever seen. The acting was absolutely superb; making it easy to be drawn into every scene, and Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance was no less than stellar to that end. For short, I was IMPRESSED!",1 "Unlike others, I won't even give the premise much credit. This is Saw over an internet connection. It's such a generic movie. All the characters are one-dimensional and get you to invest zero in them. The online dating guy was the most interesting.

Holy cow do they get the technology wrong. Zippy noises on computers. We all have computers, why do they insist in Hollywood at making them alter from reality? Computers don't bleep and blip. They also don't pull up video, websites and webpages that fast. It's distracting and insulting.

The killer is serving streaming video to 17 million people at one time. Sure. Anyone ever used a proxy server? They're slow as hell to even web browse. Sure buddy. You hacked into Diane Lane's computer network, you're using her ISP to stream to 17,000,000 people. Uh huh. Plus, where does a man buy a machine to deliver an IV drip electronically pegged to another device? Or 250 heat lamp bulbs? Wanna find the killer? Find the address that 250 heat bulbs were shipped to.

Oh, and the killer took Diane Lane to her freakin house to torture her? Good choice. They'll never check there. Plus, in that dense, busy neighborhood - nobody noticed the strange teenager moving equipment by the caseload into the basement? Ridiculous and lousy movie. Rent the far superior Silence or Seven.",0 "This is the best killer frog movie ever made. Although for the most part, the Frogs are the conductor of the killing symphony of reptiles that surround a southern mansion owned by Ray Milland. Gators, snakes, and spiders do most of the dirty work; till the finale, anyhow. The frogs are always there though, watching. The one main thing I liked about this movie is that it didn't involve biological mutations caused by the American military, like so many other nature-gone-wrong films. Like JAWS (that came a few years after) this film is plain old nature's revenge on humanity, and nothing more. Sam Elliot is the 'Chief Brody', as it were, of this film, playing an ecologist (so then he's 'Brody' and 'Hooper' combined). The thing I liked also is that he - and the movie itself - wasn't a bit preachy like other environmental sci-fi type movies. The victims of nature aren't really bad guys, just rich and spoiled and miserable. The filmmakers left a couple of unresolved things: like did the African American butler, maid, and girlfriend of one of the dead family members, live? Did the dog live? Well, since we didn't see them die, I assumed they did. Also, the beginning credit sequence is one of my favorite of all time, especially when the title FROGS is shown. And there's a neat little cartoon treat after the final credits roll. Well, all in all, I really loved this movie. It's a laid back gem indeed. Sit and enjoy. And stay away from fancy french food after watching!",1 "This is a really interesting 1991 Mexican drama concerning the eight-year long journey (1528 - 1536) of Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, who was shipwrecked in Florida and enslaved by Indians, but who found a career as an itinerant Indian shaman, and eventually, after an endless journey through swamp and desert, ultimately found his way back to Spanish civilization. Cabeza de Vaca's few traveling companions, most notably the Moor Estebanico, helped fuel rumors of the Seven Cities of Cíbola, which led directly to the 1540 Coronado expedition and the first Spanish encounters with the Pueblo Indians of the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. Cabeza de Vaca's story is one the greatest personal survival tales in world history, and it made him one of the very, very few people who could fully appreciate the tragedy of Spain's conquest of the peoples of the Americas. The movie is in Spanish with English subtitles, but there is actually little Spanish at all, since Cabeza de Vaca is often alone or isolated, with no one to speak to. He is just as lost as the audience, in a world of Indian dialects.

The director Nicolás Echevarría greatly simplified, even over-simplified, Cabeza de Vaca's journey. The movie suggests the shipwreck was in Florida, but that was actually the journey's first bloody stopping point. The final shipwreck occurred somewhere west of the Mississippi Delta, and Cabeza de Vaca's enslavement likely occurred somewhere near Galveston, Texas. Why leave that part out? Well, it's complicated, and ultimately for director Nicolás Echevarría may have been unimportant. Echevarría had something else in mind. The important part was that Cabeza de Vaca was thrown into a hallucinatory world of abasement and privation. Cabeza de Vaca carried a Christian cross, and his initial captors decided he should be sent to a shaman who also wore a cross, and be put to work tending the needs of a spoiled armless gnome. What a horrible existence! The hallucinatory quality is reminiscent of the magical realism pioneered by author Gabriel García Márquez and subsequently used by directors like Mel Gibson in ""Apocalypto"". Cabeza de Vaca's real existence may have been as a turtle-egg collector on the Texas beach, but instead the movie shows him apprenticing the shaman craft with his captors. Cabeza de Vaca's vision-laden emergence as a successful healer is the movie's best moment.

The transition from swamp to desert is very abrupt, indicating that Echevarría wasn't much bothered by notions of continuity. Indeed, he had only two Mexican filming locations: the desert (in Coahuila) and the swamp (in Nayarit). As far as I could tell, the Indians were less like the real Indians of the northern Gulf of Mexico coast, and more like the Indians of Mexico. Then I remembered my history of Mexico (""Mexico"" by Michael D. Coe, third edition, p. 146):

""Into this uneasy political situation stepped the last barbaric tribe to arrive in the Valley of Mexico, the Aztecs, the 'people whose face nobody knows'. They said that they came from a place called 'Aztlan' in the west of Mexico, believed by some authorities to be the state of Nayarit, and had wandered about guided by the image of their tribal god, Huitzilopochtli ('Hummingbird-on-the left'), who was borne on the shoulders of four priests. .... We next see the Aztecs following a hand-to-mouth existence in the marshes of the great lake, or 'Lake of the Moon'. On they wandered, loved by none, until they reached some swampy, unoccupied islands, covered by rushes, near the western shore; it was claimed that there the tribal prophecy, to build a city where an eagle was sitting on a cactus, holding a snake in its mouth, was fulfilled.

The director suggests discreetly, by his choice of filming location in the Nayarit swamps, through simplification and also perhaps by conflation of the Texas Indians with Aztecs, and by using a dash of magical realism, that Cabeza de Vaca's real story is about the tragedy of Mexico's conquest by Spain. And Cabeza de Vaca's story is about that, partly at any rate. The film is a meditation about Mexico's tortured birth as a Spanish colony. A powerful film and well-worth watching!",1 Very disturbing reality break. Child prostitution was prevalent in North America well into the early 20th century. This gives a good insight into demise of many children during this period. We were totally devoid of child protection agencies. Although many narrow minded artistically challenged people will label this movie as child pornography it is not. There is no suggestion of condoning or promoting of such. Louis Malle used a combination of shock and graphically disturbing scenes to get his message across. To have censored this movie would have been a throw back to the dark ages for artistic freedom. Although the acting leaves something to be desired it is a must watch for those wanting to see a dramatization of the hopelessness of the lives of children in the early Southern States.,1 "This exquisitely photographed film portrays the cultural clash between Europeans (in this case the Europeans happen to be French) and various native tribes in seventeenth century North America without romanticizing either French culture or that of the native peoples.

Perhaps the most striking feature of this film from my perspective was utter arrogance of the Europeans to come into a wild country presuming the superiority of their way of life over that of the indigenous peoples. No character seemed to understand that better than Father LaForgue, admirably portrayed by Lothaire Bluteau. The good Father soldiers on despite the evidence that his presence in the vast wilderness of North America won't make a whit of difference in his life or in the lives of the people he has vowed to introduce into ""paradise."" The Algonquin guides worry about their attachment to the ""demon"" LaForgue and wonder whether they shouldn't just kill him. Even LaForgue's young assistant, Daniel, wonders how the presence of a French missionary makes the the native people's lives any better. The Iroquois, who suffer from a harsh depiction in the film, take a more economically-based view of LaForgue -- he and Daniel are seen by the Iroquois as currency to be exchanged for guns.

An aside concerning the Iroquois. While the violence depicted in the film is no doubt accurate, what the film does not reveal is that the Iroquois likely became decidedly more hostile when the French began to assist old enemies, such as the Algonquin, in traveling into hunting grounds that had previously been Iroquois territory.

But back to LaForgue, whose journey is the primary emphasis of the film. He has journeyed, apparently from a life of some privilege in France, leaving behind a doting mother and (perhaps) a beautiful young woman. He has journeyed away from the ""pleasures of the flesh,"" lingering on the sight of a couple making love in the communal tipi and later admitting to Daniel that he, LaForgue, lusts after the young Alogonquin woman,Annuka, with whom Daniel had already struck up a sexual relationship. He gets lost on the journey in the cathedral-like forest and rejoices and being found by Algonquin hunters, who express some bemusement that the Black Robe got lost in the first place. Finally, he journeys to the Hurons and a village beset by smallpox, where baptism has been sold to the natives as a miracle cure as much as it has a key to salvation.

By avoiding the tendency of films depicting Native American life to romanticize, Bruce Beresford has captured more profoundly the daily harsh realities of life for the peoples inhabiting the northeastern portion of North America at the arrivals of the first trickling of Europeans. Neither way of life is ultimately depicted as superior to the other: each simply is. This is not a ""feel-good"" film. Instead it is a realistic, thought-provoking tale of a journey of a man, of cultures, and of life itself. Simply a brilliant film.",1 "Night of the Living Dead starts as brother & sister Barbara (Patricia Tallman) & Johnnie (Bill Mosley) visit their recently deceased mother's grave, there they are attacked by one of the living dead & Johnnie is killed although Barbara manages to escape on foot to a nearby farmhouse. There she is attacked by more of the living dead but a man in truck called Ben (Tony Todd) arrives & helps her, the truck is out of gas & they have no choice but to stay put. Then out of the cellar some more people emerge, together they decide to board up the house to try & keep the flesh eating living dead outside as they desperately try to come up with a plan of escape, as the night draws on tensions in the house escalate & the cannibalistic living dead outside rapidly grow in number...

Directed by Tom Savini this is absolutely brilliant remake of the George A. Romero classic Night of the Living Dead (1968) who actually turns in the screenplay for this, made years before the recent Hollywood fascination with horror remakes, The Hills Have Eyes (2006), The Omen (2006), The Ring (2002), Dawn of the Dead (2004), The Wicker Man (2006) & Black Christmas (2006) to name just six of the top of my head this '90 version of Night of the Living Dead is how it should be done & I thought it was a great film on many levels. The script stays pretty faithful to the original which to be fair I haven't seen in a number of years so the exact details of it are a little hazy, it starts out almost scene-for-scene although it changes things at the end. This treats the original material with respect & adds it's own ideas without drastically altering things which is how a remake should be I suppose, I really liked the ironic ending where the heroic Ben was in fact wrong & if they'd listened to the selfish Harry they would have all been rescued. The character's are very strong here & I particularly liked Ben who gets some really good dialogue as he tries to explain things from his own perspective & what he has seen prior to meeting Barabra. The film moves along at a great pace, it's never boring, it's as plausible as any film can be featuring flesh eating zombies, it's really nice to see a pretty intelligent horror film with good adult character's rather than annoying teens & a well thought out script.

This was the directorial debut of special make-up effects man Tom Savini & it perhaps comes as a surprise that this Night of the Living Dead remake is pretty tame in the gore department, there aren't even many gory head shots, there's a severed hand, a few rotten zombies & not much else but the story compensates. To be fair the filmmakers were forced to cut some of the gorier stuff to get the rating that they wanted, however there is a documentary on the DVD release with some of the gore shots that were cut out. There's a nice tension to the film, the in fighting between Harry & Ben together with the ever growing hordes of zombies outside.

With a supposed budget of about $4,200,000 this is very well made with good production values, impressive special make-up effects & very good acting especially Todd.

Night of the Living Dead '90 is a top film, it's how remakes should be done & is a fantastic homage to original that is a great film in it's own right. Definitely well worth a watch.",1 "Fellini called his ""Satyricon"" a science fiction film projected into the past. His expressive portrait of ancient Rome is a richly ornamented fresco of contrasts; variations within a select kaleidoscope of opposites related to the sacred, the pure, the just, and the beautiful.

Reportedly a free adaptation of the now fragmentary writings of Petronius, the film also makes fleeting references to various scattered works and myths of antiquity. Even the language is a blend of various dialects and accents, effectively brewed together into a type of ""primordial soup.""

The film features a young man named Encolpio and his sometime friend Ascilto; both of whom seem to prefer participatory experience as a means to finding meaning in life while primarily disregarding status, power and possessions. Contrasting some of the film's more serene scenes with those of unrest and discord, patterns supportive of a life lived from a similar experiential perspective begin to emerge. Some examples are as follows:

During the ""Death to the Classics"" scene, the poet Eumolpo says that the arts have declined because the desire for ""virtue"" has been lost. Dialectical discussion and philosophy have been replaced with drinking, vice and monetary greed, thus preventing further creation of works of art at the same pinnacle of excellence as the classics.

Later when Eumolpo and Encolpio recline in the open field encased in an early morning mist, the elderly poet bequeaths to Encolpio a series of ""natural"" phenomena; among them mountains, rivers, clouds, love, tears, joy, sound, song and the voices of man...

During the ""Matron of Ephesus"" scene, a young woman mourning her deceased husband by starving to death in a cave has her chalk white face returned to its natural radiance after accepting the embrace of a handsome soldier. The moral being ""...better to hang a 'dead' husband than to lose a 'living' lover...""

A politically doomed and suicidal married couple free their slaves whereupon a reference is made to the ""sacred"" earth. Their children are sent away to a place free from tyranny which will be ""beautiful."" Later, Encolpio and Ascilto arrive at the couple's elegant home and enjoy a night of revelry during which Encolpio quotes the ""poet"" as having said ""...as for me I have always lived to enjoy the present moment as if it were the last sunrise...""

The tale of the beautiful Enotea and her subsequent punishment after she tricked the wizard who had professed his love for her seems to be a warning to remain ""true"" to expressions of affection.

Following what appears to be his final corruption after having abandoned his idealistic philosophy, Eumolpo proposes an interesting last will and testament. Those wishing to inherit a part of his worldly fortune are asked to devour his remains. Reflecting the hippie generation's symbolic scorn of rampant materialism during the shooting of this film, Encolpio and his friends smile and turn away, heading onward toward a new adventure.

The scenes of discord in the film appear to reflect issues related to social and political methods of enforced control over others. For example, during the banquet of Trimalcione, his sycophants eat, laugh, chant, dance, perform and throw objects on cue. While a captive at sea, Encolpio is made an object of entertainment for the pirate Lica. Later he is forced to battle a huge ""minotaur' for the entertainment of a proconsul and his puppet court during the ""gladiator prank"" sequence.

Fellini makes strong use of colour symbolism in ""Satyricon."" The film opens in what appears to be a large Roman steam bath. There is the occasional sound of water dripping, and in Encolpio's tenement a seemingly wealthy group of party goers arrive on a small boat in the water, perhaps ready to go ""slumming"" with the poor. There is also a bluish tint to many of these early scenes as if they were being viewed through water. Later, during Trimalcione's feast, a flame red lens filter appears to overshadow the initial candle lit display giving the impression of an envelopment of fire. During the outdoor scenes on Lica's boat, the sound of the wind is recurrent and a blitz of snow appears providing a possible reference to the air element. Near the end of the film, Encolpio enters a maze by sliding in the dirt down a hillside. Following his battle with the minotaur, a dust storm blows as he attempts to make love with Arianna. Later, when he visits the elderly Enotea, she lets dirt fall from her clenched fists as if giving a silent reference to the earth element.

There are also many references to the supernatural and paranormal. Eyes stare into the camera as if to give reference to phantoms from antiquity looking at those presently alive as if to question. While Encolpio and Eumolpo have their discussion in the art gallery, a two tiered galley of soundless faces inexplicably passes by like unknown entities observing the men's conversation through a hole in the wall. There is a curious space-like object on the deck of Lica's ship. In addition, a momentary glimpse of supernatural visionary lights appear during the abduction of the ""mystical"" hermaphrodite who subsequently dies after having been exposed to the ""light"" of day. The film also presents a recurring symbolism of carved and imprinted heads eventually given great emphasis with Lica's startling decapitation. Perhaps the question is, has society become too obsessed with the intellect at the expense of the heart and the inherent value of the individual person? Perhaps not so for Fellini, as the entire film is intensely alive with a glorious blend of color; each face, each person, in Fellini's words, serving as an integral part of his artwork on film.

Finally, like the eternal wheel and his initial greeting, Encolpio's farewell is presented in front of a stone background and he is interrupted in mid sentence giving ....",1 "Marty is typical guy who wants to spice up his boring married sex life. He gets the idea that he should get his wife together with another woman and he does this because he is self centered, of course. At first his wife does not want to be with another woman but soon enough she likes it. She likes being with another woman so much that she starts to reject Marty and his whole plan blows up in his face.

I think Marty gets what he deserves and it's pretty funny. He gets more than he asks for and that is what makes the movie great. The whole scene with the sister is pretty funny as well. Wishes do come true and sometimes they come true a little too much.",1 "I was given some old videos and this Mascara was with them, i just put It on and really enjoyed the whole Drag and Transvestite theme, with The Lovely Eva Robin's as Peppa.... watch and enjoy something a little Different from the normal every day films.

I didn't expect to see such good actors as Michael Sarrazin and Charlotte Rampling in a movie of this theme but they play the parts very well and convincingly.

For me Eva Robin's portrayal of Peppa was touching and I felt great sorrow for the character and found her strangely intriguing.

Murder mystery and a Love story with a different theme what more could you ask for?

I would say give it a chance and you will enjoy, but if you don't like the drag and transvestite theme then steer well away.",1 "I watched this show when I was 19. I enjoyed it since it seemed to grasp how every marriage that I knew from friends and family. Granted not all marriages are carbon copies of the ones on the show, but at least it hits on ones that are familiar. I found that the awkward moments with Mickey (Mike Binder) and his wife (Sonya Walger) looked like bad acting seemed to emphasize that awkward feelings they were having. Little nuances like this made it a little better for me. And the support characters are real to me. Especially since I have been on both sides (being the single guy and the married guy *sort of) The complaints seem real and the responses genuine as far as I could tell. I have since watched it and still find the humor. I was more curious about how long the show would last since they covered the main question of infidelity? The second season I am sure covered another topic, but I don't really remember. I do hope they put out the second season just so I can complete my thoughts on the show. All in all I did enjoy it when I was single and when I got into a serious relationship.",1 "This could of been a Hughes all time classic, I enjoyed it right up to the part Whaley stopped parading around in his underwear, (oh this sick mind of mine.) I'll say it loud and clear to everyone who has failed to realize it, "" Whaley Rules! "". I think this movie loses what ever it had going for it, when a straight forward plot, which leads to lotsa dead writing, and a film that seems rushed together to make air time. This could have been a wonderful impromptu, since Whaley is a natural riot, and Connely can hold her own. But instead we get a lesson in bad writing, crippled production, and wasted casts. Oh what this could have been.",0 "Eddie Murphey stars as a father who starts taking advice from his daughter in Imagine that. Now I know that everyone has given up on Eddie Murphey. Because both Meet Dave and Norbit were disasters. But Imagine that actually isn't a disaster.

I am not going to go too much into the plot. Or into it at all. Now Eddie Murphey at a time was a great comedic talent, but now he chooses all of these bad films. But Eddie Murphey sure does make a comeback in this film.

Imagine that is a funny film. Though at times seems a little too crude. Trust me people this ain't Norbit but this film is a good movie. I also felt like the film was a little bit cliché'd if you know what I mean. There is a scene in the film where Eddie Murphey leaves his meeting to see his daughter sing at her school. Clearly it's not a great movie, but I appreciated it so thumbs up.",1 I saw this film and thought it was totally cool. Finally... a chic flick without a bunch of wimpy women. This is the real stuff girls. And guys... this is what we're all about. Thora Birch was amazing. The clothes were killer. Loved it.,1 "This film is a direct copy of the mainstream Jennifer Tilly film ""Bound,"" done in B-movie fashion. The main difference is that the Gina Gershon character is played by a male, Jason Schnuit (see also, Club Wild Side 2). Otherwise, the film is virtually identical in plot. The main character, played by Kim Dawson, lately of the late-night cable series ""Bedtime Stories,"" is not the ditsy showpiece of a mobster, but the unhappily married showpiece of a mobster. Jason Schnuit plays her old boyfriend whom she left at the altar. He comes back into her life and together they hatch the Bound-like plan to get out of the desperate situation and be together. The story is unoriginal, as are the mediocre sex scenes. The film doesn't even have the female-female scenes that made ""Bound"" so interesting.",0 "This movie made me feel real sorry for one of the old ladies that is trying to get a date. Even years from seeing the movie at the theater, I think about that lonely old heart. What I didn't care for was the ending of the movie. I had this big ole buildup with Ellen Barkin and that was the end? Please! Give me an ending that is just as suspenseful as the rest of the show was. I just felt like the director took an easy way out after entertaining me the entire film. The acting is fantastic, the script is wonderful, casting unbelievable, the ending just kind of sucked. And guess what, I have a stack of 45s and I'm still waiting for them to become valuable.",0 "I know there are many out there who think that Lena Horne would have been better cast as Julie than Ava Gardner was. She was considered for the role and desperately wanted to play it, according to her own commentary on the film from the documentary ""That's Entertainment III"". Lena had also done a brief turn as Julie in the 1946 Kern biopic, ""Till The Clouds Roll By"". Lena had, and still has, a wonderful voice and would have been wonderful in the part vocally. With that said, let me say that she would have been miscast in the role of Julie. There is no possible way that Lena Horne could have believably played a woman born to one black and one white parent who is credibly passing as white. With no racism or malice intended, Lena Horne is very obviously a black woman. The whole crux of Julie's story has to do with her attempt to hide her parentage and her marriage to a white man. How could a black woman who ""looks"" black pull this off? I think MGM was wise to cast Ava Gardner and pass on Lena Horne. It is just too bad that there weren't really any roles written for her during her time at MGM. She proved that she could carry a real part in such films as ""Stormy Weather"" and ""Cabin In The Sky"", especially that latter.",1 "I bought this at Wherehouse Music for $6 and its not worth 6 cents. i would have returned but it was a going out of business purchase so i ended up giving it away to my fiance's parents. They hated it also and are trying to find someone else to take it off their hands. It's another in a long line of ""spoofs"" of horror movies, it tries to be funny and tongue in cheek but its just total garbage, don't waste your time watching this.

Davey M.",0 "This movie is a genuine piece of eroticism. Some comments pointed out that the acting was awful. Well in a way one could say that the actors are not acting, they are living the situation ! (I wouldn't be surprise to learn that they had a lot a sex together when the cameras where not shooting...). What I try to say is that this movie is not ""manufactured"" according to the canonical rules, it is ""genuine"". This is why it conveys a unique impression of freedom - seldom found elsewhere - that I would call A LIBERTARIAN EXPERIENCE OF SEX. And therefore it gives to the receptive spectator a mostly exhilarating experience.

It is the combination of the world of Henry Miller and the sexual liberation of the 70's (more advanced in the Scandinavian countries - this is a Danish film) that made it possible.

If I where to keep just one erotic movie, it may well be this one. Of course if you watched too many lousy porn, your look may be too much formatted to appreciate this movie...",1 "I haven't even seen it, and it's bad. I have read the comments and the summary though. For those people who believe that I can't comment on this because I haven't seen it or that it is actually a good movie, or that I've been brainwashed by action movies, think about the author who originally wrote the story. From what I have read from comments and summaries, and from the novel From the Earth to the Moon, it has terrible graphics, a bad story-line, bad acting, and poor special effects. I wanted to cry when I read the summary, as it had absolutely nothing to do with the book. I wonder if the producer had even read a summary of the book. They should be ashamed to say they based the movie off of his book, and ashamed to even name the movie after it. For those of you who liked the movie, or those that didn't read the book, read it, as it is a lot better way to spend your time.",0 "A fun short film, some crazy manoevres, but not as fast as it makes you believe.

On the Champs Elysee the car is (according to the soundtrack) running close to max revs in 5th gear which means it should be doing about 150mph, yet it takes 67 seconds to cover 2 kilometres which puts its average speed at 67mph on a dead straight road with supposedly almost constant full throttle.

By taking the 'racing line' through corners, mounting the camera close to the road and dubbing the sound it gives a good impression of speed, but other cars pass by too slowly and most of the pedestrians barely notice what is supposed to be a 4 litre V12 Ferrari bellowing through a city at full chat.

What C'etait un Rendezvous aspires to, Getaway in Stockholm achieves.",0 "With Hollywood's usual sugar-coated approach to everything, including prison life, it's nice to see how independent filmmakers in some of the most impoverished societies of the world handle the subject. This is not the first time Brazil has been the subject of international attention. From their numerous wins at the world cup to being the place a once-good hardcore band called Sepultura started, it is probably the most well-known country in South America.

Those who are familiar with Sepultura's music will know the name Carandiru already. Although I forget the name of the song, the prison was covered in a song detailing the brutal murders of prisoners. Some things implied in the song are flatly contradicted here, but I will deal with that later. Where Carandiru, the film, succeeds while Sepultura's song failed, is that the film gives the prisoners a very rational, human face. They're not portrayed as angels, but neither are they portrayed as devil incarnates. They are given enough humanity to matter, and that is literally everything in this type of film.

It is also interesting to get a listen to some of the other musicians of Brazil in some of the soundtrack. I forget the name of the band (Ratos Du Parao or something like that), but their song Crucificados Pelo Sistema can be heard very prominently during one memorable scene. As you get to learn more about the criminals, both major and minor, the title seems exceptionally appropriate. In fact, a wide variety of music that is appropriate to the setting is presented here, as opposed to the one-note selections presented in many American films set in prison.

There has been criticism levelled at the film, along the lines of being too long and distended. That is true to some extent. Such scenes as the pop singer's visit to the prison should definitely have been left on the cutting room floor. The statements of the prisoners about the massacre were also unnecessary, as they build a sometimes false impression of who lived or died, and prematurely at that. It has also been said that the film lacks focus, with many prisoners getting a little detail, while others get none at all. Personally, I prefer it this way. Following a singular hero around is getting tired, especially when there is such a wide, diverse mix here.

It has also been said that the film builds a false, overly negative portrait of life in Brazil. I can see shades for and against that. As I mentioned before, Sepultura are a famous example of the music scene in Brazil, mixing elements of Napalm-Death style with Biafra-like punk. It is only in a nation so disrespectful of human rights and truth that a band that screams about injustice or abuses would have to leave. But at the same time, Brazil has a culture all its own, which most certainly should not be replaced by Americanism.

The aforementioned-song has it that the inmates in Carandiru were annihilated in what was described as a ""holocaust method"". The film has it that in a prison housing some 7500 inmates (it was intended to house 4000, apparently), 110 or so were killed. Either way, the prison was eventually closed and torn down. And Americans think their prisons are brutal!

In all, I gave Carandiru a seven out of ten. It is far from perfect, but as a change from the staid formula of Hollywood, it is just what the doctor ordered. Give it a squiz, if only for the cultural expansion.",1 "This is clearly Hawn's attempt to shake off her stereotypical image. Strangely enough she isn't the problem. In fact, she does okay without her usual smiling and giggling. The problem here is the ridiculous plot. It makes no sense whatsoever. At first sight it may seem complex but the truth is it's just not well thought out. I'll refrain from going into details but suffice it to say the story is very uneven and incoherent. Also, John Heard is terrible as a murdering psycho. It's easy to see why; he was completely miscast. His lines, which are supposed to terrify viewers, are laughable. The standard scares in the film are effective but very cliched and worn out. It sounds like a B-movie and that's exactly what it is.",0 "Absolutely inane Martin and Lewis film where Dino is the doctor and Lewis, a railroad employee, supposedly comes into contact with a radioactive car. Dean, at first, feels that Lewis is terminal but soon reverses himself. That reversal doesn't come before N.Y. newspaper lady, Janet Leigh, arrives and gets the two to come to N.Y. for a sympathetic last trip with the hopes of increasing the newspapers' circulation. Fred Clark, as the editor, is his usual cynical self.

What makes this film so ridiculous is that it could be obvious to anyone that there is nothing wrong with Homer Flagg (Lewis.) His antics are as silly as ever. The attempt at slap-stick comedy with the three doctors is nonsensical at best.

Even some of the dance sequences are out of line here especially the one with Sheree North playing herself.",0 "Emergency Landing, a film I saw under the title Robot Pilot, is essentially a romantic comedy disguised by a story of war production of planes, an invention of a new navigational remote control system, and foreign spies and intrigue. Forrest Tucker , a very young Forrest Tucker, plays Jerry Barton, a pilot trying to convince a big airplane producer to see his friend's navigational remote control system. The test fails and Barton goes home with Doc - only to soon both become ""wardens"" to the pretty daughter of the fly tycoon and his sister Aunt Maude - for their complicity in stealing gasoline. You get then a bunch of scenes of the two- Tucker and the spoiled brat Carol Hughes fighting against each other only to fall in love and the same for Maude and the inventive Doc. As far as romantic comedies made on the real cheap, you could do far worse. Director William ""One Shot"" Beaudine has some skill with the camera and all of the actors are engaging - something you seldom see in these kind of movies. Tucker is amiable if nothing else, Hughes does a believable job, Emmett Vogan plays his part as Doc with great gusto, and Evelyn Brent does the best job as Aunt Maude with great style and a wonderful sense of humour. Even the worst actor, Thornton Edwards playing Pedro - a Mexican stereotype that would have every civil liberties group out against you today, has moments that are funny. The real problem with this film is that is is advertising to be what it is obviously not - a spy thriller or war picture or science fiction film even. It really is nothing close to any of those things. It is a simple little comedy that is cheaply made and has some good scenes working with the materials at hand. I was entertained at the very least although I was expecting something else. A minor bonus: Midget extraordinare Billy Curtis makes a brief cameo as a hard-dealing, justice-giving judge of the West. Funny and cute!",1 "Many a B-movie fan blame Jim Wynorski, David DeCoteau and this film's director, Fred Olen Ray (using the alias ""Nicholas Medina""), for turning the low-budget horror industry into one big, dull, plot less soft-core sex romp. All three have some enjoyable flicks under their belt, but this one's unfortunately a prime example of their detractors' gripe; a vampire movie with awful acting, lame writing and a tired, boring plot about bloodsuckers working out of a strip club. Beverly Lynne, a short-haired blonde who used to be a pro football cheerleader and frequently acts in these things, is Jill, a struggling reporter for ""Crime Beat"" magazine. She goes undercover in the club to investigate a murder. Jay Richardson virtually replays his 'Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers' part as an aged detective who calls everyone around him ""kid."" The owner of the exclusive ""Underground"" strip club is played by long-haired porn actor Evan Stone, who proves he's an old-fashioned kind of vampire by keeping his pants on during his sex scenes. He talks softly, wears a frilly shirt, mascara and black fingernail polish, is seen for about two seconds as a winged monster, claims to be two-thousand years old and presides over a live sex show where everyone wears masks. One evening, he shows up at Jill's place and tells her to ""give into the darkness,"" which results in an aerobic sex romp that seems more like a professional wrestling bout than a piece of erotica. Jill is bit (on her breast), but never becomes a vampire.

There are at least half a dozen time-devouring topless strip sequences and just as many sex scenes. We also get some S&M, a threesome, two token lesbian scenes, some awful computer effects (the slow-motion bullet is hilarious) and typical Ray movie in-jokes. The ending is as mundane as they get. I've also seen enough of these things by now to recognize that the music itself was even reused scores from 'Haunting Fear' and 'Sorceress.' The composer of those scores is a guy be the name of Chuck Cirino, who has been contributing great, catchy theme music to B films for twenty years and deserves some recognition for it. He's given a ""special thanks"" in the end credits, along with Gail Harris (the great star of Wynorski's 'Hard to Die' and 'Sorority House Massacre II'), Skye Blue, Richard Gabai and George Stover.",0 "This contains a spoiler. Stop reading if you don't want to know the only ""funny"" thing about this flick.

Man, was this a funny movie. When I was 9. Well, not even then, really. The most memorable thing from the whole picture was a !SPOILER! small dog involved in a running gag. The little cur would lower his head and sink his front, then raise his butt in the air. The punchline was delivered via a butt busting fart and clear the area of any hominids by virtue of its nose hair stinging stench.

As originality goes, there are some things that rate higher. Like K-Fed. Well, on second thought, not him.

The acting was very not memorable. The performances did nothing to engender the glowing reminiscence of movies watched when I was a child. They were so unremarkable, as a matter of fact, that I was immediately critical as I walked from the theater. And so, this experience forever changed me. The lesson was: not every pic is a good one.

I suppose that this would help kids who are in the ""farts are funny"" developmental stage pass a rainy afternoon. Don't expect, as an adult, to be even mildly entertained by this. Unless, of course, you take pride in the ability to belch the alphabet.",0 "I'll make this as concise as possible: Terrible Script, Poor continuity, God-awful acting, Plot holes a plenty, Direction with no style, Horror movie that isn't frightening.

For anyone interested in the film industry, I strongly recommend attending genre specific film festivals in the future. You get to experience the work of truly talented people at the beginning of their careers...the price (outside of admission) is enduring the work of delusional people like those attached to this movie. However, it's the bad which allows us to appreciate the good.

If the director of this movie gets the opportunity to direct again, than everyone should be allowed to direct films. You, me, our grandmothers. Now, I'm not saying he won't work in the industry...he will. Possibly as a P.A. or a gaffer or even a best boy. He just doesn't have what it takes to direct. And, these actors should find another career or go back and take some classes.",0 "Unrelieved stuffiness, written by Julian Mitchell from his play, chronicling the true-life account of homosexual prep-school lad Guy Bennett in 1930s London who later became a spy for the Russians. Director Marek Kanievska chooses to sequence the film colorlessly in flashback, with aloof Rupert Everett posturing and pursing his modulated lips in continual pensiveness (he has one expression to express every emotion). The British play was very popular, for reasons which are not evident here. The burnished cinematography by Peter Biziou and fine supporting performances from Colin Firth (in his debut) and Cary Elwes do help, yet I found this picture extremely cold and rather indifferently-made. * from ****",0 "To get it right, that is. The best film in the Matt Helm series: best soundtrack, best villain, best female sidekick, best (by far) choreographed action and fight (thanks to Bruce Lee) sequences and best climax. Were these the same people who made Murders' Row and the Ambushers? Hardly seems likely.",1 "I HATED this movie! It was one of the most painful, nerve-grating ""comedies"" I've ever watched. I normally like Danny Kaye, but this movie was like fingernails on a blackboard.

The story: Nightclub comedian Buzzy Bellew (Danny Kaye) is murdered by gangsters after witnessing a murder committed by their boss, Ten Grand Jackson (Steve Cochran). The spirit of Buzzy contacts his twin brother, Edwin Pringle (also played by Kaye), a stuffy bookworm, and asks him to testify before the D.A. in Buzzy's place. Buzzy can possess Edwin's body when he wants to, and make him act like an idiot. The situation causes all sorts of complications with Edwin's girlfriend (Virginia Mayo) and Buzzy's fiancé (Vera-Ellen).

The main problem is, Danny Kaye spends too much time trying to be funny by acting funny. Seeing someone act funny is not funny, unless the people around them are also funny. (This is why the Marx Brothers were funny. They were surrounded by stuffed shirts and pompous characters like Margaret Dumont. You could see who the Marx Brothers were skewering with their humor.)

Characters who act funny when normal characters are around are NOT FUNNY! They are just annoying!

Take the scene where the spirit of Buzzy possesses Edwin for the first time. They are in a park, and what does Buzzy immediately do? He makes Edwin jump around like a crazy man, in front of a cop! An interesting tactic, since Buzzy is supposedly counting on Edwin to avenge his murder by testifying against a gangster. You'd think the last thing he'd want Edwin to do is end up in jail!

Danny Kaye is not funny in this scene! He is trying to be funny by acting funny! But of course, that just ends up being annoying and painful to watch! (You wonder why the cop, who has a billy club, doesn't just whack Danny over the head and cart him off to the funny farm.)

From there on, Buzzy possesses Edwin only when he wants to -- not when Edwin needs him to. One of the most painful scenes in the movie comes when Edwin is called to testify in the D.A.'s office about the murder that Buzzy witnessed. Edwin sits there pleading out loud for Buzzy to possess him, so he can tell the D.A. about the murder, while the D.A. and his men look on, bewildered. Does Buzzy show up and possess Edwin? Of course not! And Edwin is humiliated.

Later, we find out the reason why Buzzy didn't show up. He had a hangover from drinking too much champagne in a nightclub the previous night, while he was possessing Edwin's body.

Would someone please explain this to me. HOW IN THE NAME OF JACOB MARLEY CAN A GHOST GET A HANGOVER, OR EVEN GET DRUNK, AS BUZZY DOES?

Kaye's character has a grating habit of only half-explaining things to people. There's a scene where Edwin, on the run from gangsters, ducks into a delicatessen owned by S.K. Sazall.

""The men in black are after me,"" Edwin tells Sazall. Of course, Sazall thinks he's crazy, and they go through this whole annoying scene of turning the lights in the deli shop on and off, which alerts the gangsters to their presence.

All Edwin has to say in this scene is ""Gangsters with guns are after me. Be quiet and keep the lights out or we'll both get killed.""

But that would be too easy, too logical a solution to the problem. Instead, they try to be funny, and end up being annoying again.

There are other annoying characters in the movie. There is a gangster who wears a hearing aid. He keeps asking people, ""What'd you say?"" Or ""What did she say?"" But according to his partner, the gangster is only pretending to be deaf and doesn't really need the hearing aid.

WHY? Why would a gangster pretend he needed a hearing aid? Answer: It is just another way that the movie tries to get cheap laughs but doesn't.

The Oscar-winning special effects are good for their time, but lend nothing to the story.

There is ONE good thing in this movie. Vera-Ellen does a tap dance number with the Goldwyn Girls that is AMAZING to watch. Vera-Ellen was an incredible dancer, and it's too bad she didn't achieve greater stardom in her career.

Except for the Vera-Ellen dance number, I would skip this movie, unless you like having your nerves twisted watching people who are not funny trying to be funny.",0 "While most movies are geared toward the younger crowd, this one tickled the funny bones of the 40+ generation. What a nice change! The language was surprising, but the antics were refreshing. There were some memorable moments, and some visuals you wish you could get out of your mind (Michael McKean to be exact). All in all...it was a fun-filled comedy.",1 "I would have given the movie a 0 but it wouldn't let me. Never in my life have I watched a movie and left it wanting the last 2 hours of my life back. This was without a doubt the worst and most boring film i've ever witnessed. To say that the story is lacking is a vast understatement and the movie moves at a snails pace. No life to the film whatsoever.

The only redeeming quality was the cast. Although given the experience of the cast, one would expect a much better product. I say with complete certainty that this is the worst movie i've ever seen, even worse than Daredevil.",0 "A good looking, well acted (the leading players are excellent)but dull and VERY disjointed biopic of the famous prophet that seems of though it was cut down from something much longer. Karyo is a good casting in the title role but he struggles in a fairly flat role. Director Christian, (who was art director for Ridley Scott's Alien), gives the film a handsome old world look but he just ambles through the script that rambles on and on and tells us nothing that we did not know about the future and nothing even about the Nostrodamus himself. The performances and occasional moments of interest keep one's eyes half open, but this is missed opportunity on such an interesting subject matter.",0 "All the things that come to my mind, when I think to David Lean, are reunited in this movie:

Bigger than life locations (here: Africa, Cambodia, Tchetchenia) Bigger than life love story (here, Lara's song has been changed into a piano theme) Bigger than life actors (Angelina shows another time all her talent) Bigger than life scenes (here, it's not a bridge which explodes)

So, if you like Doctor Jivago, Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge upon Kwai River, you will like this movie....

... Except we are in XXI century.... and (American) Movies in XXI century mean digital effects...

So, the desert looks like Mars, snow becomes a black and white illusion, and starving babies are real babies ""edited"" by computers. The director recognizes the production pulled the moral line, and debating more over wouldn't be reviewing this movie anymore.

In conclusion, a great movie which succeeds to give its message, all the more crucial actually after the tragedy in Asia....",1 "Black comedy can be a difficult genre to get right, in the cinema as well as in the theatre. We can, I am sure, all think of films which were intended to be gross but hilarious and ended up as simply gross. There are too many examples to list them all, but high on my personal list of offenders in this regard must be ""The Sweetest Thing"", ""Beautiful Creatures"" and ""Drop Dead Gorgeous"". On the other hand, when black comedy succeeds, the result can be superb. Two of my favourites are Kubrick's ""Dr Strangelove"" and Scorsese's ""King of Comedy"", both of which derive humour from serious subjects (nuclear war and crime) but do so with a brilliant satirical wit.

John Waters's ""Serial Mom"" is not quite in the same class as those two films, but is one of the better black comedies of recent years. The main character is Beverley Sutphin, a middle-aged, middle-class Middle American housewife. Beverley, happily married to dentist Eugene with two teenage children, Chip and Misty, lives in an affluent, idyllic suburb which looks as though it has been taken from a fifties sit-com. (Like most of Waters's films, this one is set in his home town of Baltimore). There is only one thing which disturbs the peace and tranquillity of the area. Beverley combines her role as a housewife and mother with a part-time career as a serial killer. Her first victim is Paul Stubbins, a teacher who makes some unkind remarks about her son at a PTA meeting, and she progresses to her daughter's unfaithful boyfriend, a couple who are rude about Eugene's dental practice and various people who commit minor social gaffes such as failing to rewind rented video tapes (the film predates the coming of DVD), failing to recycle their garbage, and wearing white shoes after Labor day. (This last is, apparently, regarded as a major fashion crime in America). Eventually she is arrested and put on trial.

Waters has the reputation of being a director to whom the notion of good taste is quite alien, and, with a plot like this, ""Serial Mom"" could have ended up as nothing more than horribly tasteless garbage. It is, of course, horribly tasteless and not a film to see if you are at all squeamish- Waters does not spare us sight of plenty of blood and gore- but is saved from ending up as garbage by two things. The first is an often very witty script, displaying a refreshingly cynical sense of humour, which includes some great lines such as ""He killed people, mom- We all have our bad days"". and ""Jesus said nothing to condemn capital punishment as he hung on the cross, did he""? (the local priest is preaching a pro-death penalty sermon).

The second is Kathleen Turner's manically over-the-top performance as Beverley, alternating between a model of bourgeois domestic virtue and a bloodthirsty maniac, and playing both with equal relish. My favourite parts were the courtroom scene where Beverley conducts her own defence with great brilliance and the scenes where she makes obscene phone calls to her neighbour Dottie, a woman who can be shocked by a phrase as seemingly innocuous as ""Are those pussy willows?"" Turner is an actress who has somewhat disappeared from view in recent years, but in the eighties and nineties she was one of Hollywood's best known leading ladies and gave some excellent performances in films like the neo-noir thriller ""Body Heat"" and ""The War of the Roses"", another very good black comedy.

Like most good black comedies, ""Serial Mom"" has some serious points to make. The mores of suburbia have been fair game for satirists ever since the first suburbs were built, and here Waters is sending up the culture of middle-class conformity which all too often attaches to such places. Beverley is far from being the only all-American soccer mom who looks with horrified disfavour on her neighbours' minor deviations from accepted norms; all that distinguishes her from millions of others is the extreme lengths to which she will go to punish such deviations. The satire, however, is not just aimed at Beverley, but also at her victims, some of whom are such obnoxious individuals that it is impossible to have any sympathy for them, despite their horrific fates. There is one grotesque scene where Emma Lou Jensen (she who fails to rewind her videos) sings loudly and tunelessly along to ""Tomorrow"" from the musical ""Annie"" while allowing her dog to lick her feet all over suggesting she is, to say the least, a somewhat strange person. Stubbins, who suggests that Chip is in need of ""therapy"" because of his love of horror films, is the sort of arrogant, self-important teacher who thinks that he is paid not just to teach maths but also to control every aspect of his students' lives, down to their taste in films.

""Serial Mom"" may not be the best cinematic satire on suburbia of recent years (that must be Sam Mendes's ""American Beauty""), but it is, for all its lapses of taste, a witty and entertaining black comedy. 8/10",1 "Contrary to the croonings of Liza Minnelli and Frank Sinatra, The City That Never Sleeps is not New York, New York but Chicago, Illinois. At least it is in John H. Auer's 1953 movie of that name, sort of a noir-inflected Grand Hotel or Dinner At Eight, that opens and closes with floodlit vistas of the wedding-cake Wrigley Building. Several characters' lives intersect in an urban crime drama that even offers a touch of the fanciful.

Gig Young, at the center, plays a cop who's dissatisfied with his job and with his marriage (his wife, Paula Raymond, makes more money than he does). Off hours, he hangs around a strip club called The Silver Frolics on Wabash Avenue to see, both on stage and backstage, headliner Mala Powers. That relationship is a rocky as his marriage, and she's as unhappy with her lot as he with his (`Whaddaya want me to do? Crawl into a deep freeze?' she taunts him during yet another breakup). Then Young heads to the precinct for the graveyard shift, riding in a prowl car with a new partner he's never met before (Chill Wills, who also plays the unseen `Voice of the City').

During Young's nocturnal tour he meets up again and again with the various players in the plot. There's rich, crooked lawyer Edward Arnold, who blackmails him into burglarizing some incriminating papers; his two-timing wife, Marie Windsor; former magician turned criminal William Talman; his own brother (Ron Hagerthy) who's now Talman's apprentice; his pop (Otto Hulett), a police veteran; and a `mechanical man' (Gregg Warren) who entertains passersby in the Silver Frolics' window.

Some of the ties among the characters are up front, others furtive, to be doled out as the plots thicken. By the end (Poverty Row having learned the lessons MGM taught a couple of decades earlier in the titles cited above), there's tragedy and heartache, reappraisals and reconciliations. There's even a character who vanishes as mysteriously as he materialized – a whiff of the supernatural which curiously fails to leave any influence on the way the stories unfold.

The City That Never Sleeps shows the right breadth for a big, urban story – from Arnold's moderne penthouse to Young's middle-class flat to the raffish alleys running off Wabash Avenue. Director of photography John Russell (later to film Psycho) helps Auer out with some crafty touches (a telephone dial glowing from a flashlight shone upon it comes to mind). It's not a haunting movie, but it's a satisfying one – a title that did Republic Pictures proud.",1 "This is a truly awful film. Bad cinematography (I lost count of how many first-year film school rules it broke), bad writing, and an ending that came out of nowhere. The only reason I stayed until the end is that the friend I was with fell asleep.

STAY AWAY! Rent Parting Glances or Beautiful Thing if you need to see a good gay movie.",0 "What's most surprising about this film is the date, 1955. It is a nice criminal detective comedy since all ends well that had started very grimly and so bad. If we take this film like all films by Hitchcock should be taken, that is to say as a metaphor of real life, of history, of fate, then we might be less surprised by the date. After all the worst is gone, is behind. The war is finished, the second world war and the Korean war, and even McCarthy is dead and buried, politically I mean. We can breathe. The future is clear. The complications are all behind. We are finally getting out of this dark hole in which we had been buried for a long time. The famous post war thirty glorious years and its baby boom generation are starting to bring in the fruit of our suffering, sweating and efforts if not travail. What we have produced is being bought by some millionaire. Our work is recognized and valorized. We are going to be famous, great, rich, beautiful, who knows what else. So we can bury the past. We can un-bury it, and then bury it again, and eventually un-bury it a second time, but why not re-bury that poor past in order to finally get it out once more and discover it was not so bad and it was nothing but some kind of sad heart disease, a disease of the heart, a weak heart crushed by passions, love passion, dreams that me made into nightmares, and maybe some anger. But the film is surprising because Hitchcock manages to have absolutely no staircase, no flights of steps, with or without mezzanines, and yet don't believe me that easy because it is not flat country indeed. And so up they go and down they go, the roads and the tramps, and all the other people in that village, uphill and downhill, upstage and downstage, upriver and downriver, up the strokes and down the strokes to paint and paint and paint reality till no one recognizes it or sees it. And if it were not enough to constantly go up and down lanes and paths and trails and tracks, you go up and down into and out of the ground, you dig out and fill up and dig in and refill up and dig out again and fill up a third time and dig up this time and fill down for the last time. All that vertical movement around a man who is dead and lying horizontal in the middle of the auburn and russet leaves of the fall. Hitchcock is still with us. And he is all the more with us because he explores the psyche of the human species. When they meet with death, their first reaction is to feel guilty for a crime they assume at once they have committed. Paranoid species. Then they feel relieved because someone else assumes the crime they have committed till they feel guilty again and reveal their own doing in the crime. Neurotic, psychotic and schizophrenic, all in one same species. But then they try to forget and wipe it out to go on with the present and their lives. But that is to no avail because life is stronger than illusions and death is even stronger than life. So the crime comes back because it has to be brought out and registered for the life of the living to be able to go on. And it is then that it is all revealed that human beings are as dumb as my thumb and instead of having thought and thought again and pondered, they jumped to conclusions without even thinking one second. And it is the crazy doctor who trips on cadavers all the time and beg their pardons for having disturbed them who finds out all that death was natural and the hullabaloo was nothing but a mid summer night's dream in the middle of the fall. In other words Hitchcock is questioning us on the real value of life when death is no longer a crime. There seems to be little left in life if that is the case. Crime and murder are the real spices of life which is so banal and tasteless otherwise.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines",1 "A cunning king of France allows a rapscallion poet to become Lord High Chancellor - for the space of only one week...

IF I WERE KING is a fascinating film based on the fictionalized lives of two very real personages, Louis XI and François Villon. The performances are impeccable, Preston Sturges' script is literate and Paramount Studios provided excellent production values.

As Villon, Ronald Colman makes full use of his most magnificent talent - his beautiful speaking voice. Like honey flowing over velvet, it caresses the dialogue & adds emotional heft to the lines of Villon's poetry used in the film. While perhaps a bit mature to swashbuckle altogether convincingly, he plays the lover very creditably in the romantic scenes.

Obviously determined not to acquiesce the entire film to Colman, Basil Rathbone is hilarious as King Louis. Gaunt, wizened & cackling like a crone, he effortlessly steals his every scene. Eschewing the use of his own superb speaking voice, Rathbone plays a character that will remind some viewers of the disguises the actor would use shortly as Sherlock Holmes. The sequences between Rathbone & Colman are very enjoyable, especially since in their only other joint appearance, A TALE OF TWO CITIES (1935), they had no scenes together.

The two women involved in Villon's life are portrayed by Frances Dee & Ellen Drew, one an aristocrat, the other a wench - lovely ladies both. Smaller roles are filled by fine character actors Henry Wilcoxon, Walter Kingsford, Sidney Toler, John Miljan & Montague Love. Way down the cast list is the always reliable Ralph Forbes, playing the king's toady.

Movie mavens will spot an uncredited Lionel Belmore playing the Chief Steward of the royal palace.

**********************************

Fat & ugly, Louis XI (1423-1483) was nicknamed 'the Spider' as a grudging tribute to his remarkable skills at plotting & scheming. Although he showed talent in administration from an early age, he also was quite adept at angering his father, Charles VII, and ultimately had to take refuge at the Burgundian court until the time of his succession to the throne. Almost universally unpopular, he set up an elaborate spy network which kept him informed as to nearly all that went on in his kingdom. His overriding mission was to crush the power of the great nobles, especially Burgundy - now ruled by the successor to Louis' former protector - and this he was largely able to do, thanks to his policy of encouraging the minor nobles and the middle class. The might of the French crown was significantly strengthened during his despotic reign.

François Villon (1431-1463?) was both France's greatest lyric poet and a complete scoundrel & ruffian. Raised by a chaplain, Villon absorbed none of the virtues of the Church, consorting with the basest of companions and involving himself in numerous scrapes, misdeeds & robberies. His murder of a priest during a street brawl was but one of several outrages. Imprisoned many times both in Paris and other French municipalities, Villon was almost preternaturally fortunate in being able to take advantage of various pardons & amnesties - all undeserved. After one final clemency, he was banished from Paris for life - whereupon he completely disappears from the historical record.

Although stained by a most unsavory reputation, critics have long admired Villon's poetry and have extolled both the exquisite imagery of his tender verses and the unremitting detail in the poems describing his coarser experiences.

The bulk of the tale told in IF I WERE KING is a complete fantasy. There is no indication that Louis XI & Villon ever even met.",1 "At the beginning of this film, there's a tight shot on Brooke Shields' baby face: she's watching something with interest and we hear a woman moaning just in front of her. Since we all know what ""Pretty Baby"" is about, one is to assume the child is watching some sexual act with curiosity. Actually, it's just the opposite. This is writer-director Louis Malle's clever way of laughing at the viewer, saying ""You have the dirty mind, not I."" It's a very smart way to begin to the picture, but little else occupied my mind after it got going. Why would Keith Carradine's colorless older man want to marry a pubescent prostitute? Nobody here is saying, especially not Carradine (who has one sullen expression to express every emotion). The photography and background scoring are gorgeous, however the story and characters provide no passion, no emotion. The film is like a stylish painting, but one full of dullards. *1/2 from ****",0 "Ford shoots for the stars in this uneven parable, but mostly fails.

You know you're in for some heavy-handedness when, near the beginning, Henry Fonda's priest (none of the characters are named, as in a fable) opens the doors to an abandoned church and the camera lovingly lingers on his shadow, which forms a crucifix in the dusty doorway.

It doesn't get better from there. Soon the viewer is introduced to the pious Dolores del Rio, a Madonna/Whore bathed in glowing nimbus and Pedro Armendariz, a Pilate-like jack-booted thug with the attire of Himmler but the philosophy of Lenin.

J. Carrol Naish's informant/Judas character is the principle racial stereotype, though such stereotypes abound with an abundance of serape and sombrero clad extras mugging the camera throughout. Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, obviously influenced by this film, recreates the dusty revolutionary Mexican village with more authority and authenticity.

Perhaps expected to be a spiritual successor of Tom Joad, Fonda is badly miscast; his dour, pseudo-Hispanic performance is greatly reminiscent of the later The Wrong Man. It isn't until the end of the film that he's able to give a speech worthy of his natural humanity, but it comes too little, too late.

John Ford, working at the top of his technical game, supplies beautiful compositions and Gabriel Figueroa's lush lensing is the highlight of the film, and for that reason alone it is recommended.",0 "I had pretty high hopes of this film, primarily due to it having a couple of decent actors. Unfortunately the whole thing doesn't work at all. The attempt at a plot is just terrible. Some of the editing is very bad, for example, Keitel standing on a elevated road, and a second later getting on a tram down at ground level with no explanation as to how he got down there (that part's probably on the cutting room floor.) I also think some of the problem is it tries to be an artistic film but doesn't have any interesting plots or story, except for the tiniest interesting part at the swimming pool. I ended up just laughing at the stupidity of the whole thing.",0 "a perfectly mediocre, expendable picture about an old Lapa character. Lapa, FYI used to be the bohemian district par excellenceof Rio de Janeiro from the 20s through the 50s. This film takes place in 1932. The protagonist is a malandro (scally-wag) who was born in 1900 and died in 1976. He was sentenced twice. the second time for a first-degree murder. Although the cast is fine and energetic, there was no reason to invest in this kind of soft-core homo porn, with lots of tongues, sweat & pricks. I, for one, definitely do not see homosexualisty as an avant-garde attitude in principle. Satan was a poor misfit, but also a violent hooligan and a cowardly assassin, as this film, based on his own autobiography, actually shows . Indeed the film's success proves how low are current standards of undemanding movie audiences ... This is amateur filmmaking, badly scripted, poorly filmed (lots of socked closes & absence of tripods). The ocasional soundtracks compensates a little for that. We hear a vintage, lovely duo by Francisco Alves/Mario Reis singing Nilton Bastos' Se voce jurar, we have great Kitsch tenor Vicente Celestino singing Candido das Neves' immortal Noite Cheia de Estrelas. Satan himself, or rather herself does a curious impersonation of Josephine Baker, who by the way is also be seen in the excerpts from the original Madam Satan, directed by Cecil B de Mille in his most extreme, odd mood (the action of 'Madam Satan,' the original 1930 musical, takes place inside a Zeppelin!). May I add that I was at one time introduced to Madam Satan in person. This happened during a Baile dos Enxutos, which was not yet called a 'Gay Ball' then, at the teatro Republica, 1961. He was a discreet, short, middle-aged, short-haired mulatto in his early sixties. I never forgot his quick, perceptive repartee. He wittily remarked about two frolicking guys in my own mardi-gras group (the actor Heleno Prestes and his lover, theatre director Martim Gonçalves): ""Bonecas tambem hein?"" (sissies too eh?)",0 "I LoVe this movie i have DVR on my TV and i watch it almost every day !!!! all of them have amazing voices !!! and Vlad is so HoT !!!! he is FiNe !!!! i HIGHLY RECOMMEND this movie if u like comedy, drama , and Romance !!!! Dee in the movie has a VERY POWERFUL voice !!!! fritz in her main singing play is beautiful and indescribable !!!! the "" mean girl"" Jill is so convincing and i want to hate her so much !!!! i had a party and i played this movie and everyone loved it !!!! i also really loved all the music in the movie!! Jenna is just a doll in the movie too and a little low key then she starts to blossoms LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>",1 "Hmmm, after reading the others' comments on ""Big Shot: Confessions of a Campus Bookie"", I am wondering if they really watched the same movie. Characters are the same, events are the same, even the silly cardboard cut-outs in the ""big game"" scene are the same.

So why would these people take the time to write glowing reviews of a boringly predictable moral tale?

Answer 1: Novices. Perhaps these people have never witnessed a ""moving picture"" before and are very impressed simply by the illusion of movement across large white screens (or glowing dots of light if they're watching on a television). Perhaps they have never experienced any of the thousands of children stories that show a protagonist doing something ethically questionable and then regretting it in the end (ie, ""The Boy Who Cried Wolf"", ""King Midas"", ""The Godfather"", or any story involving getting wishes).

Answer 2: Friends of the movie. Perhaps these people either worked on the movie or are somehow associated with people with interests in the movie.

To keep with the movie's theme, I'm giving 3:2 odds on the latter.

Okay, the review (skipping a summary as you can read that elsewhere): From the opening scene, the protagonist, Benny (ably played by Numb3rs' star David Krumholtz), tells us this is the story of how he came to regret his current state. This swift reveal also destroys much of the opportunity this movie had to keep us engaged. Instead of letting us discover what happens, we already know how it's going to turn out. There's a fourth act and a bizarre epilogue as well, but I'll get to that later.

Benny's sidekicks are capably but predictably played as your basic NYC stereotypes. Benny's girlfriend is decently portrayed by ""House"" star Jennifer Morrison. The other bookies, bad-guys, and the basketball star (Tory Kittles) are again simple characters marking simple stereotypes. While better actors could have squeezed something out of the characters, there was clearly nothing in the script for them to work with.

One interesting note is the excessive use of body-mounted cameras. These shots are used to portray various intense moods of Benny, but are so used that they get very annoying. Instead of hitting the same note on the piano, let the DP use other tricks, please. Other than that, the look and style was decent for an ultra-low budget film.

But for a movie that indulges so much in the coarse pleasures of life (drugs, violence, strip-clubs, etc.), I am amazed at the lack of female eye-candy in this film. This is made especially more painful from the tease of the establishing sequence of why Benny chose to come to Arizona in the first place. Even the titty-bar shuns nudity (the girls are all wearing bikinis or silly-looking pasties). Sure, this was a made-for-TV movie, but it's already rated R. Truly sad is the decision to make an exploitation movie and not have any exploitation.

While the occasional breaking of the fourth wall (where the Benny talks directly into the camera during a scene a la ""Malcolm in the Middle"") is amusing, the near constant use of voice-over narration to explain, re-explain, and re-re-explain the plot is not only overkill, it's downright insulting. I paused the movie eight times to cool down before I finally finished it. Had I been in a theater I would have simply walked out.

And if the painfully clear moral of the film wasn't drop-dead obvious enough, after the out-of-no-where fourth act comes an epilogue. In this final bit, the real Benny Silverman talks directly to the audience (think ""Blow""), re-re-re-repeating the moral, insisting for the audience to never do what he did (what? and never get a movie made about your life?).

It's like paying to hear a rich drug addict preach about not doing drugs. For me, the message is clear: I want my money back!",0 "I thought this was a terrific comedy. The dialog is well-written and believably delivered on the screen. It has clever comedy set-ups with payoffs late in the film, which is hard to do well and I really love when it is. It was genuinely funny all through the movie. I felt it captured a part of Indian culture not often seen elsewhere. This is not Bollywood! All the characters are well-acted and believable. The American versus Indian culture gap hits all the marks and is mined for comedic gems. The romance between the lead characters plays very well, both are wonderful and appealing. I left the theater feeling like I had just enjoyed a delicious Indian feast. Don't miss it!",1 "I put together my Top Ten Worst Movie List some time ago, and find that it's going to be difficult for newcomers to bump any of those titles for the privilege. But ""Doomsday Machine"" looks like a definite contender, to the extent of making even ""The Beast of Yucca Flats"" look pretty good by comparison. I've read most of the other reviews on this board to know that I'm not alone on this, in fact it's pretty much an entirely one sided view that this groaner sets the standard for space junk in a vacuum.

Interestingly, the only other place I've ever heard the word 'azimuth' was in another sci-fi space turkey, and wouldn't you know it, it popped up here in an early conversation aboard the Astra. Keep your eye on the clock that records the elapsed time following blast off, you'll note that it goes, 2:58, 2:59, and then 2:60 instead of 3:00, which makes perfect sense considering all the other goofy stuff that was going on.

Like the selection of astronauts for the mission. Wouldn't you think that the men selected for this flight would have been among the most highly disciplined and talented that NASA had to offer? So how does a guy like Major Mason (Grant Williams) go from seasoned professional to a raving sex maniac? Not a whole lot of thought was put into this.

No sense belaboring the point, this was one sad effort in the name of science and cinema. While I'm trying to make up my mind about that aforementioned Worst List, I'll have to reconsider another flick with the same destination. Up till now, I thought ""First Spaceship on Venus"" had a lock on interplanetary travesties, but now I know better.",0 "Moody, strange and very dark. Mort Shade(Kevin Howarth)and John Dark(Luke Goss)are a pair of police detectives working with the vice squad in a notoriously rough neighborhood near the docks. When Mort is killed in an altercation in a refrigerated warehouse, Detective Dark leaves the scene to get help...only to return and find his partner alive and well. Soon some of the hardest to touch criminals Shade and Dark have been tracking turn up deader than dead. Dark discovers that his parter has been possessed by a bloodthirsty evil entity that is responsible for the savage killings. Other cast members: Carly Turnbull, Carrie Clarke, Matt Lucas and Jake Curran.",0 "I love this one. Sam has a vision and learns about his future. Sam for sees his own death. Gordon tries to kill Sam for he knows the secret of Sam. Sam has the help of a fellow person with the same skills. A turn about where, Dean gets captured by Gordon, and Sam come to the rescues. Sam shows, a good plot twist, that he is the smarter brother by getting Gordon arrested by the cops, and Gordon will probably do 100 years. The humor is added when Dean is impressed and says don't drop the soap. What a great story, which keeps the viewer wanting more. What does all the plot development have to do with Sams future. Sam develops in this story form the younger brother to a much stronger character. I believe this episode will lead the way for what season 3 will be about. 8 out of 10",1 "As a reader of EQ mysteries, and a collector of his films, I have to say that this is the absolute WORST in the entire series!

EQ, far from being a ""master detective"", is portrayed as a bumbling fool who continually gets in his father's way.

Not only that, but the background music in this film is totally UNRELATED to the action....it's as if someone off-screen turned on a radio and let it play while the movie was being shot.

Pass on this one!",0 "Freddie (""She's All That"") Prinze Jr., and Julia (""10 Things I Hate About You"") Stiles are attending a New York City college when they discover each other one night in a trendy bar and experience love at first sight. Not long after Imogen (Stiles) and Al (Prinze) shack up, the anxieties of living together take a toll on the 'tingles' of the true love that they felt when they first met. Their relationship runs aground when Imogen fears that she is pregnant. Later, they split up when Imogen has a one-night stand with another student that resembles late legendary musician Jim Morrison. A few years pass, and Imogen and Al rekindle the old flame or 'tingles' as they referred to them about their first love. The surprises are few and far between in this romance as the sparks.

The major flaw in writer & director Kris Iascsson's directorial debut is that his characters lack vitality, and their story skirts conflict. Nothing unique happens in this breezy but thoroughly predictable boy-wins-girl, boy-loses-girl, and boy-wins-girl back plot. Essentially, ""Down To You"" qualifies as a lite, twentysomething's version of the Bruce Willis & Michelle Pfeiffer soaper ""The Story of Us"" without the sizzle. If comedy broadens character, drama sharpens it. ""The Story of Us"" dealt with the ups and downs of a relationship. Nothing that either Imogen or Al do in ""Down To You"" is calculated to make us feel either love or hate for them. Indeed, Prinze and Stiles are as cute but just as plastic as Barbie and Ken dolls. They go through the motions without ever showing any genuine emotions.

You know a movie is in trouble when the supporting characters are more interesting than the protagonists. Henry Winkler of ""Fonz"" fame from ""Happy Days"" has a field day as Freddie's loony father, Chef Ray, and he steals every scene he has with his rambunctious wit. The best scene in ""Down To You"" concerns a father and son TV show that Chef Ray pitches to Al. Chef Ray wants to produce 'Cooks,' a gourmet parody of the gritty reality based Fox TV show ""Cops"" where Al and he invade homes with a platoon of cooks at random and conjure up meals from scratch for the surprised occupants.

The second best scene occurs when Al dreams about being a guest on a macho male talk show segment where tough guys ridicule his sensitive man routine. This is the closest thing to genuine comedy that Iascsson comes up with here, especially when one of the guys warns Al ""to cross your legs because your panties are showing."" Actually, Al lets Imogen wear the pants in their relationship. She steps out on Al, and he throws a tantrum when she tells himself about her infidelity. Things would have been hotter had Al caught Imogen in the sack with her lover, but then ""Down To You"" would have gotten pretty raunchy.

Al and Imogen's friends provide some welcome relief with their comic antics. Al's pal Monk (Zak Orth of ""In & Out"") a porno star & director and supplies the frat lectures to everybody about the necessity for hot, sweaty sex. Monk probably displays more character development than anybody else in ""Down To You."" The next time that we see him, Monk has turned into an Orson Welles type auteur and is making Shakespeare movies. In a slight, throwaway role, Lucy Arnaz, the real-life daughter of Lucille Ball, plays Al's mother.

Freshman writer & director Kris Iascsson does everything that he can to keep things light and effervescent without descending into harsh reality. He makes even more mistakes by telling ""Down To You"" in a series of flashbacks with both characters addressing the audience directly—in other words, breaking the fourth wall—as in either ""Ferris Bueller's Day Off"" or ""Annie Hall."" Freddie Prinze Jr. and Julia Stiles appear to be stooping in ""Down To You"" after scoring respectively in winning comedies such as ""She's All That"" and ""10 Things I Hate About You."" Unless you've never seen a teenage romantic comedy, skip this weepie. Oh, yes, at least, the soundtrack is worth buying, even if the movie vanishes from your memory the next day.",0 "When Ballad for Americans became a big hit in 1939 out of the WPA Theater Project Musical Sing for Your Supper, MGM quickly bought the screen rights to the song. Both Paul Robeson and Bing Crosby made hit recordings of it that same year, though the song is pretty much identified with Robeson now.

MGM waited three years before putting it into a film and it went into one of the products of their B picture unit, Born to Sing. This film is no doubt something that Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland rejected for one of their 'let's put on a show' films.

It's just that kind of film. Crooked producer Lester Matthews and even crookeder press agent Charles Lane, plagiarize the work of Virginia Weidler's father, Henry O'Neill for their show. Topping that all off they frame Ray McDonald, Larry Nunn, and Leo Gorcey on an extortion rap.

As they're being taken to jail, they're riding in the same paddy wagon as gangster Sheldon Leonard. They go along in an escape his gang has planned and he in turn gets ensnared in their machinations. Which as it turns out is to put on a show before Matthews does and showcase O'Neill's music.

So help me that's the plot of this one. It's all quite innocently and charmingly done, but the presentation leaves one breathless.

Tacked on to the end of the show is Ballad for Americans where the lead singer is Douglas MacPhail whose career came to tragically to an end the following year. Staging the number is Busby Berkeley and the staging of it is similar to some of what he did in Ziegfeld Girl the year before.

Why MGM didn't put Ballad for Americans into one of their A films is something we'll never know.",1 "Let's face it: after ""Batman and Robin,"" the Batman movie franchise needs help. If only WB would realize that the solution is right under their noses! I've heard that ""SubZero"" went straight to video after ""B&R"" bombed, despite plans to release it theatrically. WB, please don't do that again! ""SubZero"" is what the live-action films should be.

Mr. Freeze, voiced to chilling perfection by Michael Ansara, is one of the best characters. The term ""villain"" cannot be applied loosely here. Yes, he is cold-blooded (literally). Yet you just cannot help but feel for this guy. He does not do anything for money, power, or fame: he does it all for love. Mr. Freeze is basically nothing more than a man who loves his wife so much that he will do anything to save her. His intentions are good, but he goes about it the wrong way. In that sense, he is no different than the rest of us. And deep down, Victor Fries does have the power to love and can be gentle, as seen in the beginning and touching ending of the film. Top this film off with a great score and the fact that Barbara Gordon gets to hold her own against the baddies WITHOUT her Batgirl suit, and you have a winner.

So please, WB, release more animated Batman films like this one into theaters. Spend money on them! Promote them like you would ""Wild Wild West!"" See what happens!",1 "This has to rate somewhere among the 25 worst high-production-value movies of all time. The plot and story line are so weak and poorly developed that a lot of the action doesn't make sense, nor does the dialog and reactions among the actors during the scenes. A lot of the problems they encountered throughout the movie could have been resolved by applying high-school-level common sense. But then the movie would only run for a half-hour or less.

Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are supposedly a detective team along the lines of Danny Glover and Mel Gibson in the ""Lethal Weapon"" series, or the spy team of Bill Cosby and Robert Culp in the 1960s ""I Spy"" series.

The difference is there is no chemistry between Smith and Lawrence, unless you consider a cocktail of hydrochloric and sulfuric acid ""chemistry."" Their non-stop verbal abuse of each other without comic relief quickly stopped being entertaining and migrated to the tedious and boring. I found myself surfing other channels, but came back because other interesting shows were either in Spanish or German with Spanish sub-titles.

Sure, watch the movie for the first time if it's on TV and there's nothing better. It will help if you're of age and have a pitcher of Margueritas or a bottle of wine handy. If not, consider having a root canal that day and be on Codine -- the movie will replace your focus on the pain.",0 "If you decide to watch the movie, count how many times Terry Farrell's character makes a dumb decision. Get this: AFter she finds out that a serial killer is on her plane hunting her and her family, she keeps LEAVING HER DEFENSELESS SON ALL ALONE at every opportunity! Also, I've never seen a more nosy wife. Also, if you were an FBI agent hunting a serial killer, would you really bring your wife and son to Austarlia with you to interview the serial killer? Dumb, dumb, dumb.",0 "An ex-stripper who has now settled down with her husband gives birth to an uncontrollable, monster of a baby that's growing bigger and stronger everyday. This puts a lot stress on the mother and father, as strange occurrences and violent actions are caused by this baby. Making the mother believe that the baby is possessed by the devil, which a dwarf she used to work with - had cursed this evil spawn onto her.

This newborn has the strength of a thousand man, although looking at it; it probably doesn't know that. Most times it looks clueless, but that's just ploy to surprise it's victims with it's amazing abilities! Your probably bemused in what I've written so far, but that's how you're going to feel when watching this quite silly, out-of-control baby horror flick. But that's the best way to take this rib-tickling, exploitation mess. The serious temperament that's laid out doesn't do the aimless structure much favours and makes it even more unintentionally funny. As you won't be on the edge of the seat for this one, but you'll be cracking up at how poor it is, or maybe you'll be out like a light in your cosy chair. It can go either way. For me I found it poor, but kind of entertaining in certain purple patches. Although, it can be quite drawn out and you can call the disappointing ending rather anti-climatic.

The odd mixture found in this English horror is easily influenced by such films in the period like ""Rosemary's Baby"" and ""It's Alive!"". The groovy 70s holds a psychedelic awe here, especially with its snazzy and quite jerky music score. The pizazz of the bold score is just relentless! The empty story is simply a gallery of routine nasty shocks and not much else eventuates in this dismal vassal. Even the careless direction twaddles along with many shabby touches and the dour looking background of London paints an sordid product. But still in patches in delivered one or two eerily, hasty scenes involving a graphic decapitation and trippy dream sequence. There's also some scenes involving women being in the buff, because of the main character's ex-occupation. But more often you'll be waiting for something different to happen and the constant flashes of the dwarf's face on the baby when it's chucking a hissy fit and knocking off the unexpected victims it's just far from menacing. Ha.. Ha! Now that's more like it. Well that's what any sane person would do because you'll be struggling not to find this whole concept to be simply droll. This violent, tantrum wielding baby just strikes the fear in the hearts of people… that's if you can't stand cute looking babies, or (oh no, how terrifying) parenthood.

The performances by a decent looking cast are pretty much middling stuff. It's suspiciously campy with many awkward and REALLY repetitive lines of dialogues. No one entirely looks that comfortable with the farcical material. There's a special guest appearance by Donald Pleasence who gives a collected performance as Dr. Finch. An over-the-top Joan Collins does her best (yep, she tries real hard) in the emotionally, wayward lead role of Lucy Carlesi. Ralph Bates is dead as wood as the husband Gino Carlesi. Eileen Atkins plays the concerned Sister Albana. Caroline Munro has a small part as Lucy's friend. John Steiner is fitting as the sleazy ex-boss / boyfriend and Hilary Mason as the disgruntled housekeeper.

Horribly poor and it's lulls about in spots, but there are certain aspects within the film that makes it watchable.",0 "Because it came from HBO and based on the IMDb rating, I watched the first season of this series, what a waste. The characters are occasionally interesting but mostly cartoon-like. The acting ranges from good to mediocre talent with a S T R O N G emphasis on the latter. Not only prisoners, also viewers should leave all hope at the cell door that this story is believable, it's such a load of dung that you will need unusually strong testicular fortitude to keep watching. The violence, as with most of the developments in the story, is titillating and whatever morality is supposedly served up, it's of the lite variety. If your idea of excellent television includes the the writing, acting and overall production quality seen in THE SOPRANOS, DEADWOOD or SIX FEET UNDER, avoid OZ. If you want to see a Disneyland for Illiterate Jerks, watch OZ. Stuff like this gives edgy a bad name.",0 "When I heard Godzilla 2000 was coming to American theaters, I was really excited. For the first time ever, I'd get to see Godzilla on the big screen. I was not disappointed. Godzilla looks great with a meaner, leaner look. The special effects, although not without their bad shots, are generally very good. The enemy UFO/Monster is really cool and the final fight is fantastic and exciting. The dubbing is fine, but it did have its bad moments. Tristar's edits were fairly unobtrusive, so I didn't mind. Would've liked it if the they did make a few shots grainy. Oh well. And the movie dragged a little. Despite its bad points, though, Godzilla 2000 is a very fast paced and exciting entry into the Godzilla. It's one of my favorite Godzilla movies. And I the movie left me with a big smile on my face. I can't wait to see it again. 10/10

(kaiju = monster)",1 "To me, a romantically inclined gay man, this was a fascinating but ultimately unfulfilling tale of a `normal' French couple, Nicole and Jean-Marie Kunstler, who have grown unsatisfied with their settled, routine lives. The couple runs a dry cleaning business in an unexciting small French town. Their lives change when they go to a bar with some business associates and encounter Loïc and Marylin, a cross dressing brother/sister act. From the first, the couple is fascinated with the pair but particularly with Loïc, the sexually ambiguous brother, (played to perfection by Stanislas Merhar).

The couple is so enchanted with the pair that they take a weekend to the city where the performers are appearing next. When the sister decides to end the act and run away with her lover, the brother insinuates himself into the couples lives. The young man claims to be, and is by all indications, straight and soon takes the wife as a lover. The husband is also aroused by the boy but denies his attraction. Soon the boy is living in the couple's home and working in the Dry Cleaning shop and is showing a talent for that type of work. He even befriends the couple's child and helps him with homework and takes him skating.

Whether his good work arises from Loïc's desire to repay Jean-Marie or from some innate talent for dry cleaning is unclear. I think that Loïc feels guilty about cuckolding this man who has shown him nothing but kindness, genuinely likes the guy, and is aware of the man's attraction to him. He wants to make amends in any way that he can. Ultimately Loïc offers himself to Jean-Marie physically but is rebuffed.

Whether it's the husband's `homosexual panic' or his actually seeing his wife with Loïc during one of their trysts, Jean-Marie decides that Loïc must go. This leads to the final and I think dissatisfying concluding scenes.

",0 "This is a moving and educational look into a period of U.S. history that has gone largely unrecognized by Hollywood in recent years. We all know the words 'suffragette' and about the 19th amendment. But herein we learn that our own U.S. citizens, 'guilty' of only exercising their 1st amendment rights, were treated so harshly that the U.S. would have been in violation of numerous articles of the Geneva Convention had it been in effect at that time. Human rights violations such this are are why the ACLU exists today. The same resistance tactics were used 25 years later by Gandhi, who liberated roughly the same number of people, and he is a household name. Why isn't Alice Paul equally recognized? This should be required viewing for every American, before they claim to understand what the words 'freedom' and 'liberty' truly mean.",1 "I seriously don't know how to describe this movie. I'll start with my obvious statement, that I'm not necessarily a big fan of musicals (quite the contrary) and while I will write that I also didn't enjoy ""Sound of Music"" as much, I am aware that some/many will dislike my comment here.

But it's not as much about other musicals, as it is about this particular musical, the Song of Norway. Even people who love musicals despise this film, which brings me to my theory. This film might be a comedy after all. It might be a genius thought of the director, dragging the musical down the road and showing it with so much sugar coated (music) numbers, that it really takes the wind of the drama and anything else. You could say then, that this was a master plan ... but on the other hand, it still doesn't make it an entertaining view. Far from it. Nice cinematography/landscapes though ...",0 "I was drawn to Sneakers because I heard the story was of my favorite genre, a spy thriller. However, I found this movie to be more along the lines of a caper film.

Robert Redford is the leader of a team of experts who break into security systems so that institutions (such as banks) can see how good their system is. The team is made up of a diverse group: an ex-Cia agent (Portier) and three computer whizzes (Ackroyd, Phoenix, and the blind Stratharn). The group has great chemistry and often this leads to some fun humor.

Redford and his team are hired by the government (so they believe) to retrieve a black box that can decode encrypted computer firewalls. After retrieving the black box, the team finds themselves in dire trouble.

I was hoping the film would be more intense, yet Sneakers incorporates a lot of humor. It is a fun film and is enjoyable to watch, but if you are looking for a true spy film, then you may want to pass.

This film more closely resembles recent movies like Ocean's 11 or The Italian Job, popcorn films that have some laughs, some danger, and some suspense.

Redford is really great in this movie as is Straitarn; Mary McDonnell is also very good. Phoenix holds his own. Although far from their best roles, Poitier, James Earl Jones, Ackroyd, and Ben Kingsley are decent.

Overall an enjoyable film which incorporates computer hacking before it was mainstream. Rating 7 of 10 stars.",1 "Please listen to the post claiming it's literally so bad it's not funny. I can usually find the silver lining in a terrible horror movie, but this movie, this is really something special. Usually a movie this god awful would be so bad it's in some way amusing, nope. This movie is so bad it took me 3 watches until I could finish it without falling asleep. Unfortunately I'm one of those people who has to watch a movie in it's entirety before forming an opinion. Somehow this middle school project waste of time ended up on a Blockbuster shelf with a cool cover. Someone posted a review defending the acting and calling this a good new independent horror film. That poster should make it clear that they're directly related to the absurdly inept director of this movie. I'm a pacifist in general, but this movie was so bad I actually became furious with everyone involved in this inane venture. Absolute trash.",0 "An elder Native-American man recounts his life for the young ones.

Slow-moving and somewhat tedious drama-adventure film that seems to take forever to tell its story. After the first half-hour, you'll be looking at the clock, fidgeting on the couch, and wondering if there's anything good in the refrigerator.

Trevor Howard plays the old chief ready to move on to the next life, but the Great Creator seems to have other plans for him before that event takes place. Movie has an attractive cast and the many subtitles are not too much of a hindrance in continuity, but the pacing is that of a snail which makes the 104-minute running time seem a lot longer.

Film tries too hard to be 'beautiful', slowing things down even more.",0 "Why is this show so popular? It's beyond me why people like it. I think it's one of the worst sitcoms out there.

Because it's so popular, I've tried more than once to watch it and I can't make it through an entire episode.

For one thing, the acting is horrible. Everybody is overacting to the point where it's annoying to watch. They talk in unnatural voices, use unnatural tones, and have unnatural body language. I've seen better acting in a kindergarten school play.

For another thing, it's NOT FUNNY. The plots are dull. They're not creative, intelligent, or FUNNY. Shouldn't a sitcom be funny?? Why am I not laughing?

Lastly, what is seventies about this? It's about as authentic to the seventies as ""Happy Days"" was to the fifties.

OH and what is up with Ashton Kutcher? Who cast this untalented dweeb? And now he's making movies?? Oh, save us all!

If people think this is quality television, it worries me.",0 "I think INFOFREAKO summed this up quite superbly. Couldn't have said it better myself except to add a comment about the direction.

I am by no means an expert on matters of direction/film making. However I've watched a lot of movies in my time, a large portion of which would be listed as non-mainstream/alternative whatever you should wish to call them.

But never before have I witnessed so subtle a touch by a director. It's as if he isn't present. It's phenomenal. The way you're allowed to just *be* with the movie. To interact with it, by yourself, without being guided or steered anywhere. Nothing deliberate or obvious or....or.... it's very difficult to describe. It just felt like one was left alone in the environment of the movie to experience what was taking place, subjectively and without interference.

The only director I can say who has anything similar in his prowess (that I am aware of) is Scorsese, with whom it turns out Cassavetes developed the idea for the story of the movie some time before making it.

This is a work of genius in my opinion. Nothing else quite like it.

Watch it.... you've nothing to lose and a *hell* of a lot to gain.",1 "I am a big Arnie fan, have been since I was old enough to operate a V.C.R and I will defend him as charismatic Actor who has been in some brilliant films. However this is not one. Arnold himself would agree. But as a young 22 year old Austrian Bodybuilder's first film it's not his fault at the time he couldn't even speak full English.

As a comedy this film is hilarious I just played a little bit of the film for my friend and he fell to the ground laughing at the part where Arnie flys past the plane window. The editing is terrible sound keeps changing per frame (As a film student I would get failed for such sloppiness), the lines are cheesy but funny in an unintentional way and that bear fight.

I guess the reason I find it so funny is it reminds me of the half assed films me and my friends have done bored when nobody can act and lines seem stupid.

I urge you to watch this film at least once big Arn has come along way.",1 "This is one of the most amazing films you will ever see. It has some of the most marvelous directing and cinematography of action scenes ever recorded on film. Loren Avedon is simply matchless as a young humble American hero in his first movie. The story line is equally captivating and engrosses the viewer. The characters are straight out of a comic book with fantastic screen presence, dialogue and charisma that makes it impossible to take one's eyes of them.

However where the film really succeeds, is in the technical aspect. The editing and pacing of the film is like none other. It is magnificently fused with a perfect film score that was works superbly and fuses so well with the film that it almost gives you goosebumps that something can be made so precisely and accurately to fit the emotions on the screen. Karate Tiger II proves that just because a movie is low budget, it doesn't mean that the people working on it aren't incredibly gifted and talented at their craft.

As a regular avid film viewer, I feel very fortunate that I was able to view and experience this film. It is a sheer delight and should not be missed by anyone. One of the very best films out of the tens of thousands I've seen.",1 "I was also at that Century City screening last night, and I was probably one of the people who were saying they thought this movie was awesome. I enjoyed it immensely. It has been described as an action-adventure-romance-sci-fi pic and it truly is all of that.

First of all, the cinematography was stunning. Tony Scott and his DOP, Paul Cameron, do fantastic work -- every shot is beautifully composed. And all the footage that involves a cast of thousands (meaning the crowd scenes) is masterful work.

I don't know why I started with commenting on the photography (also the editing) of this movie. It's probably because that is what struck me from the very beginning, particularly when there is so much going on in the opening sequence. Yet you never get lost. Above all, the performances and story are great and really suck you in. Yes, this movie requires a fair bit of suspension of disbelief. I would go so far as to say the plot was far-fetched, but the heart of the story just takes you along for the ride.

For the record, I felt Scott's most recent teaming with Denzel, Man on Fire, was one of the best movies of 2004. I don't think Deja Vu is as good as Man on Fire, but it's right up there as one of the most entertaining and thrilling movies I've seen this year.

For sheer entertainment and an intriguing (though not flawless) plot, Bruckheimer, Scott and Co. sure have DELIVERED the goods.

I recommend you see Deja Vu on the big screen with a big, loud audience for maximum enjoyment. Part of the appeal last night was exactly that; hearing the audience -- as one -- laugh, applaud and sigh along with this movie and getting swept up in that communal experience.

post scriptum -- Any fans of Otto Preminger's wonderful 1994 classic Laura may be delighted by the echoes of that storyline in Deja Vu.",1 "I've seen Hotel Rwanda and now this film about the genocide of the early 90's in that country. Both films are very poignant. This movie is definitely more intimate as we are following a journalist through his view of that country's drama and, especially, his love towards a young black woman. I think that this movie complements nicely Hotel Rwanda with as powerful performances and story with a more day to day view of the very harsh reality of those times.

Be aware that there are some disturbing scenes in this movie. In hoping that movies like this will help raise consciousness and help prevent other tragedies like that one.",1 "I expected the Prince of Egypt to be another 'run of the mill' cartoon which makes you say 'Wow, great animation!' but one which you basically forget about the next day. I was wrong.

As a Christian, I fully expected the film to take the story of Moses and jazz it up out of all proportion, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that the story remained one of pretty much Biblical accuracy. Obviously some artistic license has to be taken to make the film more appealing to children and the non-Christian.

Almost to take a swipe at Disney, the Prince of Egypt oozes fluid animation and the water effects especially are the best I've seen in a cartoon. If any producers are going to pull Disney from its perch, Dreamworks will definitely be the ones to do it. Rarely have I seen animation of this quality before.

But the classy look of this film only hides its true nature as a Biblical story. The film delivers the story of Exodus admirably, with just enough humour and artistic license to keep the children interested. On a deeper, more spiritual level the film excels though. The story of Moses is not an easy one to come to grips with in the Bible and to see it brought to life on the big screen was a joy to behold. The burning bush scene was one of the most powerful, moving pieces of cinema I have experienced and the red sea scene was almost as powerful in it's own right. Obviously from a Christian viewpoint, this film couldn't have been made any better. To somebody else however, the Prince of Egypt also has so much to offer: Great animation, a cracking story and a good dose of humour. I highly recommend this film to anybody and everybody.",1 "OK, who the hell is this Scott Dupont guy? You either worked on the film or you are on crack. If somebody watches the film because of your great review, they should have the right to slice you with razor blades and pour alcohol all over you. This film was horrible, I can't think of a better way to describe it. It amazes me that this crap gets made in Hollywood, you would think there would be better projects out there. I am sure there are worse movies out there, but I pray I never see them. The only thing that stopped me from slicing my own wrists was the occasional laugh I had. Those laughs were me making fun of the horrible dialogue or the God awful script. I could go on and on about bad it was, but I think you all get the point. Don't ever watch this movie and if somebody suggests it, they either worked on it or are on crack, or both. So instead of spending that 5 dollar rental fee and watching the film, give yourself an enema it would be more enjoyable.",0 "I am just starting to familiarise myself with silent films. This comedy short was on the DVD I purchased, with ""Mickey"" .

I love Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton but I am unfamiliar with comedy from the very early years - apart from Charlie Chaplin and the zany chases from the Keystone Cops. This was quite amazing, almost a sophisticated comedy from Fatty Arbuckle. The subtleties of acting for this 1916 comedy were, I thought, quite advanced.

Fatty plays a doctor, who along with his cute wife, Mabel Normand lives in a comfortable home. The whole look of the comedy was, I thought, very real (there were no obvious cheap sets - the house looked real, the roads looked real - nothing looked fake.)

Things don't seem to be going too well between them at the start. Mabel seems loving but giddy and when a childhood friend comes for a visit, Mabel and he begin to flirt. Fatty becomes quite jealous and tears up a photo that Mabel had given Jack. They sit down to a lobster dinner, joking that it might give them nightmares.

Meanwhile two thieves plan to rob the doctor's house. One, pretending to be lame asks to see the doctor, while the other does the thieving - but the doctor soon discovers the ruse and sends the ""cripple"" about his business. One of the thieves rings the doctor and gets him out of the house on a bogus house call.

When Fatty is out the robber (Al St. John) hides under Mabel's bed. She goes to Jack for protection and there is an extremely funny sequence involving the robber jumping, running, swinging from the chandelier - doing anything he can to dodge the bullets from Jack's badly aimed gun. Fatty returns home to find Mabel and Jack (having sent the robbers fleeing from the house) holding hands and he believes that was why he was called from the house. More gun play ensues and the comedy turns quite black as Fatty decides the world would be a better place with Mabel and Jack not in it!!!

I won't spoil the end but the whole comedy (apart from Al St. John's wonderful comedic acrobatics) is one of subtle acting and nuances from Arbuckle. It is a wonderful little film and I can recommend it.",1 "My pursuit of the best in noir continued with this classic from the height of the era, newly released in a beautiful DVD. Starts out with plenty of action and suspense as Mr. Big (Preston Foster) hires four ex-cons to help him in a big bank heist, while putting the frame-up on another ex-con, a deliveryman for the florist down the block from the bank. Foster and his crew dress in masks – in fact, none of them except Foster know what any of the others looks like – and drive a truck made up to look just like the florist's van, then split up and agree to meet at a to-be-specified-later date and split up the loot. Herein lies one of a few major flaws in the plot (why would any of the hoods believe Mr. Big and just accept that he's getting his share later, when none of them even knows who Mr. Big is or what he looks like?) but the film is told with such fluid pacing and style that one can forgive the holes. The twist that was the most interesting was that the floral delivery guy (John Payne) actually becomes the ""hero"" of the film as he becomes an amateur sleuth and hunts down the men who framed him, eventually winding up in a Mexican resort with the group and pretending to be one of them after witnessing the hood come to an unlucky end at the hands of Mexican police. For the most part this is a sunnier and funnier than usual noir, particularly light in tone when the action goes south of the border, and some of this is probably due to the simpler charms of Payne – no Bogart or Mitchum though effective enough – but also the screenplay which keeps the hoods and pretend-hood switching guns and one-upping each other often enough that it becomes more than a little comic. And the ending is fantastically blunt and dark on top of it all. One of the best noirs I've seen in a year of seeing many fine ones.",1 "In this genre of film, the flops far outweigh the quality movies. Usually, there is more camp and unnecessary nudity, stereotypes and sex scenes to fill the time. I'm not sure if this is suppose to be related to the audiences the films are produced for, because if so, they are undermining these moviegoers. Now about Save Me. I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I enjoyed the fact that its central theme was more about finding one's self than about depending on someone else. After all, the best relationship one has is with him/her self. I thought the performances were excellent. Judith Light did carry the movie with her incredibly realistic and heart-wrenching performance. However, I also believe that both Chad Allen and the actor that played Lester were great as well. Over the last little while, I have been catching up with Mr. Allen's work, both on and off-screen and he not only seems to be an impressive actor, but an amazing human being. Being a future filmmaker, I do hope to work with him one day. In retrospect, although the summary explains that it about a powerful love between two men at an ex-gay ministry, the title really exemplifies the message. One must find themselves before one can give him/her self in any relationship, be it gay or straight. We must all remember that love doesn't discriminate and that one must live life to its fullest and in a way that makes him/her happiest. They say it was a struggle to get this movie made and to advertise it. I believe it, but I am happy that they persevered and got it produced. It is a movie of fine quality and an important one for anyone to see. Yes it is a movie about sexuality and religion, but it's mostly about choices and healing.",1 "The Battle of the River Plate is an almost documentary like account of the battle of the German pocket battleship Graf Spee with three allied cruisers and what happened to her subsequently. Heading the small mini fleet was Captain Anthony Quayle and the German captain of the Graf Spee was played by Peter Finch.

December of 1939 was the period known as the 'phony war'. Poland had been overrun by the Nazis and the British and French forces were on the continent safely behind the Maginot line or so they thought at the time. What action there was at this time was on the sea with various naval engagements here and there.

The Graf Spee was doing one number on British commerce in the South Atlantic. It sank nine British merchant vessels, but her captain was no Nazi. He observed the rules of war strictly, picked up sailors from the sunken vessels and all reported good treatment at his hands. When he did reach Montevideo he let all the British sailors go. Sad to say this was not something repeated during World War II.

In any event two British and one New Zealand cruiser, the Ajax, the Achilles and the Exeter took on the Graf Spee and fought it to a bloody standstill. The British were lucky to have facilities at the Falkland Islands for repair. But the Graf Spee headed for Montevideo which was neutral territory at the time.

I'm not quite sure why they did not make for the friendlier shores of Buenos Aires on the River Plate. Even though Juan Peron had not taken charge in Argentina, it was still friendlier to the Germans than Uruguay was. Possibly Finch's character Lansdorff knew the history of Uruguay, a country founded as a neutral buffer state between Argentina and Brazil. In any event the Uruguayans operated correctly under the assumption that they would be at war sooner or later with the Germans as indeed were all the Latin American countries except Argentina after Pearl Harbor. The Graf Spee would have made quite the prize indeed.

As German, British, and Uruguayan diplomats tried to negotiate, Finch took action and blew up the Graf Spee in the middle of the River Plate. The Nazi propaganda machine made him a martyr which in fact he was and the British public was given something to cheer about in those beginning days of World War II.

Finch and Quayle give good performances as a pair of gallant adversaries and The Battle Of The River Plate is a fine war film from the United Kingdom in which even the enemy behaved gallantly.",1 "The Seeker is not only one of the worst films I have ever seen it is probably the worst movie of all time. PT Barnum said there is one fool born every minute so I ask why were they all involved in making this pile of utter crap? It doesn't matter if it had followed the book (it woefully doesn't) but it isn't a good movie in any respect at all. This was a money grabbing, farce of a movie, with terrible plotting, terrible casting and even worse directing.

It insulted, the readers of the books, children's intelligences worldwide and the movie industry in general. I wouldn't trust the writer nor the director to sit the right way on a toilet.

If you ever read Ian Fleming's work you'd know that the books and film stories are totally different but they manage to convey the ruthlessness, the style and epic quality of the books and add their own style of fun to generate the longest running successful sequels in history.

With the care and attention to detail put into the filming of the Lord of the Rings I honestly thought we were past the limitations that dogged fantasy films in older days but Fox proved us wrong, I can only surmise, that the financial and marketing people don't read, watch good movies or even have decent IQ's.

How is this for a financial idea: Susan Cooper wrote a 5 book masterpiece that works for kids and adults alike. If we cast it properly, plan out a set of films to bring the books that brought joy to millions out to billions we could if done properly be in the money for years to come and rule the Christmas films for the next 5 years. Hmm who do we get to produce it, screen-write it and direct it for us.

I know, how about we get a successful producer, can we get the one who did that massively acclaimed hit ""Legally Blonde 2"", a screenwriter who can't write for children and a director who admits he doesn't like the fantasy genre.

I'm trying to work out if movies qualify under the Sale of Goods Act here in Britain. Calling the film ""The Dark is Rising"" might just be considered as false advertising or at least an infringement of the trade descriptions act. I can then claim my money back and clear the way for everyone else to get theirs back too.",0 "Luster is a coming of age story about a group of 20 & 30 somethings in L.A. in the midst of an odyssey into their teens. And they are soooo cool & punk rock. They've got that really rebellious ""I'm REAL punk rock & I'm not a poseur & you ARE & the rest of the world sux"" thing from high school still going pretty strong.

Everyone in LA is infatuated with the lead character Jackson, even the ""guy next door"" who stalks him at work. I'm not sure why, since I was eventually hoping someone would smack Jackson upside the head & shut him up.

Amongst the film's problems are too many story lines & subplots fighting for attention, none of which seem to blend or create a sense of relevance to Jackson's life or a cohesive central theme. The worst of these is an S & M subplot that seems terribly contrived, misplaced, & rings totally false with the rest of the film's ""realism.""

There are a couple of funny moments, like the photographer & the interaction with her ""subject.""

And of course there are a couple of full frontals from a really good looking guy, which help this situation along slightly.

But worse of all, I never felt for a minute why Jackson was lusting for these guys & guys were lusting for him. There's no sexual chemistry in this movie between anyone. NADA. Just a bunch of obnoxious & pretentious brats pretending to deal with ""real life"" & ""art."" Yuck.

Plenty of better queer films out there.

See it if you must.",0 "Directed by Rob Reiner (When Harry Met Sally), one of my favorite directors because he depicts sad realities in funny ways. He picks his own projects in a way that I always applaud him. This movie delineates very important differences between men and women, their feelings, and their behavior.

The key reason of the low ratings, in my view, is because there is a generational conflict here. I have asked young married people how the was movie, and they said that they didn't like it. I talked to people in their forties, fifties, and they loved it. Their comment it usually is: ""It is reality."" The younger couples, the ones that are engaged, just don't get it yet. They are in a different stage in their lives. They have not been married 15 years like the couple in this movie was. What this movie proposed to do was to show what happens if people take each other for granted. They behave like Sally indicated in ""When Harry Met Sally,"" words once said are out there and cannot be taken back. The movie concentrated on the conflicts that lead almost to the destruction of their marriage. To bring all those conflicts to light in a funny way took a lot of talent. That is why we need Rob Reiner. Bruce Willis (The Sixth Sense, Nobody's Fool), Ben Jordan, is trying very hard. Actually Bruce Willis surprised me with some of his roles as I have seen very few of his movies, not enjoying action movies. He is good! The reason I do not see much of his acting is because of the projects he picks. They seam too violent. Michelle Pfeiffer (One Fine Day) is good in the part of Katie Jordan. The story is told by Ben's perspective, she appears to be holding on to the things that don't matter more than he is. I recommend the movie, but if you are very young you will not understand it, even kids of divorced parents do not get it. I credit the low ratings to that. Some people just don't get the movie because they haven't been there in their relationships. I think it is very insightful into marriages in general. I can say that because I have been happily married for almost twenty-three years. Unfortunately there are tons of couples that live just like that.

The question raised is ""Can a marriage survive 15 years of marriage?"" Yes it can, if Ben and Katie's did. They took each other for granted most of the time. My favorite quotes: Katie: ""Austin has a turtle that snores."" Ben: ""No one designated you. You designated yourself."" Katie:""You love who we were, you could not want what we become, somehow you get use to the disconnection."" Favorite Scenes: When Katie finally recognized that friends are hard to find. This is a very good movie.

",1 Terrible musical. Not one song is memorable and the performances are wooden. I vote to burn the negative!,0 "This movie defines 'Corny'. Continuity doesn't seem to be a strong point in the making of this film. Little quirks here and there such as: a woman walks in and catches 2 guys stealing a TV, she yells, they drop the TV, she runs, they disappear.... later, the broken TV vanishes too. Some of the 'emotional' reactions, as well as actions, by these actors is also over the top. You watch them do something, or react to something and you just have to sit in awe: There's just no way any sane person would do that, or waste THAT much time telling a story, or plain old goofing off, in an emergency. The musical score in coordination with some of the scenes is almost comical. And, finally, if you like 'in-the-nick-of-time' scenes, you'll be in heaven.",0 "

I saw this film with my daughter (6 years old) and her friend (7), none of whom are Rugrats fans, mostly because they consider the Rugrat's humor to be too immature and inappropriate. My daughter and I did, however, mostly enjoy last year's The Wild Thornberrys Movie.

The plot is a literal and figurative shipwreck. The Rugrats and their parents end up on an uninhabited island somewhere in the Pacific, on which the Thornberrys happen to be. Various groups and individuals splinter off in search of others. By the time Nigel Thornberry gets knocked on the head and reverts to the mental age of a 3 year-old, I had lost track of who was looking for whom and why. How a kid is supposed to follow all these machinations is beyond me.

The sheer number of characters and the randomness with which they run into each other prevent any sort of character depth from being explored. For example, in The Wild Thornberrys Movie, considerable attention was given to Darwin the monkey, who is one of the more interesting characters in this entire assembly (Darwin is smart and makes very insightful observations of human behavior, but he can only communicate with one person, Eliza - to everyone else, he is a dumb monkey). However, here he has what could be characterized as a cameo appearance at best. So, unless you are already familiar with all the characters, and don't expect much in terms of character development, you'll be disappointed.

I think there was a moral to the story (something about leadership and redemption), but I was nodding off by the end of the movie, having lost track of the plot. The audience I saw the film with was mostly subdued, with only a few audible laughs. My daughter and her friend said they liked the movie, but they like every movie I take them to, as long as I buy them popcorn. They did not talk about the movie at all the rest of the weekend. On the way home, we listened to the Lilo & Stitch soundtrack, which has much better songs than the few musical numbers in this movie.

I'm not giving this movie the worst rating, because it might be enjoyable for a few Rugrat fans. And the Rugrats' potty humor is not as bad as it could have been, although there are diaper jokes, bird droppings, and Spike the dog raises his leg a few times.",0 "In viewing TBS's newest attempt at infusing their comedic stature into an original series, ""10 Items or Less"" shows that perhaps Mr. Turner should stick with acquiring sitcoms and cartoons as the foundation for the network's motto of being 'Very Funny'. That is if the sting of ""Daisy Does America"" hasn't worn off....

""10 Items or Less"" establishes all the same clichés of being a grocery clerk that any common customer could see while wrangling this menagerie of failed auditions for Mad TV under the frayed control of manager Leslie, who assumes ownership of the family store after his father dies in a supposedly comedic fashion (a heart attack that knocks over a display stand, with the nearby employee fixing the stand first before helping the fallen owner). While actually showing this act of apathetic drudgery might've seemed more funny, instead the story is relayed by Leslie himself with less than dramatic results.

This is just one of the many examples of failed attempts at achieving a punchline, and instead resorting to a fast quip... just not fast enough. What remains is an almost painful experience for every actor present, shown in their faces in almost every scene yet simultaneously used as ""the pain"" of working in a grocery store to give them character. Irony.

As with any new show, 5 episodes have already been printed. Hopefully ""10 Items or Less"" will remain 10 episodes or less....",0 "A bullfighting story. Something about Tyrone Power becoming a champion bullfighter and having Linda Darnell as a girlfriend. To be totally honest I only made it through 1 hour of this. I had to turn it off--I kept falling asleep! The story is very dull and the pace of the film is leaden. Also I have no interest in bullfighting so that didn't help. Also I saw a print with horribly faded color--that was REALLY annoying! So, maybe it was that which got to me. Whatever.

The two saving graces were Darnell and Power. She's just gorgeous and he is undoubtedly one of the best-looking men ever! Their scenes together did work and they were both very good actors. Still, it wasn't enough to save the film. If you like bullfighting you might get into this. Otherwise, stay away!",0 "I feel conflicted about this film - it is one of the most beautiful films I've seen, and provides insightful looks into a lost culture. There was an early scene of men in caps and moustaches sitting around a table, with a woman serving, and an accordion playing, that brought tears to my eyes, just because of the way it captured a way of life that must be incomprehensible to many today. It presents the lives of the characters as being inextricably bound up with the life of the village, another lost concept in today's world. Symbolism is always fun but it seemed a little dated. The fatal flaws of the movie to me were the lack of any compelling dramatic drive, and a total lack of humor. I never felt like I knew any of the characters beyond very basic universal things like grieving over the loss of a loved one, etc. The people were stick figures in the director's tableaux involving natural disasters, war, etc. The film was just one beautiful tragic scene after another, with no involving narrative thread and no humanity. As a result, it seemed very abstract, irrelevant to the lives of real people. In the end, I was too bored to finish watching it.",0 "I am so glad Zac was in 'The Suite life of Zack and Cody' because that is my favorite show and he is my favorite actor. It is a really funny episode and a funny show!! I love everything about the show and the characters. All of the performers are great. Keep on acting Zac, and I am so happy that nearly all of my favorite actors (including High School Musical characters) are in this show. Zac Efron is so 'hot' and I have an autographed picture of him! It is not a photo copy, and it came all the way from America to Australia and it nearly did not arrive in time for Christmas. Also, I got a High School Musical Mug with my name printed on it. (Scarlett 8)",1 "I would like it be stated first that I really hated the last two Texas Chainsaw movies. Those being the remake and Next Generation. This one however being a prequel to the remake had a raw intensity that I had not seen in years and I loved it. I still like the first three chainsaws better but this was a step up to the old days. R. Lee Ermy brought something new to his performance in this that I felt was vastly lacking in his first attempt and that was a caring of the series. It seemed like the role fit him more in this. Andrew Byrinasli or however you spell it, is cool now because he is the first person ever to play Leatherface twice now, go Andrew. Go see this movie it is cool.",1 "Beauty and the Beast is without a doubt one of Disney's finest classics. The first animated film to ever be nominated for best picture and after you see it, you could understand and agree with it's nomination. Beauty and the Beast is going to be one of those films that will always be remembered, I know that it's a movie that I will show my children one day. It has unbelievably terrific animation, a beautiful story, lovable characters, and is just over all a perfect movie. I really love this film so much, I don't think anyone couldn't fall in love with it.

Bell is just a simple girl in her town in France, she reads books constantly and her father is an inventor. They are sort of the outcasts of their town due to their ""oddness"". But Bell is being pursued by the town hunk, Gueston, simply because she's the one girl he cannot have. One day when her father's inventions are about to be displayed at the fair, he gets lost in the woods and stumbles across a castle and is held prisoner. Bell goes after him and comes to the castle; it turns out that her father is being held by a beast who is cursed with this hideousness unless he finds a true love before a rose he has welts. Bell trades places with her father; the house also has living objects, a candle holder, a clock, a tea pot, all who are also cursed until the curse is broken. They look at Bell as the perfect opportunity for the beast to find a true love, but he must learn to be a gentleman, but Bell brings out the best in him and it turns out that this might be a happy ending after all.

This was actually the first movie that I ever cried in, the ending was just so beautiful and heart felt, you'll have to see what I mean. The songs are just so lovely and perfect for the scenes that they are performed for. Beauty and the Beast, the song, was just one of the most touching songs ever. This films is a major recommendation for me, it's one of my favorite Disney films of all time, it's a timeless classic that is just perfect and reached a new level of great animation.

10/10",1 "This is a first class musical. Several of the songs have become standards and continue to turn up in Gershwin orchestral compilations and in the repertoires of top cabaret artists. Ira Gershwin's lyrics for this show were among his wittiest ever.

Betty Grable and Dick Haymes are in great voice. separately and in duet.

The scenes in the boarding house peopled by eccentrics were highly original and very funny.

It is inconceivable that this film has not been released on VHS or DVD, and that there is no CD of the soundtrack.

It is my hope that some connoisseur of show tunes in the music business, like Michael Feinstein, will press for its release in some form.",1 "This is a horrible apolitical McCarthy Era remake of ""The Male Animal"" starring Henry Fonda and Olivia DeHavilland. The original had Fonda as a professor standing up to regent Eugene Palette to read a letter by Sacco of Sacco and Vanzetti while simultaneously battling Jack Carson as the faded college football star for the affections of DeHavilland. This is mindless fluff. Reagan is to Fonda as an actor what Reagan was to Roosevelt as a President, a cheap imitation. The only interesting thing is that Dan Defore (""Hazel"") is in both films. He is the half-witted football player suitor for the affections of DeHavilland's sister in the original, and the half-witted former football player suitor for Thaxter's affections in this film, reprising Jack Carson's role.",0 "From Hell wants to be everything. Sadly it is nothing, besides extreme violence. Seven had violence with style and for a reason. From Hell is like Dead Presidents (which is better, though it´s still pretty bad): graphic violence and that´s it. The direction is horrible and Graham shows us that she can´t act in a serious role. Meaningless and wannabe dark movie is what it is.",0 "Just dull dull dull dull dull. Oh -- and pointless. What ""art"" there is in this movie is limited to still compositions. A great work to demonstrate the importance of a cinematographic eye rather than a compositional one. Some pretty black and white pictures of fruit ripening on the vine and some waving wheat. A silly segment where a man discusses the fact that he's about to die, gets a little something to eat and says ""ok I'm going to die now"" and does. Other than that -- 70-odd minutes of obscure and ineffective propaganda in favor of tractors and collectivization. If Lenin had seen this movie he would have gone into investment banking, rather than waste more time espousing communism. Please don't waste your time on this.",0 "This multi-layered DVD version of ""American Graffiti"" is the best trip back to the summer of 1962 Hollywood ever had to offer! The eventful night when freshly graduated high school friends contemplated their futures while immersed in small town America's car-hops, drive-in movies & doo-wop music (the soundtrack is one of the best featured in ANY film!), is shown in ""real time"".

Richard Dreyfuss is perfect as the smart kid, ready to drive off to college the next morning, but wondering if he's doing the right thing. Ron Howard and Cindy Williams get some practice for their soon to follow ""Happy Days"", while Charles Martin Smith and Candy Clark are wonderful as the goofus who wants to show a pretty girl a good time.

Wolfman Jack plays himself (and cupid) when he plays a very special request going out from Richard Dreyfuss to his dream girl Suzanne Sommers. Look for a pre-teen McKenzie Phillips and a young Harrison Ford in minor roles. This film is a big winner in my book!",1 "To many people, musician Frank Zappa's counterculture rants were dangerous, to some sexually charged and stimulating, and still to others tired and boring. Somehow, he managed to cut a deal with United Artists and filmed what emerged as a free-form musical diatribe on drugs, sex, the gap between generations (musicians vs. the common businessman) and post-psychedelic expression. With MTV some 10 years off, this was the only way Zappa and his Mothers (of Invention) could bring their ideas together, but unfortunately it's too messy to involve anyone beyond Zappa's core audience. Ringo Starr, in Frank Zappa garb, has some curious speeches that attempt to clarify Zappa's concepts of society, and some of the rock music is indeed exciting, but Frank Z. is far too defensive to be much fun. Surely some of these directionless scenes are meant to be satiric, but his sense of humor is always undermined by a draggy, self-serious need to ""teach us something"". It's a post-""Laugh In"" series of sketches which might've been personally felt out, but they fail to grab hold because, technically, they look terrible. Grungy, and undermined by druggy influences, the movie doesn't take shape. Besides, Bob Rafelson and the Monkees did this kind of thing first (and more slickly, to involve a wider audience) with ""Head"" in 1968.",0 "Perhaps the most negative thing I can say about the James Bond franchise is that it gave birth to a welter of cheap imitations . In the case of the Matt Helm series it was obviously a still birth

THE AMBUSHERS is an awful movie not only because of its Bond wannabe format but because it`s woefully made . Check out the title sequence that insinuates there`s going to be hot killer bimbos in the movie . Actually there is but they only appear for one short scene to get Helm out of a tight spot then are completely forgotten about for the rest of the movie . There`s also other serious flaws to the script like the terrible lines that belong in a CARRY ON movie , lines like "" When you said uncover the agent ... "" and watch out for the obvious revealing mistakes like harnesses attached to the actors as they float in the air and the laughably bad back projection

One final thing I couldn`t help noticing is that several of the cast seemed to have consumed a large amount of alcohol before filming . If this was the type of movie the cast were being offered at the time you can`t really blame them and I guess everyone involved had a great time , just a pity the audience didn`t",0 "Absolutely astonishing imagery and camera-work elevates this simplistic horror film to a level that doesn't even have a name. In all honesty, the story isn't that bad to begin with but it's just utterly put to shame by the sheer look of this film. I was expecting another thuggish Japanese horror/thriller, a la INUGAMI, but there was none of that here. Just an amazing experience especially for those who are intrigued by the power of the new wave digital cameras which have been slowly taking over more and more independent productions worldwide.

There are a few scenes in the film with laughable CGI by North American standards, but to nitpick about something that is so boringly dispensed in North American films would be such a gratuitous waste of time. This wasn't some insane Hollywood blockbuster with the standard $70, 000, 000 USD budget, hence requiring 50 million dollars just for the effects budget!

In the end this film totally delivers what is necessary for your enjoyment. An awesome story, genuinely creepy as hell moments, hot girls (BONUS!) and hands down, the best freakin' cinematography that I've seen since..., well, since Fight Club!

This is it people, the future is looking VERY bright for digital films!",1 "This film can only be enjoyed by those people who can easily suspend their disbelief and without question lap up the talent-free films served up by Bollywood directors and actors. The likes of Shahrukh Khan and Kajol are worshipped by millions, yet I honestly cannot detect any signs of acting prowess or versatility.

So the main family lives in a huge mansion, gets around by private helicopter and have a fleet of Jaguar convertibles and Ferarris at their disposal. Hmmm, I can really identify with these guys. Even though in the story, this mansion is supposed to be in India, it is clearly in the UK. Amitabh Bachchan's ""Indian"" office is clearly Canary Wharf in London! The helicopters in India have British registrations! I mean, the directors must assume all viewers are in a vegetative state not to notice! As usual, the acting, especially from Shahrukh Khan, is way over the top and unrealistic. The way that these people behave just seems so divorced from real life, you soon start wondering whether they are aliens from the planet Jupiter.

I know that people argue that Bollywood films are a means of escapism for the many millions in India. But if other countries like China, Iran, South Korea and Argentina can make films that have a realistic message and which many more people can relate to, why cannot the Indian film industry?",0 "This movie is swimming in 1970's economy humor, there's never enough money for everything. Bills can't get paid, and a radio announcer says with relief in his voice that the cost of living went up ONLY 2%.

The humor may date it for some and make it fly over people's heads that were too young to remember the economic malaise of the late 70's (I barely remember it, my being a kid back then).

But if you get past that, what you have here is a smart and entertaining caper film where the people pulling the caper are all female. June Curtain, Jessica Lange and Susan Saint James make up the team that conspires to make a heist.

Dabney Coleman proves he can actually play a sweet guy with his turn as a Police man which falls for Jane Curtain's character. Richard Benjimin has some great one-liners playing Jessica Lange's animal doctor husband. Garrett Morris has a great cameo.

I saw this at the movies when it first came out and found it to be very funny and enjoyable. Years later I sought it out and found that it has been out of print on video for a number of years. Finally, I found a copy to rent. You should try to find a copy too. It's a fun film",1 "Impressive acting by the entire young bunch! Kudos to each one of them for uplifting the film to a classic height. Looking at their spontaneous acting, its hard to imagine a camera rolling before them. reminds me of those Latin American movies about life. awesome plot and superb direction from one of my favourite directors, Anjan Dutta. the humour is very Bong, very clever and superbly handled. never a moment felt dull or plastic. Reeks of immense homework on the psyche of the NRI Bongs out there.

The film made me homesick for my beloved city. wish to go back. thank you for a great film, Mr Dutta. you made us prouder.",1 "John Cassavetes' films have never been known for having a clear resolution or for their tidy, organised stories, but 'The Killing of a Chinese Bookie' just ends up taking the p*ss.

It tells the story of Cosmo Vitelli, an LA nightclub owner with a dangerous gambling addiction that gets him into trouble with local gangsters who give him another option after he can't pay the debt: kill a renowned Chinese accountant working for a powerful West-Coast crime syndicate.

The decision apparently forces him to question himself as a man, but really just makes him sweat every decision out and shout at everyone.

To say the film is unbearable would be unfair. From it's appealing opening scenes, one might expect something of 'Mean Streets'' calibre (Cassavetes came up with the idea with the help of Scorsese, it turns out). However, after the actual killing of the Chinese bookie, the film spirals into a cinematic oblivion of unexplained escapes and inconclusive endings.

Cassavetes seems to have wasted his many fine talents as the godfather of American indie cinema and ruin what could have been a very good film. Shame.",0 "I have seen this movie twice now, and I'm wondering what is up with that large orange block in the first story? Is there something real going on here? The movie as a whole seemed like a cross between American Rose and Six Feet Under. Selma Blair seems to have an affinity with quirky indie type films. The moment when Vi walks into the restroom to freshen up, and discovers the dozens of photographs of other girls, some who i believe are in Vi's class, who ended up in the same predicament was a nice touch to a kind of dry film. Teacher/Student fantasies happen in real life every day. Who hasn't wondered about sex with a teacher, it goes as far back as grade school.",1 "I don't really have anything new to say about this film.... all the other negative reviews say the same as I thought during watching it; I just felt it has far too many positive reviews, and that just isn't right. I really can't remember the last time I saw such an infuriatingly stupid, bad film. The only reason I came across this film was because it was likened to ""haunting in Connecticut"" (which I found to be a relatively entertaining no-brainer)here on IMDb! I am in no rush to check out any of the director's other masterpieces. This was SO unrealistic. If it would have gone for a magic realism approach from a director like Julio Madem or Kim Ki Duk, or a surreal approach from someone like David Lynch, then maybe, just maybe it could have got away with the unacceptable events taking place in this film. I mean, come on. Setting up theatre IN THE HOUSE (!), performing some serious kind of operation there(there would be some serious scarring and everything), and then just putting her back to bed and leaving? Apparently she was all better though. And leaving the schizophrenic son to hide out in his room, after nearly poisoning his mother to death... no one, not even his father, seem to check up on him, or even know exactly where he had got to. Then both incidents involving the knife... Jesus! As already mentioned, Julian Donkeyboy, Memento and The Machinist have all dealt with mental illness, disorientation and guilt in much better ways. They should not even be a comparison. And then there was the film making itself. The terrible house music, speeding up of cameras (to depict the characters ""crazy"" outlook on things), the dream sequences (""scared scarred""!),and dialogue from earlier in the film overlapping inside someone's head with extra reverb all just stank of mid-nineties college movie to me. The whole thing left me seething. Hence the review. I never normally write them, I tend to hate critics cause they don't usually get where the creator is coming from, and they don't create themselves, they just complain about how they could never do it better themselves. I am certainly no film maker, but I think even I could have done a better job of this one, which would include re plotting, re writing, re scripting, and re shooting. And being a musician I'd redo all the music. The score was actually OK though (just not the boom boom stuff), and the acting was all fine, sometimes quite impressive. I was pleased to see Trigger from only fools and horses pop up. But had this film contained Johnny Depp, Robert Deniro and Mickey Rourke (as the mother), it would have played no better than it would with Keanu Reeves, George Bush and Gerry Halliwell under this director and writer. Sorry mate. Try harder.",0 "Maybe the animation is computerized now and maybe the DTV Sequels are not going to hold a candle to the original art from the hearts of incredibly talented artists under Walts guidance, But Bambi II is much better than many of Disney's other Classic sequel attempts to make money on nostalgic baby boomers.

It may be blasphemy to say this but Bambi felt incomplete to me. Once I got over the misery of his mother being shot and watched it as an adult, I figured out why. The sequel answered the questions I didn't know to ask as a kid about the first movie. What happened after Bambi met his father in that heavy snowfall and before the spring he shook owls tree scratching his antlers? Why was the dancing on clouds moment after meeting Faline ruined by some buck challenging Bambi. Why did Thumper ask if Bambi remembered him, where had Bambi been, and for how long? He was teaching his dad how to loosen up. He was dealing with a big mouth bragger and unintentionally creating a rival that would later challenge him for Faline. Rondo, as far as I could tell was never named in Bambi, but the fight between him and Bambi makes more sense after the sequel.

If you stop the DVD of Bambi just as Bambi goes looking for his mother and you start Bambi II the story picks itself up almost seamlessly. I am still a little confused by how many springs go by before the birth of the twin fawns.

My only negative is a very minor one. Two new characters: The porcupine and the ground hog are funny and slapstick but I am not sure how essential they are to the plot and how much was an attempt to get a better running time.",1 "This movie is an utter delight to watch. I have probably seen it a dozen times, and I never get tired of it. Everything about it is perfect: it's well-directed, well-acted, beautifully filmed, has great music, and the script and story are wonderful.

Agneiszka Holland does an outstanding job directing this film. Each character is separate and unique; each one has little personality quirks that makes it seem real. Just about every scene in the movie includes children, animals, or both -- which must have been a nightmare to coordinate. Ms. Holland pulls it off without a hitch. Everything melds perfectly, and we are transported to a distant place and time, and fall in love with real, human characters.

The primary three characters in this story -- Mary Lennox, Colin Craven, and Dickon -- are all children, played by actors who are around 10 years old. Ordinarily having one child in a movie is difficult enough, but again, somehow they pull it off. All three kids -- especially Kate Maberly -- do a fine job of acting, and they are quite credible. Kate is simply divine as Mary Lennox, and Heydon Prowse was a good counter-point to her as Colin.

The story is touching and charming, and I think you'd have to be almost inhuman not to have a tear in your eye by the end of it. I absolutely fell in love with these children, and came to care very much about their characters. The ""secret garden"" really does seem to be a magical place (and I will say no more about it, since otherwise that would spoil things), and at the end I found myself wishing I could go and visit it first-hand. The accompanying music is wonderful -- I find myself humming it for days and days after watching it.

In short, everything comes together to make this film a masterpiece. It is easily one of the 10 or 12 best movies ever made, perhaps *the* best movie ever made. I love it so much that I went out and bought the DVD of it, even though I'd seen it 8 or 10 times already. If you have not seen it I give it my highest possible recommendation. My score: 10/10.",1 "Don't expect a balanced view from this movie. It is a highly biased propaganda piece, although there is some counterpoint scattered throughout. Micheal Moore comments that corporations are only after profits. The narrator announces that the corporation is bound to place profits of the stockholder above the public good. Noam Chomsky, throws in his radically left ideas as frosting on this bitter cake. He paints with a broad brush that even though the people working in corporations may be moral, the institution of the corporation is inherently evil.

The movie points out that a corporation will move into an impoverished country and are hailed as a hero for providing opportunities for workers. When the pay rises and the workers start making additional demands upon the company, the documentary states, the corporations leave those workers behind in search of more worker to exploit. There's no denying that there is some truth to that. The balanced point of view is that those exploited workers have had an improved standard of living as a result. It is clearly not up to the standard of living in the first world, but it is an improvement.

The movie progresses by creating a psychological profile of a corporation as through it were a person. The premise being the corporation is an amoral or immoral person. They even interviewed an FBI employee that profiles psychopaths. If course, they only look at the negative aspects of corporations.

I know one of the experts interviewed, although I won't mention his name because he is tort-happy. I know his motivations are less than honest. He is out to make a name for himself.

I am the CEO of a corporation. I am also a life-long Democrat. I have a blog on political moderation that advocates, among other things, reasoned debates on things of importance to our culture. There is absolutely no doubt that there are corporations whose culture is oriented toward the exploitation of people. There are also corporations, like mine, who have a corporate culture toward providing a service to customers. I am well compensated for the service I provide, but I enhance the value of companies I serve and I can serve them with honesty and integrity. Corporations have served to enhance the standard of living for all Americans, although at times in unethical ways. I was looking for a balanced review of the value that corporations have brought as well as things that need to be changed so that pure greed and unethical behavior in some corporations can be held in check. There was an opportunity to present some legitimate concerns about the affect of corporations, both positive and negative, but the producers passed on that opportunity. Ironically, the ""What Do We Need to Do?"" Segment on the Q&A bonus materials is a lot closer to the reasoned debate that I had hoped for in the movie.

If you believe that corporations are inherently evil, this movie will be preaching to the choir. If you are looking for something other than propaganda, you will be disappointed by this film.",0 OK its not a oscar winner.its a Michael Winner.but this comedy has a great double act in Caine and Moore infact this is the first time i seen Moore do a comedy and he is quite excellent.a good supporting cast the script is more carry on than anything else and whats wrong with that.id sooner watch this than Trainspotting.,1 "Rian Johnson created a great modern day noir film (which was also his debut as a director) with Brick that was really enjoyable. When the word about The Brothers Bloom started making its rounds, it immediately reeled me in. Johnson's style in The Brothers Bloom seems to almost mimic Wes Anderson's at times as several scenes (especially the first ten minutes or so) have a similar feel that seem to be shot in the same way you'd see in an Anderson film. The film also has a Kiss Kiss Bang Bang feel to it with how colorful every shot is. The tone was similar in both films as they both had humor as an underlying tone amongst a dramatic adventure revolving around crime. This film is just a real pleasure to look at. The cinematography seems to tell a story all on its own as every shot seems to be done in a unique way and everything is so vividly colorful.

Every factor of the film is strong. The story isn't entirely original as we've all heard con men stories before, but the way the story unfolds and the development of the characters involved makes it a new experience. The dialogue is also top notch. Nothing stuck out as being cheesy or hokey. Every line spoken was either witty, charming, or something you'd expect to hear in everyday conversation. So it was realistic and natural. The entire cast has to be the film's strongest point though. There doesn't really seem to be a character that's wasted or isn't used to their full potential. Rachel Weisz does steal the show though. Her character is so charismatic, outgoing, and eccentric that she just steals every scene she's a part of.

The Brothers Bloom is one of the best films to be released this year, which is a shame since it seems to have a limited release. It offers something for everybody looking for a good time at the movies whether it's an adventure that will take them around the world, romance between two of the central characters, an oddball character that's great comedic relief, the development of both brothers as characters as their crime of swindling people as con men causes drama, and even plenty of explosions to satisfy the action junkie. The conclusion of the film is both heartwarming and heartbreaking, as well. The Brothers Bloom will probably be overlooked by the many assured blockbusters coming out this summer, but it comes highly recommended from me and should be on everyone's must see list.",1 "Rome: Total War is a great strategy game. The Total War series is one of the best around, only Football Manager can beat it. The game is set during the growth of the Roman Empire and the mission is simple: take control of the empire! There are 3 factions that trying to gain power, the Julii in the North of Italy, the Brutii in the South and the Scripii in Central Italy and Silicy. You are meant to help gain territory for the Empire until you have enough strength to conquer Rome itself and the other two factions. As you conquer states you are also able to play as other states such as Gaul, Greece, Egypt, etc. What makes the Total War types of game in one. There is the battle real time part which is excellent and the mission is simple, win! The other part is the turn-style strategy on the European map and you have to do a lot to maintain your empire. There are other parts to the game as well, such as Historical battles and set-piece battles.

Rome: Total War is a great game and worth playing and is very addictive. Medieval: Total War II is also very good and I will like to play Empire: Total War when it comes out.",1 "So much for the ""sacred feminine""!

This movie bore more resemblance to Paris Hilton than Paris, France. It was good looking, but extremely shallow.

Ron Howard did a fine job of directing, but Tom Hanks was completely unconvincing. Visuals were excellent, but the music was overbearing. Ian McKellan was fabulous. The actors who played Fache and the bishop were also excellent, but did not have enough camera time. Too bad.

Most of my criticisms are probably aimed at the material Howard had to work with, meaning the book, ""The DaVinci Code"", which contained multiple gross art history errors. As a veteran Art Teacher with a Master's degree in Art Education, these errors was extremely distracting to me in both reading the book and watching the movie.

Some of these errors are as follows:

The windows at the pyramid at the Louvre contain 673 panes of glass, not 666.

Leonardo (Whose last name is NOT DaVinci..Da Vinci simply refers to the town he lived in) never referred to the ""Mona Lisa"" as the ""Mona Lisa"" in his life time. The moniker was given to the painting by the Art biographer Vasari in the 1800's; thus, Leonardo never could have come up with the outlandish anagrams.

The painting ""Madonna on the Rocks"" is actually entitled ""Virgin on the Rock""; again, this was done so that Brown can create a convenient anagram. In the Louvre, it is NOT located in the same room as the Mona Lisa.

The Last Supper is NOT a fresco. It is a mural. If Mary Magdeline is to the left of Christ in the painting, then where was John? Why would Leonardo make him be missing? It was customary for painters from the Florentine school (where Leonardo hailed from), to make young men appear more feminine than older men, to infuse a bit of innocence in their appearance. Additionally, the Bible contains NO references to the ""holy grail"", or ""chalice"". Leonardo was simply making his painting more natural,in keeping with his naturalistic interpretations of his subjects.That's what Leonardo was famous for!! Leonardo, like most of us, simply believed that Jesus didn't have the, uh, "" bling"" to own a golden chalice!!

There is a sketch by Leonardo of the ""mystery hand"" holding the knife in the Royal Windsor Art collection, and that hand definitely belongs to Peter. It is not a ""disembodied hand wielding a dagger"".

If I hadn't read the book first, I would have been confused with the flash backs, which were very poorly rendered.

The film was very ""talky"", which is bad enough, but the talk itself wasn't accurate. I'm surprised the main female character's (Sophie) head didn't explode with all the condescending lectures she was given.

""Sacred feminine"", indeed...I'm a woman, and ""The Davinci Code"" insulted my intelligence.",0 "I love watching this show. Charlie comes across as truly interested in his subjects and unlike others in his field, doesn't tend to take sides. He has a sense of humor and he has a wide range of guests, from the Nobel prize winners to the lamest celebrity on earth. However, I enjoy watching them because Charlie Rose seems born to interview and to interview correctly for the person across from him. Tom Cruise? No, I'm sorry, I'll pass on that one. However an hour with Tom Hanks? Could that be so horrible? I doubt it. Everyone needs a break from the constant political backbiting and drum beating once in a while and I appreciate his ""fun"" shows. Sometimes, you just want to listen to why ""Run, Forest, run"" was so catchy. Lighten up!",1 "Basically, most of the actors rush their lines, and except for the two Antonios (Lochlyn Munro somewhat OK), the acting basically sucked, which means the directing also sucked.

Weak story, weak writing. Worst of all was the music.

It's also funny that the writer (Mike Mains, the worst actor in the film) wrote himself the part of having the first primary relationship in the film. The interaction between the two of them is about as exciting as that between a turtle and a rock.

The positive reviews here are a joke. It is however, an adequate film for those who want to get high and laugh at how awful this film is.",0 "I just love, love, love this film. The cast is perfect, right down to all the bit-parts. At first I was bothered by DM's accent (& her blonde hair is a shame) but the sweet script transcends all that.

All the characters are pitch perfect, the lines so funny & the message inspiring! The locations are also great, I don't know where this is in NYC, but I would love to live there!

I think Jeff Daniels is simply brilliant in this film, and Mary Steenbergen too. The scene where DM tells her she's a singer is lovely & the sparky scenes between JD & DM are so sweet and funny too!

www.menmoneyandchocolate.com",1 "HORRIBLE movie! Bad actors, fancy cars in the Victorian age, and a pathetic need to remove the homosexuality from the story are just some of the things that makes this an awful screen version of an amazing book. The fact that they have changed Basil Hallward into a woman is ridiculous! I found that the movie was straight forward homophobic, and I felt appalled by it. Why shoot a movie when you do not like the story? This seems weird to me. At some point I actually wondered whether or not they had casted such bad actors to ruin the real story of the book. It seemed to me that they had completely lost the point; Dorian Gray is almost never independent in the book, but in the movie he suddenly feels like taking control and arrange a party right after the death of his former love. Which brings me to the scene where he dumps her, which might be the worst piece of acting ever seen. Non of the two seems like they even know what they are talking about and a tragic love story suddenly becomes quite amusing, in a rather painful way to everyone who actually likes The Picture of Dorian Gray. Further more it seems stupid that the movie begins with a strange story about a nuclear bomb, when that hadn't even been invented yet at Dorian Gray's time. Simply just a horrible version of a really great story!",0 "Director Soren Kragh-Jacobsen sure picked his young protagonist well -- Jordan Kiziuk as Alex in the Danish film ""The Island on Bird Street"" practically carried the film by his undeniably superb performance. The film is about a Jewish young boy, bordering teens, his survival ""adventure"" in Poland during Nazi occupation.

How heartwarming can an uneasy wartime premise be? It actually achieves beyond ""Jakob the Liar"" -- Alex's courage, his creative ways in taking care of himself when he's all alone, his tenacity and steadfast belief that his Dad would come back for him…hold its own. And there is suspense: we fear for him, we want him to succeed, we pain, and we felt angst and joy with him. The set of his hide-out is somehow graphically appealing: a solitary, broken brick wall arrangement, with atmospheric lighting, and momentary interludes: a solitary dog on a street, paper off the ground dancing in the wind…

Music is by Zbigniew Preisner (Krzysztof Kieslowski's ""Trois couleurs: Bleu"" 1993, ""Rouge"" 1994, ""The Double Life of Veronique"" 1991, also ""Fairy Tale: A True Story"" 1997), hauntingly complements the plot. This may not be of Hollywood stature likened to ""The Schindler's List"", yet it's a small film with powerful impressions. It's a life-affirming story. Alex hanged on to hope -- we can, too.",1 "*Caution potential spoilers and road hazards ahead* ROUTE 666 is actually the kind of lightweight straight-to-video extravaganza that would make a good date flick. Whoever you're with, they'll get bored quickly and want something else to do. The premise had potential, that being federal agents stuck in the middle of nowhere with a prisoner, being pursued by homicidal ghouls. Unfortunately, the execution is as bland and bleak as the desert landscape that surrounds them.

Lou Diamond Phillips sleepwalks and occasionally ""trips"" through the film, and his is the best performance. Steven Williams does add some oomph to the proceedings, too. The rest are wrung from the ""hey, memorize the script and recite the lines"" academy.

Speaking of script, in ROUTE 666, a lot of talk replaces any modicum of action. Well, suspense for that matter, seems to have taken a holiday, also. What's left, is a talky, unexciting, predictable outing that has a couple of good moments. ROUTE 666? Don't go there, girlfriend.

Not recommended.",0 "Mario Bava's TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE (aka BAY OF BLOOD) is often noted as one of the main influences of the more modern ""slasher"" film, including Friday THE 13TH and many others. It's influence is obvious in these new films, and Bava's film, though older, is just as strong, if not more so than it's numerous followers.

The film starts with an aging land-owner (or bay-owner, to be more precise...) who is murdered in the first scene. Her killer is then murdered right after - putting the wheels in motion for 11 more grisly deaths. It seems that there is great dispute over who owns the bay and what is to be done with the property, and all those that try to ""gain"" from it are brutally dispatched...

TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE is a fine ""classic"" slasher that gets lost in it's own storyline. As the killer/killers are hashed-out, the story begins to lose some momentum in trying to reconcile itself. Regardless - slasher fans will probably pop a boner for this one, as most of the deaths are pretty twisted, even by today's slasher-standards. Definitely a must-see for the genre fan...8.5/10",1 "This film is composed of elements that appeal to me but I was disappointed. The acting is journeyman quality and the cinematography is professional. The story is generally juvenile and poorly detailed, with some exceptions. Those good scenes made viewing less painful. The plot development tries, but fails to achieve a coherence and fails to allow the characters to become real. This leaves the movie as an 18 year old's fantasy of what he could do if he left his home town in anger and embarrassment and had hot chicks falling for him through a series of adventures while traveling on money provided by a cool dad living vicariously. The young hero accomplishes nothing on his own merit except for saving the trans-Darien expedition from a guerrilla band in a scene that rings so phony it would have worked better as a dream sequence. This is not a retelling of the universal stories of transformation through adversity or rites of passage. Although the central character grows a beard and looks older by the end of the movie he has not matured. Likewise, decent acting and production values have not created a mature or compelling film.",0 "I have been a fan of Will Smith for years and I have to say this may be his best film yet! ""The Pursuit of Happiness"" is just a wonderful (based on a true) story, full of adventure, hope, and pain. I saw the movie last night in a packed theater. Big Willie Weekend has returned, and for good reason! It's a great movie to see during the holidays and definitely a tear-jerker! Perfect for a date, a night out with friends, or even with family. If you ever thought Will Smith really couldn't act (and shame on you!), you'll think otherwise once you see this movie. You can really feel what he's going through just by looking in his eyes. And Jaden Smith is too adorable! Their on screen chemistry is almost unbearable to watch! Go see this movie! Great acting, great directing, great writing...you won't regret it!",1 "Cheap, ugly, pointless. This movie in a word sucks. I fell a sleep watching it several times. I was astonished by the barrage of bad f/x, lousy acting and poor story telling. Be afraid, very afraid of this movie. It will totally waste about an hour and a half of your life. I just feel like i should get some sort of compensation for torturing myself with this abomination of a film. If i could do any kind of web design i would make a site dedicated to warning people about this ""HORROR"". One thing that could have slightly improved this was if the girl took her clothes off at any point. it is cold in the movie, but she could have shown something more than her nice belly, which by the way for me was the highlight of this poor project.",0 "I was there at the Wembley Live Aid show.

Being that I was one of the last few to buy my ticket at the company that takes you on their coaches to concerts. The last four or six I think, you could only come to their office and buy them in person.

As I was and still very much so a big fan of The Who, I wasn't a Mod, and knowing that they had ""retired"" this would be or could be the only chance to get to see them. I had a friend who was watching it at home recording their section on VHS for me. Then it happened, the satellite feed broke just as they started My Generation, I sometimes wonder if it was because the rest of the World were using to much power at that time that the system couldn't handle it all at once. Shame, and yes I did Pete Townshend fall over.

The weather was stunning, just as Elton John came on it started to drizzle lightly, but not for long, it was needed, the drizzle not Elton. Queen was amazing; three friends & I saw their very last show as a group a year later at Knebworth House, 120,000 people were also there too!

RIP Freddie, what a Showman.

When we were leaving through our side of the Wembley tunnels the atmosphere was electric, we were singing ""Feed the World"". During the coach ride home we could make out sets from Sabbath and others on the radio.

Its a shame that in twenty years nothing much has changed for the African people, such as Politics and war.

I have three used T Shirts, a little small for me now, that came in sealed bags and two mint Programmes and a mint Live Aid: The Concert book that came out very shortly after the gig. The Wembley Live Aid concert ticket stub is still in good condition in the photo album.

What a fantastic piece of History, 1 out of 72000 people seeing the real deal out of 1.5 to 2 billion watching on their telly's. When people talk about it and you mention that you were there they tend to look at you like you are lying, at first they just don't believe it, you really do, sometime's, have to prove it. It does fill me with pride to know that I was at a very Historical Musical event.",1 "WARNING: SPOILERS! Me and my 9th grade English class watched The Old Man and the Sea movie after reading the book. Overall, I think this movie was pretty bad. The movie was different from the book because there were new characters, Santiago's daughter, who wanted him to live with her and she didn't even try to have an accent. The other main characters were Earnest Hemingway, not played by him, and his wife. Having Hemingway in this story was an interesting idea, but all of the scenes with him are either parts from the book modified to have him in it, without really changing them, or really boring, which just makes it longer and makes it take more time to get to the interesting part, when he catches the marlin. Also, they left out the part where he caught the dolphin, so, in the movie, he was out there for days and he never ate. The new parts did not add to the story at all, except for taking up time. Seriously, I could hardly stay awake while watching it, and I have never fallen asleep in class.

The movie did not help me imagine or understand the story any better because it didn't look like how I imagined it would look. It was also really fake looking, when he saw the giant marlin, it didn't look all that big, and also, it was just a movie on a green screen and it looked like the fishing line went through the marlin at one time. When the marlin was strapped to the side of the boat it was the same size as the boat and the book said it was a few feet longer than his boat and it looked like it was made of rubber. When it was dark it looked like he was in a boat in the middle of nowhere. The movie was also less interesting because it did not say what he was thinking, so you didn't feel as attached to him, and a lot of the stuff he thought was important or interesting. 3/10 stars.",0 "In my opinion, Monk is one of the best shows I have seen in a long time. The main characters, detective Adrian Monk (Tony Shalhoub), and his friend and personal assistant, Sharona Fleming (the very talented yet underrated Bitty Schram) are very likeable and well-drawn. More importantly, the episodes are very well-written and highly amusing. I definitely recommend it.",1 "Poor Buffalo, New York! All the snow they get there and then a movie like this blows into town too. And when I say blows, I mean BA-LOWS! The best parts of this one belong to the stunning Russian babe. Without her soft-core porn scenes to keep your eyes peeled for there'd be no reason to tune in in the first place. Not unless you have a sick affinity for a violently aggregated body count that would make Tarantino blush! The bloodbath finale is so painful to watch that you end up hoping a stray dum-dum passes through your TV screen straight into your brain! I mean, they actually stage the scene in an all white room just so the blood will show up better when splattered on the walls! Well that's the ten line minimum that the IMDb forces upon reviewers. Yep, ten lines just to say ""It Stinks!""",0 "Elizabeth Hurley is hopelessly lost in her role, trying to spice the devilish flavour with ridiculously idiotic walk - I had no idea that Dark One hopped around like (not even a Playboy) bunny. Brendan Fraser, although somewhat intense with early geekish Elliot Richards, enjoys being there more as the film grows. Watchable from a rather aesthetic point of view - dramatic changes of scenery make it fast and sometimes even fun.

",0 "Who spent the time to watch this move which is done in poor taste and insults one of the greatest American leaders. Don't waste your time. I would rather get injection into the base of my finger nails then watch one second of this ""film"" which is in true poor taste and form.",0 "This is another one of those movies shot on video with a nice looking DVD box that gives the impression it's actually a film, when in reality it looks like it was shot on super 8 video by the neighborhood kids. I know it was shot one a canon xg1 after watching the ""making of"" documentary (another one of these low budget films with a ""making of"" documentary that acts like they've just finished making Citizen Kane). Normally I stay away from these movies (I don't say film because it's not) because they're terrible and movies made by amateurs don't entertain me, but this was at the library and the library usually doesn't have these ""shot on video"" movies, so I duped! There's no logic in this movie whatsoever. For some reason, a vampire's blood turns people into zombies. It's never really explained why but there's lots of lapses in logic and stuff never explained in this garbage. Like when they find the body that hasn't decomposed like it you'd think it would have having been buried in a 120 year old cemetery, the police would be called since it was obviously just buried. But for some reason, the idiots in this movie are under the impression that it was buried in the 1880s and never decomposed. Also, they never seem to wonder why a ""dead body's"" eyes seem to flicker as if they were trying to pretend they were dead but are not.

The ""writer"" of this movie is under the impression that hoards of zombies being shot is somehow scary. It's not. This is why just anyone should not be allowed to make a movie. There should be some sort of test you should have to pass first before being given a budget, any budget, to do something like this. If you're supposedly making a ""horror"" movie, learn about what is scary, not simply ""ooh, it's zombies, and even though it's been done now a thousand times, people will think ours are great!"" Of course the ""acting"" is awful but the direction is worse. Way, way too many close ups. The ""directors"" need to learn about ""establishing shots"" so the audience can have an idea what is going on, instead of these annoying constant close shots.

My favorite part of the movie is when the girl asks the Sheriff ""why don't you just run them over?"" He was thinking ""because they're unpaid extras. We just don't have the budget for it""

But the thing that bugs me the most about garbage like this, is when you see comments in the IMDb where the people are praising this obviously awful movie. I mean, look at how many comments they have for other films. Zero. It's so transparent these are people from the movie, it's insulting. There's no way anyone in the world outside the production of this movie would actually think this thing is great and comment here on top. There should be some sort of rule that people who worked on a movie cannot comment on their own work in here.

Avoid this garbage like the plague.",0 "Nazli, an 18 year old girl with Persian origin, tries to break away from her father who has decided that she should marry her older cousin. She falls in love with a Swedish guy, something that her father dislikes and tries to prevent. Director Reza Baggher has said that this movie was inspired by ""Romeo and Juliet"", but the parallels are few and the differences aren't especially good either. Sara Sommerfeld does her best to help this mostly hopeless script, but that doesn't help. How much I tried to find good things in this movie, I couldn't and gave up. The directing is poor and the cinematography is rather bad. And what did the title (""Wings of Glass"" translated into English) have to do with the happenings? Rating: 4/10",0 "Does anyone remember ""About Last Night"" with Rob Lowe and Demi Moore. Two people meet fall into a relationship and move in together. Then the couple has a fight and proceed to follow the advice of their friends instead of their hearts and winds up more deeply in love and understanding of one another but separated.

Rob Lowe meets Demi Moore at a company softball game. Vince Vaughn meets Jennifer Aniston at a pro baseball game. They fight and break up and follow the advice of their friends. Rob Lowe listens to his buddy in the bar Jim Belushi (and at work). Vince listens to his buddy at the bar Jon Favreau, Vince has a brother giving him ill-advice at work. Demi Moore listens to Elizabeth Perkins. Jennifer listens to Joey Lauren Adams. Doing a nice comedic turn as usual.

Neither are getting good advice and screw up the relationship badly, till it is almost unrepairable. This was like an extended episode of the TV show ""Men Behaving Badly"" mixed in with an episode of Oprah on proof that Men Don't Listen!

STAY AWAY........STAY AWAY....... unless you think Jennifer got a nice tush and you want to see it.

At least Rob Lowe and Demi Moore had on screen chemistry. You want to see them make it. I laughed at all the wrong moments in the Break Up.

Rob Lowe and Demi Moore ride off into the sunset at the end of their movie. She rides her bike and he runs after her.

****SPOILER ALERT****

At least the Break Up didn't cop out at the ending. They don't get back together. They run into each sometime later. They only give you a hint that they have feelings for each other without laying it on too thick.",0 "I am groaning as I write this but during the early '80s with all the ninja craze as as a kid who practiced and loved karate, I loved this show. I never knew who Lee Van Cleef was prior to this TV show but my father did. He remember Lee in all the spaghetti westerns and would laugh that the villain of the cowboys was a good guy ninja now.

You have to wince at some of the shows you liked as a kid but, you know, thats what makes the memories of your childhood so amusing if your lucky.

Now, I am older and a father, and I appreciate actors like Lee more than the pinheads in Hollywood making $20 million + a picture. Actors like Lee kept us entertained and made guys like Clint Eastwood (""For a Few Dollars More"") and Kurt Russell (""Escape From New York"") look so good.

When he died in '89 it gave me pause. He deserves to be remembered and I won't forget this weird funny show he did that kept me glued to the screen with all it's oddball fantasy.

The 13-year old boy in me gives this a 9 star rating and a 10 star rating for the beady-eyed, hawk-nosed actor who played the lead.

Rest-in-Peace, Lee, you are remembered.",1 "Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.

The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.

Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.

There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.

This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.",0 "Garrett did a fine job recreating Gleason, including his voice -- although his one attempt at singing as Gleason missed the mark. As biopics go, this one was well shot, but loses points for it's chaotic structure (with far too many jarring flashbacks), key storyline omissions and factual errors. Among the omissions: Gleason's film work (all the way back to the '40s and on to the year before his death), his first TV sitcom (""The Life Of Riley"" was a 1949-50 Emmy winner!) and what happened to him between 1956 (when the last non-interview scene supposedly takes place) and his death 30 years later (!). Among the goofs: the wrong cue music (his most-used TV theme was also a hit single for him in 1953, ""Melancholy Serenade""; after introducing his variety shows, Jackie'd leave the stage to the strains of ""That's A-Plenty"", etc.) I was surprised to discover halfway through the film that he was still working the more-or-less small-time; too much screen time was devoted to his early years, which could have been greatly condensed. I also agree with another reviewer that the comedy monologues were uniformly terrible; one wonders why ANY of the audiences shown were laughing at all (except during the ""Honeymooners"" sequences). It's unfortunate that the producers chose to present Gleason in such a relentlessly negative light. Maybe their view was, ""Hey, he's dead. He can't answer back and defend himself. He's from another era than we are so who cares? Let's just trash him."" Gleason wouldn't have had the career he did is he was really so hopelessly bad and untalented. If he did have any redeeming qualities, the writers of this film chose to leave them out.",0 "Shep Ramsey is forced to land his ship in the suburbs, hilarity ensues. But yet this film is so much more. Brilliant execution and top-notch acting from Hogan and Christopher Lloyd are examples of what propel this film to the top of cinematic history. There is a sadness in Hogan's Ramsey; a feeling of alienation. This is perfectly exemplified in the scene where Ramsey must play an arcade game. He truly believe he is saving this virtual world, and he plays with such veracious intensity that he ends up forcing the machine to explode, causing us the audience to look on in empathy for this lost soul. A truly heart wrenching experience, and a masterpiece I shall never forget, this one haunts dreams folks.",1 "I enjoyed this movie tremendously, but then again I'm a big Theodore Roosevelt fan. The movie does nothing to damage his reputation and is minimal in its application of modern sensibilities. There's lots of action, which closely mimics the historical accounts I've read. Believe it or not, by all reports TR was much as he is portrayed. Good performances abound with Tom Berringer topping the list.

I'll skip trying to tell you what was on these peoples mind when they went to war, however, TR had been de facto Secretary of the Navy and a politician for quite a while so I vote for less naivete than hinted at by another commentator. That said, true believers are reported to have been a far more common breed at the time.

A good rent, but I wish it were available on DVD. Talk to Ted Turner about that.",1 "These 3 stories are each so brilliant and wonderful... each in its own way. They describe what it was like to be gay in a small town in Connecticut in the 1950's, the 1970's, and in the year 2000. We see the hopelessness of the lesbian of the 50's - forced to move to Greenwich Village, and the torment of the perfect student/athlete of the 70's, who is nearly killed by his classmates for being gay. The stories ring true, and I can attest to the validity of them, because many of the same things happened to me.

The film includes many grand performances by a large number of our best actors and actresses, just as some of our best writers put the stories together. And it ends on a somewhat upbeat note. This film is a treat which should be required viewing in all schools and churches.

Don't listen to the negative reviewers of this great film. They seem to be shocked by how DECENT the gay characters in this film are. Well, guess what? Most of us ARE exactly like that. Yes, there is a need for films showing the full spectrum of gay people, and there ARE. Look for them. But the Brittany Murphy character in this film's 50's segment lived a story almost identical to that of my aunt. I myself had an experience VERY similar to that of Jonathan Taylor-Thomas in the 70's story. And I KNOW people living the 3rd segment today. So don't tell me these stories are ""unreal."" They are DEAD ON real. And my thanks to all three playrights for giving them to us.",1 "Although the tagline of Attack The Gas Station (1999) is `Just when you wanted to laugh, here they come,' it might as well have been `Idle hands are the devil's playthings.' In ATGS, the third and most successful film from Korean director Sang-Jin Kim, four young Korean punks, well, attack a gas station obviously (twice, the same station both times), because they are bored. As they realize running the station for an evening might be more profitable than simply robbing it, they end up taking hostage the manager and employees as well as most of the customers. On the surface, ATGS is a black comedy with a great cast, but in the end is also a wonderful examination of group dynamics. The group is lead by Sung-jae Lee, who plays No Mark. He is the most conservative looking of the four, with short, military style hair, and relatively normal clothing. He is also one of the easiest ways to recommend this movie, as he totally dominates the screen whenever he is in it, to the point where it is completely believable that he intimidates two armed police officers in their squad car as he chases them down with a moped. Oh-seong Yu plays Bulldozer, who is in charge of the hostages and swaggers around menacing people with a hockey stick. He gets less screen-time than the other three, stuck as he is in a back room with his prisoners, but is always impressive as he is shown controlling the ever growing crowd. Seong-jin Kang, who plays Ddan Dda-ra (a failed musician) and Ji-tae Yu, who plays Paint (a failed painter who likes to create nudes, then throw paint across them and shout `I'm a genius!'), are fun to watch and are more punkish, but are overshadowed by both No Mark and Bulldozer. Even considering that, all four give outstanding performances and are consistently entertaining to watch. It is as they take more and more hostages that ATGS becomes really interesting. It just seems impossible that one man, Bulldozer, even armed with a big club, can control a group of twenty plus hostages. They even ask him about this. `What would you do if a group attacked you?' to which he replies [this is an approximation] `I would pick just one. I would ignore all of the others and just beat up that one guy, no matter what. It's happened to me once. Four guys attacked me. I sent one to the hospital. Me? A couple of bruises.' As he relates his story, the hostages shrink away from him. But the hostages are not controlled simply through intimidation. Bulldozer punishes them by making them do handstands. Ddan Dda-ra makes four rival gang members sing as he and his friends eat. No Mark forces the manager to fix a broken phone, but keeps smashing it after it's been fixed (after which he yells `Fix it!'). And of course, they get the hostages to control each other. They encourage the employees to browbeat the manager. Bulldozer instigates a fight between one of the employees, a heavyset high-school kid, and a gang member who's been bullying him. After the kid easily beats up the gangster, Bulldozer makes him his number two man, even leaving him in charge of the hostages as Bulldozer goes to eat with No Mark, Ddan Dda-ra and Paint. It is these group dynamics that are perhaps the most fascinating aspect of ATGS, as we watch No Mark and his gang utterly dictates situations that seem at first totally out of control. On a personal note, I'm very glad guns are almost totally non-existent in ATGS (only the cops have them). The movie leaves no doubt whatsoever that the gang are bad-asses. It shows them beating up groups twice their size. As mentioned, No Mark is able to push around two armed police officers. But it's a bad-assness based entirely on their personal abilities. They push people around because they can, not because some gun gives them that power. If No Mark and the others had used guns, it would have been the gun that was controlling the hostages, not them. Using guns would have made ATGS much more serious and disturbing, when it is mostly satirical and relatively light-hearted. The absence of guns lets us like No Mark, Bulldozer, Paint and Ddan Dda-ra, who are criminals, but not villains. Yes, they rob a gas station (twice) and beat up a bunch of people, but their threats mostly end with a mild pummeling. With a gun, the only alternative from shooting someone in a horrible but non-lethal manner is to kill them. Without that ever present threat of death, Attack the Gas Station can provoke a chuckle as these four young men get away with (metaphorically speaking) murder.",1 "Both an entertaining and a sincere movie. Jules Sitruk definitely did a very good job in here. The story had indeed some emotional involvements and was above the average. I liked the way Gerard Jugnot and Jules interacted with each other. Sometimes it was a bit oversubscribed and unrealistic - I'm thinking of the gorgeous sequence with the German soldier who had his knee dislocated - but nonetheless it didn't minimize the movie's natural charm. The historical background adds a significant amount of authenticity to the whole plot and grants the movie additional quality. Solid acting, entertaining experience. Recommended.",1 "This movie is a testament to the power of love. Orson Welles portrays a WWII vet who will not allow himself to ruin his wife's new life. As I watched the scene where he denies his true identity, I was awestruck by the sacrifice he made. The scene in which he met and spoke with his son was so touching!! This is an awesome must-see for Orson Welles fans. Also the casting of a young Richard Long and a very young Natalie Wood was a stroke of genius!!",1 "I was very disappointed in the story line of this film. The cast did an admirable job with an over-blown, far-fetched plot. Also, there are many discrepancies in the relationships between the characters. Obviously the writer and director were trying to confuse the audience by hiding the ""true"" identities of some of the characters. There is nothing wrong with that in this type of movie. However, doing so by having characters say and do things that openly contradict earlier scenes is not excusable. The performances of Connery, Zeta-Jones, and Rhames are very good considering what they had to work with as far as dialogue goes. As a gen-x male, I must applaud the appearance of Catherine Zeta-Jones. WOW!!!! It almost made everything else seem unimportant.",0 "...is Sean Bean. How did an actor of his caliber allow himself to get trapped in this mess? My God, this is bad! The writing is something out of an afternoon soapie (though even those shows have enough pride not to hand out this many clichés, usually). Most of the acting--except Bean, whose professionalism apparently extends even to trash like this--is almost comically lousy. The only name I recognize (other than Sean Bean) is Amanda Donahoe, whose performance is so cheap it makes her crappy work on ""LA Law"" look like an Academy Award winner. None of the other actors deliver anything more than dull-eyed recitations of their bad lines, which makes me wonder: Are these actors all this bad, really, or are they this bad only because the script sucks so completely? All I can say here is that if you're a Sean Bean completist, as I am, you'll want to watch this--and then check it off your list. Be shocked that he ever agreed to be connected to such dreck. If you're not a Bean freak--avoid, avoid, avoid, because minus Bean, this has absolutely NOTHING to recommend it.",0 "MAN I FELT LIKE I WASTED 2 HOURS OF MY LIFE AFTER WATCHING THIS PIECE OF CRAP!! This movie shouldn't even be called a movie, it shouldn't even be on IMDb. I mean this movie has no story, no structure, no characters, no message, no nothing. If I actually took my time to write a detailed review I'd probably end up hanging myself for wasting more time than I already did watching this ridiculous pile of steaming crap that was actually supposed to be a movie. If you plan on watching this movie make sure you schedule an appointment with a psychologist for some therapy cause this movie will depress you for giving it the time you have. They ought to take this movie and stick in the cam'ron's rear end.",0 "If somebody knows a hundred odd things about Italian cinema then it must be assumed that that person must surely have heard of Gianni Amelio.He is a great figure of Italian auteur cinema having made important films like Colpire al cuore,Il Ladro di bambini,Lamerica and Così ridevano.It is sad to state but a hard to digest truth is that ""Le Chiavi di casa"" is a film for which Gianni Amelio has failed miserably.There are elements in this film which have the potential to emotionally stir a viewer but they do not have any effect as they are presented in a disconnected manner.This is a film about a father and his troubled relationship with his invalid son but so many questions are left unanswered.It is not sure whether this film is favoring invalid children or is just showing fake sympathy.Casting for the film has not been done properly.There are times when ""Le Chiavi di casa"" appears as a pathetic euro pudding as it features an English actress Charlotte Rampling sharing screen space with an Italian actor Kim Rossi Stuart in Germany.",0 "I've only myself to blame.

When a film boasts that it has a group of tourists getting high on funny mushrooms, resulting in them being ""attacked by ghostly creatures, never sure whether they are experiencing gruesome reality or startling hallucinations"", the chances are it will contain tourists getting high on funny mushrooms, resulting in them being attacked by ghostly creatures, never sure whether they are experiencing gruesome reality or startling hallucinations.

And I am unlikely to really go for that.

So what we have is some young people, who start out alright, but become more repugnant as the film goes, running around a swamp, screaming, swearing, getting more and more muddy, while bodies and leering faces jump out at them in entirely predictable ways, while the camera zooms around in that style that has become quite trendy in recent years. Admittedly, a story that involves hallucinations is as good as any to be filmed in such a way, but that doesn't make it any less annoying.

The result is an incomprehensible mishmash; ugly (not so much because of gore, as there is surprisingly little, but the direction), dumb and, in the end, just dull. But I will give it one thing.

It's the first time I've ever seen a horror film with a talking cow.",0 "Laughs galore and a disarming modernity punctuate this sophisticated screwball comedy. Grant is at his pinnacle. And Dunne tops him blow for blow. Surprisingly ""liberated"" for its day in many ways. D'Arcy, Cunningham, and Compton take turns nearly stealing the show, and Ralph Bellamy started patenting his career with this role. Marvellous fun.",1 "If i wasn't in the middle of a blizzard and had nothing else to do, Id demand the last 2 hrs of my life back.

Since you people generally like reasons for why stuff was crap: No plot line, pseudo-self discovery in what was supposed to be a romantic comedy, the self-discovery fell on its face hard, and in one scene stacy and barb start dancing around a room for NO reason. This was BAD. I wouldn't have finished it but i always see a movie through to its (in the case) incredibly craptacular end.

What I'm guessing was the point of the movie: Buy a palm and get Carly Simon cds.",0 "Yet another movie aimed at the 'not for everyone' crowd, This simply fantastic movie about a clown who tries to survive as a tenant in a cannibalistic butcher shop has 'Jeunet et Caro' written all over it. The visuals are awe-inspiring, and the film is contains with numerous scenes where sound and visuals combine to give the viewer a gritty feeling of rhythm within the movie. Beautifully choreographed and staged, well-written, and exciting. Pardon the irrationality of this review, but I get excited even when writing of it. Go see.",1 "Yawn.

This is yet another painfully boring movie that tries to get by on soft-core pornography and (oh so shocking!) S&M themes to keep the viewer interested. Imagine the worst episode of ""Red Shoe Diaries,"" I mean the absolute worst, with black actors. This movie is worse. Another viewer cleverly equated this to ""Eyes Wide Shut."" The is much similarity, although the dismal, slow-moving EWS is FAR more interesting than this turkey.

The dialog was probably written in less time than the movie spans. Seriously.

Actual porn movies have better scripts and less wooden acting.

I gave it a ""2,"" only because the opening sequence was pretty well done.

Avoid this one like the plague.",0 "If you want to experience a fantasy world of mythical beasts and far-off lands there are several choices. Firstly you can dream it. Secondly you can read it. or thirdly you can see a movie about it, where all the imagination work is done for you with visual effects and camera work. So why on earth are there movies made which still require us to use imagination to make the images seem real, or even watchable??

I have no problem with the ""B"" or even ""C"" movie genre. Some old and very respectable movies are made using plasticine model monsters, and superimposed close-ups of real insects... not a crime, nor a problem. But in this film, even those tried and tested, basic techniques are done badly. Although, hang on, was that a cameo by the ""Asteroid-millenium falcon eating-monster"" from ""The Empire Strikes Back""?? No, surely not!

I sometimes wonder how and why films like this ever get made. I mean, someone has to have an idea at some point, and the ""story"" grows from there, right? I couldn't even piece a story together out of this, the final product. So how on earth did anyone first answer the question ""So, what's this film going to be about?"" Initially titled ""The Dark Castle"" I believe... then had a name change to entice an entirely different audience. The added female voice-over at the start belies this attempt at trickery... in fact, I'm not sure that one couldn't take this film and it's packaging to the advertising standards commission, and hold the company liable for every copy sold under these false pretences.

I rated this film ""2"", and justify the rating thus... one point for creative use of the poem ""Jabberwocky"". And one point for all the laughs I got from everything in this film! And I wasn't laughing at the funny bits I assure you! So rather than try to explain what this film is... how about a little about what it isn't. It's not a parody or a spoof, this limp lettuce of a production is somebody's actual attempt to make a movie. It's not a horror... believe me, ""comedy of effort"" would be a better genre! And it most certainly isn't any kind of soft-core porn either... don't let that name-change fool you! All in all, shockingly bad and pointless stuff. Not for horror, fantasy, sci-fi, B-movie, c-movie, or even any-movie fans at all.

Ever.",0 "The story starts off at the Battle of Dunkerque as a German Unit infiltrates British lines and joins the evacuation to England for the purpose of conducting covert operations. As the Battle of Britain commences the Germans focus on disabling the new British Radar stations.

As an old Italian movie it was filmed without sound and voice-overs were added later just like a Spaghetti Western. Filmed as a wide-screen movie the pan and scan job to fit a TV screen is poorly done. But that is not the worst of it. There are several split screen periods in the movie with up to four different pictures at once and to refit for a 4:3 aspect ratio the editors just cut out the edges of the film, essentially cutting some of the multiple views in half. Very sloppy.

The acting and directing is dull if serviceable but the script and editing (not just the editing for TV) is weak. The casting deserves special mention as laughable. I like Van Johnson, but a British Air Marshall? And the very Mediterranean looking Germans are a hoot!

For World War Two history buffs you may enjoy the scenes of the beaches of Dunkerque as I can't recall ever seeing it represented in a movie before. Unfortunately, the scenes of the air battles later in the movie will make you cringe.

This movie may have some curiosity value for those of us who love war movies but others will probably be disappointed. I gave it 4 out of 10.

Bob",0 "Formulaic, lightweight comedy

-- so lightweight it almost floats off into thin air -- about an insecure chick (pop-eyed, pencil-thin Brittany Murphy) who sneaks a peek in her boyfriend's (somber Ron Livingston) Palm and definitely doesn't like what she finds there. Before she is done, she has managed to corral three of his former gal pals and they along with the boyfriend appear as unwitting guests on a Sally Jesse Raphael (Kathy Bates) -type TV talk show

where much dirty laundry is exposed, thanks to the machinations of an evil show producer (steely-jawed Holly Hunter). It's a paycheck, I suppose, but what in the hell

is Oscar winner Kathy Bates doing in 'tween' crap like this?",0 "For producers and screenwriters, trying to make a historically accurate film, especially one dealing with a faraway and complex period, is a thankless and often pointless task. History, having no clear beginning and no clear end, is almost impossible to squeeze into the conventional story structures demanded of cinema-going audiences - at least as they are perceived by film financiers. And the result is always a mass of over-simplifications, compressions, chronological mayhem and mis-characterization. Even if the end result is a good story, which in this case it sadly is not, the value of the piece as 'history' is as good as useless. This is the case with 'To Kill a King'. As an aide to history it is without value, because the events and conflicts it portrays were almost certainly nothing like the film-makers would have us believe. And as pure entertainment it's unpardonably slow. It gets ties up in arcane issues that we have no special reason to be concerned about any more, and rarely flames into life. Some of the performances are lively (Everett as King Charles is the high point), but most are one-dimensional, include that of both Fairfaxes (Dougray Scott and Olivia Williams). Overall, unless Civil War costumes fascinate you, this film offers little return on the cost of a cinema ticket.",0 "The Enterprise is somehow knocked back in time and the ship becomes visible to the folks in the US Air Force. Not wanting to mess up the future, they try to get out of there fast--but not until they accidentally take a pilot prisoner. At first, they don't think this is any big deal (Huh? It sure seemed like one). Then a bit later Spock informs the Captain that the pilot's son plays an important part in space travel history so they MUST return the pilot ASAP--especially since at this point, the pilot hasn't yet sired any kids. So, they realize they must erase the pilot's mind and steal the records of their being spotted (boy, this seemed really easy) so that time would not be affected.

This is a decent episode but also one that is easily forgotten. Despite having seen the episode many times, it just never seems to stand out in my mind--sort of like eating white bread. Sure, it's filling but not all that memorable.",0 "It was surprising, at least after all the media attention in Latin circles it received, to come out of this movie as if I had just lost 2 hours of my time. If anything after having seen Mexican and Colombian cinema and being familiarized with the themes they depict, ""Paraiso"" doesn't seem to know where it wants to go and what subjects it really wants us to familiarize ourselves with. The theme of illegal immigration, a hot topic these days, has received plenty of attention from many media outlets, even film. Pick any Mexican or Colombian film from the last decade and the idea of an ""Better American hope of life"", is soon to be found, however, ""Paraiso"" fails at showing us what really motivates these characters or what lies behind their intentions. Possibly, poor acting has something to do with that, hiring non-actors from some of these roles was a huge mistake by Mr. Brand, who could learn plenty from his Mexican and Spanish counterparts, he lacks the experience to be able to take a mediocre script and really bring a believable and manageable story within the confines of the Spanish language. Hopefully Latin-American cinema has a little more to offer than this.",0 "I was stumped at the video store - had basically narrowed the DVD search down to 2 - Sphere (yeah, I know..) and Savior, this interesting looking title on the bottom shelf.

Thank goodness I chose this one.

What a brilliant, gut-wrenching, agonising movie...

Other comments have said it was a low budget job, but the DVD version I just saw didn't even make you think about the mechanics of the movie - just the characters and events that this film portrayed.

The cinematics - beautiful scenery etc (to show that man really has no sense at all - he can be surrounded by some of the most amazingly beautiful surroundings and still turn the place to hell) and sound (the gunshots / ambient stuff etc were very well done) were all spot on..

For the actual plot, the other comments posted are a lot more lucid than mine, so I won't bother trying to explain the premise of this flick.

I really don't know what else to say - some of the scenes containing brutality were brilliant (in a really horrible way) - none of the usual hollywood (tm) bad guy finally gets it in the end type stuff - cliche - it really just showed how pointless these kinds of conflicts are. cliche

Oh man - this film is going to stick with me for quite some time. And I kind of wish it didn't. I was after a throw away movie (should have rented sphere) and instead got this thing that I just cannot stop thinking about.

Dennis Quaid was amazing in it, and the rest of the cast were excellent, too.

And yes, I cryed like baby Vera..

PS: I actually registered just so I could vote & comment on this movie..

",1 """xXx2: The Next Level"" (Revolution Studios and Columbia Pictures changed the subtitle from ""State of the Union"" for international territories, for obvious reasons) comes from the director of ""Die Another Day,"" which was terrible; producer Neal H. Moritz, whose last credited project was the dire (and thankfully now-cancelled) ""Point Pleasant""; is a sequel to the dreadful ""xXx""; and comes equipped with Samuel L. Jackson's stated dislike of making movies with rappers. On this showing, you can't blame him.

Trading in Vin Diesel (his character is written out by someone saying that he got killed in Bora Bora) for Ice Cube is no improvement; not only is he not the most expressive actor, but he's not that convincing in action (when he's being chased by Scott Speedman you just KNOW that Speedman would catch him like that (snaps fingers) in real life). In fairness to Mr. Cube, he's far from the only thing wrong with this; Simon Kinberg's screenplay seems not only to have been aimed at emotionally and intellectually stunted 13-year-olds but written by them as well, with the plot starting idiotically and continuing from there - the villainous Secretary of Defence played by Willem Dafoe is so pantomime villainous that when he makes a speech to Jackson you're surprised he doesn't laugh maniacally.

Suspending disbelief is one thing, but when you have a movie that expects people to believe that tanks can be handled like motorbikes... and which works in such daft plot turns as characters having their deaths faked just so they can be around for the climax (why not just kill them there?)... and that has a finale which depends on a car and a Presidential bullet train being able to fit on the same track despite the car being a compact if speedy sports car... in this case it's just impossible. Admittedly it doesn't help that said scenes are incompetently executed thanks to shockingly bad special effects and shoddy direction; some of the miniatures are glaringly obvious, and I particularly hope that lead effects house Industrial Light and Magic didn't do the CGI bullet train shots. And as for the way some of the shots go from film to what looks like video and back again...

The cast isn't much good either, although it's fun to see Peter Strauss as the President (in spite or because of his not sounding like he believes a word of this); Xzibit not only helps parts of this seem like ""Pimp My Ride: The Movie"" but he can't act, Dafoe is Special Guest Villain level, and Jackson phones it in. As for the female characters, Nona Gaye and Sunny Mabrey are pretty much defined by their cleavage and by the fact that one's good and the other (the one who looks like a cross between Nicolette Sheridan and Rachel Bilson) isn't. (The movie can't even be laddish properly; for some reason the sexiest woman in the movie (Masuimi Max, who plays Xzibit's girlfriend and who helps out with the robbery of the artillery-carrying cheese truck) isn't listed in the credits.) And the tiresome, crowbarred-in rap numbers don't help, certainly not compared to Marco Beltrami's score. (Ironically, at one point on hearing the female string quartet Bond our hero complains about the music; they are not to blame for the aural wrongs.)

""xXx2: Whatever"" is so unexciting and so absurd that despite its stabs at relevance (our hero claims Dafoe is hatching ""World War IV""), the only way to get through it is as a laugher; the sight of Ice Cube in a suit and tie (with umbrella!) is funnier than his intentional attempt at comedy later in the same scene. To make it worse, the last scene leaves the door wide open for a third movie... if it does happen, why not cast Scarlett Johansson or Charlotte Church as the new Triple X? It's not like realism is a key factor here.",0 "There is a reason why Bert I. Gordon's American-International cheapies were paid more lip service than the works of Ed Wood on the now-defunct Satellite of Love: the man carries the dishonorable title of being one of the most inept directors of low-budget schlock. But whereas stuff like ""The Amazing Colossal Man"" (a man turned giant by atomic testing) and ""Beginning of the End"" (Peter Graves vs. giant grasshoppers) had a certain charm reflective of the 1950s' ""high- concept/low-budget"" brand of sci-fi, ""Empire of the Ants"" is a bottom-feeder from start to finish, trying desperately to capture the low-grade magic of a bygone era. The only real merit of ""Ants"" is its nostalgia value--yes, I would watch this as a child and be utterly terrified of those bloodthirsty, radiation-grown buggers; years later, the puppet heads being shaken off-camera are less than impressive (as is Gordon's excessively shaking camera during the attack scenes), as is the stock footage blown up to make the ants tower over our human protagonists. The exposition scenes are painfully awkward, the dialog mostly atrocious, and the performances reflect this (with dismal results). The film is padded out with nonsensical clichés (the old couple who wanders off for no reason; the girl who sprains her ankle; another who gets snagged on a branch) and incredible lapses in logic (why can't our zeroes see or hear a cluster of ants that are mere feet away?), which culminates in a third act that apparently tries to wax philosophical in the vein of H.G. Wells' original story (which I haven't read) but falls flat on its face. ""Empire of the Ants"" is an interesting epitaph for a genre that has long since passed, but its best possible fate will probably be drunken viewing at your next house party.",0 "Two or even three movies for the price of one! The first is a travelog that was shot somewhere south of the US border. There are some excellent scenes of local fishermen and the culture of ordinary folks. Rumor has it that these are from Orsen Wells circa 1942. The second movie is unabashed marketing for tourism in Mexico - the last shot is of a tourist poster that melts into a plane flying to or from our neighbor to the south. The third movie is a lackluster mystery of sorts with Tom Lawrence at his worst. It is not that all of his Falcon movies are terrible, some are decent. The Falcon in Mexico is not one of his stellar performances and not really worth your time viewing. Half an hour after the movie, you won't rember who did it or care. Costume design by Renié.",0 "First of all, the battle of Poltava is very far from the center of this movie, so the international title is very misleading. Second, the story sucked. Big-time. Two french noble mens, one on the Russian side and one on the Swedish side, just for them to meet and settle at the end? Ridiculous.

All the foreign characters are played by Russian actors, and the foreign language is done by voice over, which is done really bad by the way.

The clothing is historical incorrect, with the officers on both sides looking like the Napoleonic offers during Waterloo. I guess Oleg Ryaskov got some inspiration from Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo. Except there is more than 100 years apart from these two battles. And for example, the Swedish attack wasn't lead by Karl XII (because he was wounded and couldn't lead Sweden in battle), it was lead by Carl Gustaf Rehnskiöld. I could go on and on about historical incorrectness.

The sound effects are the same throughout the movie. There is this exact same sound every time someone stabs another, and the guns all sound the same.

This is not a movie worth watching in my opinion.",0 "Yasuhara Hasebe's violent Nikkatsu pinker Assault! Jack The Ripper is a sleaze classic that's about as rough as you're gonna find 'em--and it's easily better than the XXX Forced Entry and its ilk. At different turns, it dips into humor, eroticism, sadistic violence, misogyny, and drama and it plays out perfectly.

What we got here is the story of a cake decorator and a waitress who work together and kill women to get off. The twist on this one is that the oversexed gal is the one who encourages the limp-dicked guy's spree of pastry-knife-in-vagina stabbings after an accidental killing gets him excited enough in the sack to please her. Great play between characters and straight up smuttyness make Assault! a real winner.

Assault! Jack The Ripper is a new favorite of mine. Not as graphic in the vag-stabbing department as I would've liked but God bless the Nipponese and Hasebe in particular for consistently bringing the best sleazy rape films to the table. You already know if you need to see this one--9.5/10.",1 "If you're like me, and you're tired of seeing the same old crap come out of Hollywood year after year, add this movie to your watch list. 'Gun Shy' is a witty, off-beat comedy with an all-star cast. Liam Neeson stars as a nervous undercover DEA agent that must bring an old world mafia thug, Oliver Platt, and Columbian drug kingpins together in a multi-million dollar sting operation. At the same time, Neeson must also deal with an increasingly volatile digestive system and a horrifying fear of being found out. Produced by co-star Sandra Bullock. WARNING: Dumb people may find this movie boring or confusing.",1 "As many of the other reviewers have stated, this movie presents to us a character with dreams of creating a ""good life"" for himself, who ends up falling into the prison system. Q-Tip and Darnell Martin do a great job in developing a script that embodies a trueness to the characters, which I am sure that the cast helped expand on. The silent moments of the film present the best moments (especially the last minutes where his works are displayed).

The movie takes ideas from many other prison films, however I have never seen a film present anything about asbestos and prisoners having to work in these conditions. After watching the DVD, I only wish that commentary were added and interviews at least with the director and writers. Worth a watch (or two). 8/10",1 "This movie is powerful on many levels...the character development, the plot, the acting, the special effects, the scenery, the music...it is uplifting and ""on the edge of your seat"" exciting....you are not just watching this movie..you are involved in it because you are carried away by the story...you are so affected by the plot and the compassion that you feel for the characters...I was especially touched by the development of the friendship between the two boys and the influence of the grandfather and the uncle in this story....and the truth revealed that good things can come from life experiences that, at the time, seem too challenging for words! ...wholesome, funny, thrilling, and touching....you can cry and you can laugh with the audience...finally, a movie for the entire family to watch and enjoy together!!",1 "This film exemplified the acting talents of Amitabh Bacchan. As he's aged his roles have been more of a dramatic nature and I think that this role in particular shows his talent and skill as a cinematic artist. Kareena Kapoor was another highlight. She looked beautiful in her plain clothing and makeup, a nice change indeed. Amir Khan doesn't seem to be as emotionally engaging with the audience and the limited scenes with Jaya Bacchan is just disappointing. She lights up the scene when she is in the room, and there just isn't enough of her to make a completely believable character. The musical numbers seem gratuitous and out of place in this dramatic context and it would have worked better had they been removed completely. This is still a very good film exploring ethic conflict in India post-partition, but just does not have the strength and impact of Bombay (1995).",1 "This movie made me think, laugh, cry and most of all smile. Newcomers, Ali Hillis and Drew Fuller, did a magnificent job in the role of Alexia and Jason. I hope to see them both in more leading roles in the near future. Abigail B. is just brilliant. I love that child! Hats off to the entire cast. They were all perfect in their given roles. I know the film is based on a Christian novel, and being a Christian, I was glad to see a film of this caliber make it to the big screen. The message is clear, simple and one that we can all learn from...believer or not. Thanks to everyone involved in getting this film to the big screen. It was truly a touching and inspirational movie.",1 "This is a rare gem, one that isn't afraid to confront what it means to grow up in 80s America. Set in 80s New York, Silver has lensed an astonishingly authentic view of childhood, surprisingly devoid of sentimentality. She isn't afraid to paint life in realist tones, often shocking the audience with the intrusion of adult behavior upon the young protagonist's life. The issue of class difference is central to the film's development of the two main characters Sarah and Kare; the former a rich Upper East-side innocent; the latter a brash, precocious Italian-Catholic schoolgirl. Yes, this treatment of the different class systems seems rather trite at first, but the complexities of the characters are mapped through until the sombre end, which is a refreshing change from the feel-good nonsense made by Disney et al. This independent film could have been a Disney film; thank Mickey Mouse it wasn't. A testament to the true spirit of independent cinema in the 80s.",1 "Now this serial had a lot of hype to live up to...I had heard or read that it was one of the best serials ever made from every source I encountered. It was spoken of in the same awed tones as The Adventures of Captain Marvel, Zorro's Fighting Legion, Fighting Devil Dogs, and Drums of Fu Manchu. And it lived up to all the hype.

Charles Quigley, David Sharpe and Bruce Bennett are great as the three circus daredevils who join the police in their efforts to stop the escaped convict who is known by the name 39013. The action and thrills are easily on a par with most of the SFX blockbusters today...and these old time SFX are pretty believable too. Just watch the motorcycle racing ahead of the water in the flooding tunnel!

This chapter play doesn't really fall into the ruts of many of the genre. The cliffhanger resolutions are all very believable, and there is only about a half a chapter of recap. The acting, beyond the three principals, is excellent. Carole Landis has a minor though pivotal role that really doesn't use her comic talents, but Charles Middleton plays the archtypical villain role that he became known for...especially after he took on the role of Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon.

There are few serials that I can recommend wholeheartedly. But Daredevils of the Red Circle has definitely joined that list!",1 "The first and most important thing to say about DRIVE-IN MASSACRE is that it is, in fact, a very poorly done movie. People who are looking for quality cinema of any kind should avoid this, although I dare say it is hardly ""the worst movie ever made,"" unless hyperbole is the only means by which you can communicate. The real question of this movie isn't whether it's bad or good; it is whether it's so bad, it's good. For those who like competent camera work, plot progression, and performance, this movie is not for you--make no mistake, DRIVE-IN MASSACRE is the bottom of the barrel (keeping in mind this is coming from someone who believes there is a level below the bottom).

The other most important thing to say about this movie is that it is public domain. It can probably be found online for free, and it is available in a number of multi-movie boxed sets (including at least one of the sets with fifty movies). If you really, REALLY want to see it, it is available. As for whether or not you should see it, well...

As the title suggests, this is a standard slasher film, originally made for screenings at drive-in theatres during the 1970's. And really, the goal for the drive-in audience wasn't really to be entertained by what was on the screen, but rather, to have what was shown on the screen assist patrons in getting into the pants of other patrons. For those gore hounds, there are some good bloody shots in this movie, and there's one bare-breast shot barely worth noting, but the shocks are cheap and will probably only coax the most squeamish of special ladies into the laps of their horny gentlemen.

The plot revolves around, predictably, a series of slasher-style murders taking place at a local drive-in in Anytown, USA. The killer, in this case, is using a sword as his murder weapon, and there are, coincidentally, at least two characters in this movie who were, at one time, experts on sword use. At first, it seems like the killer only targets young couples who are prematurely pregnant. Our red herring, a standard in slasher flicks, is an amusing case as well--another killer, played by horror veteran George ""Buck"" Flower (he plays the mumbling old man in just about every horror flick out there) is found and shot down, only for the police to discover he's the wrong killer.

So, for what its worth, DRIVE-IN MASSACRE does have an audience, just not a wide one. I found it amusing, and others will as well, but don't get your expectations too high for this one. I'd call it ""So Bad, It's Kind of Good."" Some of the dialogue, what can be heard, is rather amusing. The owner of the drive-in theatre, Austin Johnson (played by a man known only as Newton Naushaus), has some snide but humorous one-liners, especially while chiding the police.",0 "Well, I have to say i wasn't expecting much from the movie when I saw the trailer. I wasn't wrong. People should beware when movies of the same genre appear in big numbers; it will mean that at least 3 of 4 will be mediocre,bad or no redeeming value,whatever.

***Spoilers..maybe*** While the ""adventure"" focus the most part on the ""growing"" and ""surprinsing""(because nobody can actually explain how many powers Will has or how did he get them)of Will Treston, it also points the relationship of him, with his family(BIG family, by the way), and maybe love-wise. Yet, the prophecy from which he was unaware, suddenly takes part over his life, when he mets ""The Raider"";he pursues Will,with some dogs you wont see again, he babbles something like ""Give me the signs"" and runs away scared of some people that calls themselves ""Old Ones"".

Probably, its seems like the ""normal"" Fantasy-Adventure plot. Boy.Prophecy.Hero.Mission.Some Help.Dangers.Perils.Plot Twist.Final Battle.End...Wow that sounded Like Ocarina of Time. But i was not satisfied by the plot...Will finds the signs...for example,on a Tomb(on the local Church),on her sister birthday present,OK totally unexpected and the SUPER predicted and most obvious sign(The Soul)...but for that, Will didn't even had to walk a mile from his home. His powers...Angered Explosions, ""Super Strength""(Sometimes he was a pussy, actually), and Telekinesis( which he didn't care to use it, more than once). But, since all those powers were shitty, many characters actually didn't care to react at them(Will's Sister,Brother) or he was willing to keep them has a secret(Let me tell you a Secret...I have Super Powers). All this...i could easily forget it...but what destroyed me completely...was the ""Disco Battle""(Final Fight Between the Old Ones and the Raider)or the Final Fight Between Will and the Raider( The effects of the Light and Dark Energies looked so crappy, a White and Dark Blankets, would have worked better) ************************************ So, Ill give it a 3, because it was not the worst movie i have seen yet...but because of the many plot holes and ...why to put Maggie and Stephen on the promotional poster if they barely acted on the film? Bad advertising",0 "wow, i was not expecting much from this but found it to be very good! It sure kept my attention. I'm not usually a big fan of this genre of movie. Goldie did a good job. some of the shots happened so quick i wish i had seen it on dvd so I could rewind and take a second look.",1 "I have seen this movie many times over and I can assure you that it has yet to get old for me. The movie does a great job of allowing the audience to witness first hand and laugh about how difficult it is for a very average-looking middle aged man with no career to juggle his well-off wife and his ambitious mistress. Of course the fact that both main characters are married (George and his mistress), albeit to other people, is the main reason why this heavily vaudeville influenced comedy works so well. Poor Maurice, all he meant to do the day he met Georges was collect knick-knacks to help the poor… Instead he ends up being forced – (after a little convincing) to pretend he is George's wife in order to help him hide the affair that his mistress is about to reveal and, in the end, discovers the feminine side he was never aware off.

Despite the fact that the two main male characters pretend to be married to each other, there is no gay theme going per se but the comedy clearly arises from the fact that everyone is fooled by Maurice's act as he pretends to be George's homely wife (unlike in The Birdcage, which, although the latter is a very good comedy on its own, I find to have nothing in common with this one. Indeed, the fact that both contain a transvestite is pretty much the only similarity between the two movies since the reasons behind the cross dressing serve very different purposes!).

For those of us who grew up in Europe, the whole side story about the Audi lover and the father and son cameos at the dealership made for some most welcome additional insider chuckles! If you are looking for a good laugh, watch this little gem, it is a great way to spend a couple of hours!",1 "Sorry, but I guess I'm going against the grain on this one. I remember when Michael O'Donoghue was writing for National Lampoon; he had a ""how to write a short story"" article. The thrust of the piece was -- if you get bored or can't figure out an ending, have your character get hit by a bus. This movie seems to take that approach.

The 'miracle' invention that Tesla apparently provided Hugh Jackman's character, which allowed him to duplicate himself, is nowhere referenced in the movie. The ending is a cinematic equivalent of ""then he got hit by a bus"". In short, I think the audience was cheated. Apparently most of the people who commented on this movie didn't mind that, but I thought it lacked integrity.

Beautiful cinematography, tortured accents, and a conceit that's actual a deceit. Not recommended.",0 "I admit, I thought this was going to be a throw-away film. I have an all-you-can rent membership with Hollywood Video and this was the only new release left on the day I rented this title. I'm a pretty harsh critic of films, so I just knew this was going to be awful. I hadn't read much about Lindsay Lohan (sorry, not of that generation), but I knew she'd been in the news in a bad way some time ago. For the people who rate a film mainly on the actor/actress involved - get a life. Please. Don't troll here. This was a GREAT film. Take a look at my ratings history and you'll see I don't rate movies highly.

It's not Grindhouse. It was a lot better. It was almost Memento good. Really. I recommend going into this film with an open mind and you may also end up being pleasantly shocked.",1 "Take heart, fans of this very true-to-the-novel movie version, the new American channel Pax TV shows this movie sometimes, but unfortunately has cut about 50 minutes from it, making it about an hour and 45 minutes long. Still, it is heartening that this detailed version is faithful to the novel's setting of 1880s London, and the premise that Sarah's father has truly died, altho his ""dear friend"" finally finds the long-lost Sarah in the end. I would have liked more exterior scenes, but good acting by all.

An interesting note - the novel started as a short story called ""Sarah Crewe, or What Happened at Miss Minchin's"" in the 1880s, serialized for a magazine. Response was so positive, that after the author Frances Burnett had adapted it for the stage at the turn of the century and called it ""A Little Princess,"" she re-wrote the book version, adding length and detail, and calling it ""Little Princess"" as well. The latter is what most know about and what you will find in the bookstores, but both versions are available on the internet to compare texts.",1 "The friends Donald made in Saludos Amigos send him several gifts for his birthday. Eventually he hooks up with Joe Carioca and Panchito and they sing the title song before the film turns into a song filled series of travel stops.

Over the years I've watched this movie in pieces as the bits showed up on various Disney shows and compilation tapes but until recently I never watched the entire movie together. I had heard that it was quite good. Unfortunately who ever told me it was good never really watched it or hadn't seen it in years.

The problem for me is that after a good opening segment of cartoons about birds the film becomes a music and dance fest. Joe Carioca and we get a song on Baia. When Panchito shows up we get surreal animation and some musical travels through Mexico. Its nice but any hope of it being anything more than ""music video"" is washed quickly away. Perhaps its just a dislike for the images that have been married to some nice songs, but I really don't like this movie.

The mixture of live action and animation doesn't really work. Disney had been doing that sort of thing for twenty years prior to the release of this film and I expected more. Mostly the problem is that once the animated characters leave the foreground they look like badly done rear screen projection with all the color washed out.

If you must see this, rent it. Actually rent it for the first half, but be prepared to dislike the second.",0 "**This review is based on the MST3K version of the movie.**

This is a movie about a direction-less, spineless, and unlikable ""hero"" ( or at least the producer's idea of one) named Jodie who drives out to the country to eat his sandwich and meets a farm girl named Melissa. Melissa has a slight problem being that about 120 years ago she sold her soul to Satan and with our ""hero"" Jodie ( a male ) on the job the chances for correcting this problem do not look good. Jodie ends up spending a couple of days with Melissa at her family's walnut farm with her drab family who we do not care for or find interesting except for her old and ugly sister who makes a few appearances to murder people.

The acting is bad but what will really get to you is the SLOW dialog between the two main characters. If you edited out half the gaps between their words the conversation might actually appear to flow normally but since this was not done you are simply left with big gaps where audience members ( the smart ones that is ) will run out of patience and leave the room. It is amazing that the editor left these scenes in; ""Yes, no room for improvement here. Another perfect take HA HA!"" Speaking of amazing, the song ""Amazing Grace"" is featured about half a dozen times toward the end of the film. It would have been interesting to have seen this in the theater to see how much the audience groaned when the song started for the third or fourth time. I am sure that a collective ""Not again !"" drowned out the first measure of the fourth, fifth, and sixth renditions of the song.

About the only good thing about the movie is the woman who plays Melissa. She is most pleasant to look at. You think with a few, make that A LOT of acting lessons, her career could have been salvaged but it was not to be. With the mean-spirited and well-crafted remarks of the Mystery Science Theater gang the viewing experience will be about an 8 1/2. This is one of their best projects. They really tear this movie apart which is exactly what it deserves. Without them I only issue this warning; DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ! YOU WILL BE SORRY ! I GAVE IT A 2 OUT OF 10 AND I MEAN IT !!!

**** SEMI-SPOILER AHEAD****

Our ""hero"" Jodie lets us down right to the end of the film. No surprise that a guy who takes THREE DAY lunch breaks is not a champion overcomer of adversity. Non-Christians will find the ending unclimatic but Christians will probably find it offensive much like I did. Remember, throwing a rock or an empty beer bottle at your television will not hurt those who are responsible for this film so just write a scathing review like I did. God Bless Mike and his robot friends.",0 "This has to be one of the most intelligent movies Hollywood produced in the 1930's; I see it comes from Lewis Milestone, who produced the equally-brilliant All Quiet on the Western Front (1930). These films have almost a European look - appropriate, because the novels are by European writers.

You've got to admire Milestone for coaxing a sensitive performance out of Crawford, a woman who was happier when hamming it up. No wonder she didn't like her performance here; she was to genuinely ACT.

The story deals with the inner nature of a sanctimonious religious hypocrite, something quite relevant now. A lesser director (and novelist) would have turned Sadie into someone unbelievably virtuous, but Milestone and Crawford show us a much more complex character.

The other performances are great, too, especially Huston as the tormented evangelist; try comparing him to the chief satanist in The Seventh Victim (1943). The rain itself deserves special mention as a character establishing the insane claustrophobic atmosphere.

The stage version was portrayed briefly in Scarface (1932), another great movie from the 1930's.",1 "This movie is rated PG which probably warranted. Today's PG films are usually pretty tame but they definitely put the ""P"" in this rating for a reason. Though they thoroughly enjoyed the ""dumb detectives"", my 2 young boys, ages 7 and 9, found many of the other characters to be scary and disturbing. Specifically, they found the Lord Morley character to be the most frightening.

My 9 year old hasn't been able to go to sleep in his own bedroom for the 2 nights in a row since seeing this movie. He says the images are stuck in his head. My 7 yr old had some issues"" with it as well the first night but has since resolved them after considering the whole of the film.

Parents might want to preview this film before showing it to their younger children or at the very least watch it with them. This is rather surprising and disappointing for a PG rated film that was written by Tim Conway who was always so very funny on the Carol Burnett show.",0 "In 1972, MGM was in dire financial straits (like most of the major studios, after trying to come up with another ""Sound of Music,"" and squandering millions in the process). MGM hired TV-executive James Aubrey in a desperate attempt to rescue the studio from oblivion. Aubrey responded by drastically cutting the budgets (and quality) of MGM's film output, and instead concentrated his efforts and the studio's remaining assets on the creation of a vulgar MGM Vegas hotel. Meanwhile, no one was around to run the store on the studio's film output, and ""They Only Kill Their Masters"" was typical of MGM's theatrical output during Aubrey's Reign of Terror. A cheapjack mystery no better(and in most ways worse) than the average TV movie-of-the-week, this abomination was especially horrific in unintended ways. For one, it was the last movie made on the memorable MGM backlot (soon to be bull-dozed and sold to realtors). Secondly, it reunited two of its top stars of the not-so-distant past, Peter Lawford and June Allyson, who starred in the memorable musical classic ""Good News"" filmed on that same lot 25 years earlier. To add insult to injury--SPOILER ALERT--an unhealthy-looking Lawford played one of the murder victims, and guess who the killer is? None other than poor Ms. Allyson, playing a homicidal lesbian whose motives remain as murky as everything else in this slapped-together disaster. Congratulations to Mr. Aubrey for cannibalizing the heritage of MGM, its wondrous backlot, and its rightful boasting that its contract players at one time constituted ""more stars than there are in heaven"" (look closely and you'll glimpse some other stars of years gone by--Ann Rutherford, Edmond O'Brien, etc--wasted in the wreckage). An all-around vile concoction that might have desecrated our memories of MGM for good, had not ""That's Entertainment"" (a compilation of MGM's greatest stars and musical numbers that became such an unexpected boxoffice hit that it spawned two sequels) come along 3 years later and put June Allyson and Peter Lawford together again exactly where they belonged--back on the (then-demolished) MGM backlot, singing and dancing up a storm to ""The Varsity Drag"" finale excerpted from. . . not ""They Only Kill Their Masters"".. . but the one-and-only collegiate musical classic ""Good News.""",0 "During the Depression, a young couple goes on the lam after the man is accused of a crime. This gritty drama is an early example of film noir, expertly directed by Lang, the great Expressionist filmmaker, although he sometimes goes overboard with the symbolism. Lang explored similar themes in Fury (with Sidney in a similar role to this), made a year earlier, but this one is better, not marred by the melodrama and overacting of the earlier film. Fonda and Sidney are excellent as the unfortunate couple, helped by a fine supporting cast. Memorable scenes include the escape from prison, tinged with irony, and the finale, as the couple makes a run for the border.",1 "Well, I hate to burst everyone's bubble before me, but IMAO this was a very ordinary film that was mildly amusing at best. What's worse is that it invokes a hefty glorification of gratuitous violence, so much so that it ruined the film (again IMAO). The violence wasn't ridiculous enough to be a mockery, but an essential part of the film, overstating other perhaps more interesting plot aspects that might have been developed further to a more satisfying - and original - whole.

This is a pity, because it was very well acted (these guys shame some of the more recognized Hollywood stars), and the character development wasn't too bad either. And there was definitely potential, some of the peripheral themes were definitely candidates for further development. What ruined it was that the plot was so bloody stupid. This could have been a great movie if the central plot theme wasn't so banal.

Sorry I couldn't give it more than two points out of ten, but this is an absolute (rather than a relative) scale, it was definitely a masterpiece for the budget they had. Shame about the subject matter.",0 "Though I wouldn't expect it at all, this was indeed a good movie. It has his problems (the teenagers are annoying as always, the dialoguse have major problems and the werewolf is not done very good), but you can surely pass over. The very good points: 1. The werewolf is quite crazy. He tears apart his victims, he IS a beast. 2. The werewolf is talking! This is ingenious indeed, I never saw it before, and I saw a lot of werewolf movies. You may think at first it is inappropriate, but I assure you the effect overall is very good. 3. There are pleasant nudity scenes, great tits, and the werewolf even rapes one of the teengirls in her perfect ass, in front of her boyfriend. While rather disturbing, the scene is quite good and adds to the story. 4. The atmosphere is nicely done, quite dark, quite 80's and there IS suspense. I am surely recommend the movie as one of the few werewolf movies made good in the last decades, with Ginger Snaps Unleashed and Dog Soldiers being other two examples in the same vein.",1 "I never seen the original ""Texas Chainsaw Massacre"", but the remake looks very interesting & entertaining. Leatherface character is now a legend in horror movies. When he took a face and put it on himself, you feel very uncomfortable in your chair.

The sequel of the remake shows the beginning of of cannibalistic, inbred psychopaths family, who kill teens in Texas... Two mos important characters in this movie is Sheriff Hoyt & Thomas Hewitt (Leatherface). The torture them more, than in remake, who been released 3 years ago. Actors acted very creepy, but entertaining. They been so real. They accents makes you feel like in Texas. Acting was nice too. The emotions of teens was like it will be in true life. Dean & Eric fighting ,becouse they are brothers & they will give their life, if other will survive...

Sadly, the ending was surprised. They all dead, in other hand - it looks logical. If Chrissie would be survived, she tell everyone about it and the family would be masked and we don't knew, hot the remake comes out...",1 "There are a couple of prior comments here which opine about this flick's abundance of clichés throughout -- and I agree completely, both with regard to the characters AND the dialog.

I'd read about Elizabeth Berkly's awful performance in the equally-awful ""Showgirls,"" which I've never seen - and her performance here, while not awful, is barely up to the standards of Lifetime's worse fare. There was not a hint of depth to her character, but then there probably shouldn't have been. If so, it would have placed the film completely out-of-balance, since there wasn't a hint of depth or charisma - not a trace - in any one character, performer, or portrayal.

The principal's handling of Liz's initial complaint after her tutee had kissed her in the hall was laughable. Her husband's initial reaction and advice were likewise (Forrest Gump, attacking Jenny's boyfriend in his car provided a more realistic, intelligent action, and, hell, he was mentally-challenged).

The smarmy, unctuous lawyer (excuse the redundancy) father of the lying student actually performed something probably worthy of praise in his performance: he was both laughable and thoroughly annoying at the same time, no mean feat. Her attorney was more of an insensitive nerd, also not unknown in the profession.

Finally (and frankly, I rather enjoyed this part), the police were such a collection of insensitive oafs, that you'd rather depend upon Barney Fife, without Andy, to handle all law enforcement and investigation in your community. I know that most real-like cops fall a bit short of the sharpness, intelligence and empathy of the level displayed by most characters on the ""Law and Order"" series', and the like -- but dolts of this level seem to be a staple on ""Lifetime.""

Finally, I found a kind of ""story within a story"" fascination with Josh's concoction of his being the ""victim"" of his teacher. This scripted performance within the story was even worse than his overall performance in the main story. This was something of an achievement, like going from ""F"" to ""F-minus.""

This whole lame situation should have been resolved - in real life - in about 15 minutes, following a realistic meeting between teacher and school authorities, with husband involved. But then that would have precluded the contrived drama following, and left an hour's blank film in the camera.

But the writer(s) here, proved with their ending, they could do even worse. When the situation was finally ""resolved"" and ""righted,"" this was accomplished in all of about 45 seconds, with no indication of what measures might have been forthcoming in any ""real world"" context for the perpetrator and his parents, or whether they might have been able to find some sort of path toward redemption.

This one's a 2* presentation; the second ""*"" because it does have some mild ""fascination.""",0 "Pretty awful! Only flat jokes, the movie does not make any sense at all. And Meg Ryan was supposed to be the hottest girl ever? What was that all about? That bot-ox face and that flat chest will even fool anyone? Stupid movie, stupid scenes, as someone once said, stupid scenes transitions (like Windows Movie Maker)...

I could not laugh at all. I only waste my time and money watching this.... this... well... i think u got the idea.

Please go spend your money elsewhere.

Poor execution...

Two thumbs down!",0 "Before seeing this movie, you may say to yourself, ""Peter Berlin? What's the big deal?"" But stay with it, as the story is rewarding. Director Jim Tushinski obviously saw a chance to put the urban gay-lib era of the seventies under a microscope by focusing on one man's story instead of a general documentary--and the man he focused on just happens to be ""the"" icon of gay sexual life at a certain crossroads. The film's imagery is evocative, the sexuality palpable, and the cameos from Armistead Maupin, Robert W. Richards, and others are witty. But the best moments of this film are during Mr. Berlin's touching recollections about his own life. As Berlin talks candidly about the losses he experienced as the seventies faded into the Reagan years, it's impossible to look away--partly because there are so many men whose experiences are reflected in his story. It's during these revelations that Tushinski knows to keep the camera trained closely on his subject, and these moments are what elevates this film from historical document to riveting cinema.",1 "This movie is quite OK as a cyber-punk. It is not Oscar material, but I found it totally enjoyable on a quiet Sunday.

The story admittedly is a little thin, and some times too emotional but still it was nice to watch. The actors are doing an OK job, and the lead actress is a beauty.

The CGI is OK, and the sets have that dark gloomy mood to it. The action sequences was OK choreographed as well.

If you like CP movies, then why not. Just don't expect Bladerunner, though even that was deemed doomed in its day. This is a paced action flick, with some love and emotion in to it.",1 "In Moll's world we let people into our house to yell at us, throw drinks at each other, provoke us, and ultimately commit suicide in our spare room. Then we let their ghost into our bodies to screw up our marriage. OK. Still, it could have been dramatic or entertaining. On the plus side the photography is good and even beautiful in the mountains. On the sort of plus side, there was a thread of tension running through the movie and an atmosphere reminiscent of Todd Haynes's ""Safe"", though with none of the commitment of that movie. But the story never becomes believable. The relationships are never compelling - none of the depth of character or feeling between people in a movie like Solaris, for example. Consider how much simple human issues like privacy, isolation and irritation add to our sense of the human condition. Then look at the characters of Lemming: any of us would have thrown these people out of our lives after 5 minutes.",0 "This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. I actually watched it all the way through to see if it could get any worse than it was at the beginning. It did! It appears to be 2 separate movies spliced together. The only thing interesting about it was the fact that some, if not all of it, was filmed around Melbourne, Australia, where my son attended Veterinary School. If it weren't for the opportunity to pick out recognizable landmarks, this movie would have been unbearable to watch. It was extremely painful to view anyway. It is difficult to tell if the people who put this movie together were serious in their intentions or were just trying for an oddball campy look. In any event it came out badly.",0 "I'm pretty sure that ""I Love You Alice B. Toklas"" seemed silly to 1968 viewers, both ""squares"" and ""potheads."" Fed electric brownies made from a box (rather than from the most famous recipe in The Alice B. Toklas Cookbook), straight-laced but simmering Harold Fine (sic.!) (Peter Sellers) and perks secretary/fiancée, start giggling even before finishing ingesting brownies. Watching them playing drunks, I marvel that none of the film-makers knew 1) that (ingested marijuana takes some time to kick in and (2) that people who are stoned don't act like people who are drunk.

Peter Sellers was good as the seething and very hirsute lawyer, Harold Fine. He thinks he is fine, despite having a nagging and materialistic fiancée (Joyce Van Patten) to augment the nagging of his materialistic and empty-headed mother (Jo Van Fleet wasted in a stereotype Jewish mother role). The nuclear family also jellyfish father (Salem Ludwig) and blissed-out hippie brother, Herbie (David Arkin). Sellers is also good at the end when he has burned out or is on a bad trip and is weary of all the freeloaders who have moved into his apartment (and started to share his flower-child free-spirited bedmate). His goofy ""Love, Peace, Happiness"" period is silly without being funny. As his muse, Leigh Taylor-Young is very attractive. The fake tattoo of a Monarch butterfly on her upper thigh is treated with reverence by Fine and not doubt inspired fantasies in the male audience of licking it up and proceeding under her very short mini skirts (""free love""). And bubblegum music group Harper's Bazaar supply a typically saccharine title song two or three times to complete the trivialization of the Toklas/ Stein couple.

There are some sight gags on psychedelically painted cars and the bizarre couture of the freeloaders (and the family of eleven Mexican client claiming whiplash, all wearing neck braces) and the surprise that a casket stuffed into the back of the psychedelic car Fine has while his car is in the garage doesn't fall out.",0 "A action/crime/thriller about a women named ""the Bride""(Uma Thurman) who was at one time a part of a group of world class female assassins until the leader of the group ""bill""(David Carradine) and the other assassins turn on her.They beat her up so bad she goes into a coma 4 1/2 years later she awakens from the coma and seeks the people who tried to kill her and her unborn child so she can kill them.

Give me a break this is a very very stupid movie the story is ridiculous a total peace of vile crap.The gore in this movie is like no other movie I have ever seen they must have spent 2 million dollars on fake blood.It was almost sickening to watch the violence in this movie it makes ""fargo"" look like ""the lion king"".Uma Thurman's acting was absolutely dreadful.The screenplay was very bad also Quentin Tarantino tried to get clever with the directing but didn't quiet pull it off in my opinion.

Best actor/actress-Lucy Liu

Terrible,Vile,Disgusting,Movie-Jake Hyden

I rated this 2 out of 10

2/10",0 "I don't believe I have ever seen a worse film in my life. Everything about this movie is the lowest of the low, it is putrid. (And that may be its good point!) Seriously, it is THAT BAD.

Shapeshifter is set in some remote prison with guards who have the mentality of a middle-school dropout both in intelligence and training. They walk around the facility with nothing of substance to say or do. There is nothing of quality in this movie, there is no story, no value, no reason to watch. The Shapeshifter appears to be some Russian immigrant prisoner who is able to transform himself into a flesh-eating monster. He starts by biting on his arm until it bleeds, with some terrible music and special effects that will make anyone watching prone to seizures, does some metamorphosis dancing, which takes about 5 minutes for him to change, than becomes this monster, The Shapshifter. The Shapreshifter than eats the flesh of the people at the prison. I didn't even get that far into the movie, but other reviewers have said that he does the same thing EVERY TIME.

I cannot think of one positive thing to say about this movie, not one. Terrible camera angles, annoying rap music that has no place or reason to be in any of the scenes, and rapidly changing movements of the director going from shot to shot add up to garbage. This movie is beyond bad.

What is even worse, is that some films that are bad at least have some unintentional humor to make them what some industry people call, ""Golden Turkeys"" The type of movies that are so bad, they are good, because they are corny. Shapeshifter can't even save itself from even the smallest bit of intentional humor to give it any redeeming qualities at all. How did this trash even get made? Shame on The Chiller Channel for showing this garbage, and any other stations that may air it for that matter.

This movie should be pulled from distribution and destroyed. If that happened, I guarantee you that whoever had to sit through this moronic film would celebrate. Please don't waste your time with this film. It's an insult to all viewers that this crap was even made. I feel sick and angry just from watching it. I have no idea what the cast and crew were smoking when they made this hideous picture.",0 "I think that Frasier not good. It does not probably deserve a vote of 1 from me, I used to watch the show happily before I had taste. I just wish my TV remote control had a picture of Frasier with a line through it. I turn the TV on, it is Frasier. It's like my cable lineup is the all Frasier channel, all the time, then, when Frasier is over, Becker reruns. I almost miss the John Laroquette Show. Look, I can't afford them fancy Tivos, I hate turning on the TV and seeing that dipass Frasier. I want to kick him in the nuts. If I ever see him in an airport or anything, I swear to Christ I will kick him in the balls, then I will roar and beat my chest. I think that Frasier not good. Frasier... gay...ish.",0 "A chess grandmaster (Emmett Clayton) becomes increasingly uncomfortable and anxious on the run-up to a chess match with a Soviet player (Tomlin Dudek) who has come out of retirement especially to play him. When the two meet on the evening before the match and Clayton suffers defeats in both a spontaneous game at a restaurant and a pre-arranged game at the hotel, he decides to take matters into his own hands...

The chess environment serves as a particularly appealing and suitably competitive back-drop to this episode for it facilitates an individualised battle of wits between Columbo and murderer.

Laurence Harvey (in one of his last performances) is remarkably superb as the multi-faceted Emmett Clayton, whose increasingly disturbing mental state is temporarily overcome by a remarkable assuredness to murder the only threat to his supremacy as a chess champion.

The plot is refreshingly original and well-thought-out and the script adds different dimensions to those found in the usual Columbo story, particularly as the murderer has to have two separate attempts at killing off his rival.

The whole episode is reasonably well-paced after it carefully sets up the necessary plot information/murder scenario as Columbo tries to unravel the real truth whilst at the same time undermine a very self-confident murderer.

The climax contains some of the best scenes: Columbo's harassment of the murderer with damning accusations whilst he tries to play numerous chess games at once; and then in the basement of the hotel as Columbo perpetrates a crafty plot to confirm his suspicions.

Two minor gripes:

(1) At two key moments Emmett Clayton is able to gain access to Tomlin Dudek's hotel room (once to pack his bag for him and the other time to tamper with his medicines). This happens all too easily: how does Clayton manage to time it when the cleaning lady is/has been in Dudek's room and how does he avoid being seen?

(2) Columbo can only perfectly test out his theory at the end when Clayton removes his hearing aid? How did he know he was going to do that?

These two gripes aside, this is a well above-average, strong addition to the series.",1 i really liked the movie. although there is one thing that i still don't understand very well. my question is about the end so if you haven't seen it don't read this.... alright everything that involved Julie was her imagination just the story for the book. but she met Julie right. so how come in the end when she passes by Julie they don't even look at each other as if they haven't met..... if someone could explain me it would be very helpful. my other interpretation is that she didn't even go to France and everything including the space (house and the swimming pool) was created by her. but that doesn't make much sense. thanks,1 "If this movie had a point I never discovered it. A very depressing movie which supposedly is about the final evacuation of the residents living in a dam site area on the Northfork River in Montana. The problem is that there is no actual Northfork River in Montana. There are several north forks but they are branches of other rivers which divided into north and south forks.

The opening scene of the movie is a coffin bobbing to the surface of the lake but the scene is never tied into the story and the viewer is left to speculate as to its meaning. But much is left to the viewer's speculation in the movie. Another example is when a team of dam employees responsible for the evacuation of the residents arrives at the dam headquarters, another group of people are departing. Some remark which is almost inaudible is made about these people which makes no sense whatsoever and there is no followup in the movie to explain it.

The movie is butchered into several stories and the film keeps switching back and forth between stories which is quite disconcerting. And the stories are weird. In one of them the occupants of one property refuse to be evacuated because they are living in a home that is built like Noah's Ark.

Another senseless story centers around a sick orphan who is dying and somehow he is sharing his presence with a house full of ghosts and in an orphanage with a priest at the same time. If anyone can figure out what the ghost story was about the author must have explained it to them.

The scenery was stark and the sun never shines. There are snowy mountains in the far distance. I guess the purpose was to set the mood. The time period is set by the fact that the evacuaters all drove Ford sedans of the 1946-48 era although the events are supposed to have occurred in 1955. The acting was mediocre. When I saw the billing for this movie it said that Darryl Hannah was in the picture. If she was, I didn't recognize her but I surmise that she was the ghost lady.",0 "A tale of super-evolved mutants in a struggle against human oppressors, X-Men is an instant sci-fi classic, combining impressive special effects with an involving plot to create a truly memorable cinematic experience.

Lacking the tongue-in-cheek camp of the later Batman films and other recent comic books-turned movies, X-Men draws the audience into its world of mutants and superpowers, and prevents it from becoming tacky or absurd. Not to say that there isn't any humour in the film, in fact it delivers some of the best one liners in a film this year.

It is a rare thing for an action blockbuster to feature great acting, but with a cast that among others involves both Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen is bound to be above average. Both Stewart (as Professor Charles Xavier) and McKellen (as Magneto)deliver stellar performances, and their onscreen chemistry is compelling as they play two old friends turned arch enemies.

The rest of the cast deliver solid performances, including Hollywood newcomer Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, Oscar-winner Anna Paquin as Rogue, and another rising star Rebecca Romijn-Stamos as the seductive but deadly Mystique.

A classic tale of good versus evil, with heroes, baddies, and great special effects, I don't think it's going too far to say that X-Men is destined to be mentioned in the same breath as Star Wars and other all-time sci-fi greats.",1

The only reason to watch this God awful movie is for Heather Thomas. The story is stupid.The acting BAD.The special effects(if you want to call it that)are horrendous.Makes you wonder how this sort of drivel gets produced!,0 i was pretty captivated by the story - i think i especially liked the end of the film. it made me want to know what happened afterwards to this poor fellow. it is a terrible story and one that has not been told enough i think. it is very nicely shot as well.,1 "Having experienced some of the same issues as Mendy, I can tell you that this movie is very well done. It has a great script, and the actor who portrays Mendy is superb. Truly, some of the best acting I've ever seen. Also, too many movies portraying Jews look totally fake. This one is the closest to real that I've seen. This movie made me laugh and cry, and stirred my emotions better than a kitchen aid stirs a batter. It was so powerful that I can't bring myself to see it again. But I'm sure glad I watched it once. I would recommend it to anyone, no matter what your background is. It's a great movie that almost everyone can relate to on some level.",1 "This little picture, a fine Wesley Ruggles comedy, struts along with great pace, and has a great cast with Lana Turner, Robert Young, Dame May Witty, and Walter Brennan. The acting is excellent, the antics unusual,and the comedy delightful. But the thing that is way beyond compare in this picture is the bubbling beauty of Lana Turner at her absolute peak. She carries the day with a sublime sort of sparkling charm as she changes personalities several times just to break her tedium with life. No, she never HAD amnesia, and no, she never wanted to commit suicide! But people will talk. Her beautiful sparkle and comedic charm actually made me weak in the knees. Robert Young does a decent job chasing her down the entire film, but it is Turner's film all the way.",1 "With 3 kids (now 16, 13, 11) I have seen a lot of kids movies over the years, this one is pretty funny! Even though my kids are getting older they still enjoy watching this movie, and I do too. The dog is so cute and trained so well that you can't help but root for him.

If you haven't watched this one yet, I recommend it for a fun family movie evening. Not only is it funny, it doesn't have all those annoying songs that your kids will sing for weeks on end!",1 "Whether you like ""Nighty Night"" is dependent on whether you like this sort of thing. I will grant you this, it is not easy to watch at times, it is very dark, often unsubtle, heartless and extremely vicious. But there are some very funny parts too, thanks to the stellar performances and the deliberately over-the-top writing that is most likely to shock people with the amount of depth it goes into. Plus it is very unfliching at how cruel the characters can be to one another. There are times when we find the characters unsympathetic, with the exception of perhaps Cathy and Terry but I personally think that was intended.

The performances are stellar. Julia Davis throws herself into this, and gives a genius turn as Jill, an ""evil"" neighbour and an incompetent hair stylist. Angus Deayton is also superb as Don Cole, who is facing a very difficult situation, as is Rebecca Front as Cathy, a really sympathetic character that we constantly feel sorry for. Overall, clearly this isn't for everyone, but I for one find it entertaining. 8/10 Bethany Cox",1 "Well let me go say this because i love history and I know that movie is most important piece in our history and it was beautifully executed movie and Julia Stiles became my #1 favorite actress after seeing her in ""The '60s"" and i own this movie in my video box with many movies and i suggest you to look for her new movies in the future and try to enjoy history!!!!",1 "This movie is straight pimp. Guns, chicks, chicks with guns, hoes, players, white cops getting spanked by black chicks who carry guns, deals, dopes, drive-bys, cripples and just about everything you want in a movie. Pure visceral fun. If you aren't down for the thrill of this movie go rent a Jimmy Stewart flick and bring your Wonderbread.",1 "this is the best animation i've ever seen. i found it through digital TV and it really appealed to me. but what i felt and found the most beautiful thing about this movie is its deeper meanings of the relation between black and white.i knew the names would have a meaning and to the end of the film it comes together. Black and white are two kids who grew up together, helping each other protecting ""there"" city. but more in the end when black lets white been taken by the cops its really starts showing the symbolic meaning of them representing yin and yang, the first example i can give is white talking about that both lost most of there screws but he keeping them all. its like meaning that the one needs the other. my second example is near the end when black meets the minotaur and learning that it is the darkness in himself, with a inner journey he learns that the minotaur wants to let black use all his ""dark"" powers in the meantime white is freaking out because slowly the darkness (yang) is winning. this symbolism of yin and yang is again shown with the crows and the white dove's. but in the struggle white is showing up in blacks mind and starts bringing black back to his senses thus restoring the balance. even without that symbolism this movie is a must see, but not for young kids",1 "They say that a student is only as good as their teacher. If this is true, then we the viewer as student have failed miserably. This hilariously dated 1980's film on a college class facing fear straight-on is interwoven with poor 'horror stories' and is mediocre at best. Overacting, clichéd scenes, and 80's fashion fail this film. If you lived the 80's then this may be a fun albeit painful remembrance for you. If not, then you'll cringe not at the horror stories but of the hair and clothes of the actors. There's plenty of other anthology movies out there that far surpass this film. A nude scene here or there might have moved the film to the head of the class, but there is none of that, and without it - and more importantly real writing - this movie flunks for the term.",0 "I can't believe so many people are calling this a ""great"" movie, and I really have to suspect that someone paid the reviewer quoted on the box to say that this was ""better than The Usual Suspects"" (it isn't). Yes, it was made for less than eight thousand bucks, and it shows. Folks, it's a BAD movie! The characters are terrible, the acting is terrible, the story, far from being quick, is a bore. Some people will praise anything independent and low budget just for being that, but not me. Independent or studio, it still has to be good, and this isn't. Yes, I'll give Carnahan all the credit in the world for taking a cheap, awful flick and getting enough juice behind it to market the thing to where it is today, but that's all. This did not belong on the video store shelf, nor did it belong on a channel that viewers have to pay for. It's marketed as a regular film; it should carry a warning that notes what it really is: something just below ""demo tape for rejected artist"". Do not waste your time.",0 "A true successor of the Apu trilogy!'Memories in the mist'by Dasgupta artistically and metaphorically inter-wovens the memories and fantasies of a man of his beloved and lost father.Set in the backdrop of North Kolkata,the story paces to and fro between past and present,between reality and imagination,between innocence and lucre!Amongst the numerous metaphors used in the movie,the one which cant be helped mentioning is the reference of the piper which beckons the man to his past,his childhood and his unfulfilled dreams.With this movie,Dasgupta has also endeavored to find the base of our relationships.At the end of the film,the man reveals himself to his father and thus to the audience,and thus forces us to remind of Apu who would,despite hostility as conferred by fate,love and wonder!That is probably the reason some critic has mentioned it as'the closest modern equivalent'to a Ray movie.But whatever international applaud it gets,it may not get along too well with the Bengali audience because of its sheer lack of bangaliyana(Bengali traditions and customs)as compared to a new wave cinema by Ray or Ghatak.",1 "This show is absolutely one of the worst things anyone has ever spent money to make. Tim and Eric are NOT funny, the sketches have NO subtlety, and the jokes seem to be aimed at a 3-7 year old audience. These people think their humor is ""fresh and inventive"" and ""comic genius"". What is genius about two guys getting as naked as cable will allow, and throwing up all over each other? They try and play off the angle that they appear incompetent, intentionally acting poorly and screwing up line delivery. The only thing funny about a terrible show is that someone actually thinks it was good. When you do it on purpose, we all know its a gag, and their is nothing left but a lame show that retards would easily identify as stupid. Totally awful, do yourself a favor and never watch this crap.

And if Adult Swim keeps going down this road, I'd stop watching that cheap garbage and wait for the next ""smart"" network to pick up the good shows. Its bound to happen, adult swim had to come from somewhere.",0 "Dina and Ronnie are a couple that live a carefree life taking what they want from others. They don't pay their rent, they steal cars, and don't seem to care about the consequences. All of their fun comes to a screeching halt when Dina discovers that she is pregnant. They have no way to provide for a child, so they decide to sell their baby to a desperate couple they find online. Paul and Maria live the perfect suburban lifestyle with a brand new model home and expensive cars, but what they really want has always been denied to them. They cannot have children. The action begins when the couples meet for the first time. Immediately it becomes clear that nothing is what it appears to be. Tension builds as ulterior motives are uncovered on both sides of the deal, and what was supposed to be an easy con for Ronnie and Dina spins violently out of control.

The film opens with Dina hitching a ride with Peter, and she recounts her tale through a series of flashbacks. It's a interesting choice for a thriller. If not handled carefully this kind of narrative structure can ruin the momentum of a film, especially one that relies on thrills. However, this film has something more to offer. The best kind of horror film is the one that focuses on social issues or stigmas and turns them around to show us what we are really afraid of. Hindsight is about choice and the consequences of materialism. How much is one baby worth? Or that boat in Florida? How far will you go to get what you want? And why do you want it in the first place? That last question is the most important. It all comes back to morality, and, of course, a nice little twist ending to tie things off.

Technically the film is sound. It has some great thrills, built up by creative use of sound and lighting design. The actors deliver well enough and the plot has enough turns to keep people guessing. There's enough gore to keep the spatter crowd entertained, and some depth for those of us who like to look in to film a little more deeply. All in all, definitely worth your time.",1 "It puzzles me that people hates this movie so much, it's a fun and enjoyable Alien / Predator rip-off with no intentions of being a masterpiece. Look, if you want to see Predator, go and see Predator and not Xtro III. It's as stupid as renting Battle Beyond The Stars and expecting Star Wars!

Anyway, a group of marines is stranded on a remote island together with a mean and nasty 2-foot tall alien whose favourite pastime is dissecting humans. The little sneaky alien has some kind of slime that he traps unknowingly B-actors in and he gets invisible as well.

OK, it isn't much of a story but Xtro III has nice effects and is surprisingly gory at times.",1 "Gregory is your average Scottish teenager, interested in football (soccer for us in America)and girls, not necessarily in that order. He falls in love with the new striker on the team, a girl who took his place. When he finally gets up the nerve to ask her out, things don't turn out exactly as he plans.

I first saw Gregory's Girl shortly after it was released, when I was an awkward and shy teenager myself. John Gordon Sinclair does a realistic and believable portrayal of Gregory, and the fickle love of an adolescent. I also find the scenes between Gregory and his sister Madeline very touching and heartwarming.

This is a feel good movie dealing with adolescent crushes, and is well worth seeing. I wish that it had gone on longer and shown us more of the characters' lives--it just finished too soon.",1 "I generally like movies that depict anything that is ""non mainstream"". And I even don't mind gross movies if they are done well.

But this movie is a huge disappointment - no real story, no building up any character or situation, extremely bad acting (a school play does far better), the shots were pathetic, the gross scenes were not necessary (nor were they shocking).

The close up in scenes is really bad, i think i even spotted a 'cannibal' with long stylish locks! Looks like the directors/producers paid no attention to the movie at all !

With this movie, I've decided to stop watching any more ""cannibal"" genre movie!",0 "Alright, I am not sure where to start with this so here goes.. The movie overall was well acted but there was very little a solid acting performance could do so save the weak plot. I am a new father and have a 3.5 month son who happened to be with his mother at the time. The ending to this movie was the most disturbing thing I have seen in any recent movie I can think of. In fact it was so horrifying that I had to see my son ASAP. Please, if you are new parent, do not watch this. I can handle the most gruesome of movies but this, hit to close to home and just haunted me. Honestly, the movie was well done and it was a great performance by Shue. But I will never ever look at her the same again.",0 "Moving (1988) was an fun film from Richard Pryor. Instead of making another cheesy P.G. rated family film, Mr. Pryor goes back to his adult tinged humor. In this starring vehicle, Pryor stars as a family man who learns that he has to move out of state if he wants to keep his position with the company. CAn the family make a smooth transition from one neighborhood to another? Will they have problems with the new neighbors or the strange movers? Find out when you watch MOVING!!

As with all of these type of films, you;ll have the kid who doesn't want to leave and the worried family members about the new community they're moving into. Randy Quaid co-stars (in two roles). King Kong Bundy plays a mover, Stacey Dash makes an early co-starring role as Pryor;s teenage daughter, Dana Carvey guest stars as a weird dude who's hired to drive Mr. Pryor's beloved Saab and Rodney Dangerfield makes an uncredited appearance as well.

I liked this movie for some reason. The humor was a little more towards old Richard Pryor. But it's not one of his best efforts. Mr. Pryor would make one more funny movie (Hear No Evil, See No Evil) before illness would force him into early retirement.

Recommended.",1 "Confined to a single set, the master Alfred Hitchcock directs a compelling psychological drama that uniquely challenges the viewer to reflect on his own reactions to the events presented on screen. In the early going, would you have thrown the German overboard, or acted as a humanitarian? What about later, after Willy (Walter Slezak) is exposed as a scheming Nazi captain deftly maneuvering the boat to his own country's supply ship? Would you have the stomach to assist in cutting off a man's leg? The movie doesn't allow much time to think about it, but that's how life works sometimes.

The film opened to immediate critical acclaim during it's first week of release, however when a negative reviewer opted to focus on the treatment of Willy's character, it called into question whether the story was sympathizing with the Nazi cause. Fearing even further backlash, Fox studio head Darryl Zanuck withdrew the film from general release. To my mind, the issue was dealt with rather expertly in the story. Even though Willy was a cunning schemer who took control of the boat during a storm, he sealed his own fate by going too far to keep Gus (William Bendix) quiet.

Hitchcock accepted a rather difficult task in taking on this assignment. Restricted to just one set, he employed what was until then the most extensive story boarding ever utilized for a movie. The entire movie was drawn out ahead of time, with a myriad of camera angles and weather related elements to convey something different in practically each scene. It works exceptionally well, as one is never left bored with static images or a fixation on any single character or situation.

As for characters, the one cast member with any name recognition at the time was Tallulah Bankhead, who portrayed the journalist Constance Porter. Bankhead was extremely difficult for the other players to work with, and she lorded her celebrity status over all of them. Staffers on the film were intimidated by her name dropping, yet in Hitchcock, she found a kindred spirit, someone she could talk with endlessly on the set.

For those who scour Hitch's films for his cameo appearances, ""Lifeboat"" presented a dilemma, but that was overcome with a little gimmickry. During this time, Hitchcock was trying to lose weight, succeeding in going from three hundred pounds down to two hundred. In the movie, Kovac (John Hodiak) is shown reading a newspaper, and the camera lingers on an ad for 'Reduco', a weight loss product and 'Obesity Slayer'. The director's full frame profile is used for the before and after comparison, prompting numerous viewers of the time to inquire where they could buy the product, but of course it was all made up.

If ever there was a film that employs symbolism, this one is a treasure trove. It was interesting to me that the first time one gets a view of the entire open sea is right after it's revealed that Mrs. Higley's (Heather Angel) baby is dead. That effectively places the boat's survivors in touch with their own mortality in what might be a hopeless situation. What does it mean when the lone black Joe (Canada Lee) doesn't participate in the gang up on Willy? Gus changes his name from Schmidt to Smith. The prospect of life giving fresh rain is replaced by sunshine instead of a storm, but which is better? There is something meaningful and fascinating to be taken away from this film in virtually every instance.

If all that weren't enough, it was an unusual coincidence of timing that had me see this film when I did. The Cardinals captured the 2006 baseball World Series just a couple of days ago by defeating the Detroit Tigers, four games to one. In the story, William Bendix' character Gus ruminates on the state of baseball at that time with - ""St. Louie's the team to watch this year""!",1 "Phantasm (1979) is one of the most imaginative, scariest horror/science-fiction films ever made. From the mind of genius Don Coscarelli, this film is the first in the Phantasm series. It also started another horror icon: the Tall Man. Phantasm starts off like this:

Mike (A. Michael Baldwin) has just lost his parents to death. He now lives with his older brother Jody (Bill Thornbury), who's thinking about leaving Mike with a relative and leaving their small town. Mike, not wanting to lose his brother follows him wherever he goes. He even follows Jody to a funeral where he witnesses a caretaker only known as the Tall Man (Angus Scrimm) carry a huge coffin away from the graveyard. Startled, Mike begins to investigate at night by breaking into Morningside Cemetary only to witness a horrific murder by a flying silver sphere. Now, with zombies and cloaked dwarfs chasing him everywhere, Mike and Jody enlist the help of ice-cream vendor Reggie (Reggie Bannister) to fight the Tall Man and find out what secrets he keeps within the mortuary.

This film, in all of it's aspects, is perfect. Since this movie was made in 1979, the gore effects look more realistic than anything you'll see in modern horror. It just goes to show you that you don't need CGI to make a film look realistic. The story is well-written. The shocking ending is just great. The editing is okay and the direction is expertly. Even the actors all do their best work here.

So if you want to see a scary science-fiction/horror with great gore effects and an even better story, see Phantasm. Also, the sequels aren't so bad themselves. I give Phantasm a 10 out of 10.",1 "Tuned into this movie late one night as I occasionally like to watch 'B' movies (no pun intended!) just for fun. However I was wonderfully suprised at the quality of acting I found. This movie had all the suspense and drama of jaws, except with bees. And yes the bees were badly rendered, and looked very 2 dimensional, but GET OVER IT, else you'll miss the guts of the movie. Above par acting by most, especially the kids...........

",1 "Having a child with severe autism, i approach every autistic related movie with caution. The trailer pulls on your heartstrings, the movie however spells out things that parents and siblings experience on a day to day basis. The movie running at 93 minutes, can't ever convey a life with autism, but with the director, seems to have brought her life experience to the screen in a thoughtful and observant way (small observations only people touched by autism would recognise and find funny and painful). Im not sure if viewers with no experience would understand these, which is the most heartbreaking aspect of the whole movie. I wish, i really wish everyone could see this movie, and if one single clip could make a difference, i think the world would be a better place. Overall, its an uplifting movie, but unfortunately it wont change the way most of the world think of this disability. Siblings experiencing or who have lived with autism, I think, will see this movie differently. it does seem to preach to them, how they should behave and what their responsibilities are. We (parents, siblings and autistic children) are still waiting for the definitive movie, that will open the world's eyes.",1 "I adore this movie. Putting it into words as to why is probably far more difficult for this film than any of the others i have talked about on this website. Firstly i can totally empathise with the lead character.... even down to the the fantastic choice of bands displayed on his wall (the Jam and the Specials although i am not too sure about Patti Smith myself!) We've all probably been in the situations Gregory finds himself in during the movie and this just brings it all back... playing football in the school team (and chatting nonchalently to spectators when should have been keeping an eye on players bearing down on goal), getting into scrapes with teachers and of course that first date with the girl of your dreams. I always come away from watching this movie with a high feel good factor. Gregory ends up with Susan who is far more suited and better for him than Dorothy even if it takes the whole movie for him to discover this. You even feel it will work out for his mates Andy and Charlie as they trudge off at the end in the cheerful knowledge that they can start afresh chasing girls the next day (i love the way Charlie doesn't say a word thru the whole movie, goes along with Andy's silly schemes and eventually gets the last word). In addition to these characters there's a whole slew of fantastic characters such as Steve whos obsessed with his baking enterprise, the eccentric headmaster (""off you go, you small boys,"") and of course Mr Menzies the bumbling PE teacher who isn't really taken seriously by the other male teachers in the school and is obsessed with putting together the perfect football team. Another thing i like is the way the younger kids seem more in control and knowledgeable than Gregory and his mates. Gregory's sister is the one with the fashion sense and is the guiding hand in trying to sort out his love life while its Gregory who is the petulant immature one when confronted by his sisters' young admirer at the front door. I think this movie has a refreshing view of the innocence of early school days as opposed to other films which may go down the darker Grange Hill route of drugs/bullying etc.",1 "As evidenced by the survey of comments on this site alone, people either love or hate this movie. Unfortunately, I hate this movie.

I wanted to love this movie. Really. I loved the first one. But ""Babe 2"" was the worst sort of sequel - not only was it just disappointingly bad, it actually ruined the pleasure you got from the first film.

One of the greatest thing about the first film was Babe's relationship with Farmer Hoggett. In ""Babe 2,"" the formerly dignified Farmer Hoggett is only in it for about 10 minutes, but in that short time, he's flung down a well, and then makes goofy gestures. He's completely robbed of his dignity. I mean, did anyone enjoy seeing Farmer Hoggett's head being slammed over and over and passing out?

In fact, all the humans in ""Babe 2"" are frighteningly abused, for no good reason. Mickey Rooney, a very creepy clown, literally just drops dead. Mrs. Hoggett is strip-searched by drug agents, is doused with a bucket of glue, and then is flung around a ballroom on a bungee, dressed in the dead clown's costume, no less. Was this all really necessary? In a movie that kids watch? It wasn't funny, it was just sad. Very sad. Abysmally sad. Not to mention completely pointless.

And in the first movie, Babe the pig had a unique mission, making his triumph truly sweet and heartwarming. The storyline was singularly original. And the first movie dealt with some real-life issues (at least in the animal world), which gave weight to the notions of fate and destiny, which was nicely intoned throughout the movie by the narrator.

In ""Babe 2,"" all the obstacles are contrived and trivial, so the attendant triumph becomes hollow and pointless. And if you think about it, Babe the pig doesn't actually do anything. He just gets chased around, or just acts witless, and does things that everyone tells him to do. The first movie was about Babe's courage and originality. In this movie, he's led around like... a sheep. (how very ironic.) You never root for him, because he has nothing to accomplish.

I was deeply disappointed. I had to watch the first movie over again, just to cleanse my palate, but I'm still in mourning.",0 "The Untouchables is a horrible movie. David Mamet wrote the script but one couldn't tell unless reading the credits. It lacks Mamets natural flare, that great dialogue and those undertones that made Mamet who he is. I wont get into the historical aspect of the movie sufficive to say there is little. The direction of this movie is crap. Needless to say it was Brian DePalma. He focuses more on the costumes, cars, and scenery of the movie than the acting or script. The best moments in this movie were improvised by Connery (ie. the dead guy shot) and the rest could have been written by anybody who has ever been to a screen writing class.",0 "This noisy aimless mess was an attempt to cash in on the popularity of Star Wars, released the previous year. Battlestar Galactica was barely able to hang on for one season despite the fertile ground and general acceptance for sci-fi that had been created by the Star Wars hit.

This 1978 Galactica, and all the other followup Galactica ""movies"" and series to come from it in the early 1980's, was poorly written and poorly developed. The final product was so revolting that they even managed to mangle the hackneyed character stereotypes and plot twists that were regularly used to fill out the majority of each week's episode.

While fans of the series heap praise on Lorne Greene, John Colicos (and Richard Hatch) for their fine effort, most seem to ignore the fact that these unlucky thespians were working with ridiculous scripts. One shudders to think how much worse the final on screen product would have been if everyone performed as poorly as Dirk Benedict, the intended 'lovable rogue' stereotype who instead came across as the 'obnoxious pain in the a**' stereotype.

The final product would have been better suited for Saturday mornings, but the expense of the leading edge special effects (for 1978) forced this to be a prime time offering.

Producer Glen Larson has an impressive track record for producing fun, technology-based fare, but Galactica was simply too weak on too many levels. Catch his Buck Rogers, early Knight Rider or Fall Guy for examples of how the genre CAN work without making you wish that the 'bad guys' would win so the series could end.",0 "Frightened, vulnerable refugees, escaping the political tensions permeating Europe in 1930 (and, we are to assume, the escalating prominence of the Nazi party), come to stay with friends in London; seven years later, having received their British citizenship, the younger sister embarks on a dancing career while the older sister reconnects with her handsome fiancé, now a newspaperman and leader in the political underground. Well-meaning, but drab melodramatics from Britain's Ealing Studios. Late plot-twist involving plastic surgery seems to belong to a different film altogether. Audrey Hepburn, two years before her breakthrough in Hollywood, received her most substantial acting role up to this time playing the dancing darling; she's charming and poised, but the part doesn't offer much beyond showcasing her youthful eagerness. *1/2 from ****",0 "I didn't really think that ""Grease"" was as good as people I know say it is, but it's okay. I mean, it's better than most movies I've seen before. It's fun to watch, and the chemistry between Danny and Sandy is all so innocent. It has really great musical numbers sung by Olivia Newton-John, John Travoltra, and the rest of the cast, and it became a cult classic film, which will live forever. Even today, the ""Grease"" legacy lives on! Not bad.",1 "This movie is more deceiving than ever, using a suspenseful looking actor like Walken to play in this piece of junk made it look like he had nothing better to do than play a boring role like this one! And the fact that the movie was supposed to be about some witch and you really don't see that until almost the end of the movie but meanwhile you have to sit and watch this boring film while it gets, or tries to get to the meaning of the point and you have to go through this whole trail of boring actors and actresses thinking the whole time of how you passed off another movie and decided on this one and how you have just waisted your money just makes the whole point of time useless sitting there. I'd rather watch cartoons for goodness sakes. Leave this one alone,please!",0 "I took a gamble by renting this one DVD - it certainly had potential, with the good storyline and great actors (Madsen, Hopper).

After 15 minutes however, things really went downhill and it became obvious that this is a total Tarantino ripp-off. The story is very similar to True Romance and the music reminded me of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction - except that these weren't the original tracks from the 70s :)

It's really a b-grade ganster movie with none of the subtle filming or dialogue we get in Tarantino's movies.

4/10",0 "I just loved this movie! It was so interesting. I was bored one day, and I just turned the TV on to Disney Channel, and Smart House was on. I watched it, and the more I got into it, the more interesting it was. I especially liked the part when PAT became a human. My sister started to watch towards the end, and when she saw PAT become a human, she said that she looked very familiar. After the movie ended, I went online to find out who played PAT, and was surprised to find it was played by Katey Sagel, who I already knew played Cate Hennessy on 8 Simple Rules. I also found out that LaVar Burton directed this film. I already knew about him from what he's most famous for, Reading Rainbow. I always loved that show. Smart House is such a great movie, and I'm not just saying that because I'm in love with Disney Channel. I would love it even if some unknown person made it with $500 just for the heck of it. This movie is definitely satisfying!",1 "I can see why this movie has been critically buried by a lot of people, but come on! We've all seen way worse! The acting was horrible, the dubbing was atrocious. The story was dumb. But the creature and the story was better than the movie that surrounded it. The gore was fairly decent for low budget trash. I've seen FAR worse. I actually liked the whole tit being ripped off thing. I gave this movie a 3 because yes, it does suck, BUT you could do worse in the horror genre. TRUST ME. Go watch Alex's Apartment, Jack-O, Critters 3, The Howling 7 and then tell me how bad When The Screaming Stops Is.

My biggest complaint : why the hell did the cover box show a girl cowering from someone waving a knife? I guess to cash in on the slasher craze. I was expecting a murder mystery movie, and boy thats not what I got.

",0 "Horror fans -- do NOT believe the hype and false reviews of this movie.

I enjoy horror indies. I enjoy campy horror. Campy can be great fun. This is not camp, this is CRAP.

Despite knowing that Jamie-Lynn can act under some circumstances, this movie has to have the worst acting I've seen this year. The actors have no screen presence, their fear is totally unconvincing, and they are only funny unintentionally.

A fan of campy horror can probably suffer through the distractingly horrid acting, but the worst sin this movie commits is that it doesn't even allow itself to be cliché. Where's the maniac-cam? Where is the beautiful, terrified, but somehow impressively heroic female lead? How about some nudity (the one sexual scene is offensively stupid)? How about having at least one likable character so we, as the audience, can care at all about what happens?

This movie was created by filming 70 minutes of fun house ghouls and fog plus 10 minutes of reality-show-quality acting plus 10 minutes of idiotic plot development.

This movie wouldn't be worth watching for free. It's so bad that it shouldn't just go straight to video; it should go straight to the garbage.",0 "The director somehow forgot to TELL A STORY, and he overlooked to DEVELOP CHARACTERS. Incredibly, the action got all mixed up in the editing suite and no one was straight enough to sort it out. That's my guess. What else happens when a bunch of stoned young men get together to make a movie on Grand Cayman? The leading lady was set up to have turned sixteen that very day, when Orlando Mister-Twickenham Bloom pops over to make love with her. Trouble is, she looks about twenty-five. Bloom gets acid thrown in his face by her charming brother, and oh-so-luckily his face is wrinkled up, but both his eyes survive perfectly! The movie started like an international James-Bond-type suspenser, but later turned into a lackadaisical picaresque tale about an ordinary boat-polisher and his burning passion. Yawn. Couldn't be bothered to find out what happened, there was no end for it to happen in.",0 "This is the basic western of man meets girl, looses girl.

The cast is second to none. Mini Series on TV Sam Elliott plays Hugh Cardiff an ex-Buffalo hunter. With his shooting skills he starts the following the shooting competitions.

At the shooting competitions he meets Ben Johnson and Timothy Scott, the 3 become good friends.

The threesome get into trouble and help each other out.

For a historical flare, the threesome even meet Wild Bill Hickok and go into business together.

While long for a movie, if you like to just sit down and watch one for a couple/three nights this one is a great one.",1 "10. The script

Uncredited as a scriptwriter is novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald. His love scenes are extremely elaborate and exquisitely structured. They also introduce innovations that have since become clichés and the hallmark of 'women pictures' everywhere.

9. The actors

Barrymore is unforgettable as the regally cranky Louis XV. Morley gives one of his best interpretations. Schildkraut plays the best two-faced villain of his entire body of work. As for Power... remember the anecdote about the reporter asking romance-writer Barbara Cartland (Lady Di's stepmother) how she could possibly have written so many romance novels before she was even married and while she was still a virgin? Her answer was: 'Oh! We didn't have sex in those days. We had Tyrone Power.'

8. The director

Van Dyke was an expert at handling large crowds and acts of God. His directing style was a compromise between time-efficiency and giving the stars leeway as long as they respected the general style of the piece. This 'honour system' seems to have encouraged the actors to do their homework and present a credible, coherent performance every time. He also got an assist here from uncredited French genius Julien Duvivier.

7. Artistic direction

What can you say about a period film that tackled the challenge of recreating Versailles in the XVIIIth century on the MGM back lot? The production values are staggering. The Gallery of Mirrors is actually longer, higher and wider than the original. The costumes tread a fine line between historical accuracy (covered shoulders and revealed cleavage) and the requirements of the movie code (exposed shoulders were tolerated but bosoms had to be covered) but still manage to convey the era and the fairy-tale quality of Marie's court. The costumes were also specially constructed to shine, glitter and shimmer on black and white film.

6. Historical accuracy

The film's script is based (in part) on Stefan Zweig's groundbreaking biography of the Queen, ""Marie Antoinette, Portrait of an Ordinary Woman"", which tried to create the first accurate, adult, factual but Freudian-inspired narrative of the Queen's life by using documents and correspondence that had long been overlooked or suppressed. The book was the first to reveal Louis XVI's mechanical sexual problems, which prevented his consummating the marriage during its first seven years (until a slight surgical intervention) and explained in turn the Queen's extravagant spendthrift personality, in Freudian terms, as extreme sexual frustration. This story actually makes it to the screen in a large degree. Compare this to recent biopics like ""A Beautiful Mind"", whose scriptwriters conveniently 'forget' essential but non-mainstream plot elements like the fact that John Nash's paranoia may have been caused or amplified by the McCarthy era persecution of homosexuals. Some historical events have been telescoped into one another in order to accommodate the general American public's limited understanding of French history and the Orléans character was used to maintain tension by representing the turncoat part of the nobility which exploited MA for their own various agendas.

5. The music

Herbert Stothart may not be a household word but he did win an Oscar for his original score to ""The Wizard of Oz"", based, of course in part on Harold Arlen's melodies. Besides giving Miss Gulch/the Wicked Witch her immortal theme, he is also one half of the composing team that produced the operetta ""Rose Marie"". Stothart shines in two respects: the approximate recreation of XVIIIth century dance music in the court scenes, emphasizing the bored grandeur of the proceedings, and the psychological music that accompanies everything from exciting chase scenes to the love scenes between Shearer and Tyrone. Note especially the use of the harpsichord in a rupture scene between Orléans and MA and the use of the viola d'amour in the garden love scene.

4. The cinematography

MA is in 'glorious black and white', but especially in the escape to Varennes sequence which has the most credible - and suspenseful - 'day for night' sequence ever filmed. The marriage scene may have inspired Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. Also notable are the matte paintings, the overwhelming use of cranes to move in on particular characters in a crowd scene and the chiaroscuro of the last meeting with Fersen.

3. Detail and scope

Every scene has something special added to it in characterization, movement, rhythm, lighting, art direction, choreography (and not just in the dance scenes). The costumes could have starred in a picture by themselves.

2. The lost art of story-telling

This film was planned with intelligence and skill and was built around the principle stated by Selznick when filming GWTW: 'The secret of adapting a book to the screen is to give the impression that you are adapting a book to the screen.' Which means that many literary devices are used to give the story many interesting arcs and recurring themes. The story is well balanced in terms of spectacular action, recreation of important historical events (giving the impression of the passage of time) and intimate scenes. It is truly 'the intimate epic' that Mankiewicz's 'Cleopatra' was supposed to be. Need I add I am really dreading the Sofia Coppola version...

1. Norma Shearer

Norma Shearer is an unjustly forgotten star of the first magnitude. MA is permanent testament to her uncanny abilities. In this film she portrays the main character from the age of sixteen to her death as a prematurely aged and debilitated woman of 38, all with perfect verisimilitude, thanks to her magnificent vocal instrument and stage presence. As a fairy-queen, she makes Cate Blanchett as Galadriel (in LOTR) look like Carol Burnett's charwoman. Her virtuosity as the fated widowed Queen is all the more poignant when one realizes that at the time she was Thalberg's widow in her last husband-approved venture and that the Hollywood suits were rapidly closing in on her.",1 "Only the physical attractiveness of the players might cause a viewer to pause when scanning the channels with the remote control. But a charming girl with a pretty face alone does not create drama.

Only shallow showbiz actors and directors would think it plausible to present the reunion of a long lost child with her mother and father as a casual and mundane event. Outpouring at the end of long suffering, raw emotion, deep feelings -- all completely missing from FOUND. The big reunion in FOUND is little more than an owner finding misplaced car keys after a five minute search.

Only made-for-TV folk think it does not matter when the actors are clearly seen wearing underwear during ""nude"" love-making scenes. The technical production values are weak, even by low-end cable channel standards.

FOUND is painful to watch, not because of story-telling power and emotion, but because the plot has problems and almost each and every scene lacks credibility.

FOUND is missing drama. Reader, please don't bother to find FOUND.",0 "I remember seeing this movie in theatres back in the 80s. But I don't remember it being this lame. The Media Blasters/Shriek Show is a heavily edited version. Most infuriating is the fact that the trailers provided on the DVD show some of the gore that has been edited out.

A group of friends decide to take a vacation on a Greek island. But first there's the a long intro kill. A couple goes to the beach. The girl goes swimming and sees a boat, swims to the boat looks in it and sees something that makes her scream. Whatever she sees we don't get to see. Then we see blood appearing in the ocean. The guy is listening to music on the beach and his head will meet an axe.

Back in Greece, our group goes to the posh house at which they stay, but there something wrong. Some ghostly woman appears but hides from them. In the basement they find a hysterical woman covered in blood, who warns them of someone. Finally, in minute 52 (!) we finally meet our flesh eater who spends time in some real underground catacombs associated with some church. There we get to see one of the two decent gore scene in the movie.

Our villain dispatches a couple of our friends but eventually meets meets a cruel and ironic death.

This movie in its rated version is painfully slow, with very little worth seeing. One can't care about any of the characters. One good things is that we get to see why the anthropophagus became an anthropophagus. Presumable there's some connection to the opening scene, but since we don't see that in its entirety, as it is, part of that intro is pointless. The scenery is great, being filmed on beautiful and fascinating locations.

I can't recommend the rated version.",0 "I am now convinced Monte Hellman is one of America's most unjustly overlooked filmmakers. ""Cockfighter"" was good (easially the best hicksploitation film ever made), ""The Shooting"" was great, and ""Two Lane Blacktop"" is simply put a masterpiece. Even though ""Easy Rider"" came earlier and was much more successful, ""Two Lane Blacktop"" is a far superior film. The films minimalist style is engrossing throughout, and despite the slow pacing your interest never waivers. Its also the greatest road movie ever made because its thematically interesting unlike many other car films. To call this a car film is akin to calling ""2001"" a sci-fi film or ""The Seven Samurai"" an action film.

What makes it work so well? For one, the stark minimalism of it all. Hellman proves you don't need flashy effects or a big budget to make a great motion picture (something which Hollywood's school of music video directors hasn't caught on to). Everything is very low key, especially the performances of James Taylor, Laurie Bird, and Dennis Wilson. It perfectly captures the lack of meaning to their lives. Unlike many other counter culture heroes, they seem to be rebelling against nothing except life itself. Secondly, Warren Oates makes the film. Oates is one of the most tragically underrated actors of all time, and this is next to only ""Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia"" as his best film. In both, he manages to take a desperate and pathetic man and make him all too human. Its a shame that this is so hard to find as its one of the best films of the decade. (10/10)",1 "A great movie about the prophetic conversion of the Archbishop of El Salvador. The movie details the life of Oscar Romero after being appointed Archbishop. Believed to be the quiet bookworm, a man that wouldn't stir up anything, Romero makes a conversion in order to save his people from the oppressive government. As a result, he is martyred for his beliefs. A great picture to watch and take in.",1 This is far and away the worst of Hughes' teen movies. Poor casting and a weak plot doom it. Don't let the appearance of John Candy in this turkey fool you. He is only in the film for a few minutes. Avoid this one at all costs.,0 """Pod people"" is without a doubt, with no exception, the absolute worst movie I have ever seen. In fact, it is also without a doubt the worst movie EVER made. It makes ""MANOS"" look like a Disney movie comparison. Everything looks SO ugly in it, and when it's not ugly, it's foggy. Nothing is good about it at all, acting, directing, producing, all terrible. And this has got to have the worst score used in a film ever. 50's sci-fi films look like ""Star Wars"" in comparison to this tripe. ""The Giant Spider Invasion"" looks like ""Close Encounters of the Third Kind"". I hope I never see that red-haired, girly voiced brat again, or his loser family. I can see why they didn't care about him. What kind of lunatics would release this to America, it must be a conspiracy or something. I feel bad for the MST3K writers, to have to sit through this so many times. There must be at least 6 different stories happening at once, that includes the one going on during the credits (I think those are scenes from ""The Galaxy Invader"", using a bad movie for the credits of a bad movie, idiots). I HATE J.P. Simon, I don't care what other films he's directed, I'm surprised he could find work after directing this film. Geez, just think about how good, exciting, thought provoking films like ""Metropolis"" get chopped up so badly to the point of scenes being lost forever, and then released, yet films like this are still released in their original form. I hate this movie, and I want all the people involved with unleashing this on the public to know it.",0 "i just love this film, it's such a shame it isn't on DVD yet. and a copy on VHS recorded years ago (before i was born probably). films of this quality are a rare treat, i can only compare it to those of monty python and the 1980's hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy TV series (the recent film was good but felt a little short).

---POSSIBLE SPOILER--- one of my favourite bits is the part where 'the bbc' turns up and announces the news ---SPOILER FINISHED---

if this film was re-made i doubt it would be as funny as the original and i'm sure they'd be told to remove certain lines of the script for reasons of political correctness.

just hope the DVD is out soon a must for anyone that likes monty python style jokes",1 "This Duvall feature is quirky, touching, beautiful, odd, and by a man whose politics I do not at all like, yet I have to say that its qualities, including the camera work, the cutting, the music, the actors, the spoken script come close to creating a film Fellini would have been pleased to have authored. The crude, centered, killer played by Duvall has such love for his girlfriend's child it is palpable. The character's professionalism in his trade is of the highest order...the highest order in a lowly profession...though in this instance his job does have positive results in terms of assassinating a monster who took refuge in Argentina from Germany.

His little, tightly wound but precise killer is, like the dance which carries the spirit of a place and people in the film, and the panther which his dance teacher admires, is a wary watchful beast whose devotion to the ten year old daughter redeems him in part. Great performances across the board. Gesture, sounds, perfect. Chapeaux.",1 "The Amazing Race is a show where teams of two race about Earth to win a million dollars at the end (the first to win, of course gets said million dollars). On the way they stop at various locations and must complete tasks. The teams are generally all a type of human or a minority and rarely are normal people used in the series. The tasks involve doing things that happen or are to do with local things, like making pottery or laying bricks or carrying a local creation about. For the most part vehicles, usually cars or 4WDs are provided to help them get about and they are given money for some legs. Since this is reality TV it is always different with no contiguous consistent plot or continuuity apart from reality itself, and so its enjoyability depens greatly on certain variables at the time. However the general gist of the show is quite amusing. It is amazing how weird and unintelligent Americans are, as is clearly shown with many of the teams. Also social observations can be made, as some teams gang to form 'alliances' against others and teams often become aggressive to one another or in the team itself.",0 Jet Li really packs a punch in this action farce. I believe it's his best so far...followed by the decent Romeo Must Die and the laughable disaster The One. Bridget Fonda is astounding in this movie. She is a knockout. The villain and his henchmen are magnificent. Exciting and thrilling action at it's finest. 9 out of 10.,1 "First of all here are some of the comments others have made about this movie: ""gritty"", ""disturbing"", ""one of the best movies of all time"", ""don't watch this alone"", ""powerful"".

Here are my comments on this movie: ""ridiculous"", ""hilarious"", ""pile of feces"", ""made with a two dollar budget"", ""if any other human being is willing to watch this movie with you, murder them"".

spoilers** I can't begin to say how many positive reviews I've read about this movie. If you haven't seen it and just read the reviews you'll think this is the most gripping and disturbing war movie ever made. If you have seen it you'll think some retarded apes got hold of a camera, an army-man Halloween costume, and the worst human actor in the world and made a movie in one day. This movie is so bad it's indescribable. So I'll describe it a little.

Right off the bat you'll be blown away by the horrible production value and the ridiculous acting in this movie. The first scene shows the main character having flashbacks of Vietnam. And by Vietnam I mean the woods behind the director's house. The set in no way looks like Vietnam, and this dude in no way looks like a soldier. I know the movie was shot in the 70's, but I can't stress enough how bad it looks. Movies like The Shining and Taxi Driver were also made in the 70's and they still look great. So this pile of garbage doesn't get a pass just because of when it was made. Also like I said the acting is bad and I'm way too lazy to break down why, but if you watch it you'll know that it's bad and you don't like it.

So anyway, this guy is in 'Nam and he runs into some Vietnamese and he unloads his machine gun rambo-style into some random 'Nam girl. This of course pisses off her family so when he sees this he throws his gun down and runs away like a true soldier. But they quickly catch up with him and begin beating him in some sort of real time slow motion. Meaning I don't think the director knew how to use slow motion effects so he told the actors to move at half speed, which is pretty obvious when they ""bash"" him in the face with the butt of a gun by gently tapping him on the head.

Next thing you know the guy is in New York with his wife and crying baby. His wife complains that he neglects her and the baby and you can't blame him when you see what his wife looks like or what the baby looks like for that matter. His wife isn't a mutant and his baby might be. For the first couple minutes the baby is hidden and you're supposed to assume it's a normal non-mutant baby, but then his wife holds the baby in the light and you see that their baby is in fact a rubber doll with a monster face. What it's supposed to be is a mutant created by this soldier's Agent Orange tainted seed, but what it really is is the worst special effects creature in the history of film. Seeing this infant is supposed to elicit a horrific gasp from the viewer, but the odds are much better that seeing it will make the viewer press pause so they can laugh at it for a while and maybe take a cell phone pic for their wallpaper. The funny thing is other reviewers commented on the sadness or disturbingness of this baby as if it could be taken halfway seriously. Words can't do justice to how hilarious and lame this baby is. The only thing sad about the baby is the fact that this movie isn't a comedy and it's not supposed to make you laugh when you see it.

The whole plot of the movie is this guy comes back from 'nam and wanders the streets of NY trying to find work to pay off the debts he owes to some street hoods. I'd have to say this is the most boring part of the movie and yes I realize I just said it's the entire plot. What I'm getting at is the entire movie is boring and terrible. I'd have to say the best part of the movie is the catchy tune they keep looping over and over as he walks the gritty streets. If there were a soundtrack to this debacle I would buy it just for that gritty elevator music.

While wandering around he encounters some old friend of his who's a drug addict and other people that you don't care about and can't take seriously.

Then as a gift to anyone watching, the movie comes to an end when the guy can't take it anymore and blows his brains out in his apt. Hopefully you didn't put one in the chamber yourself and end your life before this point in the movie. Once again this lame ending is in no way ""gritty"" or ""shocking"". Also it should be clear to anyone who's made it this far in my review that I fast forwarded through huge chunks of the movie.

So in summary this movie is indeed a nightmare for the viewer. However not in the way the director intended. Rather than shocking you or surprising you this movie will make you poop your pants in sheer amazement at how bad it is. I suppose if the whole point of this movie was to make the viewer relate to the horror and isolation that soldiers felt from being in Viet Nam then it did succeed at that. After sitting through this mess I definitely feel like I went through enough atrocities to be awarded a Purple Heart.",0 "I tried to watch this film, I really did - I happened to be at someone's home and their young nephew had brought this movie to keep himself entertained. In goes the DVD, and there upon the TV screen I see Mehmet Ali Erbil prancing around in all his glory. The movie banks heavily on Mr. Erbil's ""irresistible"" charm - To say that the filmmakers overestimated Erbil's abilities is the understatement of the decade.

Basically, the film is a campy 'remake' of Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam (AKA: ""Turkish Star Wars""; Semi-literal translation ""The Man Who Saved the World"" ) that retains none of the original film's crude charm. This movie is just so poorly constructed it isn't even as unintentionally funny as the original - There is simply no way to excuse the people behind this film for being so lazy and crass.

However, I don't think it deserves to be in the Bottom 100 - It's a trashy movie, there is no sense in debating that point, but there are many other titles more deserving of such an 'honor' both within and outside of the world of Turkish cinema. Seriously, some of the sleazy movies that come on late at night make this movie look like a Shakespearean classic on film.

This is type of film that will act as late night filler for years to come in Turkey, but it's hardly the worst thing out there. I do not recommend this movie to anyone other than rabid Mehmet Ali Erbil fans and people who have their heart set on seeing what all the fuss is about.",0 "When I seen the trailer for this fillm I expected it to be loaded with action and dragons but to my dissapointment it wasn't. Ok you see a few dragons and get a battle with a dragon at the end but thats about it. As for decent action there is only one occassion where this can be seen. I would also say that it is far too short, it only lasts what and hour and a half where it could have easily been streteched to 2hrs at least with maybe showing van Zan killing his first dragon or whatever. Apart from these flaws I do actaully think this is a decent film, well worth viewing. Overall I give it 8/10",1 "WOW. I remember the first movie was okay so i decided to see the second one ONLY BECAUSE the trailer made it seem like she was in the same setting as the resident evil 2 video game. The game rocked! Within the first 5 minutes of me watching RE: Apocalypse, I knew it would suck. How crappy was the first scene with those astronauts entering the vault and getting the parasite lose. The movie sucked. Oh my god, i cant stress the fact enough. How is it that you cant shoot one of those licker things in the church with bullets because they dodge them, but the hero of the story can jump off of her motorcycle and crash it into the monster sending both the motorcycle and the monster 100 feet into the air... Then blowing the motorcycle up, a perfectly good vehicle to use during this chaos. This movie was so bad, i thought i was infected with the T-Virus when i had a strange urge to eat the brains of the people next to me in the movie theater... but they wouldn't mind, they were watching the most brainless movie ever.",0 "One is a good first effort by a novice director. Good acting, excellent special effects and cameos by Cleveland news celebrities make this a relatively painless way to spend a couple hours. The weak points were the script and editing which made the story confusing in some parts and overly simplistic in others. Tomeric shows that he has the technical skill to make a reasonable science fiction movie- it will be interesting to see what he can do with a decent script in a more challenging genre like comedy or drama.",1 "Awful, awful, and awful ! Even worse than "" Brice of Nice"" ... Even worse than "" Arbres"" ... Not even a glimpse of interest ! Vulgar, rogue, ... The only consolation I had was to see it on a DVD . Wasting ten dollars for such a crap in a theater would have been just unbearable !!!!!! I you want to see a Valerie Lemercier at her best, pass your way on Palais Royal and try to find the one and only "" The Visitors"" DVD one of my funniest movies! Actually, speaking of ""Palais Royal"", I really don't understand how such good actors like Denis Podalydes or Valerie Lemercier herself have accepted to play in such a movie. Oh, sorry, I was forgetting : Valerie Lemercier is the Director ! As a lesson, good actors don't always mean good film makers.

MutantMutton",0 "Sonatine is the last film in Takeshi Kitano's yakuza related trilogy. The first two films are Violent Cop and Boiling Point. Sonatine is, in a way, a combination of these two films, and it is the greatest in this outstanding trilogy, and Sonatine ranks also to the top in Kitano's filmography with Hana-Bi. Sonatine tells the story of middle aged yakuza boss Murakawa (played by Kitano) and his gang's trip to Okinawa to settle some yakuza wars and return the peace to the criminal underworld of Japan. However, they are assaulted many times there and they are forced to go to beautiful beach location and spend some days there and wait for orders from Tokyo, from the higher yakuza authorities. What follows is all the unique elements from both Violent Cop and Boiling Point and totally stunning and breath takingly beautiful piece of art.

There are all the Kitano elements as beautifully present as possible. The scenes are often without too much dialogue, and the film is very symbolical and calm. The faces are among the most important elements in Kitano's films, as there are so many things to be read from characters' faces. Kitano has created this very personal element and it is always there in his films. The setting at the naturally beautiful and uncorrupted seaside has been captured with the camera as brilliantly as we can expect from Kitano; this film is a result that would be born if Kitano had script in which read only one word: Beauty. Similarly beautiful film is his Hana-Bi and Boiling Point has also these elements.

The elements of beauty among others are flowers, firecrackers and colors in general. The scenes at the beach as the gangsters play and have fun are so full of life and certain positivism, it is easy to feel a need for crying during those scenes, and I must say that at least equally powerful experience is the mentioned Hana-Bi, translated to Fireworks in English. The theme of Sonatine is that those brutal and violent humans return to the time when they were still innocent and free of all the wickedness of the world. They play so emotionally and devotedly that it is clear they know there is a better place to be than this world. The girl that is raped is perhaps only person in the film who would not hurt anyone and is like angel here. She knows and has learnt many things about life by the end scene, and make sure you watch the film thoroughly and the end credits, too, as there is more imagery after the credits.

The music in Sonatine is outstandingly beautiful and sad, and is among the greatest musical experiences I've had the pleasure of hearing. The composer is the same as in Brother and Hana-Bi, and the work is as masterful in those more recent films, too. Violence in Sonatine is as sudden and irrevocable as in other Kitano films, and his films really show the real results and face of violence as a weak souls' tool of communicating. If someone considers Kitano's films gratuitously violent, they miss the whole point of the films; these film analyze and tell more about violence than most Hollywood films have ever done, but to admit this, one has to be able to interpret movies and really understand the abilities and power of Cinema. Kitano's films are far too difficult for many to understand, so it is no use trying to show his films to mainstream audience and people who see (if see!) in films only what is explained and said with easy means. If someone says without arguments or understanding to this art form some Kitano film is bad, stupid, gratuitously and excessively violent, unexplained or something else of the usual statements, it is no use taking those ""opinions"" seriously or consider them noteworthy because people who say so see exactly things that are NOT there.

Sonatine is one of Kitano's most masterful pieces of cinema, and is among the reasons why Japanese (and Orient) cinema is so unique. Sonatine gets 10 out of 10 rating from me, and makes Takeshi Kitano one of the most sensitive, symbolic, stylish in every sense and remarkable film makers of our time, and his films will live as important pieces of history of Japanese and world cinema.",1 "This film became an icon for me from a very young age. I was just nearly five when this movie came out so I didn't get to see it until a few years later when Channel 4 showed it as a retro late night film. I was an avid skater. I longed for a local roller rink near me, but there was Nothing, only Ice rinks. I took ice skating lessons to help alleviate some of the frustration and then went back and applied some of the knowledge to my skating. Roller Boogie was brilliant for me, because it was cheesy , but most of all one of the very rare films that focused on roller skating - a tough subject to inject into a movie! Terry's car in the movie is beautiful too and those white roller boots! I remember finally getting a pair of all white-leather roller boots, hard to come by over here, but they were the best present ever - I still have them and they still fit and I hope to be wearing them when I teach my niece how to skate too! Roller Boogie as a movie cannot be taken too seriously! It has a feel good factor about it, no obscenities, the music is so retro ( to us nowadays anyway) and I love the skate line at the beginning of the movie - I just wished we had skate lanes like that in the UK! This is a film for those who like skating - don't bother to watch if you are a football fan - you wont get it - its simple teenage, roller skating , good vs bad and I have spent years trying to find a copy to replace my fuzzy VHS-taped from TV-copy. Mine came today, I've watched it, and I will probably watch it in the future when I'm snuggled up on the sofa, full of cold or maybe a hangover and just watch it - it is my feel good movie and one that few will ever enjoy as much as me! xx",1 "This film held my interest because of the great acting by Ling Bai,(Shen Yuelin),""Edmond"",'05, who is a very educated Chinese lawyer and is placed in a very difficult situation in having to defend Richard Gere,(Jack Moore), ""Unfaithful"",'02, who is also another lawyer from the United States. Jack Moore gets himself in a very bad situation with a young Chinese woman, he some what falls in love with this gal on first sight and winds up in bed with her and all kinds of problems seem to happen. Jack wakes up and can't remember very much of anything that seemed to have occurred with this young gal and winds up being thrown into jail and having to live like a pig in horrible conditions. Richard Gere and Ling Bai are a great combination, however, the film is rather long and drawn out and intends to become a bit boring.",0 "Interesting premise, but poor ending. Dean Stockwell explains to the family that the aliens can easily track them whenever they use a credit card, etc. The aliens find the family several times.

Near the end, after the battle with the aliens at Stockwell's home, the family and Stockwell leave in Stockwell's car. Part way down the driveway, Stockwell passes the father a couple grenades and tells him to blow up the alien's cars, which the father does.

The aliens can be clearly seen still standing around, alive and well, yet for some strange reason the family and Stockwell think they will all be safe from that point on. Why? They could see the live aliens in the rear view mirror.

The family moves into a new home and the movie ends with a black car pulling up in front of the new home. Knowing the aliens were not dead, and knowing they had easily tracked the family earlier, it was no surprise they found the family again.

One other annoying little thing seen so much in movies. When one of the aliens had been shot or otherwise injured and was lying flat on his back, Stockwell went over, squatted down and practically stuck his face in the face of the alien to check it (the alien) out. Gosh, I wondered what would happen next. Of course the alien suddenly reached up and grabbed Stockwell. Surprise, surprise!",0 "This is the greatest action film ever made. I have been reading other people comments, and most agree, although some people don't seem to understand. They say it is bad because the dubbing is bad (that is the crappy American company that sold you the movies fault, not the movie) or the transfer was bad. Some say it is too violent. Some say the acting is bad. Some said there is not plot. Maybe you watched the wrong movie. No plot? An arms dealer housing his arsenal in a hospital. That is a plot. Maybe you should go back to school.

This isn't the greatest action movie ever simply because every action seen tops the other and they are so superbly choreographed. It is cinematically beautiful, Philip Kwok of Five Deadly Venoms fames choreography and role is superb. The Production Design is great, it blends so seemlessly with the lighting. And it features the greatest shot in action cinema history, hands down. The 3 minute shot to Chow and Tony traversing the halls, going up the elevator and killing numerous bad guys along the way is incredible. There has never been anything like it.

To all those non believers out there, if you like action movies, you will love this. IF you don't like it, they you are fooling yourself into thinking you are an action movie fan. Now, if only John Woo could make another movie like this instead of the godawful Windtalkers.",1 "Worth watching as both a vigilante movie and as a meditation on the meaning of family, this movie surprised me with the level of it's performances. Liam Neeson contributed his usual fine job, as did a nicely creepy David Baldwin, and a nice mob boss performance by Andreas Katsulas (better known as the One Armed Man from the Harrison Ford movie of ""The Fugitive""). Good little wussy role by Ben Stiller; nice supporting job by Helen Hunt. Patrick Swayze does a good dependable job in this movie, but is outshone by the finely understated performances of the men playing his relatives from backwoods Kentucky. Great use of Chicago locations, though the ""L"" trains running past my house don't appear to have the conveniently flat roofs to jump on. (Alright, a minor quibble). All in all, quite worth watching.",1 "To many people bash this movie, and personally, I think it is one of the most faithful adaptations I've ever seen from anything to screen for this time period.

THE BAD: The red skull's look at the end of the movie wasn't really all that crappy... it just wasn't the red skull... I have to admit they did take their time to get where they were going in the middle of the movie.

THE GOOD: The good greatly outweighs the bad in this film. Matt Salinger does a perfect rendition of Steve Rogers/ Captain America in his childish ""gee whiz"" kind of way. The Red Skull's make up in the first half of the film is breath taking, and Scott Paulin (with a great assist from the script) gives more character depth to the Red Skull than I've ever seen in the comics. The opening half hour rushes by with grace, ending with a fantastic battle inside a Nazi stronghold, and the climatic battle between Cap and the skull at the end is also unbelievable. And don't get me started on the ""Pull over. I feel sick."" parts of it.

OVERALL: One of the best comic films out there, even after seeing some of today's, it's the perfect adventure for the whole family!",1 "I was looking through a couple of huge tables of VCDs at a store in Chinatown when I came across this film for about 2 bucks. The plot was about a hit-man in New York City hitting the wrong target and then deciding to protect the right target as a means of penance. I figured it would be great to see city through the eyes of a foreign film crew-I assumed it was a straight Hong Kong film. What the film is is a rather tepid film made in English with Richard Grieco as the hit-man and Maggie Q as the target. Frankly I don't care that Maggie Q is topless. Nor does it really matter that this was the first film shot with the HD cameras that would be used in films like Sin City. What I care about is a good story and this film doesn't really have one. Its nothing we haven't seen before and its told rather blandly. Even a TV movie would make the proceedings this dull and confusing. The Two leads are fine, or as fine as they can be with what little they are given to do. Grieco is basically required to be brooding, and he does it well. All kidding aside he's a good actor but after a few crappy parts like this its understandable that his name often elicits a ""who?' when its mentioned. The film apparently isn't available here in the US and having seen the movie I can understand why, its a turkey.",0 "This poorly scripted short adds nothing positive to Roscoe Arbuckle's career. There are a few good moments, but the storyline is weak, and the direction uninspired. Arbuckle uses the same presentational style he employed more than a decade before, but without the inventive comedy of those years. The character of Windy Riley, an obnoxious buffoon who endlessly boasts, earns no sympathy. One of the few grace notes is Louise Brooks, who all-too-briefly gets to show off her smooth speaking voice and winning dance talent. But she is frustratingly underused and even her face is often hidden by poor blocking. It's too bad that fallen stars like Arbuckle who ended up at the lower-grade Educational Pictures didn't do--or weren't able to do--more with what they had left.",0 "This is a great contender for the best of the worst. People go to investigate a murder and look for treasure on Snape Island. The gore is pretty graphic if you see a decent version of this movie and the atmosphere is very spooky. An island with just a lighthouse and some spooky caves underneath is a great idea and they use the suspense well. I have NO idea why it got banned in Finland. It is a very funny film as well. Loads of mistakes and a stereotypical cornish sailor named Hamp.

''SPOILERS''

When one of the girls come in and say 'Dinners Ready' with a bunch of plates there is nothing on the plates at all and why does she drop them all just because she can hear what sounds like a flute playing?!

A character named Brom breaks every horror movie rule ever...He drinks, Smokes crack, takes bribes, lies, has sex, tries to steal a bunch of treasure until he gets killed!

Hamp the sailor doesn't smile throughout the entire movie until near the end and he gets killed.

The boat that there sailing to the island looks like its floating way above the water!

Robin Askwith trying to be american. Now THATS comedy!",1 "no I really don't like this movie, it could have been better, I guess. it's a cool story, and yes, the acting rules, but there's almost no music, and I've seen all of it before. put this film in the trash. do not rent this movie, it's not worth to waste your well earned money!!!",0 "Obviously, this movie was not made for the kids who grew up with CGI. Anyone with a keen eye for special effects can see how it is done. But in those days, there was only a handful of techniques you could use. This is miniatures and stop motion, and although not in the league of Ray Harryhausen, there is far worse.

Some people claim it is a BEAST FROM TWENTY THOUSAND FATHOMS ripoff, a mock buster. I don't agree. All these movies have a similar pattern. Something inexplicable happens, slowly the mystery and the number of incidents grow, a scientist comes up with a possible explanation and then the grand finale where the special effects and the military come in (with lots of - sometimes inappropriate - stock footage).

The Giant Behemoth follows that pattern. It takes half an hour before the monster is shown and then you get a good 20 minutes of more than passable special effects. No men in rubber suits here. The scene at the power plant is a classic as far as I'm concerned.

For the modern viewer it takes a bit of patience to chew up the first three-quarters of babbling around, but there is enough to keep your attention. Not like It Came from Beneath the Sea where the continuous scenes on the submarine gets you craving for the end.

All in all, it is a pretty decent movie. There are far, far worse.",1 "Granted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.

In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like ""The Jerk"", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.

To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.

In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original ""Odd Couple"" again.",0 "This movie is not for the weak of mind. The plot is complex. I remember reading reviews that used words like ""murky."" Since the movie was a bit more complex than cops chasing robbers around some city at high speed most critics lack the intellectual wherewithal to keep track of what is going on.

Beginning with a friend's murder in Los Angeles Lt. Barney Caine, LAPD, (George C. Scott) follows a trail which takes him to Europe and leads to a formula for turning coal into gasoline. It takes Caine a while to uncover this and the plot takes a number of twists and turns. The ending can only reinforce one's cynicism about how the world works.

The performances are strong and the movie is well worth the time taken to view it.",1 "Writer/director Pablo Berger's engaging sex comedy has been praised in some quarters as a Spanish Boogie Nights, but it's altogether a gentler, more romantic film.

Set in 1973 towards the end of the censorious Franco era, hapless door-to-door encyclopaedia salesman Alfredo (Javier Cámara) is given a blunt choice by his boss – accept redundancy or diversify into making 'sex education' home movies with his shy wife Carmen (Candela Peña) for the Danish porn industry.

After some hesitation, the couple set to with a passion and become increasingly bold in staging their fantasies for the camera – until Carmen unwittingly becomes something of an international sex symbol and Alfredo gets the chance to fulfil his dream of directing a feature film inspired by his cinematic idol Ingmar Bergman.

The leads weave a potent and convincing chemistry, both as lovers and as a long-married couple, while Berger lightly coaxes humour and an eccentric romance to the fore.",1 "Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson and Inspector Lestrade investigates the killings of young aristocratic women in 19th century London.

Ian Hart is fine as Watson (as he was in ""Hound of the Baskervlles"") but - Rupert Everett as Sherlock Holmes??? No, totally miscast - right down teaming with Charlton Heston as the detective in ""The Crucifer of Blood"".

The plot is not too good either. Well, it IS a well-planned detective story. But it seems more like a plot for series like ""C.S.I."" or ""Inspector Lynley"" than for a movie about Sherlock Holmes. There is no Holmesian feeling at all.

This said, I enjoyed it in some moments. It's in fact rather creepy, and the sets are beautiful. 3 stars of 10.",0 "The only gripe I have with this film is the ending? Does it really necessary to make the rich kid with the 'good life' to envy the less fortunate one's for his 'freedom'? To get the protagonist killed to prove a point? Maybe the writing here is more of self expression than depicting human condition in general? Loud volume doesn't make the music more significant. Perhaps something could have left unsaid to the audience's imagination...

I always liked the French movies for there seemingly understated fashion over the dog barks of moral debate and preaching of the Anglo-American types - assuming the viewer is deaf and dumb. Well, the movie's ending is a bit surprise to me. Instead of letting the actors barking at each other, it chose to create a big bang with its twisted story line in the end. I certainly saw it coming after the middle point of the film. But still, I'd have no problem giving it 10 had it not been for the forced ending. I thought the biggest tragedy for people like Toto is that they never got anything right and nobody cares what they do or do not do. Therefore, to force Alfred to 'envy' Toto in the end and let Toto leave with a bang instead of a wimp is certainly gratifying to the audience, Hollywood style. But it feels very concocted and unnatural. Trying to force a tragedy into a comedy really is pointless. Because life really do sucks for folks like Toto.",0 "It was wonderful to see again this 1983 gem. Just as I remembered plus those unexpected surprises that time puts in evidence. Kim Stanley for instance. A few minutes on the screen, a peripheral character but I took her with me and here I am, thinking about her. The ""starry"" role jet pilots played and that new breed: ""tha astronauts"" getting the all American treatment, becoming overnight celebrities. Ed Harris is extraordinary as John Glenn. He becomes a sort of leader with some TV experience and we never ask why. Ed Harris's performance explains it all without ever actually saying it. Dennis Quaid is irresistible as ""Gordo"" Cooper. You believe every one of his thoughts, specially the ones he never reveals. In spite of the film's length, I wished the film would not end. I haven't had that wish very often. ""The Right Stuff"" is the real thing.",1 "This couldn't be funnier, even if it had intended to be. It is a 21st century rendition of those awful 1950s drive-in fodder, supersized radioactive insect movies. It just doesn't know its a parody. It really thinks it's a serious movie. As a result, it has turned out much funnier than Date Movie, Epic Movie and Scary Movie, all the uninspired clones of the Zucker brothers' wonderfully screwy Airplane (Flying High down under) and Naked Gun flicks.

Great sets, nice photography but the praise stops there. The script is stupid and the acting is atrocious. Grab snacks and laugh your head off. Lucy Lawless is a scientist battling swarms of carnivorous locust, a CYA secretary of agriculture and an army general eager to gas the bugs and most of America. All are of about equal intelligence. Well, maybe collectively the grasshoppers are smarter. Remarkable, given they are all stick-on props and CGI.

BTW, the unintentional humour is so raucous I never pegged Xena until I came to IMDb. She isn't nearly so visually arresting out of leather. Her estranged boyfriend though, another scientist, is another matter. He could push this flick over with specialized audience niches. It was guffaw time for me when he walked into Command Central and was introduced as a leader in some sort of scientific field. Square jawed, wavy haired and such a caricature of handsome, you know he must have just come straight from his other job. As an underwear model.

Low moments but big laughs: Every time Lucy jumps up and down like an 11-year-old trying to get the attention of a doubting bigwig. When the biggest mid-script plot turn is the ""reveal"" that Lucy is pregnant. Prime moment for a line something like, ""You remember that night. You came straight home after shooting the g-string commercials and you were unstoppable."" No matter; viewers are already laughing so hard they'd have missed the line.

Oh yes, and those amazing CGI effects! Really love the computer simulations of the USA at Command Central where the dark swarms of dots (representing the locusts, ya know) spread across several states as fast as spilled water covers a granite counter top.

Enough already. You get it. Do NOT approach this as serious entertainment.

Oh, I forgot. There is one good performance. It's Mike Farrell (B.J. Hunnicutt on M*A*S*H) as a man outstanding in his field. You got it; a farmer. That's cuz the locusts attack all the crops in Midwestern America. Those good, honest folk don't deserve such diss.",1 "I could spend hours trying to come up with the perfect words to describe ""61*"" Simply put, its one of the best baseball movies I have ever seen. Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane ARE Maris and Mantle. Billy Crystal did an exceptional job directing this picture. The acting is excellent. A great part of the movie is seeing all the old ballparks that have been refaced and digitally made to look like the parks did in 1961. Turning Tiger Stadium into Yankee Stadium is quite a feat! I would recommend this movie to the die-hards, the casuals, and those who don't know anything about baseball. Billy Crystal -- Thank you for another great movie!",1 "The show was broadcast on T.V. once or twice in the early '70s. Recently I had the rare pleasure of viewing a bootleg video of the show as it was broadcast. If you think you know how well Liza could dance, and how captivating she was on stage, and if you think you know how extraordinary Bob Fosse's choreography & direction could be, and you haven't seen this performance, then you still don't know.

The marriage of Liza, Kander & Ebb, Fosse & the glitz of early 1970s musical theater come together here in perfect harmony. The lighting, the dancing, the songs, the costumes, the star. This was the year that Liza won an Oscar (for Cabaret), and an Emmy & a Tony for this production, ""Liza with a Z"". She may have also gotten a Grammy that year, but even if she didn't, it's a hat trick that stands alone in the annals of American entertainment. For her and for us, it's been all down hill from here.

To see her do ""Ring Them Bells"", ""Mammy"", ""Son of a Preacher Man"" and ""Bye, Bye, Blackbird"", just four numbers on this hour-long video, is worth the trouble of finding a bootleg copy.",1 "Antonio Margheriti still is one of my favorite Italian directors (thanks to his 70's & 80's films), but the mix he presents us with ""Alien From The Deep"", he has done before and much better already. ""Killer Fish"" mixes a heist movie while cashing in on Joe Dante's ""Piranha"". With ""Hunters of the Golden Cobra"" he gave us a hero with James Bond allures in a film reminiscent of an Indiana Jones adventure. In a way, ""Aliens From The Deep"" fits in perfectly with all other blends of Margheriti entertainment. It's not on par with the films it borrows from, but it tries to redeem itself by going over the top a little further.

So what kind of blend does Margheriti present us this time? Obviously, the Italian title ""Alien Degli Abissi"" (which roughly translates to ""Alien Of The Abyss"") tries to cash in on James Cameron's 1989 hit ""The Abyss"". But that's where the comparison ends. Most of the film can be categorized as some type of 'adventure on a tropical island' film. Some military/governmental facility is dumping toxic waste into the earth. Some noble people try to expose this and ultimately stop them. Some action & some shooting. Fair enough.

Now what's with the alien-aspect of this film? Well, we have to wait a good 50 minutes for it to show itself, and it's not really an alien, but some mutant giant monster (basically formed by toxic waste, creating a symbiosis of organic material & scrap metal – I know, that sounds way too smart for a movie of this type) emerging from the bowels of the earth. It somewhat looks like a black giant crab-robot monster of sorts. It just gets thrown into the movie's third act so they could rip off the climax of Cameron's ""Aliens"". Remember Ripley fighting the mother-alien in that yellow robotic worker-unit? Well, it's here too, only it's some type of bulldozer.

So ""Alien Degli Abissi"" is just entertaining Margheriti nonsense (featuring yet again fun miniature effects) and nothing more. It's sub-par, as to be expected, but thankfully it's not boring. Oh, and it has Charles Napier running around in it, mainly behind computers. Other than that, he seems to have little else to do.

Good Badness? Yes, fair enough fun & inept action/adventure/monster fodder. 4/10 and 6/10.",0 "Tragic yes if you look at what happened, but like many documentations made for TV, this one fails miserably. The plot is based loosely on the actual case by what was shown, using the most catchy of scenes and then over-glorifying them. The acting, atrocious. Pin the blame on the bumbling cops who are trying to solve this murder. Are they really cops? The guilty couple who committed the crime was okay, but suffers the same glorifying effect. It doesn't make them tragic, it makes them inane. Bottom line, not a very good drama. 4 / 10",0 "There's something wrong about dropping an American con-artist into London, but somehow here it works. There are lots of potential reasons not to like this film, but most of them don't seem to really matter. It just works, anyway.

Maybe it's because this was the first time I ever saw Kate Beckinsale, and I was just stunned.

Anyway, I was hugely amused when I heard that there was a boycott organized against this film by some people who thought it was going to be about someone shooting at fish (bang, bang). Poor fishies. No, of course, it's no such thing.

If you haven't seen this, then I can pretty much guarantee that you will not waste your time if the opportunity comes up.",1 "Italian-American ethnic humor, and similar mafia-based spoofs are pretty passe by now, wouldn't you think? Even so, a clever, interesting, and especially a FUNNY movie is always watchable, even if not a hit. This could have been an ""OK"" flick. This movie, however, is a dreadful, horrible, depressing pile of junk. It is mean spirited, ugly, and worse than a waste of film-- it is a bummer and a downer. The only surprise here is how a group of talented and likeable movie stars such as Burt Reynolds, Dan Hedaya, and Richard Dreyfus, to name the ones I remember, got themselves hooked into doing this. Did they owe someone in Hollywood a lot of money, and this was the pay-back? Did they lose a bet? What? I had to walk out of the theater after half an hour it was so bad.

Avoid this movie at all costs. I gave this a 1 out of 10. If we could give negative numbers, this trash would have gotten a minus three.",0 "This could have been a much better film. Strangely, it seems to have been made by well-meaning amateurs (that includes the talented veteran actors who performed in a stilted manner and seemed rather lost). I found the historical content and some of the dialogue pleasing, but it became ultimately pointless. The ending was ridiculous and destroyed any credibility that may have existed up to that point. Others have commented on the film's realism. I did not experience that. The characters seemed unnatural and self-conscious, except for the young girl, who was adequate. There is no artistry here. I would prefer to view someone's home movies showcasing untrained actors and unplanned situations. I did think that Irene Pappas had a lovely voice and her moving rendition of the Greek song was a nice break from the tedium. What was Oliveira thinking?",0 "I just watched this movie on the Sci-fi network. Let's make one thing perfectly clear: there has never, ever been a quality film or television show that has used the phrase `It's on a need-to-know basis'. Once you hear that phrase, and its subsequent follow-up phrase `believe me, I need to know', you can rest assured you're watching something written by someone with absolutely no creativity.

Sandra Bernhard is terribly miscast in this five hundredth derivation of `Alien'. Whining and sneering her way through this movie, she sounds ridiculously unconvincing spouting the technical mumbo-jumbo necessary for science fiction films. She aint no Sigourney Weaver, that's for sure. How someone so marvelous in something like `Roseanne' can be such a bad actor in films like this and `Hudson Hawk' is one of the mysteries of life.

This film has the production values of a high-school play: cheap-looking sets, bad lighting, and clumsy-looking props. The spacesuits look like second-rate rejects from Joe's Army Surplus. When Sandra comes back into the ship after a spacewalk, she flips the visor lid up, and there's no seal around it! The flimsy visor looks like it was made from a clear plastic pie-cover from Safeway. There are no special effects, unless you call an exterior shot of the spaceship a special effect. They couldn't even spring for some fancy flashing lights or decent music; tapping military-style drumbeats punctuate some of the scenes, while someone practicing a bass fiddle provides the rest of the music.

Typical of bad films, during the shootout scenes, many many shots are fired in all directions, but it is only coincidental that anyone gets hit, even at point-blank range. Is it wise to fire a gun onboard a spaceship while you're surrounded by all kinds of machinery that is keeping you alive?

Most of the film consists of close-ups of people standing around talking or arguing while sepia-colored walls float in the background. I'm convinced that the dialogue was written by a thirteen-year-old boy after watching video games for eighteen hours straight: `she belongs to me', `it's stuck in a loop!', `you don't drink martinis!', and so forth. You get the idea.

As if that isn't bad enough, a videotaped Laura San Giacomo rocks back and forth spouting Shakespeare. Good thing she had `Just Shoot Me' to fall back on.

The only way to describe the quality of this film is that this is the kind of movie they show on Saturday afternoons when the football game is pre-empted. The television station figures `what the hell, there's no one watching anyway.' It's either that, or an infomercial.",0 "This is a curiosity piece for those who are royal watchers. It details the story of the relationship of Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles. For some reason, it came out choppily edited and one scene jumped a bit too abruptly to the next. The actors playing the main roles tried hard but Charles came out looking like a social misfit (seemingly the only woman who took to him, according to this film, were Lady Diana and Camilla--actually he had serious relationships). Camilla comes out looking like a tea and sympathy type (what about it dearie) who takes Charles in and has a long term relationship with him. The actress playing Diana is a total miscast. All she has is the hairdo, but she cannot convey or channel Diana. For one thing, she is quite wooden, too mature for the part of a starry eyed nineteen year old and the other she is all wrong physically and facially for the part. Charles towers over her which is quite jarring. In reality, Charles and Diana were about the same height, she being quite tall. There are factual errors, the most blatant being when Camilla tells Charles Princess Caroline is a prospect and probably still a virgin (this takes place in Fall 1979 when Caroline was married about a year to Philippe Junot). Also, Charles' other significant other Lady Kanga is completely left out; she had a major role in his life around the seventies and early eighties. This is a once see for those who enjoy movies about royals. For others, it's best to avoid.",0 "A must see for all Americans! This film must be brought to America's theaters as soon as possible. If we don't learn from our mistakes in the past we are bound to repeat them. This movie has today's stars playing the ""true"" characters of November 1963. If this film doesn't make you mad, check your pulse because you are not alive. I am asking the producers to please find a way to get this gem in front of men and women, boys and girls, the young and the not so young. The Commission message to me is not pro conspiracy per si. The message to me is the Warren Commission failed in almost all ways to investigate the murder of President Kennedy. As a result of this film and this film alone the viewer can follow the lack of investigation and now demand that any and all Kennedy related material be opened NOW.",1 "This was also my favorite episode of NCIS. Charles Durning does a great job, and there are some great scenes in the show. My favorite is when Tony reveals the Medal of Honor to the two Marines who snap to attention and salute. In my opinion, (and I may be prejudice since I am ex-Navy)NCIS is the best show on TV. For the most part, they get the language right (bulkhead, etc) and the customs (not saluting when your cover is off, etc) Michael Weatherly is a good actor who can go from acting goofy to serious parts (like the time, he had the plague) And of course there is Leroy Jethro Gibbs. It will be real interesting to see how the spin off does.",1 "I really enjoyed this movie. It didn't always seem like it knew what it wanted to say about fame but I thought it was consistently funny. I especially liked the cast. Nat DeWolf and Laura Kirk are quirky and sincere and very funny as a result. I also like some of the supporting, non-celebrity roles. In particular I like the casting director of the commercial and the guy at the party who gets outed accidentally. There's a lot of talent in the film.",1 "Jia has kept his style but lost some of his edge in this state-funded effort with its rather relentless harping on the irony of a globalized China whose underlings can't get out of the country and are stuck in menial jobs in Beijing, cut off from their native dialects and where they came from and reduced to expressing their strongest emotions in text messages and cellphone chats. There are compelling moments, like the two main lovers Taisheng (Taisheng Chen) and Tao (Tao Zhao) lying on Taisheng's hard dormitory bed and even the schmaltzy wordless communing between Tao and her Russian friend Anna (Alla Shcherbakova), but in the aimless round of daily emptiness of working at this trashy hi-tech carnival falsification of ""The World"" outside, which the workers will never see in person, Jia loses the momentum of the turbulent, emotional decade he chronicles in ""Platform"" or the tragic downward spiral of the two boys in ""Unknown Pleasures."" I don't object to the animations, because they're thematically unified by always being connected to travel and cellphones and they create a sense of link with the 20-somethings, the generation after the director's that he's focusing on here; the fact that they're glib and kitsch just fits with everything else quite intentionally. So does the New Age-y techno music score, which is annoying and repetitious, but again, intentionally so. This time there is a bluntly ironic contrast between the pretty brightly colored costumes of the World shows the girls put on, and the shabby run down environments in which they live off-duty. The contrast is a little too pat: surely some of the environments -- and there is one, at the train station -- off duty are as glittering and new as the World stage shows. One can't say that Jia has lost the complexity of environment he achieved in his earlier films; he's just limited its focus. One may miss the jangling ambient noise of Platform and Unknown Pleasures, though, and particularly the informative TV broadcasts of the latter, which always fit in context even though they may speak to us more than to the characters.

For me, Unknown Pleasures is by far the emotional peak of Jia's work so far, and hence the film that puts across his themes most powerfully as well. Next comes Platform, which is off-putting and sometimes almost absurdly hard to follow, but which nonetheless obviously has deep personal significance to the director as an authentic portrait of his generation's journey into the Nineties. The World is almost too self-consciously a development of his themes of alienation and globalization and of a generation without hope or aims. The theme park is almost too obvious and too good a metaphor, and it robs his excellent actors of the opportunity to be themselves for more than a few minutes at a time.

What does the ending mean? It seems to mean more than anything else that Jia wants to hit us over the head with the idea that his characters have nowhere to go, and it also seemed to me to be somehow a too-late subconscious attempt to steal from the kind of effects we get in Kiselowski's Dekalog. But it only underlines that this is a world seemingly cut off from any moral system.

The World meanders too long, given the failure to connect emotionally, but it is nonetheless a powerful, rich, and original work and Jia is unquestionably one of the great ones of his generation working today, and representing as he does literally millions and millions of people in a dynamic enormously changing country, he stands as one of the world (small W)'s most important movie directors. Whether ""success"" in the form of open film-making and state funding will ""destroy"" him or water down his raw originality remains an open question.",0 "When I first heard that Prey was coming out for the PC, I expected it to be another normal and boring PC game. It was when I heard that IGN gave Prey a good review along with various other sites, I decided to try it out. I bought Prey off Ebay for 5.00 pounds and When I played it the first thing I realized was the beautiful and realistic graphics. I eagerly jumped into playing Prey and was completely astounded to what I thought would be a sh*t game. You control a Cherokee Indian whose life is a bummer. His girlfriend thinks that Tommy Dommasi is difficult and he doesn't get along with his grandfather because he doesn't believe all that spiritual and superstitious stuff. The gunplay is excellent and the guns themselves are different because they are alive and very different to earthly guns, mainly because he is aboard a alien spaceship. The gore is overly disgusting and disturbing, all the way through the game you will see blood, guts, and livers. The gore is very important to the game because without it the atmosphere will feel dull and pedantic.

After his girlfriend and grandfather get kidnapped by an alien spaceship, Tommy tries to release them from the clutches of evil. As the game progresses onward, you realize it isn't that easy. The ship is controlled by a power hungry leader who steals people from different planets for what they call ""Harvesting"", meaning to eat. Along the way you earn a power called spirit walking, you leave your body in a state of meditation while you do what you have to do with your spirit, and you shoot with guns that will blow your mind.

The worst thing about this game is the easiness of it. It will take you about 5 or 7 hours to finish the game. The portals are so important in this game and Prey was the first game ever to have portals in it. Defying gravity was one of the fun things in this game but it can get weird sometimes because you have to shoot in a way which would make your brain dizzy and fuzzy. Prey is enjoyable and somewhat stupid because when the enemy is about to throw a grenade they call out, ""Grenade"" and then you can easily avoid it. Prey should be in every gamers collection and have a wonderful time playing. Happy Gaming!",1 "There is not a crease or seam in Judy Davis's performance in My Brilliant Career. She being one of the greatest of all actresses, or even actors, at the innate endowment of physically, mentally and emotionally residing in a character builds a rivetingly ambitious and combustible character that takes charge of herself and simply does not make a good follower at all and is whirled from early in her life by her independent attributes to have a career in the arts despite society doing all they can to tame her. Her character is so enrooted and actualized that the love story that serves as the flesh of the film between her and the dark and magnetic character of Sam Neill is like a diverging extension of her nature. She only idles away with what she feels could so easily be hers and is driven to single- minded desire of it when it comes to be a challenge. The romantic element of the film, especially in its outcome, fits as a large-scale model of who she is and why she is born to be anything but what her cavalier and domineering family of early twentieth century Australia strives to mold her into.

The support of the story, which is Davis's struggle to be independent of society's taming and manipulation is what is ultimately compelling and infuriating, very effectively putting us in her mad, aggressive shoes. The framework involving the attraction between her and Neill is what is ultimately moving and hearty. That is what this film supplies a solvency of, a fiery emotional experience.",1 "Synopsis: ""Na Nan has known best pal Dong Mi and Jung Joon since childhood, and now the trio shares the ups and downs of their turbulent single lives together. But everything turned on end when Dong Mi and Jung Joon end up in bed! Na Nan has a job offer and a marriage proposal from the Charming Soo Heon to consider, and her twenties are fast coming to end. What's the generation of soon-to-getting-older youth to do?"" I liked this movie a lot. The plot was light hearted and funny, and characters were well developed and are people you can relate to. Na Nan especially shone light on what it means to be single and fabulous (well, not gracefully).",1 "Astonoshing acting! Phenomenal directing! and an amazingly well brought out film! Realistic killer ants invade a new york office building, and it's occupants are doomed! Ik you're into horror, many die from the killer attacks of the giant ants, if you're into action watch as the office workers fight off ants and suspend themselves across buildings in order to save their lives. If you're into romance, enjoy the passionate and romantic intimacy shared between the Janitor and an executives assistant. This movie is the full package! I HIGHLY recommend this movie and think that EVERYBODY should see it! 11/10 stars!!!!",1 "This is a pretty well done piece of English wartime film, made in 1942 and clearly intended to buck up the English as they faced the possibility of a German invasion. In the story, the small village of Bramley End is occupied by German paratroopers, who infiltrate the village disguised as English troops, along with the help of a local ""Quisling"" named Oliver Wilsford, played by Mervyn Johns. Seen with the benefit of hindsight, the story is rather far-fetched, since there really was no serious threat of a German invasion after 1940, but of course those making the movie (and those watching it) didn't have the benefit of hindsight, and so it has to be seen for what it is: a well done bit of movie-making encouraging the English to fight back in case it did happen.

In Bramley End, a pretty good (and ultimately successful) fight was put up once the locals got over their shock, and the fight involved men, women and children; soldiers and civilians alike. The Germans (as expected) are portrayed as ruthless (although, given the context, I thought they might have been portrayed even worse than they were.) Although it clearly was propaganda to an extent, the movie didn't have what I would consider to be a typical ""propaganda"" feel to it, which I appreciated, and which makes it interesting rather than dated even today. Speaking from a North American perspective, I confess that at times I had a bit of trouble following the accents, but the flow of the story was clear enough in spite of this, and I thought Oliver's ultimate fate at the hands of Nora (Valerie Taylor) represented poetic justice.

The movie opens and closes with a narration which is set in the post-war era, and is perhaps the only thing that seems really out of place today, with references to Hitler getting what was coming to him (I don't think he really did) and speaking of the invasion that finally came (which it didn't.) Aside from that, though, I found this movie quite enjoyable. 7/10",1 "Others here have expressed that this Indie film was good and I agree. I think it could have been better. I also agree, the educational part was not about Charlie Banks, who seems very passive and self centered with many short rather flippant comments. He really doesn't rise very high on the intellectual ladder. However, I also felt as a privileged kid who had all his little ducks in a row, and egocentric as most of these people are, the film seemed to project a kind of real life situational social drama.

What exactly Charlie learned? Well, I was mystified how a moocher could live and walk about an Ivy League campus without some security officer kicking him out. I suppose this does happen where friends allow for social reasons something like these triangles to happen. But, gosh uncle Elmer how did he eat and live in a dorm room that was rented for two legitimate male students.

I suppose the moral crisis comes late in the story, and in fact, Charlie and his Mich buddy were not physically matched for fighting. I would have thought Charlie would have attempted to undermine Mich earlier in the film, rather than passively sulking and accepting this man's total illegitimacy as a college student.

However all these picky concerns did not over all make me dislike the flick. I have known students like Charlie before and wondered if they actually had any moral compass other than their own egocentric interests in sex and pleasing their parents.

I rated it above my standard 5 to a 7. The film is worth a look !",1 "After seven years of his wife, Ellen, presumably being lost at sea, Nick Arden marries his latest flame, Bianca. Only to get on his honeymoon to find that Ellen has in fact survived, and spent the seven years on a tropical island with another man called Stephen Burkett.

My Favorite Wife is based around the Alfred Tennyson poem entitled ""Enoch Arden"". Numerous adaptations have been made, but few, if any, are as frothy as this Cary Grant and Irene Dunne starer. Grant and Dunne are re-teamed here after their massive success with the quite marvellous The Awful Truth in 1937, and tho the role of Ellen was touted to Jean Arthur, it was Dunne who grasped the role and created sizzling comedy once again with the fabulous Grant. The Awful Truth director Leo McCarey, was all set to direct this piece but a car accident put paid to that and the reins passed to jobber Garson Kanin, who aided by a firing on all cylinders cast, weaved a splendidly delightful picture.

Tho the movie's obvious charm lays with it's two main stars, it would be a big disservice to forget the contributions of Randolph Scott as Stephen Burkett and Gail Patrick as Bianca. Scott's laid back persona is perfect foil to Grant's more batty approach work, while Patrick in the tricky role of the neurotic second wife is fabulous, and it remains a mystery as to why she didn't go on to better and brighter things. Tho the ending is never in doubt, and the last quarter dries up on the gags front, My Favorite Wife still stands the test of time as a screwball picture of note, see it if you get the chance, it should brighten your day. 7.5/10",1 "I don't usually like westerns, but I enjoyed this immensely.

Twice!

I didn't find the music irritating, as some found it. I thought it developed the drama all the more with each drumbeat & rhythm, as if embracing the beat of hooves on the mostly primitive landscapes encountered! I enjoyed the adventure from the comfortable distance of a lounge room setting, far removed from rattle-snakes & even more vicious & treacherous humans, who were shown generosity of spirit & heart, that they attempted to cruelly & aggressively turn on their hosts.

Such remains mostly unresolved, but I liked the coolness of the loner, quietly righting wrongs along the way, mostly against the odds, but with effortless precision & skillfulness if not mastery as he goes about his unfolding journey. You can't help but think this guy would have been a hero, probably much unappreciated, in his earlier journeys! Hence, ""the black rider""! Probably relentless & skillful & talented beyond what he has cause to display in each interaction!

Personally, I was mindful of the concept of 'vengeance is mine says the Lord!' I could well imagine God inspiring such a man in pursuit of love for his beloved, mother or wife or other aspects of love, as variously reflected here in the powerless but generous farmer, & the quiet ways of the returned war hero on a new mission, who seemed to be threatened more than he spoke! But in his own way, he was a VERY believable ""007"" in a real world setting of immense hardship & injustice we are not much removed from, but we should be grateful much of the world has moved on from much of what is found here!

""The Wild West"" was not a place we'd want to return to mostly! Yet its somehow all around us in each advertising break & news bulletin & insights into worlds we are free to observe but not interact with or help, secure we think, but always being observed. Even from the comfort of a lounge chair, where the viewer is free to journey into frontier land for a gripping journey like this, mostly of hardship & heartbreak & enduring suffering, but of much merit, courage, relentlessness into bravery & towards justice & love against the odds!

And take with you, as with me, the drum & simple rhythmic beat the repetitive music masterfully captured. As a man of good heart marches on to his inner beat of heart & spirit & soul! Whatever those around him make of him & his love & his quietly honoured concept of justice, integrity & love!!!",1 "Greek pledges find themselves in an abandoned mansion that is rumored to still be occupied by the deformed offspring of the owner. This is a typical 80s slasher where nothing really happens until the final half hour. The most unrealistic part of the movie is when the assumed ""Big Man on Campus"" is hitting on the campus hottie who is ready to bed him, but then he turns around and says ""Who is THAT?"" in awe of someone else's beauty. The camera then shoots across the room, focusing on little Linda Blair. I've got to give the filmmakers props for setting up certain scenes with horror movie clichés, only to break them down in really unbelievable ways.",0 "shame on bashir and shaw for being completely one-sided and prejudicing michael jackson before they ever even started shooting. it's clear they had only one idea; to make jackson look as bad as possible. i felt like i was sort of watching a sun tabloid. bashir is no better than any of the paparazzi's following. but michael wanted to be honest well there you go then.

i don't have an opinion about jackson in the issues raised on this document, since i can assure you I DON'T THINK I REALLY KNOW michael jackson after seeing this document. sure he seems strange and guilty of lying at points but no matter how hard you look you can't tell anything for certain about him, can you? please remember that when you start bashing him. meanwhile bashir catches every little mistake or a sign of ""notnormaladultbehaviour"", that jackson makes. ""omfg he went on the stage early. holy **** he's climbing trees!"" use your own brain, people and don't let bashir lead you.

3/10

""Propaganda is ... the deliberate attempt by some individual or group to form, control, or alter the attitudes of other groups by the use of instruments of communication, with the intention that in any given situation the reaction of those so influenced will be that desired by the propagandist.""

oh, and btw ask yourself who is the craziest; weird michael, paranoid bashir, insane crying screaming dancing fans, or me for watching this document in the first place?",0 "I'm not sure how to describe this very long sci-fi fantasy. It rips off everything: The Mummy, Stargate, a dash of Star Wars, and of course a huge helping of Indiana Jones. It even has a Satanic secret society of super-villains whose whole ""raison d'etre"" is to take over the world and rule it with the usual iron fist. Casper Van Dein is clearly playing a younger Indiana Jones, complete with a professorship, a brown fedora, and a whip. Although the date of the setting implies he's a younger, alternate Indy in another, more fantastical universe, he doesn't quite cut it. Unfortunately for him, he's not Harrison Ford. He's not even Brendon Frasier, that other Indy-like action hero of archaeology and ancient legends. One cliché after another, not a single original concept. And at the same time, I found myself enjoying it enough to sit through all three hours of it. It is just escapist fantasy, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes a little nonsense doesn't hurt.",1 "I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...

Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...

p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy

I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...

Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...

p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy",0 "Even the Disney animated version isn't as cheesy, lame or frankly ridiculous as this live action remake, based on the Lewis Carroll tale. You know the basic story, Alice (A View to a Kill's Fiona Fullerton) falls asleep, and dreams chasing the White Rabbit (Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em's Michael Crawford) into the bizarre (more son in this version) world of Wonderland, meeting a variety of weird and ""wonderful"" characters, such as the Dormouse (Dudley Moore), The Caterpillar (Sir Ralph Richardson), Tweedledee (Frank Cox) and Tweedledum (Freddie Cox), the Cheshire Cat (Roy Kinnear), the Mock Turtle (Michael Hordern), the Mad Hatter (Robert Helpmann) and March Hare (Peter Sellers), the Gryphon (Spike Milligan), and Queen (Flora Robson) and King (Dennis Price) of Hearts. I don't know if it is the film itself that is ridiculous, or the fact that so many well known TV and film stars are making complete idiots of themselves, and as for the songs, they don't help, oh, Fullerton talks to herself too much. It won the BAFTAs for Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design, both wrong choices. It was number 63 on The 100 Greatest Family Films. Pretty poor!",0 "I've seen some bad movies. I've seen some great movies. This movie is neither. It's barely even a movie.

Maybe I should explain what I mean: Most films have a general sense of coherence. By that I mean, scene A points to scene B, scene C explains some aspect of scene A, and in one way or another most of the scenes relate to Theme X. In THIS film, however, the whole thing is all over the place. It's more like an algebra problem with seven unresolved variables.

The plot revolves around a character with obvious mental issues. I say issues because the whole film does nothing to explain exactly what is wrong with her. It simply goes to great lengths to let you know something is wrong with her head.

Apparently the filmmakers felt this gave them license to produce scene after scene of random, unrelated material with twisting camera angles and the characters moving from a somewhat solid, real atmosphere to a whirling dream world where everything spells disaster.

This happens for an hour and thirty-five minutes, roughly.

I would say it all culminates in a lackluster ending, but ""culminate"" is too strong a word. Really what happens is some crap happens, some people walk around, and the film reveals what the creators obviously thought to be some brilliant revelation about the main character. Unfortunately, Hitchcock these people are not.

I don't mind films that leave some material open to interpretation. What I do mind is a film that ends up being more like a Rorschach test than any kind of intelligent, coherent item of media.

Seriously. This sucks. I'm incredibly angry at my waste of money, and I only spent a dollar at Redbox.",0 "There is something to the marketing of foreign films and the way Hollywood tries its hardest to fool the public into thinking it is an English language movie. By not allowing any characters to speak in the trailers, giving away their secret with subtitles, someone like me, knowing it's foreign, is able to get a glimpse at the style and tone without really learning anything about the plot to ruin my surprise upon sitting in the theatre. This aspect worked perfectly for Guillermo Del Toro's production of El Orfanato. I had very little idea of what I was getting into and this film ended up being the best atmospheric horror I have seen since Alejandro Amenábar's The Others, (I don't count Del Toro's own El Laberinto del fauno because that was more fantasy than anything else). I now ask what it is that all three of these films have in common? With this—J.A. Bayona's feature debut—each is helmed by a Spanish director. I can't think of a better nation making movies right now; the Spanish are doing everything right and this film just adds to bolstering that argument.

Bayona creates a mood and tone that keeps the viewer on the edge of their seats, anticipating the scares that they know will shortly be coming. I was actually surprised how slow the introduction was and how carefully laid out all the story pieces were. We are led into this world, discovering the relationships between our lead roles and the vague past of the orphanage that once housed our heroine and now is about to become her home for special needs children. Like The Others, the spirits involved here are not necessarily violent or demonic. They have an agenda, for sure, but what may at first glance seem malevolent could be nothing of the kind. The orphans now haunting the establishment are only trying to play a game. By taking something you love, a scavenger hunt is begun. Following the clues is the only way the game can end and if successful, the children will grant you one wish. The rules are simple, except the circumstances are far from easily accessible. One must believe that the game can happen before he/she can truly take part. Without the belief that the spirits are in control, success can never be achieved.

The cast is led by a remarkable performance from Belén Rueda—who, as it turns out, had a wonderful turn in Amenábar's latest Mar adentro. Her composure and beauty is shattered as she finds her son has been lost. Trying to keep herself together, taking in what the police, her husband, and the mediums enlisted to help on the paranormal aspect tell her, she is given the task to figure out for herself how far she is willing to go to find her son. Always captivating and never out of her element, Rueda carries the story and never looks back. The supporting players around her are all portrayed nicely as well. Fernando Cayo plays the husband watching his wife deteriorate before him while unable to open his mind to the possibility that what she says could be true; Geraldine Chaplin is magnificent as the psychic medium whose trance brings out a puzzle piece necessary to continue the game; and young Roger Príncep plays the child Simón with the right amount of innocence mixed with the knowledge and comprehension of his fate to help keep the bond between he and his mother strong.

Bayona never goes for the cheap thrills either as he builds up the tension with sounds and visuals. His use of the closing doors and the moving merry-go-round add a sense of foreboding that ends up being more important than you may initially guess. Stylistically too, the transition between the house's current state of duress with the way it shone by the glow of the adjacent lighthouse from the past is expertly handled. There were numerous instances where the film could have gone off the rails to tragic effect, but he holds it steady throughout. More psychological than visceral, the scares are few, but effective. Even when the grotesque rears its head, it is to enhance the story, not to shock for shock alone. The sound work is utilized to the fullest too. What seems to be jarring and loud for the purpose to scare our lead and us is actually very important to the tale at hand. Nothing is shown or heard here that doesn't have absolute relevance to the film as a whole.

The final third of the film comes quick and fully envelopes you into the proceedings. You are right there with Rueda's character as she slowly uncovers the secrets hidden behind the years that have past since she last lived in the orphanage. Whereas a film from Hollywood—of late usually being a remake from a better horror film in Japan—would use this tension in order to hide the flimsy and lackluster conclusion it tacks on so as not to alienate those viewers who enjoy leaving the theatre with a smile, Bayona knows how to effectively end his tale the way it should. I was blown away by the handling of the final scene and the way he used the rules of the game to transition us from one reality to another. It is truly a remarkable feat that hits home hard emotionally, but I will actually say also succeeded in me leaving with a smile on my face. Whether you exit the theatre with your eyes moistened or not, you will not forget the beauty and perfection for which it concludes. The tagline is correct, for while it is a story of horror, it is above all else a tale of love.",1 "Let me begin this review by saying that Universal's DVD release of this film is beneath contempt. It's exactly the same as the Polygram VHS release from 1993. There are absolutely no extras - none. Not even scene selection or subtitles. The whole film plays in one chunk, and that's it. The picture and sound quality are terrible - one can but wonder how different things might have been if Anchor Bay or Network had got their hands on it. Because this film deserves it. Derek and Clive, the notoriously filthy alter-egos of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, are outrageous enough to give the PC militia nightmares and keep the rest of us rolling on the floor in hysterics for weeks. To give you some idea of what the characters are like, Peter Cook described them as ""strongly Tory, probably mechanics. They like a drink, are embarrassed by women and think the world's gone mad. Life ended for them when the Big Bopper died. They hate having to pay taxes when the country's going down the pan."" In short, they're a dead-on, mercilessly funny spoof of every drunken pub bigot you've ever met - the boozy know-all who'll talk absolute rubbish on any given subject for at least ten minutes at the slightest provocation. We've all been there. This film, shot on a shoestring (which might explain the poor quality - they should have shot it on film instead) in documentary style by Russell Mulcahy and Nic Knowland (who went on to helm the far less amusing HIGHLANDER and CATS respectively) at the Townhouse Studios in London, captures Cook and Moore in the process of recording the final Derek and Clive album. The language is appalling, the attitudes indefensible, the subject matter spectacularly inappropriate, and the pair of them seem to be having a whale of a time, even when they're at each other's throats (which happens a lot). Cook is on record as saying he found it ""therapeutic"" to play such a scabrous, belligerent character, whilst Moore responded to the exercise in the spirit of a naughty schoolboy, revelling in the excitement of dirty words and crude humour. It's definitely not for all tastes, but it perfectly captures the spirit of freewheeling anarchy that defines Derek and Clive at their best - one wishes the recording sessions for 'Come Again' (their 1977 album) had been filmed as well, if only to see Moore drunk and hysterical during the infamous 'My Mum Song'.

All in all, a slice of pitch-black comedy history that needs a digital overhaul to drag it into the 21st century. Are you listening, Universal?",1 "I saw the cover. Obviously a cheep movie that is trying to make some money from the popularity of Peter Jackson's King Kong. Anyway - a huge gorilla in the lost world - cool! I knew it was going to be cheep, but I liked the idea. And the rating was still 5,8 so I thought it will be worth watching. I was wrong. Since it is the Lost World I expected some dinosaurs. Nope. Compared to this movie the TV series ""The Lost World"" look like a Hollywood blockbuster. No dinosaurs. Just a sloppy CGI giant spider, a couple of sloppy CGI giant scorpions, and a sloppy CGI giant gorilla, which you finally see for a couple of seconds at the end of the movie. I love B-movies, but not B-movies that pretend to be A-movies, if you know what I mean. If this movie was done intentionally stupid just for the fun if would be nice. Now it is just boring. And I guess a couple of days ago it had 5,8 rating because all the guys from the ending credits voted here.",0 "This is one of those movies that keep you watching despite a sloppy screenplay - why, for God's sake, does Korvo (Jose Ferrer) first attempt to gain control of Ann Sutton's (Gener Tierney) mind in the middle of a cocktail party albeit in an empty room into which anyone could have wandered and why, when Tierney discovers the body of Ferrer's ex lover, do two guys turn up from nowhere and call the police. Add to this Richard Conte as arguably the most unconvincing psychiatrist in screen history and we begin to see the size of the problem. Nevertheless Tierney keeps us watching as Ferrer is effective as the quack Korvo.",0 "This was one of my favorite war movies whenever it came on TV as I was growing up. One of the few Korean War films it's based on the true story of the fight for marginally strategic piece of land on the eve of the armistice that halted the conflicts combat. Realistic battlefield environment but in 1950's film style without graphic simulation. Gregory Peck is the commander of a company of 135 men who knowing that peace talks are being held and the fighting will soon be halted must still take charge of his command and follow his orders to take Pork Chop Hill. It shows the futility of war and how ground combat will become obsolete. Of course ground combat never did become obsolete. In the cast are Harry Guardino, Rip torn, George Peppard, Norman Fell, Martin Landau, Harry Dean Stanton, Robert Blake, George Shibata and Woody Strode. Director Lewis Milestone made a career in war movies directing World War I films Two Arabian Knights and All Quiet on the Western Front for both he won Academy Awards and World War II films Those Who Dare, Halls of Montezuma, Arch of Triumph, A Walk in the Sun, The Purple Heart, The North Star and Edge of Darkness. Cinematographer Sam Leavitt photographs a dark and gritty look at war filmed in black and white. It's reputed that Milestone was unsatisfied with the creative control he was given with picture and the final cut was not what he intended. As Executive Producer Gregory Peck is said to have had the original 20 minutes of the film cut from the theatrical final version because he wasn't in it and felt too much time would be spent before the star of the film makes his on first screen appearance. The film envisioned by Milestone was also not to end with a voice-over saying how important the battle really was. This is a good movie and I would give it an 8.5 out of 10.",1 "With two classic westerns under his belt (Ride the High Country and The Wild Bunch)and a reputation for being a rebellious non-conformist you would think Sam Peckinpah the ideal person to relate the story of the teen prodigy outlaw, Billy the Kid. You would be wrong. From start to finish this western is an aimless mess. Scenes are poorly paced and disjointed. It looks like it was edited on a beach.

Kris Kristofferson is clearly too old and limited for Billy. As Garrett, James Coburn fares much better with a stylish and graceful performance that exudes a cool confidence despite being in conflict with himself. Bob Dylan supplies some fine music but his performance is an embarrassment. In minor rolls some of the great old guard (Slim Pickens, Katy Jurado, Chill Wills, Jack Elam, R G Armstrong) steal every scene they are in.

There's the requisite slow mo blood spattering scenes of violence and in one scene Chickens replace scorpions (without the symbolism) in a gruesome moment of male bonding but Peckinpah for the most part allows Dylan's score to set the pace in scenes, rendering them sluggish and mawkish.

At this point in his career it was clear Peckinpah had nothing left. Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is a testament to how far and fast he had fallen.",0 "Boy, I thought seeing W.C. Fields and Mae West in the same movie would really be something! However, the only thing it turned out to be was just plain annoying. I could barely get past the first 15 minutes.

West's ""routine"" gets tiresome in a hurry. All she does, scene after scene, is roll up her eyes and say something she thinks is clever and-or funny. Since she co-wrote the script with Fields, I'm sure she thought those lines were good, but I heard nothing humorous in them. The soft lens on her on every time is pretty obvious, too. What were they trying to cover up?

Her reputation is far better than her performance.

As for Fields, he was better off in his own films where he could ham it up on his own. He had a few amusing bits, but nothing memorable.",0 "Great. Another ""wunnerful"" Canadian film for the cognescenti and literati to gush and chortle over as they sip their Perriers and double lattes at the latest trendy film festival. Dahling... Didn't you think the message was so, well, messagy. It's too long. What could have been done in two hours mushes and slushes on for almost three. I still don't know what it was all about despite the ""helpful"" explanatory subtitles on the DVD. And although creative lens flare can be a useful technique, there is so much of it here that it looks like simply slovenly photography. But weren't we daring with that full frontally nude chase across the ice for ten minutes or so. I was impressed that neither the poor actor nor his willie didn't freeze solid! As a dutiful Canadian, I forced myself to watch this eternity of people humping and hunting each other across the ice. But I hated it. Hate! Hate! Hate! Why do we insist on making movies in this country? We're much better at wine and whiskey. And if you can't be dissuaded from enduring this frozen turkey, I suggest you keep an ample supply of both on hand for your three hour ordeal.

",0 "I have a confession to make: I hate ""evil twin"" stories. There have been, to date, 750,899 versions of the ""sinister sibling"" on American television alone. Add in the innumerable feature films that feature ""terrible twosomes"" and we're talking 4.5 million times that this hackneyed approach has been used. Even George Romero, an otherwise mostly original filmmaker, used the doppelganger (in his version of THE DARK HALF, Stephen King's hackneyed retelling of The Evil (br)Other story). Enough, already. Anybody who thinks this is anywhere near Tsukamoto's best simply hasn't got a clue. It's better than A SNAKE OF JUNE, but that's not saying a whole lot. How does it stack up against his earlier films? It don't. Period.",0 "Let me begin by saying that I enjoyed this movie. It was a light way (despite a few dark moments) to spend a couple of hours, but I wouldn't nominate it for any Oscars, nor would I compare it to the works of Shakespeare as a previous reviewer has.

If you wanted to, you could speak as highly of any film. All this would accomplish is to dilute the praise deserving of the real greats (if you're thinking ""Armageddon"", stop reading NOW!)

Let's call ""Best Men"" what it really is, a fun little flic. There's some gunplay, a car chase, a guy who gets the girl, a moment of revelation for a would-be lost friend, and a good helping of comic relief, with an ending reminiscent of Richard Gere in ""Breathless"". I enjoyed it, but just because a character is endearingly nicknamed ""Hamlet"", and there's a few (well acted) verses recited, ""Best Men"" is no Shakespearean work.

Let's call a spade a spade but reserve the real praise for the likes of Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, or even Titanic.",1 "I first saw Quincy just under ten years ago when they showed it on BBC1 in the afternoons. My first memory was of the cops fainting when Quincy shows them the autopsy in the credits. To be honest my favourite character altered between Sam and Astin but I like the cast as a whole, the Danny-Quincy banter (always trying to get that recipe) that dynamic storyline and what have you. I always enjoyed how Quince solved complex cases, although he dealt with the dead it was similar to House or CSI probably more CSI. One episode springs to mind when they search for a boy who's been hidden underground in the desert, they search everywhere and it's by finding a rare flower that starts them off and finding the boy. Quincy dealt with issues as relevant today as they were in the 70's and 80's. Our treatment of people of different race, sex and religion. Quincy was someone who genuinely cared and played excellently by Jack Klugman.

Of course, let's not forget that 'funky' soundtrack!",1 "I only grabbed this one because Christina Lindberg (of THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE and SEX AND FURY fame) is in it, and I've got a serious hard-on for that chick. Unfortunately...she's not in it for long, and you only see her tits once, so what you're left with is a boring and un-erotic sleaze film.

Swedish WILDCATS is about a bunch of sluts that work in a brothel. They do some un-sexy dances for their male patrons, and afterwards they do what hookers are best known for. Somewhere in this boring mess is a ""love story"" between one of the ho's and some guy she met at the park. Throw in a scumbag that the guy from the park works with who has seen the chick at the brothel and wants to ruin their relationship - and there ya have it...

Like another reviewer mentioned - Swedish WILDCATS is pretty much an over-glorified chick-flick with a few tits and asses thrown in for good measure. There are definitely some smokin' chicks in this one, but the sex scenes are dull and un-sexy. The under-use of the ravishing Christina Lindberg is absolutely criminal - and everyone involved in this production should be shot for this unforgivable oversight. Don't bother unless you like dull romance films with a little bit (but not nearly enough) sleaze thrown in...",0 "This is not just any King Kong rip-off... this is a King Kong rip-off from the legendary Shaw Bros! Filmed in Shaw Scope! Shady Chinese guys try to find a giant ape in India. The ""exploration"" is wonderfully ridiculous. Then, just when you and your friends think you can't possibly laugh any more, amidst all the Chinese actors appears a beautiful blonde westerner! Raised in the jungle, she swings through the trees like Tarzan with a crazy scream. Her top is glued on... barely.

Lots of bad, generic 70's music accompany all of this.

When she shimmies up a tree, legs akimbo, the hapless Chinese explorer guy gets quite an eyeful.

She can control all the jungle animals. The tigers, cheetahs and elephants all love to frolic with her. Except the snakes. One nasty snake bites her high on the inner thigh. Pretty close to the danger zone. What's the hapless Chinese explorer to do while she writhes in pain? Why stick his face down between her legs and suck the poison out, of course! The miniature sets are fantastically cheap. Not one of them would have qualified for a Godzilla movie. They don't help matters by offering lots of close-ups of the miniature trees and fake streams. You keep expecting a Lionel train to whistle by.

Samantha (the girl) doesn't command much of any language, preferring grunts. She is so grateful to the hapless Chinese explorer that they make love in her cave. Cue more 70's music.

Oh, and Samantha, raised in this harsh jungle since a child, wears a lot of make-up.

The Peking Man changes size a bit, depending on the sets. He seems to range from 20 to 100 feet tall.

If you enjoy campy trash, this is a must see! Our group has watched a lot of bad movies together but very few have given us as much joy as Mighty Peking Man.",1 "There are two kinds of characters on THE SHIELD: people who try to do the best they can and do the right thing, and people who relentlessly pursue their own self interest and commit every mortal sin they can while telling themselves and everyone else that they are heroes, and everyone's only hope. More than any other show, THE SHIELD is about hypocrisy and self-delusion. Unfortunately, the hypocrites and self-deluders are the shows heroes, and as such have the typical genre-fiction heroes' improbable immunity to getting defeated or caught and they come out on top over and over again, making fools out of all of their peers.

The show boasts excellent camera-work. The lead ins and the fade outs are always superb. It really is a work of art to see. Unfortunately the story is a cartoony, overwrought wish fulfillment scenario of gratuitous violence, rape, and lies.

The hero, who drags everyone down with him in failed scheme after failed scheme, is wiley like a warner bros cartoon character, always escaping and making fun of all the elmer fudds (anyone who does not support him in his lies and crimes), automatically attracting any good looking woman supporting character to come on the show, always surviving any attempt to bring him to justice, and ALWAYS scraping your ears with his excruciating self justifications. If another cop detects something wrong with something he's doing, and someone gets hurt because of his actions, he always blames the suspicious cop, regardless of the fact that his schemes and elaborate lies and doomed plans are always the cause. Every time.

Like 24, this show relies on contrivances and innumerable delays to drag its story out for season after season. Boring, unbelievable long term stories are injected into the storyline every season to provide a skeleton on which to hang the bloody, perverted chunks of meat that are the characters' corrupt acts and the inevitable cover-ups.

Most disappointing though, is the writers' hubris as they try to change the viewers' sympathies back and forth, to and away form the characters on whims. Sometimes, they want us to see Shane as the enemy. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor misunderstood soul. Sometimes they want us to see Vic as a dangerous, sexual dynamo. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor guy with a heart of gold. Sometimes they want us to see Mara as a low down vile Jezebel. Then they think that if they show her sitting and talking over her dreams with Shane, that we will find her to be sympathetic and tragic.

None of this manipulation is adequate to obtain the kinds of sympathies they want. Once they've shown these characters ruin other people's lives for their own ends, that's it. It is nonsense to keep trying to flip back and forth. But then, it is also nonsense to produce seven seasons of these bumbling clowns drawing every super model in existence to their beds and running a crime syndicate right out of the police station, right under everyone's noses.",0 "there isn't much to say about ncis except that it is a perfect piece of crap, one of the worst shows i've ever seen in my whole life.. starting from the horrible soundtrack that gets on my nerves every time they play it.. i think the composer should get the prize of the best ""torture masterpiece"" on TV.. the characters are really dull, starting from the arrogant, antipathetic Mr knowitall Jethro Gibbs, to the dull sheepish McGee, the stupid, antipathetic DiNozzo, the freak Abby by the way there's always some freakish nerds in such shows who behind her weird looks hides exceptional genius and wit.. so classic! and so boring! the plot is far too simple almost childish, no suspense no real action, and full of clichés.. the principle character doesn't really do a damn thing, with a sick sense of humor, he just goes insulting people here and there showing what the show creators think is an exceptional power of character - the guy fears no one and behaves as if he were president of the United States (he perfectly fits in a context where Dubya is twice elected for president)and then all of a sudden, he miraculously finds the solution to the case!!! no effort, no logical proceeding, just like that! I have serious doubts about the taste of those who highly rated this show!!!",0 "With all due respect for Mr. Leary's capabilities as a comedian, this movie illustrates quite vividly that he is not an actor Hollywood has too much respect for. This movie is really, really stupid, and even Leary himself has admitted to being embarrassed about it. Bullock is on autopilot and all other characters are blatantly uninteresting. Only worth 3 points due to Leary's fishing-scene, that allows him to do what he is best at, comedy, and a rare performance by Yaphet Kotto. If you have no idea who Leary or Kotto is and thought ""since Bullock is in it, it must be OK"", you would be TERRIBLY wrong!!!",0 "THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

Jimmy Sangster's feeble hybrid is a misguided attempt to fulfil two ambitions: First to remake THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) - the film which launched Hammer Studios to worldwide fame - with half the budget and twice the irony; and second, to promote Ralph Bates as their new 'youth-oriented' star. The film fails on both counts because of the cheapjack production values and the general air of mockery, and because Bates plays the Baron as an arrogant, dissolute youth with few redeeming features, completely lacking the ice-cold authority of Peter Cushing in his prime. Hammer could never appeal to the 'youth' market without falling flat on its face, and this one is no exception. Here, the Baron works his way through a threadbare cast-list, seeking spare parts to build a monster that ends up looking like a pro-wrestler! Naturally, the brain is damaged before he manages to sew it into the creature's cranium, providing an excuse for some lacklustre mayhem once the monster is up and running.

There are minor virtues: Dennis Price enjoys himself as a graverobber who goes about his business with an unseemly glee, and the wonderful Kate O'Mara is upstaged by her own cleavage, but horror fans won't be amused by the film's rambling plot and half-hearted attempts at humor. Thankfully, the series bowed out in style three years later when Peter Cushing re-teamed with director Terence Fisher for the dignified swan song FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL (1973).",0 "I wish the complete series would come out in Season boxes. I used to sit at home in my room every Sunday evening just before 7. Needing to watch this show. The UST between Kate and Geoff was mainly what kept me going, they are one of the best matched TV-couples I have ever seen. I liked the show less at the end when all the focus turned on 'what was happening in Coopers Crossing' in stead of the 'accident of the week'. Other than that I liked the series from start to end and whenever possible I watch every re-run there is on any channel I can get it... I think it's called an addiction :) I just bought the DVD with 8 episodes (the episodes around Geoff and Kate's wedding and of course the wedding itself) I can't get enough, I hope they bring out more episodes... PLEASE CRAWFORD PRODUCTIONS....",1 "Between this CBS Made-for-TV movie and the similarly titled SciFi Original ""Locusts: the 8th Plague,"" 2005 was one whopper of a year for killer locusts. It's bad enough we have our hands full in the Middle East, but now the U.S. Department of Agriculture has its hands full with locusts. Surprisingly, the CBS movie had much better special effects. But otherwise ""The 8th Plague"" was a better, if predictable, movie. The problem with ""Locusts"" is that it's not really a horror movie. It's almost like the producers said, ""Let's figure out what would happen if we had to deal with a swarm of locusts and film it documentary-style."" I expect blood and guts when I watch these movies, which there is very little of here. To be honest, this movie is probably a little better than the 1 I gave it -- at least the lady who plays Xena the Warrior Princess was good in this movie. And ""The 8th Plague"" is probably a little worse than the 4 I gave that movie. But it's the principle that matters. Maybe the CBS locusts and the SciFi locusts can get together in a future movie and have a throw-down brawl, a la Freddy vs. Jason, and we can really figure out who's badder.",0 "The original BASKET CASE is one of my all-time favorite B-movies, and has been ever since I first saw it as a kid on cable over 20 years ago. It's grimy, low-budget style, the completely off-the-wall storyline, the cheezy but effective splatter FX- everything about the original screams underground classic. And luckily director Frank Henenlotter proved to not just be a one-trick-pony, by proving he had the skills to be a truly noteworthy cult-horror director-with other classics like BRAIN DAMAGE and FRANKENHOOKER. But unfortunately, the beloved Mr. H had to go and f!ck up his streak with retarded nonsense like the BASKET CASE sequels. I hadn't seen either of the sequels in many years- and I recall not liking either of them-but I had this one laying around and figured I'd give it another chance to see if my opinion had changed over the years. No such luck.

In this third and (thank Christ) final installment in the trilogy-the action picks up directly after the events of the equally stupid second film-with Duane spending some time in a rubber-room after trying to sew him and his deformed Siamese twin brother Belial back together. The brothers are re- disconnected during Duane's incarceration-and he is eventually released. Granny Ruth (from part 2) takes Duane to a friend's house with the rest of the freak-show brood to await the birth of the spawn resulting from the union of Belial and his girlfriend Eve. When a duo of bumbling cops kill Belial's girlfriend and kidnap his 'kids'-he doesn't take it too kindly, and exacts some splattery revenge...

Granted-there are a (very) few scenes in this entry that are mildly amusing-but not enough to call BASKET CASE 3 enjoyable on any level. Honestly-I found both sequels to be retarded, un-funny, and frankly, unnecessary. When the series moved into straight slap-stick territory-I completely lost interest. I still respect Henenlotter a great deal for his early contributions to the B-movie horror world-but both of these sequels just straight-up suck in my book...3/10",0 "**Possible Spoilers** Requiem is probably my personal favorite season finale. Unsure if the production would continue for more seasons, this finale was written in such a way that it could act as the series finale. Facing financial cuts of the department, Mulder and Scully are obligated to go back to square one 7 years from the beginning of the X-Files, to Oregon. Running into familiar faces strange things pick up with a double twist in both their parts. The last 5 minutes are worth the entire list price for the season set. Mark Snow's score for this stands out beautifully and Scully's last words are also worth the time (and money) spent watching every episode from the season one to this instant from start to finish.",1 "i first saw this movie in the mid 80's as referred by a co worker, and i scoured the TV listings for about a year until i found it, was not available locally on /through video, i thought this movie was fantastic, remember the time frame when it was made. the story contains truth through mostly folklore, as to the speech and language abilities of the actors of the day. even the comedic twists throughout the story, are never seen in todays productions,the production values for the era should be considered in video and cinematography class, again just a classic especially that it's in black and white.i wonder why the American film institute doesn't research these older films and have tribute during awards night, pick them via month of production or anniversary release dates. as a matter of fact i think i'll watch it today.",1 "I had some issues with what I felt were this movie's attempts at achieving emotional extremes through completely unrealistic portrayals of high school students, but overall I felt that the movie's many engaging elements outweigh those negatives. There were also some questionable elements which I think are positive but can't really decide. I'll start with the positive.

The film generally employs a hand-held style of cinematography, which I think was a good idea; however, if you are watching it online as I was, this can blend with occasional choppiness to make it look like your whole computer screen is jerking back and forth. You can do hand-held without going the full Blair Witch!

Danielle Panabaker, who plays the lead character Jacey, is exceptional. She really gets into the character, and her performance is compelling throughout. I like the way that Jacey wears glasses at home and contacts when going out -- I don't think I've seen a movie take that much attention to detail. And I don't think I've ever seen actors in her age range sell sex as well as she does in Jacey's brief romantic encounter with Brad. Also, I liked the scene in which she just kind of confusedly visits her teacher. We've all had days like that, where we wind up at the house of a trusted acquaintance, don't really know what we're doing there, and maybe wind up falling asleep on their couch. Clearly a lot of thought went into this screenplay.

The film employs kind of a gradual-reveal style of exposition, in which we don't definitively learn that Charley is Jacey's baby until about a quarter of the way in. It was perhaps hinted at, but it came across as a genuine surprise--somewhat rare today in movies--that we start 5 months into the baby's life.

The slow reveal also applies to the introduction of Brad to the film, which occurs maybe halfway through. What I found interesting was that the film had, up until this point, portrayed Jacey as intelligent and mature for her age. She hadn't really done anything to bother the viewer. But from Brad, we learn that she 1) hadn't spoken to him in several months, 2) nor had she told him about her pregnancy. It serves as a reminder that Jacey, though precocious, is only 16 and capable of erring.

The idea of Jayce's atypical loss of infallibility is emphasized too in the story, by Macey. Moving now into semi-negative territory, I found Macey's going-wild subplot to be more than a little strange, but I guess that the purpose was to show the influence that Jayce's irresponsible behavior had on her younger sister. Anyone with younger siblings may appreciate that subplot, even if its depiction was a little over-the- top.

It was refreshing to see Jane Krakowski in a role outside of 30 Rock. I generally liked her performance, except for her outburst in the first scene at her home, which seemed so overly dramatic that I could easily imagine it being a 30 Rock soap parody with Jenna Maroney cast as a character.

But then there was the high school. Now, things got off to a good start, and I do have to give the movie credit for showing rather than telling: as Jayce first walks the halls of her new school, the camera pans to show the very revealing clothing worn by many girls. After this, however, they dispensed with realism and went a very generically unrealistic route. You can't walk into the restrooms at this school without seeing people either smoking or having sex, making no effort to conceal either act. A dress code is often mentioned but never adhered to. In real life, a dress code violation means that you get into trouble; repeated violations lead to serious disciplinary action. Finger-length shorts, for example, isn't just a recommended guideline: it's a rule, the breaking of which can result in being kicked out of school. For this reason, students generally avoid breaking dress code; when occasional violations occur, they try to be inconspicuous about it, so as to avoid getting in trouble. Paradoxically, it seemed as if the screenwriters could accurately write individual high schoolers (Jacey) but not groups of high schoolers. (A standing ovation? Really??)

Most egregiously unrealistic, there was the the student body's reaction to news that Jayce is a teenage mother. At first, I thought that I was watching either a dream sequence or a Jayce's exaggerated internal paranoia, where everyone was conspicuously and audibly talking about her and, later, THROWING FOOD AT HER. Where did that come from? At what high school do kids start throwing food at someone just because she is a teenage mother? Answer: none. Even less believable considering that Jayce is beautiful and intelligent. I would think that her main problem would be receiving too much positive attention, being courted by lots of guys and worked into women's cliques and power struggles, a la Twilight or Mean Girls. Juno was a bit similar in this regard, as we had to believe that someone as smart, funny, and hot as Ellen Page's character would have only one close friend. Anyway, this was one extreme that I felt was contrived. but like I said, overall a great movie. 8/10 on a general scale, but 9.5/10 as far as made-for-TV movies go.",1 "As far as cartoons go, Scooby Doo is one of the weaker, sillier offerings, so why anyone thought they could make a 2 hour movie out of it is beyond me. What material did they think they were working with?

Anyway, I would never have watched this movie in my wildest dreams, (even with Rowan Atkinson in it!) but my 5 year old son got the DVD. The script is stupid, the acting from Sarah-Michelle Gellar and Freddy Prinze Jr insultingly lackluster and the sexual innuendo ever-present and offensive. For example, at one stage, Daphne (Gellar) makes it safely through a dangerous tunnel and starts half-moaning 'Oh yeah! Oh yeah!' If you closed your eyes you could be listening to 'Debbie Does Dallas'! I'm not the sort of puritanical parent that flips out if my kid accidentally sees someone's bum on screen or something, but one thing I am getting sick of is Hollywood making kids cartoons into teen/adult soft porn. Kids go to these movies expecting to see a big screen version of the cartoons they like and instead are presented with sticky adult material. My guess is that the producers know there isn't much genuine material to work with, so they just go for the sex card. This may work for the 18 year old guys, but as the parent of a small child it is incredibly annoying.

Overall, the movie was shocking! Badly directed, horrendously scripted and nothing but a vehicle for Gellar and Prinze Junior's US teen appeal. When Sarah-Michelle Gellar came to Australia's Gold Coast to make this movie she complained about the food in the area. Well Sarah-Michelle, I've eaten Gold Coast food and seen your movie, and I know which one I prefer to do!!

Forget this film if you care about not offending yourself!!

I rate it 0/10!",0 "After her promising debut, Love and other Catastrophes, made on a shoestring budget and employing mostly ex-Aussie soap stars, Emma Kate Groghan misfired with this Friends-style ""comedy"" - if you can call it that. While her debut embodied verve and a vitality borne of its low-budget, Strange Planet has the opposite effect, mainly because of its bigger budget. With more money, the sets and photography are better but the acting and story are substandard Home and Away fare with a touch of melancholic romanticism thrown in to evoke quasi-seriousness. The acting is okay at times but most of the actors can't really summon enough gusto to deal with the cliché-ridden script. The film is only really notable for the inclusion of Naomi Watts who coincidentally made the pilot for Mulholland Drive the same year. Visually, the film resembles an ecstasy-induced advert with bright tones and little else. One to avoid.",0 "In the opening of the film there is a scene of a modern steam-powered freight train leaving Calgary, and there the accuracy comes to an end. This film is supposed to be based on the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but it's pure Hollywood hokum. Nobody did their homework. There is the usual shoot-outs, gun battles, renegade Indians, ""bad guys,"" sabotage, and the ""romantic angle."" None of these things happened during the building of the Canadian Pacific; the ever-present Mounties saw to it. In defense of the film it is a typical out-of-the-file story. Not good, but not that bad either. Randolph Scott is good (Randolph Scott was always good!) If you're looking for a Saturday-afternoon-matinée Western, this one will do. If you're looking for an accurate story of the building of the Canadian Pacific, forget it.",0 "Heart of Midnight is a very strange movie, and I mean that in a good way. Broadly speaking I guess it falls within the horror genre, but it draws upon elements from many different subgenres and works on many levels. You can take it as a haunted-house movie, a ghost story, a psychological thriller and a character study rolled into one.

Jennifer Jason Leigh gives a superb performance as Carol Rivers, a fragile and sensitive young woman recovering from a nervous breakdown. When her estranged uncle dies of AIDS, she mysteriously inherits his deserted nightclub and, upon moving in, discovers its seedy past as a ""massage parlour"". From here on in, the story gets darker and more twisted, but suffice it to say that it contains many of the ingredients of full-bore horror: moaning voices in the night, taps dripping blood, secret passageways, beheaded rats, apples that ooze maggots and so on. For much of the film, we're kept in the dark as to whether Carol is privy to hallucinations and sinking into another nervous breakdown, or whether there is actually a dark force living in the empty nightclub with her.

Heart of Midnight is not a perfect film. There are some plot loopholes and the usual budget limitations of a B movie, including a pesky boom mic that dips into the frame a few times. But it makes up for its flaws with a strong visual style and a convincingly claustrophobic atmosphere so thick you could cut it with a knife. Along the way there are several recognizable nods to films like Peeping Tom, Suspiria, The Shining and two Roman Polanski classics - Repulsion and The Tenant.

Jennifer Jason Leigh really gives it her all in the lead role as Carol. She is an exceptionally talented and striking actress, and Heart of Midnight provides the then 25-year-old with a strong early showcase for her talent. Her portrayal of the frail but determined Carol is passionate, believable and always sympathetic. She's a horror-movie heroine of unusual strength and intelligence, which means we really root for her during this often harrowing nightmare. Peter Coyote, Frank Stallone and Brenda Vaccaro all lend decent support, but it's Leigh who makes this dark journey worth taking.",1 "Having some Mexican-Indian blood in me, I've always been interested in what I could read about the Aztecs and Mayans and others. But never did I achieve as elaborate a vision in my head, try as I might, as Mel Gibson has with the beautiful Apocalypto. Is it accurate? I've more than just strong doubts in at least one case, but like all good fiction, it probably tells more truth, despite its inaccuracies, than a dozen scholarly tomes. The movie is engrossing and, even more difficult, plausible and quite evocative. I would have bet any amount of money that this movie was impossible to make. And though some have complained that the film's ending involves an historical inaccuracy, I think there was more than enough reason to put it in.

There's a strong story that reminded me of other Third World folklore I've read, only better. In a lot of ways these people could have been North American Indians, but somehow that's not much of a criticism. And Gibson's recent PR problems only highlighted, for me, how it took an Australian-reared actor to make an exciting film about natives before Columbus. Clearly Hollywood is incapable of even conceiving of such a movie, much less bringing it brilliantly to life. Hollywood has an agenda and very narrow perspectives. It's agenda has no room for illuminating the humanity of non-Westerners, and there's too much relying on the same old set of sensibilities and intuition. I think if Hollywood is up in arms it ought to be because Gibson is making them look inept.

But as to this particular subject matter, there's no doubt in my mind that what fascinates most Anglos about the Aztecs and the Maya is the idea of human sacrifice. Gibson depicts the ritual as having an element of frenzy to it, and he may be right, but what is more convincing to me, at least, is his idea of what a village raid must have been like. His point by point reconstruction is pretty compelling, and I'm quite sure he could make some early American military raids on Indian villages so vivid and unforgettable that grown men would cry. I only hope he does, but as to this film, I would have depicted the human sacrifice with a nod toward a notion most Anglos find completely foreign, namely that these people understood that gain often entails pain, and they were willing to pay the price. Was it really so unreasonable that these people thought God might want them to create pain, and not just endure it, to gain His favor given that life entails so much struggle anyway? That willingness to endure pain clearly survives today, not the desire to create it in others, and that's the only point I would have added to this wonderful film.",1 "Great performances by Madeline Kahn and Edie Falco, as well as the rest of the cast push this fine independent movie. The story revolves around one day on Long Island in the lives of a half dozen or so people, connected by various relationships (family, school, work). From the depressed would-be filmmaker to the talentless, but ever hopeful, aspiring actress the movie finds a way to take you deep inside the characters without really letting you know much about their lives beyond this single day. The eclipse at the heart of the story allows for some great lighting effects on the black & white film.",1 "Poor Guy Ritchie wannabe tells the thin story of gambling addict Laura (Hjejle, in an annoying one-note performance) hooking up with hard-nosed debt collector Claus (Bodnia, a bit more softhearted than usual, but on autopilot most of the time - he should definitely resume working with better directors). Spang Olsen's direction is less incompetent than usual, but with the emphasis less on action this time, the film also suffers from many dull stretches. Nikolaj Peyk's supposedly ""authentic"" dialog is simply not funny. A bunch of good actors are wasted in bit parts (Erik Clausen in particular) and a highly inappropriate soundtrack, as another user mentioned, make for an unimpressive movie.",0 "Two female high school grads plan to get jobs and hang together, but bonds become frayed and paths separate after one of the girls ends up on an unintended journey of self-discovery. From the comic-book which takes a perverse delight in celebrating the geeky side of all of us, ""Ghost World"" is profane and cynical, but also surprisingly blithe and bright. I rather enjoyed it but realize it's not for every taste. Thora Birch and Scarlett Johansson are incredibly rich and vivid in their roles (low-keyed, deadpan, but not blanks); their love-hate friendship is convincing and blessedly free of melodramatics--even they seem to cherish the personality conflicts that come up, it may give them more ammunition. As for the ending, I'm not sure if it's ingenious or a cop-out, but it did leave me touched (in a bemused, nostalgic way). It's a movie with much to offer. ***1/2 from ****",1 "My view on it might be a little basis for the simple fact that I live in rural Wisconsin, about 15 minutes outside Walworth county.

First I was actually offended that they're showing the town it took place in as wide spot in the road where all the woman have to do is whore themselves out, the men beat the women and work of cars, that is when they're not at the bar. The writer/director said in the featurette that he was making it as white trashy as he possibly could. I understand the making of another world to create this film but it had such a bad ring to it.

The movie starts out strong but the pacing for the rest of the film wasn't great. The blatant stupidity of the police with blood evidence and dismissing getting a DNA test was frustrating and wholly unrealistic. The gore was good for the most part, even if a little over done. Some of the lead performances where great but the supporting roles really fell apart. The costume wasn't fantastic but was used effectively.

Over all it wasn't great, I feel like I wasted some time and money. If you're really into werewolf films, I'd recommend it. If you're looking for a scary film, try something else.",0 "I can't say enough bad about this joke of a film. It has taken stereotypes to extremes.

The writer obviously knew nothing about what the War of the States was about, taking only the false premise that it was all about slavery (and nothing else) and expanded on that as the main story line.

The CSA seceded from the USA, not invaded it. The Constitution of the Confederate States also outlawed slavery. Something this film missed entirely. Just to name a couple of inaccuracies.

This actually could have been a fun endeavor had they had not been so biased in their views of what it might have been like. This is worse than a Saturday night live script. And the fake commercials have imaginary products that are so revolting I could upchuck. The entire film in centered on what slavery would be like today in the writer's eyes.

Don't waste your time as even the attempt at humour is sickening.",0 "The thing that struck me most about this program is that meerkats are more interesting than any Big Brother series. It has a distinct Big Brother style situation with cameras situated around a family of meerkats and it follows their everyday movements. The group is dominated by 'Flower'. The voice-over is totally hilarious as well for example; ""Flower has been the only female in the family allowed to have babies, a) because she loves being the centre of attention, and b) because she's a psychopath"" The program is what show like Big Brother and Celebrity Love Island want to be. The show is just a great piece of television, whether its the members of the family sneaking of to a different clan to have a quick nookie or to the young-ones fighting off elders for bits of scorpion!.",1 "You see the names: Robin Williams, Peter O'Toole, Eugene Levy, Rick Moranis. Wonderful actors, and very funny. You naturally assume that you will be spending most of your time rolling on the floor in uncontrollable laughter. Then you make one serious mistake. You decide to actually watch ""Club Paradise.""

This movie is dreadful. It isn't funny; it isn't even close to being funny. You do not laugh. Instead, you struggle - and often fail - to stay awake during this interminable piece of rubbish. I won't even get into talking about the plot, such as it is, except to say that it matches everything else about this movie: it's dreadful.

1/10",0 "** HERE BE SPOILERS **

Blair (Prinze Jr) and Marshall (Lillard) are fighter pilots transferred to the Tiger Claw aboard the freighter Diligent, captained by Taggart (Karyo). They are given crucial information and orders that must reach the Tiger Claw quickly. The Kilrathi has captured a Navcom AI, and can now ""jump"" to the Sol-system and threaten Earth itself. And the human fleet is not in position to defend it. The Tiger Claw must find out what the Kilrathi plans are and delay them before they can jump into the Sol-system. Marshall and Blair, and their squadron of fighters led by Devereaux (Burrows), are central in the Tiger Claw's operations, but they are out-gunned and outnumbered by Kilrathi forces. Some non-conventional methods and tactics must be used and Blairs heritage may be a crucial part of them.

A good sci-fi action with a nice sense in their battles. The myth of the story is nicely involved in the plot and the special effects are mostly good. However, there are a lot of plot holes and/or goofs (many concerning gravity or what should be the absence of gravity). The actors and actresses are good but not stellar, but Karyo however is very good as Taggart. Unfortunately, one must try to ignore all the goofs to enjoy this movie, and it is not all that easy, because there are so many of them. But in my opinion, it was very enjoyable.

7/10",1 "I came across this one by accident at the drug store for $1, and what a bargain! 1940's style animation - (think Casper the Friendly Ghost), with a few entertaining musical numbers. I think it's Bing Crosby doing Gulliver's voice, but didn't see his name on the credits. Some funny Lilliputians, including the King, really make this one fun to watch for the whole family. There are sword fights, and I was really intrigued by the animation for sea washing up on the beach at night. Gulliver is very life-like, replete with the shadows on his features to capture the ""lighting"" of the scene, which I found very striking for the time. Also, I think it's actually released in 1940, according to the credits.",1 "Come on!! For god's sake! IF you cant think of an original idea, atleast make a decent remake!

Only good(being overly generous) thing in this movie is Ajay Devgan. Rest of the cast is idiotic. So is the action. It seems like Ajay Devgan gets a rocket up his butt whenever a bomb explodes nearby!

my rating 3/10. Why three 4 for Devgan's acting + 2 for Neha Dhupia's body + 1 riya sen's exposure + 2 overall things - 6 for Sanjay Kapoor and Arbaaz khan

",0 "The Missionary is a film that tries to be far to clever for it's own good. It attemps to be funny but very rarely achieves it's aim. There are moments that you can see are Pythonesque , and that is more down to the fact that Michael Palin stars rather than the script but over all this film is just...well..Dull. It looks very dated ( even though it is set at the turn of the century ) it looks like it was filmed in the sixties instead of 1982. The story is un-inspiring and ends as it began, with a wimper. Even if you are a Palin or Python fan i suggest you give this a wide birth. I just dont have to much to say about this because it left me bored. 3 out of 10",0 "I can't believe Maury has been on since 1991. The show started off like serious topics and guests like Jerry Springer had started off with before. Now, with Jerry having fights, chairs thrown and Steve and his security team, Maury is now the King of Trash. He has these dumb lie detector tests,paternity tests, cheating men and women and 12,13,and 14 year old want to have sex and get pregnant. I am so sick and tired of some of these trashy shows on television. Montel has Sylvia, Oprah has Dr. Oz and best friend Gayle, Tyra has Janice, Jerry has his Steve and what does Maury have, D. West. This show is a filthy piece of crap, women running away crying like babies and all these men running all over the stage celebrating that they are not the father of their child. Take this show off the air, please.

Nothing but Garbage!",0 "The movie has a horror category.It justifies its horror category via use of dumb dialog, and acting that must be a deliberate spoof,characterization that borders on moronic. The references to the living accommodations were for an apartment but it looked like a motel room.I can't identify one redeeming feature of this movie. If I paid full theater price for this waste of film I would never go to another movie.Watching cartoons would be preferable.I was lucky because the DVD I rented was defective and only about fifty percent of it was viewable. Save your money by not bothering with this piece of junk. Does anyone with movie making knowledge approve of a piece of work before it is released?",0 "There should be a sub-genre in thrilling writing about the stories where somebody stumbles, accidentally, into witnessing a major crime but the perpetrator keeps countering each move with one of his or her own. The reviews on this thread keep referring to Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW, which certainly is the best known version of this plot, except for one element that is not in that film until very late. A better film to compare WITNESS TO MURDER to is actually THE WINDOW with Bobby Driscoll, Arthur Kennedy, and Paul Stewart.

Difference between WITNESS and REAR WINDOW, of course, is that in the latter film Raymond Burr is unaware of why he is the center of so much attention by the police until he sees Grace Kelly's gesture regarding his wife's ring and the only person who can see it is Jimmy Stewart across the courtyard of the apartment buildings. Then he realizes who has been tipping the cops off about him. But that is about ten minutes before the end of the film.

The situation in WITNESS TO MURDER is almost identical to THE WINDOW. Barbara Stanwyck happens to see a woman being strangled in an apartment near her's by George Sanders. But Sanders (like Paul Stewart in THE WINDOW, notices her and prepares accordingly. He (like Stewart) has nothing to hide when the police (Gary Merrill and Jesse White) show up. He is soon analyzing Stanwyck for them as a neurotic spinster who hallucinates. And he is quite convincing.

The difference between Sanders and Paul Stewart in their comparative film parts is that Stewart killed his victim in an argument over business (Sanders was in a sexual rage). Moreover, whatever one thinks of Stewart's glib and careful killer, he is not getting deeper and deeper into crime out of any political or intellectual views. Put another way: if Bobby Driscoll had not witnessed what happened, but was sound asleep (and Stewart was sure of it), Stewart would have hidden the dead body somewhere, and he and Ruth Roman would have packed up and moved to another city. Roman's loyalty to him would have reassured that there wouldn't have been any problems on that end.

But with Sanders he approaches the situation from a ""spiritual"" side that Stewart would have found incomprehensible. We learn (and it is a point that Merrill finds odd and troubling) that this suave, courteous, and intellectual man is a defender of Nietzche's ""superman"" theories (as twisted by the Nazis) and apologist for the policies of the Nazis in several books. His treatment of his initial victim, and his subtle and continuous persecution of Stanwyck are of a piece (he does not believe such inferior types should threaten him). Towards the end he even intends to make her death appear to be a suicide. Stewart felt Driscoll was a viable threat to his freedom and security, but he never has a speech suggesting the boy was a biological inferior.

WITNESS TO MURDER is a good thriller, but it is not one of the all time great ones. Still it is a worthy picture, the only one where Stanwyck and Sanders appeared in together. So I give it a ""7"" on the scale, recommending it as an interesting version of the hunted turned hunter genre of thriller.",1 "If BRINGING UP BABY has rapid-fire dialogue and one crazy scene after the other, HIS GIRL Friday goes even faster and is 10 minutes shorter. A story not that un-similar to THE PHILADELPHIA STORY which deletes the scatterbrained socialites in favor for a gritty, urban setting, Cary Grant is fantastic in his role as Walter Burns as he tries to win back his wife Hildy Johnson (an equally brilliant Rosalind Russell in full comic mode) by literally throwing her back into what she -- deep down -- loves best: reporting and the breakneck lifestyle that comes with being in front of the news. These two are on camera often, and their dialogue together is like a frenzied waltz: trying to follow every exact word, gesture, and snarl is quite a task, boy, does it sizzle! What a shame that this wasn't up for any awards, as this could have easily won in acting categories. Completely ahead of its times, this is an interesting view on feminism thirty years before the term became public knowledge, and if one listens closely, a study in verbal sexual interplay. Which shows that making Hildy Johnson a woman was the best decision a director could ever do to enhance a story.

A remake of an earlier film (THE FRONT PAGE, 1931), itself a film version of a 1928 play, HIS GIRL Friday was remade again as THE FRONT PAGE in 1976 and yet again in 1988 as SWITCHING CHANNELS, with Kathleen Turner nicely holding up in her portrayal of the role that cemented Rosalind Russell as a skilled comedienne, this time set in media TV.",1 "This is one of those movies that as itself is a gem. For those that have seen it, and ""want to know more"" I HIGHLY recommend getting the book the movie was based upon. The movie is like a ""Cliff's Notes"" version of about 5 chapters of the book!!!

Only complaint was that I think it was a bit TOO vague on the missionary selection process in the beginning of the movie - but did a great job avoiding the ""dogma"" aspect and staying true to the story.

Two thumbs up (even if their my own).",1 "When I saw the very first trailer, I was already sure that this film wasn't going to be one of my all time favorites. I went into the movie with rather low expectations, but still i came out totally disappointed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a raging fan of the original books, to be honest I've never read one... I don't even who who the hell this Lemony Snicket is (and after watching this movie, i don't even care)!

So, I'm not saying that it is a bad adaptation, I'm saying it is a BAD FILM.

Right after the film boosts off, we can hear the gentle voice of Jude Law whining annoyingly about some kids, we don't even know yet. You better get used to this whining, because mostly that is gonna be what you hear during the rest of the movie. Then we finally meet those kids. Two little boys, a bit elder sister, with their mommy and daddy. Mom and dad dies right away, so the kids dig up their relatives all around the world, and ask them, to take care of them children. All of them answer ""Yes! Gladly!"", but the evil Count Olaf kills them one by one, to get his hands on the kids' legacy. Just when this monotonous method gets very tedious, the movie ends, and you can watch some very well made cartoon end credits (surely they wanted to make up for the rest of the movie).

What the hell was this all about??? Who the hell were those kids, and why should we, or that Lemony Sicket guy care about them? And who the hell is Lemony Snicket, and why is it necessary for him to whine during the whole movie? Why should I sit through a movie, which has NO ENDING?

This movie is a miserable attempt to ride the waves of the adaptation-frenzy.

That's it. And the most unfortunate event about this movie, is that it succeeded somehow. I could tolerate all the stupidity, and dumbness in the movie versions of Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, but in this case they failed to put together a standalone movie.

Even more unfortunate, that some of the staff really tried. Techincally, the film looks marvelous. The costumes, the scenery, the colors, they all come together really well, and we can see the hard work in it (I don't understand though, why a story with basically NO wondrous elements should get a so out-of-this-world scenery). I feel pity for this group of the filmmakers, for having to take part in a mess like this. They deserve better. Better than the director, the writer, and the main actor in this movie. Yes, I'm talking about Jim Carrey.

I can't see why most people melts down from the performance he does here. It's hysterical. Count Olaf in Carrey's role is a raging idiot, with no real character, and a stupid fake beard.

As far as I know, there's no attempt to make a sequel, so this movie remains a torso forever. A money-monging pile of crap. But if a sequel comes around soon, I'm sure it wouldn't be more either than an attempt to feed some fat producer.",0 "This movie was.... interesting. It was overall quite novel, but it suffered from a couple of draw backs.

The first is that while the alien female cast is definitely attractive (and I am not saying the human cast isn't), but it appears as if someone had instructed them to try and act seductively while playing a part and they just end up coming across like the actors in the crappy porn movies my flatmates used to find amusing. This is generally OK, but it really gets annoying in some places.

Also, if you were hoping for a ""Species"" or an ""Invasion of the Body Snatchers"", you will be a little disappointed. The storyline in most places is fairly obvious, although there are a couple of features which make it different enough to make the film not a complete waste of time.

Other than this, the special effects are certainly fair, the acting is decent (barring the notes above) and it's definitely watchable. It might not be a movie I would recommend to others as one to search out and watch, but if you have some time to kill or it's on TV there are a lot of other movies that are way worse than this.",0 """Doc Hollywood"" is an excellent film and very well done. The comedy is very good throughout the film and the characters are all very interesting. I personally, love small towns like the one depicted in the film.

The cast in this film is very good as well. Michael J. Fox is excellent as always and rakes in a good amount of laughs in the film. Julie Warner is an excellent love interest for the film and looks fantastic in the film. Bridget Fonda looks better than ever and does a great job acting. Woody Harrelson does a fine job with his role, and plays a particularly interesting character. David Ogden Stiers plays a very likeable town mayor and does an incredible job with his role. The rest of the supporting cast is very good as well. Director, Michael Caton-Jones, adds another fine film to his list of films.

I also feel I should mention the music in the film. I thought all the music was very likeable and very good choices. I especially like the title sequence and the song (I have no idea who the song is written/performed by).

This is just a feel-good, fun movie. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone that likes stories about the small town lifestyle and romantic comedies. I hope that you enjoy the film as much as I did. Thanks for reading,

-Chris",1 "The rights to this film were rescued from Disney. I dread to think what Disney would have done with the book. Thank goodness they never tried it!

This book was one of my favourites, so I went to see the film in fear and trepidation. I needn't have worried. It is a beautiful film in its own right. Nothing was overstated. The emotions and nuances were captured perfectly by some wonderful performances, without the need to spell everything out in black and white.

Please see this film. I haven't enjoyed anything so much in ages.

",1 I couldn't stop laughing in this one. I thought the eye candy in this movie was awesome. Only problem I have is....I can't find a place to buy it on DVD. Probably a bunch of stick in the mud critics hated the movie....and the producers did feel it was worth trying to sell. What a shame.,1 "This so called movie is the dumbest thing i've seen. Jeeze Barney the Dinosour is better then this and that is a shame! All the actors were so fake! Of course of how MTV is they had to put sex,and nudity in it. I don't think THAT even made it interesting, it just made the movie even dumber then it is! Plus the filming work was terrible because at times it looked like the way they film in the real world series' which doesn't have that movie affect but then at times it did. Well honestly all I can say is that on a scale from 1 to 100 on the bad scale I would give it 120 or more.",0 "This is a good film from a number of viewpoints, including intellectual, visual and emotional, and it even has an intriguing plot line. Effective and smooth use of flashback allows the movie great latitude. I enjoyed it and recommend it.",1 "Who's bright Idea was it to make Harry Potter 6 as awful as what I just saw in the movie theater? They basically turned a great book into a PG rated Nightmare. I understand they want to make money but after watching this movie I want 2 things back. The $10 I spent on the ticket and the 2 and a half hours I had to spend in that theater. I understand about time and not trying to make another titanic length movie, but adding stuff that has not meaning for the 6th's book, Taking out a key point: the battle at the end, that what give this movie their WTF moments. I mean who goes to a school and just blows up the hall, please! I also don't remember Hargats house being set a flame. This movie was a study in what not to do as a script writer. I mean was I the only one that wondered who the heck was the big guy that they featured when looking at the death eater yet never told you what he's purpose was. I think the script writes should get on their knees and apologies to us all for this trash. This makes me fearful of what they plan for book 7, which they are cutting into 2 movies. If either one of them is PG I'm skipping them. over 20 people died in book 7 to make it PG would mean that all the fights and all the key points in the movies would be excluded. I can tell you as a fan giving it a 4 was being nice it doesn't rate that high",0 "After the sunsets a great comedy and I think Pierce Brosnans great. Don Cheadle was very poor I think but Salma Hayeks tops were nice. In After the sunset there is too much sex and nudity for the rating I mean eight year olds could go see that and Pierce Brosnan has his shirt off for like half the film. 30 percent of the film is shot of either topless men or women with hardly anything on apart from bra and knickers or a bikini! Sometimes sex scenes make a movie but in this case it just ruins it. The language is great though, not too much swearing but where there is swearing its funny.I love Pierce Brosnan, I think hes cool and the movies cast well. Woody Harleson is good too, he makes the film fuuny. Overall this is a great film, so get tickets and go see it, but a message to all the crew from After the Sunset - next time miss out most of the sex and nudity!

From David Nicholson, Film Critic, Texas",1 "I thought the movie was quite good, capturing the high of being young in big bad wonderful world. The acting was believable enough for me, and also I thought the use of pop (and not so pop) music was done well. As for content, The Beach raises deep issues on how we deal with our own existence, experience, sanity and commitments to other people: there did seem to be more noble purpose than just speculating in the emotions of the viewer. Although many find fault with the film, I think - at very least - it deserves credit for the choice of material, and credit for having brought this material to fruition in the form of a Hollywood movie.",1 "I first saw this film during a one year term as festival director for the Golden Film Festival. I knew the minute I saw it that it was an award winner. I. Michael Toth has created a visually beautiful and thought provoking work that successfully combines the elements of cinematography and drama. The piece is well, conceived, written, acted and directed - imaginative and unpredictable while relatively straight-forward and highly engaging. I am very confident that this film will experience great success, and that I. Michael Toth will go on to make a significant mark in American cinema. If you love independent film, this is one that you definitely want in your collection.",1 "This movie is complete waste of time. Yup. Why? Oh, boy, where should I start? Bad acting? Lousy screenplay? Fact that movie is to late?

Emir Hadziwhateverhisnameisić hated this role, he admitted it in some news interview, and that can be easily seen trough this entire move. I even felt sorry for him seeing how much he suffers acting in this movie. I doubt he faked his drinking... He is talented actor, but not even his talent couldn't make him even to try to act. I don't blame him. Sergej Trifunović is giving his best. Which means that he suck. Yup, Emir at least has talent, this poor sob doesn't... Only possible explanation why would anyone even consider him for (any) role is fact that he look like what other ex-YU nations see as a stereotypical Serb. Funny enough, Serbs see him as stereotypical Albanian... Toni Gojanović... is chosen for this role simply because he's Croat... Croatia have much better actors than him (is he an actor at all?), but he does seems to be trying, and since he's a ""newb"", we can look trough his fingers...

Now, take a better look... Bosniak, Serb and Croat... and voilà, you have a generic ex-YU wannabe comedy... and that's it. It tries to look at war and reasons for war trough comedy but it just fail... there is no deep background story, there is no secret agendas, there is no comedy there is no nothing.. Movie was heavily advertised here as ""Movie that put together Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks in hilarious comedy"" and people wanted to see trough Karaula their youths and lives in pre-1991. Yugoslavia, but most of them abandoned theater before end because they have found foreign country and foreign army with foreign people and foreign stories. Something they didn't wanted or cared to see. Macedonia is foreign to Serbs, YPA is foreign to Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats are foreign to Serbs. Famous scene at the end of movie where actors get out on stage and public isn't tapping is clear sign what public thinks about this movie.

I thought that pathetic ex-YU ethnic humor has died in 1991. And it did. This is just zombiefied version if it, and it's not funny. It's sad. Strange thing I find is the fact that only in Serbia this movie was advertised like this is 1975, like we all live in perfect ""brotherhood and unity"" and that war never happened. Film had financial success in all countries of former YU, except in Serbia, despite big advertising campaign. Movie entered trough big doors, but it exited through back door, quietly and shamefully. This movie is wanting to look back at last moments of Yugoslavia, it is trying to say to us that it's not our fault, that we all were seduced by ""drunken and selfish"" leaders, blah, blah, blah... It could make some point if it was released during 1995; 1996; or 1997; considering that war and Yugoslavia were still ""fresh"" and all... but in 2006, this movie just doesn't make sense...

Legacy of this movie is big. Yup, before this movie, many various EX-YU actors and directors were talking about making some new movies as homage to old partisan films... luckily, this movie showed that it would be just waste of money...

I want my 94 minutes back.",0 """Operation-Annihilate"" is the final episode of the first season. It is an interesting episode for a variety of reasons. I liked how the show takes time to explore Kirk's personal life outside the Federation. More important, the program explores how personal feelings affect commanding choices. Kirk goes bunkers when he finds out his brother was killed by some strange looking creatures. I wished the story would have spent more time on Kirk and his family (his nephew comes aboard the Enterprise) but the original TV series never showed much enthusiasm for that kind of thing. But there are enough glimpses of Kirk's life outside the Enterprise to make the program interesting. A big part of the episode was filmed outside soundstages and the open spaces are a nice touch.",1 "I've been anticipating this film for a while since it is Thora Birch's first role since American Beauty. So, The Hole. The Hole has been hyped up as a horror/psychological film in which 4 students are locked down an old wartime bunker (-the- Hole) to avoid a boring Geography field trip. How does it fare?

The casting is probably the jewel of this film. It's superb. The absolutely stunning Keira Knightley (Sabé from Star Wars Episode I) appears as Liz's (Birch) friend, Frankie. All the rest of the characters are complete unknowns, except the psychologist played by Embeth Davidtz (Matilda, Bridget Jones, Schindler's List), but they all act their parts excellently.

This film really has the British 'feel' mastered. The sets are excellent, the locations are splendid, and the whole 'feel' of the movie is very realistic. The school really does feel like a British public school (A British 'public school' is like a 'private school' in the US.. one where you need rich parents to flash $$$ to get you in). The unnamed pupils seem extremely realistic.

There are only three small flaws with this film. The first is that it doesn't exactly live up to the hype in the British press. I did not find this scary at all, but it was an extremely well done mystery/whodunnit. Horror? Nah, not unless you classify psychological thrillers as 'horror'.

The second flaw is that the transitions between different parts of the film can be rather confusing. Often, the film bounds around past and present shots and be extremely disorienting in places. Unlike Memento, this disorientation is not an advantage. However, at the end of the film, you'll be able to tie all of the parts together and leave feeling quite satisfied with the story (a bit like the film 'Wild Things').

Another minor let down is the music. Totally forgettable, has no place in the film, and it often appears at the most inappropriate times.

I really do hope this is released in the USA soon, as Thora Birch is definitely not to be missed here.. and I think the stunning Keira Knightley is going to be getting some bigger roles from now on, she's definitely earned her stripes here. So, my big question, why has this not been scheduled for US release!?

This is certainly not a Blair Witch Project clone, although this impression has been given by the press. Instead, this is a cleverly constructed and extremely well casted psychological thriller/mystery.",1 "A wonderful, marvelous, funny movie that I watch at least once a year. A true gem-the writing is great, the cast is perfect, and the arch, somewhat affected performances more than do the trick-that's who these people are! Arch, affected, wanna be know it all rich kid snobs whose currency in life is their intellect and class standing. The fact that the action takes place in a few small apartments only heightens the genius of this film-these locations represent the small world in which these young people's lives intersect, in how they dole out their verbiage, how much belonging to a small group of people can dictate the every day thoughts of each member of the gang. The kids have not yet lived enough to be fully forming the opinions they insist upon shoving down each others throats, and the comedy comes from their own inexperience and total lack of thinking other wise. This is like a high brow Breakfast Club, smarter and much more fun for those of us not into stereotype titillation. With out a doubt on of my favorites.",1 "There are so many problems with Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III that I'm not sure where to begin, so I suppose I'll try to limit my comments to the characters. I couldn't have cared less whether the supposed heroes of the movie lived or died. A more unlikable pair do you rarely run across. The guy was a sniveling idiot and the girl had even less personality. ""Kill 'em and kill 'em quick"" was the thought running through my head.

Second, we've got the characters that make up Leatherface's ""new"" family. Who are these people and where did they come from? I would have thought that the Texas Rangers would have completely investigated the Sawyer family and discovered any relative who may have taken in Leatherface after the events of the first two movies. And, are we supposed to believe that the entire extended family is also made up of inbred cannibal serial killers? With a family as large as the one presented in these movies you would think that (even if just by chance) at least one member of the family would have some reservations about hacking up innocent strangers. I almost get the feeling that the makers of Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III would have us believe that everyone in Texas is a nutty, chainsaw-welding maniac.

Finally, there's Leatherface. I'll just say that he's a sad imitation of the original. And I know this has nothing to do with the character of Leatherface, but what's that engraved chainsaw all about? It's a completely ridiculous concept.",0 "This movie is a travesty. As far as sequels go, I thought Blues Brothers 2000 was bad in a 'way too little way too late' kinda way. But, holy sh*t, this was bad. First, it has nothing to offer hockey fans. The film was made by people who don't know anything about hockey. Take the horrible coach characters. The figure skating guy is unbelievable as a coach and totally unfunny as a queer. He ruins the 'hockeyness' of the film. Second, this is a very bad film and should be stricken from the memory of anyone who enjoyed the original ""Slapshot"" or any hockey loving Canadian. Yes, Canadian, Americans couldn't tell the difference between hockey and disco dancing with all those goofy red and blue streaks all over the place on Fox. This is likely why this movie sucked so hard...it was made by Americans. Man I would rather watch the other American Hockey travesties like the idiotic chimp plays hockey film ""Most Valuable Primate"" or even Emelio-chimp in ""D2: The Mighty Ducks"" (yuck!) or even those boring bumholes in ""Mystery, Alaska"" than this frozen turd. This movie sucks the frozen poop out of a dead Eskimo.",0 "How Come Replacement Actress Can Be Look Like Prostitute ? First Movie, Julia Stiles barely wears make-up, and straight short hair.

then when with this movie's opening scene, the girl came out with Wig & heavy make-up with horrible eye-shadows !!! it's one of worst thing, you don't wanna see on sequel, that changes not just the character, the look !!! not just the look, the whole package !!! beside watching lovely, also a little bit uncomfortable looking Luke Mably. this movie just screws, reputation of first movie.

Besides horrible acting and plot. music is unbelievably not suiting with each scenes.

and since when all this drama's story based on power game and politics ? or just trying to copy version of ""what a girl wants"" ?",0 "Compared to the lame horror films that the major studios theatrically release these days, THE WOODS is superior and stands out. It easily deserves a wide theatrical but remains on the shelf for no logical reason. The film is a variation on a SUSPIRIA-type witch story and delivers genuine scares; not the trendy, superficial jarring jumps 'boos' that the reviewer above probably expects. Director McKee (MAY, SICK GIRL) delivers a deliberate pace and gradually building mood and atmosphere. Above all else, THE WOODS is character-driven with real acting! We not use to seeing that in a recent genre film. The photography and 60's period production design is flawless. THE WOODS has the true power to creep you out and you may never drink milk again!",1 "In 1981 whilst visiting California I had a vacant evening. And so free from visiting friends and amusement parks and not wanting to waste the evening looking at four walls of a motel room or watch the novelty of 24hour TV (remember this was 1981 and TV in the UK still closed at around midnight) I ventured out to the local Cinema to watch ""Agency"". From the TV trailers this promised to be an exciting story of the deceitful nature of advertisers who manipulate and lie so as to entice us, the unsuspecting general public towards the products. The trailer certainly worked; unfortunately the movie itself was as far from the mark as I was from home. The whole of the story had already been told in the 30 second trailer and there was nothing added to it. Robert Mitchum's character was not given anywhere near the scope to fulfil the potential that such a Hollywood movie idol deserves and the character of Philip Morgan played by Lee Majors could have been played by any of a dozen or more actors.

To sum up - this is without doubt the worst movie I have ever endured at a cinema. Having suffered the 94 minutes (are you sure it was only 94 minutes - it seemed like an awful lot more to me), the four walls of the motel suddenly began to have a certain attraction - and as for 24 hour TV!!!

If you ever get the chance to see this film do yourself a favour - lock yourself in your house and throw the keys out of the window, tape up your eyes, plug your ears or better still stay in your room and look at four blank walls. The overall effect is the same but without the hassle and expense of going out.",0 "WARNING SPOILERS: This review is from the point of view of one who would rather we live in a world without Mafias, organized crime, and gangs. From the perspective of crime itself, I can almost admire the cat burgler, the bank robber, or even the pickpocket, whereas I find organized crime to be vile, albeit efficient. Regarding violence itself, I much prefer the old-style, manlier ways of settling scores such as showdowns, brawls, and duels instead of use of hit men, goons, and sub-machine guns, which may keep the ""head"" alive, but which reduces the heart.

In this vein, I found a great poignancy within the usual discomfort I have when viewing gangster films. Tom's assertion towards his end, ""I ain't so tough,"" and his hospital apology to his family, showed me that the filmmakers understood this unmanliness, and that organized crime is about greed and cowardice more than necessity and triumph of will. Mike's lecture to Tom concerning Tom's lack of heart and brain also gives pause, so that (if you agree with the filmmakers) one can define very simply the typical gangster's actions. And there is little in the annals of true-life Mafia activity, whether Italian, Korean, Chinese, Negro, or what-have-you, which overthrows this.

In all honesty, I found James Cagney's character to be over-the-top, in the usual Hollywood fashion (other examples: Joe Pesci, James Caan), and his mobster actions were predictable, for the most part. This jibed well with my disgusted side. On the other hand, Glasmon and Bright (the writers) explore some complicated issues which touched me greatly. This may be due to Bright's first-hand experiences with gangsters.

First, Tom's ""purity"" while in a relationship with Gwen (Jean Harlow). This adult content surprised me, especially for a 1931 action movie, and one of the first talkies. When Jane (Mia Marvin) seduces a drunken Tom, their morning-after becomes not only a surprising slap in the face for all concerned (including the viewer), but also sets up the motivation for Matt's (Edward Doyle) demise.

Second, Tom's relationship with his brother is very provocative. There is the usual macho posturing of right vs. wrong, but there are also undercurrents of gray areas. Who is worse: Tom, for bootlegging, or Mike for petty embezzlement? Tom, for being an enforcer, or Mike, for indiscriminate killing during wartime? Naturally, the case can be made that Mike's heroics pave the way for the free country which Tom enjoys, but this is never explored, merely left to conjecture. Quite pleasing, from both a cinematic and literary standpoint. The content of this counterpoint was present but not overbearing.

Third, there is the possibility that Tom is sexually-oriented in two ways. I'm not in any way trying to foist such opinions on anyone, but it seems to me that Putty-Nose's (Murray Kinnell) butt is awfully close to Tom's face during the pool-room scene early in the movie. Also, why is Tom ""not the marrying kind"" and why does he harbor such obvious distaste for most women? It's certainly not due to his sweet mother, or benign sister-in-law. I'm not FOR these types of references or innuendo, but I merely point it out as possible.

Fourth is the searing commentary on Prohibition itself, and how it was that a combination of governmental and temperance forces allowed opportunity to knock for those with little conscience (even if Paddy {Robert Emmett O'Connor} is made to be an honorable man here).

These, however, are side issues to the film. The action itself is bearable and fluid. The making of the small-time hustler into sweeping gangster is not fully-explored, but merely assumed, and then there is an alternating mega- and micro-look into that crooked world. We see glimpses of thievery, crooked business deals, strong-arm protection and racketeering, cold-blooded murder, and revenge. Then, we are privy to the inner workings of mob mentality, the unbreakable friendships, the gun molls, the hideouts. Little attention is paid here to law enforcement, and the regular Joe and the media are fashioned to be in sympathy with the mobs, a likely by-product of the ""wetness"" which rumrunners brought to those otherwise-""dry"" times.

All in all, I enjoyed this movie, with its many messages, visuals, and vignettes. Cagney is a great actor, although this is not his pivotal work. Harlow is sultry in a minor role. Woods is extremely likable as Tom's compatriot. Joan Blondell brings some of her bubbliness to these drab surroundings. Donald Cook is wonderfully-old-school in his eye-rolling part. Beryl Mercer as Ma Powers also evokes some surprisingly-good emoting.

Overall, I think you will enjoy this.",1 "This tries too hard to be a quirky romantic comedy, but in the end leaves you with just a slightly dirty, creepy feeling about the main character. The movie is rife with illogical leaps, inconsistent characters and a premise that simply makes no sense. This is, unfortunately, simply a Til Schweiger (popular German heartthrob) delivery medium -- the story was written so that he wouldn't have to step outside of the same role he always plays: a smirky, semi-jerk who, in the end, proves he really does have a heart if everyone will just give him a (2nd) chance to show it.

If you really liked Kein Ohr Hasen (a better film, watch it first if you can), then you might like this, but otherwise stay away.",0 "I caught this on HBO back in 1989, and this was definitely meant to launch a television series. Mark Lindsay Chapman plays a reporter who discovers a plot by aliens/androids to begin a conquest of Earth. Unfortunately, he's branded a fugitive when he is caught killing one of the cyborgs who replaced his girlfriend. His trip takes him through California and Oregon, where he learned that while his girlfriend was replaced by an android, others that vanished with her on an airplane flight she was on are still human. The end had him on the run with a list containing the names of all people that were on the flight that his girlfriend was on in an effort to see just who from the flight could remember just what happened. Great premise, though a bit underbudgeted (what could one expect when it came to sci-fi on network tv back in 1986?), and there were many questions that were never resolved. Definitely should have been followed up, since we never learned if Chapman's girlfriend was alive (played by Catharine Mary Stuart) or how he would manage to convince the human race of the threats posed by the aliens. With today's budget, it'd be great to see 'Annihilator' retried. Nice mix of 'The Fugitive' and 'War Of The Worlds'.",1 "Most movie goers who have bothered to rate this, express their chronic dislike of this work due to Howie Mandell's presence herein; however, I must say that he is no more a harbinger of death to this film than anyone else.

The performances found within this film are all adequate, with some better than others, but none were lacking such as to lessen the worth of this production. The dialog delivery was also adequate, but the dialog itself was trite, contrived, and slapstick in its execution. Mandell suffers more from poor direction than a lack of talent. Yes, he was an annoying element of his hey day, but he never outright bombed until this work. Christopher Lloyd is better than adequate, but his usual curmudgeonly charm is lost here. Cloris Leachman's performance is the only contributing factor which elevates this work, but she could not save it, alone.

The story had a good basis which could have netted a great film, but the National Lampoonesque take on the whole premise is the leading contributing factor to this film's demise. The story was watered down and sentimentalized to the point of generating schlock instead of entertainment. There isn't one aspect herein which isn't contrived to suit the story line, including the domestication of the lead character and the time line wherein said domestication takes place.

A young boy is abandoned by his bratling brother and left alone in the wilderness to be raised by wolves. After his rescue, his brother (still a brat) decides Bobo must learn to read and write...immediately! Intrigue ensues.

Had this been treated with more care and a bit more seriously in the right places, this could have been a great comedy, but as is, this one fails on all levels: It does not teach, it does not ponder, and it does not entertain. As it stands, this work does show some serious moments, but they are in the wrong places; the timing is all wrong, and even those with no sense of cinematic timing can feel that the pace is out of step.

All in all? This is nothing but sentimental, contrived schlock, which fails on all levels...though it DOES have heart.

It rates a 3.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.",0 "The lost language of cranes"" is a British TV movie based on the novel by David Leavitt. The problem when you see a movie adaptation of a book you have already read -- and loved -- is that either the adaptation is not faithful and betrays the book, or it is too faithful and just looks like a summary of the story. Very rarely a movie adaptation can remain faithful to the essence of the book but not so literal that it brings nothing new to the story; unfortunately, that's the case here.

It tells the story of a family, the Benjamins, who have lots of secrets. Owen Benjamin, played by Brian Cox, is a closeted homosexual married to Rose (Eileen Atkins). Every Sunday Owen goes to a porno cinema, where he has anonymous sex with men. Owen and Rose's son, Philip (Angus MacFadyen), is also a gay man, but he has no problems with his sexuality. He's very much in love with Elliot (Corey Parker), a young American artist who was raised by a gay couple. The conflict starts when Philip decides to come out to his parents, making his father face his own desire and his mother confront her own prejudice.

The most surprising fact about this British adaptation of an American novel is how little the change of place from New York to London affects the story. Indeed, this adaptation is so faithful to the original that whole dialogs from the book appear on the screen, almost unchanged. And yet, we get to know from the bonus interviews on this DVD that the porno cinema, which plays such an important role in the story, was a real problem in the adaptation because there were no such places in London, due to their laws. So apparently the screenwriter, Sean Mathias, had to ""create"" a porno cinema that never existed, appropriately called ""the Fantasy"".

Among the sacrifices that had to be made for the sake of the length of the movie, the one I most regret is the use of the character Jerene, played by Cathy Tyson. In the novel, Jerene is a full and complex character, a black lesbian student who was rejected by her parents and develops a thesis about languages that are lost forever, like the little boy who, neglected by his mother, learned to communicate looking at the cranes from his window. In the movie, Jerene appears only to explain the title of the film and little else.

If you haven't read the novel, you will find this movie a very interesting drama about a family having to face their hidden secrets, but without ever raising their voices, which is very British! If you already know the book, however, you may feel a little disappointed.",0 "This is got to be one of the best Christmas movie's ever made. Olivia Newton-John and Gregory Harrison do a wonderful job in this movie. I would love to see them in another movie together. They act together as well as Olivia and John Travolta do. I recommend this movie to everyone who love's Christmas movie's. Olivia's real life daughter Chloe is also in this movie and she does an excellent job of acting herself. Chloe and her mother Olivia also star in another movie together called The Wilde girl's which is also a movie to see. I believe Chloe will be starring in other movie's, as she is a good actress like her mother. Those who will watch this movie will by no mean's be disappointed.",1 "I used to subscribe to Toyfare magazine and one of my favorite sections of ANY magazine was ""Twisted Toyfare Theatre"". I always wished they would do an animated show...Then recently a friend asked if I had seen ""Robot Chicken"" because it was ""right up my ally"". What a great surprise!!! Seth Green too!!! Each episode is packed with little skits that is set up like watching T.V. with someone else flipping endlessly through the channels, sometimes sticking to one channel long enough to ""get involved"", and flipping again. Brilliant! Even the split second skits are hilarious. Definitely designed for adults. I would recommend this to anyone that is a fan of The Simpson's, Futurerama, Ren & Stimpy, Southpark, Star Wars, The Smurfs, and SO MANY other shows that Robot Chicken spoofs - It's animated action figures & toys!!! Picture Knight Rider, Dukes of Hazzard, Mario & Wario, Speed Racer & more all racing in The Cannonball Run!!! With Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise doing voice-overs!!! Mario Brothers stumble into Vice City (from Grand Theft Auto) and trade the go-cart for a ""Pimped ride""!! By far the best is when Darth Vader calls the Emperor after the Death Star has just been destroyed - ""what's an aluminum falcon?!"" & ""oh! just build another one - who's gonna finance that-You?!!"" Words are not enough - you just have to see it!!!",1 "It angers me that this movie is out there in a lot of stores, where many people can make the same mistake I did and rent the damn thing. To its credit, it shows promise from the 20- to the 45-minute mark, but then just falls into an incoherent mess. I've read that this was written between takes, which would explain the ridiculous plot twists that appear out of thin air. The only thing that would explain this movie's existence at all is that some rich kid wanted to see himself in a movie, and hired all his friends to be in it. That would also explain why this utter lack of anything of quality has such good distribution. Don't even rent it to see how bad a movie can be: many of you can make better movies than this.",0 "Wonderful story line, great actors, priceless characters. It clearly shows to all the similarities between Greeks and Turks who'd mostly like to think they are different. The ugly side of prejudice, family love, day to day lives of a couple of families with socially different backgrounds that were forced to be joined by marriage and a common grandson are all shown on this sitcom beautifully. The acting is superb, there is not a person that appears on this show that I could claim does not belong. My husband and I anxiously await Friday nights each week to watch it. My husband's father was among the Turks sent out of the Island of Crete many years ago, so he can identify with the Greek family that were forced to leave Istanbu. He enjoys the show from 2 different angles. It is nice to see a situation of this sort under a funnier light as opposed to heavy dramatic flavouring!",1 "One of Surrender's good, early efforts. This is from the same director as Femalien and the two films are pretty comparable in quality. There are several sex scenes all tied around the concept of the main character's trip to a ""virtual reality"" studio. If the technology shown really existed, the company's profits would exceed those of GM, IBM, Coca Cola and Exxon-Mobil combined. :)

A couple of real highlights in the film were the strip club scene and the wet lesbian/three way. But all of the scenes were good.

Given the low price and high quality of the video, this is an easy recommendation.",1 "In my opinion this is, quite simply, the worst series ever made. How it even has the nerve to call itself comedy is beyond me. Maybe, to get swans like Fawlty and Python, you have to go through ugly ducklings like this, but I sure wish we'd never heard of Grace Brothers.

It was part of an unfortunate trend in the UK for shows where you always knew what the first words out of a character's mouth would be, followed by an explosion of canned laughter from what I can only assume was a lobotomized audience. Some have compared it to the 'Carry On' movies and, while there is a superficial resemblance to the worst of them, this series outstrips 'em all by a country mile for sheer unfunniness.

Unbelievably, it was the most popular comedy series on British TV at one time, and ran for a mind-boggling 10 seasons. Eleven too many for me.",0 "A pool hustler becomes a member of a pack of hustlers. He rises to the top, but soon finds himself the monkey in the middle of a match between his boss and a crooked cop.

Freddie Prinze Jr. seems to have a string of bad films lately, with such titles like Scooby Doo, Summer Catch and Scooby Doo 2. But one only has to look at his film credits to see that he hasn't been in a really good movie at all. His career ranges from teen slasher flicks to a poor excuse for a video game adaption. It seems with Shooting Gallery Freddie is trying to show that he's serious now, and that he's left his Scooby Doo image behind. Well, Freddie, I got a message for ya, keep dreaming'

When I first came across Shooting Gallery, Poolhall Junkies rip-off is what came to my mind, but for the sake of an argument, I gave it a chance. After watching it, I still came to the conclusion that it's a poolhall junkies ripoff and a poorly executed one too. The main character here tries to act as if he's cool and slick, but with Freddi Prinze Jr. as your main catch, he's comes off and nothing more then a pretty face who thinks he can shoot some pool. In the final stages of the film, I wanted to cut my ears off I couldn't stand his ""broken nose"" accent. Ving Rhames makes an appearance. All he does is walk around and chew on alligator feet. He actually does nothing in the film, until the climax when he shoots some pool and a gun.

In the film ""Rounders"" Norton has an ace tattooed on his arm, he says that he has an ace up his sleeve, it worked. In ""Shooting Gallery"" they get 8 balls tattooed on their arm, with Rhames on his bald head. It shows that their part of a gang...but it doesn't work. Rhames outfit is comical, you should see it to believe it. The plot is poorly written, and one of those, he was hustling everyone from the start type gigs, completely clichéd.

The pool shooting is quite good, not better then what is showcased in ""Poolhall Junkies"" but good nonetheless. Freddie actually shoots some pool here, nice to see that, but it's obvious that the trick shots are done by someone else. I liked the whole switching of the shooting sides that Freddie does near the end though, I thought that was a neat addition. ""Poolhall Junkies"" has Walken and ""Shooting Gallery"" has Macfadyen. Macfadyen is definitely the highlight here as the drunk, druggie, poolhall hustler. He brings some enthusiasm to an otherwise dead cast. It was nice to see some life pumped into this dead film, but it doesn't last long.

The poolhall lingo consists of what the director has heard and made up. Which is obvious when you listen to other lines such as ""If I'm Lyin...I'm Dyin."" Some characters names, if you'd like to hear are Paulie the Pawn and Cue Ball Carl. What's with the random words appearing on the screen? Poolhall lingo? Purpose to the script? It was distracting and adds nothing to the experience except confusion and dread.

Skip ""Shooting Gallery"" unless you want a headache from poor acting and a clichéd plot. ""Poolhall Junkies"" this is not. Unless you're a massive fan of pool, check out something else.",0 "Absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen. I rented it for my family because the guy at the video store recommended it. He said it was such a good film. I don't know what he was thinking. Normally, when a movie is bad, we turn it off, but this one we watched just so we could tell everyone how bad it was. I recommend that you waste your time to watch it.",0 "It is a shame this is based on a true story. I bet the real story would be so much more interesting. I felt no symapthy for anyone in this movie, except a little bit of concern for the boy. There was very little sensitivity throughout the entire movie. I was shocked at the approaches everyone took toward an obviously traumatized boy. It ocurred to no one that finding a young boy murdered might damage the kid? And that they tried to reteach him how to talk, as if he never knew how, instead of finding the root of his distress! Thrusting him into environments where he was subject to taunting and torture, without a voice to fight back, apalled me. And that everyone seemed to blame the troubled child without concern for his obvious distress. I bet the story could have been told better. I hope the real story hasn't been tarnished because of an inadequate portrayal of it in a TV movie.",0 "But who would have known that in 1992? There are enough comic moments to make this show worth watching but not more that twice. I would have thought that it would be a little funnier but the jokes made about Valley girls or girls in general not only ring false, but are almost trite.",0 "Neat premise, some nifty acting by Dorff and especially Reece Whitherspoon, but unfortunately, this film takes itself WAY too seriously to be taken seriously. This would have made an excellent comedy, and the talent was there in the two leads. Instead, it takes an interesting, original premise and turns it into a preachy borefest. With a lead character like Dorff's, one would assume there would be a little old fashioned, punk rock humor to the proceedings. If I wanted to hear a sermon, I'd start going to church or reading Noam Chomsky (the obvious inspiration for some of this film) books again. Truly a pity, because this could have been a great film.",0 "It is hilarious to see a detective trying to work while fighting extreme obsessive/compulsive behavior, as well as germaphobia strong enough to merit using anti-bacterial wipes after every handshake. While these tendencies sometimes take center stage, the writing is well-balanced and touching so that it becomes a very enjoyable comedy/drama and not a ridiculous farce. Entertaining and engaging for just about anyone!",1 "I watched this after taping it from an episode of IFC Grindhouse. It was so boring that I could barely stay awake watching it. Maybe it was because I have never smoked pot and never will that it didn't work for me on any level. It wasn't effective as propaganda or unintentional camp. I fast-forwarded it at some points just because I wanted to get to the ending.

Aside from the fact that I have never smoked pot and never will, maybe the fact that I saw it 72 years after it was made would explain why I found zero entertainment value. I applaud Dwain Esper for his hard work keeping the movie Freaks out of obscurity, but this movie just stunk.",0 "Last night me and 3 of my friends were kind of bored, and i was going through my friends dvds. I came across this huge box set called ""night terrors"" or something like that. i picked it up and read on the back of the box, the titles of movies. At the end of the list of like ten movies there was this ""Sorority House Vampires"". I read the tag line aloud which said ""death, demon's, and D-cups"". We said lets watch it it can be like stupid funny (like the time we watched ""the divine secrets of the ya-ya sisterhood"" and ran around screaming YA-YA all night) well we put the DVD in and sat back. The first thing we saw was this freakin Chinese lady that was naked (she had pretty big boobies for a Chinese lady)she was dancing to rock music for like 10 min for the opening credits. I said ""What the hell this is retarded"" but we stuck it out like men. The rest of the movie was this weird vampire whore sucking peoples blood.

If you and your buds are looking for a movie with great T&A this isn't the one. I does have some but its not too great.

If you are looking for a compelling thriller, this isn't it also. it shouldn't even keep a couple of stoner's attention

So the only reason you would want to see it if you're a total goth and your looking For some tasteful goth porn",0 "Grandiose soap opera drama (isn't life a big soap opera?), beautifully acted, photographed, scored, written, directed. It features incest, pre-marital lust, a teen with a domineering mother, suicide, illegitimate children, murder, more. Lana Turner gives her best performance ever, minimizing any annoying postures, heading a mostly noble ensemble cast, with the possible exception of Lee Phillips, handsome as the small town's new principal, but somewhat grating in character. Diane Varsi, as Turner's daughter is also the narrator, occasionally brilliant, but somewhat monotone in voice. Hope Lange is superb, along with Arthur Kennedy, Betty Field, Mildred Dunnock, Leon Ames, Russ Tamblyn. The New England locations are stunning in Deluxe color Cinemascope, set to a stirring, symphonic soundtrack. The setting is 1940s before and after World War II, but it's most definitely 1957, via the costumes and hairstyles. Based on a bestselling book, and supposedly toned down a bit, the picture was a huge hit for Fox, spawning a mediocre 1961 movie sequel and a highly watched 1960s television series. But don't miss the original classic!",1 "I happened across this film on the 'World Movies' channel, coincidentally the day after I read Murakami's story (in 'Blind Willow, Sleeping Women'). I really liked the story. So much so that after the first half-hour of the film, I was reading it again, trying to use the book to block out the TV screen. What is the point of this movie? Wait, movie? It isn't really a movie at all, if your requirements for movies go beyond 'being on film'. This is a children's picture-book version of the story. This is the movie's process: Recite the story, almost verbatim, and play tracking shots ad nauseum over the monologue, showing banal instances of what the monologue is saying. Tony and the girl move in together? Lets show her pouring milk! Wife obsessed with clothes? Lets show her wearing clothes! Hell, lets show her, in consecutive tracking shots, wearing SEVERAL DIFFERENT outfits! That'll really drive the point home, that she's a clothes addict. Oh, and don't forget to have a lonely, melancholy piano constantly playing behind the monologue. Because everything's GOT TO BE MELANCHOLY! AND LONELY! God knows we've got no possible other way to convey that, besides the monologue. What do you think we are, filmmakers?!

However, I have advice for the director: Go back to 'Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman', and try to adapt 'A Poor Aunt Story'. If you can manage to do that one in the same way you did this one, I'll chain myself to the Eureka Tower, and refuse to come down until you've won the Golden Palm. I have advice for potential viewers, too: The story is just over 20 pages long. You can read it in a quarter of the time it would take to watch this slide-show/movie. And it's even got some humour in it, too. Not everything has to be MELANCHOLY.",0 "The movie is full of ugly women who are supposed to be hot, and nudity scenes where there aren't any female full frontals, but hairy weasel man-ass. Some of the gore is okay; there's a few scenes where a dude or two suffers genital injuries during oral sex, but the camera cuts to the dudes facial expressions of pleasure then pain, and then the chick spitting blood. Also there's a scene where a characters head is decapitated by an electric drill.

The movie's about this wannabe satanist, who gives incantations to Satan while sitting at his bedside wearing his Def Leppard t-shirt, then dreams of this ugly chick who is supposed to be Satan incarnate, or a succubus. Later, this evil horse faced succubus crashes his girlfriend's-sister's lame sorority party of eight people. Most of the film the power is out.

Not in the least bit entertaining. Wash your dishes instead.

The VHS cover's a laugh though, it says that is was too gory for TV, that's why it went straight to video-- yeah, try to prop up that fragile ego of your's Mr. Filmmaker.",0 "This film is an excellent Aussie comedy, loosely hung on the frame of an outback romance. I hadn't seen it for years, but it was (finally) released on DVD in June of 2009 so I raced out and got a copy. I'm pleased to say that viewing it again it is as good as I remember it. If you have a friend with a big screen, watch it on that, the scenery is to die for .

I am so glad that this film is finally available on DVD: http://www.umbrellaent.com.au/products/show/3/1188 Harold Hopkins and Colin Freils are great in this, a real showcase of Australia, anyone is bound to enjoy it. There are 3 clips available in the national archives here: http://aso.gov.au/titles/features/buddies/",1 "This was Al Pacino's first box office success of the 1980s. In 1983, ""Scarface"" came out and didn't do much business - the critics took a beating on it and Pacino's career suffered quite a deal throughout the decade - ""Cruising,"" ""Revolution,"" and ""Author! Author!"" didn't help much, either.

""Sea of Love"" transformed everything for him. It was a success financially and (somewhat) critically, and it helped him get more roles in the '90s.

Looking back now, in 2005, it still holds up as entertainment, and sleazy entertainment at that, but the ending is too routine, insulting and oh-so-typical of the genre; it's the ""trick 'em at the end"" leg-puller where the murderer is revealed to be the most stupid of characters and you can't believe the film's ended on such a low note.

The rest of it is actually pretty good. Pacino delivers an unusual performance as a socially and sexually awkward cop who meets a murder suspect (Ellen Barkin) and falls for her, only to realize she may be targeting him next.

""Basic Instinct"" got away with copying a lot of this a couple years later, but I prefer ""Sea of Love."" It's erotic and sleazy and entertaining without resorting to cheap tactics like full-frontal nudity. Then again you do get to see Ellen Barkin naked and that's never a bad thing.

The movie focuses on its characters, and I liked that. I just wish the ending would have been up to par with the rest of the production.

It's an entertaining movie, but don't expect anything of substance.",1 i was very surprised that this film was as good as it was. it had some amazing effects like a guy getting his leg cut off and charlie (who was a very very cool guy) gets shot in the belly with a shotgun a couple of times and you see a massive hole in him. the final sewer scenes were great as was the bit with charlie in the market place. very good film.

7/10,1 "I kept waiting for this movie to begin and then the credits began to roll. I was very disappointed, especially with stars John Travolta and Sean Penn working together.",0 "Paul Anderson's vision of a movie does not go hand-in-hand with originality of an idea. Mortal Kombat was pretty good (hated the PG-13 rating though). Resident Evil was just okay (rated R but just didn't have the feel). Now, we get Aliens Vs. Predator. Ever since watching the Alien and Predator films from the 80s and 90s, I was expecting something like this. Also reading the Dark Horse comics of these two rival foes was exciting. But, this movie did not live up to the standards of the previous films or the comics. I admit though, some elements did take place, but couldn't make up for the movie as a whole. So, what do we get? A simmered down version of our two favorites slapped with a PG-13?!! Fox should be ashamed. The movie had a cheap, rushed feel to it. Both franchises weren't done justice. Where are the marines? What happened to the fight on the other planet? This movie needed more time and possibly another director (James Cameron or Ridley Scott perhaps).

I'm not going to comment on the acting that much because this isn't a movie where dialog is superior to anything else in the movie. The two that really stood out were Sanaa Lathan and Big Boss Hogg Lance Henriksen (still going!!). Sanaa has strong standings to become a great actress. I wish her success in the future. Some of the dialog in the movie was laughably cheesy and unnecessary. Raoul Bova did alright too, but the rest of the cast was just there for the Alien and Predator killing satisfaction.

The CG effects in the movie were good and didn't throw the movie off at all. As a matter of fact, CG and some of the fight sequences saved the movie from being a big disgrace to the fans. The predator cloaking was great, and their weapons look more updated from the previous two predator movies. The editing was horrible though. Every time an Alien or one of the predators kill the scene was cut, and I mean CUT!! For those who haven't seen the movie, you will understand why a R rating needed to take place. A fight scene that took place in a chamber, between a predator and an alien, was badly edited. The camera was too shaky, and the lighting was displaced. Also, the slow motion BS is annoying. Besides the flaws, some satisfaction came out of the sequences.

Important: The predator should have been portrayed as being more agile and versatile in combat. The aliens should never get the upper hand unless the predator is outnumbered or wounded (READ THE DARK HORSE COMICS OR WATCH THE PREVIOUS MOVIES!!).

Overall, this is soaked down to just a decent popcorn flick. I hope that the dvd will acquire a R rating and add more valuable scenes to the movie. The theatrical version just doesn't cut. I wanted to see this more than Spider-Man!! Paul Anderson and company (FOX!! AARGH!!) let me down and also losing respect from me. Hope the sequel takes another turn (also possibly another director) and gives the fans a movie that we deserve.

Final Judgement: **/****

",0 "The final series, this time focusing on WWI. Part of what makes this one work so well is that they point out the negatives of war, especially the more traditional battles, so marvelously; the officers are devoid of a sense of reality beyond their comfy chair and desk, the assignments all contain the unwelcome promise of certain and meaningless death, boredom is rampant during a lot of the waiting, and the front runs out of supplies and the substitutions... you don't want to know(not sure why they felt the need to go into such detail about it, much less have so many of that type of jokes, but I digress). Melchett returns, as a stark raving mad superior, adopting the obnoxious, loud behavior of Laurie, and the two, individually or, better yet, together, lead to many an eye-rolling, funny and memorable moment. McInnerny is back, and going by his wish to avoid being typecast as the innocent, and remarkably stupid, Percy, he instead is cast as a slimy rival to Edmund, with the unbelievably(though based on an actual poor bugger) unfortunate surname of ""Darling"", creating an utterly hilarious running gag. This has a fantastic main group. The verbal, clever, British material is still going strong, immensely so, and this holds numerous of the greatest lines of the franchise. Satire is also magnificent in this, and it comments on more or less every aspect one could think of, relating to the period and situation. The plots are interesting, well-written(as really everything in this) well-thought out, and rather surprising. Acting is all great, and the guests are impeccable, including the always spot-on Richardson. Blackadder himself isn't downright depressing as he was in the third, which is not to say that the bite and snark that we do love so are gone, not by a long shot. Every episode is excellent, and the ending of the final one is beautiful. The comedic timing is flawless. There is silly stuff, in-between the wit. Almost all of it garners deserved laughs. I recommend this warmly to any fan of these shows, Atkinson and this type of humor. 8/10",1 "This movie is a great thriller. The story is really coll and good actors portraying it. It was scary with the kills even though it had slasher movie kills the plot kept you guessing who it was instead of knowing it's some guy from a lake with a hockey mask and no life. Watch the movie and you'll get what I mean when i say ""A one man movie"".",1 "I love debate shows, the original Crossfire remains the best, this one is like crossfire on crack, before they put Crossfire on crack and killed the show.

This isn't a royal PBS debate show, this is political entertainment, which gets to me after a bit. They really don't take the time to get to the issue and only are interested in letting the guest spout off to each other. But, unfortunately that's the way ""news"" is these days.

I'm very Conservative, but Hannity gets to me. I guess it's his debating style. ""What about President Clinton?"" he always spouts off regardless of what the issue is. I do agree the debates a better when someone else is hosting the ""Colmes"" spot.

But I'm perplexed, and extremely amused, by the hate filled comments here. Claiming because a show has a rightward tilt somehow it is an indication of a Neo-Nazi take over of America. You can say Colmes is weak, or Hannity is a blowhard, but wishing Hannity death, or blaming this show for ""brainwashing"" America is intellectually weak.

BTW: Bring back Crossfire CNN!",1 "'Sorry Wrong Number' is an exercise in how to ruin everything that worked in a tightly-written 22 minute radio play, via its transformation into a hideously-padded 90 minute movie. The play was so short as to defy the need for a star but the movie is seen as a chance to sell you Barbara Stanwyck. The idea for the play just didn't have 90 minutes in it.

The play built tension by confining listeners along with the invalid protagonist in her bedroom, which rapidly became a cage. Unfortunately it was expanded every which way until the clean machinery of the play is convoluted beyond recognition with plot, plot, plot as far as the eye can see; and secondary characters of no importance whatsoever talking the life out of things. We cut away from the room dozens of times for equally meaningless developments. There's an nightclub floor show. There's a secret chalet on a beach introduced with a clam-digging scenario. There's a chemistry lab, car trips, intrigue, sub-plots… Expanding the play just loused the whole thing up. None of it is of any quality.

It's all pointless elaboration of the weakest variety; it has no effect on the outcome. Stanwyck is just plain wrong for the role. You want to see an excellent confined, single-set movie? Rent Rear Window. This is very confused, very limp movie. A model of efficiency converted into a showcase of deficiencies.",0 "I wanted Chad to get his just desserts and he didn't. I know. But I want to see the downfall of people like Chad. But in real life they do exist and they do achieve. And they are truly heartless. Many CEO's wear this same tag. Power and control and as long as I come out on top, the others be damned.

I am tempted to exercise my writing abilities and pen a script where Chad literally goes to Hell. That is what he deserves. That is where he belongs. And yes, Howard ,the weakling, right along with him.

I gave this a 9 out of 10.",1 "I was eager to see Pinero, liking the actor Benjamin Bratt. I thought it might be similar to other Hispanic themed films, like 'Before Night Falls', or 'The Sea Within' - both films that I enjoyed.

Unfortunately, that is not the case here. The film falls short on several levels. I thought Bratt overacted, more times coming off like a swaggering quasi-cool Hispanic Matthew McConaughey (and I don't think we need another one) rather than a 'street wise' urban poet.

His Pinero character does not have one shred of likability to him, and his art apparently does not age well, for I found the poetry he created somewhat shopworn. Like others, I could see no real reason that this guy was an important character or artist, or why exactly he was a 'New York sensation'.

The directing style was also confusing. It's probably just me, but I was sometimes not sure what decade I was in, what action was being 'staged', and what was actually happening in real time. This jump cut editing also seems a bit dated as well.

In short, I still like Benjamin Bratt (not that he needs an endorsement), but I did not find this to be a good film.",0 "This is one of the most unique films I've ever seen, and I'll probably remember scenes from it till the day I die. Beautiful photography? Check. Non-linear plot line and weird storytelling techniques (talking to the audience, language mixing)? Check. Haunting soundtrack? Check. Black humor? Definite check. Some of the most bizarre erotic scenes ever filmed outside of porn? Oh yeah. A mix of utter revulsion and sensuous, wayward eroticism. Certain morsels of cinema that's classified as seriously weird by most run the risk of being weird for weirdness' sake; I'm happy to say that this is not one of them. Everything adheres to the film's internal logic, which would be my biggest criticism of movies that are considered 'out there'. Goes without saying this is not for the faint-hearted. A serious, deranged noir poem, one I will relish springing upon friends without any forewarning.",1 "I was a bit put off by some of the negative comments, but it is always interesting to then view a film which is praised by some and despised by one or two. As is often the case, the negative views turn out to be more a reflection of personality rather than of serious critical scholarship.

Putting together this film was hardly a snap. There are only a handful of survivors still alive and living in central Europe, and some refused to appear in the film. I think the film-makers were very successful in capturing the essence of the homosexual experience during the Nazi times and beyond, as reflected in the footage they obtained from the six or seven survivors who were willing to share their stories on camera.

We really don't need any more ""education"" on Nazi legal machinations or conditions in concentration camps. We ARE interested in the experiences and emotions of these particular people, to see them and hear them, before they are swallowed by the inexorable march of time. The film performs this invaluable service and does it well.

The interviews are interspersed with a general historical summary of events and their effect on the gay community in Germany during the years between the two great wars, and later on. Yes, these parts may resemble a special on the History Channel. Nothing wrong with that!

All in all, a very professional job and a solid achievement.",1 "Please please do not put your self through this two hours of rubbish!! Do not get drawn in by the promises of sex, drugs and violence. Really really really really bad movie and cleft lip man (Tom Burke) is a terrible actor.

This sums this movie up perfectly

""Before I saw Donkey Punch, I was somewhat tolerant of British film. Now I feel inexplicable anger that such raging self indulgent sh*t can still make it onto the cinema screen. The world will shun this movie. There will be mass concessions of people collecting around twenty foot holes dug in the Sahara desert, just so they can symbolically bury the DVD release. """,0 "Bad acting. Bad storyline. Bad special effects. This movie was a disaster. I love vampire and zombie just as much as the next guy, but this movie sucks. The thing that i hated most was the stupid voice over. Some guy trying to push the boundary on how low his voice can go while recording it on a phone. I also hated that the acting was about as convincing as the acting done in my ninth grade drama class. This low budget film is the lamest attempt of a vampire movie I've ever seen. if u wanna watch a vampire movie watch blade. The guys that made this shouldn't quit their day job. I think rapid fire production (the people that made this) should really think if this is their true calling.",0 "I watched meanwhile returning from a night out - a bit drunk to be honest-, and found at the beginning amusing it's use of pyrotechnic camera tricks at first, but in a few minutes becomes just plain annoying replacing ideas and emotions with cheap gimmicks, besides the script reeks stupidity and Mexican high-class prejudices ( especially in the central characters.

The seduction process it's just plain nonexistent and boring at best, the actor portraying Ulises has really nothing special in him, he's neither minimally good-looking, buoyant, charismatic or edgy he's just plain ""cute"" and to be honest that sucks in & out the screen, the same goes for the leading lady., she's pretty, but any person who has been in the mall, depicted in the movie knows that more dashing girls can be found there.

The ""romantic"" parts have as much emotion as an infomercial, besides the girl would end death, they could have easily break up, and Ulises end up lamenting her abandoning, just by being boring.

The ""villains"" are all flat images, saying and doing supposedly threatening things, but end up just padding the film.

And as for the director's daughter, who told her she has screen presence?, the only thing she does in the film, in her film career is being an insipidly annoying spoiled girl, the scene in which she vomits summarizes his presence in Mexican cinema very well...",0 "Very well may be one of the worst sci-fi films of all-time! The cast is ridiculously stupid. The effects are laughable. Cool nudity, but I can buy magazines for that. Has anyone noticed the monster here is a genetic mutation, thereby negating the title? Space Maggot forces a 1, and prays there are no sequels.",0 "The movie has a crazy touch. The cutting may sometimes be a little confusing, but it serves the purpose. I did not know what to expect when I started looking. Was this a dark, depressing thing or a comedy? It was something of both. It was very fun, but still it had a serious and solid base. Why is a bad guy bad? Can the tough guy never get a nervous breakdown?",1 "This film is a drive-in classic! It is exactly what a low-budget movie should be: never boring. It has it all: broads, guns, bloodshed, redneck preacher-gone-bad. Lynda Carter and Belinda Balaski are the standouts in the cast, primarily when they cast off their duds! I can't wait until this comes out on DVD! It will be a proud edition to my library.",1 "This was, with all honesty, absolutely terrible. Take a really bad movie, multiply its awfulness by 100, run it over with a tank, dice it up and then glue it back together you'll get Blood Lake. Which isn't really a bad thing, because it's so SO SO bad it's almost kind of interesting. One of the things I thought was humorous was like the 15 minute ending where they showed the killer walking around doing nothing. Also, it was freaky how that scrawny hillbilly kid kept on saying he was going to bang the black chick. And I think they ended up getting it on.

You should see this movie, it'll give you a laugh.",1 "I can't believe someone posted about this film being excessive as it is about excess; this movie is simply awful, over-rated and badly directed. Last tango in Paris is excessive, Cronenberg is excessive, even some other Polanski movies are excessive and thought-provoking and -yes!- exciting; but this one has no storyline, no character development, no excitement and terrible acting: you can surely find better ways to waste your time.",0 "In his review of this film in ""Stracult"", Italian film critic Marco Giusti claimed that Franco Nero's performance was undoubtedly the worst he ever gave. Ridiculously decked out as he is in a long blonde mane and hippy garb, he can't be too far wrong I guess...

Anyway, Nero plays a bitter loner who, having lost his wife and kid in a traffic accident, voluntarily enlists for dangerous missions for an unspecified organization but then, unceremoniously, quits his job and relocates to a Carribbean island whose seas harbor the carcass of a sunken plane with a fortune locked away in its safe. The problem is that the site is infested with sharks but, of course, Nero has a penchant for killing sharks with his bare hands a' la Johnny Weissmuller. Those sequences depicting Nero's particular skills reach an unheralded level of silliness when he sky dives into the water onto a moving shark and slits its torso open without batting an eyelid! And what about his dragging a shark onto his motor boat after having previously pursued it on foot?!

I don't really know why I should go on writing in detail about such trash (especially since most of you probably won't ever have the chance to see this for yourselves) but, then again, why not? Anyway, there's a love scene early on between our Franco and a native girl, a couple of fistfights with the local bully (featuring a running gag of Nero sticking a piece of chewing gum onto his opponent's forehead), an alliance with a buffoonish salvage expert, a member of the organization is hot on his heels, as is the ubiquitous Edoardo Fajardo who is obviously interested in claiming the fortune for himself and, in the climax, an all-out shark attack replete with fake floating limbs.

Director Casterallari (who frequently appears in his own films a' la Hitchcock...yeah, right!) has a fairly large part here as a killer pursuing the man from the Organization! He was still fixated on sharks a couple of years later when he made THE LAST SHARK (1981), a film which was partly shot in Malta and featured such second-tier American actors as James Franciscus and Vic Morrow. For his pains, Castellari was even taken to court by Steven Spielberg and Universal Studios for plagiarising JAWS (1975)...although, if one is to believe Castellari's own statements at the 61st Venice Film Festival, Spielberg and Co. were merely envious that THE LAST SHARK had been more profitable (in the expenditure/profit ratio) than JAWS itself...!!",0 "Though it might well describe a prodigy I point out some of the negative things about this glossy movie.

The boy struggles with his feelings and, at least for awhile, under pressure, wants to abandon his training and live a common life. That was seen also in ""Little man Tate"" or ""Searching for Bobby Fischer"".

Unlike these, though the movie tries to be sentimental, on most parts it is cold. The boy actions are often impudent, especially in relation with his parents. It's not sufficient that he is talented in music art: he must excel in math, sciences, market analysis.

The way his parents act is unrealistic. That could be excused if you think it's a ""feel-good"" movie. The grandfather buys... a flight simulator where he plays... 3000 hours.

What is with his mother using English words especially when she must be annoying? Or was that for the line: ""Is that your English humor""? There should be other way to suggest snobbery.",0 "The rise and fall of comic Lenny Bruce (Dustin Hoffman). Bruce was one of the first comedians to use swearing in his act and was actually taken to court over it. The movie also chronicles his marriage to stripper Honey Harlow (Valerie Perrine).

Bob Fosse was a strange choice to direct this--he had only done two musicals before (""Sweet Charity"" and ""Cabarat""), but ""Cabaret"" was such a huge hit I guess he could pick and choose what he wanted. He shoots it in black and white and uses a documentary style approach by interviewing Bruces wife, mother and agent and then flashing to those scenes. It does work but the film is extremely depressing. The black and white is very stark and gives the film a cold look and feeling. Also, I found nothing funny in Hoffman doing Bruce's routines. It's not that he's bad (he's actually very good), but the tone of the film is not humorous.

As I said, Hoffman is good but Perrine is spectacular. She gives a very strong, nuanced performance. Also, she does an extremely erotic strip tease at the beginning of the film and holds her own in a (mild) lesbian scene.

It's worth catching but you'll probably be depressed by the end. If this film weren't such a downer it would probably be better known.",0 "I am a descendant of John Wesley Hardin, of whom this movie was made. My great grandmother was his niece. I think this movie was a marvelous tribute because John Wesley was an educated, cultural person. He just didn't have a lot of patience when it came to certain factors. Like shooting a man for snoring. I am honored that the Hollywood ""factor"" would cast Rock Hudson as John Wesley, as John W was a very handsome man according to the tintographs I have of him from my g-grandmother. This is an under-rated movie worth watching and the female lead is indeed an actress under-rated - she is lovely and supportive. A grand western! AMB",1 "I saw the original stage version of Oh! Calcutta! when they performed in San Francisco in the early 1970s. We didn't know what to expect and were a little hesitant about going to a play that was often raided!

We paid a princely sum for our tickets - $35 and that wasn't for the first row! Our seats were second row-center and those rows were very narrow! You can imagine our surprise at being so close to the action! As soon as the production began, several people in the front row stood up and left the theater, which only made our seats that much better!

It was a great play! We loved it and laughed through most of it. The only tense part of the play was when we heard the sirens of emergency vehicles in the street outside of the theater! For a moment, we thought it was one of the raids! We held our ground and remained seated and were the richer for it!

See the movie and see a part of our sexual history! I know I will!",1 "Robin Williams is probably the best Peter Pan I've seen. Well, at least, a grownup Peter Pan. It's not a usual role for Robin compared to Mrs. Doubtfire or Good Morning Vietnam. He's a workaholic to get away from his family, along with his drinking. Then, his kids are gone and look who tells him that Captain Hook kidnapped his kids. In comes Maggie Smith. She is a wonderful Wendy!! This movie has it's ups and downs, of course. But, Robin's humor along with Dustin Hoffman's performance as Hook and Julia Roberts as Tinkerbell makes this movie a perfect childhood movie that can be watched with the whole family!",1 "I was looking forward to seeing this, particularly as it features Sean Penn and marks the only film ever to have been allowed access to the inner sanctum of the United Nations in New York. Whilst Sean Penn delivers a typically solid performance (reminding me a little of Robert Di Niro in this), Nicole Kidman is totally unconvincing as a translator at the UN specializing in the language of her (fictional) African homeland. If we accept the plot as plausible (which is already a bit of a leap), you can't help but wonder at the ineptitude of the CIA, FBI, NYPD and other agencies of law and order in dealing with the threat to a visiting African dictator. One man (who had earlier been injured in an explosion) is tasked with tracking down Nicole Kidman alone. He apparently manages, in the space of a couple of hours, to check every airport in the New York area, and call all of her friends and acquaintances. As for the haunting African music which turns out to be coming from Ms. Kidman's flute, well I couldn't help laughing. If you want a movie about international politics and the problems faced in Africa, watch Hotel Rwanda. If you want to hear Nicole Kidman delivering her lines in an endlessly changing accent, this is the one for you.",0 "This was my sleeper of the year. Little attention was given a film about a kid searching for God after his grandpa dies. Yet young Joseph Cross will win your heart as he starts what could be a terrific career. The film is hardly perfect but is so different from most other films and how can it be so funny. Well it is. Sometimes films work & some don't. If more people saw this gem of a movie, then more would love it.",1 "Considering that my country is a neighbor of the former Yugoslavian Federation, I guess I know a lot more about that conflict than the other western-world viewers... When I saw it, I simply could not take sides... was it the muslims or the serbs to blame? I guess neither... Yugoslavia was of no use anymore... communism was down in Eastern Europe, there was no need for an western-oriented outpost behind the Iron Curtain... so NATO decided it must be somewhat erased, diminished... I am ashamed to admit that at a certain point during this war, the leaders of my country sold out to NATO like prostitutes and allowed Alliance planes to cross Romanian territory en-route to the conflict zone... OUR NEIGHBOURS.

So, the main character should be viewed as a basic person who lost his family and is loosing more and more of his soul as time goes by and he pursues his vengeance... as soon as you attach a Citizenship (American) and a Name (Guy) to his personna he becomes the representative of a nation that has been policing the World for its own dirty purposes for the better part of the 20th century... and then it becomes much harder to root for him... too bad ... Why is it that in every movie, the main characters have to be Americans?

There are some moments during this movie that made my heart stop, like the massacre near the bus... such pain, such rage, such unrelenting hatred against the humanity itself...

Either way, the film is very powerful and it depicts only a small amount of the atrocities that took place during that war... We should have learned a lesson back there... but we are at it again... I guess this is the tagline of the movie: War is bad... war is in our nature... WE ARE BAD!",0 "David Decotau is a competent director. He has directed numerous Full Moon pictures like Puppet Master and Shrieker under pseudonyms. Those were both good films. However, his homosexuality seems to be his main motive for directing these days, and young buff guys in their boxer briefs seem to be his major visual reference. This is all fine and well, but he disguises these films as teen horror movies, not unlike Scream, and packages them the same. A typical straight male is not going to enjoy this type of movie, unless he is hiding something! I am getting sick of Mr. Decotau's films. They are polluting movie shelves and, quite frankly...gay or not, are really bad movies. This man ran out of steam long before Full Moon ran out of business. He must be stopped!",0 "If I had seen this film before reading the book first, I still would not have liked it very much. However, as I had read the book, I cannot write this review without comparing the two.

Compared to the book, this film was horrible. Not merely because the pace was slow, or because of the pointless changes they made to the plot in places.

No, what ruined it for me was the choice of actors. There is not a one, I think, who completely fit their character, but more so for the main characters. Take Kristin, for example; in the book, she is, at the oldest, about 18. And yet the actress looked 28. Kristin is described as being incredibly beautiful; and yet, the actress was, if not directly ugly, certainly not pretty or attractive in any way. Kristin is supposed to be sweet, innocent and mild of manner--in every way the epitome of the the gentle young virgin. And yet I saw few such characteristics in the way the actress portrayed her.

And Erlend. Erlend was supposed to be handsome, dashing, sweeping her off her feet. The very Romeo to her Juliet. The actor looked retarded half of the time, his mouth hanging open; the other half was nothing special.

And then there are the pointless changes in the other characters. Kristin's bedmate, Ingebjørg (and she was the ONLY bedmate...Helga was very little involved with anything in the book) was supposed to be blonde and very fat. Kristin's father was supposed to be very fair and knightly. Likewise, her almost-fiancé was supposed to be plump and talkative, too. And her sister was supposed to be about 6 years her younger; NOT the same age.

Possibly petty complaints: but actors make the film. Choose actors that cannot play their part, and you have a bad film. It's as simple as that. If you want to adapt a book to the screen, please do so as accurately as possible. Truth be told, I couldn't make myself watch the last half an hour of the film, it was annoying me so much. In the book, in liked Kristin; I had sympathy for her cause. In the film, I did not, at all.",0 "Having become interested after slowly being drawn in, by the tease of what was to come I battled through poor acting and sets, for the end finale. Of course, what does this say about me? However, reading so many of the comments here about the authenticity of the tape and the characters, I would point out this. At the end, in the credits, it does say that all the characters and events are fiction and any relation to any real character or event are purely coincidental.

The premise for the film is good, based on how voyeuristic we, as cinema goers and a society, have become but it doesn't do itself any favours by being so badly made.",0 "When I first heard that a movie is going to be made by the book ""Eragon"" by Christopher Paolini, I must say I was very delighted, and I was even more delighted when I heard that Stefen Fangmeier will be the director. I have read the book, and thaught:""What a great movie this is going to be"". Unfortunately, I was wrong. First of all, I would dare to say that half of the events that happened in the book weren't shown in the movie at all(reason: Lord of the Rings has less then 400 pages and the movie lasts around 3 hours; Eragon has around 500 pages and it lasts around hour and a half). As a result, instead of complexed, unpredictable fantasy plot you get simple, one-way heading fairy tale. Characters that play very significent role in book(like Murtagh, Ajihad and Angela) are hardly even mentioned in the movie, so that it becomes centered on pretty much only 3 characters-Eragon, Saphira and Brom. Villains and locations lack imagination, so they look cheap and ordinary. Choice of actors is, in my opinion, good, except Edward Speleers. There are way too much ""memorable quotes"" in the movie, so that movie becomes kind of too much theatrical.Everybody, from director to actors failed, but still, I personally bealive that the biggest failure is Peter Buchman, screenwriter. Although he had a fantastic material to work on, he managed to ruin it, and make a pathetic screenplay from a fantastic bestseller. Only bright side of the movie is always top-of-the-class John Malkovich(King Galbatorix), pretty solid performance by Jeremy Irons (Brom), but most of all dragon Saphira (voice by Rachel Weisz, whose vocal abilities are on very desirable level)",0 "Adam Sandler as Happy Gilmore brings laughs once again to the career of Adam Sandler. This movie is one of the movies Sandler started out with. Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore are both the two movies Adam Sandler started out with. Going Overboard was no professional movie at all. With Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore you have Happy Madison Productions. Happy Madison has done well good movies. They did the first Deuce Bigelow and they did Dickie Roberts Former Child Star. Adam has come from Saturday Night Live with all he knows and has acted with what he knows. David Spade, Chris Farley, Dana Carvey, Mike Myers, Ben Stiller, Steve Martin, and Bill Murray are the other men who have done well after Saturday Night Live. Adam Sandler still has a great career ahead of him.",1 Making a movie like this one should not be legal. With a cast completely devoid of talent and a story that prompts you to pinch yourself out of the nightmare this movie epitomizes the word terrible. Don't see it unless you find migraines endearing.,0 "This movie was a nice surprise,the cast did a great job and Thora Birch showed she can be a very diverse actress.I will buy this DVD very soon,so I can share it with my friends and get their thought on it.I don't agree that this qualify's as a true horror movie, but the directer does a great job!With the script,and the actors earned their money.Great movie with a lot of good guessing and some on the edge of your seat moments.The American audience has a different view on most English made movies .I think not enough of them make it to the states to be seen!This should have had advertising and a lot of promotion along with a movie premier,with the cast on hand opening night the studio would have made a great deal more money with this one.",1 "Ask me what time it is. Very very very strange and very entertaining bit of European cinema from Wacko Jaco Van Dormael, a former circus clown turned director. This film about fate, love, and childhood fantasies gone awry is very hard to describe. Imagine a kids film directed by Lars Von Trier, add a dash of ""Amelie,"" a scent of ""Donnie Darko,"" a sprinkle of Lynchian strangeness, and a good heaping of Terry Gilliam inspired wackiness, place in a blender, then travel back in time (as this movie came long before and probably inspired ""Amelie"" and ""Donnie Darko"") and voilà, you'll have ""Toto."" Sometimes heartbreaking, sometimes funny (everybody seems to love those dancing tulips), sometimes weird, always captivating, this is a film for people who enjoy non-linear and creative story-telling. Also, that much talked about floating plastic bag stuff from ""American Beauty"" is taken straight from this film's unforgettable final scenes. Dormael seemed to have so much good stuff going on in this film, it's ashame he's only made one film since this, as any film buff who watches it will no doubt imagine a few more great films being pulled out of Dormael's magician's hat.",1 "It's not often that you see a film that is pure, unmitigated crap. This is one of them. (Hell, even the 2/10 rating is generous)

The humour used is film is unspeakably infantile. Some of if, though, is very much of its time. There are some sly digs at the cult of celebrity and Britain in the 1980s.

The only thing in this film that did it for me was Mel Smith's slightly sympathetic role as the unfortunate alien, Bernard. While we're on the subject, I don't even know why Smith, and his co-star, Griff Rhys-Jones ever bothered making this piece of trash in the first place!!!

One major turn-off for me was the rather gaudy, tacky, cheaply-made look of the film. In fact, the whole thing looks rather false and plastic!!

Compared to ""Morons From Outer Space"", director Mike Hodges' previous effort of the decade, ""Flash Gordon"" look like a Bafta award-winning masterpiece.

If you've got nothing else better to do, I really would NOT recommend renting this film out!!",0 "Most of these 9/11-Conspiracy Theorists think that USA, Jews or India planned 9/11, to blame it on the Muslims - do harm Islam, or to start a ""war on Terror"" (to get more power and oil). What a great idea.... for a movie. Because it would be a great plan, if it could be executed without anyone knowing.

9/11 happened, and the conspiracy theories was there - from the start. Many conspiracy theorists believed that USA or others planned 9/11, even though they had not examined the subject - it was their prejudge, that USA or Jews are behind every bad thing happening in human history, from the biblical-flood, to the plague in the middle-ages to finally 9/11.

The thing is that conspiracy theories WANTS Jews or USA to be the one responsible - and they fit one-sided facts and witness-testimony into their theory.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are not scientific of nature - but political.

Conspiracy theorists, when they are making their conspiracy theory, starts with the conclusion and then works his or her way from there. What ever fact nearly fits the theory are made to fit, no matter how much they have to manipulate.

Conspiracy theorists would never exist if they wanted to listen to people, beyond themselves. Conspiracy theorists only believe in them selves, or kindred spirits, they are like religious fanatics. They don't want to listen to other people.

These 9/11-Conspiracy Theories all have logical explanations. If only the Conspiracy theorists had the brains or will to do their own research, and listen to other people. There is a logical explanation for all the 9/11-Conspiracy theories. Just look here: 911myths.com But I know that 9/11-Conspiracy theorists will never look at the site, only because they want to keep their prejudges that Americans or Jews are behind every evil act in the history of the world, including 9/11.

About 9/11:

If USA planned 9/11, then why haven't a single person from the Police, Fire fighters, NSA-, FBI, CIA, Military, Air-traffic-control-people, most of the house of representatives, demolition-experts, Scientists, rescue-workers and the whole Bush-administration squealed and told the world about the largest mass-murder in modern American History? Why haven't someone revealed this great secret? Because an attack of that magnitude, on its own soil, would involve thousands of the governments own people, and these conspiracy theorists tell us that all these thousands of people had no ethical-problems with keeping the secret of this mass-murder.... Conspiracy theorists live in a fantasy-world.

USA did not plan 9/11, all logic and reason speaks against it.

Also, if the USA planned it, then why did they use 19 men from Saudi-Arabia??? Would it not be more clever to use 19 Iraqies, Iranians, Afghans or maybe even North-Koreans as patsies??? If people from Iraq would had been in the airplanes 9/11, then the ""war on terror"" would have been more easy to justify. And if this USA-Shadow-Government planned 9/11, then they would not have used 19 Saudies.

USA, Jews or India did NOT plan 9/11, get over your childhood-fantasies conspiracy-theorists!

Sane people, please click onto this site, it will answer all questions about the 9/11-conspiracy theories:

911myths.com",0 "It almost looks like Boris Karloff eventually became the embodiment of the horrific monsters he played for a period of approximately 50 years. Why? Because even for several years after his death, he kept on appearing in tiny horror productions like as if he was still amongst the living. In reality, however, these movies were completed since years already but they never got released immediately for whatever reason. In fact, Boris himself never got the see the four last films on his own repertoire (""Island of the Snake People"", ""Cauldron of Blood"", ""The Fear Chamber"" and ""The Incredible Invasion"") and that's probably a GOOD thing, considering the quality of these films. They're all uninspired and dull films, cheaply produced with foreign money and directed without the slightest sense of professionalism. Jack Hill, creator such cool movies like ""Spider Baby"" and blaxploitation-classic ""Foxy Brown"", is credited as co-director but his influence is barely noticeable, to say the least. This movie features an incredibly overlong opening scene in which a freaky midget resurrects a dead girl from her coffin. The sacrifice of one single chicken and a crazy voodoo-dance apparently suffice for that. The only point of this intro is to make clear that the events take place on an island where the natives still practice the voodoo religion and that they're capable to do supernatural things. Boris Karloff's character is somewhat the patriarch of this island, and he certainly doesn't like it when an ambitious police lieutenant arrives to clean up the place. ""Island of the Snake People"" is a very slow and tame movie, despite the premise of resurrected corpses and ancient voodoo rituals. The zombies look deader than when they actually dead, so certainly don't expect any brain-devouring monsters that hunt down everything that moves. The concept is actually similar to such films as Jacques Tourneur's ""I walked with a Zombie"" or ""White Zombie"", since the living dead serve as slaves to work in the fields. Naturally this movie lacks the style and frightening atmosphere of the aforementioned titles and even the make-up effects are poorer, despite being made over 30 years later. Boris Karloff is great as always, but he can't carry the whole movie by himself. Instead of letting him run crazy snake cults, they should have allowed him to enjoy a quiet and peaceful last couple of years. Poor Boris. If it's any consolation, you'll be remembered for earlier films a lot more.",0 "It's rare that the same creative team are still around 4 films into a series, and even rarer that a 4th film has anything new to add, so this makes a refreshing change.

The tone is a little uneven, with Coscarelli seeming torn between delivering the slapstick gore and laughs of the previous 2 sequels and going for the darker more surreal approach of the first movie, so a lot of Reggie's scenes seem like they could have been pasted in from a different movie. Speaking of which large chunks are made up of deleted scenes from ""Phantasm"", which, while suggesting money problems during development, actually works very well in bookending the events so far.

It also goes some way to filling in the gaps, giving the Tall Man a proper origin story and answering a few questions while still leaving enough up in the air to justify the 5th film which is apparently in production currently.

That said, even if a 5th film never materialises, this makes a nicely apocalyptic ending to a series that has actually come to life in it's sequels. There's still plenty of laughs, but there's a very downbeat tone and some nicely creepy touches, making this a very enjoyable, if slightly schizophrenic addition to a fun series.",1 "This movie had it's ups and downs. I enjoyed the scenery in India and the way the people of India dressed, danced and all the things that make India so colorful and different. It acts on the religon and culture of India. But what this movie could have done without is the couple that traveled there. They were so annoying I forgot who they were. I know the man was named Micheal and he was having problems in his relationship with his girlfriend for God knows why she tries to make the relationship work out with Micheal as he tells her that he's leaving her and going to India to check out some Budahs. They decide to go and while they are in India they come across a strange lady that claims to be a reincarnation of a servant girl that once lived in a paradise garden with royal subjects. The girl in the past falls in love with another man and seduces him but there is no indication of what happened to them other than the fact that they fell in love. Centuries past and in comes Micheal and the strange lady stops at nothing to get him back. Micheal soon begins to think the lady is crazy for accusing him of being a reincarnated monk and she finds herself lost.",0 "The two opera singers are SUCH bad actors, I wondered if they were out of budget for some competent ones. The lip-synchronization was TERRIFYING. They didn't bother AT LEAST watching some operas to see that a soprano cannot possibly sing all those high notes with her mouth almost closed and relaxed like she's singing Christmas songs in a family event. Even Kathleen Battle cannot do that.

I wouldn't even want to talk about how RIDICULOUSLY WWI was depicted. Honestly! People DROWNED in mud in Passchendale (sp?) and here's we've got solid ground, tidy trenches, healthy soldiers, etc....

Bad dialogues (i.e. 'I have lice')???!!!!! There are far too many fictitious characters. People had shell shock. Here, we've got plenty of characters that seem like Harry Potter counterparts. As somebody else also stated.

NOT worth watching. EXTREMELY overrated and boring. By the time I watched half of it, I thought it was an avant-garde movie because it also seemed so naive, but the directors were clearly striving for a typical, joyful Christmas film. And they failed.",0 "Shirley's dad doesn't have the money to bet on a horse race so he puts up his daughter as collateral! Furthermore, nobody finds this particularly alarming. Shirley takes being abandoned by her father and living with seedy strangers pretty casually. It's supposed to be a charming comedy based on a Damon Runyan story, but the plot is not only boring but rather disturbing, and it's hardly worth a chuckle. Fortunately for both Menjou and Bickford, they would survive this and go on to make some fine films. Sadly, Dell, who plays the love interest of both Menjou and Bickford, died in an auto accident only a week after the film was released at age 19.",0 "MGM had Greta Garbo quite busy making films during 1928 and 1929 as the studio saw the approach of sound film possibly destroying one of their top assets. Nobody knew what the outcome of Garbo's career would be at the time.

Thus Greta Garbo made silents until 1930's ""Anna Christie"". This silent film is not really silent at all. It has a very sophisticated score for its time, including sound effects, crowd noises, and even singing during musical numbers, with long shots of the singers so you can't see that there is no true synchronization with the singers themselves.

The story is that of 50ish John Sterling (Lewis Stone) and his young wife, Lillie (Greta Garbo). The two are embarking on a cruise to Java so that John can mix business with pleasure. His business is to look over some plantations that he may buy. The pleasure is his desire to hunt and shoot a tiger while in Java. On the boat the couple meet Prince De Gace, played by Nils Asther. John is by no means a neglectful husband, but at age 50 he has largely left his romantic days behind him. This makes Lillie a likely target for the charming prince and his silver tongue. He makes a play for her right off the bat, and continues his chase as the Sterlings remain guests in his home. Lillie is torn, but tries her best to avoid the prince and his advances. One night during their stay, after returning from a day of looking at plantations, John sees the silhouettes of the prince and Lillie on the drawn shade of the house just after the prince has grabbed her for a quick kiss. What will John do about this situation? The acting in this film is quite well done. Asther comes across well as the slimy but attractive prince, and Lewis Stone was a wonderful silent actor. His surprise when he first sees the couple in an embrace, and his look of both great disdain and knowing when he later sees the prince flirting with a servant girl says it all. Yet, like Garbo, some of his best performances would come with talking pictures where he could both artfully play the cad in the MGM precodes as well as Judge Hardy of the Andy Hardy series fame.

Existing prints of this film are quite well preserved, and I highly recommend it for silent film enthusiasts.",1 "This film captures perfectly one of the many faults of capitalism, it portrays an extremely sad situation of the desperate struggle that some people have everyday to earn money. In this case it follows the exploitation of foreign workers who came to England (London) in desperate search of work, and the lengths they will go earn money. The central character (Angie) played by Kierston Wareing is a self employed recruitment agent an ambitious and vibrant women who wont take no for an answer, she has a certain cheek and charm that is compelling and shows us some level of kindness, but also has a darker side which she has no problems in showing to people. Her friend and flatmate (Rose) played by Juliet Ellis is portrayed as the more rational minded and frankly kinder person, who relapses that sometimes it's not always about the money. An inevitable twist of faith comes for Angie where she is put in the position of victim, but does this change her views on life?

It is very well directed, showing the viewer the dull and bleak industrial estates and caravan parks of London which really suits the story and the depressive feel of the script.

Ken Loach and Paul Laverty done a great job with this film and like most of Loachs films is a striking and damning account of the depression to be found in working class England.",1 "Emissary was Deep Space Nine's pilot episode. And not a bad one either. A fitting beginning to a 7 year story.

I don't think it was perfect, like The Next Generation's Encounter at Farpoint, but it did introduce all the characters and settings of this incredible show. Emissary reminds me of Babylon 5's Pilot Episode: The Gathering, which was aired a month after Emissary.

Deep Space Nine's first couple of years weren't THAT great, but then the show started to rise with a great storyline and great situations, such as the Klingons' separation from the Federation, Sisko's destiny and the Federation's war against the Dominion and Cardassian alliance. And Emissary was the 2 hour series premiere that gave birth to all this. Emissary has a good storyline. Sisko's encounter with the prophets beat any alien encounters ever seen before in Star Trek history. Sisko's background related to the Battle of Wolf 359 as well as his meeting with Picard make the series an excellent sci-fi drama. Kira started out as the angry vengeful Bajoran and grew intensively over the past 7 years, becoming an incredible leader and fighter. I was astonished to see Miles and Keiko O'Brien becoming part of the show, which affected deeply their personal lives as they moved from the excessive perfection of the USS Enterprise to the station that resembles our gritty reality rather than Roddenberry's perfect future.

Rick Berman and Michael Piller did a great job creating this show and keeping it alive and healthy after Roddenberry's death, while giving a fitting end to The Next Generation.

Paramount Pictures did a great job, creating both the pilot and the show. I give Emissary a 9 out of 10.",1 "I have to disagree with the previous commentator's opinion. Washington's accent was about as spot on for a ""Yank"" as was we'll say Pitt's was in ""Snatch"" to an Irish tinker's. The movie while obviously low-budget (no different than we'll say ""My Beautiful Laundrette"" or ""Mona Lisa"" at this particular time in UK productions), yet its concentration on the inherent drama of a confused and conflicted ex-Para in a non-empathetic society totally over-rode its budgetary limitations.

This was an above-average movie (and a rare one) of its genre and adequately displays Washington's versatility as an actor.",1 "What a musical masterpiece that movie is. Just listen to the variety of songs and styles provided by Bette Midler and the rest of the cast. But the story has it's downside. Too many subjects, too many levels, and the make up department didn't do their best job when giving Midler and Caan the ""age"" look. It's too plastic. But Ms. Midler still is a great singer / actress under the bad make up, so I can still recomend this movie. Bring tissues!",1 "When I was a boy, Madame Satã was a legend in Rio de Janeiro. João Francisco dos Santos was born in the turn of the century, and was famous for being a very controversial person: homosexual, black, poor, artist, a very violent and excellent fighter and a symbol of Lapa, where he lived. This movie is the dramatization of the ten years before the creation by João Francisco dos Santos of the character Madame Satã, inspired in the 1930 Cecil B. DeMille's Madam Satan (unfortunately, this movie has not been released in Brazil and I have never had the chance to see it). 'Madame Satã' is another great example of the marvelous moment of the Brazilian Cinema. The direction is very precise, using old parts in the city of Rio de Janeiro specially in Lapa and Santa Teresa and a high level photography to recreate life in the 30's in Old Rio. The cast is fantastic, highlighting the performance of the stunning Lázaro Ramos, who is also the leader actor of the excellent and very recommended 'O Homem Que Copiava'. The story, as I previously mentioned, is limited to a short period before the raise of Madame Satã to the scenario of Rio de Janeiro and is very realistic, inclusive showing the homosexual activity of João Francisco. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Madame Satã'",1 "I'm kicking myself for having missed this show until the final week of the first season (at least I managed to catch several repeats inside of a single night!). Whatever I've been gallivanting about doing on Friday nights can't have been as good as this.

While some might object that the show anthropomorphizes, despite its naming of the little creatures and its soap-ish format it doesn't go overboard in this respect. Meerkats are very social animals to begin with, and it's part of what makes them ideal for this kind of program. Also, while some would argue that it was unconscionable to let some of the animals die, I am inclined to disagree. I had a hard time with watching the loss of pups, and if the show were filmed as entertainment alone, I'd not have condoned such noninterference. But it isn't. It's science first, and scientists filming in the wild generally interfere with nature's own course to the least extent possible. There's room for argument about this practice, granted, but the sadnesses that happen on this show are NOT simply human hard-heartedness.

That said, sadness doesn't last long at Meerkat Manor. These are some very funny, frequently affectionate, and bold little creatures. They are fascinating, they are captivating, and they are downright addictive, so do plan to curtail your social life accordingly--or tell all your friends and get a bigger couch.",1 "I was drawn into this unusual independent film on cable. I call it unusual because how often are men really truthful about their actions and desires? I felt the man who made this wanted to be understood.

If you like it, make sure to catch the follow-up film called ""Manhood"". I felt so lucky to stumble across it. The actors who play Jack, Faith, and their son are in this one too. How lucky is that! Jack's relationship with his son is touching, and rings very true.

I hope there will be a third installment here, making this a trilogy. Can Jack overcome his inner dog? I believe men are really like this, and am so impressed with the honesty here.

Just a note on the music, there is Bruce Springsteen music in both films. I don't think ""The Boss"" allowed his songs to be used here because he needed the money. Check it out!",1 "Disposable twenty-somethings, each a stereotypical self-absorbed kid with designs on winning a cool million on this reality show which is a cross between Survivor and Real World, find themselves in quite the dilemma:the producer of the show they represent is a deranged sicko, his psychopathy a result of his dismissal on a ""Bachellorette"" type of reality show, using his equally nutty brother, who hangs on his every command, to carry out a massacre, because you see once a contestant is eliminated or ""voted off"", they really are ELIMINATED.

The film's sole novelty is seeing Edward Furlong as the nutcase producer, who opens the film stalking Jaime Pressly(..I guess she was friends with the director or something, stopping by because she owed him a favor, I guess), successful in getting revenge for how she duped him in front of millions of viewers for another. Furlong sits in this room, watching monitors placed throughout the mansion and it's grounds, his voice barking orders and teases to the contestants, before and after they discover what happens once you are a loser.

The games become more and more clever and violent as times goes by(..not enough to satisfy, however), the remaining survivors trying to form a plan to escape their unfortunate predicament. The cast chosen are all attractive, with athletic, toned bodies, their attitudes and mores appropriate for each stock character, represented by the actors / actresses without a hint of depth..they are designed specifically one-dimensional, representing the hunky bad boy, hick cowboy, Latina chick with an attitude, gay and slightly chubby goofball, shy Asian girl with martial arts skills, black intellectual(..his dialogue, particularly when he speaks ""scholarly"" is as artificial as it gets), hot beach bunny who comes from money and is easy to seduce, etc.

Don't worry, the film also provides the viewer with the token blonde ""final girl"" in Laura Ramsey(..one of the new horror ""it girls"", having starred in such recent flicks as ""The Covenant"", ""Venom"", and ""The Ruins"") so that all the slasher guidelines are fulfilled. The violence is tame(..the usual beheading, followed by the head roll down a hill, an arm taken off, finger hacked away, all presented in such a way that look completely underwhelming) and I think one can tell that most of the money went to Furlong instead of proper make-up effects trumping our desire to see these characters die in a properly horrible manner. We aren't even given any nudity as I guess these girls were too prudish to bother flashing us some skin for burdening ourselves through this crap. The film's goal is obvious..a black comic parody on reality programming, and using the slasher template as a means to kill off these greedy partyers who enjoy the lavish location before terror descends upon them. Furlong is often remarking to himself, inside his ""headquarters"" regarding what his future victims discuss with themselves, and his character, devilish grin intact, peeps on the sexual(..and bathroom) activities of the females. The reactions of the characters as they are terrorized might amuse, since I'm sure many of us have fantasized, in times past, the demise of these immature reality show types who back-stab and bemoan each other for financial gain or if just for the hell of it. Susan Ward is your eye candy for the movie, the sex pot who gets a little ""off the top"" when she attempts to escape from the grounds. A constant is near-escapes and how Furlong, time and again, prevails to stop them in the nick of time. Daniel Franzese is Furlong's unstable, mentally handicapped and easily manipulative brother Claude. Another movie pointing out poor Furlong's faltering career.",0 """Galaxy of Terror"" is a movie that I saw for the first time almost 20 years ago and my reaction to this movie back then was ""OH THIS MOVIE IS DISGUSTING!!!"" I just saw it again recently, and my reaction was pretty much the same as it was the first time. ""Galaxy of Terror"" is a gory, disgusting low budget sci-fi/horror flick that's nothing more than a third-rate ripoff of Ridley Scott's far superior 1979 classic ""Alien"". You want to know the funniest thing about this movie? It's hard to believe that James Cameron was the production designer of ""Galaxy of Terror"". Yes! This is the same James Cameron who went on to direct big box-office smash hits such as the first ""Alien"" sequel ""Aliens, the two ""Terminator"" pictures, ""The Abyss"", ""True Lies"", and the current #1 box-office blockbuster of all time, the Oscar-winning ""Titanic"". Of course the big excuse for Cameron's presence here is that he was very much unknown when he worked on ""Galaxy of Terror"". I'm sure today that this movie is one project that he never mentions. And well he shouldn't. Another funny thing about ""Galaxy of Terror"" is the cast. What long time veteran character actor Ray Walston is doing in this movie is an enigma. Robert Englund is also featured here, a few years before taking on his most famous role, that of Freddy Krueger in the ""Nightmare on Elm Street"" movies. And Erin Moran of TV's ""Happy Days"" should be ashamed of herself for agreeing to appear in this (she also gets the unfortunate task of having the most gruesome sendoff in the film, a moment that still makes me cringe big time). ""Galaxy of Terror"" was produced by low-budget meister Roger Corman. Low budget indeed. This film is so poorly made that you never get a good look at the monsters featured on screen. The special effects are cheesy; the screenplay appears to had been written in 2 days; and the acting is pathetic. But what keeps ""Galaxy of Terror"" from being one of the very worst movies ever made is that it's over in 81 minutes, and it's quite fast-paced. So it ends fast. Plus there are a couple of entertaining moments that were kind of exciting. But overall, it's really not worth anybody's time. Unless you want to watch some truly sickening moments, then tune in. If you dare.

*1/2 (out of four)",0 "Don't be fooled by the # of perfect 10's this has been given or by anything over a 7.5 rating. It's not quite that good. It's more your general, run-of-the-mill, movie-of-the-week... another of those oh-so-common Based On A True Story Of A Southern White Trash Trailer Park Woman With A Wickedly Messed Up Life. The story is kind of interesting but the character development fell short as did the script and acting talent. The last 25 minutes or so woke me up and got me re-interested with the slight twists, turns, and wows but the first 90+ was a pretty big Yawn Question Mark Yawn. Why exactly did this woman do what she did? What made her so screwed up? It needed less commercials and a better writer and maybe this story could have been better told. Oh well. I won't tell you not to see this because if you're ever on a game show with a topic of Serial Killer Southern Women, you might be one up on your competition... but surely don't go out of your way to see this one. It's only average to below-average and you won't miss anything.",0 "A mysterious princess arrives at the Chan home, where she is shot. Collapsing, she manages to write, ""Captain K,"" on the desk pad. ""Are you sure she's dead, Pop?"" Tommy asks. ""Death, my son, is the reckoning of heaven. In this case, most complicated reckoning,"" states philosophical Charlie, lifting a line from Biggers' Behind That Curtain.

This one, Number 42 in the series and the first with Roland Winters in the title role, does not augur well for the remainder of the Monogram efforts in this inept re-make of Mr Wong in Chinatown. Mr Winters is a poor substitute for Sidney Toler (not to mention Boris Karloff). He moves stiffly, and his accent is poor stuff indeed. A less inspired actor to play the part of Chan could not possibly be imagined, although I should mention that Winters was to improve considerably in his later Chan characterizations.

Scott Darling has done very little to update his Wong script and changing the dwarf to a small boy is just about the last straw. Also, Beaudine's direction does not compare well with Nigh's. Admittedly, this entry has obviously been made on an extremely tight budget.",0 "It's too bad, too, because the idea had a lot of potential. It just needed a better script, better songs, actors who could actually act and a director who knew what he was doing.

Mostly though, this movie is an exercise of ego for one Joe Brooks. He directs, he acts, he sings, he produces. Presumably, he also cast Shelley Hack, whose last name pretty much sums up the state of her acting ability, in the lead female role.

Where to start? The acting, if it can be called that, is an abomination. Shelley Hack is leaden and Joe would be lucky to be so good. He plays a jingle writer who aspires to greater things. Judging from the music, he's found his niche with jingles. It has a certain Barry Manilow light quality to it. Imagine hell being trapped in an elevator for all eternity with muzak playing Joe Brooks greatest hits, and you'll begin to get a taste for just how bad it gets.

Especially when Joe starts to sing. When Joe made ""You Light Up My Life,"" the first decision he made was to dub Didi Cohn's voice with Debbie Boone's. Would that he showed as much sense here. Somewhere out there, cats start to howl when Joe sings.

The bottom line, watch if you must, but remember to bring a book to read. It's two hours of your life you'll never get back",0 "At first, I thought that this is a comedy about those people coming from outside back to Russia, and experienced an entirely different cultural shock. It is actually a very serious movie, and it glued me to the screen for the entire two hours. It just feels so short when the movie ended.

I have seen quite a few movies about the horror living in a socialist country. However, I think there should also be a few good movies that tell the other side of the story. This movie is very authentic describing the horror and fear that people live under constant surveillance. And they can not go back ever again. The sacrifice the husband made, you can have a good heart cry over this movie.

If you have time, you should also listen to the directors' commentary. I think that the best part in this movie is about them going to the France Embassy of which the guard looked at their different shoes.

The love, the tenacity, the emotions are just so real.",1 "This movie was quite disappointing. I sat down, ready to watch the last Peter Sellers Pink Panther, and got a retrospective with a throwaway plot pieced together from outtakes and non-Sellers moments introducing well-known clips. I should have stopped the tape when Somebody takes the Pink Panther without even tripping one alarm.

What starts out as a movie funny enough to watch, even if the plot seemed a little overdone, screeches to a halt as soon as Clouseau's plane vanishes. The closest anybody comes to trying to solve the mystery is the scene when the reporter is threatened by the mob boss. Otherwise, it's just a retrospective.

I was getting the feeling the movie wasn't going to move before David Niven's character (dubbed badly and most distractingly) made those comments about how the world needed men like Clouseau, etc, etc, indestructible... yawn. From there on, with the exception of Clouseau's youth flashbacks, the only great laughs came from clips pillaged from other movies.

This movie's comedy leans heavily on Dreyfus' new relapse, a subplot that was getting tired ever since they disintegrated him in ""Strikes Back"" Just when it seems that the movie is going to start moving again, it does. To the credits. Clouseau is not found, that is a mystery for the next movie to solve.

Peppered with characters I never thought or cared to see again, (Colonel Sharky, et al) the plot is shaky if even near-nonexistent. This documentary laughingly called a movie gets a four only for the top-notch job editing together cut scenes into enough plot to get the audience to stay for the other sixty minutes. Don't waste your time on this movie more than once.",0 "A crazed computer genius named Goad (Laura San Giacomo) sets a spaceship named the Agamemnon, loaded to the gills with an highly unstable substance, on a collision course with the Earth! The Agamemnon has been encoded by Goad to start on its preprogrammed destination once it is revived by a salvage team. J.T. Wayne (Sandra Bernhard) is the Captain of the Salbor, the salvage ship that undertakes said mission. Things go awry for the Captain however when a portion of her assembled crew lead by her former lover, a cutthroat type named Vendler, double-crosses her and looks to gain the valuable Solarium aboard the ship for himself. However he didn't count on Goad's reprogramming of the ship's systems. Yet even in the face of defeat, Vendler refuses to give up his hold on the ship or listen to reason or logic. Now as the clock ticks down to a collision with the Earth, Wayne and her new crewman, a former bartender named Lennon (Cameron Dye), must try and find a means of stopping the Agamemnon or millions on Earth will die!

Well I have to admit this is competently made. They keep the action moving nicely along and the visuals often prove distracting and interesting. The whole concept with Goad shows some level of originality and I enjoyed Laura San Giacomo's performance as a crazed computer programming genius who has a God complex and an obsession with quoting Shakespeare. Where this falters is when our story changes its focus to J.T. Wayne, played by an horrifically miscast Sandra Bernhard who constantly uses the catchphrase ""And Don't You Forget It!"" and basically goes all out to put off any male in the movie, including the man who is supposed to be her love interest. The failed attempts at humor in the film are far more likely to make viewers shake their heads in disbelief than cause them to laugh. In fact, this film frequently has this effect on any viewer who can manage to sit through the whole thing. To me, it is this element of ""I just cannot believe what I am watching"" that makes this so bad it's almost good.",1 "Dr Dollitle 2 was a fairly good movie with a strong cast but it just didn't do it for me. I found it pretty boring because what to like about. Not much because it's been done before. It was very distasteful but the voice actors were alright. I guess i expected too much from this movie as i do for a few movies. I bought this movie for Australian $15 a few years ago, most like it's $10 now because it wasn't that good or popular. I Just wish this movie could have a better storyline because ""saving the forest"" has been done before and it's common to viewers. They need to have a great idea that's never been done before and really wild.",0 "If you're into stock trading and if you've read Nicholas Leeson, it might help you enjoy this movie. If you're not, you might need to view a couple of times before the story grows on you.

I'm still not sure how I can summarize best the story for you: Ewan McGregor plays Nick Leeson, a stock trader for England's Fairbank is given a mission in New Delhi. He builds up a team with people who know nothing about stock trading and together they'll play with the Nikkei. As they're ""playing"", mistakes are made by Nick's team and he wants to cover them up by opening up an account called ""88888"". Soon, he'll start gambling with the bank's own money. Unfortunately, the losses grow bigger and bigger until the bank goes broke.

Since there is no real action, and it's really told like a story and not like a movie, you really have to rely on the actors' skills to appreciate the movie.",0 "I've been on the IMDb since 2001 and have written very few reviews, but this movie was so bad that I feel compelled to warn everyone I can. I can honestly say that this movie has no redeeming features and is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

You've already seen the plot outline, but it doesn't give tell you enough.

You've got 4 thugs who rob a gas station, then decide to stay and work there all night, presumably to make some money. Of course, given their violent carefree tendencies, they would logically just go rob some other business. Instead, they stay and willingly work a crappy service sector job that most people don't want.

Their staying there is mostly a vehicle to provide encounters with obnoxious customers, à la Clerks, but any comedic value in these is squandered.

The biggest flaw would be the characters. The protagonists are just violent and obnoxious thugs with no charisma whatsoever. The growing group of hostages consists of one-dimensional whimpering crybabies, which wears thin very fast. There isn't a single likable person among the whole cast.

After 45 minutes of pointless slapstick with nary a funny occurrence, the film takes a wild stab at character development, showing why these thugs are the way they are. But it's all very shallow and perfunctory.

The technical aspects of the film are also severely wanting. The camera-work is rough and jarring, the editing is mess and the lighting (or lack of it) is a disaster.

The ""comedy"" is repetitive and unfunny, the cast is totally unlikeable and the whole movie is an aimless mess. I watched the whole thing in hopes that it would improve. It doesn't. In the end, it's just a lame and boring disaster. There are many good Korean films. Go rent a different one.",0 """Wanted-Dead or Alive"" was a half hour western series appearing on CBS television for three seasons from 1958-1961. The series actually got its start as an episode of another popular TV series of the time, ""Trackdown"", during the second half of the '57-'58 TV season. ""Wanted-Dead or Alive"" starred Steve McQueen as bounty hunter Josh Randall in what was a very good start to an outstanding acting career in feature films. As played by McQueen, Josh Randall was the most laconic of a broad television landscape of would-be laconic western series heroes.

Josh Randall carried a sawed-off 44/40 Winchester carbine (his ""Mare's Leg"", as he called it) on his hip instead of the traditional Colt 45 pistol. This of course played into the TV ""cool factor"" as his weapon made a much louder, more devastating sound when fired and of course had much more ""stopping power"" upon impact with the intended victim. Cool! Although ""Wanted-Dead or Alive"" was truly nothing out of the ordinary in terms of content or quality compared to other like fare of the period but Steve McQueen as Josh Randall and his unique weapon made this a ""must watch"" series. Only Paladin was better and ""cooler"" than Josh.",1 """Camp"" is a fun movie going experience. Combining elements of teenage summer camp coming of age stories, interwoven with musical theater performances, ""Camp"" doesn't cease to entertain. The cast of unknowns may not have the acting chops of more seasoned veterans, but their sheer musical talent compensates for this.",1 "A tightly woven murder mystery highlighting a brilliant performance by Mia Farrow. I first learned about this movie on the mia-farrow.com website and saw a photo from it. She is simply breathtaking in this movie as she ranges from shy innocent to the final climatic scene where all is told.

The scenes along the nile are beautiful to behold. It is too bad that Mia did not get a chance to do more movies of this caliber.

Nivens plays a great role also.

The snake scene is one of my favorites, especially the reaction of the manager of the boat they are on.

The plotting is fast paced and you really don't have a clue who done it until the very ending. It is a complete surprise. As is usual in a Poroit mystery, all of the main characters, and even the non-main characters may be the guilty party, so you always have to watch for all the twists and turns.

Cheers indeed!",1 "I hated the original XTRO but I did recognise there`s something bizarrely unique about it and that it does have a cult following , but there`s nothing unique about this "" Sequel "" it`s just an ALIENS clone with only Paul Koslo treating the film with the contempt it deserves . In fact it`s not even bad enough to be good which explains this very short review",0 "This is a top ten pick for me. It's not so much the Orwellian culture it depicts. It's about our humanity; what we are. The shadow of the huge lectern where Fritz Weaver lords it over the accused. His incredibly emotive speech method. It's Burgess Meredith, seemingly cowering at first and then realizing that if his life is to have worth, he needs to make a final statement. While there is a bit of religion thrown in there, I like to think that it is the wish of this man to simply live out the last moment of his life on his own terms. Meredith, as I've said before, is a great actor. His calmness and grace in this role make this otherwise simplistic tale sing. The meek shall inherit the earth I guess.",1 I strongly disagree that people say this film is rubbish because it is my favourite film. Dan Aykroyd plays a great role in Getting Away With Murder. All through the film we are unsure what is coming next. If you like serious films this is a film for you. In my views it gets 10 out of 10.,1 "México did it again. That regular vision of us, with fairy tales sceneries and realismo mágico stories, has been implanted in this romantic comedy featuring (once again) mostly people from TV. From starters, Ladies' night doesn't look for a profound meaning, but the lightness that bears it's plot is more than just simplicity; it's almost insulting. The story centers in Alicia (for Alice in wonderland, played by Talancón), a candid woman whom has never been really understood since her childhood and that spends her life in a world of fantasy that she draws by and for herself. Her wedding is only a week away and she's engaged to Fabián (Corres), the editor in a teen magazine, and his coworker and best friend is Ana (de la Reguera), a ""rebel type"" girl who's more than evident that has a crush on him. Ana doesn't like Alicia and vice versa, so when the bachelorette party for Alicia comes, an uninvited Ana comes along and she as a secret surprise for the party, she hired a male stripper named Rocco (Guzmán) to spice up things, 'cause Ana and her friends are very uptight. But, after performing his act, fate arrange things for an instant click between Rocco and Alicia. Then, after some events that involves a small robbery and a video tape with scenes from a previous encounter between Ana and Fabián, both girls have to go after Rocco but with different intentions: while Alicia tries to find him to make up her mind about the marriage, Ana tries to recover the tape so Alicia won't find out.

This plot leads to an odyssey through México City with Alicia and Ana, and it is also the perfect excuse to create a romantic comedy to be treated under the label of a buddy movie but with girls. It's the same old song in which two antagonist characters comes to the end of the trip becoming best friends (take Por la libre as an example) and OK, even if this is not new neither anyone expects it to be, is in the way the plot develops where lies all the holes, failures and misguiding. Also, the level of intelligence in it has been dumbed so low that it couldn't be done without hurting the whole idea, and not to mention that the acting is flat, the characters are unidimensional (it's profiles are based on clothes, not in personality), and the language they use sounds pretty much fake.

Basically, Ladies' night is a very light motion picture with it's target on girls who are supposed to talk ""dirty"" and feel cool about it. There's some sexual situations but none of them are graphic neither sensual, and for the ""irreverent"" parts it uses the source of cartoons. And don't get me wrong, this is not about a hunger for seeing flesh but for watch witty, edgy material, that even if it can't really entertain us, at least be one that can make us feel the real needs in the main roles for each other, the deep passion we are supposed to buy, and the fire that burns only as minimum sparks in here. In the end, this film comes across as one more light teen mexican movie which is predictable, not funny, and with no good things to offer at all.",0 "I first saw this movie on late night TV and was captured by the really funny lines and characters...all of them. This film probably appeals to a more mature adult who can recall the ethnic differences of our friends and lovers that made life both difficult and, in retrospect, humorous at the same time.

I asked Joe Bologna after a recent stage performance why this film was not on video and his response was, ""You'll have to ask 20th Century F0X.""

It's unfortunate for those of us who think this film should be the real ""classic"" shown yearly. It is an underappreciated gem.",1 "I think that this picture is the finest war story since I saw Saving Private Ryan. Clint Eastwood has outdone himself with this realistic portrayal of the fight in the Pacific in World War 11, There is no outstanding cast in the movie but all the characters did a fine job with their parts. The photograph of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima is well know to most all of us, but the story surrounding the photograph was not as well know. Thanks to Mr Clint Eastwood's fine directing the facts are now spread before us. The actor who played the Indian was outstanding in his part and we should see more of him in the future. I am sorry that I do not know his name but he filled the part with a lot of feeling. If you like war stories, please don't miss this movie and you will be missing a winner!!!!",1 "Just when you thought you had seen one of Dennis Hopper's worst movies ever, along comes ""The Amarican Way"", and a new contender for worst of the worst is born. The script is like a free fall from the heavens, finally crashing to earth in such a predictable manner, there is nothing left. Don't ponder for meaning, because if this is an anti-war movie, it fails to prove any point other than mayhem. More like ""The Groove Tube"" or ""Kentucky Fried Movie"" on acid, only the most tolerant viewer will remain through the entire film. In fact, the only relief from the random dialog in the plane is the few welcome moments when the viewer is back on planet earth, a place this entire production has never been. Definitely the cream of the crap, and a must miss, avoid, movie. - MERK",0 "This poverty row adaptation (courtesy of Monogram) of the Charles Dickens classic has about as much finesse as a school pageant, despite the appearance of old pros like Irving Pichel (as Fagin) and Lionel Belmore (as Mr. Bumble). As a matter of fact, while the film has a couple of choice moments in its second half, any good intentions are done in by some serious miscasting: an overage Artful Dodger (Sonny Ray) and Nancy (Doris Lloyd) and, worst of all, an unsympathetic Oliver (Dickie Moore). Rather than proving an asset, its short running time (70 minutes) gives a careless, rushed air to the proceedings and ensures a total absence of the visual poetry which marked David Lean's definitive 1948 version.",0 "This is the movie to see for those of you who have troble with slow pace and tedium of silent movies. This is an action packed thriller. Complete with an incredible actor, doing his own stunts decades befor Jackie Chan, and not to mention he wrote and directed this movie.

So, Johnny Greys just a regular old guy living in the south, running his train, ""The General"" , around the south in like the middle of the civil war. Some how or another the yankees steel the train and drive it off. well, Johnny wants his beloved train going in to enemy hands to he sets off after it. The meat of the movie is increble whil E Coyote stunts as Buster Keaton, as Johnny, trys to catch his train.

",1 "Top stuff. I've only ever seen episode 1 but I'm always on the lookout for the others. I loved the bit where Van Patten tried to use the approved ""sleeper touch"" technique to subdoo a baddie, and it didn't work !

Van Cleef's arrow-catching stunt was very impressive, and he handled that scene and a lot of other equally unlikely frames like the true pro that he was. Keeping a straight face through the takes must have been hard work at times for a guy who had worked with directors the caliber of Fred Zinnemann and Sergio Leone.

Demi Moore would likely prefer that her appearance in this B-grader remained largely forgotten, but we all have to start somewhere, and the show was probably a lot of fun to make.

R. B.",1 "With the release of Alien Vs Predator i decided to watch the original Predator movie today. I've seen Predator many many times since i first watched it back in 1989 and i love it each and every time. I think Predator 2 has a slight edge over this but Predator has a slight edge over Aliens BUT i think they are all extremely excellent films.

Just in case you don't know, it's about a big alien whose race lives to hunt worthy prey and Arnold Schwarzenegger's team of commandos are that such prey. The commandos are sent into a South American jungle to find some missing airmen who are being held by guerrilla's. They do what they got to do which attracts the attention of the predator who is hunting in the area. So the predator goes and hunts the commandos with the aid of his kick ass weapons and cloaking device. The commandos also have a female prisoner.

I think the whole sub-plot about the so called missing airmen isn't too important to the viewer but makes it possible for the commandos to be there. The entire concept of Predator is really clever and it certainly made me sit on the edge of my seat while watching it the first time. It is kind of spooky in a terrifying way as we don't see the predator properly for ages but see through his eyes which adds to the tension.

The effects are great, the acting is OK and the story is cool too. I really like the music and especially the spooky twisted jungle sounds that we hear when we see through the eyes of the predator. This is a sci-fi action movie that isn't just full of cheap explosions. It really does have great atmosphere. Everyone who likes sci-fi and/or action movies should like this. If you don't then your taste in movies suck! This in my humble opinion is probably the second best sci-fi movie of all time.

Alien Vs Predator has little of what made this so excellent so if you haven't seen Predator and thought AVP sucked don't think that this will. Predator is absolutely fantastic viewing. 10/10",1 "This is like Rudy for the birds. In this movie Ewan McGregor plays Valiant, a young pigeon during WWII hoping to join the Royal Homing Pigeon Service (RHPS).

Valiant is younger and smaller than his fellow recruits, but has high spirits. The RHPS has suffered great losses during the war. Squadrons A thru E have all perished to Von Talon's (Tim Curry) falcons. It is up to Valiant and the rest of squadron F to get the correspondence back to England.

This film was cute and maybe kids will like it, however, I was disappointed. There is not a lot to the story. Bird joins service, bird save the day, and that is about it. The movie is a little more than an hour long. In it's defense, the animation was good.

There are a few laughs from John Cleese who plays Mercury (a pigeon who gets captured) but not enough for the whole movie. Most of the other characters really lack personality. Unless the kids really want to see this, I would not recommend it.",0 "With two competent leads (Johnny Messner and Jon Huertas as paramedics abducted by a cult), one fairly entrancing nemesis (Daniel Benzali as the cult leader), seeds of a good story and decent direction, one immediately thinks this movie could have been much better.

Writers Daniel Myrick, Julia Fair and Daniel Noah seem to have come up with a basic idea, without being able to elaborate the concept further. The result is a story with few interesting elements in-between its introduction and conclusion, and no rhythm whatsoever.

Details of the cult are brushed over. Viewers are probably supposed to see this as shrouded in mystery but instead, the sentiment is that the writers failed to flesh out these things. And since none of the imagery, dialog or plot element is particularly engrossing, we can't take a ""mind trip"" as if this was a Lynch movie either, because use symbolism in this film is weak and immature.

Director Daniel Myrick (Blair Witch Project, The Objective) has done much better in the past but here, there's simply not enough happening to sustain our attention for long. If the details were to remain that sketchy, I think this would have been better off as a sort of Twilight Zone TV episode.

I appreciate the attempt but this is Myrick's weakest movie I have seen.",0 "I love all of the quirky parts in this movie! One of the best scenes is when Charlie (Meyers) is watching ""A Current Affair"" while using a theighmaster! Charlie's dad (also Meyers) is hilarious with his outrageous Scottish accent and rude personality. And Rose, Harriet's strange sister, is funny when she offers to make a wonderful breakfast for Charlie. The last 20 min aren't quite up to par with the rest of the film IMO, but over all I gave it 8/10 stars.",1 "The new action-thriller, Terminator Salvation is not great, but if it proves one thing: an action film can be mindless and moodless and still be good. Terminator 3 was terrible, yet a lot of people still liked it. Terminator Salvation is good, but people seem to hate it. This is a sign that more and more people these days have to see sophisticated films in the theater, even if it means seeing mostly bad films. Yes, there are a lot of good sophisticated films, but when something as brainless and moodless as this comes around, I'm still able to enjoy it. This movie nicely follows two stories mashed into one: John Connor (Christian Bale) waking up and discovering a whole new world, and then meeting Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), and Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) fighting war on the other side of the new world. I respect, and quite like what they're trying to do here: telling us what we might of missed in the other Terminator movies. The film is nothing new or special, but just a good old recommendable fun time at the movies. PS, anyone looking forward to the Arnold Schwarzenegger cameo will not be let down.",1 "Most folks don't have things quite as bad as the anti-hero of this film. This guy is a Viet Nam vet, who exists with his wife and his mutated baby son in a dirty run-down apartment and can't get a job to save his soul. He wanders the streets endlessly looking for work or whatever, because thanks to being captured and tortured by the Viet Cong he's not doing too well with his mental health. There's no food at home and the baby cries all the time, and it's sort of a cross between a melted child's doll and the goat-baby thing from Eraserhead. We have plenty of drug dealers making a living though, and lots of desperate people out there wandering the streets through landscapes that are depressing and barren. Most notable is a junkie trying to get his fix with a coat hanger. This is by no means an uplifting film and yet it has a certain gritty nastiness about it that's compelling to watch, kind of like a car accident where you don't want to look but can't stop yourself from doing it anyway. Creepy and depressing, but still worth seeing if you can stomach it. 7 out of 10.",1 "As someone who has been dancing all her life and is now a dance teacher and a writer for a dance magazine, I must say that this movie SUCKED!!!! What a joke!! Doug Varone and Desmond Richardson, two incredibly respected artists, what are you DOING involved in this crap?? Patrick Swayze and the woman are so unbelievably over the top, their acting is just ridiculous. And the dancing isn't even good, the choreography is hysterically bad, and the cinematography leaves you unable to even see the movement.

If you are a dancer, get your dancer friends together, get wasted and have a great laugh with this unbelievable joke of a movie. Especially if you are anti- a lot of contemporary modern crap that's out there right now, you'll die laughing.",0 "I was surprised when I checked the credits of this miniseries to see that it had not been based on a book. It feels like something based on a book, because it has such a complete and detailed mythology and a feeling of back story that is rare in the work of screenwriters. The Lost Room has created a very complete world for its characters and for its central premise.

It also, like a movie based on a book, feels like you can only get the full story by reading the book. One is left with a lot unknown. For the most part this is fine, but I don't care for the fact that at the end you really don't understand .... well .... anything. Although I'll admit that even though I was worried that this would be the case, it didn't bother me all that much, because the story had good forward propulsion and a resolution that was emotionally satisfying although not intellectually so.

Since this isn't from a book, my guess would be they're considering this for a TV series, both because some threads seem to have been left loose on purpose and because it does feel like there's more you could mine out of the material. I hope I'm right about that, I would like to see more. But if it is a series, they'd better come up with some answers.",1 "Director-star Orson Welles also adapted Isak Dinesen's rather pointless book about an aged millionaire recluse living in China who tells his employee of an incredible story he heard while in the service regarding a rich, dying man, his terrible wife and a sailor-stud. The employee explains that this tale is just a legend, but the millionaire aims to make it fact. The sexual implications in the narrative aren't ignored by Welles, though they are tip-toed around (probably due to the restrictions of 1968), and when Welles as the ""old gentleman"" finds himself the perfect boy to complete his plan, it's hard not to smirk when he calls the bottle-blonde ""a fine looking sailor"" and then offers him money. Who needs Jeanne Moreau when these two are hitting it off so well? ** from ****",0 "I am a dyed in the wool fan of Gary Daniels and believe him to be one of the best martial artists working in movies today(if not the best)but this movie is truly terrible and one of the worst I have seen in a very long time.The direction by Darren Doane is as flat as a pancake and the movie is scuppered by long dialogue scenes(one between Gary and some guy on a bench lasts about 15 minutes)and there is a scene with an Oriental actress at the beginning which has no bearing on the plot at all and the lack of any acting skill by the actress concerned is truly a marvel to behold. There is worst to come;the entirely intrusive and impossible to listen to score destroys the very things you expect from a Gary Daniels movie,namely the action.His two long and protracted fight scenes include some good techniques as you would expect from Gary but unfortunately look like they were filmed by a blind cameraman suffering from Parkinson's disease.In any case they are ruined by that God awful music which even drowns out the fight sound effects and you have to ask yourself if any of the technical team working on BLACK FRIDAY had even so much as seen a movie before let alone worked on one.I have watched many of Gary's movies several times in the past(BLOODMOON,RIOT,RECOIL)but could never envisage watching this catastrophe again.If you can imagine what the worst episode of ""Miami Vice"" would have been like if performed by the most inept actors and crew money could buy then that gives you some idea of how bad BLACK FRIDAY IS.I have some advice for director Darren Doane and that is..in future Darren,don't!!",0 "Don't misunderstand me. I liked the movie.

At first I was disappointed. I was mostly examining the flaws in the acting , the poverty of dialogues etc. And then, I don't know how, I was enjoying the film very much.

The way I see it, Poelvoorde's evolution in cinema is always aiming to get closer and closer to the poor simple guy, struggling to get a sense to his life. In that one we have three. Two are best friends, the third is Gus' wife. I won't spoil the story since I think it deserves to be seen, but they managed to give a true picture of very particular yet totally second-rate lives.

Despite the apparent poverty of the situation (except in Gus' dreams), there's a lot going on, many clichés and references to Tarantino's movie making as well. And Van Damme is perfect: a counsellor for a dumb clueless guy who thinks he's the best karateka in the world. I think he's got his place there too.

Pretty hard to get a clear opinion on this, there's a lot of mixed messages ... Once again I won't recommend it for people used to mainstream movies.

I gave it 8 out of 10",1 "This film subject is very familiar to my country and I know many refuges in personal. I must say that Angelina Jolie made a great job in film and really in personal life like ambassador in UNHCR but I think that people in general form their opinion about some crises in general with big influence of media. The true is very often hidden behind some political or financing interests. This film try to touch this topic but I think that it is not enough. It is very sad that in every part of our life politic and high interest play the role, even when some human lives can be lost. Meny of my people lose their homes and Jobs and some of them their love ones and that is worse what can hap-en to person. Wars is ultimate evil of human race. Today in my country live almost one million refuges. I just want to say that nothing are more important than a human life and everyone must think about that.(sorry about my English)",0 "Three miscreant youths, Gary Grimes, Ron Howard, and Charles Martin Smith find a wounded Lee Marvin on the road and take him to the barn of Gary Grimes father's farm. They patch him up, feed him, Grimes gives him his horse and he makes a getaway.

That doesn't sit well with Grimes' father who has lied to a posse about Marvin not being around. He takes off his belt and tans the hide off Grimes back. Grimes runs away then and there and the other two join him.

Like a lot of youth back then, when I was young, when this picture was made and today; these kids are bored. But back then there just weren't any diversions. Life was hard on those homestead farms, Grimes' father is a hard man, he had to be. The story of these kids is the story I'm sure of a lot of youth in the west.

They take up bank robbing like their new hero Lee Marvin and make a botch of it. They kill a State Senator accidentally and don't even get away with the money. Fleeing to Mexico, they meet up again with Marvin who takes them under his wing now, to show them how to do it right.

The rest of the movie is the unfolding of their disillusionment. They've killed a State Senator and they're hot. Lee Marvin does not turn out to be the hero they had in mind. But by his lights, he's operating quite logically.

The three young actors convey nicely what it must have been like to grow up on a bleak prairie homestead and to get a chance at what they perceive will be adventure. Lee Marvin strikes the right note in a difficult part. In some ways at first he appears to the kids to be just like his character in Monte Walsh, a rugged individualist who lives by his own code. He has to be that to appeal to the kids in the first place. He tries to make them shuck their boyish illusions about outlawry, but when push comes to shove the kids can't do it. Marvin is not like Liberty Valance in this film, a sadistic bully. But he does what he has to in order to survive as an outlaw.

The film is the last appearance of Arthur Hunnicutt, that venerable old character who enlivened any film he was in. His small bit as an aging outlaw is brief, but memorable.

The kids fail their apprenticeships, but they and Marvin give the audience some great entertainment.",1 "This was a very, very early full-length film. According to the video box, it was the first full-length American-made film, but that is debatable--as several films have made that claim and exactly what constitutes ""full-length"" is pretty vague. Regardless, I have to commend the cast for trying something unique and epic, though in today's light the film is a totally boring mess and only of interest to cinephiles. Instead of the modern notion of story-telling and action, the crew was breaking new ground and made a bizarre film that appears more like a series of vignettes instead of a coherent film. Instead of a moving and evolving narrative like we are used to, the film was made with a real-life traveling acting troop. But, instead of having them act out the story, the film shows inter-title cards that describe what has occurred and the cast pose like they are going to be photographed or just make a few minimal movements or actions until the next card appears to describe an all-new scene. It's almost like looking at a series of stereoscope cards that move just a little and all together tell a very, very dull story. Very static and horrid to watch, it DID try something different and this is an amazingly important film historically--I just would NEVER want to have to watch it again!",0 "I bought this on DVD at Christmas without having seen it previously. I did the same with ""The Grudge"" and it was a great experience; my friend and I (23 and 21 at the time) were so scared we had to watch ""Finding Nemo"" to calm us down. I refused to watch ""The Grudge 2"" on my own, so waited for the same friend to watch it. Now, two friends (25 and 23 now) have never been less scared in their lives. I've been more scared by toy commercials than this film. It just seemed far too contrived and too similar to the first film. Bits of it were good, but instead of being scared we just said ""That was good"". This film is a big let down, let's just hope the 3rd one gets the series back on it's feet.",0 "I thought this movie had an interesting premise to work off of- the enmity between cats and dogs. However, one problem I had with it (besides its general low quality) was the fact that the cast the cats as the criminal buffoons. (Bear with me please - I'm at least half serious). I mean, dogs as the smart ones? Come on. Cats taking over the world is believable, but casting most of them as the not-so-smart, criminal stooges was going a bit far. Cats are smarter and more, hmm, elegant than dogs. Face it, in a showdown between cats and dogs that wasn't purely reliant on mass or strength, cats would own the dogs.

Now if they had cast the dogs as the villains of the piece...that would be better. Cats like the position they're in - pampered and very little required of them- why go to the trouble of taking over and running the world when it already serves you? Another thing- dogs are the ones who chase the cats, very rarely the other way around- bit of insecurity or jealousy perhaps? Dogs also often have to actually perform, exercise, do handy things or otherwise. If they would play it as the dogs trying to oust all the freeloading superior cats....that could have been real fun.",0 "(Spoiler warning: Please don't read this unless you have already seen this movie or don't care about spoilers.)

It's an anthology of three stories. In the first one, a ballet dancer is forbidden to dance because she has health problems. But when a famous ballet director (who doesn't know about her health problems) asks her to dance for him because he seeks inspiration in order to improve his latest production, she can't resist the temptation... It's the story of a love that can't be fulfilled. I liked James Mason as the ballet director, and I was impressed by Moira Shearer's dancing, although I'm not generally a great fan of ballet dancing. And I love the music they used for the soundtrack, the 'Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini' by Sergei Rachmaninoff.

Next in sequence there is the story of a teacher (played by Leslie Caron) who hasn't known love yet. It's in the style of a fairy tale. Young Tommy (played by Ricky Nelson), the boy she teaches, becomes an adult for a few hours (through witchcraft). He meets his teacher and they fall in love, but when his spell as an adult is over, their love has to end. But the teacher has changed, and when she later meets another man, she might find lasting love... So it's the story of a love that might be fulfilled. I liked both the story and the actors.

The last story makes the sequence complete. It's the story of a love that is fulfilled. I liked Kirk Douglas very, very much; I found him very convincing as Pierre Narval, a disillusioned and retired aerial acrobat. I also liked Pier Angeli; she plays Nina Burkhardt, a woman who is so disillusioned she tries to commit suicide. But she is saved by Pierre, who later asks her to become his partner for his comeback. They are both haunted by memories of their past; Nina thinks she is responsible for the death of her husband, and Pierre probably feels he is responsible for the death of his former partner, although he says it was an accident. Pierre trains Nina. They fall in love, but then there is a very dangerous stunt they have to perform without a safety net...

I liked the third story best. The others weren't as good in my opinion, but I have still given ten points because I think that somehow (forgive the worn-out phrase) the whole is more than the sum of its three parts. I think the order in which the stories are told is well chosen for a sentimental love movie.

I think if you like the genre, this movie is well worth a look.",1 "I don't know what it was, maybe it was going through some of his own trials and tribulations (addiction and rehab), but George Carlin seems to be, well, different this time around. In a way I should've expected this- I remember reading a couple of years back when he was planning the special that it would be more based around language (if nothing else he is the single greatest linguist in the history of post-modern stand-up), and on that level the special isn't a disappointment. There are three things, however, that make the film not necessarily bad or over-wrought, but just, well, different, like a musician or band we all know through and through trying a little something new. This time, with Life is Worth Losing, there is a lot more philosophy in some ways, and also a little bit of loss in some of the timing for a few good laughs.

The first thing is that his delivery is a little different; usually it'll seem like he'll go for his three topics (the little things in life 'Seinfeld' style, words and expressions, and the ""big"" world), but much of the special this time is with a delivery that doesn't (at least some of the time, maybe not for the most part maybe so) have that much of the same strange skepticism. The second thing is that he changes the structure around one base topic, suicide, and one wonders if this will be for the entire length or if there will be a switch to another topic or not. There's variations on the theme, sometimes it spreads out into the gripes of America, and it's always fascinating, but maybe not as hilarious as one might expect (sometimes it's more like ironic musings than full-our jokes). The third thing is that at times he is so into giving a lyrical, sometimes even poetic kind of rhythm to his bits and terms in his linguist way (the first five minutes of the special a great warm-up, is a keeper) that might throw people off. In a way he is even angrier than he was in what I think is one of his very best specials, You Are All Diseased, because this time his anger is loaded at present day subjects which are, quite frankly, infuriating.

As some might come to think, I might be saying all this to shadow over thinking that the special just wasn't as funny as his best stuff. It's not necessarily that. At times I was in the same practically non-stop laughs at a few minutes a clip. As a Carlin fan all these rants that end up not leading to the same kinds of routines and such is in a way refreshing even as it is a little odd. At times I almost wondered if he was returning to a little of the spirit of his act back in the 70's mixed with his now usual brand of old-man brilliant wit and observance of all things in the world. He even seems to be going past just plain old cynicism. There is so much truth in the special at times it's kind of staggering. And to see that in such abundance and forming out into such tangents reminds me why I keep coming back to his best stuff. I'm just not sure after seeing this right off the bat that it's him at his total best, it's almost as if he's in a transition now into a totally new part of his career. Still, it's worth it to hear some of his classic takes of end of the world scenarios, the 'fat' situation in the US, and things involving suicide TV. And those last fifteen minutes are very poignant.",1 "Pitched as 'the movie the oil companies don't want you to see' but instead proving to be the movie nobody wanted to see, The Formula is a classic example of how blockbuster novels so often turn into mundane films. It has a solid cast, a solid script, solid production values – everything, in fact, but a reason to watch it. It's one of those lethargic thrillers where cardboard characters constantly talk to each other about things that happened offscreen and which the film would have been far better showing us as George C. Scott's LA cop uncovers a conspiracy involving a Nazi formula for synthetic fuel that Marlon Brando's eccentric oilman wants kept under lock and key so he can artificially inflate the price of oil. The teaming of Oscar's two most famous refusniks sadly provides no sparks – indeed, there seemed to be more drama offscreen between director John G. Avildsen and writer/producer Steve Shagan over the re-editing of the film, resulting in a compromise cut that probably satisfied no-one (it's a genuine surprise to find them jovially sharing the audio commentary on Warners' new DVD). Not that it seems that anyone else was so passionate about the film: there's no shortage of class talent here (John Gielgud and Beatrice Straight also turn up), but it's clear that the paycheck is of more interest to them than the script and they're just slumming it. Not a terrible movie, just a rather flat, uneventful and predictable one.",0 "Let me first say that I like ""The Little Princess"". I adore both the 1939 and 1995 versions, but this one was just too long. They could have cut out much of it and still been faithful to the book. Nothing much seemed to happen, it was so long! Most, but not every actor was convincing (Nigel Havers and Amelia Shankley were excellent). Shirley Temple, Liesel Matthews and Amelia Shankley (this version) are all convincing as the kind-hearted but strong-willed Sara, which was exactly what Sara was. Forget the separate nuances, that Shirley Temple was too ""cute"" or snotty (she was never that). No movie has to be ""completely"" faithful to its book. But if you feel it has to be, you'll be disappointed more often than satisfied, and that's unnecessary. But too much length is bad for any movie. The film was well-executed, and the sets were realistic but mostly unattractive. I would have given it a much higher rating if it wasn't so long. 4/10",0 "I was just happy to see Dourif in the role of good guy for once. The story itself was dark and seedy, almost. The mad painter....the strippers....yeah, kind of a turn off if you want a half decent story-line. But, the paintings were very nice and there was a definite dark intensity to the painting, to the painter and even Dourif, himself. It proves that he can pull off a lead role, and it is too bad that even after this movie's release fourteen years ago, he is still just moving through movies as part of a film's additional cast. He deserves so much more as an actor. People apparently do not see his talent the way most of his fans do. Vive la Brad!!!",1 "This movie is one of those many movies that sounds much better than it actually is. The ""death-ray by television broadcast"" plot device was actually quite minor in this otherwise sub-par 'whodunit' quickie from poverty row. Overall a really poor example as I have seen much better from poverty row.

Bela Lugosi's role really isn't very interesting and he is much better when playing more bizarre characters (Murder Legendre - White Zombie, Dracula, Dr. Carruthers - The Devil Bat).",0 "The earliest sounds films tend to be weak, awkward, and more interesting for historical reasons other than entertaining. This is a classic example. ""Feet first"" strikes me as quite weak, and Harold Lloyd is one of my all time favorites.

Here, our man is a shoe salesman who tries to move up in his business. The humor and gags drag like lead, and if you have this on DVD you will skip a number of scenes trying to get through it. There is one mildly amusing moment where HL practices public speaking pounding his fists and waving his hands with a ridiculously pompous pontification ""If it weren't for shoes, we'd all be---BAREFOOT!"" But things don't get really funny or interesting until the skyscraper-climbing scene reminiscent of SAFETY LAST. That's well done. As for Willie ""Sleep & Eat"" Best as the hapless janitor trying to help Harold during his predicament, his character was WAY too stupid (such as the ""hose scene"") and it is horrible to hear the beloved Lloyd refer to this African-American comic as ""Charcoal,"" (especially when one considers that Lloyd is usually kind and polite to Black and other nonwhite characters in his films). Admittedly, the fact that Lloyd and Best become equally scared at the sight of the gorilla (as was the case with Lloyd, Sunshine Sammy Morrison, and the supposed ghosts in ""Haunted Spooks"") takes SOME of the edge off the stereotype.

In either case, this is only for hardcore Harold completists. Casual fans will want to stick to GRANDMA'S BOY, SAFETY LAST, WHY WORRY, etc.",0 "You're not lucky if you watch this film. Incredibly stupid comedy really stars Edward Tsang (in his stupid mode)and Anita Mui.It has something to do with an accident giving one of two brothers the ability to go into peoples dreams. Somehow Chow Yun Fat figures into the mess as a cop investigating a murder that he really committed and wants to keep covered up. Its awful, even by Hong Kong low grade humor standards with Tsang's mugging bringing everything down lower than it all ready is. Think sub low rent (homeless?) Lou Costello. Trust me you're better off not seeing Tsang dressed as a robot in the hopes of seeing girls naked. Avid this film",0 "...and I saw both feardotcom and without a paddle in theaters.

and i've watched the films of ed wood. and sat through many a roger corman classic. and generally rented every bad movie in the bowels of the video store.

this is the single most painfully horrible movie i've ever seen. the only other thing i've watched in recent memory that was even close to this bad was six string samurai (I was so disappointed in that one).

But, on the upside, you can use it as a torture device to annoy your friends. There's nothing like subjecting them to bad acting, a white guy masquerading as an ""albino"" black man, and just generally terrible movie-making.

I first saw this film when I was 17. I'm now 23, and have yet to find anything to top it. The one and only reason I'm giving this two stars is because I like to torture people with it from time to time. Try it back to back with the Star Wars Holiday Special to rid your house of unwanted guests.",0 "What a plot. What nice parents. What a quickie. Sex to die for. Hum! This film started off confusing enough. She felt she had killed her parents so she sees the ghosts of them. Would they have done this? The parents I mean. They loved their daughter and didn't blame her for anything. So her guilt was her own and she runs from the cemetery leaving her car behind. Sees her dead parents in the house and runs out of the house and into her car. Where did that come from? She drives from home miles and miles (how interesting-Not!) Then she picks up a stranger and chats and forgets to drop him off and gives him a hug. He was a Hitch-hiker when do hugs come into it. The then poor guy (Oh how things change) had to walk home after all. Oh and the rain that fell just in front of them without them getting wet (someone with a watering can in front of the camera?). So the story develops. This is deadsville with more corpses than you can poke a stick at. Someone said that they reminded them of the '70's but then for me the whole film did. Actually the film got a wee bit better and I did stay with it until the end. I guessed the dead bits (it wasn't hard) and I liked the idea of the sheriff being supportive (young though. And I like the idea of the drowned town and the death/hauntings. Look I was generous giving this 3 but it did have some endearing qualities. Naff lines like, killing people. Marvelous! The little girl was quite creepy on her own. And why do all dead children of the female persuasion look like her? I loved the dead getting up in the town hall. The deaths where interesting, but never really made clear. One more thing. When she drove away to go home the scene was exactly the same as the one when she was travelling in the opposite direction. Didn't they think we would notice? Watch this if you want and if you don't expect much you will not be disappointed but be warned it is z grade horror Cheers Furdion",0 "One commentator below remarked that if you wanted to see every SF movie ever made, sit through this once and never see it again.

Well, my objectives were a little less grandiose, but when I got a chance to see this on TCM, I was excited that I would be able to view this, and mark one movie off the IL'IMDb list.

Then the movie came on. At first I thought that all the talk and set up would shortly be followed by the blast off. I waited through scene after incomprehensible scene, as cannons are fired, arms dealers jibe, and former Pres. Ulysses S. Grant shows up.I don't mind talky sf pictures when the talk means something (The Day the Earth Stood Still is great), but this is just drivel. By the time the rocket is launch I can't even say whats going on.

Once finally in space, the audience is subject to an excruciatingly predictable, and poorly rendered, make-plot about one of the passengers sabotaging the rocket, a pretty girl stowaway and the usual stuff that was done much better in ""The Woman in the Moon"" or ""Rocketship X-M""

But what really is the nail in the coffin in this is the romance between the stowaway and the young, blond pilot. It is so obviously contrived, with dialog seemingly taken directly out of mainstream romance movies of that day, that one finds himself yelling WTF?! out loud.

An example ""Oh, Whatsyourname, all I know is that when the rocket does explode, please hold me. I want to die in your arms"" Might have worked for the complete lack of chemistry between actors.

The movies one saving grace is its FX. Big budget, color, space movies from this period are actually quite rare, and this is a chance to see some fair eye candy from a relatively early date.

Oh, and another quote (Father to girl, after discussing their inevitable death on the rocket) ""Well all that matters right now is that you have cooked us a good meal""",0 "*may contain spoilers*

I vaguely remember watching Magnum as a child and liking it then.

Recently I bought all four available season sets and fell in love with it all over again. What is there not to like? The cast gel together so well Larry Manneti (Orville ""rick"" wright) is brilliant. Roger E Mosley is TC and John Hillerman is Higgins. Higgins always pretends to be irritated to death by Our Thomas but he does care (honestly) The stories are engaging and I just love tom Sellecks narration. I like the dark overtones of the fact that these Vietnam Vets are still coming to terms with their experiences.

Favourite episode? the season 4 opener ""Home from the sea "" Magnum is thrown off his surf ski in an accident and forced to endure hours in the water. Cue heartbreaking childhood flashbacks. Will Higgins, TC and Rick get to him in time?. speaking of which all three are getting a funny feeling that something has happened to Magnum.How long can a person tread water for?

""I've got to do this for Dad""

This show had action, Tragedy, Romance, one hunky guy, beautiful scenery,a great cast , humour and a lot of touching moments. One of my favourite shows ever.",1 "ANyone who thinks RObert ALtman is a brilliant director should be tied down and forced to watch this piece of garbage! The original story of ""O.C. and Stiggs"" appeared in National Lampoon, and it was both uproariously funny AND outrageously offensive to both genders, ALL races, and ALL sexual preferences. Robert Altman turned a hilarious story into a tame, lame, wimpy, boring movie with no laughs and NO guts.",0 "I have to admit, this film reminded me of how drab and ugly styles were in 1980, yechh! From that opener, you can tell this film is pretty-dated, but it has a few charms that are worth exploring: namely, an outrageous-script by Margheriti and Dardano Sacchetti that would NEVER get green-lighted today by any studio. Yes, this is another one of Quentin Tarantino's favorites, and it isn't hard to see why. It's just an insane genre-explosion that owes a lot to the Italian ""cannibal"" genre, and a good-bite of George Romero's ""Dawn of the Dead"". You might add Jacopeti and Prosperi's ""Mondo Documentaries"" too, because I think they really opened this particular door. ""Zombie"" (the Italian title for DOTD) was a hit in Italy in 1979, thanks to the Argento's promotional-campaign and better-editing (I know, a sacrilege, but I have always preferred the Argento-cut, it's more fun!). With that came a wave of imitators, most-notably in Lucio Fulci's ""Zombi (USA)/Zombie 2 (Italy & other "" and ""City of the Living Dead"". The worst were the copies by Bruno Mattei, but that's another-story.

1980: a drab, miserable year, but a time when the culture was still pretty active and vibrant. Corporate-domination of film and most other media hadn't been-consummated yet, so there were still genuine indie films, and it was a sad thing to watch all this die as a kid. This is really why horror wasn't that good in North America for some-time, and it's still trying to recover (a wait-and-see). The Vietnam war had only been over for five-years when Cannibal Apocalypse was released, so the wounds were still ripe. That's what makes this film so gutsy--pun-intended--and even depressing. At one-point during the production, star John Saxon was so-depressed by having signed-on to such a bleak movie that he contemplated-suicide. Now, how many films can say that? It just wasn't a good-time in America, though in-retrospect, life was better than it is today (2006), which should scare most young-people.

There were more outlets for frustration and rage in 1980, and horror went-to-bat, since catharsis is one of its best-features. You have to release those fears and frustrations, and that's what horror is for many people. Horror is healthy people, we know this! Cannibal Apocalypse works-well in this area, so it has some very good-points to it. We should remember that this movie was made at a time when the draft still-existed. The draft is definitely coming-back, you can bet-on-it. Still not scared? John Saxon stars as Lt. Norman Hopper, who leads a rescue-party into a Vietcong camp to recapture some of his own troops. A battle-ensues, and a Vietcong-woman (where were the black-pajamas?!) is torched with a flamethrower, and falls into the pit she and her compatriots have been holding Hopper's men in. All this seems like a normal, low-budget war movie that was shot in Georgia, until...the starving-G.I.s begin EATING-HER. OK, C-rations and Halliburton's catering are pretty- bad, but Jesus Christ. Somehow--because the writers don't tell us how--the soldiers have become infected with a rabies-like virus that makes them cannibalistic. Cut-to 1980: one of Hopper's soldiers is released from a veteran's hospital, disrupting his already strained-life, and wreaking-havoc on American society (or at least Atlanta)! Hopper has already been fighting his cannibalistic-impulses (and winning), but the return of PFC Bukowski (done with charm by the legendary John Morghen) has brought-back flashbacks and memories of Vietnam he thought he'd forgotten. In an early-scene, Hopper bites a flirty neighborhood-girl, and he begins to succumb to the cannibalistic disease.

And this is what is so great about Cannibal Apocalypse--it challenges your loyalties to the characters, and coaxes you into siding with a band of cannibals, led by none-other than JOHN SAXON!! For this reason, and the gore, I think this is why the film became so infamous and censored. Yet, these are the things that make is as good as it is! In many areas, it was censored of heavily-edited. Until the release of the 2002 DVD (Margheriti died in November of 2002), Americans have never seen this film in its entirety. Saxon has said he has never seen it, and I doubt he ever will. Who can blame him? Yet, he gives an incredible-performance as Norman Hopper, even one of his best in his entire-career outside of Enter the Dragon. Granted, it's just another in a long-line of exploitation films that Mr. Saxon acted in, but it's a great role that he did justice to. Of course, his own personal-misery didn't hurt either. But, Antonio Margheriti's (Castle of Blood, The Virgin of Nuremberg) direction is excellent, and he didn't have much to work-with here. Sacchetti's theme of a violent-cannibalism spreading by bites is a solid-move, however. It's very primal and hits the audience on a subconscious-level, even though it owes a debt to Romero. It isn't as-developed as it should have been, but this was another rush-production.

So, as an anti-war film--not-so-good, the theme gets lost in the action and gore. But that's OK, it's a film that leaves people speechless, and that's what a decent horror-film is about, too. From ""Cannibal Holocaust"", to Dawn of the Dead, this is a hybrid-film that is unique to the time that made it. But, it is so audacious, so brazen, that it must be seen. It lags in the middle-section--pun-intended--but really picks-up towards the climax, and reminds us that movies about ""the infected"" are not new. I would even credit Cronenberg's ""Rabid"" (1977) as being first on this one, and a definite-influence on this film. There was something in the air then, and it seems to have returned. Call it war, chaos, genocide, social-unrest--but it's back. Best-move: just p*ss-on-it, you remember. No-wonder Morghen's character was named-after the American poet Charles Bukowski! If America is good at anything, it is slang.",1 "It's an agreeable surprise to find Charley Grapewin billed as the star of this fun and thrill-filled old dark house escapade. While it's possible to pick holes in the ingenious plot, the dialogue, the direction and even the cinematography, you can't argue with the central idea, the pacing, the superior production values (for a Poverty Row effort) or the obvious enthusiasm of players and technicians to make a movie that's always most enjoyable to watch and listen to, despite the obvious limitations of a ""B"" budget offering, set within the none-too-lavishly appointed confines of the old Mack Sennett Studio in North Hollywood. All things considered, Mac D'Agostino's sets are delightfully eye-catching. I love the trophy room!

The picture starts off most promisingly on the right foot with an ingenious credits sequence improvised and directed by Joseph H. Lewis. The movie then quickly gets down to familiar but nonetheless pleasing business as the camera focuses on Charley Grapewin, who quickly and cleverly explains to his assembled relatives what nice round figures each will realize from his $6 million will, provided of course that his long-lost grand-daughter doesn't turn up before the clock strikes twelve. Needless to say, she does—in the person of lovely Evalyn Knapp—or does she?

As expected, the mystery and horror elements (the phantom himself or herself isn't all that frightening, but there's a sequence in the trophy room that's bound to raise goose bumps) jostle for attention with some smart repartee and even a bit of knockabout. But even that is well done!",1 "Awful Truth is anything but awful

In 1937 Cary Grant was already a Hollywood Giant. a dynamic actor and a genuine Star. But in the `Awful Truth,' Irene Dunn took him to school. Yes, Mr. Grant was as charismatic as usual, delivering his lines marvelously, perfect in comedic timing, and demonstrating great physical humor. Throughout most of the movie, Grant and Dunne sparred on relatively equal terms, each earning a fair share of the proliferus laughter generated by their antics. However, at the last hearty chuckle, it was clear that Dunne had been toying with Grant throughout. No, this is not a spoiler and has nothing to do with the storyline, but rather an evaluation of their performances. Despite the magnificence of his, her's was better.

Irene Dunne was simply phenomenal, deserving her nomination for `Best Actress.' She was funny, charming, exuberant, conniving, manipulative, and intriguing. The movie was slow to find it's footing and much time was wasted as Grant and Dunn, in the slower portions, are not on camera together and thus unable to `duel.' But as the plot unfolds the momentum builds to a final crescendo and the mutual magic of these fine comedic artists delivers cascade upon cascade of laughter.

The director Leo McCarey, earning his Best Director Oscar, toyed with both the relatively new `Hayes Code' and the censors, implying with sensitivity and subtlety, a physical aspect of love and infatuation that was unnecessarily suppressed in movies for decades. The witty `doublespeak' dialog at the end was fascinating as each of these protagonists explained the situation in self-contradictory fashions and yet their meanings were unmistakable. Yes, there is a predictable plot but the witty words and scrappy schemes are pleasant surprises.",1 "When I saw this movie at the store, i expected it to be half decent, but it turned out to be the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The storyline was as murky as it could get, characters seemed to just pop up out of nowhere and be put into the plot. There were dozens of people who never even had names, lines, or any significance.

The breasts were sub-par and the acting, horrible. The gunshots sounded like cap guns, and we never got to see a mere glimpse of Amber's hot bod. This may seem superficial but as it applies to this movie it is a viable point.

The only redeeming quality about this movie is the character Rick, who like many of the other characters just showed up out of nowhere. Rick was the most bad ass character in the whole film, he took charge of the situation and forged a path to victory. Too bad he was killed, because the writers (even though none are credited... surprise surprise) cannot think up a good story.

The other best part of this movie was the EXPLODING ZOMBIE LEG. Not only did Derek get that shotgun inexplicably, but apparently the zombie whose leg Derek shot wasn't actually a zombie, but a cyborg (which explains the sparks).

I feel like I need to take a shower, wash my eyes with bleach, and watch a good movie after watching this despicable attempt at anything coherent.

This movie was written by four people who wanted this movie to be good.",0 "I think it was the obvious title choice that didn't make this film a block buster. Word of mouth can only go so far. It is a romantic comedy that all ages can relate to. By no means is this a ""chick flick"" movie though. The movie has a great cast from Ryan Reynolds (Waiting) to Alyssa Milano (Charmed). The movie characters all play significant roles that tie into the theme- ""Why would you want to Buy the Cow when you can get the milk for free?"" It's a hilarious adventure of a film about dating and the ultimate search for your ""soul mate"" or the ""one"". It is the perfect date movie. I found it to be more than hilarious, with actor/comedian Ryan Reynolds stealing the show.

For all the Ryan Reynolds fans out there this is hands down the funniest performance of his career. This feel good movie will appeal to all, especially to those romantic single gals and guy's out there. This movie will leave you feeling high on life with a refreshing feeling of hope.

This is a definite must see! Excellent!",1 This has more style than most of Hammer efforts. For that reason I'm giving it a high rating. Its based on the story Carmilla by Sheridan Le Fanu. As such it has a stronger narrative than the late Dracula films where the screen plays were not based on any novels.

The story is about the resurrection of a long dead vampire girl by her vampiring relatives. For some unclear reason they feel she needs schooling and enrol her at an exclusive finishing school. Socially responsible these vampires.

Part of the advantage for them is that it provides a supply of good looking women to appear for their scholastic vamp to suck on. This is only used a couple of times. Into this a stranger wanders along and is immediately given a teaching job without any checks as we are meant to have now days. He falls in love with Yutte Stensgaard's bloodsucker immediately. He is really inappropriate for a teaching post. What would he be like if he was there for 5 years?

I knew of this film but hadn't got round to it as part of the Hammer canon until I read a review of Le Fanu by the writer and actor Stephen Armourae. On a couple of vampire websites also appeared a portrait of Yutte Stensgaard by him taken from the film. Yutte was a very good looking actress and I have recently seen an excerpt of a game show presented by Bob Monkhouse where she was assistant. Her performance was as wooden then as in this though she made a couple of good films later.

A note on this film is that Peter Cushing was intended to play the Ralph Bates role but had to pull out due to ill health. This is to the film's credit. It would have been a shame to see Cushing die and the late great Ralph Bates does a good turn in a scene of desperation and appropriately enough lust.,1 "Director Susan Lacey made this film for the Public Broadcasting Corporation's American Masters series. I saw it tonight at the Jacob Burns Film Center in the Westchester (N.Y.) County village of Pleasantville. The director engaged in a spirited conversation with the audience after this fine documentary was shown.

I've always been a fervent Judy Garland fan. She was one of the most talented actresses and singers ever produced in this country. I have seen all of her films, I own some on VHS or DVD, and I have a number of CDs of her singing. Her legendary Carnegie Hall concert is the highlight of my collection of this ""take no prisoners"" stage giant.

""Judy Garland - By Myself"" is aptly titled. As a child she was more or less separated from any normal life by mogul Louis B. Mayer and made a contract slave to the studio system, in this case the property of MGM. I'm not stretching the analogy to indentured servitude at all. As shown here with stills, film clips and spoken narration she was put into an inhuman pressure cooker where every last bit of pressure was exerted and all possible profit was extracted by a heartless machine.

As a teenager scoring one success after another she was given pep pills to make her work harder and longer followed by sleeping pills so she could get some rest before the cycle repeated itself the next day. Any studio trying that with a kid today better have a legion of very good criminal defense lawyers.

As shown in this penetrating biography, Judy Garland was recognized for extraordinary ability almost from the get-go with, of course, ""The Wizard of Oz"" propelling her to world acclaim.

In the process she slowly began to lose her sense of self, succumbing to studio entreaties (and when that failed, threats did the job). She became involved in one doomed relationship with a man after another disappointing one, a lifetime pattern. Sickening and chilling is the account of how both Mayer AND Judy's mother virtually forced her to abort her first pregnancy because it was the ""wrong"" time for her to have a child.

There are many clips of her powerful acting and incredible singing in this almost two-hour film. While sympathetic to her travails, Ms. Lacey deserves credit for showing the price she paid, a price that ended in her death at age 47 from the very drugs she depended on for decades to get her through an up and down career.

Until the fatal end Judy Garland wasn't simply a survivor, she was a hugely talented and ambitious woman who, like water, carved out a new course when an earlier one was blocked. To her fans she seemed irrepressible and the film makes the point that the people who made up her audience were her principal motivator. She's quoted as saying she knew she always wanted to please audiences and fans. It's truly tragic that so many in show business who profited from her incomparable talent didn't have the decency to want to please her. And, probably, save her life.

A terrific addition to one of PBS's best series.

10/10",1 "As a popcorn guzzling action lover, I found this film to be pretty bad. Sure, Van Damne may not be the greatest of all the action movie heroes, but he does have his moments (Hard Target, TimeCop, Sudden Death, Universal Soldier). But this film was just a waste. It was a slow paced, pretty boring film. The action of the film consists of two fight scenes, neither of which are any good. This is Van Damne's worst film, and one of the worst action films I have ever seen.",0 "This movie is a powerful portrayal of gay life and homophobia in small-town America, in this case Homer, Connecticut. Narrated through all three vignettes by Eric Stoltz's character, the character is 6 or so in ""1954"" when a young woman (Brittany Murphy) returns from the Navy with a Section 8 discharge for ""deviant sexual behavior"". In ""1974"", Stoltz is a fresh-from-Vietnam veteran tending grounds at the town war memorial at a time when the high school's star swimmer (Johnathan Taylor Thomas) wants to come out to his French teacher (Stephen Weber). In the last vignette, Stoltz's groundskeeper is greying, and some in the town (mostly veterans and church-goers) are protesting the marriage of two gay men, one of whom has wedding-day jitters and a father (Ed Asner) who helped organize and mobilize the protest.",1 "This movie is so cheesy, it is the funniest thing I have ever seen! My friends and I all died laughing through the whole movie. You really must see this movie, if only to see how being really bad can actually be a very good thing!",1 "Saturday night, time to catch a DVD. We were pretty much settled on ""Walk The Line"" until we saw this. It had Tom Green, it looked like a ""comedy"" so we went this way. I obviously knew ""Walk The Line"" was slightly more acclaimed, but I was in the mood for something light and easy.

""Bob the Butler"" is all about Bob (Green), a terrible employee who's tried a stack of jobs with little success. He comes across an ad for a butler course and decides to give it a go. While doing the course he receives a request to babysit (one of his old jobs) and gives it a go. He does well so the mum decides to hire him as the butler. From here we can work out what's going to happen and the plot plays out exactly as you'd expect.

Terrible movie, even for the genre. An all over the place, poorly laid out script with Green way out of his comfort zone. It was sad watching him play this role. The kids were OK but that was about it. Don't waste your time.",0 "And just to make sure you get it right, i'll repeat myself: Watch the french original! It's so much better, starting from the cast (Queen Latifah is so miscast, it hurts), straight to the story/humor (it's just not right)!

The best scene (to at least have one good comment about the title) is a scene involving Jennifer Esposito and Gisele Bündchen, which had a sort of ""tension"" to it, that was funny and sexy at the same time! Funnily (or maybe not so funny) enough, with the cast here, you'd be excused to think that it would be more often like that. But it's neither funny nor sexy ... and I'm not talking at the same time, at all! Except the one scene ... but that doesn't save the movie, which just is too long and has nothing going for it! It's a shame, because Jimmy Fallon can be funny, but here he's just annoying!",0 "Before i saw the movie i read some comments about it... stating it's condemned by several groups of people in Bosnia. I totally understand why, without spoiling anything, the overall message of the movie is shocking. Not only it gives a statement for the gay people in Bosnia, but also one for the whole population.

This movie is not for a broader range of people. In fact.. you will need to respect the way it is told in order to like it. But if you do, then it's genius......

And look for some nice metaphors which are a honor to Sergio Leone.

This movie is available on DVD in Bosnia and other Balkan countries, so if you are in that region you know you can find it.",1 "This movie was a little bit better than i thought it would be. Which isn't saying much as the Scifi Channel has a history of showing some real sulfurous stinkers.

But volcanoes are one of my most favorite movie genres, and wild dead horses couldn't drag me away from watching one i haven't seen yet. And i do believe i've seen just about all of them. Or at least those that i have been currently aware of.

As this was a Scifi Channel movie showing, i wasn't really expecting an outstanding movie, and in that, i wasn't disappointed. The screenplay seemed awfully, awfully similar in some places to a certain volcano movie that took place on the US west coast, on Wilshire Blvd. Apparently, some idea ""borrowing"" went on...

I was pleased to see Mike Ironsides still in the movie biz. Mike has been in good movies and in bad movies, and sometimes in the bad movies, he was the only reason to bother watching it. His character here is pretty amusing in its irresponsible ego mania and Mike plays it pretty well. The good doctor is not so good and maybe more than a little bit teensy-weensy frothing-at-the-mouth bat doodoo crazy. Ironsides' performance of the raving wacko got me snickering. I think he could have thrown in a few more drops of rabid drool for fun, but still, it was acceptable for a demented scientist role.

A note to film makers: a shouldercam is only to be used when using anything else wouldn't be practical or for trying to give a quick and temporary intimate ""you are there"" feeling. Wa-a-ay too much use of shouldercam here when a tripod-mounted one should have been used instead. Sometimes the too-much jiggly camera work made me start feeling seasick.

This movie did have one of my pet movie peeves. The characters were wasting precious moments futzing around when moments were too precious to waste. Apparently thrown in for ""dramatic impact"" when in real life, you know the characters would be hopped up on adrenalin and moving their butts like greased lightning.

Is this movie actually worth watching? Well, if you're a volcano movie aficionado like i am, you KNOW you're going to watch it anyway no matter how much it reeks of hydrogen sulphide. This movie is more dumb than bad, but it will be essential to have your Dramamine ready in case of seasickness caused by the jiggly camera work.",0 "My mother bought this for Halloween at the Dollar Store for something fun to watch. Truly a bad movie. Watch for the microphone dropping into the frame from above near the pool. There is the typical nudity tease but there is none. In that respect it is safe for kids. (SPOILER ALERT) The death scenes are great fun though. Our favorites were the electrocution and the strangulation. The faces were so great we watched it over and over. Great for a laugh! Also, is that Starsky and Hutch? If you see it for a dollar and want some laughs, get it, otherwise pass.",1 "Cannibal Apocalypse is an important Italian horror film as it marks the successful fusion of the two most successful Italian sub-genres; zombies and cannibals. The plot follows a vicious virus brought back to America by three soldiers returning from Vietnam; only it's not your usual virus. Instead of turning it's victims into mindless zombies; it leaves the afflicted aware of their situation, albeit with a hunger for human flesh. Cannibal Apocalypse isn't the movie that you would expect it to be. Even though it's been cut and banned many times, the gore isn't all that nasty, or frequent; with only a few sequences really hitting the 'disgusting' mark. The film is much more intelligent than the usual cannibal nonsense, as it explores themes such as Vietnam veterans returning into society, and turns the tables on Dawn of the Dead's social commentary. It analyses it's points with a sly grin on it's face, however, and it's clear that none of the points are being made with any real conviction; but Antonio Margheriti has shown with previous movies (Dance Macabre, The Virgin of Nuremberg) that he's too clever for merely making a movie about cannibals - and that's the main reason why Cannibal Apocalypse offers more.

The film benefits massively from the presence of John Saxon. This hardworking and criminally underrated actor leads the film with relish, and adds massively to the final spectacle; even if the man himself refuses to see this film. He is joined by cult actor Giovanni Lombardo Radice, who has worked with many of the great Italian directors, including the likes of Lucio Fulci, Umberto Lenzi and Michele Soavi. The plotting of the film is well paced, and despite a few lapses; is generally exciting throughout. Tributes to Dawn of the Dead, along with Fulci's Zombi 2 are rampant throughout; the best, of which being a sequence inside a flea market - good stuff! Margheriti's direction is as assured, as you would expect, and even if he's not quite an Argento or Bava; he's definitely among the elite of the lesser-known Italian directors. The fact that this movie is mostly set in a city sets it apart from most of the rest of the cannibal films, which tend to take place in the jungle. On the whole, this certainly isn't one of the best movies ever made; but it's a lot of fun, and won't disappoint fans of Italian horror. Recommended.",1 "Historically wrong, but the plot is great. Even if the historical facts are wrong the movie is quite good. The movie tells the story of Snapphanarna in Skåne (the southest ""state"" of Sweden"") and the war between Sweden and Denmark during the 17 th century when Skåne became a part of Sweden instead of Denmark. Snapphanarna was a ""movement"" amongst the citizens of Skåne that were against the swedes overtaking their land and on occasion forcing them to swear their oath to the Swedish king instead of the danish. Party brutal scenes, but probably not the way things happened back during the 17 th century.

The word Snapphane was an insult word, snappa in English snatch, and was used as a word of abuse. There were different categories of Snapphanar, normally we count three different, highwaymen, free shooters working for the danish army and many of these were thieves and robbers.",1 "This was a real chore to watch. I'm not exaggerating when I say that at least thirty minutes can be cut off this clunker without missing any plot lines whatsoever.

May Britt plays Ingrid, the most unlikeable main character in movie history. Not only is she the coldest fish on earth but she's also a fierce man-hater. The small town she lives in has been plagued with murders committed by a scissor wielding madman. This makes Ingrid even more unbearable to be around as every breathing man she comes into contact with is automatically trying to rape her. Number one on her list is the town rowdy Frankie who also works as the butcher in the local market when he's not having a very inappropriate relationship with the sheriff's seventeen year old daughter. This would be fine had the man playing Frankie not appear to be in his late thirties at least. What's more absurd is that Ingrid constantly refers to him as ""that boy"".

Ingrid lives alone (no surprise there) on a farm but is helped on occasion by her Uncle Carl played by B-movie king Cameron Mitchell. Did I mention that she also has hallucinations too? Usually the incoherent flashbacks come over her every few seconds. Rubbing a goat, flashback, feeling a bed sheet, flashback, someone closes a door, flashback. Ingrid comes upon a corpse left on her property and that pushes her off the mental edge she was teetering on to begin with. The ending is quite bizarre as Ingrid's fate as well as the relationship between her uncle and her mother are slapped across you face like a dead salmon.

I couldn't care less what happened to Ingrid because her performance was as dead as the person she portrays. We are lead to believe that she was raised in this small California coastal town yet her thick accent begs to differ. This is explained near the end as the time she spent at ""a European school up the coast"". What? Did they suck the life force from her too? Let's hope Werewolf in a Girl's Dormitory is better.",0 "The Peoples Court is definitely the best of the TV court shows. Just to clarify a point, the Peoples Court started in 1981 with Judge Joseph Wapner, not with Ed Koch. The reason why this show is the best, is because this show is mostly about the law, not the theatrics of the Judge. In most of the other TV courtroom shows, the judge humiliates the litigants and the decisions are not based on law but based on the entertainment value of the decision. Not only is Marilyn Milian fair, but she treats the litigants with respect. She also explains in full detail why the judgement is made and also explains what type of paperwork and actions should have taken place and accompanied them. She will at times show her wit with the litigants, but without humiliating them.",1 "I look at a lot of DVDs. This one is Katt's first and it's better than all the rest. The documentary at the beginning sets it up. We've had enough of haters and it says so. We've had enough of hurting ourselves for haters and it says so. And it's done without hating back. I like that. This is also Katt's original material. Unlike some of his other specials, this DVD is over an hour of non-stop comedy and funny! He's real natural. Not all that gimmicky stuff he does in his later shows. He does talk about the perm. He does talk about being a pimp. But it takes a backseat to his comedy. That's the difference. There's comedy in this show. It's thumbs up, 10 points and you know it from you know it.",1 "Tales of Manhattan had a tuxedo. The Dress has a dress. There the similarity ends. What follows if a very smart, often disturbing parade of lives of people who happen to come in contact with a particularly hideous dress. It arouses unexpected, overwhelming lust in some, nothing in others, but it's a sure bet that if you have the dress you're in for something strange and probably not very pleasant.

The intriguing threads that bind this tapestry of frustrated longing together are a failed textile manufacturer and an obssessed ticket taker, who voices the movies' sad and in his case, misapplied motto: ""I'm normal!"" Here everyone and no one is.

The wit is subtle and sharp as a scalpel. All actors are excellent--especially unnerving is van Warmerdam himself as the doomed ticket taker. Pay very close attention to the faces and names of characters. They are sign posts for things to come.

",1 "Three gangsters commit murder, then take to the road where they end up at the farm of a disturbed young woman.

An effectively spooky character portrayal by Leslie Lee and some good filming locations, doesn't quite save this ultra low-budgeter from being an unsatisfying horror flick. While it does have the occasional moment of gore, Axe a.k.a. Lisa, Lisa makes for an uneven slasher film and is a bit too light on the violence to really be considered a true exploitation thriller. It's pretty much a mixed bag, that never really finds its effectiveness. The films choppy editing and stilted direction definitely takes away from it too.

So, all in all it's kind of hard to find a place for this weird B flick, the curious may find something of interest in it, but don't expect another Last House on the Left (1972).

* 1/2 out of ****",0 "It feels like a recycling of all ""die hard"" movies combined with some segal flicks! of course they cant get away with that so they put in a kid.. This way they could add a family drama type background and an angsty fireman. All they needed more was a hint of sex.. Which they clumsily poured in at the end! The movie runs like a train! Which is undeniably good, the problem is the background. You shouldn't think too much, actually I advise against thinking at all. You need to accept a lot of facts. One of the harder ones is a fireman who in the end turns out to be a near superman! I also have to admit.. the whole plot really doesn't get me worried about who wins! I really didn't care enough! Or any of my friends.

Its a nice no brainer, but don't spoil too much money on it!",0 "I've been reading the comments and I'm not surprised that others find this movie boring. It's not for anyone with a limited attention span. I don't have one of those and I thought this was a very interesting, if not somewhat sad look at the world of employment whether it be temp or permanent. I guess everyone wants to fit in-whether it be your job or school. If you can find some little niche that you do belong in enjoy it because sometimes that fit never lasts. I think that's what happened in this movie. The 4 main characters fit in with each other because they were temps and had that little thing in common. But what else they had in common is not clear and I think it wasn't enough to hold the little group together. Sure, we can blame it on the thief plot but in the long run relationships like that don't last because they have very little in common. As for the new girl Cleo I actually felt sorry for her-she was such a lonely soul and it seemed she tried to make friends with those 4 but they didn't want to include her in. She paid Iris a compliment and also said hi but all she did was stare back at her-funny coming from those who complain about being ignored by the permanent workers because they were temps. She stole the things from everyone because it gave her a part of them since she didn't make friends with anyone.I can really feel for the Cleo character. The four main characters are a case study in themselves. But they were a hoot and so much like those that I've come across in life. And that's why I like this movie-the characters are real.",1 "The R-rated version of THE RAFFLE is one of the most baffling movies I've ever seen. Imagine a Disney-like movie, with cute acting, and cute this and cute that, but included in the whole thing are shots of full frontal nudity from a variety of bimbos. The effect is truly jarring. The whole film has the feel and authenticity of Pamela Anderson. Is so unrealistic and artificially cute, coy, and Aw Shucks, that one can gag at the whole thing. But the inserted moments of naked women, shot like cheesy Playboy centerfold videos, were totally incongruous with the cutesy aspect of the movie. This gave the film a creepy, sleazy feel unlike anything I've ever seen before, which was kinda cool, in an unintentionally funny kind of way.

The intentions of the artistically-challenged producers are clearly obvious: they wanted a parade of naked chicks. But they also wanted to make a movie that would be appreciated by more wholesome folks by simply re-editing the nude scenes out, and voila, a movie that can be played on some family network. But the characters of the movie, most of them men, are such losers and are so repulsive that a PG-rated version would still look bizarre and something about it would seem askew.

Is it worth watching THE RAFFLE just for the gratuitous nudity? I guess so, if you plan to fast forward through a lot of boring moments in order to see the naked bimbos. In the end though, if you want to see boatloads of female nudity, you might as well watch a Playboy video than this tripe.

THE RAFFLE is one heck of a confused movie.",0 "A man receives a package from England. Inside is a letter stating that he is the sole heir to a family fortune and title. Additionally, the letter states that enclosed in the box are two bottles of the finest family-made liquor and that he should make a toast to the family and his good fortune. Unfortunately, the brandy-like concoction is laced with the blood of Dracula and slowly the man changes to a vampire. Additionally, the blood fills him with a desire for a vendetta--a vendetta to kill the living relatives of the people who killed Dracula a century ago. In a real change of pace, 90% of the film is set in the Miami area--certainly a big change from previous films.

I really am not exaggerating in the summary--this looks like a lower quality community theater group performing a modern reworking of Dracula. While this may sound pretty bad, for a Hershell Gordon Lewis movie, this isn't that bad. In fact, I'd place it in the top half of his films for quality--though it still isn't that great. The worst thing about the movie is the rather uninspired acting. Most of it isn't terrible--none of it is particularly good. The second worst thing about the film is the direction--it shows no imagination or style whatsoever. I've seen many homemade videos on YouTube that look as good or better. But, there is something decent in the film--the story. While doing yet another Dracula film isn't something we really needed, the story shows more originality than manner of the Hammer Dracula films! It is a novel idea...and that's something!",0 "My title refers to how this viewer's intelligence felt after watching the show. What a yucky, lowest common denominator mess. The concept is pretty crappy to begin and it feels likes a rudderless, directionless ship from start to finish (I didn't actually get through the last commercial break because my trusty remote put its foot down).

I like giving new shows a chance and especially comedy ones, but between this one and keys to the hiv, there just isn't much out there worth paying attention to. Hopefully this show will not get renewed so they can fit in another half hour of Daily Show. Heck, I would take Daily Shows from the late 90s over this unfunny prattle.

Awful show.",0 "Simon Sez is one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. Its another one of those monstrosities that you have to force yourself to watch only so you can brag to your friends about how you were able to ""watch the whole thing"", and to see their shocked expressions after you say that. Other than that, there is no reason to force yourself through the consistent ineptness of this poor excuse for an action adventure.

First off... It stars Dennis Rodman. That alone should be enough to turn most people away, but because I'm Mr. ""Open To All Movies"", I put in the video and watched it anyway.

Since my brain has an automated trash filter and defragger (I still run on NTFS), I only remember small pieces of the film. One scene that stood out, and shouted to me like an old woman with a bad hip, was the scene where master martial artist Xin Xin Xiong and some woman (I forgot her name) were engaging in a tightly choreographed fight. But because Rodman was the ""star"" and didn't want to be upstaged up by his ""co-stars"", a way had to be found to bring him into this action. But Rodman can't fight. So their solution was to just have Rodman stomp into the scene like Frankenstein and claw, pounce, and push his way through the fight. And this didn't just happen once. It happened many times...

Before I start cursing I'll just end my review here.

Don't see this movie. Spare yourself the pain.",0 "I just got back from a free tester screening of this movie and even participated in the focus group of about 30 people afterward. To sum it up, nobody said they would have paid to see this movie and nobody agreed that they would recommend this to a friend. Though it is overwhelmingly bad, it was just a tester screening and they may yet make changes to this piece.

Spoiler? ****The Upcoming portions has some stuff about the story, but there is nothing really to spoil other than if you thought this was going to be a good movie.

There were a few bright spots, AKA Danny Masterson, Adam Brody, and John Cho. Danny Masterson played the supposedly geeky roommate who Anna Faris is creeped out by due to his love of Sci-Fi. He is portrayed as being, literally, a spooky Skull-F***er, ya kind of weird but funny none the less. Adam Brody plays the intelligent and economical pot dealer and in his limited role is absolutely hilarious. Anna ends up owing him money and must travel to Venice in order to pay him off, or else. This is the basic premise of the movie, it seems. John Cho is a sausage delivery man who has no connection to Anna other than she was so high she stowed away on his delivery truck in an effort to get to Venice. The only problem with all this is that each of these characters were in the movie for no longer than 5 or 6 minutes, they had no interaction with each other, and they were the funniest characters in the flick (this is bad if they all have limited roles).

Now onto Anna, poor poor Anna. She accidentally eats a whole batch of pot cupcakes (the weird part about this is that you don't actually know that these cupcakes are pot filled) and goes on a 'fun' filled expedition to repay her debts. Sounds funny right? Not really, she acted like she more strung out on speed or trippin on some bad shrooms or LSD...Has she ever even smoked before? It was just completely unbelievable and she was basically the entire movie, considering there were no other main characters in any sense of the word. She would just go around and talk to one person, then a random event will happen leading to another person and another event.

As far as the story goes, I don't think there was one. It just seemed like a series of random events that had a beginning, a meaningless ending, and nothing in between. There were many dull moments throughout the movie that made an hour and a half seem a lot longer than that.

With that said, there were still moments of stoner brilliance and with some quality editing and an extensive overhaul this movie may still have a chance. Remember that this movie is still in the works and they have a chance to kick it up a notch, but I think it is unrealistic. Other than that, I'm sad to say that Smiley Face is Dead on Arrival.",0 "It is the American Civil War as envisioned by Italians, set apart from the main theaters of conflict, out in the southwestern desert. James Coburn is Col. Pembroke who has lost impregnable Ft. Holman to the Rebs and who has a private scheme to retrieve it along with his honor. He sets out on a commando expedition with a sergeant and a dirty half-dozen volunteers, scalawags freed from the gallows and kept in line (barely) with a promise of hidden gold. Telly Savalas is the Southern commander dreading Pembroke's reappearance. Some exciting action and tense situations, but credibility is strained when, with the Ft. Holman Gatling gun spraying shot into the parade ground, the Confederate troops show no interest in cover but keep milling in the open like ants from a hill goaded with a stick. Not a great or inspiring movie but a solid performance from Coburn. And for all the death there's not much blood.",0 "This movie is the ""Showgirls"" of science fiction. It's so bad, it's like a universal constant. Like mathematics or physics or something. There's not even any nudity to balance things out. No good acting, no good story, no boobies.

Suffice it to say, the writer/director ripped off all the bad parts of both ""The Terminator"" and ""Robocop"". This thing makes those godawful films from India look like high art. At least Bollywood flicks have good dancing. If you MUST see this movie, see it with a bunch of your friends. You might want to consider voluminous amounts of alcohol or possibly a few bong hits to stay interested. There's no reason to torment yourself alone with this thing unless you're a complete masochist.

After you watch it, sit and think about the fact that someone actually put up MONEY to shoot, edit and release this thing. On top of that, some poor slob had to sit and watch all the footage and edit something interesting together. Imagine the crap that wound up on the cutting room floor. The mind boggles.",0 "The first part of The Cannonball movies offers some mindless fun, just like its sequel.A bunch of crazy people participate in the Cannonball run throughout the nation.J.J. McClure is a has-been race car driver who now teams up with Victor Prinzim and his alter ego, Captain Chaos.They drive around The United States with an ambulance.They're also accompanied by the creepy doctor Nikolas Van Helsing and a blonde they call Beauty.There are many other wackos in that race, including two entertainers dressed as priests.Burt Reynolds is terrific as J.J.The great comedian Dom DeLuise, who passed away this year, is brilliant both as Victor and Captain Chaos.Farrah Fawcett, who sadly lost her struggle with cancer last summer, is a real angel as Pamela Glover, aka Beauty.Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr. make a great team as the former race car driver Jamie Blake and the scam artist Morris Fenderbaum.You gotta like Roger Moore as Seymour Goldfarb, who thinks he is Roger Moore.The American football quarterback Terry Bradshaw plays Terry and country singer Mel Tillis is Mel.Bert Convy is the welthy executive who drives on a motorcycle as the other half of the newlyweds.Milton Berle's nephew Warren Berlinger sits in the back wearing a wig.There's a lot of fun stuff in this movie.You laugh every time when you see the appearance of Jack Elam.Roger Moore's James Bond routine is hilarious.You know, the guy from ""The Fly Who Bugged Me"".The fighting scene is a riot.It's always hilarious when Captain Chaos appears, and this time he shows them hooligans.In the end we see some bloopers.We see Dom DeLuise laughing hysterically.They sure had fun making this movie.",1 "The story line would have been good if the actors especially the lead, Emily Shaw, didn't over act so much! What happened to her anyway?? I don't know what happened to the former baywatch girl but she looks terrible in this movie, that unibrow really needs to go!

In this movie the main characters totally overacted making it difficult to watch! Don't waste your time with this one! It isn't worth a full ""one"" vote! Late night cable for a reason, no one wants to see this!

This was one of the worst movies I have ever wasted my time watching! What teenager acts this way? Totally unbelievable! But what can you expect for low budget!",0 "-and I say that being a person whose hated musicals all his life with a fiery passion

-The movie chronicles the events that takes place after the gang sneaks in to see an R rated movie. the movie is based on their favorite Canadian TV show ""Terrence and Phillips: Asses of Fire."" the movie contains lots of crude humor and vulgar language, and teaches them how to use the F word and other offensive language in a brand new way. pretty soon all the kids see the movie and start cussing like sailors, and this is where the problem comes from. all the parents lead by Kyle's mom decide to protest the movie and the protest soon turns into an all out war between Canada and USA. meanwhile Kenny dies and ends up in hell and whiles there he discovers that Satan and his boyfriend Saddam Hussein *LOL* are plotting to invade earth. and that's the f*cked up plot in a nutshell

-The whole movie is told through a series of wonderful songs sang by the characters. from the Danny Elfmanesque ""Blame Canada"" to the laugh out loud ""Kyle's Mom's A *female dog*"" all the songs in the movie are just perfect and fits it like a glove. the humor is the same as that of the TV show, and by that i mean stereotypical racial jokes, fart jokes, gay jokes, pop culture jokes, and sexual jokes. the animation is also the same which must be great news for the studio because by doing that the movie was made very cheaply. Trey and Matt like always do the voices for about 70% of the characters in the movie, but this time they have some celebrity friends to help them out. I heard that Clooney did a voice for the movie but i couldn't recognize it. The best thing about this movie and also the TV show is of course Cartman. he's let loose in this movie and completely uncut so we get to hear him in his whole anti-semitic glory. Later on the movie his filthy mouth ends up saving the day.

-I love this movie. it's exactly my type of humor, it doesn't hold anything back and is wonderfully filthy. all the jokes whether racial or homosexual jokes are simply meant as just JOKES and nothing more. conservative people who find that kind of humor to be crude can go listen to Bill O' Reilly BS them to death.

-Don't blame Canada guys, that's where Sarah Polley lives :)",1 "******SPOILERS****** A powerful film about a man who uses his body to achieve fame and fortune beyond his wildest dreams and almost loses his soul doing it.

Not being able to sleep before the big champion fight Charlie Davis, John Garfield, drives down to his old neighborhood where he finds out that his mother, girlfriend and all of the people who knew him there don't want anything to do with him. Back in his dressing room before the fight Charlie's reminded by the matchmaker Roberts, Lloyd Gough,that the fight with his opponent Marlow is to go the distance and the decision will be against him. The inside talk is that the good money is on Marlow. Charlie, trying to calm down his nerves before the fight, lays down to get some sleep and slowly his past comes back to haunt him in a dream.

Being brought up in a poor and tough neighborhood Charlie takes to boxing as a young boy in the Golden Gloves. With his mother Anna, Anne Revere, being against him boxing Charlie tries to find a new line of employment Later when Charlie's father David, Art Smith, is killed in a bombing of his candy store by some mobsters, who mistook it for a rival speakeasy, and then with no money to pay the bills Charlie decides that boxing is the only way for him and his family to get out of poverty.

Turning pro Charlie runs up a string of 21 wins in the ring and Roberts the top matchmaker in the state sets up a match between Charlie and the champ Ben Chaplin, Canada Lee, for the title. Ben has a dangerous blood clot in his brain and his manager wants Charlie to be told to go easy with Ben in the fight. Roberts doesn't tell Charlie of Ben's condition and in the championship fight Charlie hits Ben with a number of hard shots to the head that leaves Ben on the mat unconscious.

Shocked after the fight to find out that Ben was in no condition to fight Charlie feels that his title, in knocking the already brain-damaged Ben, is tainted. Putting Ben on his payroll as his trainer, because he feels that he owes Ben something after what he did to him, Charlie defends his title a number of times but now he's up against a much younger and more formidable opponent then those he fought, Marlow. Marlow has been going around claiming that Charlie been ducking him for two years because he's ""yellow"".

With Charlie set to defend his title he's told by Roberts not to try to knock Marlow out but to go the distance with him knowing that would mean that the decision would go against Charlie. Charlie at first agrees knowing that there a big pay-off for him in the fight. With betting his share of the money that he'll get for the fight, $60,000.00, against himself and with the odds 2 to 1 on Marlow Charlie can triple his money and retire from boxing a rich man.

Telling his mom and girlfriend Peggy, Lilli Palmer, and all his friends to bet against him shocked them. Throwing the fight is wrong and dishonest he's told which in return, not realizing what he's planning to do, shocks Charlie. Charlie tells them that they aren't smart to know what the real things in life are and that's why he's successful and their not and he's the one who's been supporting them, his family & friends, all these years because he doesn't think like they do. With a huff Charlie leaves for his training camp in the country to get ready for the fight with Marlow.

At the camp Roberts tell Charlie to fire his trainer Ben feeling that Ben is having a bad influence on Charlie. Ben's making him have second thoughts about throwing the fight. Ben angry and agitated at Roberts, whom he never liked in the first place, goes into a fit. Swinging his arms wildly like he was back in the boxing ring Ben loses his balance and falls on his head killing himself; and with that Charlie wakes up from his sleep.

In the ring the fight goes into the late rounds with Charlie carrying Marlow for the first fourteen rounds with only one round left for him to throw and lose the fight to Marlow. Charlie, just three minutes away from losing the fight to Marlow, has a sudden change of heart. After what happened to Ben and and how bad he acted to his mom girlfriend and all of his friends who were counting on him to do his best in the fight, win lose or draw, he realizes just what a heel he's been. Charlie also realizes what a jerk he's turned in now getting his brains beat out in order to enrich a bunch of gangsters who'll use him for as long as he's is still useful to them and when he isn't they'll drop him just like they did Ben.

Charlie with a sudden and explosive flurry of fists and leather opens up on Marlow and clobbers him to the mat where he's counted out, Charlie retains his title. Leaving the boxing arena with the crowd cheering, and his girlfriend back by his side, Roberts and some of his goons confront Charlie and tell him that he'll be sorry for what he did. Charlie Davis ends the movie with it's most famous line in it: "" What are you going to do to me? kill me? everyone dies"".",1 Like in many of their previous movies twins again failed at their latest attempt to portray themselves as serious actors.

Like many of their past movies only true twins fans can really enjoy this movie that lacks a decent plot line. Jaycee Chan (son of Jackie Chan) makes his first and only appearance to date in a film and after seeing his poor performance I recommend that he stick with music.

The only bright part to this poorly made movie is the small appearance of Jackie Chan to add some flavour to this movie.

To all the twins fans out their you would probably enjoy this but to all the other serious movie goers I would not really recommend it.,0 "I saw 'The Black Balloon' last night as a charity event for our local disability services. All who attending the movie premier were people who live and breath disabilities. There were teachers from special schools, carers and parents of disabled children. I am a parent of an autistic boy and employed to work with special needs children, I found this movie to be funny, heart warming and realistic to memories of my own child. The movie is based on the everyday effects of living with a disabled sibling which I'm sure many siblings will relate to (I know my older girls will). The amount of attention given to Charlie is felt by Thomas and the enormous responsibility of caring for a disabled sibling at the age of 16 years was heartbreaking for him. I gave this movie a 10/10 because I felt the movie portrayed exactly how life is for a family with a disabled child. Luke Ford was excellent with portraying Charlie and Rhys Wakefield's exceptional representation of having to live with a disabled sibling will hopeful make the public think about the family life of a disabled child/adult before they stop and stare and whisper. Offer help and do not fear them for they are angels in disguise.",1 "I watched this on 'More4' on Friday 2009-09-04, thinking that it was the work of Paul Greengrass, the genius behind 'Bloody Sunday'. One hundred and ten tedious minutes later, I thought 'he's lost it'. I didn't realise that I was confusing 'Flight 93' with 'United 93' which I've just finished watching on 'ITV1' on Sunday 2009-09-06.

(Why did I include a spoiler alert? Well, I am assuming that in a few years' time, there will be visitors to this site who will not have heard about what happened in the USA on 2001-09-11 or, at the very least, will not remember what was special about United Airlines flight 93. For those future generations wanting an idea about what happened that day, stay away from this patronising slush.)

A hijacked airliner in itself makes for an interesting story, but the makers of this tat appear to have assumed that everyone watching was fully aware of the context and the ultimately fatal crashes of this plane and three others. Instead, it chose to focus on several conversations between the passengers in the air and their beautiful wives and parents at home in their beautiful houses. For an hour and a half, sweet syrupy goo oozed from the screen. 'Look!' say the film-makers, 'these nasty men killed beautiful loving American people.'

What idiot script-writer feels the need to point out that most people are nice, and have others around them whom they love and who love them back? This insults the viewer, and what's worse, insults the memory of real people who died in that crash.",0 "Well i don't actually have much to say about this movie. Butt i'll start by saying that this movie is one of the worst movies if not so THE worst movie i've ever seen. As you can see in my profile i'm from Belgium so i saw the original version of this movie ( and it rules by the way :-) ) but when i heard that there was going to be remake done of this movie i thought ""well maybe it wont be as bad as every other remake"" ( cause American remakes of movies are always less then the original ( no offense ) examples: The Grudge, The Ring ) but again i was wrong, choosing girls in bikini's as the bad guys(girls) was a bad mistake same as choosing Queen Latifah as the cab driver and the way that the story is brought on to screen is also really bad, i also thought that a good point would be the car itself cause in the third original TAXI ( TAXI 3 ) the story wasn't that good but the car was one of the plus points, but that doesn't apply to this movie, so i'll give you one last advice : don't go and see this movie but try to get a hand on the original TAXI by Luc Besson and i'll assure you you'll have a great time

greetings from A.V.",0 "I would definitely recommend this film, if not for its cutely romantic outlook, or its refreshingly talented stars, I'd give it a thumbs-up just because it's English. Granted, I haven't seen a whole lot of British television or film, but it seems that everything I have seen has been either outlandishly funny or suicidally dramatic. English romance always seems to fall under the second, and sometimes numbingly depressing, idea. How wonderful, then, that I should run into this quiet little movie, which, although I will admit that Boise, Idaho is not the largest outlet for foreign film, I don't remember ever being released in my area. I remembered Mr. Sewell vaguely from ""Hamlet,"" and have longed to see Mr. Fiennes in a film since ""Shakespeare in Love,"" but never remember seeing Ms. Potter in anything, and I am sure that I never seen Mr. Hollander before. While I would not lie and say that this is a profound film and that there is anything to be learned from it or much to be thought of after seeing it, it would be only natural to praise it for its pure movie-like, feel-good quality, a small escape from the everyday. It resembles little, other than the highly implausible plot, of a Hollywood film. American romantic comedies seem built according to specifications designed only to provoke that slightly nervous, overly sweet feeling in the majority of female audience members. They usually have all the weight of a Twinkie, and leave one wondering how something so simple could be so utterly manufactured. This movie is more like a Wheat Thin, possibly underrated, certainly rather bland looking, but somehow much more satisfying and although it comes salty or in low sodium flavors, is surprisingly sweet without a trace of gooeyness. Hope yet for slightly awkward American girls.",1 "The film opens with the on screen paragraph 'this film is based on actual events that took place in a Central European country not many years ago'. Yeah, course it is. During the credits we see a yet unknown nun in confession. Then we are introduced to Sister Gertrude (Anita Ekberg) who works in a hospital with a Dr. Poirett (Massimo Serato) and her roommate and friend Sister Mathieu (Paola Morra), other people work there obviously but these are the only ones you need concern yourself with at this point. Sister Gertrude has recently undergone surgery to remove a brain tumour and has been experiencing headaches, black outs and a loss of control. Dr. Poirett says that he thinks she is suffering from post operative shock and the symptoms that she describes are purely psychosomatic. In actual fact Sister Gertrude has become addicted to morphine. Sister Gertrude receives no support from her Mother Suerior (Alida Valli) as she tells Sister Gertrude that ""it's a nun's vocation to suffer"". After Dr. Poirett refuses to prescribe her anymore morphine, Sister Gertrude steals a ring from a dead patient and pawns it in the city buying the drug with the proceeds. Sister Mathieu steals morphine for her as well from the hospital. The patients and Dr. Poirett begin to notice that Sister Gertrude's personality has begun to change, for the worse. One night Sister Gertrude notices that a patient named Josephine (Nerina Montagnani) has put her false teeth into her glass of water on the dining room table during dinner. Angry Sister Gertrude throws them on the floor and stamps on them. Later that night Josephine has a heart attack in her room and dies, this is when Sister Gertrude steals the ring. Soon after this incident Sister Gertrude senses Dr. Poirett is becoming suspicious and talks to the director (Daniele Dublino) of the hospital and convinces him to fire Dr. Poirett. Things become worse for Sister Gertrude as Father Janot is bludgeoned to death and thrown out of a high window to make it look like suicide. More deaths occur as the new Doctor, Patrick Roland (Joe Dallesandro) can't quite believe what is happening at the hospital and he too also starts to have his suspicions about Sister Gertrude. Is Sister Gertrude a drug-addicted killer? Since the hospital doesn't want a scandal they try and cover up the deaths as accidents but eventually the truth is revealed............ Co-written and directed by Giulio Berruti I really didn't think too much of this European exploitation film. The script by Berruti and Alberto Tarallo is quite slow at times and surprisingly shy's away from the stronger sleaze and exploitation elements you may expect from a Euro film from this period and of this type. A bit of nudity, a sequence where a female patient gives a man in a wheelchair a blow-job and has sex with him and a scene where a woman has needles stuck into her face is about it. The film is set almost entirely in the hospital and the fact that Ekberg plays a nun is totally irrelevant and not really used to it's full potential. There are not enough suspects on show either, I always felt that it was going to be one of only two potential killers and I was proved right. And the films title 'Killer Nun' tells you just about everything you need to know as well. The killers motives are never really made that clear and the way they are revealed at the end is one of the poorest and most unimaginative I've ever seen, the killers unmasking is better in an average Murder, She Wrote (1984-1996) episode! I just didn't care about anyone or anything in this film, and that's never a good thing. Quite well made on a certain level but there are so many more better films out there in this genre. Dull, unexciting and somewhat uninteresting. Not worth spending good money on that's for sure.",0 "Irene Dunne marries Charles Bickford soon after the movie begins. She longs to leave the steel town where they live but he's content to stay in his job as a laborer. However, through her determination and frugality, she is able to eventually convince him to take a gamble and strike out on his own. Fortunately, perhaps, they strike it rich and their life seems perfect. Perfect, that is, until Bickford starts running around with a money-hungry tramp who urges him to dump his long-suffering wife--leading to a super-melodramatic conclusion in the courtroom.

I love old movies, so it takes a lot to turn me off of any film from Hollywood's Golden Age...but this terrible film managed to do it. Despite having the excellent Irene Dunne in the lead, this film just isn't worth your time--mostly because the last 20 minutes of the film manage to undo any good feelings I had for the rest of the movie! Here's the problem. Irene Dunne is the perfect wife in this film...too perfect--Mary Poppins perfect. Even when Bickford proves that he's a wretched jerk and cheats on her, Dunne is like some sort of saint and she refuses to divorce him. Then, when Bickford and his sleazy lawyer drum up fake charges that SHE is committing adultery, Dunne is just too sweet to really fight back. In a courtroom scene that is just too melodramatic to be true, her ultimate niceness convinces the evil Bickford to admit it is all a frame-up and he is taken away to prison.

The worst part about this terribly over-the-top scene is not the silly way Bickford, now stricken with guilt, jumps up and admits the truth (though this is a ridiculous scene), but the way that lawyer J. Carrol Naish is allowed to attack Dunne on the witness stand! Even courts in the old Soviet Union might flinch at such a brow-beating--and yet her lawyer never objects and the judge seems content to preside over a sham of a hearing! This is just the sort of film they should show young law students in order to elicit a few laughs at all the histrionics.

Believe me that there are thousands of better films out there from the 1930s waiting to be discovered. Try almost ANY film of the era and you're bound to be better off than with this silly dud. And, additionally, almost any other Dunne film is better than this creaky old pile of...melodrama.",0 "Oh yes, this movie. I noticed this movie on a $2.99 rack in a video store and it looked mind-blowing. The artwork was fantastic and although it reminded me of the Texas Chainsaw I still bought it. I got a refund. This movie was horrible, horrible, horrible. Basically it's about a group of teens driving on a dark highway, their car breaks down, they try to cipher gas from an old farmhouse and they are being killed, one by one, by a killer who lives in that house. This movie was a disaster but the title, it sounded good, almost like a kids book title.

The acting was so stale and wooden it was funny. The teens would usually overact or they would not act enough when the time called for it. The movie was a horrible rendition of your classic young-girl-stalked-by-unknown-killer tale. This movie looks like a bad high school movie project. I wish that I had more to say about this title but I forgot a lot about it and I would rather not remember it. So in conclusion this is a movie that should be sent to wheat thrasher.",0 When these two guys get together you know your in for a great laugh.The way they have to improvise when one of them makes a mistake is just poor class.As with there other video's which I also think are excellent if you in a badmood and need a little bit of cheering up look no further.I think that this video is ALMOST as good as some of the second season episodes and i hope they get around to doing at least one more bottom video,1 "As a lifelong Bette Davis fan, I have been curious to see this for a long time. In the book 'Mother Goddam', the author states that in response to Borgnine's question 'What about your family'?, Bette says 'f--k them'! So hearing her say THAT word was another reason to want to see this movie.

Well Showtime aired it yesterday morning and I was glad to have my chance to see this, but boy is it lame. There is nothing to enjoy really, not a single thing. Davis is extremely subdued and SHE DOESN'T EVEN SMOKE or scream or use any of her famous mannerisms, and this movie could've used a little something to make it less painful. Borgnine tries hard but the odds were against him from the start.

And to top it, the line I was waiting to hear was dubbed (badly, I might add)! She says 'screw them' instead..somehow fitting, but boy was I disappointed.",0 "While the gameplay of Jedi Knight II is far superior to Jedi Knight, I think the game is a bit of a dissapointment in other areas. For one thing, I much prefer the live action cutscenes in JK1 to the ones rendered with the game engine in JK2. The live action cutscenes really brought the story to life in JK1. Since the acting in JK2 is done by Quake 3 models, the cutscenes lack any sign of life. They look especially lifeless and flat where there are supposed to be emotional scenes, such as Jan and Kyle kissing.

I have played JK1 many times and I always watch the cutscenes fully. I even go back sometimes just to watch the cutscenes because they are done so well. When I play JK2 again, I'll probably just skip the cutscenes because I think they look very amateurish. It's almost as if the cutscenes are an afterthought to join the levels together, not as a part of the overall story as in Jedi Knight.

*Spoilers below*

Now we come to the story. While JK2's story is ok, it is no where near as good as JK1. In the beginning of the game we find out that Kyle has given up his force abilities. He and Jan now operate as mercenaries for the New Republic. After several levels fighting imperials, it appears as if Jan is killed by a Dark Jedi called Desann. Kyle then goes to Luke Skywalker to get his lightsaber and force abilities back so he can avenge Jan's death.

Now here is the really odd part about this story. It doesn't seem to bother Luke that Kyle wants to regain his force powers so he can get revenge. If I understand Star Wars correctly, revenge along with fear, hate, agression, etc... will lead to the Dark side! Don't you think Luke would try to object to this a bit more? The rest of it is pretty average ""kill the bad guy and get the girl"" type stuff.

*Spoilers end*

Overall, Raven have done an excellent job with the gameplay and level design, but the story is pretty average and I REALLY WANT PROPER CUTSCENES!!!

I gave it 8/10 though because the game is a lot of fun to play and the multiplayer is excellent. If it wasn't for the excellent gameplay, I would have only given it 5/10.",0 I've heard some people to call 80s 'The Golden Era' and now after I saw this again after so many years I realized why. One of the greatest Sci-Fi movies were produced during this 'era' and even if you see them now again they will still keep you excited. I haven't seen this one long time ago (more than 10 years). I still remember how much amazed I was when I first saw it. I saw it so many times after that and I was enjoying it each time while I was watching it.

You can see the movies like this one these days. There weren't technologies which they could use to create such effects. That's why they (the effects) were just a part from the story and they weren't as many as they're in todays movies. The movies were so good because they were done with a real imagination.

Now the story some how stays like a background for the effects. They're doing movies which are rather like 3D PC games. They aren't interesting stories and they aren't cool characters. Effects only.,1 """rolinmoe"" from austin hit the nail on the head. this movie had an interesting idea behind it, and started well. the time spent developing the chars in the first half was great.

then, the film suffers from an identify crisis. the characters deflate, doing & saying things that were very hard to believe. by the end it was obvious that the film itself was ""out of character"".

btw, biggest ""Huh?"" moment -- the main dude pulls his elaborate heist because he cant find the Scottish drug dealer and, inconveniently, his buddy died (er, nice plot device). OK. but *then*, after the heist he finds the scotsman on the street by chance -- and leaves him w/o getting his money. WHAT?? this is the guy that his very own life depends on finding! why did he leave him in the alley!? were we supposed to believe he inadvertently killed him w/ 3 punches? no way. anyway, a completely contrived, pointless scene.",0 "The USS Britannic is off on a cruise in the South Pacific. On board her are the rich & famous and most of all jewelry and money. But where there is money, there are those looking to take what they can get... ICE T plays the leader of a gang bent on robbing the ship once it is far enough out at sea. However, he doesn't count on a security guard (DYLAN WALSH) interfering with his plans. He also doesn't count on structural flaws in the ship which cause it to take on sea water. The film feels like a Made-for-TV film, but the action is passable enough and the dialogue so-so. Ice T's performance as the chief villain is a little over the top, but okay. Walsh's performance as the hero just lets everybody know that you don't have to be Van Damme, Schwarzenegger, Bernhardt or Daniels etc. to be the good guy. Overall, a passable film. If you spent the $7-$8 to see Speed 2...spend the $1-$2 rental fee and see this! You might be surprised.",1 "If you like courtroom dramas, appreciate excellent acting and an expertly-filmed movie this is for you. Only once, I think, have I ever proclaimed something ""best movie of the year"" and all that, because it's all too subjective and also a cliché but that's how I feel about this movie unless something better comes along the last few months of 2007.

This is just a fabulous movie with Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling playing battling characters who engage in a battle of wits. Hopkins plays a husband who discovers his wife having an affair, shoots her, confesses the same night and then has things cleverly arranged where it's almost impossible to convict him. Gosling plays a young, hotshot prosecuting attorney on his way to bigger and better things with a change of scenery to corporate law but gets stuck with this open-and-shut case right before he switches firms. The trouble is, it's a lot more than he figured and he isn't used to losing. Hopkins knows this, of course, and plays on his vanity.

Gosling evolves from a me-only lawyer to someone who really wants justice, even if it costs him. Both characters are cocky and smart and the twists and turns just add to the fun.

I enjoyed watching all the actors performances and was very impressed. The camera-work by Director Of Photography Kramer Morgenthau should also be recognized, along with director Gregory Hoblit, who seems to direct very entertaining films (""Frequency,"" ""Fallen,"" etc.)

I could have watched this story unfold for another two hours and would have been happy to do so, am I'm not one to sit still for long periods these days. That's how good this was....just Grade A film-making and storytelling.",1 "I was very surprised to see that this movie had such a good rating, when i checked it on IMDb after seeing it. This really is one of the worst movies i have ever seen and i have seen many bad movies. It looks like a good movie in the beginning, but when he comes into surgery i couldn't believe how bad it got. This voice-over destroys EVERYTHING! Just imagine you are being cut open like that and then listen to what he says. I saw the movie in German so i don't really know what he said in English, but ironic stuff like ""Yeah right, it doesn't hurt..""?...what is this? Telling yourself ""think about something else"" and then forgetting your pain by just thinking about your girlfriend is just...stupid. And his mother...how the hell does she figure something like that out? Someone comes to tell her, her son died in surgery (what she kind of had to expect). Plus she found some letters in Jessica Albas bag. plus that ""she knows the hospital"" stuff... and then it takes her ""one second"" to figure it out? What the hell?^^ And the ending...why does the police bust them? The patient died in surgery, thats all that happened. That drunk doctor doesn't know anything else either...and then they bust them all, even the girlfriend??? Why??? Despite all that i think Christensen did a bad job, but that doesn't really count for me...those mistakes and stupid things i wrote about above are the problem. I watched this movie with some friends and we all were VERY disappointed... As i said, one of the worst movies i have ever seen... Just don't watch it ;)",0 "How badly can you ruin a great story of post-apocalyptic America? Zelaney's book, though not his best, was a good read. But this film mangles everything that was good about the concept. As I said, the vehicle, which appears to be real, is totally cool, the nuclear maligned sky is great. EVERYTHING else is just pathetic. Pass this lemon by and don't look in the rear view mirror. A ""2"" only for the ""truck"" and the sky. This should be remade. It could be a huge winner with a GOOD script, decent acting, today's CG along the lines of ""Twister"" ""Dantes Peak"" or ""The Day After Tomorrow"". Roger Z could be made proud if somebody could come up with a decent script from his ""Damnation Alley"".",0 "What a horrible movie. I had this on my list of DVD's to own. I finally bought it. If only you could return purchased movies for store credit.

Movie starts out fine. Whether it's slow or not as other have said, it keeps my interest...as I thought it was going to be a good movie. This was nothing but a horrible attempt at...something...I just don't know what. Oh wait, I know...spend your money on this movie so I make a profit by making the cover eye catching and the summary interesting.

The characters acting was fine. I like Ron Perlman. But there lacked a feasible plot with unanswered questions. In fact, the plot was nothing less than leaving you laughing. When you find out what was going on, I was left speechless. Speechless as in...you have got to be kidding me!

I swear, either these quotes by the reviewers are made up...or they don't know a thing about a horror movie. One guy is quoted as saying on the cover, ""the scariest movie of the year."" Yeah, remember the name Bob Strauss from the LA Daily News and never listen to his reviews. I bet he is would say cotton candy is scary too. What a joke. There was nothing scary about this movie at all. Horror? No freakin way.

Seriously, I don't know it got as high of a rating number as it does on here. Cannibal Holocaust has a better rating than this movie.

The Last Winter ranks up as one of the most horrible movies I've seen...right under Next with Nicolas Cage. I'd rather watch reruns of Mork and Mindy. And I hate Robin Williams.",0 "This movie is just hilarious, It's definately the best movie Pryor or Wilder ever did. The slapstick comedy, and jokes from Pryor and Wilder still have me laughing. The plot does need some work, but it's so funny I dont even notice! If you are a fan of any of the actors in this movie, check it out.",1 "invasion of inner earth also known as;they is a extremely bad science fiction movie.we don't see any aliens or flying saucers,not even a pie plate on a string nothing,its a exercise in tedium,but the music on the soundtrack is OK.there are killer flashlight beams however.i don't get it what was directer bill rebane thinking?even the giant spider invasion was entertaining even if it was crappy.and there's no well known actors in this film.is it worth watching?i would have to say no unless you really want to be bored to death.the title does sound promising but really does'nt deliver.this is about 90 minutes ill never get back.but if you like bad dull boring movies then invasion from inner earth is for you,shame on you bill rebane.1 out of 10 awful!",0 "A guy meets a girl, calls his friend and they go for a walk together on the streets of St. Peterburg doing nothing, speaking, flirting, playing fools. In 90 minutes of a real-time film they live a hole life together. They love and hate each other, they laugh and cry, they FEEL the way you can feel only when you're 20 and the whole world belongs to you. But it seems like a girl has a strange secret. It comes out at the very end of the stroll and turns everything into a real tragedy...

But now the young people are passing by the streets of St. Peterburg - the best city in the world, with its beautiful houses, crowded streets and a bit crazy inhabitants. This St. Peterburg we have never seen in movies before, but always new from real life. I love this film because of its wonderful image of the city and the perfect work of actors. And because this film is about us - or about us some years ago, our desire to live, feel and to do.

",1 "Thank you! t.v. cable cheap channels that have the courage to air this direct to video horror cheese flicks! When there's nothing to do at midnight on the week, these flicks air and believe me it's a pleasure for me to watch as I'm a lover of the low budget.

""Butchered"" follows the same plot as in ""HellNight"", ""The Initiation"", and many more slasher flicks from the early 80's. The problem is that this flick from the year 2003 doesn't offers anything you haven't seen.

The ""killer"" kind of reminds me of the Garth Manion monsters from ""HellNight"" but not as near as scary. Ugh. This is a flick to booth from the trash can!.

The flick has cheap gore effects, scares, and a dull direction even for a direct to video mess! Watch it if you're like me, a hardcore fan of low budget horror flicks.",0 "Brazilian Globo TV showed yesterday in it's ""gala"" time this film. Maybe the complete belief in the 'universal' (rather coprophagous) appetite of the masses for a bit of cheap entertainment between reality show ""Big Brother"" and the soporifics Late Hour News...

On the other hand, a proof that prestige of American film in general, and of names like Schrader, Liotta, Fiennes are untouched

If I write here right now that we took it as a bona fide self-parody, or maybe an attempt to emulate Ed Wood in producing the worst film possible - Yes, things like that are already been said before on this board, as I read above...

The best point, to place it, after all, above the 'awfull' grade: It's funny, thanks for some sincere giggles and roar of laughters while the whole evolves - in short, a classic in the ""worst of"" category... (In this mood, don't' miss it!)",1 "This episode is my favourite because it best demonstrates the potential the show had to offer.

I remember watching the pilot and anxious for the following week when the following episode was on.

John Rhys-Davies was one of the original reasons for me watching the show because I saw him in ""James Bond 007"" ""The Living Daylights"" and ""Indiana Jones"".

I think it is one of the best pilots I have seen for a show.

The pilot gives reasonable insight into the characters of the show before they set off ""sliding"" into parallel worlds.",1 "I have to agree with other comments that list this show as cruel and ridiculous. I've seen them dress people that live in Miami beach in the same wool clothes that someone in nyc would wear. They are not conscious of climate differences or different styles for different cities. They impose the nyc style on everyone that is forced into the show. I'm sure it's good drama, but how useful is a wool skirt in Miami on a 20 year old club kid? Fashion is not about what you wear to the office every day but utilizing a personal style and self expression. I'd love to remake their wardrobes and mock them. I'm so sick of her pointy toed shoes. It's absolutely ridiculous and suppose someone isn't working in a corporate clone setting, this makes their fashion rules silly and obsolete. I'd like to see an actual fashion designer and someone with a demographic and climatic sense dress these people. Palm Springs, Miami, LA, Charleston, SC would not be wearing nyc fashion. It makes no sense. Clinton isn't as rude as Stacy but these two twits are annoying and ridiculous. It makes me nuts to see the show.",0 "This movie wasn't bad enough to make me fall asleep. Because I was laughing hysterically throughout the entire film. I want to know how anyone associated with Lord of the Rings (John Rhys-Davies) could allow themselves to be a part of this project. I honestly didn't know these types of films existed. When it is obvious footage is taken from the likes of Dante's Peak you know this movie will be horrible. Whoever green lit this film could have given the money to any charity and probably felt better about his/herself. After the initial ""shock"" that the world only has the time left for the plate to move another 20 cm or so I said to myself, ""Okay were is the villain because the movie can't rely only on an evil-moving tectonic plate."" And boy did the movie deliver! All in all the film is an SNL parody of all the disaster picks that plagued the late 90s.",0 "A fun to watch western containing Fess Parker's best performance, the show is stolen by Jeff Chandler's performance as the baddie you hate to see taken down. However, as outstanding as Chandler is, the real star of the film is Jerome Moross' pulse-pounding score, which predates his legendary music for THE BIG COUNTRY. It's every bit as good, if not better. Henry Silva is (of course) scuzzy as a hired gun.

Catch it. Any western fan won't regret it.",1 "i can summarize this cinematic experience with one word: PAIN. every minute of this movie will make you feel like you crossed the yellow line, and by the end you'll be pleading for it to stop the intestination. despite a brilliant attempt to save the film by the rubber-faced Lincoln Kilpatrick, the acting is worse than atrocious. as far as the plot, words escape me. how exactly is paying to keep people locked up, fed, clothed, and boarded for 31 years less of a burden on society than having a second kid? the overhead that must be involved in running this prison is mind boggling. this is one of many questions you will ask yourself as you ride the roller-coaster of emotions this film provides. others may include: who decided the perfect soldier is a slow, clumsy, awkward animatronic plastic man with no lower jaw? if it is as easy to get to Mexico as driving through a single 15-foot fence that falls over in a stiff breeze, why did they bother to try to go through customs? why did it take until 1993 for humanity to discover that intestination is the most fantastic word ever invented? ultimately, this would have been a far better movie if it had had the benefit of being MST3Ked. As it is, you're better off going with the Mind Wipe.",0 "The kind of film that you spend 30% of your life watching, because you can't help yourself... especially when you have nothing to do late at night except to channel surf and watch B movies...

Good premise of a film, got me interested, forgave the cheesy acting, didn't mind the simple FX, but the script was real bad. I could have cried.

If you have nothing better to do, go to sleep.",0 "I saw this a couple of times in the late seventies. My parents had just subscribed to this new service called Cable TV, and low and behold we had a movie channel called Showtime. I watched it every day it was on. It gives new meaning to the word ""Putz"". I really wish it would be released on video/DVD. I don't understand why it hasn't been. It is sad that another generation hasn't had the opportunity to share the laughs.",1 "Christopher Guest has quite the resume and reputation for his quirky, awkward satirical mockumentaries, but ""For Your Consideration"" simply doesn't measure up with the rest.

It's hard not to judge ""Consideration"" by its predecessors such as ""Best in Show"" and ""A Mighty Wind."" With the same cast, the same satirical (though not full out mockumentary) style, it simply asks for that and it doesn't succeed the way those movies do.

The premise of ""Consideration"" is on the set of a movie (a ridiculous) movie and the overblown Oscar hype that the film gets. The film contains everyone from the actors to the producer in the cast, as well as a couple Hollywood-focused TV show hosts. The characters are still quirky and amusing in a subtle way, yet something is off. Their depth and the interest in what is happening to them is non-existent and it makes it harder to laugh at the them in the long run and considering characters tend to drive Guest's films, that makes it tough from the get-go.

The plot is simply not as intriguing as well. This perhaps lies in the fact that the focus is not on something obscure like dog shows or traveling folk musicians, but instead on basic Hollywood, which offers less genuine interest in subject alone. Compound that with the weak characters and you have a huge Guest disappointment.",0 "I love this movie! I've seen it about four times, and every time I see it, Ramon Novarro gets cuter and cuter. He portrays the lazy and carefree islander to perfection, and Renee Adoree's performance is as heartbreaking as that in THE BIG PARADE. As a big fan of Donald Crisp, and used to his roles as kindly father figures, the lech he portrays in this film is a bit jarring, but he does an admirable job, considering he was really a big-hearted marshmallow. One of the greatest films in the twilight of the silent era.",1 "Hands down, this is my favorite concert DVD out of the many I have watched. I would say the best, but ""best"" is such a subjective term. This features, of course, David Coverdale as a prime example of sounding at least as good as he ever has, and quite possibly better. As for the rest of Whitesnake, I don't think he has ever assembled a better supporting cast. It has been previously been noted, quite accurately, that Doug Aldrich is given the lion's share of solos in this lineup. But Reb Beach definitely has his moments, and his brilliance does shine through more than once. Tommy Aldridge is a king in my book. What a drummer! I also think Marco Mendoza is the absolute best bass player around, at least in the style of bass he plays. I give this a 10 out of 10.

However if it were possible I would deduct about 3/10 for the omission of 2 songs. I can't begin to understand why ""Slow N' Easy' and ""Slide It In"" were left off of this. Truth be told, I could go the rest of my life without ever hearing ""Bad Boys"" again. The same can be said for ""Take Me With You"", although they worked that one up really well. But if you take those two away, you definitely have room for two more songs that I find indispensable. Yet these glaring omissions can't take away how marvelous this performance was. As a bonus, when you purchase this DVD, you get a bonus CD with about half of the show on it. I don't possess the words to describe how much i recommend this. I give this a 9.7 GOD bless David Coverdale!!!!",1 "A reasonably involving, decent drama, but obviously Ken Loach's main concern it to unable us to have a clearer idea of what is really going on with our 'brave new world', globalization, we all need to work harder to compete, people in China need to work harder, everyone needs to work harder, and out of this sinister scam, unending progress etc. there is still half a billion people on planet hearth who don't have enough to eat and a few people filling their pockets. What we get from the media is selective snippets of information and outright lies, while none of this bunch of mercenary hacks would even dream of questioning the soundness of the oligarchic plutocratic system we call democracy! So I guess Ken is right, we need educating! And what better way to do that that to show us how the whole thing works in practice, the smaller wheels, the larger ones, the cogs. The people traffickers in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, the people mercilessly exploiting illegal emigrants in this country. The protagonist is a working class, down-on- her-luck, single mother. She, together with her flatmate and friend, uses her previous working experience to create a small but profitable working agency for illegal emigrants. She is just a troubled person, she's worried about social services taking her son away. She thinks she deserves credit, because instead of living on the dole (welfare), she's trying to crate a business, to 'make something of herself'. Just another little well meaning cog then! The voice of reason is represented by her working class father, who, without being idealogical and in a down to earth way tries to explain to his daughter what it is really going on: 'entire country being deprived of their teachers and doctors coming to this country to work as plumbers and builders, the only people to profit from this scam is big business!' Keep educating us Ken, because we badly need it!",1 "STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

Karl Thommasson (Treat Williams) returns to teach at a tough school after a stint in Kosovo, to honour a promise to a fallen comrade in that war in the shape of taking care of his teacher daughter. He discovers a drug racketeering ring operating in the school and must stop it forthwith.

In a role originally written for Tom Berenger, Treat Williams here returns after appearing in the first sequel. He does have a good presence as an action hero (very Steven Seagal) but sadly he is not enough to stop this dreary sequel from emerging as a sad re-hash of the last one, complete with inconsistent villains and a rather surprising lack of action. With this one behind it, I don't hold out much hope for Part 4. **",0 "i don,t understand at all what has to do Albanian restaurant with Arabic music,,i saw the scene when they were in sk Albanian restaurant and the only thing Albanian there was the flag,,nothing else,,albaniens does nor have bellydancers in their places,,but i guess ,,someone when wanna make fool of albaniens did payed a lot of money to mix Albanian people with middle easy people,,probably it was Russians or Serbs who payed those money to George gallo for mixing albaniens with Arabic people,,nothing wrong ,,people are all same everywhere,,good or bad,,but AL least when you try to make something Albanian,,make that in right way,,not only lies there,,as an Albanian,,i feel humiliated by that horrible music,,pretending to be Albanian music,,but it was not Albanian AT all",0 "I went to the video store expecting great things from what I've heard. I don't have to have a totally action packed movie in order to enjoy it, but wow... this movie is a pretty honest account of something like what many people go through, but still... geez. I get enough of the same old stuff in real life. I gave Dancer Texas a 4 out of 10.",0 "I am a serious film lover who keeps up with the best new films. I stumbled across To End All Wars when it was shown recently on one of the Starz/Encore channels. At the end, I kept asking myself why I had never heard of it. The film is nowhere to be found in Roger Ebert's reviews or Leonard Maltin's annual guide, and yet I suspect that Ebert, at least, would rate this film very highly.

I like films that are about something that is important, at least to me, and not just pure entertainment. Not that I don't enjoy a good action-adventure film or light comedy from time to time, but most of the time, I prefer to spend my time watching films that make me think and perhaps even ask questions of myself.

To End All Wars is one such film. The Bridge on the River Kwai, which deals with the same historical events, is not, despite its many strong points. In this respect, To End All Wars is the better film, and the one that I am more likely to watch frequently.

Despite its title, the film is not really about war. What it is about is the efforts of a small group of men, and one man in particular, to maintain their faith, their sense of values, and their very sanity under horrible, murderous conditions that would drive most men to insanity or to become murderers themselves.

The film forces me to ask myself whether I could have done the same under those conditions. To be honest, I'm afraid to ask the question because I may not like the answer.

Although the film depicts many horrible things, it is not a depressing film, at least for me. Rather, it's a positive, hopeful film, in the same way that Schindler's List is a positive, hopeful film. If one man, in the case of Schindler, or a small group of men, in the case of the ones in this film, can maintain their sanity, faith, and values in a world that has gone insane, then there is hope for mankind.

As for the references to their Christian faith, it is not laid on with a trowel, as it might be in a lesser film. It is simply there as an important part of their lives. Whether or not we share that faith is beside the point. What is important is that they shared it, and that faith helped them to survive.

Could the director and the writers have made their points even more effectively? Probably. Would I have liked to have known more about the individual characters? Definitely. Would the film have benefited from a larger budget? Possibly.

All of these questions are moot, however. Every film deserves to be judged on its own terms, on the basis of what it is and not what it might have been. Not every film can be another Citizen Kane or Rules of the Game, nor should it be.

Taken on its own merits, To End All Wars is an excellent film that I expect to watch many times and recommend to my family and friends as well. The fact that the film never got proper distribution, at least in the United States, and therefore never got the recognition that it deserves, shows just how shallow and superficial the Hollywood film industry has become. Thankfully it is available on DVD.",1 "I love this movie madly. . I saw it four days ago and it still hasn't let go of me. Floyd, Walter and Ricco have only one last night together to come to terms with the fact that Floyd will ship out on a freighter the next morning. They drift into that bleak Hamburg night like they would on any other, and the mundane becomes suddenly extraordinary as the reality of the impending farewell percolates through their celebration . What they leave behind in the night, is that total abandon you can only afford those few years between being a kid and suddenly being old.

This is one from the heart. It's got everything, the riotous humor and fun of outrunning the crew of an Elvis stuntshow, the tempo and jumpcuts of a strobelight punkclub, a heart as big as the V 8 Walter puts in his Ford Granada and the thrill of a deathmatch...in foosball !!

The film reminds us how intoxicating friendship can be and how good it can feel to be that drunk from a toast to a leaving friend. Like the perfect song: happy in its rhythm, sad in its melody. Floyd says early into the film something like"" I wish everyone could have his own soundtrack, that there would always be music. So that if you're really down, there would still be the music...and when you're the happiest in your life the record would skip and the moment would never end..."" After their last night, when Floyd looks up into the Hamburg sky one last time, the soundtrack to the film DOES skip and captures that perfect moment, the essence of parting, that loss that really isn't and that unbearable inevitability that tomorrow your best friends will be far away.

I can only hope that this total charmer finds a distributor in the U.S.. I'm sure it would find an audience somewhere in the same aisles that loved that ""Big Wednesday"" coming of age urgency, the tempo and irreverence of ""Go"", the unpretentious humor of ""It's a jungle out there"" or "" No more Mr. nice guy"" and the unspoken loyalty in any of the ""Winnetou"" movies. As for Sebastian Schipper the Director, whose eloquence in talking about his film ( and cars ) at the German Filmfestival in Los Angeles rivals the ease with which this film speaks to you - In a way I'm already sorry to see him becoming famous. He'll soon join Tom Tykwer as the posterboy for the new german film and I'm afraid he'll lose his genius eye and savant heart much like he lost his enthusiasm for foosball........",1 "A beautifully directed, well acted, and consistently faithful adaptation of the first of Sigrid Undset's Nobel Prize-winning novels about her fourteenth-century fictitious heroine, Kristin Lavransdatter. The movie perfectly captures the genius of the novel(s), the external and internal drama of a young woman's struggle with pride and sin, her rebellion against the good and yet her longing for it. Kristin's religious milieu, sympathetically but not sentimentally portrayed in the movie, forms a powerful backdrop against which this drama plays out. My only regret is that they did not make sequels out of the second and third Lavransdatter novels to complete the trilogy, since, indeed, the ending of the movie and of the first novel leave you hungering for more.",1 "I remember reading the book Jewels a long time ago. I was going through a Danielle Steel faze and fell in love with this book.

So I was thrilled when they made a movie about it.

I have to admit, I loved the first part of the movie best. The romance between Sarah and William was my favorite part in the book and in the movie.

My other favorite aspect of the movie was Anthony Andrews as William. I love this actor, ever since I saw him as a kid in two movies I loved, Ivanhoe and The Scarlett Pimpernel. Casting him in the role of William Whitfield lent the TV melodrama a real sense of legitimacy. He is a great actor, and the perfect choice to play the Duke. Not only is he devastatingly handsome, he has a great sense of humor. You first saw it in The Scarlet Pimpernel, and was very important for this movie.

I say that hesitantly though because I have to say that I was very disappointed that almost all of the humor shared between William and Sarah was taken out of the movie. I remember when I read the book, I had tears rolling down my cheeks because I was laughing so hard. And I was horrified to hear only one or two lines from the book shared between both characters.

While I loved Anthony Andrews as William, I was not as certain about the actress playing Sarah. I like Annette O'Toole, I really do, but I didn't in this movie. I felt her acting was too over the top in some scenes and she was described much differently in the book and maybe I was too influenced by that description to really enjoy the performance. I found Annette's shaking her head from side to side to be too distracting.

Like the book, I lost interest during the Nazi invasion, and there was another major change. In the book, the character of Philip actually loved the character of Joachim Von Mannheim, the Nazi who had taken over the château during the war, but in the movie, he hated him.

The rest of the story involving the children interested me even less. With the exception of the brothers all being cute, the last part of the movie was very boring. Typical spoiled brats all making huge mistakes, hurting their mother.

Spoiler:

The ending was the dumbest I have ever seen for a miniseries. The idea that Julian would associate not only with his brother, but his ex-wife, who left Julian for Philip, and gave him their son, without caring a thing about it was ludicrous. There was the whole family, at a christening, including Philip and Julian's ex-wife, standing next to her son, and everyone is happily smiling at one another. Please!

This ending did not happen in the book, and I was very disappointed by it.

This is really the Jewel in the crown of all Danielle Steel novels made into a TV movie. But for anyone who read the book and loved it like me, there are some big disappointments.

Still a good watch, very romantic in many places.",0 "I could have accepted a lot of the 'artistic license' used in this film if it were claiming to be a movie based on fact, rather than presenting itself as a documentary. A previous comment does a good job of pointing out the errors in the added period footage.

It was a good introduction into a serial murderer I'd never heard of. It was also a disgusting overly dramatized exercise in attempting to concentrate more on the gross out factor than reporting the facts. Not content to describe once how good certain parts of a child's body were when roasted and eaten, it describes the heinous deeds in fact and again in a first person voice-over narrated by an actor playing Albert Fish.

For shock affect it delved into ramming the details of his crimes down the throat of the viewer, again and again. At the expense of his victims and their families the film wallows in filth and was offensive in the extreme because of it. Either we're too stupid to digest the horror of his acts, or sales were forefront and above any other consideration the film makers claim.

It's not a documentary. A documentary informs us of real events without trying to sicken people with fictitious scenes added catering to the director's opinion of what took place. That's fiction. It's not a movie, in a movie you can accept that 'based on' gives the director license to add whatever he thinks will sell. It is a sick perverted film on a sick perverted killer but that not being enough, it approaches the same type of sick twisted deeds on film, that Fish did in person. In this, the film makers succeed in showing their perverted intention on wringing out every last drop of human suffering in their own race for sales.

Joe Coleman, obviously delighted to lay claim to notoriety by surrounding himself with the artifacts of the infamous and psychotic members of our society, sits smugly as he tells us he's thrilled to have the original letter sent to one victim's family, describing what Fish did to their child. How he was 'meant' to have it. Most serial murderers take trophies and this particular derelict of humanity, Coleman, does the same here, living with the material surrounding the worst part of themselves humanity has to offer. If any proof was needed for what I'm saying here, it's in the repeated interviews with this piece of crap. His sole participation in this film should have been only in examining this letter. Instead we're treated to repeated interview segments with no other reason than to try and help sell this presentation of crap.

These flaws ruin what could have been a remarkable recounting of Fish's deeds. The makers of this prostituted themselves for sales and in doing so, reflect a watered down mirror of the same sort of sickness Fish succumbed to. It's a perverted reporting of a perverted person and because of this they have more in common with this man than they may want to realize.",0 "This Desperate Hours-type robbery/hostage number is D'Amato's spin on the Roughie genre – a crime and sex related genre piece with more than its fair share of gratuitous sexualised violence. Yet D'Amato's tale also stands as a critique of the kind of male fantasizing behind this kind of sex movie, always keeping itself self-conscious that this is some male inadequate's masturbation material.

A couple of two-bit hoods rob a convenience store on the eponymous 7th Avenue but, as with Charley Varrick's plunder, the loot turns out to be mob owned, and the felons find themselves on the run from a local gang Boss. They hide out in a nearby sex shop, and kidnap the proprietess, who happens to be the Boss' lady. In the sex shop, one of the goons – a total creep named Bob – takes a peek into a hand-held cine-viewer, salivating at a What the Butler Saw-type sexual performance by two ropey models. The rest of the film might be taken as the events which would ensue were they to be aimed at the men who shop at the 7th Street pleasure shop… The goons and the proprietess plus a black con crony of the men drive to the woman's country home, where a trio of students are enjoying a vacation romp. The students are held hostage and subjected to an amount of sexual exploitation and humiliation at the hands of the goons, but by the end of their forced sojourn together, the women have paired off with the men and some satisfactory coupling has taken place. This strand of the story reaches its fulfilment in the coupling of the black man, who has taken a great deal of racist abuse from his companions, with a virgin student who has spent the bulk of her screen time masturbating over the sexual shenanigans of others. He turns out to be a thoughtful lover, introducing the nervous girl to the delights of cunnilingus and she reciprocates by giving him a handjob, as he is concerned with keeping her hymen intact! This positive view of sexual sharing is rewarded as it takes him out of the house when the mob catch up with them, giving him the opportunity to sneak back into the house, overpower the mobsters and make his escape with his buddies. The students are also rewarded by ending up with the stolen loot, just like the paid sex performers in a porn film are rewarded by their bags of (also probably mob) cash… D'Amato arranges a psychologically suspect but nevertheless adept plot of sexual partnering whilst continually re-enforcing the idea that the sexual scenes are just that, sexual scene in a movie. The virgin is often seen touching herself at the sight of other couplings, yet even here the viewer is struck (unless he's an idiot, like the goons) with the knowledge that a woman masturbating over sex could be merely a male sexual fantasy (which is not to say women don't masturbate about the most un-PC scenarios, but the occasions it happens in this film remain self-consciously self-serving). It is no mistake that the virgin's sexual release in orgasm by cunnilingus is accompanied by a montage of scenes that she'd/we'd previously witnessed. It was often a plot device of 70s porn to see a woman inducted into sexual enjoyment within the story, but few directors made as much effort as D'Amato to show that the woman is a character in a male sexual fantasy. To back this up, we see the first man she saw having sex, the student Frank, reflected endlessly in a mirrored bathroom after his bout with his insatiable companion, the sexually voracious student Sue.

D'Amato's Pleasure Shop on 7th Avenue is an existential place in which fantasies can be enacted for and by the lonely men who walk the New York sidewalks. Some of the music score is eerily reminiscent of Herrmann's music for Taxi Driver, and the end credits show the movie houses and porno shops of Times Square, the market for the fantasies which D'Amato so self-consciously films in and for that Pleasure/Porno House on 7th Avenue.",1 "No, not just POSSIBLY one of the worst...it IS the worst film of all time. A real stinker. The director ought to be taken out and shot. If you ever get the urge to rent this piece of garbage--if you can even find it anywhere--do yourself a favor and rent something far more watchable, like ""Plan 9 From Outer Space.""",0 """A man is only as faithful as his options."" --Anonymous (or maybe Gene Simmons).

Men, when you're dragged by your fem-boss like the vagina-whipped pussy you've become, to see GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST, at least take solace in the film's educative axioms during its first act.

""The power of a relationship lies with whoever cares less."" ""It's your feelings for her that are killing your game."" ""...marriage is an archaic and oppressive institution that should have been abolished years ago..."" Of course, these truisms are regarded as misogynistic pap within the context of this pea-brained excuse for a romantic comedy (that men will say they enjoy in order to part a woman's thighs); societal truths that women refuse to believe men believe.

Even if one were to regard romantic ""love"" as true, this movie itself - and all its characters - hypocritically denounce everything they claim to believe in at every turn with their unthinking, irrational, contradictory actions.

Professional Philanderer Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey) and Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner) are the couple just waiting to be paired. Director Mark Waters and writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore make no bones about ripping off Dickens's A Christmas Carol as the movie's plot: a spectral playboy uncle (Michael Douglas) appears to arrogant bachelor Connor to warn him of three ghosts who will visit him to show him the ""error"" of his skirt-chasing ways.

These apparitions appear to Connor at his brother's wedding rehearsal weekend, where Connor is busy getting drunk and going Larry David by telling it like it is: ""...love is magical comfort food for the weak and uneducated; makes you feel all warm and relevant but in the end, love leaves you weak, dependent - and fat."" Playing Connor's brother Paul with no conviction is Breckin Meyer (so beige his name shouldn't have capital letters), who is marrying a wildly retarded woman (Lacey Chabert) who looks like Jennifer Love-Hewitt without the talent, in other words, exactly like Jennifer Love-Hewitt.

Michael Douglas's ghost is hilarious when he's telling truths about staying powerful in relationships, but it's all for naught, as he is stuck in a Chick Flick that will ultimately emasculate him and make him confess that philandering will leave you lonely. Never once considering that marrying a shrike whom you will eventually lose interest in will also leave you lonely.

Connor tells his brother: ""You're going to be miserable without her"" - again, never once considering that he could very well be miserable WITH her.

If you think I'm belaboring this point, it is nothing compared to how the film pounds home its dangerously skewed idiot girlie message about absolute states, again and again. And again. And again. And again.

Never once considering the reality that you CAN be joyful within a marriage. AND joyful without.

Connor, who is a famous avant-garde photographer of women, is shown his girlyman dates with Jenny; his search for true love supposedly at an end and him not taking the opportunity to ""settle down."" But if he had settled down at that point, his success would have faltered, for it was the fire in his bachelorhood that gained him the financial and critical success.

None of this is taken into account because - Women Be Dreamkillers. It makes no difference how HIS career path might have derailed - as long as SHE be happy.

He tells her she's gorgeous - but she's Jennifer Garner. Should those lips really go with those cheekbones - or was there a mistake at the clinic? Jenny insists Connor ""woo her,"" which he does, playing foosball and eating ice cream together and generally becoming female in order to pretend he doesn't want to bed her - until Jenny, like all women, deludes herself that he ""isn't like other guys"" and invites him to bed with a clear deluded conscience.

Then - after all her yammering about ""taking it slow,"" she forces him to spend the night. Let me get this straight: HE has no say in the matter.

The future fem-ghost, all sinister in flowing white robes and mute, shows Connor Jenny's wedding - to someone else.

During this ""future wedding"" scene, Jenny looks back at the church door regretfully, as if Connor might appear to halt the proceedings. So... women get married because someone - anyone - ASKS them to, not because they really love the person. Never once is it considered what a shallow, time-serving person Jenny is for allowing a man to think she is ""in love"" with him, yet hoping - longing - to be rescued from his embrace by someone whom she believes she loves more.

So after hammering home the idiocy that marriage will keep you from misery, the movie shows us explicitly how a marriage can BE misery (for HER as she pines for her ""True Love""; for HIM as he never gets through to her completely), yet it never recants from its demonstrably incorrect platitude. Demonstrated incorrect by ITSELF! GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST is another in a long line of tiresome films where females prove conclusively they don't know WHAT they want. If a man has Game, he must be denigrated as an amoral, emotionless philanderer; if he doesn't have game, he is a dweeb, like Breckin Meyer or his coterie of groomsmen even more pathetic than himself.

And the grandest irony is that, like all powerful men, Matthew McConaughey actually leads the profligate lifestyle portrayed in GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST. At certain times he may choose to settle for awhile on one favorite, at times he may be married - but - there isn't a woman in the audience who wouldn't gladly destroy any McConaughey relationship for a lick of that v-shaped man-chest and a night of that southern drawl.

Michael Douglas was right all along...

--Review by Poffy The Cucumber (for Poffy's Movie Mania).",0 """Riddick"" has got to be the worst science fiction film I've seen in a long time, at least since Travolta's ""Battlefield Earth"". From the frankly pretentious introduction from writer/director David Twohy, all the way thru to the mind-numbing finale, all you get is a parade of great eye candy used in the service of a muddled and incoherent story. Riddick, who was just a simple convict in ""Pitch Black"", is now transformed into something called a Furyan, some sort of super warrior race that was wiped out by the other races or by the big bad Necromongers (what a stupid name!) - after seeing it twice, I still can't figure that one out. It's the same ridiculous ""twist"" that Stephen Sommers used in ""The Mummy Returns"" with Brendan Fraser's character; it didn't work then and it sure doesn't work here, either. You also get Judy Dench (""M"" from the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies) as something called an air elemental who can turn into some sort of foggy stuff and can glide (but not fly!) but who has really nothing at all to do with the story. The main villains, a religious sect called the Necromongers, are pitched to us as the supreme evil in the universe, a force that will destroy all human life wherever it's found (which makes you wonder why they have wives). Problem is, they seem to be more interested in a pedestrian and boring power struggle for their throne than in carrying out their ""holy mission"". The movie drops you right into the middle of this mess - I suppose that it was meant to be an intriguing way to start the movie but after the first 30 minutes you'll still be scratching your head trying to figure what the heck's going on. If you haven't seen ""Pitch Black"", then you won't understand a good half of the movie anyway.

But the real problem with this thing is the utter and unrelenting darkness of the whole thing - all the characters that exhibit any kind of humanity are killed, leaving us only with the cardboard villains or the cardboard ""hero"" who mouth insipid and repellent lines like ""you keep what you kill"" which, from the last shot, appears to be some sort of moral Twohy is trying to teach us. There's never any real suspense or sense that Riddick is in danger - he's just an indestructible cypher who you know will win the big showdown against the Evil Leader in the end. To make it even worse, this is a ""director's cut"" which in this case means that you get a movie that is even more boring than the theatrical release. A waste of money to make, and a waste of money to watch.",0 "I love the original Class.... and also love the original Toxic Avenger. It's a fine line, but but they crossed it and went to cheesy and annoying. The lead is VERY annoying as is most of this movie. The Toxie sequels are kind of on the same lines as this...but back on track now with Toxie 4. I wish they'd do a sequel to Class like they did with Toxie 4 and disregard the crap fest sequels. Again there's a fine line between cheesy fun and annoying crap. This is annoying crap. Lloyd hit the mark again with Toxie 4, and I wish he'd do Class the same justice!! He can do it, I have faith! The second and third of this series are no fun stinkers. There's all the stapled of great exploitation here, but it's just not fun. Lloyd please make this right!!!",0 "While I don't agree with those reviewers who claim that ""Pod People"" is the worst movie of all time - these viewers have obviously never seen ""Teenagers Battle The Thing"" - it is, indeed, a very painful viewing experience. It's got brain-dead characters uttering highly contrived and unlikely dialog and acting with the finesse of sock puppets. (It's also got an English dub created with a tin ear and ESL voice actors reading their lines from cue cards for the first time). It's got fuzzy, washed out sepia tinted photography that resists any attempt by the viewers' eyes to pull pleasure and satisfaction out of the film stock. (It's possible I just saw a bad print of the movie, but even so.) It's got a highly derivative plot that is derivative in all the wrong ways - what's the point of ripping off E.T. if all you do with it is create a ""spam in the cabin"" type horror movie??

It also gets off to a rousing start by subjecting us to a full length performance of the worst version of an 80's pop song ever heard by human ears. Seriously, as if the movie didn't have enough problems with pacing and atmosphere and dialog and characterization, it also alienates us by subjecting us to a supposed ""studio session"" where the pop star sings a would be song about driving a car with some of the most maladroit lyrics you will ever hear. (FYI, Mr. Pop Star, you don't want feel the wind in your EYES, you want feel it in your hair or your face. If you feel it in your EYES, you are effectively blinded and will soon crash your car.) The character comes off as an abrasive, self-important jerk, and his cronies and cohorts seem to have been drained of all intelligence, humor, self-awareness or even basic motor functions.

I have to say that I liked the little boy. In spite of the high-pitched feminine voice they dubbed over his part, he seemed genuinely alive with the enthusiasm and magic of childhood, which is a miracle given the situations he was probably working in. The cast and crew probably loved him to death, and he was probably as the only person in the film who wasn't aware that he was sinking into a pile of suck. The kid's performance, even buried under a painfully affected dub, adds a star to the rating.

Also of interest is a synthesizer-heavy soundtrack with very ""New Age music"" elements that both adds to and takes from the movie's watchability. It's got some nice hypnotic ""drone"" and ""trance"" elements, but there is far too much of it and it's mixed waaaay too loud at times. It adds another star to the ratings. Well, half a star, but it would have been a full star if the composer had cut it in about half and turned the volume dial down to ""10"".

As far the rest...I'm pretty sure the director just pointed the camera at the actors and let them roll. It doesn't look like a film with very many second takes or screenplay rewrites, and the poor actors (who come off as European community theater players at best) are left to struggle with the script as best they can. And as I mentioned, the horrible English dub robs their performances of even the limited nuance and dignity they may have contributed to the film in the first place.

Boy, what a *painful* film. I recommend saving it for times when you feel bad about yourself and your career and prospects. Watching ""Pod People"" for even a few minutes will put things in perspective: ""I may have made some dumb mistakes"", you can tell yourself, ""but at least I never had anything to to with 'Pod People!'""",0 "Yes. I have been able to watch this. I won't tell you how, but I have. Its a deep subject really - collecting dammed souls (Which I thought I might be watching another version of Ghost Rider, or something.) However, this show was light and humorous.

It is a show that reminds me of one that used to be made here in England, way back in the 1960's - ""Randle and Hopkirk Deceased"". Anyone remember that show?????

This show has great humour between its characters, and the plot/s of the shows are unique and light in a dark way.

I like the way that they show is based within a Diy type store (The Workbench), giving it that ""Down to Earth"" feel about it...I love the way that the boss is always on to the 3 x slackers. Also making it realistic as well.

I also love the fact that all his friends want to help him (Sock and Ben), and do so.- when ever the boss (*The devil contacts - SAM)

He (SAM) has a love interest as well, who is incredible beautiful.(Andy). He likes her, she likes him, and yest not one of them have gone any further about it; and I also love the love/hate relationship between Sock and his old girlfriend - Josie. I would love these two feature in every episode, and maybe one day get back together. There are great in any episode they are in...

I love the actor who plays the DEVIL (Ray Wise). Good quips, good lines, nice tan...He is smooth, and Ray Wise plays his part well.

I still think the show mustn't get rid of the parents of these slackers. THey must be shown from time to time. To give the show reality as well. Remember, one of the quips is that they are all (*Or most of them - still at Home)

Maybe a future episode can be written whereby all 3 of them leave Home and get a flat between themselves (Sam, Ben and Sock) eventually.

And maybe a visit from the Other side (God) within this show would make it more interesting as well. Just to show that the devil doesn't and will not get it his own way all the time.

I really do think that we have another hit show in the making here. It got that feel Quantuam Leap feel about it. You know what I mean?

I hope the writers of Reaper read these comments.....",1 "There is so much tragedy that takes place in the world involving the military and others involved in physical conflict, yet it is rare that a soldier comes forward to tell the truth. In Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire, we are lucky to have not just a soldier, but a leader who took so much responsibility for the Rwandan genocide onto himself explaining through word and deed what happened there, and its meaning. This is a wonderful documentary, and a moving story about an honest man's quest to understand the difficulty and horror he experienced. It is impossible not to be emotionally moved by Dallaire's story, and the well-crafted way in which it is told.",1 "Don't really know where to start with one of the worst films I have had the displeasure to watch in a very long time. From the setting which was quite obviously and very clear to anyone who has visited London for even 1 day will agree...was not London. To the much unexplained way how Snipe's character managed to escape the country back to the US without a single problem. Then he convinces the girl and grandmother to visit him in America, how on earth did Grandma agree to that...he's an assassin! Well that's the ending how about during the film, well unfortunately that didn't fare much better. We have British cops driving an amazing range of cars, I'm sure it was an eighties Vauxhall Belmont which chased the taxi after the assignation, but a modern Subaru Imprezza escorting the prison van in a few scenes prior. SO19 or whoever the gun toting arm of the Met they were trying to portray was happily running around the streets with their guns out chasing after Snipe's along with the CIA. There were children walking around, but the police were still stating they had a clear shot to shoot him, does this happen in London? No it doesn't, I live there. We also have the very implausible travel from central London to the airport (let's say Heathrow for arguments sake) within 5 minutes of receiving a call. We also have terrible American accents, a young girl who's posher than the Queen, but lives in Elephant & Castle. What does it say for British police when helicopters and a number of officers at Snipe's location can't find Snipe's and he manages to evade capture by hiding behind some stairs? The train station was obviously not even on UK soil and the fight scene sound effects were terrible. The plot was also extremely poor, boring and been written and filmed a lot better a thousand times before. But there were a few notable actors cast in this film, what were they thinking and please don't let that sway you to watch this film! This film didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, if you are going to concentrate on the dramatic aspects from the aftermath of an assignation then you need a strong rigid plot with plausible scenery and setting, this is something the viewer has time to take in and appreciate and if you do it wrong then you notice it. If you want an all out action film (which this is not) then continuity and scenery can be put to the side.",0 "The main line of defence seems to be: lighten up, it's just entertainment / just a kid's movie / just a special effects flick. Pausing awhile to note that people who run this line of defence have all but conceded that the film is, in fact, bad, let's take these points one by one - shall we?

As entertainment it's poor. Dialogue is flat and perfunctory (don't expect to be dazzled by repartee); the story lacks the beauty of the first Star Wars film and the tension of the second ... and then there's the magical `character development' everyone complains about. We must distinguish character development from character delineation. The former is nice, but the latter is absolutely essential, and it's the latter that's missing from `The Phantom Menace'. Jar Jar, the young Obi Wan, Darth Maul, Armidala, Annakin - all are scarcely characters at all, and are very difficult to get enthused about. Jar Jar in particular is a collection of mannerisms, nothing more. This lack of character doesn't just prevent the film from becoming the darling of the intellectuals - it makes it dull. There are hundreds more entertaining films. Only those people who entered the cinema carrying plastic light sabers, grimly determined to enjoy themselves, failed to notice this.

It's a kid's movie. Well, yes, in a sense - but not a good sense. Good children's movies form a proper subset of good movies - simply because adults have access to all childhood emotions and desires, but not vice versa. So in one sense a `kid's movie' is just a movie that can be understood and apperaciated by children (as well as adults). Is this a kid's movie in that sense? Maybe. But it's also a kid's movie in the bad sense: it's deeply witless, and inexperienced children might - I say, MIGHT - fail to notice just how witless it is. Children may - I say, MAY - ignore the fact that Jar Jar Binks is a deeply irritating non-character because he is all colour and movement and he speaks funny. Is this really all we want?

Special effects. These aren't so hot, either. George Lucas has fallen in love with computers and failed to notice that his digital animals don't move at all in the way that real animals move - worse still, they don't move like any kind of physical object at all. Nor do most of the alleged physical objects. Compare the trundling white juggernaut at the start of `Star Wars' - a convincingly solid model - with the insubstantial collection of pixels that darts past us at the start of `The Phantom Menace'. The special effects have actually deteriorated, and to make matters worse, there are more of them.

So the defence that `The Phantom Menace' is allowed to be a poor movie because it really wasn't trying to be something great in the first place, just won't wash. Especially so, given the ludicrous claims George Lucas has arrogantly made, again and again. So Jar Jar Binks is the first digitally created main character? Rubbish - the dragon in `Dragonheart' predates it (and, one might add, is at the very least a genuine character). So George Lucas is pioneering a new kind of filming-making, more like painting and less like photography, than the old? Absolute twaddle - Walt Disney did THAT in the 1930s. I'll tell you what IS new. Never before has there been so much sizzle, and so little sausage.",0 "This film started promisingly, and for about the first 35 minutes was full of riotously funny humour - but then, it appears that the scriptwriters just ran out of the ideas - So what did they do? They just repeated the same old ones over and over and over again to the point of tedium, where you can see the jokes long before they arrive.

A pretty girl walks past Kevin and Perry - and you just wait for one of them to get an erection for the hundredth time - the same joke was done better in Waynes World (schhhhwing!). A few laughs are saved for the last 5 minutes or so, but this just looked like a what would have been funny as a 30 minute TV show, padded and stretched into a movie.

In the UK, this film has been rated '15', which is a shame as a sizeable proportion of the audience that would most likely appreciate the schoolboy humour is too young to see it at the cinema - They'll probably catch it on TV sooner or later, which is where this film belongs.",0 "A Troll in Central Park is not a terrible film. It's just extremely sweet and innocent and this world isn't ready for it. Anyone over six years of age will be embarrassed to watch this - even alone - but that's more of a societal problem. But there are definitely reasons to see this. The animation is amazing, particularly with the children. It's realistic but somehow completely believable in an animated world. And their movements are so fluid and realistic. You can tell every action was acted out and studied meticulously. I really wish this was done more often. The environments also look amazing, especially when the human world comes into play. As for the cute or humorous sidekicks, that's another story entirely. It's probably just a personal bias, but I hate the way Don Bluth designs his more cartoon-y characters. Their personalities aren't any better, ranging from ""cute"" to marshmallow-peep-flavored-vomit ""cute"".

Anyone who loved The Secret of NIMH will be shocked to see this film. I mean, how can the same guy who made a progressive, dark and outstanding film be responsible for this? The story is very fairy-tale esquire, like a children's storybook come to life. The villains are more humorous than threatening, the characters spontaneously break into song and dance and everything is whitewashed with cuteness. This is the result of Don Bluth finally giving in to the pressures of Disney, trying to replicate their formula, losing his identity in the process and ultimately falling flat. Luckily, Anastasia would be a healthy step up. But for fans of Bluth's one-hit wonder, it's kind of depressing.",0 "This is a really a beautiful and touching movie. Many others and I have given many praises to this movie. But its popularity and IMDB rating at 7.5 are quite a surprise to us.

As many of you can only watch it on DVD/VHS now, let me give you an info. I watched it the first time in the cinema and the following 5 or more times on DVD. When I watched it in the cinema, near the end of the movie when John Sullivan Sr reappeared, ALL THE AUDIENCES IN THE CINEMA cheered and applauded. I mean ALL THE AUDIENCES. Really, no kidding!!! It touched the entire crowd. Very emotional and uplifting. I have gone to cinemas for lots of movies, but rarely did I see any effect like this. Based on such audience response, who could doubt about how good this movie is?

Yes, its story line is not 100% logical. But if such measuring stick is applied to ALL MOVIES, I wonder which one can pass and be considered good!

Frequency, I highly recommend it, to be watched and to be owned!!!",1 "Kathy Griffin is without doubt one of the best stand-up comedians of all time. She's hilarious! Her observations on life, politics and celebrity culture in particular are always dead on, witty and ultimately thought-provoking. She is unafraid to share her experiences no matter who she offends in the process and it is this honesty that makes her so funny. Allegedly is one of her many specials and as they are all excellent, I cannot choose a favourite. However, needless to say, if you love Kathy or comedy in general, you will not be disappointed! You'll be quoting her as soon as the show is over, if not during it! She is awesome!",1 "When a writer turns director plans to make a movie. What do you expect? At least an original story if not a perfect direction. But Mr. Rumi Jaffery shamelessly copies Bruce Almighty, adds some idiotic sequences of his own, throws few songs and here's what we get- a horrible copy of Bruce almighty. To add to the shame quotient, director denies it being a copy.

If the director had blindly copied the almighty, the movie could have been at least watchable. The modified script has easily made this one of the worst flicks of this year. Less said about the star-cast, the better. Throw money on us, we'll do any crap you say. Come on Mr. Khan and Mr. Bachhan, You've achieved a lot in your career. At least pay attention to the scripts you choose.

If India had Razzie, this one would have been a sure winner.",0 "Lynch's second film is a 4-minute mind-boggling trip into the subconscious. A dream Lynch's niece had while in school inspired it. She had a dream in which she recited the letters of the alphabet. And that pretty much summarizes what this film is about. The filmmaker used that simple idea as the basis of this fascinating short. If you are familiar with Lynch's work, you pretty much know what to expect. Nightmarish images are plentiful, and the film's atmosphere is strangely dense. I did not know what everything meant but it was fun to watch. Something I noticed here was the constant allusion to sex. Is it me or Lynch is a little too preoccupied with sex? The truth is that most of what I saw in the movie struck as being related to sex in one way or the other. It is possible that my mind was simply playing games on me. The fact is that only Lynch can make so much with so little. It is a true delight from beginning to end. If you are remotely interested in the director's work this is mandatory viewing.",1 "Everything about this is so truly awful that I actually watched the whole thing. The original movie was unique in that we actually got to see scientific research in action. Here we get to see Hollywood management in action. Add pieces from Alien, Day after Tomorrow, X-Files, recent gore films, even Prince of Darkness plus a reporter on drugs sub-plot, and many other things that have no place in the story. If you cut all that out you will find that the remains last less time than the original film. The final battle against the microbes is sub-SciFi channel. The production looks good but who cares? The acting from the main stars is unbelievably indifferent (give me my paycheck, I'm outta here). Bad bad bad.",0 "One of the better films I've seen in a long time, totally not LaChapelle's style, but as Littlepirate stated this, he must not have watched all the commentary, as to why and how he shot it, without tons of lighting, and using a cameraman with a home brew backpack steady-cam. Its not anything like his Christian Agularia's videos. Its unique and the DVD's bonuses made it a definite must buy. Rent the movie, and watch the extras, and believe me, you'll want to go buy a copy for yourself. Amazing dance moves, and those that say it's just a seizure, well probably don't dance. ( different moves are explained in the extras section, they are not just shaking around, there are actually steps to their dances). Tommy the Clown is an inspiration to see, he could leave and actually progress his way of life, but instead chooses to stay and help out the youth in the inner city, this man should be given an award for his courage. (even after being robbed, he still stuck it through).",1 "I can understand why some people review this show here and call it ""rubbish"" because it is not easily watchable. It takes you out of your comfort zone and is not banal safe comedy that often seems to often thrive on television. The main character Jill is a savagely cruel person, when her husband is diagnosed with cancer she drops him off at the hospital and goes to a dating agency to find a new man. When a couple move in next door she thinks nothing of wearing the disabled woman down physically and emotionally to get at her husband. You get the idea. Many of the lines are superbly witty in an outrageous ""she can't say that"" type of way. Interestingly Julia Davies has both naturalistic supporting characters like Cath and Don the couple next door and exaggerated broad comedy characters that inhabit Jill's world without the mix of the two jarring in any way. It is easier to watch a second or third time if you give it the chance, then you seem to be able to concentrate on the savage humour without feeling too much pity for the put upon characters involved. Superb.",1 "Best film this year. Indian Cinema at its best.If its said a ""lost film by David Lean""-It deserves it. Vidhu Vinod Chopra-Two Thumbs up-This man is our hope.

No words to describe this film. A modern day masterpiece. Vidhu Vinod Chopra's best. Breathtaking performances from Big B, Saif, Boman, Jackie, Sanjay, Vidya etc. Superb music and score and wonderful cinematography and locales not to forget the awe inspiring visual effects. In the years to come will be remembered as a CLASSIC. This is a poem on celluloid. Shakespeare nestling in the sands of Rajathan. This piece of work would have made Shakespeare smile broadly

A must watch for Cinema Lovers. EKlavya-a Royal TREAT!",1 "I admit that when I first heard of this movie starring Sofi'a , I wanted to see Sofi'a topless or in lace nightgowns..but that changed when I watched this movie.. I was familiar with Roselyn's work (Boat Trip,Rush Hour 2)and this was the 1st time I saw Jaci. Like with most of the fans of this movie,I fairly enjoyed it,as a guy -I enjoyed the eye-candy..Especially Sofi'a,even though she emulated that ""cuchi-cuchi"" Charo style,with her comical antics and Sofi'a over doing her hot and sexy colombian accent!! Because this movie was directed by a woman,this was a light screwball comedy..the story was simple,the comedy tame,lot of silly cliché's(especially for Sofi'a)and the acting was OK,though I was surprised at Sofi'a's comedy timing,since she never had any training at acting!!I don't know if this movie would have been better if a man directed this,his perspective.But because I enjoyed watching Sofi'a working off on the other Latina's,in all their sexiest,I could bare to watch this over again!!!",1 "

Actually, I believe that ""Jezebel"" is a very different film ""animal"" from ""Gone with the Wind"". GWTW is a mega-epic, with the whole Civil War and Reconstruction period as backdrops. ""Jezebel"", on the other hand, plays out over a much shorter period of time, historically. I'm not even a big Bette Davis fan, but I'll say that if ""Jezebel"" doesn't convert you, you can't be impressed. All of the performances are excellently crafted and satisfyingly deep, as would be expected from a stage play taken to the big screen. I love GWTW, but ""Jezebel"" works as well or better at capturing the same basic period in US history, while also keeping you waiting expectantly for the heroine's next outlandish maneuver. William Wyler was one of the great directors, and his gift shines through in every scene. I give ""Jezebel"" 10/10 stars, and Davis more than deserved her Oscar.",1 "I am a HUGE fan of A&E originals, as well as Masterpiece Theatre. Two of my favorite movies of all time are ""Pride and Prejudice"" (1995), and ""Wives and Daughters"". I am now adding ""Victoria and Albert"" to my list of all time favorites. This movie was absolutely stunning! And, what's even more amazing is that, unlike the previous favorites I mentioned, ""Victoria and Albert"" is a TRUE story! As soon as I finished watching it, I immediately went online to try to find more information on Victoria and Albert, family photos, excerpts from their diaries, etc. I had always thought of Queen Victoria as a women of 75 or so, and in a wheelchair. To see the true story of her younger years was such a treat.

The story was told SO very eloquently. Jonathan Firth and Victoria Hamilton were outstanding! They breathed life into their characters. I felt connected to Victoria and Albert somehow after I finished watching the movie. I actually felt like I was watching their lives unfold. The supporting cast was unreal. This was a dream cast, if I've ever seen one. Absolutely NO ONE was miscast. Nigel Hawthorne, as Lord M, was wonderful. The scene were he has to say goodbye to Victoria was so touching. Seeing these two historical characters sharing a tearful goodbye, and a handkerchief, was simply beautiful. The scenes between Victoria and Albert were pure magic. I love the scene between the two of them over the game of chess. I just don't know what else to say, except that this movie was utterly brilliant. It's an amazing in-depth look into 19th century British politics, but, above all, it's a stunningly glorious story of TRUE love. I'm getting teary-eyed just thinking about it! Please, please, take the time to see ""Victoria and Albert"". If you don't like this movie, well... then you and I could never possibly be friends. I know it's a bit harsh, but there it is. :)",1 I love Godzilla but I really think that the U.S. should not have made a Godzilla of their own. I like the original a lot better. I also love the new look of Godzilla he looks meaner and more destructive even though he's a bit smaller.,1 "It's a crying shame that this show doesn't occupy its rightful place in the pantheon of late night talk shows. Sometimes, large swaths of the show would go by without a single laugh, but you would still turn off the TV feeling you'd watched something entertaining. It's hard to explain; it was humor as dry as it comes. And when the show was hitting on all cylinders it was an absolute riot. The standout episode to me was the one in which Lily Tomlin came on to promote her movie ""The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe"". Instead of answering the questions as herself, she portrayed a Manhattan socialite who had been a financial backer of the film. To top it off, the character she played despised Lily Tomlin. Yet the interview seemed so real, with Havey appearing to actually get upset at the woman's snootiness. I've not seen a situation like this on any other show (except Tuesday Night Titans). I hope some network rolls out re-runs someday.",1 "After a nuclear rocket, containing wasps from a scientific experiment researching the effects of sending the insects into space, crashes in an uncharted part of Africa nicknamed ""Green Hell"" by the natives, the frightening result is gigantic mutated monstrosities the result of prolonged exposure to radiation. Now with word that these monsters are terrorizing that portion of the African continent, the scientists responsible for the experiment travel into the heart of Africa hoping to put a stop to this newfound threat.

Dull. Dull. Dull. A better word could not be more apt to describe this turgidly paced movie filled with scenes of folks walking, and walking, and walking some more. Although this film is only 71 minutes in length, it feels more like three hours. Sure there's some half-decent stop-motion animated monsters but they are particularly disappointing in comparison to other stop-motion efforts of the era and the stock footage used from STANLEY AND LIVINGSTONE (1939) perks things up slightly as well towards the end but aside from those short moments of excitement, well there's lots and lots of walking. Did I mention that already? Did I also mention this movie is almost a surefire cure for insomnia?",0 "This movie was made to be a film about a war between the Japanese mafia and a group of ninja's and the two yard servants who get in the middle to save their boss, the highest man in the mafia. The fight scenes were filmed slowly, for example when an actor through a punch he made his fist move slowly as if going to pet a strange dog. The editor later added sound effects and speeded up the film to give the illusion of extremely fast fighting. The novice camera tricks in this movie give it a hilarious touch. Wires used in fight scenes made me laugh for hours. When you finally meet the ninja warriors in the end, you'll stare in awe as they use ""ninja invisibility"" in the fight. It's one of my favorites.",1 "The winner of Best Foreign Language Film at the Golden Globes last night is the first feature-length film from Afghanistan. Shot by fledgling writer/editor/director, Siddiq Barmak, ""Osama,"" the film exposes the desperation and terror of a beautiful twelve-year-old girl (Marina Golbahari) during the Taliban era in Afghanistan. She becomes her widowed mother (Zubaida Sahar) and grandmother's only hope for survival since the Taliban rule decreed that her female family and thousands of others like them cannot appear in public without a male relative as escort. The Taliban has also decreed that women would not be permitted to work.

The girl, her mother, and a young street urchin, Spandi, (Arif Herati) survive a violently suppressed demonstration launched by Afghan women. The girl and her mother had secretly worked in a hospital until the Taliban dismissed all the staff and closed its doors. Faced with imminent starvation, the girl's mother decides to disguise her daughter as a boy, so that she will have an opportunity to work. They decide upon the name Osama as the disguised young male. The film reaches critical mass when Osama, as a boy, along with Spandi, are taken to a Taliban training camp where it becomes increasingly difficult to keep her sex a secret. Marina Golbahari's innocent beauty and ability to express a wide range of emotions is sure to flower into the making of a talented and beautiful actress.

The film is the epitome of everything negative surrounding the Muslim world's treatment of women. You cannot help but to despise the Taliban's inhuman treatment of women and the palpable fear that even the men experience in a land run by religious and hypocritical zealots. You could consider the film a downer, however, it plays like a thriller, with tensions kept high by focusing intently on the girl. It presents a believable and disturbing window into the soul of a society devastated by repression and war.

Director Barmak shot this film on a shoestring budget with inexperienced actors, and created a cinematic masterpiece. He incredibly elicits professional performances from amateurs, building tension and intensity from the first opening scenes of the Taliban spraying crowds of women clad in shapeless blue Burkas. Since Barmak received much of his training in Iran, the film is typical of the Iranian style of filmmaking by ending abruptly with no resolution of the conflict. It is a film worthy of high praise; however, be prepared for experiencing a great deal of anger and anguish by witnessing the subjugation of Muslim women and children without much resolution or hope.

Opens in the Bay Area on February 27, 2004 and on Feb. 6th in Los Angeles and New York",1 "A beautiful film which captures the spirit of a man's struggle to make his dream come true. Jeff Bridges is invincible in the role of Preston Tucker and effortlessly pulls the viewer inside the mind and spirit of this maverick entrepreneur who brought to the automotive industry seat belts, fuel injection, pop-out windows and most of all a legend called the Tucker Torpedo.

Acting just oozes out of this fine actor and id consider it as his best performance ever. Excellent direction,screenplay and soundtrack. great duologue's too. especially ""can any one in this room look me in the eye and say we cant do it"" and on hearings a non-affirmative he replies ""except you"".

The courtroom speech is something which recharges your spirit and fills your body with passion. Very true as he puts it "" fifty or fifty million...thats only machinery..its the idea that counts..the dream..""",1 "This movie was not only badly written but the acting could not have been worse. The only actor who was any good was the 10 year old boy, who actually had feeling when he cried. The script was not the best either. Most of the lines were very cheesy. I had to laugh to keep from hurling. The story line was not all that great or accurate. The president did not have very good security either. How could they not see the barrel sticking out of a window across the street right in front of them? I would like to think that the people protecting the president are a little smarter then that. For dealing with a level 4 hot agent the doctor was not very intelligent seeing as she touched her mouth with a gloved hand after handling the dart that contained the virus. No real doctor would ever work with any level 4 agent with out the right protective gear. There was also not a very accurate representation of what the Ebola virus can do to a person. Now I don't know that much about Ebola but I do know that it does more to your body then just give you a bloody nose and a cough. A better representation would have made this movie better. Everyone looked too good through out the movie. Plus it jumped around a lot. There were too many holes in the plot. In one scene they were standing up talking and in the next scene they were dead. Now how about that ending. No movie would be complete without the terrorist falling off of the roof after being hit with a portable tunnel, the bomb being turned off with two seconds to spare, and a bit of romance. Everyone has time to flirt when there is a hot agent that is air borne around a hospital.",0 "I don't know why Gibson's work does not translate well to the screen, but this is another example of a bad medium translation. In the short story, there is tension through the entire work. The film seems to center on the voyeuristic side of the sex scenes being played out on screen. These scenes have little or nothing to do with the plot. The main characters wasted their considerable talent in this very forgettable movie.",0 "This extremely well written and acted movie is a little treasure that I discovered on the ""not rented very much"" section of the video store. It follows the relationship of two commitment phobic people who were madly in love with each other but are always looking for a reason not to be happy. Alternatingly absolutely hysterical and poignant, this movie is a must see for all who enjoy a well done realistic romantic comedy (as opposed to an unrealistic one such as Runaway Bride). Certainly not least, Salma Hayak is absolutely gorgeous, sexy, and funny and Russell Crowe shows why he will be a heavyweight in the industry for a long time. You will see why he was robbed of the Best Actor Oscar last year for the Insider after viewing. 9++ Enjoy.",1 "This was supposed to be a great comedy, but I didn't find a man losing his wife in a poker game to be something to laugh about, nor did I find it cool that the woman would have a fling with the gambler who ""won"" her. All of that is supposed to be ""hilarious,"" to all the mainline film critics.

Well, I guess that's just another of the thousands of examples of how sick film people are, on both sides of the camera. The lower the values, the more they like it, and vice-versa.

And while your at it, Hollywood: stop with all the Elvis imitations. That's getting tiresome, especially in Vegas. So was Nicolas Cage's constant yelling in here. This movie will give you a headache in addition to making you nauseous.

This is one honeymoon you want to skip.",0 "

Average sci-fi thriller movie back in 1973.But today due to numerous improvements on the ideas presented here,this movie is only likely to be enjoyed by the most avid sci-fi movie completist.The special effects here was ripped off by numerous 1970's sci-fi TV series like those countless Six Million Dollar Man/Bionic Woman shows.If one has seen those TV shows before seeing this movie,nothing comes out new or fresh.Come to think of it,the Six Million Dollar Man pilot episodes came out before this movie!So actually,the special effects here were not too original after all.Also,they were not content with the Six Million Dollar Man rip off,they even stole the actor who plays Dr.Rudy Wells in said TV show!No sirree.They can't pull a fast one on a guy like me who has seen a lot of movies and TV shows so I am NOT IMPRESSED at all and do not buy into the hype.So now what have we got?Story?The story looks to me like a reject script from a 1960's Twilight Zone episode.The story was too full of plot holes it's not funny.Yes indeed. this one makes a great victim for MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 2000 lampooning fun........",0 "Vicky Baum's novel ""Menschen I'm Hotel"" serves as the basis for this 1932 film that was a vehicle for Greta Garbo. ""Grand Hotel"", as directed by Edmund Golding, was a magnificent film that had a lot of first class stars of the era in prominent roles. In fact, this seems to be one of the first films to have relied in the prominent ""names"" it gathered to portray the different characters in the movie.

By today's standards, the film is dated, but for a discriminating film fan, ""Grand Hotel"" is a classic because of the star turns one witnesses. Also, today's fans have to make concessions for the style of acting that was prevalent at the time. The movies have begun ""talking"" not long before this film was made and the stars of those silents were still doing their acting in front of the camera as though no one was going to hear them talk. In fact, most of the complaints in comments submitted to this forum would have been different if this was 1932 and the film had just come out.

The best advice for anyone new to this film is to sit back, relax, and enjoy the trials and tribulations of the people seen at Berlin's Grand Hotel.

The biggest surprise of the film is the shortness of Greta Garbo presence in the film, in which for some unknown reason, she looms large above the rest of the players. As the Russian ballerina Grusinskaya, Ms. Garbo played one of the best characters of her career. Her way of acting is still imbued with what was expected of her.

John Barrymore as the Baron Von Geigern, the impoverished nobleman, is key to the story. The moment he meets the great Grusinskaya, he is lost forever. Lionel Barrymore is excellent as the poor Otto Kringelein, who thinks he is going to die real soon. Joan Crawford, is the stenographer Flaemmchen who seems to arise passion among all the men she meets. Ms. Crawford does excellent work in a role she discarded later on in favor of more dramatic appearances.

What makes ""Grand Hotel"" the timeless classic it became is the magnificent camera work by William H. Daniels, a man who knew how to get the best out of Greta Garbo in their many films together. Also the music which is from Franz Lehar's ""The Merry Widow"" serves as a nice distraction in the background.

The most famous phrase in the film ""I want to be alone"", seems prophetic in retrospect as the divine Garbo had about eight more years in the movies.",1 "I have seen several Fu Manchu films and he was a popular character from the 1920s all the way up to the 1970s--having appeared in many American and British films and serials. He was a demented and power-mad genius--sort of like Dr. No or Blofeld or Dr. Evil. However, in this rather listless installment, the menace of evil is very, very subdued and the film never delivered on its promise.

Unlike other Fu Manchu films, in this one he is NOT the main character. Warner Oland plays Manchu and looks a lot like his Charlie Chan character. He is only in about 10 minutes worth of film despite his high billing in the movie. His purpose is to see Anna May Wong's character and reveal to her that she is his daughter--and that he expects her to help him carry out his revenge. So, one day, Wong is a sweet cabaret dancer and the next she's expected to carry out a plan for murder--and at first she agrees wholeheartedly. Having her become his evil accomplice wasn't a bad idea, but what sank this film was by having Manchu killed soon after this. This ""brilliant"" villain sure wasn't very careful and got himself killed rather easily. Additionally, Wong's character was a real negative because she never really could make up her mind whether or not to be evil--spending so much of the film bouncing back and forth---and in the process losing all the cruel menace that SHOULD be part of any Fu Manchu picture.

An additional deficit in the film is how they used veteran actor Sessue Hayakawa. I wasn't upset to see a Japanese man playing a Chinese man--heck, for Hollywood, that's a lot closer to realistic than the usual White Westerner playing Asian roles of the era. Instead it was a completely mindless plot device thrown into the film towards the end. While his and Wong's characters barely interact, there is a love scene that appears out of no where AND makes no sense since the lady was already in love with another man. It looked as if there may have originally been much more to this but it was somehow cut, at least in part, from the film and they forgot to completely remove traces of this subplot.

So, what looked like an exciting adventure film turned out to be a rather dull little film. The only big plus for the film were the great sets--they really were cool and made this B-movie look more like a higher budget feature film.

So much promise--so little delivered.",0 "There is really not much to be said about this incredibly awful TV show. The premise was dumb, the background music was annoying, Monica played more like a mean big sister than a host, the men in competition were obviously looking for two minutes of fame (or were really hard-lucked with meeting women), and the clueless woman at the center.....enough said. The one positive is that it survived just a few weeks. What is really sad is that the powers that be at FOX have managed to come up with shows (in my honest opinion) that are even worse than this mess since then. One episode of ""The Moment of Truth"" has pretty much left me with the sudden urge to projectile vomit all over my TV screen. To only be able to go back 20 to 30 years and be able to watch some of the shows we referred to as garbage back then....they seem pretty appealing right about now.

If by chance ""Mr. Personality"" is released on DVD, pass it up and spend the money on bathroom deodorant.",0 "I really, really wanted to enjoy this movie but it just didn't seem to gel. A movie spoof is supposed to be funny, not make you sorry for the people appearing in it. Not to mention sorry for the people who financed it because you pray they can somehow make their money back and yet you know they probably won't. A movie lives and dies by it's script and for a comedy spoof this just wasn't very funny at all. And I agree with the 2 other people who said the ""fart fight"" featuring Lorenzo Lamas was the definite low point. Flatulence on film was funny when Mel Brooks did it in the classic ""Blazing Saddles"" but that was a long, long time ago. And how disappointing to see a film with the smoking hot Robin Shou and veteran Don ""The Dragon"" Wilson and neither one of them fights?? Just much too brief cameos for both, truly a shame. Might have helped things a bit here, at least there would have been some great fighting to make up for the lack of great comedy.",0 I'm usually very wary of horror films that centre around a fairy tale basis but this was a brilliant movie. The cast was brilliant (bar from the cop.) The actress who plays Erin has a very Fatal Attraction Glenn Close charm about her and has the ability to go from sweet and innocent to dark and menacing in an instant. The script was remarkably well written. It was very chilling movie and kept you on the edge of your seat. The artistic direction especially the illustrations used to tell the story are breathtaking. I am really hoping that there will be a sequel to this. It also deserves more recognition than. Hats off to everyone who worked on this movie.,1 "The key parts of Dostoyevsky's novel are either missing, or are so badly twisted, that I found myself laughing hysterically throughout this movie. There were a couple of good casting choices, and some good sets, but otherwise, it is a complete wash. This movie completely misses the points of Dostoyevsky, but it isn't too clear on it's Russian setting either. The poor cast is made to deliver the English dialog with bad Russian accents. The movie opens with Raskolnikov trying to assassinate Tsar Nicholas II and Tsaritsa Alexandra as they are leaving a church! (only 60 years too soon and completely destroys the subsequent plot assumptions). Key scenes such as Sonia's Father's speech to Raskolnikov (in which is contained the main theme of the work) are gone. What is meant to be a scene in which Raskolnikov and Sonia experience profound repentance, grace and forgiveness during the reading of the gospel story of Lazarus, is twisted: Sonia reads one sentence of the Gospel (tossing aside the theme), and then it turns into a big kiss moment instead. Avoid this one like the plague!",0 "Check that lame-o-meter. Donald Pleasence is Axel MacGregor, a world renowned writer, test pilot, big game hunter and writer. MacGregor has a lop-sided sense of machismo and his ego has been threatened by a black leopard who attacked him on safari. He has the animal captured alive with the intent to let the beast loose on his private Southeast-Asian island paradise in order to track it down and claim superiority with a high powered rifle. Meanwhile his daughter and granddaughter make an unannounced visit. MacGregor will have more than enough to deal with...right down to his last bullet. The supporting cast includes: Nancy Kwan, Lesly Fine, Ross Hagen and Jennifer Rhodes.",0 "This movie is one of the best. Robin Williams and Nathan Lane are phenomenal and hilarious, but the best performance throughout the film is by Hank Azaria, as Agador, the adorable flaming butler. My favorite scene is when both families are sitting together eating dinner. I don't want to give anything away, but wow I was in tears. Gene Hackman is extremely funny as a conservative senator. This film is colorful, unique and will keep an audience roaring with laughter. Yes, the movie follows some typical stereo types among a gay male couple, however, is not offensive in anyway, shape or form. I think this is such a cute film, and if you haven't seen it, or if you happen to be in the mood for a laugh out loud movie rent The Birdcage.

My Rating: 9/10",1 "I should start by admitting that I find Jennifer Aniston adorable.

Vince Vaughn is every fast talking overly-confident friend I've ever known.

This film could have been great. It isn't.

It is a weak film full of odd underdeveloped (and thus unexplained) side characters and it contains one of the most unsatisfying (and the biggest 'cop-out') endings ever put on film.

If I want inadequate, unfunny, unsatisfying and realistic, I'll refer to my own struggling relationships. I don't need to pay Hollywood top dollar to show me that. I can get that for free.

It has its hints at humor, but overall? Awful.",0 "This is definitely the best movie I have ever seen! It was great to see all the celebrities in the late 80's! Especially Courteney Cox! Barry Bostwick was also one of the best actors in the movie! All the romance and passion is definitely there! If you ever get the chance to see it, don't let the experience slip away from you!",1 "Oh Man i watched this yesterday on tv after seeing it 20years before in the cinema! This Movie is absolutely underrated. Snake is one of the first damn cool Actionheros in Moviehistory. Kurt Russel is perfect, carpenter did a great Score as ever. This movie will never suck, absolutely great!!

-walk on- Holzi",1 "Begins in tremendous style and is very watchable throughout although one does begin to worry about a certain lack of clarity. I think the film is longer than it need be and is ultimately unable to deal with the deeper issues it alludes to. A tighter film would have meant we were on the edge of our seats throughout and, possibly more importantly, forced the director (or writer) to get what they wanted to say more simply expressed. Many have suggested there may be something, lost in translation and that is a fair point but my own feeling is that the film makers simply overstretched themselves a little. Having said all that it's a very decent film with plenty of blood, gore and surprises, plus its always good to look at.",0 "Although publicized as a dramatization of Custer's Last Stand, this bears little relation to the events as known. It is a story of.... well, it is one of the most morally ambiguous pieces of Griffith's that I have seen. Griffith spent most of his career using his serious pieces to dramatize society's problems, even when he had no solution to offer, from WHAT WILL WE DO WITH OUR OLD to his last credited directorial job, THE STRUGGLE. I think Griffith meant to raise questions and tell an exciting story, as he always did.

The first question is: which massacre? After some setting scenes, we witness a massacre as a cavalry unit attacks an Indian village. We are not told why they are attacking it. Then, when that is over, we see a wagon train moving west. Was the massacre of the Indians intended to leave their lands empty for settlers? The camera pulls back, and we see a wolf watching the wagon train, then a bear appears and drives off the wolf. Then the bear is driven off by an Indian scout in a bearskin.... and he brings the Indian forces that massacre the wagon train, leaving only Blanche Sweet and her baby alive.

To which massacre does the film's title refer? Who is to blame? Who began this cycle of massacres? Who benefits? Was there no beginning and can there be no end?

Although Griffith directed more than five hundred pictures, almost all of which survive, he has a vast corpus of works that are rarely seen, because so many people concentrate on his best features and perhaps a dozen of his best-known shorts. Kino is to be applauded for including a sizable number of his lesser-known, but equally powerful shorts in their most recent compilation, and for hiring John Mirsalis to do scores.",1 "By definition, I'd really refer to this as a shocker film rather than as a scary movie. This film prefers special effects and disturbing, bloody scenes to say suspense or good writing. The acting was sub-par at best, though I would say it may be Chris Kattan's best job yet. Average cut between shots has to be in the milli-seconds. The shot selection bounced so much I began having a headache. The only movie with more cuts was probably Domino. The ending was sub-par. The movie seemed to want to incorporate too many themes for one horror movie: killer husband/wife, haunted house, deranged surgeons, ancient evil, etc. The best part of the movie was that at very least they had the decency to set the tone early to let you know what was going to be coming at you. That being said, I did watch it all the way through, so it clearly wasn't as bad as it could have been.",0 "I watched this one only for a single reason: Claire Forlani. She is so beautiful that I can't express it with words (and I couldn't in German as well, so it's not a genuine language problem).

In this movie, she is married to a writer and his best friend somehow falls in love with her - well, seeing her in her full beauty makes this biggest of loyalty breaches understandable in my book.

But the director seems to see the act of cheating as the ultimate sin. I don't want to spoil too much here, not that there would be too much to spoil anyway, but I really felt that the moral index finger of the film makers was too much to swallow. Okay, it's nothing a friend should do to cheat on his best friend with his wife - but hey, feelings sometimes make us do things that are not really clever, but still that's what feelings are there for in a way... and since it always takes two persons to cheat on a third one, I really could not understand what this movie wanted to express in the end.

Drama? Yes. Romance? A little. Relevance? None at all. That is except for watching Claire Forlani looking like an angel - again.",0 "I rarely see a movie that I enjoy as much as I enjoyed this film. It is just so gorgeous on so many levels, it has a very intriguing plot, and a twist at the end that leaves you with a very shocked brain. There's not too much that I can say without giving away much of the plot, but it's fair to say that if you watch this movie, you will NOT be disappointed. It is just so captivating, it has a wonderful soundtrack that matches the movie perfectly, and the ending is so sad, yet so imaginative. The cast displays an amazing performance and the camera work is quite complex and stylistic. In my opinion, the best movie of the ""dark humor"" genre to be exhaled from someone's mind yet. The only reason I couldn't give this a full 10 stars is because of the fact that it may be a little confusing to some, due to the fact that it is left very open-ended. 9/10",1 "One of the worst movies ever made...thus making it one of the best movies ever made. Everybody who loves awful movies, must go see this movie. I saw it at a midnight show, and got a free fortune cookie! This is basically an awfully funny version of ""King Kong."" They ripped off the plot, the ending, and anything that might be ripped off. I liked the gratuitous, no-nudity sex scene. Go see this movie for the music alone. It is total seventies crap. The dubbing sometimes comes after their mouths have stopped moving. Total ineptitude. Great movie. The special effects are not-so-special. There are animals galore that are mean one minute, tame the next, and can rip off a leg, and make it disappear in a millisecond. Also watch for the bad acting in the flashback scene (yes, they even used flashbacks, it ruins them all.) For the guys, there is a jungle babe that only has a small animal skin that sometimes is glued on (only one arm strap) and sometimes falls out of. I personally like her makeup...in the jungle at all times, it's perfect! I don't know whether to give this movie one star for not really trying too hard, or 9 stars for being so entertaining.",1 "For the information of your readers - I am the person who played the mother in Cindy and Donna. My stage name was: Suzy Allen. I never used the name Susy Allen and any information shown for Susy Allen does not apply to me. I don't know why I was not credited properly. I agree that Cindy and Donna was a terrible movie, but the stagehands and crew said I was the best actor in the movie! We spent an entire day filming one scene, with me and my ""husband"" driving on a freeway, with me nagging him about not taking me out often enough !! I had a lot of fun trying to be the whining, miserable wife for the movie, even though in real life I am nothing like that character. It was also very interesting for me to have to dub in some of my lines after the movie was finished. Quite a challenge to get everything right on cue.",1 "This is truly one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen. If the goal of a great movie is to make its viewer changed forever, ""The Grey Zone"" certainly has succeeded. Yes it is not ""Schindlers List"". It has no uplifting theme, other than that in the face of no hope, doomed individuals tried desperately, if for nothing else, to save one life among millions of doomed. In the end even that effort is futile.

It's images are haunting.

Do to its depressing topic and even more disturbing ending others have criticized this movie as not being ""entertaining"". In fact it is entertaining. It is a horror movie of the real kind. The horror of human evil based on prejudice and hatred.

Everyone needs to see this movie, with the exception of those who lived through it, as they already know!",1 "To date, the only other films I've seen by Luigi Batzella are ""Devil's Wedding Night"" (abysmal) and ""Beast In Heat"" (SUPER abysmal). However, ""Nude For Satan"" is a much better film in many ways, but it will definitely not be for all tastes.

A doctor, racing to an emergency call, sees what he thinks is a woman in the road and slams on his brakes. His little Volkswagen has been screaming along the back roads like it was a Maserati, from the sound of it. But, before he can get out of his car, there's a crash & there's a woman who has wrecked her car and is hanging out the door, so he puts her into his car, which will then not start. He sees a nearby house so he goes for help, but encounters a very strange man who then disappears. The lights in the house go out when he calls for help, but the front door is open so he wanders in to find the house seemingly abandoned & full of debris. In exploring, looking for someone, anyone, he opens various doors to find nasty surprises inside. And then, he seems to find the woman that he rescued from the accident, surprised to find that she has made it to the house.

As the film goes on it seems that the doctor and the woman are in some kind of alternate reality, in which they have doubles. And there's a mysterious man who seems to preside over all that is weird there, presumably, Satan. In encountering the Satan character for the first time, the woman appears nude, while we get a close-up of Satan's eye...talk about undressing someone with your eyes! For the most part, this is very dream-like (or nightmare-like, to be more accurate), and while it's somewhat nonsensical it's still quite interesting and a far better offering than the other trash I've seen by this director. If you like weird Italian horror films, this is definitely worth checking out. 7 out of 10.",1 "A lot of my friends worked on this movie. They said there were tons of cop-movie in-jokes here and everybody would crack up between takes, with cast and crew having a good time during all those party scenes. They said Marc Singer (remember Beastmaster ?) was a really cool guy, Madsen laid back and Hopper (gettin' kinda' creaky in his way) but still stretching his chops. Its just a low-budget flick fer' gosh-sakes. Sincere in its ponderous way and way better than any million-dollar stinking Seagal or Stallone crap-shoot. Course you can bet your ass nobody was getting $20 million to star in this. Like, you all were expecting maybe ""Miami Vice"" ? Morally, I figure this flick is a hell of a lot better than some reprehensible 'fun' slasher-crap flicks that fanboys seem to eat up like so many catsup-dripping hotdogs. Hell, I bought this movie in a discount bin at Blockbuster, expecting the worst and surprised to get more than my money's worth. Charles Durning was pretty solid in this and the twist at the end was totally unexpected. And without a doubt, I agree with some of the other comments that the gals were definitely HOT ! This is just a freakin' low-budget movie with all the exploitation elements intact, and every dollar up on the screen. Controversial ? Not really. Amusing ? Yes. A good movie ? Well, better than a lot of the big-budget studio crap that's out there...",1 "I myself am a eclectic martial art stylist who blends Wing Chung Kung Fu, Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, Professional Wrestling, and Krav Maga into a single loosely structured flexible system I call ""Combat Wrestling"", and of course, I like a good martial art film now and then. Prior to Bruce Lee's days, the Kung Fu and Karate Films made in the Orient cared little for realism and moved more towards fantasy. Bruce Lee brought some realism back, and other martial art actors like Chuck Norris, and Steven Seagal (sp?) also tried to keep the fight scenes realistic, often doing the fight choreography as well. However, I have been dismayed at the ridiculous scenes being filmed currently both in the East and West involving the use of cables so a fight scene includes some ridiculous sequence of guys jumping from trees to trees or backwards to a rooftop, or leaping forward and kicking like 20 time alternately with both feet. It is quite fitting that the Scary Movie series and the Austin Powers have both spoofed these absurd fight scenes.

There have been many actors in the past who have tried to step into the shoes of Bruce Lee, with 10,000 cheap imitations, only a handful possessing any talent or skill to a remarkable degree and none like the Master Bruce Lee.

However, the Kung-Fu Magazine hall-of-famer, Jason Yee, is a fellow worth watching, and may be an exception to the rule. I hope so. I'm getting tired of directors trying to foster the illusion of an actor or actress who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag being some Master martial artist (with a little help of wires, stunt doubles, and camera angles). Of course, movie fights have to be faked or serious injury or death could result. Often the stunt men are more highly trained than the actors, and I deplore this giving a 30 day crash course in Kung Fu or Karate Weapons or hand to hand to some actor who doesn't have the real skills. It is dangerous for all concerned. I'd like to see the return of the actor/martial artist combo like Lee, Norris, Jackie Chan, Steven Seagal. Jason Yee shows real promise as a martial arts actor.

But then, many people wouldn't watch a ""Karate"" movie if they were paid to see it. ""All that senseless violence...what shame!"" I wonder sometimes what planet these guys were born on, as if John Wayne shooting up the bar in a Western is any less ""senseless"", and notice how the worship and adoration of firearms---the great equalizer---has turned our streets into shooting galleries. Now everybody is a potential killer, not just a highly trained fighting elite.

But the fault is not in the possession of firearms, but the tendency to go straight for the gun or other weapon and use deadly force for the slightest of problems. But then, our own government does this and sets a good example for thugs to emulate. Uncle Sam will attack with the slightest provocation with such goodies as bunker busters, and cluster bombs? Why can't I, Joe Average Citizen do the same?

Actually, some martial arts training would help REDUCE violence in the streets. Sound martial art philosophy, the Golden Mean---standing between the ""Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out"" school, and the extreme and absurd nonviolence taught in some other schools, where the student is taught a skill which is forbidden to ever be used.

Frankly, I wouldn't want a man living as my neighbor who would just stand still and meditate as two thugs butchered his wife and children. Such a man is worse scum than the thugs who attack.

There is a middle path that lies between, the path of truth. Use no force greater than necessary in the given circumstances. This then is the famous Oath of Peace made famous not by Boddhidharma, but Steven R. Donaldson the fantasy writer.

It runs in part ""Do not harm when words are enough...do not maim when injury is enough, do not kill when maiming is enough..."".

Good cops, good soldiers, and good martial artists always follow this creed. But alas, we live in a society where the Natural right to defend oneself from aggressive human predators has been almost totally obliterated by modern governments. Do not fight back, just call the cops, and let the professionals handle it. This kind of stupidity is ominous. Often by the time the government which desires to control every facet of our lives gets to the scene, you or your loved ones are dead. Small comfort that the thugs who put you or your loved ones in their graves are apprehended and punished AFTER THE FACT.

But what is the answer? A gun on every belt? A box of Hand Grenades in every car? How about reducing this craving fear of everything and everybody! Martial arts can help here better than a million dollars worth of psycho-therapy.

How about a real martial arts training in the schools. A real martial art, not a lukewarm watered down nice and sweet claptrap with a smattering of Zen or Taoism as cream on top. The Warrior Path, paradoxically does not lead to wanton violence, but rather effectively eliminates it. But finding a real martial art, instead of a saccharine watered down version that is a total waste of time and money, is not easy! Good luck! Enjoy this film, but remember...it is only fantasy!",1 "I came into this title knowing absolutely nothing about it, besides the fact that Christian Slater was the lead. What I watched was nothing short of fantastic.

We are first introduced to Bob (Slater), a man on the verge (or possibly in the thrall of) of a total breakdown. Sort of reminds you of Milton from Office Space, but taken so far over the edge, there's just no looking back. He's mistreated at work, he hates his job, and he wants it all to end.

The thing that really got me attached to this film was the observations of the inner workings of Bob. He talks to his goldfish, and for crying out loud, the thing talks back. This is obviously an unstable man. His stabilizer though, found in the ""victim"", Vanessa (played amazingly well by Elisha Cuthbert), reminded me so much of Carrie-Ann Moss from Memento. She carries him, but teaches him to be a stronger man through essential ""ball-busting"".

The script was perfect for each of the lead roles. Both Cuthbert and especially Slater shocked me to no end with their talent. This was Slater's ideal role. Director Frank A. Cappello regained some status with this. It was quite the achievement. It's unfortunate that it had such a small release (I would've never heard of it if it wasn't for the fact that I got an advance DVD). It's going to go overlooked for many. Look it up at your local video store, folks, this will be worth it!!!",1 "I expect this movie was made simply to shock or something, and perhaps it did in 1991 but now it's simply an interminable yawner. A primal no-no of screen writing is the over-use of time jumps, you know, when there is 1 minute of action then a flash on the screen telling is ""two years later"" etc. Too often this trick is used in this movie to cover awkwardness in the basic story and to cover gashes in the fabric of the script. This flick starts with several such devices. Time jumps can work if the script is top-drawer, which this one is not. It's basically a simple story of a cuckolded, self-absorbed imbecile and his neurotic, self-absorbed wife who is having it off with her rudderless, self-absorbed brother.

All I can conclude after drifting through this mess is that it is a story of arrested development in a trio of unbelievably childish adults leading fantasy lives in chic settings.

Worthwhile only for the photography and beautiful settings, houses, flats and parks along the Thames, not to mention the very attractive bodies of Saskia Reeves and Clive Owen, talented actors who are completely wasted as the two maddeningly inane and vapid leads. Alan Rickman can do little more than look befuddled and helpless as the wronged husband.

It's all rather sick, but not because of the incest issue, which isn't really very shocking due to the ineptness of the script, but more so because of the abominable selfishness and stupidity of the characters. The motivation for the characters' behavior is highly confusing, besides, who cares anyway.

Rubbish.",0 "In their penultimate Frankenstein entry, the Hammer folks return virtually full-circle to the first film in the series (The Curse Of Frankenstein). Apart from a few changes in personnel, and the way that this one goes for a peculiar black comedy approach, the two films are almost identical. Despite the fact that times had changed between the completion of the two films, one would hardly notice it after viewing The Horror Of Frankenstein. Old-fashioned, predictable and familiar in the extreme, it is arguably the weakest of the entire series.

Brilliant young student Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates) is the scourge of his teachers and the wet dream of all the girls in his class. He goes to university in Vienna, where he enrages the dean by impregnating his daughter. Also whilst in Vienna, he befriends another student, Wilhelm Kassner (Graham James), and persuades him to return to the family castle when the teaching term is over. Frankenstein inherited the castle, along with a buxom housekeeper named Alys (Kate O'Mara), when his father was killed in a shooting ""accident"". Once at the castle, Frankenstein and Wilhelm are soon engaged in scientific experiments involving the forces of life, but gradually Wilhelm grows unhappy with the direction the research is taking. Wilhelm is perfectly happy to lethally inject, then revive, a tortoise… but Frankenstein seems to have bigger ambitions, including eventually re-animating a dead person. Wilhelm prepares to leave, but is murdered by Frankenstein after threatening to expose the immorality of his research. The young scientist doesn't stop there – after purchasing various body parts from a local grave robber (Dennis Price), he begins to bump off more of his close friends. Slowly but surely, he assembles all the parts he needs to construct a man, but when the crude, disfigured human monster (David Prowse) is eventually reanimated it has uncontrollably violent tendencies, and smashes its way out the castle to go on a killing spree in the adjacent countryside.

Lots of reviewers say that The Horror Of Frankenstein suffers from the absence of Peter Cushing, but in truth I think that Ralph Bates is one of the few positive things about this film. While certainly not in the same league as the legendary Cushing, Bates still manages to bring much to the role, playing the evil doctor as a supremely confident, smug and single-minded type. The female characters are also nicely played, with O'Mara oozing feline sexuality as the promiscuous housekeeper, while Hammer regular Veronica Carlson is also solid as Frankenstein's childhood friend. The film suffers from its uninspired story and leisurely pacing. Also, the monster played by Prowse is far too unintentionally funny and has none of the scare factor that Christopher Lee demonstrated in the original movie. Prowse resembles something from a gay's only Halloween party, with his disfigured head, muscular physique and tight boxer shorts. When he is on screen, the film should be peaking into a crescendo of horror, but instead it becomes an accidental comedy! The Horror Of Frankenstein is naturally going to be of interest to those who like and have seen the others in the series, but for the more casual viewer it provides little to get excited about.",0 "The true story of Anne Sullivan, the teacher of Helen Keller, and her struggles to teach a deaf, mute, and blind girl. Set in the south on an Alabama tobacco plantation the story combines elements of family life, psychology and persistence. The movie teaches not to pity or treat someone as a lesser because of a handicap. The acting was good. The script writing however was mediocre and lacked elements of excitement. The plot line at times became uninteresting, but the ending was dramatic and captivating. I found this movie to be of mediocre quality. I would not consider the movie extremely entertaining, but would suggest watching it to learn more about Helen Keller.",0 "It seems that the intent of this movie was to make you feel bad for these ""poor"" rich kids. All it made me do was think how ridiculous they are. If they want a normal life or whatever they can have one. They can go to school meet a woman get married and have kids and not take any of their families money. They are capable of doing whatever they want but all they can do is feel sorry for themselves. I also didnt like how the Director didn't remind us who the people are. There were so many rich kids I couldn't keep track.",0 "The scene where Sylvester is lying unconscious on his bed in the kitchen, and was lowered through a trap door from 1:10 am to 4:00 am is probably the most frightening scene I never watched on a cartoon. They never show what happened to Sylvester, but when he returns, he's changed physically and looks completely traumatized (his fur is white and looks aged, he's not shivering anymore, and his eyes are dilated and with a lost look). Not showing what's in the basement urges you to try to figure it, and you'll probably end realizing the horrors Sylvester witnessed are beyond your imagination. That kind of involvement of the audience is, in my humble opinion, the most elegant form of horror to me!",1 "...I'd rate this fourth out of the four I can think of. As Australian post-apocalyptic movies featuring Kurt Cobain's ghost go, Freedom Deep is A-number-one!

So I watch bad movies for fun. That's my excuse. After reading the back of the DVD's packaging, which contains the phrase ""we see how his talents are nutured (sic) and developed under the guidance of his spiritual mentor - 'Kurt Cobain,'"" how could I not buy it? I could not not, that's how. There's another misspelling in the quote above I'd love to reproduce, but IMDb automatically corrects it every time I try.

Freedom Deep takes place mostly in two time periods, between which it alternates: 1998-ish and 2018, with a little bit of ""much later"" as well. The nineties bit concerns a young boy named Liam, who has trouble at home and trouble with the other children at school. And, come to think of it, trouble with his teacher at school, a fact which is revealed in an inadvertently hilarious scene. The other prominent timeline focuses on an adult Liam (who, it should be noted, looks absolutely nothing like young Liam) who basically wanders around the desert a lot. To spice things up, sometimes he wanders through the snow. At one point, in a radical narrative departure, he manages to wander in a boat.

Not sold on it yet? Just wait. The best part is that no incarnation of our protagonist, not young Liam, adult Liam or even old Liam, speaks a single word. Not because they're mute, but because it's, y'know, artsy. There's some voice-over here and there, but even that's sparse. I believe it was 28 minutes into the movie before *any* main character actually spoke a word to someone else, and that was through a headset to an unknown party. It's all about as enthralling as it sounds.

Freedom Deep is a mess. It's Gordian's Knot, and I have no idea why anybody tied it. So there's this woman. She's a bounty hunter. Or an assassin. Or a government agent or something. I guess it's possible she's from the future of the future. I couldn't tell you. It's 2018, civilization's presumably in crumbles, and for completely unknown reasons she's been tasked with finding Liam wandering out in the desert. Liam's probably wandering the desert to get away from the society that wronged him, except I think that society has been destroyed for close to 20 years at this point. Maybe whatever society sprung up in its place picked on him too. Liam's had it rough. Anyway, she shoots a camel, finds her quarry, has a confusing wireless conversation, burns her headset, rapes Liam at knifepoint (!), they fall in love, and he never says a word. Your typical boy meets girl, really.

All the while, she reads through the pages of a book Liam has written. It's the same book Liam started writing back in the 1998 timeline. One would hope that's a helluva book. And clearly it is, as she decides to spare his life because of it; she's convinced it must reach civilization.

Meanwhile, young Liam runs away from home and manages to find a surrogate family in the form of a gay couple, half of which is a transsexual ""mother"" and the other half of which really likes heroin. Liam escapes his troubles, as he always has, through his love of plaid shirts, a horrendous hair-do, Kurt Cobain, and lots of music that sounds nothing like Kurt Cobain's. Music rights cost money. Soon he finds another outlet for his pain (pain best represented in voice-over by the heartfelt words ""heal my wounds""). Poetry!

The movie states that young Liam's story starts in 1998; we're told no more. Liam endures school and home life, escapes from it, finds an odd replacement family, takes up writing, gets in a series of publications, and becomes well-known enough to get into a meeting with corporate bigwigs who'd like to put his column in their magazine as a regular feature, all by March 12th of 1998, the movie tells us. Even assuming the rest of it started on January 1st, that little dude can move.

I have no idea what to make of this movie. I didn't mention how Kurt Cobain really fits in because, well, he doesn't. Why does anyone care what a pubescent mute thinks, at least enough to publish him? Who is sending someone to catch and possibly kill adult Liam? Why? Who does our almost-assassin talk to on her headset? Why does she burn the thing afterwards? Are there wireless towers or satellites after the nuclear holocaust? What the heck happened with the cliff scene? Why does the word ""prophet"" keep popping up in reference to this movie? If Liam arrives at what looks like a fully intact city at the end, was it really harmed in the first place? Is he just some nutjob wandering around the desert for years and all the rest is his hallucination? Why did the writer-director think he could get away with three versions of a main character who never utters a word? I'm baffled.

It's not the worst movie I've seen (I've given out a whole lot of one-star ratings), but it's bad. And it might not be the most confusing movie I've seen, but it's at least top five. As bad movie fare goes, it's entertaining and maybe worth a watch, but isn't a must-see crappy flick experience.

In conclusion, let me present a condensed version of what the experience of watching this movie was like:

Me: Wait, what?

Roommate: I dunno.

Me: Rewind it.

(Rewind.) (Watch it again.)

Together: What?

(Repeat.)",0 "''Hotaru no Haka'' (Brazillian title : ''Túmulo dos Vagalumes'') is a very sad and moving film about the second war in Japan,focusing in the difficulties of a brother(Seita) and a sister(Setsuko).After their mother is killed in an air raid and their father was also killed working in Japan's navy army, Seita needs to be responsible for his little sister Setsuko,a very adorable and sweet little girl. They both go to their aunt's house to live, but after knowing that Setsuko and Seita are now orphans,their aunt changes her behavior and starts to be cruel and annoying with them. Seita stays tired of that, and decides that is best to him and Setsuko to live in a different place, that is a kind of an abandoned shelter. Having problems to find supplies and needing to steal to have something to he and Setsuko eat, Seita and Setsuko gradually starts to have many health problems. Setsuko even goes to the doctor, since she is with malnutrition and diarrhea, but in war times, everything gets even more difficult.

Even if you are not an anime (japanese cartoons) fan, this movie is worth of watching.",1 "Never having seen a Butler Brothers Production before, I came into this film fresh and with no bias one way or the other. I'd read both pro and con reviews of their previous movies (ALIVE AND LUBRICATED, BUMS, etc.) and thought these zany brothers might be worth checking out. Having received and watched CONFUSIONS OF AN UNMARRIED COUPLE, I must say that there are both pro and cons in this one little film and, unfortunately, the cons tip the scale a bit too much for a positive rating.

The most appealing aspect of the film is undoubtedly the snappy dialogue and the comedy it contains. Watching Dan (Brett Butler) try to sneak his old mattress out his ex-girlfriend's apartment was pretty damn funny (note: this is attempted while his ex is still in the apartment). His comment ""We need to talk"" while peaking out from behind the would-be stolen mattress is quite hysterical. The downside to the dialogue is its delivery. Brett may be a fine film maker, but he's not an actor. His lines are delivered in queue-card fashion with poor (or little) emotion. Naomi Johnson as Lisa (his ex) does a more admirable job, using both good facial contortions and voice modulation to get her side of the story across.

The fact that this is a story about messed up relationships is old territory covered many, many times, too. This accompanied by the continual panning back and forth of the camera during conversations/arguments makes for an old and stilted feel. I'm sure the intention was to give the audience the sense that they were the camera, watching this story unfold, but the effect gets tiring and irritating after a very short time.

The other sense (for me, at least) was that I was watching a soft-porn film without the sex. The verbiage was there — the f-word being used liberally, as well as other profanities — and felt abused/overused rather than natural flowing dialogue or shocking. I'm no prude and enjoy the occasional merry chorus of ""F-yous"", too, but Confusions of an Unmarried Couple went overboard.

I understand the budgetary constraints of such a small production and seriously appreciated what Brett and Jason Butler were doing here. They just needed to avail themselves of better filming techniques (i.e., not the continual panning) and find an actor who could play the Dan character with an edgy style, and I feel almost certain that the film would've received much more praise from me ...and perhaps others.",0 "This reeked of a bomb, yet I had to watch it because Dennis Rodman movies always provide that so bad it's good theme going for them. This one was no exception: terrible acting, bad music, and an even worse plot are all repertory examples. This was the worst out of the 3 legitimate movies he was in (""Double Team"" and ""Cutaway"" were slightly better because they either had better actors in it to somewhat make up for the loss or at least fairly suitable dialog). But in this the one-liners just fell flat and weren't even laughable for how bad they were. It's good I saw this so if by some chance there was another unfortunate such as myself that saw this as well we can ever so delightfully bash it together. Such a bad movie!

Final put-down:

Movies : NO! It was released straight to video anyways.

DVD Purchase : You've got to be kiddin' me.

Rental : If you say so.",0 "This month (April 2007), Turner Classic Movies has re-introduced six old RKO films that were presumed lost. Nearly all of them were very good, but STINGEREE was a dog--a film better left lost! Unless you are a rabid fan of the Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy style operatic movies, this movie will probably annoy you with its very old fashioned and horrid singing. In addition, the plot is pure 1930s corn--completely lacking in realism and full of silly clichés that make decent actors look really, really bad.

In addition to horrid opera-style singing, the film was saddled with some weird miscasting. As for the Irene Dunne, she was just fine. Her horrible warbling is exactly what the producers were looking for and back in 1934 it would have gone over quite well at the time--after all, she could sing, though in a style that is so out of style today that many will find the singing quite painful (my ears are still bleeding). But for the leading role, ""Stingeree"", they poorly chose Richard Dix who was unable to effect any sort of an accent. It seemed very odd that although the film was set in Australia and he was supposed to be English, he sounded exactly like an American! They should have instead given the part to cute old Snub Pollard, an Australian who played a tiny bit part in the movie (so you know he could effect a convincing accent of at least an Australian) but who used to be an amazing comic with Keystone Studios.

Now for the incredibly silly plot: Irene wants to be a professional singer, but the nasty old crow who took her in is jealous of Irene's talent so she is planning on keeping Ms. Dunne from meeting a famous English musician and producer. But, quite by chance, the famous bandit Stingeree hears Irene and does everything he can to make her dream come true--even if it means him being caught. He is, but she is discovered in the process. After traveling the world and gaining great fame, Irene is determined to go back to Australia, as she knows she loves him and must marry him--even though they barely know each other and he is currently on the run again. In the end, just like in the campy MacDonald-Eddy operettas, they live happily ever after and the audience is thrilled that the singing is finally completed! They don't make movies like this any more--and for once, I am quite happy about this! What a load of hooey!

PS--Late in the film, Ms. Dunne is braiding her very long hair. If you watch closely, you'll see an editing error, as her hair goes from just beginning to being braided to almost completed in a blink of an eye.",0 "I love movies that inspire me. And this one did. I love how INDIGO was distributed - with the exception of the 100 AMC theaters that showed the film on one day at one time, INDIGO was only shown when a community requested it and agreed to have at least 50 people come. To me, that's amazing. When was the last time you saw a new film with a whole community of people?

I love, too, that the spiritual content was not watered down or shied away from. I had fun watching Meghan, the girl who played Grace. I would have loved to see even more of the inner workings of her character, of what it was like to be her.

This film had a $500,000 budget. For a small independent film to work on that kind of budget and produce what it did - it's just amazing. I'm impressed, inspired, and looking forward to seeing many more spiritual films like INDIGO.",1 """Epoch"" has a pretty good premise, but oh my God does the execution blow chunks. I don't like to use the word often, but this movie is just retarded. The screenplay, the acting, the character motivations -- God. It's like a bunch of kids wrote this movie, giving the characters all childish qualities. The idiot Chinese Government, who SHOOTS A MISSILE at the big black rock thingy, and THEN blames the U.S. Government for their jets getting destroyed! And guess what? Later, the brilliant Chinese sends a division of soldiers to invade a foreign country because that country wasn't ""big enough"" to have a say about who comes into their country!

What a retarded movie. I swear, I've never used that word to describe any film, but ""Epoch"" really takes the cake.",0 "This is clearly the worst Wesley Snipes movie I have ever seen. And I have to say I was sorry that they didn't do better because it was shot in my country and I was looking forward to what they had done. It was also disappointing that in the car chase they took advantage of the fact that most people in this world don't know how Bucharest looks like and they had no continuity in the route they used. Every street or boulevard was in a different part of the city, even though the scene looked like the streets came one after another. The only thing I liked was that they used ""Club Twice"" (the club of one of the characters) in the movie, and that is one of my favorite clubs. If you're from Bucharest and you want to see how they used the place watch it. If you're not from Bucharest but still want to see how they used the place watch it. Otherwise don't waste you're time. P.S.: At least they didn't put vampires in the movie. It would have been to much, even for Romania.",0 "Some quotes from friends of mine about the TV series ""Hex"":

'Pretentious sub-Buffy twaddle.'

'""Hollyoaks"" for Goths.'

'Moody, dark, impenetrably pointless.'

'As scary as a balloon on a stick.'

'Too mediocre to qualify for a ""So Bad It's Good"" badge.'

'Clearly written for teenagers by marketing men and seedy hacks in cardigans.'

'Money back, don't want.'

'Takes itself far too seriously.'

'Bad, bad, bad. Just really bad.'

'Like ""Angel"" but without the plot, the jokes or the acting talent.'

'A ghost train ride with the power switched off.'

'Makes me ashamed to be British.'

'Makes ""Charmed"" look like it was written by Chekov.'

'I'd rather watch fabric conditioner commercials back-to-back than another episode of ""Hex"".'

So there you go. I couldn't find anyone who watched this miserable TV series who had a good word to say about it. Mind you, I'm 39 and most of my friends are of a similar age. There must be a lot of sullen teenage Goths out there who liked ""Hex"" enough for it to have such a high IMDb rating.",0 "In 'RV' Robin Williams plays Bob Munro, a business executive who is trying to get in touch with his family. Problem is, he is not cool anymore and is out of touch. Suddenly, he has to the family vacation plans from Hawaii to Colorado; else he could lose his job. So the idea is rent an RV and go driving, and that is where the fun begins.

It is refreshing to see Robin Williams back in the comedy seat. He is truly the life of this film. Unfortunately, he is probably the only funny one in the movie. I can not say it was that good; it is like 'Family Vacation' meets 'Cheaper by the Dozen 2'. Not entirely original, but there are some fun moments with the RV.

I did like the Gornickes (Jeff Daniels and Kristin Chenoweth), they were a little too unbelievable, but they did have a good report with Robin Williams. I think both Robin Williams and Jeff Daniels should do more projects together.",1 "when the film came out on TV around 98 or so I saw it and thought it was the best sci-fi film that was ever made.....bare in mind I was 8. Now in 2007 i watched it a second time and before seeing it i saw people on the IMDb website saying words like it's superb or excellent and and thought to myself it must be as good as I remembered.

Oh God how I was wrong. I seriously can't find one good thing about this movie. This is the perfect example of bad film making... 1) Bad Script (e.g. The Blond saying Kurt is out there more than 15 times etc) 2) Not realistic (e.g. Tommy not putting down camera....ever) 3) Terrible! acting (I seriously tried to get into the film but the bad acting from EVERYONE accept from the black guy and the one called Mel...and they were only okay) 4) Eye Sore watching all the different camera angles from the camera 5) Not Original (came out just after year after Blair witch came out)

5 great reasons to hate this film and for the love of god read this = IT IS NOT REAL, IT IS NOT BASED ON TRUE EVENTS, IT IS A STORY Written BY DIRECTOR and just found out today the film has a fan club. this is the first film i have ever said was terrible (check my records) and i can't understand why anyone over 10 would think this was real or any good at all! COP ON!",0 "This is a thoroughly bizarre kung fu action vampire slapstick exploitation movie, essentially an attempt to combine the success of two films, the excellent Chinese hit Mr. Vampire and the international hit The Gods Must Be Crazy (which for reasons unknown to me, was considered ""good"" and ""funny"" upon its release in the US). They also threw in a little Bruce Lee montage at the end, no kidding, but don't worry, they worked it in tastefully-haha! The African bushman from Gods... (yes they got the actual guy) engages in amusing slapstick with a hopping vampire. All the white people are horrible, and the Taoist magician from Mr. Vampire rides an ostrich and saves the day, basically. Somehow this was all worth sitting through, if only for the sake of it being one of the strangest films ever made.",1 "This film is a masterpiece. The Planet doesn't shy away from the real issue at hand, unlike so many other films of this nature. Without giving too much away, this film is very balanced; not overly optimistic, yet not too pessimistic either. Also strikingly different from other movies of the sort is how many cultures are explored, from first world countries to developing nations. Yet, it never loses the focus of the message presented early on in the film--that we have a time frame in which we must act in order to prevent further, more severe consequences than have already appeared.

That being said, the cinematography in this film is exceptional. The scenes were gorgeously shot, and the careful editing really captures the scale of the issue, from the smallest insects to the entire globe. Perhaps most noticeable is how well the soundtrack (of a very electronic nature) flows with the visuals. There is one scene that combines the music with the scene (you'll know it when you see it) so well I would have purchased a ticket to see it alone.

The Planet is not to be missed.",1 "As a once regular viewer of MST3K I have to say this is not even close to being the worst file ever made. It is however one of the worst feature films in reset memory. It is to, borrow a word from another review, very ""Talky"". This wouldn't be bad if the dialog and charterers where better, but these are both action move grade. It's kind of like watching the charterer from Godzilla in The Godfather, with a plot the makes little sense on top. Overall the plot makes little sense, there not much action, despite this being marketed as an action move, the tempo is slow and boring and the move is hard to follow and and not worth following. The only good points, the cinematography and, best of all, it's only an hour and a half..",0 """Enduring Love"" is an above average Brit flick all about Joe (Craig) who finds himself in wrestling with potential guilt over a hot air balloon accident. And, If that weren't enough, he finds that tragic incident also beset him with a peculiar sort of obsessive stalker which eats away at his peace of mind and infects his relationship with his girlfriend, Clair (Morton), until he finds himself slipping over the brink of destruction. A very well managed film with a good cast and production value and a plodding and plaintive story, this film builds slowly to a crescendo between two horrific incidents. ""Enduring Love"" should be an engrossing watch for realists into of psychodramas. (B+)",1 "This film is wacky and zany but just isn't funny. I yawned and cringed my way through it. It truly is the worst film that I have ever seen.

I went to see it at the cinema on the strength of the trailer and persuaded my cousin that it looked better than ""Dead Poets Society"" which was also showing. That was my crime, it was also my punishment. My cousin still complains about it today.",0 "Complete Cinema (FilmTvIndia):

Neha Arts Presentation's CHAL MERE BHAI is a breezy, light hearted, rib-tickling comic caper, revolving around the strong bond shared between two brothers and their predictable, falling head over heels in love with the same stunning lass. So there is Mamaji (Shakti Kapoor) an over ambitious, over enthusiastic theatre artiste, Mamiji (Himani Shivpuri) a mad hater of her hubby's not-so-funny antics and in between them is their Pune returned Bhanji, Sapna (Karishma Kapoor) who has landed up in Mumbai in search of a job. She is a bumble bee to the core, who always ends up doing the wrong things, but unintentionally at the right time. Once on her way to give her interview she wrongfully bumps into Vicky Oberoi (Sanjay Dutt) a la Mere Mehboob style, only this time the dropped books have been replaced with the dropped files. Since Vicky happens to be the M.D. of the Oberoi group of companies, she dosen't get the job. But on her way out she mets Pa Oberoi (Dalip Tahil), chairman of the company, who gets carried away by her pools of tears and hires her. Next the damsel in distress Sapna forcibly grabs a lift from Vicky's younger brother Prem Oberoi (Salman Khan), the theatre buff of Mamaji's group, to reach on time on the first day of her job. Slowly and steadily Vicky gets drawn towards Sapna, not to be left behind, Vicky and his Dadimaa's (Sushma Seth) grandson Prem discovers that he too has fallen head over heels in love with Sapna, who reluctantly reciprocrates his love. Now Pa and Dadimaa wants Sapna as the bride of the Oberoi mansion, by marrying Vicky. Vicky says yes, Sapna is confused, Prem adds to the confusion confounded until...And then how the sacrificial jigsaw puzzle is abruptly solved, forms the substance of this 'savior de f aire '. Production values have substantial glitz and glamour. Technically apt. Cameraman Harmeet Singh seems to have been literally in a holidaying mood, so he has beautifully captured the new scenic locales of Cine Tirol region and Salisberg - Austria, where nothing else but only the songs have been canned. Editor A.Muthu has been hampered by the hackneyed story, screenplay, dialogues of Rumi Jaffery, Ikram Akhtar, Yunus Sajawal and even their constant take-off on senior actors like Dilip Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan was not in very good taste. Musically the Anand-Milind - Sameer combo leaves much to be desired, with only the title song sung by the principal actors,'Chori chori sapno mein aata hai koi' and 'Meri neend jaane lagi hai' that are worth humming.

Performancewise Sanjay Dutt excellent as usual and exudes a tremendous screen presence. Salman Khan too matches his senior co-star especially in the comic sequences. Karisma Kapoor successfully displays her comic forte, apart from portraying all the nuances of her well defined role. On the other hand Naghma, Sonali Bendre and Twinkle Khanna's gutsy, guest appearances are just about okay. Shakti Kapoor and Himani Shivpuri impress, and the rest of the cast pass muster.

Directorially David Dhawan has done a fair job, but he is handicapped by oft-rehashed subjects.

Super Cinema (FilmTvIndia):

Neha Arts' CHAL MERE BHAI is a comedy with a love triangle. Sanjay Dutt and Salman Khan play two brothers. They are sons of industrialist Dalip Tahil. Sanjay is the elder brother and he manages the business. Salman is not interested in family business. He wants to be a great actor. He works on the stage with Shakti Kapoor as his director. Shakti's neice Karisma Kapoor comes to the city for a job. Dalip gives her the job as the secretary of Sanjay. Karisma is a blundering worker and Sanjay does not like her. Sanjay is injured in a fight. Karisma takes him to a hospital and Sanjay's life is saved. Sanjay's father Dalip and grandmother Sushma Seth are impressed with Karisma and they want Sanjay to marry Karisma They don't know that Salman and Karisma are in love. Sanjay also agrees to marry Karisma. Now one brother has to make the sacrifice.

Production values are good. Harmeet Singh's cinematography is pleasing. Technically okay. Ganesh Acharya's choreography is good. Anand-Milind's music sounds nice in the theatre, but there are too many songs. Two songs 'Meri neend jaane lagi hai' and 'Chori chori sapnon mein' are hummable.

The first half is a breezy comedy. Tempo slows down in the second half and the story runs on predictable line. A major drawback of the film is that the basic story has been repeated in many films, and recently in ""Dillagi"" and ""Pyar Koi Khel Nahin.""

Performance-wise, Sanjay Dutt impresses. Salman Khan is natural. Karisma Kapoor is lively. Shakti Kapoor, Sushma Seth, Dalip Tahil, Himani Shivpuri and Asrani provide able support.

As the director, David Dhawan again shows competence as a maker of light comedy. The drawback is that David and his team of writers are running out of ideas. They are only repeating situations seen in other films. Dialogue writer Rumi Jaffery is able to provide occasional punches.

",1 "I had a good friend tell me I would find this hilarious, which has historically always been a bad sign. After sitting through 2 and half episodes and trying to force the occasional smile, I could stand it no longer. It's not that it's spectacularly bad, it's just that it is, at best, average in every respect. The humour is predictable. Gormsby's dialogue wears thin after the first couple of lines. The acting is dire for all but a couple of the main characters (Gormsby and that fat PE teacher) and the few dramatic elements are plastic, hollow and laboured.

Don't get me wrong. It's great that a low-budget show from NZ of all places has done well outside its country of origin. And thank god there's no laugh track, but Christ, I have to voice a counter opinion to all this wanton praise since I've sat through repeated viewings of it now (with the aforementioned friend and his flatmate) and I honestly hate it. Now this might be asking for it, but am I the only one?",0 "The hypothesis of Chabrol: that life in society is only possible if it is based on lies, in the film, is a total lie! Also, it's interesting that the narrator at the actual time of these problems: pedophilia, unemployment, female cops (on television), was neurotic. It seems contrived in many situations: the infidelity of Vivianne (the nude painting of her), the assassin (the photo that was found in the assassin's bag).",0 """Cutting Class"" is easily one of the most awful slasher flicks from the late 80's.Brian returns back to college aged 18 after spending five years in a mental asylum for killing his father.He tries to worm his way back into the lives of his ex-best friend Dwight and Paula his old flame.And suddenly a bunch of people start dying,in the most bizarre and stupid ways in slasher film history.There is for example death by pottery kiln,death by photocopier,but my favourite is the old classic,flagpole under a trampoline so the fascist Gym teacher gets impaled on the American Flag.""Cutting Class"" is a stinking piece of crap filled with silly jokes and a little bit of gore.The acting is downright horrible and the characters are completely flat.There is no suspense and the killings are lame.This film is clearly as bad as ""Hollow Gate"" or ""Return to Horror High"".Avoid it like a plague.1 out of 10.",0 "Pretty entertaining movie staring Cheech Marin as a Latin guy named Rudy from East LA who mistakenly gets deported to Mexico. Marin is tooling around some factory one day when INS busts in and rounds up the lot of them. Jan Michael Vincent busts him, Rudy not having his id is thought to be an illegal and is promptly shipped off to Mexico. Meantime Rudy's cousin or something like that played by Paul Rodriguez ends up at Rudy's house waiting for his arrival. Rudy ends up meeting Jimmy (stern) down in Mexico and begins to work some low end jobs and things to earn some cash to get back to the US. After many comical scenes he meets Dolores and brings her back to the US. Of course he marries her in the end and she is able to stay...the end. This isn't the funniest movie I have ever seen, but its very entertaining. Cheech is always fun to watch and saves what probably would have been a fairly boring movie. If your looking for some time to waste on a Saturday, as I was, flip the channel and find this. 6 and half stars. ""Born in east LA, I was Born in east LA!""",1 "Dennis the Menace is among the few films on the video shelf that is able to keep the entire family amused. In the film, we see the newspaper cartoon of our youth come to life with a cast that could not have been more perfectly chosen. Walter Mattheau and Joan Plowright are ideal as the neighborly object of Dennis' affection; he the loveable old curmudgeon and she the unfulfilled neighborhood grandmother. Mason Gamble embodies the spirit of the spunky menace you cannot help but love. Margaret and Joey appear on the screen just as you had always imagined them, as do the parents of the menace.

Of course Christopher Lloyd gives a fine performance as the true menace to this sleepy village. Lloyd may be just a tad too scary for younger children, and some of the riverside scenes with Lloyd and Gamble may be the stuff of nightmares. Parents beware.

If your young ones are not easily scared or influenced to devilment, this will be the film to provide an evening of fun for all ages.",1 "After 65 years, this film still rings true in many ways. Several people have mentioned the ""bathing the baby"" scene, but my favourite is the alarm clock scene. One thing I appreciate is that Dunne and Grant's new baby actually looks fairly new, jerky movements and all - maybe not 5 weeks old, as stated, but definitely younger than the usual Hollywood ""newborn"". I'm sure that at the time, this movie was quite educational for many people like the two main characters, who thought that you adopt a baby by going to the nearest orphanage, picking out the one you like, and walking out with it. I only wish the filmmakers had taken the opportunity to really underline the fact that *everybody* wants a 2-year-old with curly (preferably blond) hair, blue eyes, and dimples, but what about the 99.999% of less ""perfect"" children very much in need of a good home? The film does slide toward melodrama on occasion - did it take a full-blown earthquake for Irene Dunne's character to have a miscarriage? One thing I noticed is that this film actually shows a married couple sharing the same bed! Mind you, Irene Dunne is lying on top of the cover with her dressing gown on, tensely waiting for the baby's next feeding, while Cary Grant is off to sleep, but I still wonder how it got past the Hays office. The little girl who plays 6-year-old Trina is not *too* saccharine (except for her voice), but at the end of each speech, she is obviously remembering that she's been told to ""Smile, dear, smile!"".

What ruins it for me is the ending - their little girl has been dead for only a few *days*, and her parents are ready to start with another baby. IMO, at this point, any normal parents would react with revulsion to the thought of ""replacing"" their dead child. As another reviewer mentioned, in this film it's like replacing a dead goldfish. If only the filmmakers had implied that several *months*, or better yet, a year or more, had passed, and shown the couple finding each other again first, it would have been much more believable and touching. BTW, several reviewers have mentioned the poor quality of the DVD or video they watched, but the one I had from Triton Multimedia was, not outstanding, but quite all right.",0 "***SPOILER*** Today, talk of performance-related erectile dysfunction is on every woman's lips, if you'll pardon the expression. Group or open sexuality, for the uninitiated straight first-time ""vanilla"" male, particularly in the same room/bed with another male, can be a very stressful situation.

Simply put: Despite the appeal and willingness of Carol & Alice, neither Bob or Ted, in their situational anxiety, were able to ""get it up"". Watch carefully and you'll see the disappointment on the faces of the women.

As the former public relations director and spokesman for the 1970s Sandstone Retreat (imdb: ""Sandstone"") I often compared the psychological benefits of well-introduced group sex with the well-guided initial psychedelic experience. Both experiences often result in highly euphoric, life changing, long lasting insight.

Finally, B&C&T&A, despite the wardrobe, is by no means a quaint relic of the swinging 60s/70s. Real life realizations of their entirely rational human impulses occur every day and night in every large city and small town around the world.

The Sexual Revolution, and the realities of polyamory, polyfidelity, the swinging lifestyle and safer sex practices remain alive and well in God-fearing America in the 21st Century.",1 "This is the kind of movie that makes this exercise of writing up every feature I see kind of redundant, because it's not much of a movie. (at 60 minutes it's not much of a feature either) Bob Moog invented, you know, the Moog synthesizer, which as the movie illustrates has been the source of lots of directions in music, some legendary (Bernie Worrell), lots fun (Stereolab), and lots of atrocities against the ear (Rick Wakeman, Keith Emerson). The common thread between these musicians is nonexistent, and the movie doesn't even try - it just plods from point to point, with Bob in tow to look on like a proud papa. I think the reason there's no cross-cutting is that there's no content - some lawyer clearly wouldn't let them talk about Moog's battles with the company that bears his name (don't ask me for more detail), and all that's left is a sequence of short arbitrary rambles - still life with Gershon Kingsley, still life with DJ Spooky (who is a pompous ass), Moog picking bell peppers, et cetera, plus some wan recitations of the word 'spirituality.' The only breakout moment is when Worrell tells Wakeman that he thinks of a keyboard as a woman that he's having sex with and Wakeman responds, 'I tried that but I found that the songs became very short.' To which Worrell replies, 'Play slower!' THERE is a cultural frisson to die for.",0 "The third picture featuring Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry. Clint Eastwood resumes his role as Police Inspector Harry Callahan; Tyne Daly plays the role of Inspector Kate Moore and Harry Guadino as Lt Al Bressler. Harry gets into one of his usual predicaments when his is relegated to Personnel to help interview patrol officers on the list to make inspector. While filling his duties in personnel he learns that there are eight openings for inspector and three of those eight will be filled by woman. A group of people who call themselves the People's Revolutionary Strike Force (PRSF), led by Bobby Maxwell, are making plans to go on a crime spree all over the city of San Francisco. When Dirty Harry's longtime partner is killed by the PRSF during a major weapons theft, Dirty Harry vows revenge and, surprisingly, is given some support by his superiors. Harry has one problem, he's given a new partner and it's non other then a lady inspector. After the Mayor of San Francisco is taken its up to Harry and his new partner are expecting to find him. All and all I give this movie 8 weasel stars.",1 "This movie was really great, it had an exciting and plausible plot, reasonable acting -- and it wasn't just cheesy crap compared to most of the other drivel that was being played for us kids at that time. This clearly stood out shining in my mind, up there with ""The Neverending Story"" and ""Flight Of The Navigator"". This movie didn't talk down to me as a child, which I quite liked. And it wasn't just another cartoon, which for the most part I found painfully dull in their lack of realism. The Natty character, and all those she meets on her adventures (including the wolf that she befriends), are unique, interesting, thought provoking ... and you actually care what happens to them all by the end.

And how many other movies aimed at youth have a kid getting chased away from eating out of a garbage dumpster ? Heh.

Great film !

I want to watch it again to see if I still like it as much, but I know I probably will ... I know the plot quite well, I did watch the movie at least 8 or 10 times as kid.",1 "This show is fusion... Curb Your Enthusiasm meets The West Wing. I think this was well done , but 10 episodes clearly enough. Basically ,this is a fictionalized account of DC , playing as the political version of Curb. What Larry David is to Curb, James Carville is to this show. Very intelligent though not quite as funny as Curb, the show is a fine depiction of how The inner circle of DC uses the media to get their message to the masses. I do feel the show could have used more humor but it is more of a fictionalized documentary , with roots of truth . I liked this show and ,surprisingly, I thought James Carville is a fine actor. Hmmmm , maybe that is telling in itself when it comes to our beloved public servants, but I shall digress. The material here is real and I like that the issues are more of light nature. One can easily enjoy this without taking on the somberness of the state of the world. The show is nonpartisan , so no side of the political aisle needs to be offended. Give this a watch and you will probably agree that it is a nice show and that 10 eps are just enough.",1 "Surely Lynch's best movie. I was lucky enough to catch this on cable the other night, what a supreme joy. Wonderful art direction and remarkable performances all round. The dark Dickensian sets of London are hauntingly beautiful. Hunt this one down, highly recommended.",1 "Mostly silly, with Adam Sandler doing his usual goofy stuff, but Jack Nicholson - looking like Orson Welles - gives the movie exactly what it needs. There are some scenes that we expect in an Adam Sandler movie (e.g., someone eventually exposes something embarrassing about himself), but other parts really hit you. The whole ""I Feel Pretty"" sequence was a real surprise. And of course, there's some great lines, especially the ""phobe"" scene. Also starring Marisa Tomei, Luis Guzman, John Turturro, Woody Harrelson and Rudy Giuliani (yes, THAT Rudy Giuliani).

So, in conclusion, I don't feel angry at all after watching this. In fact, I feel pretty. A real hoot.",1 "I would like to take this opportunity to say that this film is 100% RUBBSIH, NOT NOT WATCH IT UNLESS YOU LIFE DEPENDS IN IT!!

This is without a doubt one of the worst films i have ever seen! I was absolutely speechless after watching it and quite frankly I am absolutely appalled at the good comments its bin given on this site! where they watching the same movie as me? First of all the movie was terribly written and acted badly. Lindsay lohan can barely act. why did they make her sing? 9 also why was everyone so shocked when she sang for the first time? she sounded like a freaking cat being strangled!) She hasn't been good in any movie since the parent trap (also why are people saying shes hot? SHE IS UGLY AND A CHAV!). I found myself wondering what on earth this whole story was all about and i never got to the end because it was making me severely depressed and i couldn't stand another twenty minutes of this rubbish - it would have made me suicidal! It seems to me that the director just wanted to make a teen movie and couldn't really be bothered to get a story or a proper script. Lots of people have said that it was great for the target age, what was that exactly? I am thirteen and didn't like it!

In conclusion if you were to rent or buy this movie it would be a complete waste of your time, energy and money.",0 "I think this movie should rate at least FOUR Oscars!! OK now that the same drugs that apparently the director was on when he produced this 'stinky fish' have worn off all I can say is: ""How can a good cook take such excellent ingredients for making a fine dish (film) and combine them so badly??""

I am a fan of Patrick Stuart but he must have been doing some penance for past evil transgressions to actually have allowed himself to be cast in the role of Nemo so badly.

I do not REALLY need to get into discussing the pirates do I?

Shane",0 "This movie is great.Because it deals with nasty subjects and themes that are just too real and raw for most directors out there to even attempt to handle.Tod is a truly consummated director and storyteller(pun intended).I certainly can see an autobiographic commentary here, as any viewer paying some attention could.But for all it's dead pan humor and dark views of the human nature, this movie is a lot of fun and full of twisted, brilliant moments.*Spoilers Next*For example: when the character Scobby is high on marijuana and sees himself as a guest on Conan Doyle's Show...great!! And when his little brother(highly annoying and egotistic but also very intelligent)hypnotize his father to..love him!*End of Spoilers* By any means you should compare this with Tod's masterpiece: Happiness, but with Welcome To The Doll House(another excellent movie of his)this could stand very tall and proud.Highly recommended essential look!",1 "I saw it when it was first broadcast--and some of it again when rerun a year or two later. It made me very squidgy. The principals and producers weren't really comfortable with the material and it showed. The only thread of the story that was credible was Hope Lange's distress at having her son (or adopted son?) suddenly find out about his father's (or adoptive father's?) live-in boyfriend.

Scott Jacoby was horrendously miscast. The only way Hope Lange and Hal Holbrook could have had this ugly, obnoxious kid was to have taken in the child of some (unrelated) friends. Perhaps the other couple got killed in an auto accident--who knows? Anyway, it would make sense for Hal and Hope not to have had any kids of their own, so this created a whole new backstory that was not explicitly dealt with in the script. Here they were stuck with this pushy brat, and bending over backwards to be nice to him and smooth over his ruffled feelings, and they always got bupkis for their trouble.

The pivotal scene was Martin Sheen bringing out the birthday cake ('but it's noawt moy boitday!' kvetches the brat) and then Sheen has to swallow endless abuse and innuendo from the little creep, who (let's face it) knew the score from the moment he saw his 'father' living in the same house with this other guy. This is another example of disjuncture between the actual script and the story as portrayed: the Scott Jacoby character is an up-to-date, crudely aware little wiseguy, but the director and adult actors are going around pretending he's this delicate flower who's had a sheltered life. I imagine that the kid was a past-master at subtle psychological blackmail. This new 'revelation' just gives him more ammunition. His poor adoptive parents!

And the moral is: Don't adopt a kid who's obviously not yours. You'll get no thanks!",0 "I kinda liked the first movie, if only for its premise and craziness, but the first movie had too many awkward moments (especially the piano scene). I must say, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds is a DELIGHTFUL movie, and it's a sequel, no less! I was sad to see the original Marc be played by someone new (and not as good looking), but after I found out the guy was in the short film ""Crush"", I definitely had a better impression of him (I loved that short film!). Troy was just... I'm speechless. =) Overall, the movie was much quicker, tighter, no serious awkward moments, still over the top as always, light hearted, and funny. There were so many funny sex scenes in this movie it's worth watching it a 2nd time! I'm definitely buying this movie soon!",1 "This is actually a well made film. because of that, I doubt very highly that it was directed by Lo Wei. My vote is that Chan, once allowed to choreograph the fight scenes, just went ahead and directed the film, much as what happened with Bruce Lee and The Chinese Connection, another film claimed by Lo Wei that he didn't actually direct. In fact that's pretty typical for Lo Wei - probably half the films he made were directed by the actors while he was off gambling, drinking, or sleeping it off.

At any rate: Although the film is heavy handed and a little slow, the story is not without interest (this is one of the few 'fu films where we see a potential villain repent and become a good guy), and the performances are all above standard for this genre in the mid-'70s. I believe this film, I believe its characters. Certaily not a masterwork, but a worthwhile dramatic 'fu film.

Oh, and the fight scenes are all pretty good.",1 "Well I just spent the evening watching this with a group of 7 friends, mostly high-school teachers, collectively our book & film club. It started off quite positively - a bit bonkers perhaps but sort of amusing but by the end the audience was variously commenting: ""I'd have preferred having needles stuck in my eyes!"" or extending toilet breaks so they had less of the film to watch, or lamenting the sheer tedium of this movie. I didn't think it was THAT bad (not ""up"" to Death in Venice standard for example) but by the end I was wondering what point the film-maker was actually trying to make. Given that it was impossible to have much sympathy for any of the characters and given that nothing actually happened, surely there must be a philosophical point to it all? Once I realised there was none, I realised we had been yet again tricked into admiring an Emperor's invisible suit. I cannot believe people have given this film such high ratings. I think you've had the wool well and truly pulled over your eyes.",0 "This film is a 75 minute animated commercial for the Gobots toy line. The animation was produced by Hanna-Barbera, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

Since I was nearly 30 years old when this toy line was introduced, I didn't expect to really understand the charactors, and the plotline.

As I watched this epic, I kept wondering what made Roddy McDowell do a voice for this thing. Musta been paid major bucks.

The bad guys are destroying everything in their paths, and the good guys (the GOBOTS®) are out to get them. Lots of pointless shooting, and noise. Perfect for the kids of the mid '80's.

The color and animation is typical Hanna-Barbera. The backgrounds were decent, but the stilted animation style hurt the flow of the story. Perhaps Tonka (the toy maker) just couldn't see paying more for better work. If they had, this film would be better.

Hanna-Barbera is not at fault here. They are capable of some fine work, and have done fine work in the past. This, unfortunately, is not the one.

This film was rated G. If there had been live actors instead of animation, this thing would be rated PG. What's the difference?",0 "Egad, this is an awful and dull film. Considering that Abbott and Costello had a whole lot of films behind them and some clout, I always have wondered why they agreed to do some seriously bad films--particularly in the latter part of their careers. Were they THAT in need of money or narcissistic that they'd agree to be in films even if they are just plain awful? I know that after WWII, Bud and Lou had some serious tax problems and lost their fortunes, but I would have assumed by 1952 and with a lot of films behind them they still didn't need money THIS badly! What's so bad about this film? Well, the first and most obvious are the wretched songs. Not only are they totally inappropriate for a pirate film, they are even more distracting than the songs in their other movies. The other obvious problem was Charles Laughton. While an exceptional actor, he had a reputation for over-acting if the director didn't keep a firm hand. In this film, you'd assume there is no director at all, as any sane director would have told Laughton to shut up...or at least stop screaming!! It seems that Laughton's interpretation of Captain Kidd is a man who talks at the top of his voice all the time! It's actually amazing to think that Laughton was NOT in his first film but an accomplished actor--his acting was THAT bad.

Speaking of the real Kidd, almost nothing about this film is like real pirates or the real Kidd. It's like one cliché after another. Pirates (with the exception of Blackbeard) were not bully-boys, as their crew would have killed them and the real life Kidd was completely dominated by his crew. Heck, he apparently only turned to piracy because his crew gave him the choice of this or death! There are also only two cases of female pirates (a common Hollywood cliché) and neither were captains--just crew members on the same small and insignificant ship. Also, if real pirates had met these jolly singing idiot pirates, they probably would have killed them--as well as marveled at how clean and well-dressed the all were! Why, oh why couldn't they just shut up and quit with the singing?! As for Bud and Lou, they seemed to have less screen time than usual in this film. They are like bystanders throughout much of the film. When they are involved, it usually consists of scenes where Laughton screams at Lou. Wow, that's funny...not! Among the team's least funny and enjoyable films. The only one that might be as bad or worse is JACK AND THE BEANSTALK--even IT AIN'T HAY, LOST IN ALASKA and Africa SCREAMS are much better than this film.

You know, I had considered doing this review like Laughton emoted in the film, but I don't think IMDb allow reviews that are in all capital letters!!

For information on the real Kidd, try www.thepiratesrealm.com/Captain%20Kidd.html .",0 "This film was made to celebrate one-hundred years of the first camera used by the Lumiere Brothers. Forty directors from around the world were asked to make a short film with the original camera. The rules being it lasts no longer than fifty-two seconds, only three takes allowed, and no synchronous sound. The directors are predominately French, with a few notable exceptions like David Lynch, Peter Greenaway and John Boorman. Lynch's segment is far and away the most creative and satisfactory effort. Most of the others are mainly static and ordinary. But it's a fascinating documentary with insights and comments from the all the directors, and worth seeing for Lynch's film alone. That was the prime reason I watched it.",1 "Even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every Significant Moment of the 1960s (ok, so Katie didn't join the Manson Family, and nobody died at Altamont), this movie was still unbelievably awful. I got the impression that the ""writers"" just locked themselves in a room and watched ""Forrest Gump,"" ""The Wonder Years,"" and Oliver Stone's 60s films over and over again and called it research. A Canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode ""head spinning"". He was right.",0 "The Purple Plain is a winner, a handsomely mounted WW2 drama set in Burma where the Japanese are never seen: the enemy is the hostile landscape and the memories that cripple its hero. Gregory Peck's damaged pilot is still suffering from a bad case of 12 O'Clock High after the death of his wife in an air raid on their wedding night until he falls for Burmese girl Win Min Tan. (This being 1954, they may share an inter-racial romance, but they never actually kiss.) Naturally, as soon as he rediscovers a reason for living he's shot down behind enemy lines and has to make it back with not one but two crippled comrades. It's not much of a plot, true, but it's handled extremely well thanks to Robert Parrish's direction, which is surprisingly strong, direct and imaginative when called for, but still knows when to be unobtrusive as well. Great last shot too.",1 "I suppose people will typically talk about they loved the NY and Rome stories, but hated the Helsinki segment, or vice-versa, or whatever. This probably comes from thinking of the entire movie as belonging to a single genre--drama, comedy, satire. If you take each story by itself, though, with an open mind, you will find yourself being entertained (mostly) in five different ways. Although of course we will all have our favorites.

I wondered briefly why there wasn't a segment set in Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan--to make it truly global. Of course it wouldn't be night at the same time on that side of the world. Jarmusch should have done it anyway.

Some think the movie is too long. But this is obviously a movie you don't need to watch in a single sitting; indeed, for the reason stated above, it's perhaps best watched a little at a time.",1 This production is outstanding. The cgi is feature-film quality and totally imaginative.

The off-hand humor mixed with profound myth and storytelling is an astounding narrative device -- totally compelling!

Excellent acting by the cast to boot.

An overall Emmy-deserving piece of art.

Must see -- WOW !!!,1 "There was a scene in this movie, Cold is running up the hotel stairs and fighting bad guys along the way, where the stunt double had different color hair, different color suit, wasn't as tall as Seagal, and they showed the his face in the scene, and he looked nothing like Seagal. I thought, ""Who is this?"" Then I realized it was supposed to be Cold. You mean, Steve isn't doing his own fighting scenes? Huh? This is a lame movie. IMDb requires 10 lines, so I must keep going, or fail to warn you about this movie. The plot was OK at first, but people start to do things that don't make any sense given their motives. The action is nothing you haven't seen many times before. There is this extremely awkward, and somewhat confusing scene at the end, where Cold and his apprentice are talking about nights spent together, but there was nothing like this in the movie. Was it supposed to be a joke? This was a terrible movie.",0 "The black and white cinematography is clear and crisp and architecturally sensual. Alfred Hitchcock makes his cameo appearances, and as usual it is interesting to anticipate where he will show up. This is a classic mystery thriller, but it has comedy and romance as well. The story is well-played out and fascinating to watch to the very end.",1 I have seen The Biscuit Eater (1940) on television and it has been one of my favorite films. Have not seen it in a long time and would like to have a copy of this film. If you know how I can get a copy let me know (marthasjordan@aol.com) please. This is a picture for all ages to see...it has a wonderful lesson on life. What better story to tell about than a boy his good friend and their dog. I have seen the remake of this film the 1972 color version and it is just not the same as the original 1940 black and white version. The 1940 version takes you really back into the era of when the story is taking place and you can go there with the boys and their dog. This movie should really be one of the all time great CLASSIC movies.,1 "I recently saw Juncture at the Mill Valley Film Festival and was completely blown away. I honestly had no idea what to expect and was very pleasantly surprised. Juncture is the right combination of action, thriller, suspense and drama and it poses some very interesting moral questions. Lead lady Kristine Blackport (as Anna Carter)'s presence is unforgettable. The viewer experiences Anna's journey through the last few months of her life and what she chooses to do with that precious time. I laughed and cried with Anna. And the film definitely left me pondering about what I would do in a similar situation. It's always nice to see strong female characters presented in film. Excellent story and dialogue. Beautiful cinematography. Impressive acting. The music also was very strong and helped support the dramatic moments of the film. All in all, I highly recommend Juncture.",1 "Comedy-drama from talented if erratic director Martha Coolidge concerns a modern Italian-American working woman in Brooklyn, pregnant and unmarried, finding herself curious about the mother who abandoned her and her father years before. Begins brightly, with Geena Davis seemingly well-cast in the lead, but it quickly becomes mired in colorless sub-plots (including the woman's resentful best friend and her abusive husband, a schizophrenic mother, a needy stepmother, a malformed infant, and a married boyfriend!). By the midway point, Davis begins to struggle in her role, pushing her pivotal moments too hard and losing her innate likability. Worse, this scenario is far too neat and tidy--and when the actors aren't being overly 'cute', they're screaming senselessly at each other. Sadly, ""Angie"" bombs out. *1/2 from ****",0 "There are many TV shows I remember from my childhood, but of them all, this was perhaps my favourite! I discovered it in 1994, the year after it ended, meaning I was seeing all reruns, but that didn't matter. I was eight years old at the time, and would watch and tape it every Saturday morning, and I wouldn't find out I was seeing all reruns until about a decade later anyway! In more recent years, I have sometimes rewatched episodes on tape, and have very recently managed to see almost every episode on the Internet, many of which I never saw in my childhood, maybe even the majority of them. It turns out that like certain other TV shows I watched in the 90's, this one isn't just for kids!

The Tasmanian Devil (a.k.a. Taz), a character who appeared in several Looney Tunes cartoons in the 50's and 60's, has his own show here. He still spins around in a whirlwind, sometimes through trees and rocks and drilling holes in the ground, and still makes sounds, rarely speaking in complete sentences (though he occasionally shows that he CAN talk normally). He also still loves to eat, and is capable of consuming mass quantities in one gulp! However, unlike the earlier cartoons, he is a teenager in a family of five here. His parents are Jean and Hugh, both loving, caring, laid back parents, but they're also misguided and absurdly tolerant of Taz's behaviour, and virtually nothing makes them angry! Taz is the eldest of three siblings. The middle sibling is Molly, who is often seen talking on the phone with friends, and her favourite band is New Chips off the Block (obviously based on boy band New Kids on the Block). The majority of the conflict in the family is between Molly and Taz. The youngest is a playful young boy named Jake. These family members are all more advanced than Taz, and always talk normally. The family has a pet turtle that acts like a dog, and Uncle Drew, who appears in three episodes, the ""Road to Taz-Mania"" trilogy. He has a rather unsteady relationship with Hugh, his brother, as they like to insult each other.

Taz's family members don't appear in every episode, as there are many other recurring characters. In his early cartoons, Taz was known mainly as a vicious but dimwitted predator of Bugs Bunny, and is sometimes the predator in episodes of this show as well, such as the ones with Kiwi, who never makes a sound but is extremely clever! On the other hand, there are also episodes in which Taz is the prey, when Bull Gator and his idiot sidekick, Axel, try to capture him for the ""zoo-going children"" to see, or when Francis X. Bushlad tries capture him so he can earn his manhood in his tribe! Other characters include: Bushwacker Bob, Taz's arrogant, selfish, lazy, short-tempered boss at the hotel where he works; Mum, Bob's mother, who runs the hotel with him; Digeri Dingo, a selfish, lazy, scheming dingo dog who loves to use Taz; Wendel T. Wolf, a Tasmanian wolf who believes he is the last of his species; the Platypus brothers, Timothy and Daniel, pseudo-handymen who think they are scientific geniuses; Constance Koala, a huge, strong koala bear who likes to dance and sing, and works at the hotel with Taz; Mister Thickley, another co-worker at the hotel, a wallaby who tries to be the most beloved character; Buddy Boar, Taz's deal making pal; the Bushrats, a tribe of rats who talk with subtitles; and Willie Wombat, who appears in several later episodes, a friendly wombat who struggles to try and get a better role in the show. Whichever character(s) Taz is with in the land of Tazmania, it's bound to lead to slapstick chaos!

Watching episodes of this show now, I can still admire it for the animation (with beautiful backgrounds usually featuring yellow skies), musical scores, characters, etc., just like I did fifteen years ago, but it obviously isn't exactly the same. As one would expect, there's a lot of slapstick mayhem (with Taz often the victim), but there's also some satire/parodying I wouldn't have understood as a kid, with such episodes (or segments of episodes) as ""We'll Always Have Taz-Mania"", ""Ticket Taker Taz"", and many others. I also have more appreciation for some of the characters than I used to, including Taz's lovable family, with his over-affectionate mother and babbling, orange juice-loving father, with his catchphrase, ""blah blah blah yackety shmackety,"" and the way they sweet-talk each other! There are so many lovable characters outside the family as well, plus some comically mean-spirited ones! Basically, all the characters contribute something to the show, though obviously some more than others. For the most part, ""Taz-Mania"" is consistently funny, with physical humour, satire, the antics of Taz and sometimes other characters, the main character's adventures, etc.

This early 90's cartoon series was a success during its run, and still seemed pretty popular in the mid-nineties when I watched reruns of it, but unfortunately, it doesn't exactly seem like it ever was successful now. The show sadly doesn't seem to be nearly as widely remembered as ""Tiny Toon Adventures"" and ""Animaniacs"", two other Warner Bros. cartoons from the same decade. It wouldn't have hurt if the show had lasted longer than it did, and if it were as popular as it deserves to be, it would have been released on DVD years ago, not long after they started making ""Simpsons"" DVD sets! And yet, there still hasn't been a DVD release of the cartoon, and reruns seem scarce. If it could get more recognition, I'm sure it could appeal to so many kids and adults alike, which I'm sure it did in its heyday! So, regardless of your age, if you like cartoons, and know a way to see episodes of ""Taz-Mania"", it could be well worth watching!",1 "D-Yikes is definitely one of the stronger episodes of season 11, funny, imaginative and intelligent, as always it's hilarious and extremely enjoyable to watch. The episode revolves around Mrs. Garrison, at the beginning she is aggravated that her date blew off, because she was asked if she used to be a man. Later on she becomes friends with Allison, and is invited to her local bar ""LesBos"", and proceeds to find out ""LesBos"" is actually a lesbian bar. It is at this point South Park start to mock the film ""300"". Persians attempt to buy out ""lesBos"", a reference to the Persians attacking the Spartans. Garrison kicks a Persian in the balls, a reference to when Leonidas kicks a Persian messenger down a hole, and ans many more. The episode is full of ""300"" style special effects, and is still remains hilarious. The dialogue is funny, written very well and just a well rounded good episode in my opinion.

I give it 8/10",1 "I must admit, I only turned on this movie because of how hot Jane McGregor and Piper Perabo are, and that's the only reason I watched it all the way through. I thought the entire plot was rather implausible; plausibility isn't a requirement for a movie, but this movie is implausible for no good reason. It has some funny moments, such as Starla's (McGregor) French exam, which got a few chuckles out of me, but a lot of things which I suppose were meant to be funny fell flat.

I say it's implausible for no reason, because it wasn't very entertaining. The whole idea of Genevieve (Perabo) taking over Starla's life isn't even one of those ideas that sounds like it could be made interesting, but maybe that's just me. Why an exchange student would come to America from France and even risk a stunt like ruining the life of one of the members of her host family is beyond me, and the movie isn't enjoyable enough to make me forget that. It's predictable, and it's not terribly smart or funny.",0 "Who the hell was Jill Wagner screwing behind the scenes? That's all I want to know. Because that is the ONLY conceivable reason than this series focused so entirely on her character instead of Blade who had absolutely no airtime by comparison.

Every time they created a long term villain for Blade, they got rid of it within an episode or two with a combined time of around 10 minutes so they could have more time telling us how confused Krista's character was. When they made vampire ash a drug that gave users a short burst of vampiric powers, the dealer was caught and beaten within the first 5 minutes. How dramatic. They went from acknowledging the drug in the previous episode and with no backstory or character development, they simply demolished the creator and sole pusher of the drug before the opening credits finished rolling on the next episode.

PA. THE. TIC.

Let's face it, this series was about a morally confused and charismatic vampire with perky tits who was great at throwing the look of worry and confusion around a lot so that she could suck in the Buffy and Angel fans. There were a lot of rumors that said Sticky Fingers couldn't act. Well we can't honestly know, we never got a chance to see the character in action. The only other character that was remotely interesting was Agent Ray Collins who was slowly coming to grips with the reality of vampires when they decided to kill the character needlessly and ultimately granted him no more relevance than an extra.

The producers of this series should be embarrassed. Better yet, they should have stakes driven through their hearts. If you can find them. I'm not yet willing to blame the directors of the writers because I can't imagine how or why any writer would intentionally ignore the title character so completely like that for 12 solid episodes.",0 "Peter (David Manners) and Joan (Julie Bishop) Alison are newlyweds who are on their way to a Hungarian resort town for their honeymoon. On the train, the couple are introduced to Dr. Vitus Werdegast (Bela Lugosi), who is on his way to visit an old acquaintance. When the bus they are riding meets an accident, the couple and Dr. Vitus are forced to spend the night in the mansion of Poelzig (Boris Karloff), Vitus' old acquaintance who has more than hospitality in mind when taking them in. The best part of The Black Cat is the fact that two of the greatest actors in horror film history are pitted against each other in this ageless tale of good vs evil which is inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's short story. Although Karloff is very excellent as the mysterious lord of the house, it is Lugosi who steals most of the limelight. Upon introduction of his character, he immediately clouds his personality, teasing the audience into a confusion of what his true intentions are with the two lovebirds. His thick accent adds a lot to the whole suspicion business, but Lugosi mostly acts his way to greatness with his ominous facial features and his subtly perverse gestures. The other good thing about the film is Edgar Ulmer's direction. Ulmer can make so much out of the littlest budget but given studio backing, Ulmer makes miracles. Poelzig's mansion is beautiful. Straying away from the usual Gothic castles that the likes of Karloff and Lugosi have been occupying most of their professional life, Ulmer takes in a more modernist approach. The interiors of the mansion is clean, cool, yet as the characters clearly describe, has an atmosphere of death. I mean, a mansion occupied by the likes of Karloff, a strongman, a creepy butler, and an Eastern European maid, should at least get an atmosphere of death, if not an atmosphere of total evil and perversity. Ulmer, even with a decent budget, doesn't spend time dillydallying. He keeps the film trim and concise. The result is a rather flimsy plot line with several sideplots that are never really realized but Ulmer, as a director, does not invest on plots. Like budgets, he makes most of the silliest of plot lines. Here, he makes most of each and every bit of decent dialogue (note the plenty of close ups on Lugosi or Karloff when they spew a line that somehow is miraculously inspired), and utilizes music, production design, and cinematography, to raise the plot to a higher level. Also, Ulmer doesn't waste the fact that he has with him Lugosi and Karloff. We are entreated to them in a chess match (examine and enjoy how Karloff concentrates and takes the game so seriously), and a final wrestling match that ends up in a torture scene that only Edgar Allan Poe can imagine. The Black Cat is a terrific film, but definitely not Ulmer's best. Ulmer's masterpiece is still Detour where he has a storyline that finally matches his directorial talent.",1 "I have often imagined how the film of William Gibson's brilliant cyberpunk short story of corporate espionage and betrayal could be made. I pictured how I would do it in my head, but I didn't know if there was enough substance in the story for a complete two hour movie. After several directors tried and failed to get the film financed, Abel Ferrara was finally the one to make it. He succeeds in developing the gloss and style necessary to create the atmosphere of debauchery and intrigue at the heart of the short story, but style is skin deep and becomes a very weak means to an end. Once the movie moves out of the whorehouse and into the plot, it disappears into a morass of visual stylistics and a wasted half-hour of reiterated images that have no meaning and no impact. For a similar treatment of film-making, a viewer could avail themselves of Dennis Hopper's dreadful 'The Last Movie'.

I will give Mr. Ferrara credit where it is due with his film - he creates a very evocative and sensual Tokyo underworld, and gets a strong performance from Christopher Walken as Fox, the head of a syndicate that is going to seduce and snatch the world's top genetic biologist from one mega-corporation to work for another. The exposition, which is long and luxurious, also brings in the tool for the seduction - a young Italian harlot named Sandii (Asia Argento), whose pouty lips, sensuously unkempt hair and beautiful body will be the tool to lure the scientist from his 'ball-busting' wife and displeasure with his current position. She is trained well - the scientist Hiroshi is protected by his employer and it will take extra skills to earn his defection. Everybody will earn big bucks to bring this brain over. Walken effortlessly explains the plot and invites the girl in, although she has been sleeping with his associate X (Willem Dafoe). Dafoe is in on the deal, but is also falling in love with Sandii, even though he knows she is prone to lying about almost everything.

From the point their plot starts to go into action (about the 40-minute mark) Ferrara's instincts go all wrong. Rather than following Sandii into the heart of the seduction, we are kept at a distance - the information about their success/failure is relayed through an exasperating series of off-kilter video images which worked in the whorehouse environment but do not work here, flashing back to Fox strutting around crowing and $100,000,000 being put into their account for the success of their mission. But then, without adding excessive spoilers, there is a terrible betrayal, everything goes wrong, and they wind up on the lam, with X hiding out at the New Rose Hotel. He crawls into his tiny concrete berth in this Tokyo hotel at around the 60 minute mark in the movie and does not leave. At this point the short story ends with a perfunctory sentence or two, but here Ferrara's narrative goes all awry. He expendes another half hour explaining the roots of the betrayal for those daft enough not to understand it the first time. There's nothing like taking a 60-minute movie and then turning it into a 90-minute movie by replaying clips from the first 60 minutes for half an hour. There were so many fade-outs during this time that at least 4 times I expected to start seeing credits, only to drop my jaw as we get another scene of Dafoe in bed with Argento. It was flabbergastingly bad film-making of the sort expected from subsidized European productions, and Dafoe was simply not up to emoting X's desperation, fear and hopeless longing.

Ferrara's stylistics at the beginning of the film lead one to expect something much better, but his narrative sense fails him completely. I give it three out of ten - pluses for eroticism and bare bones atmosphere, a zero for anything past the 50-minute mark.",0 "This movie has some solid qualities that make it stand out far from the slew of 80's horror movies. If you like campy horror films with a sense of humor, then go find yourself a copy of this movie. I think the characters are a good mix of personalities. The action is kind of lame at first but picks up towards the end and the gore is half decent. This is a classic B movie entry that I had never heard of, nor knew anyone that has seen it. Troma bought the rights to it though they did not produce it. I hope it makes its way onto DVD.

For being a practically unknown movie, it definitely delivers entertainment. Even though I wouldn't consider it a serious horror movie, I think it does a lot of things better than the so called serious horror movies.",1 "I absolutely love this show. It is the only T.V. show that I will never miss because I love it so much. I love all the characters and I love all of the humor used in the show. Abby is my favorite character, she's not your ordinary person you would expect to work for NCIS and I love that. Gibbs is a great character too, he seems very cold on the outside but you can tell that deep inside he really cares about everyone on his team very deeply. The first time I watched this show I was flipping through the channels and it looked interesting so I watched it and I have been hooked on it ever since and have never missed an episode. I would recommend this anyone who enjoys any kind of crime shows.",1 "I saw this at the Waterfront Film Festival in Saugatuck, Michigan.

Interesting documentary about people that make a career out of being movie extras. It followed ten people around and showed how they handle being another face in the movie crowd. I really enjoyed this film because I'm interested in going into the film business and it would be fun to be an extra in at least one film.

It was great seeing how dedicated some of these people are. The documentary covered many of the basics about being an extra. How to get cast in a film, how to dress, how to act around the big stars, and many other things. I also loved how they showed the film clips and pointed out where the stars of the documentary were.

This movie will be really helpful to anyone that wants to travel out west and go into the movies.",1 "When we rented this movie, my girlfriend and I expected a basic feel-good comedy, nothing great, just easy.

We lived in India for a while, doing research on IT outsourcing. So we decided to rent outsourced. It actually turned out to be a good movie! It managed to capture a lot of things which were so familiar to us, a trip down memory lane, the amazement we felt at being there.

Although the plot is quite predictable, this did not matter much as the beauty is in the details. It has a lot of India, portrays traveling Americans (and we all love those) and even manages to make the entire outsourcing debate insightful without being condescending.

The film left us both with a real smile on our face, something only very few comedies manage to do.",1 "I hate to bash anyone's work, but this is simply the WORST film ever. It would take far too long to list this film's problems, but suffice to say...you will be wasting your time and money on a terrible film.

As far as the mother's killing their babies because of La Lorona, well that could have been handled in a terrifying but effective way (if it had to be handled), but this is not a thoughtful or sensitive treatment. It's not even a scary horror movie and the acting is so stiff - where was the director?

As to why it was shot in New York City instead of Mexico, clearly there were budget issues. But location is the least of the problems. I wish there was something good to say about this film, but I couldn't find it.

Maybe the film's writer/director or some cast/crew can post some positive comments...",0 "Let me explain the above comment. In the horrible movie PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, writer/director Ed Wood, Jr. incorporated some footage he'd shot of Bela Lugosi just before Bela's death. While the footage had nothing to do with the script for PLAN 9, Wood decided to ""cleverly"" use this film and hash out Lugosi's role by having a much taller guy (a dentist by the way) hold a cape over his face in all the Lugosi scenes not available in the original reel of footage! The result, not surprisingly, is horrid. Now all of the reason for PLAN 9 being named the worst movie ever made wasn't all due to the Lugosi footage, but it was one of the main factors contributing to the pure crappiness of the film.

In the case of GAME OF DEATH, some initial footage had been shot back in 1972 but was temporarily shelved in order to finish another Lee film. But, Lee's untimely death left about 30 or 40 minutes of unusable footage. So, the studio big-shots decided to ""pull an Ed Wood"" and use the old footage and write an entire movie around it--using extras and irrelevant footage to make a ""coherent"" film. Well, the result wasn't great but at least it was a good bit better than PLAN 9! As far as integrating a dead guy into a movie, the results were often pretty pathetic. Now I am NOT saying they shouldn't have made the movie. Instead, they should have just admitted that they were using a double and not even bothered trying to fool the audience--it just wasn't possible! Having an extra wearing sunglasses inside and out just looked stupid and playing the part straight, without stupid tricks, would have been better. A couple other stupid ""tricks"" they tried to make a coherent film included cutting closeup shots of Lee into scenes where he obviously wasn't acting! His clothes and the backgrounds just didn't match the double! The worst case was near the beginning when Lee was supposedly almost killed by a falling light. The close up was of the Real Lee--standing outside against a brick wall. But, the scene was filmed INSIDE and there was no brick wall! This was true Ed Wood editing!!! Even worse was one scene where they literally pasted Lee's face over another person's face for a very brief scene! Clutch Cargo episodes were constructed better than this! Probably the creepiest aspect of all this was that Bruce's son, Brandon, also died prematurely while filming THE CROW and the studio did pretty much the same trick (though with modern computer techniques it did look better). In addition, to add another creepier element, Brandon was killed in an on-set accident where he was killed by a prop gun---something that is in the plot of GAME OF DEATH--when a bad guy pretends to be using a prop gun but really shoots Bruce in the face!!!! This is just so surreal and sick. Also surreal and sick is seeing Gig Young in his final film--just months before he killed himself and his partner! This truly seemed like a cursed production! While I am trashing the film, I may as well point out a few other things before I actually go on to praise the film. First, while I greatly enjoyed watching Chuck Norris BRIEFLY at the beginning of the film, somebody should have told him to shave his back hair!!! Chuck just looked like some sort of missing link with all that hair--a major turn off and something I am surprised made it into both this film and another Lee picture, RETURN OF THE DRAGON. Second, the female co-star Colleen Camp very ably sang the final song in the film but when they show her singing earlier in the movie, she's obviously out of sync with the music.

Now apart from the MANY serious flaws with the film, let's talk about the good. While a tad cheesy, the overall production values were pretty good (apart from the way they dealt with Lee)--especially for a kung-fu movie. Seeing the American supporting actors (especially a foul-mouthed elderly Dean Jagger) was pretty interesting and the music for the film was exceptional. The opening titles were highly reminiscent of a James Bond film and the recurring strains throughout the film were very clearly inspired by the music from ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. Plus, the effects and fight scenes were pretty good throughout.

Despite occasionally seeing tiny glimpses of Lee in the first 2/3 of the film, he is the clear star of the final portion of the film--the only portion of the movie that should have included Lee in my opinion. Here, he does perhaps his best stunt-work ever and the battles are well worth seeing for fans of the genre. In particular, seeing Lee fight Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was majorly cool. It really is a shame that such great material was never used the way it was originally intended. For fans of Lee, this is STILL a must-see film, but for most others it's a mixed bag--a lot of good and a lot of really, really, REALLY bad editing.

FYI--In the wonderful kung fu comedy, SHAOLIN SOCCER, the goalie is clearly meant to look and act just like Bruce Lee. In fact, his yellow outfit is a copy of Lee's in the finale of GAME OF DEATH. This was a cute little homage to Lee.",0 "I watched this when they first showed the series on TV. At the time I was studying Jane Eyre for O Level English literature exam.

This became a favourite book of mine for all time and I have read it many times since.

I loved this series. The characters were just as I imagine and they followed the original text very closely. Knowing it well, I was able to quote sections along with the actors.

I always remember enjoying this production and would love to own it on Video or DVD. I have not enjoyed another production of Jane Eyre as much as this.",1 "I thought that it was well done. The script closely parallel the book. This animation and love ballad must be critiqued in the context of it's time. Filmed in Techi-color and just the second full-length animated feature, it rivalled many of the light musicals on the silverscreen in the 1930's.

If you have not seen it, judge for yourself.",1 I recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International Film Festival. This is the second feature length film from noted short film director and writer Roystan Tan and I think this may have worked better as a short film rather than being dragged out into a 90 minute film. Very little dialog here. It's a story about an 11 year old cough medicine abusing-latch key boy named Xiao Wu whose mother is on business in Bejing and he's left alone in the apartment with a suicidal tenant from Korea named Jung who is drinking and popping pills. The long stretched out scenes are about exciting as watching paint dry. Xiao Wu keeps a journal about Jung and sneaks into his room and spies on him every morning at 4:30. As a 25 minute short this may have peaked my interest and tied everything in more neatly and concisely and left me wanting for more but as a 90 minute feature it left me wanting to abuse cough syrup or kill myself. I'll be kind and give this a 4.5 out of 10.,0 "I'll give a ""last letter"" here ... ""D-,"" a grade that misses ""F"" only because I HAVE seen worse. Rarely.

Bad script, bad acting, bad everything. ""Twelve Angry Men,"" this is not. Yet, the writer/director somehow thought he'd weave a tale that takes place around a juror's table and VO sepia flashbacks involving the case. Not a respected device for exposition, and this film illustrates why. Not only do twists seem like cheats (i.e. the audience had no shot of discovering it,) but they're just unbelievable to start with.

Stiff, wooden lines do nothing to further the careers of unknowns and past-prime actors here. The ending, unsatisfying and vapid, shows the writer's belief that we'll buy into anything.",0 "WARNING: THIS COMMENT CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WARNING: THIS COMMENT CONTAINS Spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, number one, there were a lot of mistakes and goofs, such as the concrete floors in the sub others talk about, and also, the ""villain"", the terrorist plotting to destroy New York and Moscow, doesn't seem threatening at all and could almost be on a comedy show. He's a terrible villain. Then, the aircraft fire missiles, and lo and behold, they turn into torpedoes! None of the torpedoes hit the sub, even though no decoys are fired, and yet the sub still takes hits. The same scene is shown underwater with the sub multiple times. And, the crew seems to die rather quickly from the virus, though the villain, Kretz has a vile of it crammed in his mouth and survives for a very long time. And Nadia (Natalie Radford)'s performance was not convincing at all. She seems almost pathetic. Overall, it was OK, as I've always been a sucker for submarine movies, but if you want a good submarine movie, get U-571 or K-19: The Widowmaker, as this one is quite poor, and the goofs are all too obvious.",0 "This is pretty definitive of the campy science fiction movies that are just meant to be fun. In accordance with the campy aura, the film's main focus are a group of teenagers who hang out together, and whose camaraderie is indicative of such films, and could still be an inspiration. It's mostly just the same story: kids witness something from outer space, aren't believed, and solve the mystery themselves. Gobel plays a likable intelligent sort who is benevolent to the kids. One scene that makes this rank a level better than the usual is the ""Goo Goo Ga"" scene. A lot of hilarious bits, and make no mistake, this is what the movie is designed to do. It's appealing to see people behave in a civilized way to each other, as they do in this movie. And to be willing to help each other, again, is inspirational. Campy, but more assets than detriments.",1 "This is a classic Bad British Movie. Stalwarts of British comedy acting then and later, plus George Sanders, fight manfully against one of the stupidest plots imaginable - about a government-sponsored brothel for the gentry in late 19th century London. Basically, it was an excuse to have a lot of young women prancing about in lingerie, maid's uniforms, pretty frocks, while baring the occasional boob.

The plot, such as it is, is mainly advanced by extraordinarily implausible coincidences and bizarre happenings, and it's about as silly as you can get.

It's a formula movie, and it sucks. Unfortunately, it isn't quite awful enough to be 'so bad it's good'. It's just excruciating.

However, it was written by Denis Norden, who may have no idea about plot or character, but is a fantastic quip-writer. There are scores of literary and historical jokes: one- and two-liners, many of them screamingly funny if you're familiar with the works of Wilde, Dickens, Trollope, Galsworthy, Tennyson et al, and with historical people like Emmeline Pankhurst and Dr Livingstone. Jokes as good as these are wasted on this awful film.",0 "The Petrified Forest was the movie that made Humphery Bogart a star. He plays a gangster in this.

An English tourist calls for refreshments at a remote café in the middle of the desert and falls in love with the waitress who works there. A group of three then come in and they take the tourist with them to their destination, which they never reach. Their car is hijacked by a gang of four crooks, including murderer Duke Mantee (Bogart), who is wanted all over the States. The tourist makes his own way back to the café and the crooks are not far behind and then they go into the café and hold everyone hostage in there to be joined by the group of three later on. Duke shoots the tourist at the end, escapes and is finally caught by the police just after.

The Petrified Forest has very little, if any background music but it doesn't need it as it is gripping enough.

Joning Bogie in the cast are Leslie Howard as the tourist, a young Bette Daivs as the waitress, Dick Foran and Joe Sawyer. All play excellent parts, especially Bogie.

I enjoyed watching The Petrified Forest and have seen it a couple of times now. Excellent.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5.",1 "I've seen every Ma and Pa Kettle film made because I long to be as stoic, calm and unperplexed as was Percy Kilbride, so this film was doubly enjoyable because also I've always been a big Jack Benny fan due to the fact he had the best timing, on radio, TV and movies, of any comedian.

Regarding the storyline,I'm not writing to spoon feed anyone;you can read it for yourselves but I am stating that when it next pops up on Turner,take a peek. Benny plays off Percy; Percy plays off Benny and Ann Sheridan adds a touch of beauty but according to the plot, not brains. And Charles Coburn whom everybody loved (how can anyone dislike Charles Coburn?) lends an air of royalty and connivery to the madcap happenings.

For a pleasant,entertaining and funny romp through cellulod,""GWSH"" is very worthwhile.",1 "In many cases, the reality is enigmatic, and John Cassavetes is a genius to capture and exhibit that obscure sense of reality on celluloid. With deliberately rough camera work (containing lots of lens flares) and editing (not trimming out movements of the photographer's hands before and after actions), along with the crafted acting of Ben Gazzara, Cassavetes presents the obscure-hence-realistic underground gang world as no one else has. The camera movement and choreography of the murder scene is reminiscent of Godard--well calculated to appear to be not calculated. The scene is the only one accompanied by music; the entire film is inscrutably quiet.

The dragging story may be a part of his method, but it is a drawback to make the viewers lose their attentions. After Cosmo Vitelli (Gazzara) executes the killing, the plot focuses on the process he is going back to his ordinary life, but it is needlessly stretched out. Also, the scene of the confrontation against the gang members is a redundant second climax.",0 "Those who hope to see a lot of Errol Flynn in this movie will be disappointed ... it is a good hour before he makes his appearance as Miles Hendon.

The novel by Mark Twain looked at what might have happened if the future Edward VI was swapped for a beggar boy who looked identical, and what that might mean for the (simplified) political situation on the death of his father, Henry VIII.

As Edward and the beggar, Tom Canty, identical twins Billy and Bobby Mauch are charming. Much better than the split screen versions in later remakes of the 60s and 70s. They were both good little actors as well, which helps in this story.

Claude Rains excels as the villain of the piece, while Alan Hale, Eric Portman, and others make up the cast. Flynn himself is fun as Hendon, swashbuckling with the best.

After 70 years this film has not dated one jot - highly enjoyable.",1 "This movie is quite simply one of the best I have ever witnessed. The historical events portrayed in this film are extremely accurate and provide the viewer with a window to the past without actually being there. But just like any other movie, it is also very entertaining and keeps you in your seat from beginning to end. I have seen all the other war movies, and along with ""The Winds Of War"", ""War And Remembrance"" is a very good history lesson and by far the best movie depicting World War Two you will ever see.",1 "Once again, no listing of the music. Does anyone know what was the opening music, in the first minute or so? I'm sure I have heard it in another movie.

As for the film itself, the general script/storyline is so well known, certainly to anyone living in the UK, that the interest could only be sustained in obscure details -eg what do the royal apartments look like; and does HRH always wear a tie at home. The only snippets that I found of interest concerned details of princess Anne's personal life. Her character, as depicted, did not correspond to the popular image of her. I wonder, was is fact or fiction?.

As for the family, we saw something of Anne, of Uncle Dickie and a brother or two -and that was about it (oh, and a note delivered from Papa).

I am thinking of instituting communications by notes in our household, with my sons. But i would have to rely on the cat to deliver them.

And the music---if anyone knows, please help....",0 "Ballad of a Soldier is an exciting tale of a young soldier's adventure while returning home on leave. The cinematography is reminiscent of Truffaut or Bergman, and the pacing is excellent. Although not as shockingly realistic as Come and See, this film portrays the pain Russia was dealt during WWII. There does seem to be a good bit of propaganda for the Russian Army (the way all the commanding officers are big softies and frequently bend the rules), and this does seem rather disingenuous. Unilke the kindness and respect portrayed in Grand Illusion (Renoir's account of prison camp civility from WWI), Ballad of a Soldier leans a bit more toward Triumph of the Will in its seemingly unrealistic depiction of authority figures. Having said that, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would say its criticisms are dwarfed by its triumphs.",1 "When i noticed this movie had not yet even been reviewed by its release date, I knew it was going to flop. I decided to see it anyways on its first showing at the local theatre with my friend. There was a total of 4 people (including us) in the theatre. Oh geez, I thought. A fan of SNL and Norm MacDonald, I figured it can't be THAT bad. Well, I'll just say as soon as the movie started, I was laughing. I never stopped laughing, honestly. It was one of the funniest movies I had seen in the theatres since The Whole Nine Yards. I could definately see that some of the immature humor would turn off some people, but if you like goofy, slapstick comedy, or are a fan of Saturday Night Live, you will probably find this movie entertaining. If not, so sue me.",1 "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was a near epic film in almost the same way Forrest Gump was. I am not particularly a fan of David Fincher and his work. Yet I strongly admired The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. This film is about a man named Benjamin Button who leads much of an ordinary life under not so ordinary circumstances. The one thing that separates him from any other human being is that he ages backwards. Despite such large differences between the audience and Benjamin Button, the film finds a way to connect with a large variety of people in a way that does not seem to happen so often.

The acting was very good throughout the movie. Especially that of Cate Blanchett who seems to be turning out one great performance after another. She plays the role of Daisy, Benjamin Button's real love interest from start to finish. In fact she played so well it might have been a partial downfall to the movie. Her performance out shined that of the main character, played by Brad Pitt. Although Pitt was very solid in his performance I do not believe he deserved an Oscar nomination (rather Blanchett deserved one) for his role of playing Benjamin Button. He was not a necessity to the movie and did not add much to it. He was not bad but he wasn't spectacular. Throughout though many of the different actors and actresses lit up the screen. Especially Tilda Swinton who was wonderful to watch as Button's short lived love interest. Her presence was magical and a joy to watch. I would have loved to see just a little bit more of her character.

The directing of David Fincher in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was of what I believe to be his best work to date. The screenplay of Eric Roth was written very well as he has had experience with these type of movies. In many scenes the dialog and great direction combined for some epic scenes.

Ultimately I enjoyed this movie very much but something felt missing from the movie. Something seemed left unsaid that was vital. I felt that the great downfall to this movie was that Brad Pitt didn't give an amazing performance and did not take control of the movie rather Blanchett stole the show from him which made Button seem less important to me. Despite that though it this film was done very well and I would recommend it to all. Its an important story that makes us self reflect and think deeply. It displays how we need to live with our mistakes because they are part of our life. We need to appreciate what we have rather than wonder ""what if...?"".",1 "This is my first review as I felt compelled to write to say just how bad this film is.

The acting is awful. The direction is awful and this type of storyline has been done to death.

What was Christian Slater thinking ?

I always watch films to the end of the titles but I was sooo glad when the, ""Action"", finished, I couldn't bear to see the names associated with this monstrosity.

If you have 94 minutes to spare, just go and stare at a wall, you may find it more entertaining.",0 "I upgraded my PC to Vista because Halo 2 would not run on XP and to become up to date. Halo 2 is graphically the same as 1 IMO. Same characters same feel nothing new, in fact I swear they used the same maps but I could be wrong. The flood are back, the bubble headed boobies are back (ohh the pain the pain). The annoying screens just to get to play single player, I mean who cares if I cant upload my progress, I just want to play!!! I play about half an hour a night before I get bored. It seems that they have ported to PC just to rake in the profits, no thought to current day graphics,Try it out first before you spend your money. This may be the first FPS I have started that I may not finish. Sorry to all Halo fans but...this one is garbage!!",0 "Some articles or short biographies about Peter Bogdanovich that I've read assert that his career has not amounted to as much as it could have. His 1985 masterpiece ""Mask"" should disprove that. It tells the story of teenager Roy L. ""Rocky"" Dennis (Eric Stoltz), who suffered from craniodiaphyseal dysplasia that left him with an enlarged face. He and his biker mother Rusty (Cher) do what they can to live their lives normally, understanding that it will be an uphill climb.

One of the impressive parallels is the relationships that they develop. Rusty is involved in a relationship with fellow biker Gar (Sam Elliott), and they're pretty much the same kind of person. Rocky attends the camp for the blind where he befriends Diana (Laura Dern); she can't see what he looks like, but she accepts him for being a nice person.

So this is definitely one that I recommend. It not only shows the triumph of the human spirit confronting adversity, but affirms the talent of all parties involved. Really good.

Also starring Estelle Getty, Richard Dysart and Harry Carey, Jr.",1 "I really enjoyed this movie. It's professionally made, well paced, shot and edited with proper actors of decent quality. Richard Tyson as the bad guy step dad/werewolf is actually rather good as is Kimberley Brown as Sam.

I thought the story was pretty good and didn't quite go the way I was expecting it to. I imagined it was just another 'teens go to a cabin in the woods and get killed one by one' movie, but it isn't. There is actually a plot and some subtext here. The director says this film is an attempt to use the beast as a metaphor for struggling with addiction and as a representation of the id and the beast within. This is why this werewolf can talk and likes to taunt people, and why he doesn't just kill, but enjoys a spot of rape and torture - and it works just fine in the context of the film. It's also a retelling of the classic mythological story of the son having to confront the father figure to finally become a man. The director acknowledges major story elements owe a lot to the movie The Stepfather (the sheriff is named after that films director, Joe Rubin), and even Shakespeare's Hamlet. The film is also filled with homage's to great movies by Hitchcock, Spielberg and Landis. I won't say what they are, but see if you can spot them or just listen to the interesting and informative commentary.

Having said all that, there is still plenty of gratuitous nudity, humour and some nice gore. The make up and CG FX are actually quite good. The wolf is of a decent design and about as well done as you get with standard makeup FX (no animatronics - just man in suit).

What I liked most about this film was its take on the werewolf as a representation of the darkest, nastiest and innermost human desires. The villain, while always a pretty nasty guy, had been struggling to control his 'problem' and had actually been quite successful until the daft teens got involved.

This is of course a very low budget film. What makes this far superior to similar low budget efforts is that the writer/director had a clear vision of the type of story he wanted to tell and actually spent time on the script and in casting some decent actors.

Not brilliant or a classic, but much better than I expected.",1 "A very good movie, the biggest letdown is the length! Good lord, I'm reading people saying there needed to be more detail, blah blah--you'd need to make a series on TV! It's already, what, three hours long? Some of the acting seemed a little stiff, what is it with Kostner that he always comes off like he's got his lines memorized, and he's trying to remember them? As for passing judgement on historical accuracy--folks, it's a movie, OK? Not a history course. Omission is not historical inaccuracy, it's expediency, as long as the continuity of the story is intact. I liked Tombstone too. Both entertaining movies, neither is Gone With the Wind. Isn't entertainment and performance what it's all about?",1 "This is a very good documentary and shows the more fair image of Islam not commonly seen in the West, of a religion that was flourished in culture, science, and art. It also shows its more violent parts in history. Nevertheless, I find that it ends all too abruptly and it fails to comment on any contemporary issues about Islam, which I guess would have made this documentary too long.

If you are interested in Islam, find yourself a copy of this and watch as it is entertaining and informative.

Especially at this time, it is necessary for Western audiences to learn more about Islam.",1 This film is a major disappointment by Amos Gitai.One should even call it a blot on his career.Promised land is neither a feature film nor a documentary nor anything which can lie in between.It features two popular stars Anne Parillaud and Hanna Schygulla but even their presence is not helpful enough to sustain viewers' interest.The film is about the plight of some Russian girls which are sold in Israel but its presentation is really bad. It does not make any sense as in order to heighten the importance of the topic Amos Gitai has decided to shoot the most part of the film in darkness. However darkness cannot hide the film's defects.The film maker has surely not done his homework well due to which viewers are forced to watch a crude succession of abominably cruel scenes in which women are traded like cattle.Most of the actors too suffer in this film as their roles have not been defined properly.Recommendation:better watch this film and be bitter about it rather than being sullen without having seen it.,0 "Lying uncomfortably between barely watchable and so-bad-it's-good comes The Monster aka I Don't Want To Be Born aka The Devil Within Her. A British rip-off of Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist and many others. This has a good cast with (a still looking good at 42) Joan Collins, Ralph Bates, Donald Pleasance and horror-eye-candy stalwart Caroline Munro. Collins plays an ex-stripper, now married to Italian Ralph Bates and the film starts with Collins going through a difficult child birth, or so we're meant to think. If that was meant to be bad, Mrs Steamcarrot must have been giving birth to Godzilla with our first born. Anyway, because of turning down a dwarf's advances the child is cursed to be possessed by the devil. In reality the ankle biter only has huge strength and a nasty attitude. All scenes of the 'demonic' brat hurting or killing people are off-screen. You see Collins recoiling in horror with scratch marks on her face, then cut to a picture of a very-undevilish baby looking all cutesy. Or a hand reaching out and shoving a nurse into a pond then cut back to cutesy kid, pram blankets unruffled. I don't mind a bit of suspension of disbelief, but this takes it too far. Anyway Ralph Bates' nun sister arrives, sporting silly accent and working at an animal testing laboratory (!), and thinks Collins' suspicions of possession is probably right. But she waits until everyone is killed to perform a simple exorcism that kills the cursing dwarf and returns the baby to normality. Why didn't she do that when she first arrived? No idea, it was only a bit of Latin and placing a cross on the forehead. This is a very silly film with hardly any redeeming features. Plus points include an unintentionally hilarious 'erotic' dance with said dwarf from Ms Collins, some nice shots of London and that's about it. Oh and the soundtrack to the lovemaking scene gave me a groaning chuckle. A disappointing 3. Director Peter Sasdy is capable of much better.",0 "This movie was the type of pokemon movie I always wanted to see. A lot of fun. I was hooked from the first battle scene. After all the previous ones I've seen (havent seen 3 & 4 yet) this one I found the best.

I like the intro to these movies as they give a brief explanation of pokemon, this movie showed a few scenes from the previous movies.

The starting fight between the alien poke and the earth one was cool, showing off the aliens strength for a little while.

I liked the few scenes just with poke doing amusing things with feelgood background music.

Ash is the focus of course, a few new characters and poke are introduced, and its good to see Tory make friends with those plus and minus pokemon.

After the end you see everyone board a train and go their separate ways which ended it nicely.

Really enjoyable movie in the hi tech city.",1 "Out West marks a distinct departure for Arbuckle as a director in that compared to what had come before it had a much stronger, more thought out and developed style and story. It has more genuinely clever and funny ideas than the preceding shorts with Al St John and Buster Keaton put together - the high concept of the western theme clearly releasing the creative genius that Fatty could display.

Keaton and St John also have stronger parts than their usual nameless knockabout side characters that had come before. Visually the sepia rounded-corner 19th century photograph look of it is a stylish stylistic directorial choice from Arbuckle, showing the talent he could display (and would again) rather than simply allowing the action to be the film. You feel the story here from the outset. Excellent.",1 This is a movie best viewed outside the US. It is about an Italian 17 year old who comes to live in the US after his mother is killed in a bank robbery. The script is poor and irrational. The best thing that you might gain from this movie is to see how some Italians view life in the US. It definitely IS NOT for entertainment for US viewers.,0 "There is little humour in this otherwise ridiculous film, except for the one that arises - I suspect unintentionally - from the hotchpotch of conflicts of life-sworn friendship and love interests between the characters. The tearjerking that tugged though was uniquely caused by suppressed hilarity - when I wasn't yawning, that is. The guys look mean and moody and handsome enough, or just handsome and moody, or just mean or just, in the case of the inspector - plain ludicrous - and in the case of the art gallery girl - plain hilarious. Ha Ha - I would sooo love to see some Roman gangster - however darkly handsome and with an unlikely past - fall head over heel in love with Amelie Poulain ha ha ha - I'm still laughing. Why not give the part to Paris Hilton fogossake - would have been so much more convincing. And what about the Whore-who-falls-for-the-otherwise-useless-inspector because - wait for this - he treated like : not once, not twice but three times A Lawdy! ha ha ha ha - I'm still laughing. And what about... I could go on obviously",0 "New York City newspaper reporters compete for news-items on a serial killer who targets young women. Disappointingly awkward drama from revered director Fritz Lang, here taking an oddly conventional approach to the story and scenario and completely ignoring the suspenseful possibilities. Of course, it's a newspaper drama--not a serial killer thriller, but Lang's general workman-like feel doesn't give the narrative any urgency. Vincent Price is appropriately, amusingly snide and sniveling as the inherited-owner of the newspaper; Dana Andrews is typically solid as a prize-winning columnist, but other performances fail to ignite. ** from ****",0 "This movie has everything: frocks, dancing, songs.... I love those ""Russian"" songs by Kern, and Irene Dunne really can sing. She can act too - see the scene where professionalism forces her to be polite to John's fiancé. Fred and Ginger's dancing is transcendent and one of the great works of art of Western civilisation for the past 3,000 years. And Fred plays the piano too! (And is very funny.) He sweeps Ginger off her feet in the last scene, but when she proposes to him he's inarticulate - but he says yes, of course. And who wrote his amusing descriptions of the frocks? Could it have been Kern's old Broadway partner, Pelham Grenville Wodehouse? The only flaw is a running gag about a band member with a falsetto voice who tries to sound butch. How the groundlings must have laughed!",1 "This debut film from Scottish film comedian Bill Forsyth is decent non-think entertainment. It has the low-budget charm of a student film, which can be its asset or liability, depending on how you look at it. Really, it's hard to envision this same low-key robbery story filmed in a bigger budget studio style. However, it's flaws are quite evident. It has a very choppy editing style, with each scene encompassing a different joke - similar to Monty Python short sketches. The storyline never really jells together, and unlike Forsyth's more polished later films, there's not much character development to speak of. The script has plenty of sharp one-liners, but few really great shakes.

As a gestation of the kind of stellar comedic talent Forsyth was to become in a few years, this movie is worth taking a look at. I did find myself laughing quite a few times, and am sure you will find some reasons to enjoy this, also.",1 "Just saw this at the Tribeca Film Festival - yipes.

It felt like the people at MTV wanted to make a film mythologizing the 'live fast, die young' rocker, but without any connection to reality or plausibility. A clichéd piece about the cliché of dying at 27, though really it's not like hundreds, or even dozens, of rock stars died at that age – it's only 5, really – Morrison, Hendrix, Cobain, Joplin, Carpenter. You might as well make a movie about a fictional rock star who dies in a plane, and try to tie it into some larger narrative.

Instead of simply reviewing the plot, which you can read on this page already, here's a PARTIAL list of glaring implausibilities and ridiculous plot occurrences that I worked up over drinks after the movie. By all means, feel free to see it for yourself and email me a few more of your own:

1) At the beginning of the movie, when Eliot needs someone to drive him across the country, he asks a kid in a very small-town grocery store to do it, offering him $10,000 cash (which he pulls out of his shirt pocket). The kid then goes back inside, deliberates over this with his parents for about 10 seconds, and the next scene is the family saying goodbye to him. They let their 16-year old son drive off with a completely drugged out junkie on a cross-country ride for $10,000. They live in the Heartland – surely they've seen America's Most Wanted before, no?

2) The guys pick up a hitchhiker, a 16-year old girl introduced to us in a scene which takes place in a cafeteria, where she sits at the counter and watches a wall-mounted television playing a pseudo-MTV which is showing a tribute to the recently fallen rocker. She mentions to the counter boy how sad it is. In the next scene, she is on the side of the road hitching a ride, and the car that stops has the other guy in the band SHE JUST SAW ON TV sleeping in the back seat. And when she gets in and sees this, she takes it in with complete equanimity. She doesn't mention to the kid driving that she knows who he is, she doesn't SMS any of her friends, and, in fact, she makes no comment regarding the fact that she's aware of the situation she's in until five minutes from the end of the movie, when she says, smugly, ""I guess you know the words to this one"" as she and Eliot share her headphones and listen to the group's song on her IPod.

3) The boy's militant father (in one of innumerable flashbacks) makes his son shoot his own dog after it gets hit by a car and breaks a leg, because he won't take it to the vet. The other boy has to dig the hole to bury it in while this is happening. Dad makes some comment about 'being a man' and 'killing to live'.

4) The boys, as teenagers, are running away from home to go to LA and 'make it big'and while they are waiting for a ride at the side of the road, Mom pulls up to give them a bag of money she's managed to sneak out of their father's bank account. This is not that implausible. But as they are standing talking with her, another car pulls up and waves them over to give them a ride – a car pulls up to two hitchhikers who are already talking to a driver and asks them if they need another ride. How hitch-friendly is this town?

5) Eliot gets knocked out by a gang of Nazi skinheads while symbolically throwing away his bag of prescription (and non-) narcotics and is then taken in for the night by a haggard homeless man casually toting a rifle. Eliot notices the man has no shoes, so he offers him his own boots, and then spends the rest of the film barefoot, even walking across cities and towns this way.

6) In the subsequent scene, the homeless guy invites Eliot to join his choir, where he goes to 'get spiritualized', but the two of them are 1) the only two white people in the choir and 2) the only two who look homeless, as everyone else is dressed quite decently. Add to this the fact that 3), Eliot's face is still covered in blood from the previous night's attack when he walks into the choir room, and no one in the choir expresses the slightest alarm at this.

7) The band has only one song. It is used at every key, emotive moment in the film. It is so stock that it seems as though it could have been made by computer program, like the 'hitmaker' they purported to have designed in Josie and the Pussycats (which I admit, unashamedly, I kind of liked). It may well have been.

and finally…

8) not an implausibility, but yet another ridiculous inanity: When Eliot goes to Tom's dad's house to visit the old man (Mom died while the boys were in LA), they have a kitchen conversation during which the old man is framed by the camera standing in front of a canvas of the 'Our Father', and Eliot is framed in front of a canvas of Jesus on the opposite wall. Get the message, everyone? We thought you would. (But actually, Eliot's reason for visiting Tom's dad is to give him a note Tom left, which turns out to be a red Post-It which simply says ""We are all a**holes"" – the fact that Eliot would want to deliver a Post-It, and the fact that he would deliver one as utterly devoid of meaning as this one, counts as an implausibility, I guess).",0 "At times like an Afterschool Special (Nami inherited a mansion, she and her boyfriend check it out while the two computer nerds offer advice via computer download), at times purposely made to resemble a video game (Nami and her boyfriend enter each room of the mansion, get a key or other object, exit room via secret door, etc.), at times like a predictable, over the top horror movie (Nami, I'm your crazy sister!), St. John's Wort would be a total turkey if it were not for a few arty special effects that quickly grow annoying and a gloss of Generation Y computerese. Skip this one and you won't be sorry -- try ""Dark Water"" or ""The Two Sisters"" (Korean) if you are looking for quality Asian horror.",0 "Well, for the most part, anyway. In a rural part of New Mexico, actress Kiki Walker is competing for attention with a local castanets dancer. Kiki's manager brings her a leopard on a leash so she can show the dancer up during her performance. Her rival one-ups her by snapping the castanets right in the leopard's face, which drives it wild. It breaks free from its mistress' grasp. As it flees from the night club, a waiter raises his hand: three bloody claw-marks from trying to stop the wild beast. The meat of the film is made up mostly from three tragedies resulting from the leopard - or do they? Okay, so the ""or do they?"" part isn't great, but those three tragedies are three of the best sequences in film history, no doubt. The first concerns a young girl forced by her mother to buy cornmeal in the middle of the night. Her younger brother meanly teases her by making leopard-shaped shadow puppets on the wall. The second involves a young girl who has gone to the graveyard to put flowers on her mother's grave, and also to meet with her lover. When she doesn't find him there, she becomes depressed and doesn't hear the groundskeeper's warning that he is locking the gate. The third happens to the castanet player, whose fortune teller turns up the ace of spades for her several times in a row without fail. An expert expresses the belief that the leopard could not have caused all of these events, so the film becomes, unfortunately, a whodunit. The answer is obvious immediately, even if it's not believable. Fortunately, the direction is so excellent, as well as the set pieces, that even with such a weak solution, the film is a near-masterpiece. 9/10.",1 "This Giallo is practically unknown, and that's a real shame as Puzzle is an outstanding example of the genre. Director Duccio Tessari made the excellent Giallo 'The Bloodstained Butterfly' three years before this film, and the two share the same keenness to buck as many plotting trends as possible; as while this film firmly fits into the Giallo in terms of style, the plot takes the focus away from common Giallo elements such as sex and murder and puts it more on the characters and an intriguing plot involving amnesia. The film is also known as 'Man Without Memory', and that is down the fact that the central character, Peter, has lost his memory. He's being treated in a hospital, and it's not long before a mysterious stranger turns up and accuses Peter of double-crossing him. We later learn that peter is really Edward, and he's married to the beautiful Sara. He finds out about his wife and travels to Italy in order to meet up with her; although she has chiselled out a new life for herself which involves a male friend named Reinhardt, and a young kid with a crush on her...

Director Duccio Tessari uses the first half of the film to get the plot basics in place, and as a consequence it's not always exciting. However, the director manages to hold the audience's attention long enough for the film to begin revealing itself in the second act. Puzzle was scripted by Giallo luminary Ernesto Gastaldi, and the film represents one of his best works, which says a lot considering the other films he penned. While the plot does take a while to get going, once it does the film becomes a real thrill ride, and this both offsets the sombre tone of the first half and is hugely entertaining. The main influence would appear to be the American classic 'Wait Until Dark', although the film doesn't take too much from the Audrey Hepburn film. The acting is above average, with Senta Berger, Luc Merenda and Umberto Orsini delivering fine performances in the central roles. The ending is superb and ensures that the film ends on a high, as a chainsaw revs into action and the film makes up for its lack of bloodshed. Overall, I really hope that Puzzle gets a wide release soon as this is a film that really deserves to be more seen!",1 Yeomen of the Guard is especially fine because Joel Grey is such a superb actor who conveys the sadness and folly of loving someone who fails to return your love. It is a melancholy but realistic story of love unrequited. The entire cast is superb. The set is excellent. This is one of the finest Gilbert and Sullivan movies brought to TV.

Give it a try. You will also enjoy this story and its wonderful music.,1 "One of the ""sweded"" films in Be Kind Rewind, this starts out as a ripoff of King Kong, then switches to a Tarzan movie as Johnny (Danny Lee) discovers Samantha (Evelyne Kraft), an absolutely gorgeous babe that was raised by The Peking Man after her parents died in a plane crash.

Just like Tarzan, she talks to the animals, all except for a snake that bit her on the thigh, necessitating Johnny sucking the venom out very close to the jungle treasure. Of course, Peking Man arrives with special leaves that Johnny crushes up and applies to the wound. Miraculous! We go back to King Kong and Tarzan in Hong Kong, as they transport the Peking Man to the city. You can imagine the carnage as The Peking Man becomes Godzilla-like after he sees Samantha being raped (not really, it's PG-13).

Only Quentin Tarantino can bring us this much fun.",1 "This is a film from Turkey which tells one of the real stories of this land. It is a sincere work with suspense, you will pursue something that you don't know yet! The common problem of the movies in Turkey is about the subjects that they handle. They try to deal with the matters which have no effects on the audience, because they don't belong to us! Unlike the others, this movie is about our villages, our people, our way of thinking, our culture in short.

The main statement of the movie is ""Hopes never die"". Yes, life fights against you, but it will win when you give up! It says that the divine justice is not so immediate, you should be insistent!",1 "BloodRayne isn't original nor is the most epic game you'll find in the market, however I like the execution of it and it's a fun ride from start to finish. You play Rayne( voiced perfectly by Laura Baily), a vampire on revenge for her family and a secret agent for the government during the World War II era.

The game is full of superb game play and of course comes complete with a bullet time option that occurs temporarily.

The one liners are funny and the design and scope of the game is dark and moody and gory. Should please those who love the Gothic/action genre.",1 "Ringu 2 (1999) picks up right where Ringu (1998) left off. Reiko and Yoichi have vanished and Mai is snooping around trying to solve the mystery of Sadako, will anyone believe what she has uncovered? The cast from the first film is back along with the original director. This one has more horrific overtones than the first one. Whilst part one was more of a mystery/suspense film part two is more of a straight forward horror story. I found Ringu 2 to be more enjoyable. Ironically Ringu 2 was incorporated more in the U.S. remake than part one (that's why they're not going to make the remake sequel based upon this film). Watch Ringu 1 and 2 then watch The Ring, you'll understand why some of the set pieces in the remake are so out of place. Silly director tried to cram two movies into one. Let's hope they give Ringu 2 a proper release in the future.

Highly recommended.",1 "Since The Walt Disney Company started to started to make direct-to-video sequels to their feature length theatrical releases in 1994 (with the release of ""The Return of Jafar"", sequel to ""Aladdin""), it has earned an infamous bad reputation due to the often low quality of these sequels that seem to be made to capitalize on the original's name only, without really caring for delivering a good story, or good animation; almost as if there was not a real concern about making a good film. To my surprise, ""Bambi II"", the direct-to-video ""sequel"" (as it's more like an addendum) to the 1942 classic, is a considerable improvement over the previous series of sequels and it even surpasses most of the current Disney theatrical releases in terms of quality, art, and most importantly, entertainment.

""Bambi II"" is about the long unexplored gap of the first ""Bambi"", covering the events between his mother's death and his growing up to adulthood. Under the care of his reluctant father, the Great Prince (Patrick Stewart), the young saddened deer (voiced by Alexander Gould) must learn to overcome his grief, his fears and to assume his place as heir of the position of Great Prince. However, his father is not too fond of caring for young children, so Bambi's tutelage will prove to be a difficult experience for both. Fortunately, Bambi will find some support from his friends, Thumper (Brendon Baerg) and Flower (Nicky Jones), but he'll also have to meet his soon-to-be rival, the mean deer Ronno (Anthony Ghannam), for the first time.

Making a follow-up for a classic like ""Bambi"" is not easy, but the fact that the writers (Director Brian Pimental and newcomer Alicia Kirk) decided to explore an entirely ""missing chapter"" in the life of the young deer instead of making a proper sequel, gave them enough freedom to create a story that not only is fresh and original on its own, it also gives continuity to the original without disrespecting it or blatantly copying it. Using the original film and Felix Salten's novel as inspiration, Pimental and Kirk craft a story about learning to be a father, and overcoming the loss of a dear relative, as well as about growing up and facing the vicissitudes of life.

Brian Pimental (one of the writers of the 90s classics ""Beauty and the Beast"" and ""Aladdin"") takes his first chance as director giving life to this story and he doesn't disappoint. With a respectful, almost humble approach to the original film, he manages to capture the essence of ""Bambi"" and setting up the events that lead to the original's conclusion. Most of the current direct-to-video sequels by Disney have distinguish themselves for a considerably lower quality in the art department, but ""Bambi II"" is truly an exception, as it seems that the animators really tried to stay true to the first film's style (although of course, there were some modernizations), as even some backgrounds were reused to keep the same art direction.

The young Alexander Gould (Nemo in ""Finding Nemo"") once again proves that he has an enormous future as an actor (at least for voices) and gives life to Bambi with a natural freshness. Patrick Stewart, who voices the Great Prince, truly gives the feeling of stoicism and coldness the Prince must have, as well as his hidden heart of gold, forced to be hidden by the Prince's duties. Overall, the rest of the cast make a very good work, considering they had to try to emulate the work done almost more than 60 years before. Without modern slang or self-referential phrases, the cast gives an effective (and welcomed) sense of continuity between this film and the first ""Bambi"".

""Bambi II"" will surely please most fans of the original, but while it's an honest attempt to make a respectful and original addition to the main storyline, it becomes a bit too clichéd for moments. The use of a couple of pop ballads may prove damaging on the long road, as while the songs are really good, they take away that atemporal characteristic the first film had and will definitely make the movie outdated a lot sooner than expected. Anyways, when compared to the other sequels Disnaye has been releasing, this flaws are really minor, as ""Bambi II"" makes a nice addition that at times surpasses the current theatrical released Disney films.

Sure, ""Bambi II"" is not better than the original, and that's OK because it doesn't try to be better. This modest and humble addendum to the story succeeds in what it's set up to make and delivers good entertainment and brings back good memories of the original. Walt himself would be proud of this sequel to his favorite film. 7/10",1 "Having just watched this on TCM and after reading the previous reviews for this film all I can say is that although there may be limited moments of great suspense which does not take anything away from the film.The plot- insane man escapes from a mental institution and holds five people hostage in a bar. Now if you have ever seen any films from the 50's you should know what fate always falls upon the villain.If given the opportunity to see it you definitely should just to see a basic storyline before it became overdone, but if you need your movies to go from one moment of terror to the next this is not the movie for you; otherwise this film should hold you attention from beginning to end.",1 "A man steps out of an apartment block and is accosted by a vagrant who pulls out a gun and politely requests for a dollar to buy a cup of coffee. The man refuses saying he is feeling manipulated and the vagrant promptly shoots himself. Yes, kills himself! This is the stunningly surreal opening sequence of the film. This stop motion animation film is populated with more such oddballs. . There is a drug addict who has for his buddies three Lilliputians straight out of Gulliver's World. We have a supermodel who likes her men so smooth that she can tolerate neither hair nor bones on their body. There is a little kid who gets a coin every time he drinks milk, which he saves in a piggybank; yet when it gets full does not have the heart to break it.

The one common thread that binds these disparate characters staying in the same apartment block is their deep melancholy. They are bored by the monotony of their lives and are in search of a meaning. We can readily empathise with these characters despite the comic book feel of the film.

The film takes a dig at the self help books available for $9.99. Despite shot in vivid colours, this is a grim film asking some uncomfortable questions about the meaning of life and happiness. The film ends on a positive note though with two of its characters teaching themselves to swim like a dolphin from a self help book. They have managed to discover their happiness. A fairy tale for today's grown-ups.

The animation is a treat for the eyes",1 "If you are looking for a funny, touching, insightful, feel-good movie then Ten Inch Hero is for you. It's a story about four young friends and their older, hippie dude boss at a sub shop searching for love and learning to see past outer appearances and let go of preconceived notions.

It's a deceptively simple movie. After all, we all learned in grade school not to judge a book by its cover, but maybe the simplest lessons need to be revisited every once in a while. Who among us can say we've never assumed something about a person from their outer appearance? Who hasn't felt like they didn't belong in a certain group or situation because they didn't fit the profile?

It's no wonder many of Hollywood's young actors wanted roles in this movie. Hollywood can be one of the more superficial zip codes on the planet. A handsome actor gets a role because he is handsome, but is another role denied him because he is too good looking? Good looks are a two sided sword; they may get you in the door, but will your talent be recognized? Will you be relegated to the hunky hero roles or will you be allowed to create unique characters?

That brings us to Priestly. Ah yes, Priestly! Priestly is unique, riotously funny, individualistic, sweet, witty and charismatic. Priestly rocks! He grabs the audience from his dynamic entrance and never lets go. He immediately starts spouting his sage opinions with witty humor and biting sarcasm and the audience is putty in his hands. Considering his look, with piercings, tattoos and multi-colored Mohawks, it must be the writing and Jensen Ackles' acting that sells this character. It certainly can't be Ackles' leading man looks; especially since most of the audience had no clue who he was.

Halleluiah! Maybe now the PTB will recognize what a gifted and talented actor Ackles is. Jensen Ackles always puts underlying subtext in his roles. He is a very subtle actor who becomes his characters and Priestly is no exception. His fans appreciate him most from his portrayals of Alec on Dark Angel and his current role as Dean Winchester on the CW's Supernatural. He has the ability to take a seemingly straight forward character and find the depth in them and expose their fears and inner workings with a stark realism that blows you away.

Priestly is a nice change of pace because he is allowed to embrace his comedic talent while portraying his most normal and well-adjusted character yet, despite the character's outward appearance. He takes a character most of the audience would avoid in real life and makes them care! Most of the audience would invite Priestly over to Sunday dinner by the end of the film. They loved him that much. It is refreshing to see a character whose looks appear so outside the norm be so content and happy.

While Ackles may be the obvious standout, the entire cast is superb. This is an ensemble piece with every actor bringing a fresh outlook to their character and making us care about them. We laugh with them, we cry with them and, in the end we rejoice with them. You believe in this sandwich shop and the diverse people that inhabit it and you become involved in their lives.

If you have ever attempted love or been to High School and lived within the confines of cliques, you can enjoy and empathize with these characters. The concept of outer appearances is examined in several different manners with every character discovering something new about themselves and the world around them. We all know not to judge others by looks, but how many of us realize our view of ourselves may not mesh with how the world perceives us? We may hold ourselves back just as much as we confine others.

Ten Inch Hero is downright entertaining. First and foremost it is funny. Priestly is the comedic voice and the tampon scene will go down as a classic. The movie is beautifully photographed with peaceful scenes of the beach interspersed with the lives of the friends. The director, David Mackay, keeps the movie flowing at a comfortable pace, shifting back and forth between the characters' stories, but always holding your attention. There is no clock watching or restlessness, just an engrossing, satisfying movie.

The script by first time screenwriter Betsy Morris is refreshingly realistic; it is not overly dramatic or contrived. Everything does not turn out as expected and there are three or four nice twists to offer a few surprises.

Yes, it has a happy ending although everything does not turn out perfect. Living in these times with war and fear rampant, maybe we need a pleasant respite from daily life. Isn't that what the movies are supposed to do? Take us away from our lives? The funny thing about this movie is it stays with you. Once you are reminded of that grade school lesson, you start viewing the stranger you pass on the street a little differently. You look in the mirror and wonder if you are fulfilling your potential or if you are just staying in the preconceived box?

This is a movie you will enjoy. I liked these characters and would love to hang out with them. I can't think of a better recommendation then that. If you get the chance, go see it. And if you are one of the PTB, get this movie into theaters and don't assume the target audience is under the age of thirty. All ages can feel a connection to these characters and everyone enjoys a great comedy. This movie delivers in all areas. If given the chance, with the young, talented cast of up and comers this could be a sleeper hit. It just needs a little help getting noticed. Once you get them in the theater, they'll leave happy.",1 "This movie is awful! The caracters are shallow and almost ridiculous, especially Lela Rochon. It's a very, very, very bad soap opera. I was watching this movie with my wife and we were laughing almost all the time. It is much too long, with no rhythm with absolutely no emotions. It is only a poor attempt to manipulate the viewer by using one cliché after another. Skip it, it's a waste of time!",0 "Alexey Uchitel's Progulka is probably the best mainstream film about today's Russia. Shot almost in real-time manner with a hand camera, it depictures Olga, a woman in early twenties strolling the downtown streets of modern Saint Petersburg accompanied by two young men.

Her first companion is Alexey, a typical modern Russian youth, easy-going, talkative and romantic, a modern variant of SaintPete intellectuals, who meets her on the street at the very beginning of the movie and takes a walk through the city with her.

Pyotr, his best friend, has lots more of man as compared to Alexey, joins the couple later in the movie to take the day-long with them as they walk near the Isaak's Cathedral of the Russia's North capital .

The scenery is perfect, as the three of them visit the very tourist places of SaintPete, though without paying much attention to monuments and cathedrals, just enjoying life and fooling around. The guys compete for Olga's attention, they walk, see the football fans, they take the tram, Alexey get his wallet stolen by gypsies, they laugh and quarrel.

In the end, it is an easy, amazing and definitely a worth seeing movie. Apart from most of the modern Russian film-making (with a few exceptions), it shows Russia can be an enjoyful place to live . It doesn't focus social problems, terrorism, police violence, and gangsters - it just steals a glance at a day in young mens' life, shows their optimism and happiness.

Maybe a bit sour at the end - well, Uchitel and Dunya Smirnova, the scriptwriter, had to invent something to end the trip somewhere (no one dies though, so life goes on and there is no need to shed a tear) - the movie is just a perfect example of what Russian traditionally low budget mainstream cinema (as compared to US standards) can do without advertising-like special effects, mafia shootings, and superheroes.

9 out of 10 to leave some space for further improvements.",1 "This is one of my favorite sci-fi shows, but I certainly recognize its flaws.

The Good:

* the concept

---> I liked the historical context of the 12 tribes of Kobol, the Pearl Harbor-like attack, the ""ragtag fugitive fleet"" seeking Earth. This really framed the series well.

---> The look of the Ceylon base ships and the bat-wing Ceylon fighters was terrific. I also liked the look of the battlestars and Colonial vipers. The command center of the battlestar seemed believable.

* the casting:

---> Lorne Greene as Adama brings a commanding screen presence

---> Richard Hatch as Apollo is well-cast and believable as a leader/captain of a fighter wing

---> Dirk Benedict as Starbuck the amiable sarcastic sidekick

---> John Colicos as Baltar oozed evil with perfection

---> other minor cast members like Herbert Jefferson Jr as Boomer and Terry Carter as Colonel Tigh were very well cast too

---> I thought the three most visible female characters were all good, though not standout. Maren Jensen, Laurette Spang, and Anne Lockhart just also happened to be beautiful too.

---> visiting cast members like:

-------> Lloyd Bridges as Commander Cain was truly memorable

-------> Patrick McNee as Count Iblis was also highly memorable

-------> Ray Milland and Fred Astaire were good guest stars too

* the costumes

---> I liked the Colonial Warrior uniforms - they still have a style to them today. I liked the Warrior helmets with their Egyptian-like motif.

---> The Ceylon warriors with their shiny armor, had a great look to them too. The red strobe they used for vision was a great menacing concept.

* some episodes with great plot lines

---> the return of Commander Cain and the Pegasus stands out

---> I thought the visit to the ""home"" planet of Kobol, with its Egyptian motifs, was terrific. This is part of the pilot's introductory three episodes.

---> I also liked the encounter with the Ship of Lights and Count Iblis - this was especially well done.

* the music - I still like the theme song to Battlestar Galactica

* the behavior of the Ceylons was entertaining. ""By your command"" spoken in a tinny voice was a favorite.

The Bad:

* some cheesy special effects (by today's standards)

---> ...and reuse of the same special effects

---> why was Count Iblis' crash site off-color in one moment, and clear blue the next?

* quite a lot of cheesy cringe-inducing dialogue

* the little kid Boxie and his robot dog

* some of the episodes had really horrible plot lines, especially later in the series

---> the Lost Warrior where the kids attack the Ceylon outpost

---> why did Baltar return to the human fleet again?

The Ugly:

* the original show was cancelled after one season

* Galactica 1980, the follow-on show in which the battlestar finds earth, was pretty horrible

All in all, I am willing to forgive Battlestar Galactica's flaws and remember with fondness its strengths.

Rick",1 "The film adopted a minimalistic approach, which means there are very little conversation, no grand stage-setup, and unfortunately, no story. Honestly speaking, I did not understand the film. The story itself is not plausible. It says that a watch seller sold a watch to a woman who would go to Paris. After that, the watch seller would adjust all the clocks he sees to the Paris time. The watch seller's mother went crazy because her husband died. The woman who went to Paris felt lonely and slept with another woman. That's absolutely all I could get from story, if there were any story at all. The three subplots did not link with each other, they were so scattered and they did not make any sense, either individually or collectively.

There were occasionally one or two funny scenes, where all the viewers bursted out laughing. Still, this does not make a boring film good. This film cold be compressed into half an hour, if the shots were not so long.

For the two hours that I watched the film, I felt extremely bored. I can't wait for the film to finish! I must say I do not know what is so artistic about this film. Maybe I don't know how to appreciate this kind of approach of making a film.",0 "This is one of 5 Chaplin that are on the first DVD of Chaplin's Essanay Comedies. In general, compared to volume 2, the shorts on volume 1 aren't as well-made--because the DVDs are arranged chronologically. Chaplin's skill as a film maker and actor appeared to improve through his stay with Essanay Studios.

This short is not great, but compared to the previous Essanay shorts, it is a major improvement. That's because this short is more like a mini-movie and is very plot-driven--something ALL great Chaplin shorts have in common. The final boxing sequence is funny but makes no sense--just turn off your brain and enjoy.

By the way,...I like the dog in the film. Dogs like this are cool.",1 "A typical entry in the Sidaris filmography, Savage Beach features the usual assortment of well-endowed women, goofy villains, and exotic locations, and is simple minded if occasionally violent fun. The highlight of this one is Michael Mikasa's appearance as a World War II Japanese soldier stranded on a remote island--in order to age him, the makeup department seems to have submerged his head in a bowl of collodion. It's not a pretty sight.",0 "Well, i must say that Matthew Lillard played a great role. The dirrecting was well done and for once i dont think Freddy's character was top on my list Lol. I feel that this movie should have gotten better reviews but i am still happy with it. i have seen it more then a dosen times and it was worth every minut. i would reccomend EVERYONE see it at least once.

CHRISTY",1 "Although many Ken Maynard features are noted for their lack of believability in the story telling, there was something about his on screen presence that makes us watch him -- he just comes off as the 'real thing.' You could see it in the way he would instinctively pat or interact with his horse(!!) and delivering such dialog to the heroine as, ""Miss Jenny, you spill a kinda mean loop yourself. You've got me just as good as throwed and hog tied already."" To which Jenny replies, ""That makes me awfully happy, Ken."" Woo! they don't make movies like this any more!

This one is thoroughly enjoyable and has a touch of mysterious creepiness. ""The Phantom,"" dressed all in black with a bat-like cape, inhabits Tombstone Canyon, where he picks off with a shotgun various hands of the Lazy S ranch. Ken shows up there on his way to find out the identity of his father, but gets involved with Jenny Lee (Cecelia Parker) at her father's ranch branding and 'dehorning' cattle.

For more of Cecelia before her Andy Hardy movies, check out the serial ""The Lost Jungle"" (1934) and the John Wayne ""Riders of Destiny"" (1933).

The Western elements all build quickly; in fact, it begins with Ken being ambushed in the Canyon by an unknown gang. Then we swiftly get fist fights, the romance (""Let's go get the ring!""), Ken being framed and jailed for murder, and shoot outs in Tombstone Canyon. There's one too many visits to Tombstone Canyon, and the final hunt down for Ken there goes too slowly.

But then we have a great action finale with 'The Phantom,' Alf Sykes, his son and Ken all fighting or hanging off the highest cliff while Jenny and her father's men speed to the rescue with Ken's horse 'Tarzan.'

A good 1930s western, mainly because of Ken Maynard.",1 "An almost completely satisfying 85 minutes; I'd have a hard time coming up with five minutes of the movie I'd like to see cut out. The movie starts off slow but intense, and gradually builds to fast and even more intense. Both leads are, of course, great. There are a lot of plot holes and logic jumps, but that's almost a given in a conspiracy-themed movie. Aside from that, there are really only a few small complaints to make; the action ending seems a little contrived. Some of the Foley work is pretty weak. A major character meets his/her demise in an extremely unsatisying manner. There's a couple of sloppy edits towards the end. The establishing shots are stolen from NYPD Blue. But really, when I'm so desperate for downsides that I'm nitpicking the EDITING, you know it's a great movie! Patrick Yau is well on his way to becoming one of the best directors in Hong Kong.",1 "The name Samuel Z Arkoff appears first on the credits. This could be interesting or it could be terrible. Keep watching. The cast includes Sean Connery, Natalie Wood, Brian Keith, Karl Malden, Martin Landau, Trevor Howard and Henry Fonda. Now there is a decent bunch of actors, all usually good value. Keep watching. Directed by Ronald Neame, a distinguished British director by any standards. And then follows a disaster of a disaster film.

There is a strange dichotomy between the high quality of the cast and the low quality of the other elements in the film. The painfully meagre special effects, the shrill music, the leaden plot. It seems a strange brew and even a reviewer like myself who will always try to pick out some good points in a film am at a loss. The thing that distracted me the most was that the meteor itself, a wide lump of pitted and gruyered rock seemed to have a sound effect, like an engine! Perhaps it was my imagination.

This film is not good enough or bad enough to be a cult film. It is just tepid and flat and makes 'the Towering Inferno' look like the 'Citizen Kane' of disaster movies.

",0 "Action without brains is actually a genre i have nothing against. As long as the action sequences are well made that is. ""xXx: State of the Union"" is a fair try in the genre but ultimately falls short.

The plot is as ridiculous as in the first movie. The NSA-agent Gibbons (Samuel L. Jackson) is once again looking in weird places trying to find a new agent that can break the rules and succeed. This time he finds Darius Stone (Ice Cube) in a military prison. Stone is an ex Navy Seal who will help Gibbons fight off a rogue part of the US Military trying to dispose of the president.

Seriously, no one watches these movies for the plot anyway. So that the plot is ridiculous and cheesy is beside the point. No one watches this for the acting either. So that Ice Cube is not as much an actor as a walking scowl is ALSO beside the point. He does about as good a job as Vin Diesel did anyway. What is NOT beside the point though is the fact that ""xXx: State of the Union"" employs the same method of action filming as many other Hollywood-movies of late. You know the method: ""move the camera exceptionally close and shake it like if the camera-man was a spastic"". I know that this is to hide the fact that Ice Cube doesn't know how to fight. Still it's incredibly irritating! Also the lack of logic is too evident at times. Like Ice Cube driving a sports car 360km/h on a train track with his tires torn off... Seriously.

Otherwise this had some potential. The technical quality is great, the movie looks really expensive. It has a lot of fun gadgets and crappy one-liners. And the speed of this movie is absolutely insane. Right from the beginning Lee Tamahori steps on it without ever looking back. So even though i can't say i really enjoyed this movie it was never boring, there is always something happening on screen. But the flaws in mostly the action department as well as the complete lack of logic disturbs the experience. It's still a lot better than the first movie though. I found the first one to be complete garbage, while this is still at least somewhat entertaining at times.

So in the end i think this ""James Bond on steroids"" will probably attract a lot of 15-yearolds that like when things keep moving and lights keep flashing. People who like to see a plot and at least some traces of logic might want to stay away though. It could have been the brainless action movie of the year, but it desperately needs some better action-directing for that. I rate it 3/10.",0 "i'm 15 years old-Alright, I was a part of the test screening of ""The Last Mimzy"" and i thought it was dreadful! The characters seemed very inconsistent. Near the end of the movie, when the Noah character has to gather the spinners he seems to know exactly what hes talking about. then gets confused until reminded by Emma. And the science teachers wife.. My goodness. She just starts going on about how its his DESTINY to do this just because he had seen it all in dream. It sort of fit in the story but i was like ""...where did THAT come from""

My brother is twelve and he said it was rubbish as well. though he couldn't think of reason why because hes like that..

My mother who is 40 didn't understand it and my father (born on the same day and year as my mother) though it was really really weird. And he loves science fiction. Said it reminded him of this book ""diamond age"" which I'm not sure if it is.

I think the points on DNA and how the pollutants are killing our genes and mutating us was quite interesting. it really makes you think.

Other than that i found it a wasted evening.",0 "The beginning of the film looked promising and the cinematography was very well done but it all got a bit complicated and meaningless. Sorry, lost interest and couldn't watch the end..

I didn't quite get the message as it was so mixed in with nothingness. Unfortunately the plot was lost on me. I only watched the movie after reading someone else's comments which were really good so I guess were all different and the film may appeal to some viewers but certainly did nothing for me.

Perhaps if I had suffered this to the end there may have been a connection with all three areas but I didn't feel compelled to continue with my viewing.",0 "Dean parks the car in a diner and waits in the car while Sam brings some fast food and pie. Suddenly he realizes that Sam vanished and finds the staff murdered. Without any lead, he meets Bobby and calls Ash; later, Ash calls Dean and when they arrive in the Roadhouse, they find the place burned to the ground, Ash and other hunters dead and Ellen missing. Meanwhile, Sam awakes in the ghost town Cold Oak, South Dakota, with Andy and Ava and they meet two other strangers, Jake and Lily. The Yellow-Eyed Demon visits Sam in his dream and explains that only one member of the group will survive and become a soldier in his army of demons.

""All Hell Breaks Loose: Part 1"" is another engaging episode of ""Supernatural"". Now it seems that the war of the Yellow-Eyed Demon and his army of demons is set in motion with the contest of the gifted children in the haunted town. The conclusion is absolutely unexpected and probably Dean will make a deal to save his brother. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): ""Demônios a Solta – Parte 1"" (""Demons Break Loose – Part 1"")",1 "1st watched 5/8/2005 - 4 out of 10(Dir-James L. Conway): Supposedly truth-inspired story about the US hiding information about a captured UFO being in it's midst. The problem here is that if this is really true we'd know a lot more about what they found out, unless you believe that politicians are more interested in themselves than the history of mankind as we know it.(OK, so that's not a complete stretch) Anyway, I digress. The story is played well by the actor's involved which include Gary Collins, James Hampton and Darren McGavin(in a somewhat hammy portrayal of a NASA man almost ""giddy"" about the discovery). The Astronauts witness a UFO, it gets shot by a launched satellite and a remnant falls to earth. That remnant is captured by a government and a secret investigation ensues. The astronauts on board are kept out of the loop and even blamed for the incident and the death of a co-pilot, and they begin a quest to find out what's going on. The action is watchable but we can see what's going to happen as the government gets a tighter reign on concealing the information. This movie was definitely inspired by the ""Chariots of the God"" type movies with a little bit of the National Enquirer and this is where it fails. And definitely, with it's open-ended finale it's even harder to believe. As entertainment, it's OK; as truth, it's suspect at best.",0 "I saw this short on youtube and have watched it twice and probably will watch it again. Camera deals with an aging actor that has passed his prime, both in life and career vise. The old man talks to the screen about life, acting and the effects a camera that ,,the children"" brought home will have on them all. He speaks about the camera as it were a curse that would destroy them all as the children make the camera and other film equipment ready to film the old man.

In over six minutes Cronenberg manages smoothly to summon up the most common human flaw: fear, and its effect. As soon as the old man finishes talking about the terrible effect the camera will have on them and the children start filming the old man starts lying and the short film changes from being realistic to being a fraud.

After watching this film I finally ,,discovered"" Cronenberg and what it is that he has been trying to say with pretty much all of his films. Cronenberg has dedicated his career into revealing the ugliness behind mechanism by connecting it with monstrous things such as the scientist who becomes a fly, the victims of a car crash who become perverse, the TV producer who becomes illusional, computer game players who can't separate the game from reality, the exterminator who starts sniffing bug spray and also becomes illusional and can't separate truth from imagination, and most of his other work like in Dead Ringers, Scanners and The Dead Zone and probably in his older work that I have yet not reviewed. They are all trying to examine the horrifying side of machinery and the cause it will have on us in the end. Camera is the piece of film that made me realise the genius of David Cronenberg, even though I had loved most of the films I have seen by him I now have a more profound respect for him and I'm going to watch all of his work that I can get my hands into.

Camera - 10 out of 10.",1 "Spoilers? Maybe...

OK! Take a good company, darken the room, get some popcorn, and you will ready for the most incredible journey of your life! Imagine a chase begins by car, continues by truck, and ends by wheelchair.(Yes, I wrote: wheelchair!!!) This is one of the funniest movie, I've ever seen. Well... the only problem is, it isn't supposed to be a comedy! But if you have some free hours at night (at night the movie is better, remember: ""Midnight Ride""), and you want to laugh with some company (three or five, maybe six people), try this film! Company is necessary, not because of the thrill, or something like that, just because if you're alone, nobody will believe you! So try it!",1 "Answer the question in how this project ever became green-lighted and you to could be a big shot Hollywood producer! I only rented it because it was Chris Farley's last movie and I am a huge fan of his. Surprisingly enough he was still great in this flop but he was the only one. Unfortunately a lot of his lines were rehashed from previous performances but I liked him nonetheless as he always is a laugh-riot. His expressions including his reactions to pain are priceless and what a shame it is that he's no longer with us...he will always be missed! Matthew Perry is a horrible actor and his character was an exact replica of ""Kids in the Hall"" star Kevin McDonald...he had the accent down pat and the whole works but it just didn't work out for him. The Native American chick was hot but that's about it. Eugene Levy was heavily disguised and played an okay Frenchman but even he was disappointing...he can obviously do a lot better. Some of the characters were just stupid and I just tried to tune them out completely. Oh yea, what the heck was Bokeem Woodbine doing in here playing a servant. He should stick to action and urban films since that's what he's best at. What garbage this is...proves how untalented Christopher Guest really is!

Final Exploration:

Movies: Glad I didn't as it was one of the biggest flops in cinema history!

DVD Purchase: I doubt it'll ever be released for it to begin with.

Rental: Only for a final farewell salute to a comedy legend!",0 "This movie is mostly annoying.

Many scenes are unnecessarily prolonged. I started to skip ahead through the last half, and it became slightly more tolerable.

The dialog is stream of conscience, and mostly failed to contribute to the story. Maybe if I was thirteen it would be more entertaining.

Music plays throughout the entire movie, which comes off as a failed attempt at creativity. I love new filming techniques and what not, but this just didn't work for me. The music makes the entire movie feel like an intro or intermission scene. Maybe it is an attempt to disguise the bad acting.

To its credit, this would be a pretty good plot for a porno film.",0 "You know, they should make a DVD boxset consisting of Jaws 2, Jaws 4 and - Jesus - this crap that is Jaws 3. Why? Well, in simple terms it could be used as an extreme torture device, DVD quality making the pain even worse. I won't say anything about the plot (even though there is not one) but I will say something about the dazzling, state-of-the-art special effects, the only thing that salvages the movie. Basically there is some underwater sea life park and some folks go down to check it out in a little orange diving machine. Unbelievable! You wouldn't think for one minute that they were using a miniature centre made from yogurt pots, or a diving machine so super-imposed one side of it totally disappears in one scene! Nah, great SFX. They could even be compared to the might of the Doctor Who films made in the sixties, with flying saucers on strings etc. Oh sorry, I forgot - they weren't actually made from yogurt pots.

You can probably figure out that I dislike this movie a lot, and you'd be right. But please, take note from this review - when Carl Gottleib put pen to toilet paper we thought we'd have on OK movie. It turns out that looking at a dog turd for 90 minutes would give you more adrenaline rushes than this total tosh.",0 "Good actors. GREAT story (Ian McEwan is a legend!) Definitely read the novel of the same title before seeing the film! This film was fantastic. I finished reading the novel two days before seeing the movie, and although it had it's differences to the novel, I was gripped. The screenplay made necessary changes to the story's plot. For example Joe Rose is a scientist-turned-journalist in the book, this would not have been very effective on screen, and so they made him a lecturer. *SPOILER below* The end scene was absolutely fantastic, I was expecting the novel's ending with the gun to be used, but the knifing was extremely shocking and poignant. Similarly, the small clip as the credits run, of Jed in an institution matches well with the 2nd Appendix of the novel... eerily emotive!! :: The film makers did a great job of turning the book into a film, and I recommend this movie!",1 "This mini-series is quite original and I found it very entertaining. The idea is pretty wild and far fetched but they make a lot out of it. As with so many mini series the first two episodes are better than the 'conclusion' which really only sets possible future episodes up. That being said, this is the best thing I saw on TV this year. The lost room reminds me of 'Dark City' with the surreal reality that it creates. I also liked the fact that ordinary items, or 'objects' are used as props to advance the story in a very cheap yet efficient way.

The production value is good and the atmosphere created is very convincing. The acting is great for a TV production and I wouldn't mind if 'The Lost Room' would be picked up for a full season.",1 "... or should it be 'Thelma and Lewis'?!?

Basically this movie is mindless fun - something that may have you chuckling once or twice and rolling your eyes a few times, as well.... Nobody is on their best behavior in this light and slightly campy film. You've all read the plot summary - Rich brat kidnaps herself but gets more than she bargained for when her car is stolen from the garage and romance ensues.

The cast is very good in all their places.... Silverstone plays a spoiled rich brat that wants desperately - DESPERATELY - for her father's love and attention. But daddy is too busy with his business life and dealings - some of which are not on the most 'up and up'... While he's no Mafia Don, it's hinted that he's not the cleanest business man in the world.... Walken is daddy's 'enforcer', who seems to help in some of the shadier deals that daddy makes. But, Walken has a decent relationship with Silverstone, and seems to be more fatherly in his relations with her...

Del Toro plays a high end car thief who steals beautiful machines on order.... You want a Ferarri? OK, we'll get you a Ferarri...! Del Toro is a bit annoying with his slow dialect and dumb founded look. Harry Connick Jr. plays Del Toro's 'agent' in the car rip off ring. He does a great job in this role, that I think is one of his first.

Overall, the movie is fun.... sure, it's not the greatest comedy (romantic or otherwise) on the face of the planet, but it's decent fare - a decent way to burn a few hours.... If you're a Sliverstone fan, you'll probably like this one.... If you're a Del Toro fan - well, he's just himself - with a bad speech pattern. Walken is his typical bad guy self, and shines.

Overall, I'd give it a B....",1 "This is a very, very, very low-budget exploitation film made by a ""poverty row"" studio in the 1930s. It's all about the horrors of syphilis and appears to be well-meaning but is also VERY heavy-handed and silly. The actors are clearly not professionals as they say their lines like they are reading them directly from cue cards--sometimes only reading them syllable by syllable!

The story involves a small-town girl from wins a beauty pageant and goes to New York to become a star but ends up taking a trip on the ""casting couch"". She gets VD and can't marry her fiancé, that is until she's taken the cure. Unfortunately, she sees a quack who promises miracles and she is not only uncured but transmits this evil disease to her husband and eventually to their baby! The husband is left blind and the baby is clinging to life--all because of the dreaded syphilis! In addition to the overly melodramatic and silly story, the movie also passes along a lot of information to the audience--some of which is wrong (I taught sex ed and could tell). These portions of the films were very dry and preachy at best. Most likely it just helped to put the audience to sleep.

Overall, instead of being a movie to frankly talk about STDs, it was cheap and in many ways exploitational. Because of its rotten production values, this film was the inspiration for the take off of sexploitation films done at the end of AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON (starring Carrie Fisher and Paul Bartell). While in every sense it is a terrible film, it could provide a lot of laughs if you see it with friends.",0 "cinematography starts out excellent, actors talented but do not bother with this film. I love Eddie Izzard and Steven MacIntosh; all the other actors were excellent but this was a hateful script, which tortures viewers. We readily identify with MackIntosh's & Natasha Little's characters, so evil done to them is spikes driven into our eyeballs. Not since ""Clockwork Orange"" have I hated a film so intensely and I admit that Clockwork had redeeming values, art-wise & social commentary-wise. ""The Criminal"" was a lame excuse for someone who is de-sensitized to violence (whether by video games or limbic system dysfunction) to slam viewers' heads down onto a table. I put it on fast fwd after 20 minutes into the film and made stops to catch up with dialogue, skipping violence. Thus, for me, the film was thankfully 45 minutes long. Despised the ending. Let it be known that my favorite writer is Dostoyevsky. So I'm not a suburban granny making whiny comments. I can handle intensity/violence if the plot is worthwhile & characters get to develop (I have to hand it to MackIntosh, his work in this was, as usual, top notch). My favorite movies are ""Dr. Zhivago"" and ""Gangs of NY"" (and I recently appreciated ""In Bruges"") These films do not spare the viewers' sensibilities, with Cossaks slaughtering innocents and Bill Cutting's vengeful personality. Please DO see Anything else that these talented actors have done & best wishes to the script writer. Director, you've got talent but get out of this genre, it's old hat.",0 """Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer (2003)"" is a documentary about the life of the notorious Florida serial killer, Aileen Wornous, who inspired the much lauded film ""Monster"". Not to be confused with ""Aileen Wornous: The Selling of a Serial Killer (1992)"", also by Nick Broomfield, this film provides background on Wornous who was selling sex for cigarettes as a 9 year old child in Michigan and follows her life from criminal trials to death row up to her execution (which was not shown). The film paints a portrait of a troubled woman who descends into paranoid schizophrenia as the end nears all the while maintaining the unexpectedly undaunted, matter-of-fact demeanor of one very much reconciled to her fate in spite of being trapped in a system with no recompense for abuse in childhood nor insanity in adulthood who well may have been failed by the criminal justice system as well. A worthwhile watch for those interested in the Wornous story, especially as a follow-up to ""Monster"". (B)",1 "Mice Hubie and Bertie, tired of eating cheese all day, wish to end it all by suicide via Claude Cat eating them. But Claude doesn't want to eat another mouse as long as he lives and the prospect wants him want to attempt suicide via a dog eating him. The dog is reasonable perplexed & a little bit scared in this very funny cartoon. The last of the six shorts that Hubie and Bertie starred in and probably for the best as where do you go after the insanity of this?? This animated short can be seen on Disc 2 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.

My Grade: B+",1 "Really, really dreadful film combining the worst elements of teen movies, prison movies and low budget sci-fi. Special effects are dreadful, plot predictable and dull, characters moronic stereotypes. Avoid.",0 "An absolute waste of time. This kind of movie reminds me of the late 70's early 80's American movies. A lot of violence some cool stunts and lots of stuff blowing up. The main thing is that they forgot about passable dialog (Some loss in translation too I imagine) it is just plain embarrassing. I imagine in about 20 some years or so their films will actually have a decent story w/the cool fight sequences. But until then the Weinstein brothers will continue to bring these pretty stupid films to other Audiences other than just the Thai nation. I am probably being harsh, but just like all kinds of white rappers showed up after Eminem took the world by storm, so has some other wannabes trying to become the next Tony Jaa, (even though his success here in the states has at the very least been limited) Granted this kid did O.K. but I doubt anything will translate to money in the future. I imagine if I was 12 and had never done martial arts myself, I would think this was just the best. But just as I thought ""Karate Kid"" was amazing when I was a kid (I laugh at the lameness of the fight sequences now) I imagine most adults will laugh at just about everything in this film. Oh if you do decide to jump into these murky movie waters, whatever you do, either mute the English dubbing (it's some of the worst I have ever heard, especially in this day and age)or listen to the Thai track and read the subtitles. Yes the dubbing is that bad, and the generic Rock music is torture too.",0 "As a kid, I loved this game. I played it a zillion times during Spring 1993 with my friend Andrew. I used to play Axel or Blaze and he would be Adam and no matter how often we played it we never seemed to get bored. Then Streets of Rage 2 came out. And we quickly forgot that this one even existed.

You play as ex-cops Axel Stone, Adam or Blaze Fielding, who have quit the force in order to take on the bad guys in their own way. There are 8 levels to work thru in a run-down and corrupt city led by the evil Mr X. Beating up all the bad guys and the end-of-level boss is much fun. Level 4 (The Bridge) was my fave because you could chuck baddies down the holes into the river. You even have the chance to become Mr. X's right hand man at the end of the game (at a price). This leads to the 'bad ending' in which you become the the boss of the syndicate. Exactly how this is possible is a mystery since you destroy the syndicate on your way to Mr. X, but never mind.

Streets of Rage also has truly fantastic music. The composer Yuzo Koshiro did absolute miracles with the limited technology of the Sega Genesis. The main theme, Level One, Level 4 and Final Boss are standout tunes.

As a Wii owner I am proud to have this forever on my console. But with Streets of Rage 2 also available, it does kind of render the first one somewhat obsolete.

Pros:

Average graphics but nice backgrounds represented in a comic-book like panel progression that fits the tone of the game.

Great tunes.

Easy to get into and hard to put down.

Cons:

Vastly inferior to the infinitely more complex Streets of Rage 2.

Poor enemy AI. Baddies often walk away from you instead of engaging in combat. This is especially infuriating with the Level 5 boss.

Lack of combo moves.

Lack of decent weapons.

Bad guy models are repeated far too often.

Graphics B- Sound A- Gameplay B- Lasting Appeal B-",1 "i had wanted to see this film for MANY YEARS! well Mainly cause John Carradine was in it. & it was a movie that i was curious to see? & no need to say who's 1st film it was! :) well one of his 1st films i mean. & i was QUITE bored watching it. the acting was as BAD as it got! & i

actually almost bought this piece of crap of a film on DVD a few years ago. & NOW I'm glad i did NOT! so anyone who hasn't seen this film, watch it only for curiosity, NOT cause people have said it's good. & the 2nd reason i forgot to mention was the #1 reason i watched it off Cable was it's an Early film that ""Roger The Man Corman"" produced when he had NOT long before had quit directing films.",0 "After ""I Shot Jesse James"" a film which pleased the public and the critics, Fuller made ""The Baron of Arizona"", with Lippert, casting Vincent Price and Reed Hadley, the actor that played Jesse James. The story, which basically really happened, is about a giant fraud committed by James Addison Reavis, who pretended to own almost the whole state of Arizona. It is interesting that in spite of the damage done by Reavis, the film is sympathetic to him, creating a happy ending, which was not even true, because Reavis died alone in a shack. The story also shows how carefully Reavis planned his fraud though many years.Fuller was able to have as a cinematographer the great James Wong Howe, who wanted so much to shoot the picture that agreed to have a lower salary than usual. Fuller's direction, the great acting of Vincent Price and Wong's camera makes this a remarkable film. It is a shame it did not do so well at the box office.",1 "When I first saw ""Absolute Giganten"" it instantly became my favourite. I just love this movie. It is wonderfully sad but at the same time it seems to keep a certain happiness that just moves you and makes you feel glad to be alive. Sebastian Schipper has made a beautiful but also very real film with wonderful actors and great music by The Notwist. Directors of the world do me a favour and give me more films like this one!",1 "I saw this film on MST3K, and can really not add that much to what has already been said. This movie really is that bad, and incredibly historically inaccurate. It also rips off Citizen of the Galaxy with the whole ""beggar/spy-in-foreign-land-buys-slave-boy-for-secret-society -and-gives-him-special-training"" I'd also like to point out that they not only filmed a renfest in Northern California for the medieval/renaissance/whatever setting, but the exterior of the Ancient Greece scene was apparently filmed in San Francisco at the Palace of Fine Arts. The guys really do suck at crafting a story or directing, but I've got to give them credit original cheap sets solutions. They're Ed Woodian in their ingenuity!",0 "One of the top 100 films of all time. This film tells the story of an American writer's journey to a post-war Vienna in search of a friend he thought he knew. Ultimately he learns his beloved friend is very different from the one he had once known and loved. He is destroyed by this discovery and the choice he must make. The acting is superlative, the cinematography, haunting & the story tells a truth for all time. See it.",1 "Alfred Hitchcock's the Lodger finds the master of suspense, at 27, already with an instant knack at mounting suspense and dread, often with some startling camera movements, not to mention the moments of gallows humor. It's exhilarating to see Hitchcock, in a silent film no less, stage the implied murder of a woman by showing movement, shadow, a pause, then a seemingly over-the-top close-up of the woman screaming, then cutting to the next day or whatever. He makes a street corner look downright vicious and creepy, and I'm sure in the intended blue-tinted scenes it's something of a minor revelation on escalating the thriller of the period into art (the version available on the most recent DVD, as an 'extra' on the DVD of Sabotage, is acceptable at best and at worst is a travesty for collectors who might want the best musical score or digital treatment of a transfer).

It's the classic story of Jack the Ripper, with certain names changed and a slight twist of a jealous romantic plot common to Hitchcock films- here he's called the ""Avenger- and it concerns a certain lodger who goes to stay for a bit at a house owned by Mr. and Mrs. Bunting. The lodger is a funny sort of chap, hating the pictures on the wall in his room, saying ominous throwaway words during a chess game, and going out in foggy London at night. The Bunting's daughter likes him, but her fiancée, a detective, is jealous and suspects the lodger to be the deadly Avenger, out killing blonds left and right. The story, despite seeming (at least on the DVD) to jump around a little bit in mid-scene, is executed with a level of narrative fluidity I was surprised by. Sometimes in silent films one gets so attracted to just the visual aspects of certain compositions or the star power of the leads that the story loses its way. Here Hitchcock balances the elements, and makes for some good details along the way.

There are little things that stand out as interesting techniques or little notes in the storyline. I liked the editing style when we see a crowd gather around the corpse of one of the Avenger. I liked, a lot, seeing a figure walk across what seems like a staircase, but looking upward at him. And I loved seeing a little note of romance, as a character cuts out a little heart-shaped piece of dough and hands it to Daisy (played by, simply named, 'June' who is a beauty), coaxingly, but then when not accepted right away he rips it in two. A detail like that, or a line of dialog at the end cuing the audience to something ""you're toothbrush - you left it behind"" makes for a nice touch too. It doesn't hurt either that Ivor Novello makes for a perfectly ambiguous character- the sort you're not totally sure of, watching his every facial gesture like it's another clue, or another devilish intonation.

Compared to some of Hitchcock's more beloved classics this is sometimes a little crude in its construction, as well having to be subverted to the sound form (one wishes a little for the big personalities of Hitchcock's 1930s British films). But all things considered, it's essential viewing, and shows the kind of breakthrough work that Hitchcock needed (i.e. a hit) that could get the ball rolling on his career in England- and not as a fluke, to be sure.",1 "Ignore the people drinking the Hatorade, this show is so quotable it almost hurts. I can't believe I missed it the first time around.

Philby, you need to define your love of ""British comedy"". I mean, you end you end your critique with a bastardisation of a worn out catch phrase from an unfunny commercial by Telstra (the equivalent of British Telecom), and as such I advise readers to take such opinions with a grain of salt.

The comedy writing here is top notch. As for comparisons with The Office or the Boosh, the fact that Steve and Julian appear in episodes might lead one to think that they were fans of the show as well, yes?",1 "This is a terrible peice of trash. The begining starts off promising, it moves in to a beautifully shot hunting trip, and then pretty much when you get to the crap weasels and stupid looking alien its all down hill. The most surprising thing the the steep grade with which it goes downhill. The ending is literally laughable. Donnie Whalberg is putting it all on the line here at least they could have given him something to put it on the line for.

I can sum up this movie perfectly. In the film Morgan Freeman's character says ""I'll show you things you wish you had never seen"" Basically if you watch this film, thats exactly what you will wish. Theres a pretty simple rule of thumb on this one. If you have to pay, stay away. If you get to see it for free then please, by all means. (mostly for the first 25 mins)",0 "I didn't have high expectations to begin with, but this movie was simply below all standards.. Call me old fashioned if you will, but I think part of the beauty in animated children's films is the innocence they portray, and in Thumbelina the constant battle for the girl was not after her heart, rather after her body! Huh, could you believe that!? The prince can't get his hands off her from 20 seconds into their first meeting, the dress which is supposed to be at her ankles shows as high as her panties, all the other male character are constantly smooching her and touching her against her will, while they discuss which of them will get to keep her to satisfy his needs. Not to mention the promiscuous toad-mom who flaunts her boobs and legs! Gosh, I never thought I'd be so appalled by a ****ing cartoon! Originally, I got this film to show it to my 5 year old niece, but who in their right minds would let toddlers see this camouflaged soft-porn with the pretense of being intended for children? My vote is to stay away.",0 "A good set of dialogue and a nice bunch of actors do nothing with this terrible story. Best Men never develops any of its characters deeply enough for the audience to care about them in any way. We hear briefly about each man's troubled life and how he in one way or another has been treated unfairly or has screwed up his own life. Yet, all of it is so poorly constructed and recklessly thrown together that you never get a sense of why these characters are redeemable. Now I don't necessarily need redeeming characters in movies, but this is what the film was obviously trying to portray. Further still, the film ends with a cute and a tidy ending. A completely unsatisfying film.",0 "Andrew Bergman wrote and directed this very dry comedy about the fear of marriage. Alter-shy Nicolas Cage, in Las Vegas ostensibly to marry girlfriend Sarah Jessica Parker, instead winds up in winner-take-all poker game with wealthy James Caan, a slick gambler who eventually wins the hand of Cage's lady. Nutty comedy relies on stray eccentricities to put it over, but aside from the three leads, nothing about this scenario is very interesting. Cage--encouraged to overact--mugs for laughs, while the finale (with the flying Elvis-impersonators) was used as the film's sole advertising gimmick. Bergman isn't desperate, he's just relentlessly uninventive. *1/2 from ****",0 "Who spent the time to watch this move which is done in poor taste and insults one of the greatest American leaders. Don't waste your time. I would rather get injection into the base of my finger nails then watch one second of this ""film"" which is in true poor taste and form.",0 "If Busby Berkley and Orson Wells had made a movie together, this mighta been it. Coppola has tried so hard throughout his career to ""reject Hollywood"" - and Hollywood has, in turn, often rejected him - yet he makes a truly gorgeous paean to Hollywood production values here. Though it gets SO over the top at times (can you say ""Rosebud""...?), Frederick Forrest and Teri Garr keep it pretty real. And the soundtrack is my all-time favorite. Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle - it's a pure gem.

""One From The Heart"" makes one wonder what kind of musical Orson Welles might have come up with - to be fair, Coppola's talent hasn't soured over the decades as he's had either critical or box office failures. The same can't be said of ol' Orson, who became a caricature of himself in the 60s and never recovered even a whiff of his genius.

Definitely give this a viewing if you've enjoyed any other Coppola film. This gives real texture to his body of work.",1 "In working at a movie store i thought i had seen some bad horror movies(ala jeepers creepers, blair witch 2) but this one really takes the cake. In reading the summary i thought the item sounded really good horror/backstabbing flick. In the first five minutes alone i got a really bad feeling from it and started fast forward it. In doing that i saw more violence than necessary and a certain sex scene that has left me with nightmares for the last week. The supposed item is not even scary, in being more laughable than anything else.

Save yourself some money on this one.",0 "NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA has almost everything to be a successful epic: distinguished cast, impressive sets, good production values; the only thing missing is a real epic feeling. In emphasizing the personal story of the imperial couple, the director neglected the epic grandeur of the tale and period to the point that the result resembles a claustrophobic stage play full of talking heads rather than a real movie that shows EVERYTHING that happens in the story=thousands of soldiers, thousands of civilians, the endless landscapes of Russia, etc. This is a Shakespearean tragedy that demands GRANDEUR, but is instead filmed as if it were one of those bourgeois plays by Chekhov about silly provincial families wasting their time and lives in silly provincial towns. There are so many opportunities for GRANDEUR: the astounding Battle of Tsu Shima--one of the grandest battles in naval history--which ended the Russo-Japanese War; the huge battles of the Great War--Tannenberg, the Brusilov Offensive--; the civil war between the Reds and the Whites=all these would have made dynamic and exciting cinema! Apparently the budget for the movie was exhausted in hiring the all-star supporting cast, for the epic events of Nicholas' reign are merely suggested by symbolic gestures: a few soldiers marching here, a few civilians demonstrating there, photographs of Wilhelm II and Franz Joseph I to represent the enemy at World War I, etc. Franklin Schaffner evidently thought that he was directing a stage production, where representing mighty battles and broad vistas was impossible. How could that happen?! The director of such perfectly exciting movies as THE WAR LORD, PLANET OF THE APES (1968) and PATTON should have known better! All in all, a sadly wasted opportunity; what could have been a brilliant epic worthy of David Lean turned instead into a solid but stolid plod.",0 "I watched this film with my father and it was truly a worthwhile experience. The documentary is about a father and son who travel around the world and the development of their relationship as they talk with other fathers and sons in various countries. This is a great movie to watch because everyone needs a father, biological or not, and one often loses sight of how important the influence of a father can be. At times it will make you laugh, at times it will make you cry, and occasionally you will laugh and cry simultaneously. It was just a great experience for me and my father to watch together.",1 "Two best friends. Both living with their boyfriends, both waiting for them to pop -the- question they live their daily life. When one day they both end up proposed to the planning starts for two perfect weddings. Little do they know that human frailty is against them - and what starts as the perfect adventure soon turns into the most horrible nightmare imaginable. From there what once was the best possible friendship slowly turns into a terrible war.

A meager story at best, the above is the backing line of this film. It could have been enough if it had been worked out some better, but quite sadly this comedy fails to be funny and that is IMO one of the prime requisites of a comedy - making the audience laugh out loud a good number of times and keep them amused until after the ending credits.

This film fails to be funny. The two main characters and their actions are not entirely badly chosen - but the way they are acted out are just too much of a cliché or too clearly acted. There's also too little moments that could have worked out - there's far too many soft spots where the film just rolls on without anything happening.

The most positive effect of the film was the side role played by Kristen Johnson who turns every scene she appears in into a short lasting hilarious feast. It isn't enough to save the film though - it's still a piece of rubbish.

2 out of 10 bridal tragedies wasted",0 "Kakashi, like quite a few other Japanese horror films, had an unresolved ending and an eskewed sense of logic.

Considering a horror film about ""kakashi""/scarecrows of all things makes one wonder what the film is like. How do they make scarecrows scary? That is what I thought when I got this film.

However, the answer, in this case at least, is they can't. The scarecrows were easy to push away and tear apart even for the heroine, Kaoru, and they never once did anything that really showed any power to fear. In short, the monsters of the show were very weak. Excessively so.

The main villain, a psychotically obsessive woman who killed herself, is mostly an evil spirit who can make Kaoru have nightmares, taunts her inside the house, and who later becomes re-born as a scarecrow and dies in a blaze of laughing mania. A possible high point of the story, and the scene that reveals that Izumi was dead and why she died, ends up less than scary and more or less creepy. The woman was pathetically obsessed and completely manic in her childish flaunts of over-dramatic and emo-tistic emotion. This woman has problems, obviously.

In fact, it's safe to say that all of the characters involved in this story had some sort of problem. Kaoru had her incessant and obvious brother complex, Sally and Izumi's parents were obsessed with using scarecrows, and Izumi was... insane. Tsuyoshi was probably the least ""humanized"" of all the characters. Between Izumi and Kaoru, he seemed more of an object to be taken. Poor guy.

All in all, this movie wasn't frightening even in the nightmare, diary, and scarecrow/escape sequences like it possibly could have been. It was unbelievable in both story and in how poorly it was done. If you're looking for a good horror to give you a scare or even challenge your mind, this is not it.",0 "This movie is mildly entertaining but there are a ridiculous amount of loop holes. In fact, there are so many that it becomes distracting while viewing the film. This is quite disappointing because the idea of the film has so much more potential, although it is an idea that has remarkable similarities to about 20 other zombie type flicks. First i'll start off with what i liked, then i will continue with a list of loopholes and other points that ruin this movie.

-The lab scene at the beginning is a decent introduction. I like this explanation of where the virus came from considering real life viruses such as AIDs supposedly came from chimps. I also found it a much more believable reason for a apocalypse type virus than in other movies, at least the virus didn't come in an asteroid or something. I found ""Dawn of the Dead"" to be quite similar to this movie in so many ways but in ""Dawn of the Dead"", they don't give you an explanation of where the virus came from. I also liked how there is a little more to the story than just fighting off zombies. Actually, most of the movie doesn't even involve fighting off zombies, most of it is them just talking (which makes the movie kind of boring at times).

*Now for the parts that make this movie horrible* -So he wakes up in the hospital and is the only one there? For one, why would there not be other patients who couldn't leave such as the disabled, secondly, if the hospital was evacuated, why would they just leave him there.

-If there was no one there to fill his feeding tubes and stuff, why wouldn't he have died in his sleep -If there is no power in the city, why is the grocery store all lit up inside, especially if there is no one to continue running the power plants.

-So your telling me that with a disaster such as an exodus from Britian, that there were no riots or panicking and nobody tried raiding stores. The food is perfectly stacked and nothing seems to be missing in the grocery store. I would think at least somebody would have gone in there to grab some supplies.

-If these infected people are so vicious and all they do is blood lust, then why do they not attack each other. That makes absolutely no sense.

-How come the infected are never seen unless the characters are vulnerable? They always show up in hordes yet while looking over the city, you never see them wandering in the streets. At least in ""Dawn of the Dead"" there were masses of zombies everywhere, which made sense if the population was supposed to be infected.

-Apparently a rickety piece of junk taxi can drive like a monster truck over wrecked cars in the tunnel. Why does that make sense? And all they get is a flat.

-Considering the city is supposed to be abandoned besides those who are infected, you would think there would be a lot more parked cars, wrecked cars, and other common city street objects.

-So if the infected are supposed to be vicious and killing machines, then why are there no corpses on the streets? Besides the loft in the church, there were a total of like 10 corpses in the whole movie.

-If the infected kill because they have ""rage"" and not for eating the people, then what do they eat to survive. You never see them eating anyone, so you'd think that after 28 days of not eating anything, they would have died. If they don't eat their victims, what are they eating since the grocery stores are intact.

-When they are filling up with gas, i find it very curious that even though they know not to go anywhere alone, Jim decides to go wandering into a dark shack by himself for absolutely no reason. Big surprise that there's an infected person in there...

-So these military guys have this secure base set up and apparently nobody but they survived the move from the previous base. At the barricade there were parked cars and stuff implying that there were civilians that came yet there are none with the leftover military men.

-You think that trained military men would be able able to find a slightly more secure place to make a base. If they planned on surviving there for a long time, i think it would make sense to find a place more easily defend-able.

-This is what really doesn't make sense: If these military guys have the radios to send out a strong broadcast, then why would they not be able to pick up transmissions from other countries that are not infected? -If there are other countries that are not infected, then why would none of them be concerned with finding survivors in Britain. If they do this at the end by flying over the country side with a jet, then why would the military guys never see a plane that would give them hope that the rest of the world is OK.

-Apparently a scrawny bike carrier can undermine 8 or 9 trained military personnel. He somehow gets back onto the property unnoticed (which nobody has been able to do yet), then he sneaks around the property like some sort of ninja, then moves throughout the house without running into any of the military guys or any of the infected military guys. Why is he so skilled all of a sudden.

That about covers all the loopholes i can think of. I'm sure there are many more but that just goes to show how ridiculous this movie is. I'm normally not so picky about movies but this one just bugs me.",0 "Michael Winterbottom's Wonderland uses the same formula as another movie of 1999, the beautiful Magnolia, in which we follow the life of many characters, which are linked together. The main difference between the characters of both movies, is that while Magnolia's characters were unconventional, those in Wonderland are the kind of people you cross on the streets everyday. But while the story between both movies are in the same vein, the treatment in each movie is totally different. While Magnolia was only about the many ""main"" characters in the movie, the OTHER PEOPLE get much of the camera's attention in Wonderland. In many scenes, the camera is distracted by people around the main characters. This is interesting since you get the feeling that everyone on the street has a story to tell. The acting is very convincing. You never get the feeling you are watching actors. Although some scenes are a bit too long, the movie is very rarely boring. I can only think of one scene where I thought ""OK, enough, I get it... This is just too long."". Sometimes the documentary style camera is a bit annoying. Other times, it is perfect. A scene in an hospital at the end was memorable. All in all, this is a good movie, with some flaws but also beautiful moments.

80%",1 "It is beyond me why two million Danish people each week sit down to watch this terrible show. The dialogue is terrible and not realistic. The characters are hollow and simplistic. There's a tough man, a tough woman and a sensitive man. The writers actually say that they have modeled the characters after Greek mythology! Give me a break! All the characters are of course brilliant policemen. When I have watched this show I have longed for ""District Hill Street"" and ""NYPD Blue"". These are brilliant shows, and ""Rejseholdet"" is a lousy copy. This program is a symptom of the disease Danish television is currently suffering from.",0 "This is the most pointless, tedious, unbelievably dull and ridiculous film that I have ever seen. The most annoying thing is the fact that you can still tell Anthony Hopkins is a good actor!! It's so bad that I have ran out of things to say and must simply fill the space............",0 "Candyman won't go down as the greatest film ever, or even the greatest horror film ever. But in its genre, it's one of the superior films of its kind to have appeared recently.

Where the film scores is in its juxtaposition and contrast of two kinds of fear: fear of death by supernatural forces, and fear of death at the hands of other humans. The urban decay into which Helen wanders is as chilling and disturbing as the Candyman's own appearances. Like 'Seven', the film uses its urban setting not just as an unpleasant backdrop, but as an integral part of the film's fabric, strengthening its impact and relevance.

Virginia Madsen gives a fine performance (under the circumstances - no Oscars here). She looks older than her 29 years, which again helps the film to stand out since it's not about teenagers in peril but about mature characters about whom we might actually care. The supporting cast aren't bad, either, though this is really Madsen's show. She looks nothing like her brother, does she?

Intelligently scripted, and carefully crafted (others have drawn attention to Philip Glass's excellent score - another splendid move by the film makers), this is vastly superior to the Elm Street series. Only the ending disappoints. Otherwise, good work.",1 "The Purple Rose of Cairo really does rate up there with Woody's best - from Annie Hall, Manhattan to the earlier, more slapstick efforts, such as Love and Death and Sleeper. Cairo happens to be one of the best 80's movies Woody actually made - Crimes and Misdeameanours and Braodway Danny Rose being other greats.

The reason why I think that Cairo is better than the other 80's efforts is that the idea is really inventive. The movie raises so many questions of reality and fantasy, but does so in a highly surreal fashion. The switching of scenes, from reality to fantasy (movie) made me realise where movies take us as a viewer. Cecelia finds solace in the world of movies and comes up against the decision of which is better - the perfect world of movie, or reality, where things are never certain.

Jeff Daniels is so enigmatic in this movie. Not only as Tom, the screen legend, but as Gil the actor. Two very different characters, both played brilliantly. Mia Farrow is great as usual, and shows how broad her talent is (Broadway Danny Rose and Radio Days - both very different characters. Danny Aiello is good as the lazy slob-of-a-husband, Monk.

Like Radio Days, Woody isn't actually on screen (he narrated Radio Days, mind) and in a way this eased me up. Woody is fantastic when he is on screen, but this film benefited from losing his neurotic nature, and instead concentrated on the era, the love of movies and the complex themes of a movie within a movie. I will admit, some neurosis is retained in the dialogue (talk of morality to prostitutes!) - and this added to the surreal nature of the movie.

This has to be one of my favourite films Woody has directed. Annie Hall probably being my fave, Manhattan, Crimes and Misdeamenours and Sleeper following. Cairo is so constantly fresh and inventive, I couldn't help being captivated during it's short running time. I recommend this to any fan - or any lover of movies themselves. A real treat.",1 "I'm glad to see that IMDb users were not fooled by Almereyda's ultimately empty, though pretty, adaptation of Hamlet. In reading press for the film, visions of mass delusions and payola danced through my head. This is a lush, beautifully paced film that fails miserably, because the director forgot that you must make a movie do more than look good.

I've read that the director did copious research on the play, watching other adaptations, etc. before embarking on his own journey. Apparently he didn't watch closely enough. His script relies heavily on a viewer already familiar with the play, and cuts or rearranges some of the most important scenes. The bulk of the scene between Polonius and Hamlet which begins with Hamlet calling the elder a fishmonger is gone. The final scene is so chopped up to fit Almereyda's modern conceits that it is virtually unrecognizable. That scene is also hastily and sloppily filmed. When does the King poison the wine? A viewer who does not already know that it is poisoned is lost. As was this production.

Problems with Almereyda's ham-handed script and spotty direction aside, the real problem here can be reduced to three words: acting, acting, acting. I haven't seen Shakespeare handled this badly since high school. Kyle MacLachlan shines above the rest in his role, and Diane Venora and Leif Schreiber are passable and sometimes even good in their roles. Steve Zahn appears to have the best handle on how to effectively play Rosencrantz as a modern day drinkin' bud, but unfortunately Almereyda has cut most of his role. But aside from them, much of the rest is embarassing and laughable. Julia Stiles comes off as a rank amateur; the cringe factor in her readings is off the meter. The coup de grace is the scene when she fully goes mad and goes cross-eyed as she's flinging polaroids about. She looks more like she's trying to approach a slapstick approximation of drunkenness than a despair-filled descent into madness. Bill Murray, who I love, and who I think is one of the most underrated actors around, is completely out of his depth. Afraid that by playing Polonius too funny, people will accuse him of putting his ""stamp"" on it, he plays it dry and manages to rip all the laughs out of the funniest character in the play. Polonius is a clown, and should be played as such. Ian Holm's definitive performance in the less-than-definitive Mel Gibson Hamlet is the high watermark, and Holm plays him like a proper court jester. Even Sam Shepard seems a little lost. Granted, Shakespeare isn't really his area of theater, but one would have thought he'd have a better handle on it. And then we come to Ethan Hawke, who I generally think is a very talented actor as well. But his sullen, brooding Hamlet is a one-note prince, and a pretty tedious note at that. While the much-talked about To be or not to be speech is wonderfully conceived in that monument of indecision, Blockbuster, with the not-too-subtle ""Action"" signs passing by our mirthless heir, Hawke reads the speech without ever getting out of first gear, without ever giving a hint of meaningful inflection. In my Brit.Lit. class in high school we had to memorize and recite this monologue...there were better readings in my class than Hawke offers up here, and his entire performance pretty much follows suit. His jovial, consoling advice to Ophelia to ""get thee to a nunnery"" is laughable, and while he hits the right note in the also well-conceived, but displaced finish to the scene, leaving the rest of the speech on her answering machine, we're still so busy laughing that the rage loses it's power.

This Hamlet is style lacking substance, as Almereyda tries to bind the limitless space of Shakespeare's text within a nutshell, only to find that there's nothing left inside when he's done.",0 "I watched & enjoyed ""The Family Stone."" I watched and forgot ""How to Lose a Guy."" I don't have impossible standard for films. I love romantic comedies, and if I want to see more one movie a year, I can't afford standards. But this film, ""Failure to Launch,"" made me want to give up and stay home. I could have popped ""Love, Actually"" into the DVD player for the thousandth time and had a better, more rewarding evening. There are many many ways this movie went wrong, but I'd like to focus on the nail that sealed its coffin.

Two words . . .

Animatronic animals.

That's right . . . more than one. In this movie. Were you thinking ""Must Love Dogs"" or ""The Wedding Date?"" Think ""Caddyshack"" without the appeal.

Four separate animatronic animals appeared, one in a subplot which provided neither support nor counterpoint to the purported ""main plot"" (the romance between SJP & MM).

I wanted to like these subplot sections. Even with excessive sweat and scary, crazy eyes, I just love Bradley Cooper, but no actor on earth could have saved this movie.

If even one of these animatronic monstrosities had appeared in a trailer, I would have saved my $8. Maybe the failure was in marketing a low-ball comedy as a romantic comedy.

I don't ask that a romantic comedy be high art, but this was barely a romantic comedy at all.",0 "There are certain movies you just HAVE TO watch if only for their titles alone. With such a title you automatically tend to think ""how bad can it possibly be … right?"" Of course, only a few minutes into the film and you can't but realize how awful it is and all of a sudden the title doesn't sound that funny anymore. A few minutes … that's how long it takes in order to be exposed to a world of horrible acting performances by randomly selected yokels, incomprehensible dialog and no plot development whatsoever. During the intro we have John Carradine (him again … the more bad B-movies I discover, the more I encounter his fatigue face) murmuring something about being the devil and thus He who decides whether a person goes to hell or not. Apparently this sequence, and a couple of other ones featuring Carradine, where edited into the film by Fred Olen Ray afterwards! Okay, now I understand how Olen Ray has over 110 movies on his repertoire as a director and Carradine over 340 as an actor! Anyway, after the Judge of Hell's bizarre uttering, we switch towards a remote countryside setting. We have a party of four, people that couldn't possibly look less connected to each other, wandering through the woods and finding shelter in a secluded farm house. Apparently they are fugitive jewel thieves, but these people honestly look way too dumb to commit any sort of theft, let alone jewelery. You would then subsequently expect for the ""Demented Death Farm Massacre"" to ensue, but no … First there's a lot of arguing about the difference between stealing a jeep and picking up what other people threw away (seriously, who ""throws away"" a jeep?) and other totally random and nonsensical gibberish. The fattest and ugliest redneck I've ever seen is married to a beautiful young girl with impressive cleavage. It is later explained that her father owed the fat bastard $200 and they settled it with a marriage. That's hillbilly logic for you! Every dialog is drawn out five or six times more than necessary and the ""action"" sequences are shot in slow-motion. They literally do everything here in order to reach a normal playtime. The absolute most shameless attempt to fill up the running time is an extremely long monologue of a guy talking to God. Seriously, FOUR full minutes of staring at a dumb yokel talking to the sky! There's so much talking in this movie, it's crazy. Either the screenplay contained approximately 7,000 pages or these rednecks were just instructed to improvise whatever the wanted. Naturally, there's also a chase through the woods guided by the obligatory banjo music and incompetent cinematography. In the end, the only ""demented"" thing about this movie is that there are idiots like myself who watch it. The ""Death Farm"" is just a shed in somebody's garden and the only farming tool used in the ""Massacre"" is a pitchfork. Lame.",0 "Death Wish is a very clichéd type of movie. Someone close to the heroic character is killed, hero goes out for revenge.

However, there is plot here. There is also character development (for some characters anyway). It just doesn't take long for the movie to go down the famous path of hero becoming a vigilante.

Charles Bronson was obviously the best choice to play Paul Kersey, the war veteran with a family who is happy with his life until disaster strikes. Stuart Margolin plays Ames Jainchill, Kersey's new found cowboy friend who introduces him to the world of carrying a gun outside of the war. Hope Lange plays Joanna, Paul's wife. Vincent Gardenia plays Detective Frank Ochoa, the detective who is sent out to find Kersey. I guess the rest of the characters aren't really worth mentioning except for an early appearance by Jeff Goldblum, who actually plays his part very well.

The New York setting was very good, the wintry climate gave it all the more realism as to how cold the world really is. The music score was also really good.

Bronson was definitely the main reason to keep watching. The part was seemingly written for him.

Over all, not a bad movie. I'd recommend to mainly fans of vigilante/rogue cop movies and fans of Charles Bronson, as this is probably the role that fits him best.

8/10",1 "When you're not expecting much, it doesn't take a masterpiece to impress you. I watched The Sex Monster knowing that it had a bisexual-relevant theme, but uncertain of whether it would be a positive or negative portrayal of bisexuality and sexual experimentation in general. I was not disappointed.

Mike Binder somehow managed to take all of the tired stereotypes about gender and sexuality, weave them into exaggerated characters, put the characters in awkward situations, and make it all uproariously hilarious. Some viewers, no doubt, will interpret the caricatured portrayals as perpetuating outmoded stereotypes and perhaps even contributing to those stereotypes. But Binder's wit is both subtle and blatant: the dialogue makes use of every cliche imaginable, yet is still fresh and funny.

If you're cheek is prepared to accommodate your tongue, definitely see this movie (rent it! and then buy it to show all your friends). Be warned, though, that what you assume about people may be forever changed.",1 "It is an oddly run ocean liner. There seems to be a total engine crew of six people. When the engine room supervisor (unsure of his precise title), finds a worker murdered and kills the perp, he doesn't immediately report to an officer -- he just seems to hang out in the engine room till the writer wants him again. Luggage is in below decks storage rather than in people's staterooms, as if it were an airplane. There is no deckwatch during dinner. The bad guys are apparently less than 20 (the number is never clear) and seem to have always believed that sufficient to control a sizeable ship. We have no clue as to how the bad guys meant to get away. Anyway, some of the action is cool.",0 "Shadowbuilder may not be the best movie, but I really liked it. The effects were good and the acting was OK. I thought the story was good and it kept me in my seat. The Shadowbuilder was cool. I liked the way he took on the persona of his victims. When the town went postal I really had a good laugh at the man who wanted to use the ax on his wife's head again. LMAO! I would not consider it a true horror movie. It was more of a action/thriller with a little horror. There are no guts flying all over the place - which is what I consider horror. All of the victims are turned to a shadow which isn't horrific or gory. I would recommend Shadowbuilder. It deserved at least one look in my book. I have watched it numerous times.",1 "I hate this movie. I just think this movie is bad. The drumming is spectacular, but the dialogue is horrible, and the main character is a brat who can't even read drum music but somehow got a college scholarship for his drumming. It is also surprising that he got a scholarship because throughout the movie he rebels against the coach. You are supposed to feel sad for the star as he is kicked out of the drumline numerous times for various reasons, but i just felt glad that the movie might end there. But it didn't. This is an enormous waste of two hours in my opinion. One part of the movie that especially comes to mind when say ""a waste of two hours"" is a scene where the drumline section leader walks up to the drummers one at a time and plays on their drum with them walking forward. The drummers are supposed to follow. No one is is able to do it except, of course the star of the movie. But once he's is done playing the part with the section leader also playing on the star's drum, the band teacher walks up and says somethin to the effect of ""you do what i tell you to do, and you're an asshole."" I hate this movie. I nearly cried when i saw Ebert gave it 3 stars out of four. My rating: 2 out of 10 stars. And this movie earned that rating.",0 "This show made me feel as though I wanted to vomit. Brian is one of the most dysfunctional, manipulative, abusive egomaniacs I have ever seen (even on t.v.) - and he stated that he is a psychologist??!!?? These women are nothing short of victims. Pam - the subservient, non-confrontational pleaser, Kathy - the insecure other woman, and Denise - clearly abused in previous relationships and feels she doesn't deserve a decent man. As other commenters have remarked, the children have lost the most and will carry the dysfunction consciously brought on by their ignorant parents for the remainder of their lives. I can almost understand polygamy for religious reasons (while recognizing the welfare fraud, statutory rape, and other associated criminal acts that commonly accompany this lifestyle), but this pig of a human openly states that his polygamy has nothing to do with religion - just his inability to keep his organ in his pants. The only redeeming moment was when Denise finally left (even if it was not of her own doing). At least she stands a chance at getting some counseling for her self-esteem issues. It is disappointing that TLC would air such a low class show. To give them the benefit of the doubt, though, perhaps they were hoping to shed some light on abusive relationships. They could have done a better job of it, though. Would I ever watch this again? No way. It was a complete waste of one hour of my life. I write my first ever post to save someone else an hour of their time and a bottle of pepto to quiet an upset stomach.",0 "The delightful MGM film ""Slightly Dangerous"" proved to the world the power and star appeal of Lana Turner, who at 21, was at the height of her beauty. The film, directed with great comedic style by Wesley Ruggles, feels as fresh today as when it was released. The excellent quality of the print TCM showed is one of the reasons to enjoy it even more.

""Slightly Dangerous"" is a fun film, typical of those wartime years. We are introduced to Peggy Evans. She has been selected for an award of $2.50, in merchandise from the small department store where she works, for her punctuality. Figuring it would take her another three years to earn the $10.00 prize, Peggy, who has quarreled with her new boss, Bob Stuart, decides to try her luck in Manhattan, where she undergoes a make over and goes from a brunette into a ravishingly looking blonde.

Her problems start when she is hit by a bucket of paint in front of one of the daily newspapers. Since her clothes are ruined, and has no proof of identity, the people around her believe she has suffered a temporary memory loss. Thus begins her adventure in the big city in which she pretends to be the lost daughter of a millionaire.

Bob, who has been fired himself, comes to the city trying to locate Peggy after he sees her picture in the newspaper. By now, Peggy has turned into Carol Burden, the daughter of the rich Cornelius Burden. Her troubles start when Bob wants to prove she is Peggy the girl with whom he has fallen in love.

The film is delightful because of the light touch Mr. Green gave the story. Lana Turner was a good comedienne who was perfect in playing the double role of Peggy/Carol. Robert Young was also an actor that was effective in all the comedies he played, as he shows here with his take of Bob. The perfect supporting cast couldn't be better. Walter Brennan, Dame May Witty, Eugene Palette, Ward Bond, Ray Collins, Alan Mowbray.

""Slightly Dangerous"" will please everyone because of the magnificent cast in the movie.",1 "- Not much to say here, and that's about exactly what this flic deserves. But I wonder what it would've been considered if released back when it was written; Just as poor or rather interesting?

Well I'm a movie lover, not a movie reviewer, but I can easily say this was a dog.

I bet even John & Janet were rather embarrassed by this one.

Still, I watched it and found myself quite taken by Janet Leigh's beauty and enchanting eyes, along with Johnny's youthful amorousity.

The plot(?) is a sham, the ""Commies"" are treated as the usual moron's we were taught to believe them to be in every other propaganda flic, but it still serves to remind us of a time when even seduction was innocently provocative.

Return to an earlier time while viewing this comedy-that-never-was, and please don't expect to walk away with a moral, or inspired.

It's just a 'cute' way to blow an hour or two, and to remember what Studs Janet and John were in their day.

...get the popcorn popping' and leave the Kleenex on the shelf, you won't need it for this one.",0 "I saw this at the Waterfront Film Festival in Saugatuck, Michigan and it was one of my favorite short films of the festival.

This short was great. So funny and original. It's a modern day retelling of how the Tinman lost all of his limbs, his lover, and his heart. It was wonderfully made, the acting, the cinematography, it was a really cool movie. I particularly loved the music that played throughout the film, it really added the entertainment.

You should really check this film out. It was an award winner at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival. I'll be looking out for more of director Ray Tintori's films.",1 "Tokyo Eleven is an extremely tacky but very amusing send-up of Battle Royale, full of bad jokes and abysmal acting, both of which are quite obviously intentional. I gather it's one of those b-movies made by a bunch of people who were simply out for a laugh and didn't take themselves too seriously, so I can't really fault them for having made it. Besides, a lot of 10+01's humour is very tongue-in-cheek, which ultimately means it's very entertaining.

One of the film's main selling points (if you can call it that) is the fact that Masanobu Ando aka Battle Royale's Kiriyama stars in it, which should attract fans of the actor and/or BR. Ando himself is obviously in on the joke, which makes Tokyo Eleven (and Ando) all the more endearing in my eyes.

No, this isn't exactly Tarkovsky, but then it isn't meant to be. It's simply a fun movie to watch, preferably in the company of friends and ailed by plenty of booze.",1 "This movie just sounds too plain awful. I can't even imagine seeing this film un-Mystified right before my eyes. And what I mean by that is watching it without the ultimate ""Mystery Science Theater 3000"" treatment this movie deserves. I've seen some ""Mystery Science Theater 3000"" episodes in my life, and believe me, watching most of these movies as originally intended (as in a theater, of course) would give be permanent depression! And this would most likely include this movie, too! So if you happen to come upon ""The Touch of Satan,"" do yourself and your mind a favor: watch it with Mike and the Bots, will you, please? I've never seen it, but I know I'll do that!",0 "The guy at the videostore did not recommend it. A friend of mine did and i am glad i rented it. Afterwards the guy in the videostore confessed that he only saw the first ten minutes. Anyways, good movie, interesting subject. The kids play really good. mysterious surroundings. good camerawork. YEP! well done guys.",1 "I saw a pretty poor copy of this but the bottom line is that it lacks the punch, clarity and humor of the original series.

The characters are thin, unbelievable, two dimensional copies of the flawed but warm and likeable characters in the original series. The only actor who came from the original series is Robert Llewellyn who tries hard but is let down by the rest of the cast and the direction.

There's something seriously wrong with the timing of the humor. It's set up as if it was a sitcom not a comedy. The timing should be quite different however the canned laughter track is timed for a sitcom not for a comedy show and thus makes all of the comedy fall totally flat.

If you like Red Dwarf, give this a miss. If you haven't seen the original Red Dwarf then beg, borrow, steal or buy the original (or look for re-runs on PBS) but give this remake a wide, wide berth.

",0 "*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* Interesting, entertaining crime drama set in the wild days of China's very own ""sin city."" Hence there's plenty of raucous nightclubs, chorus lines, Chinese gangsters, packed dancefloors and assorted inequities for every taste.

With this backdrop, a young, orphaned moppet from the countryside arrives, and is put to work by his distant family.

The story, directed by Zhang Yimou, is woven skillfully to encompass the many sides of its characters. A veritable tapestry of rich characterizations come forth. Of course, the darker side of organized crime, away from the spectacular show numbers and bounding bonvivant feeling, we are shown in gritty detail. For example, the seedy, suffocating quality of life that has become, in essence, living death for a gangster's moll. The country boy, in a strange way becomes her sounding board. The two finds themselves so desperately out of control of their lives, they exude anguish.

In summation, the film is visually sumptuous, the performances are rather good (although a notable few are wooden) and the story line is clever. Recommended.",1 "You know you're in trouble when you constantly can't help saying to yourself: ""I could act better than him, I could act better than her!"" After a while I realized I could act better than any character in the entire film! The acting is that unconvincing and poor - it's beyond belief. Some other words to describe the acting talent of the performers is - cardboard, camp, dopey and annoying!

If the acting was not bad enough, the story was even worse! This film was totally devoid of any entertainment value, whatsoever, for the mind of an adult! Personally, I think most children, and certainly teens, would be bored to tears!

It's obvious to me that Tales from the NeverEnding Story - The Beginning is an attempt to make a quick buck off of The NeverEnding Story. To essentially turn a wonderful story into a commodity, like toothpaste or underarm deodorant. If you must see this godforsaken film out of curiosity, at least buy it used so you won't encourage a sequel!",0 """Le boulet"" is the perfect definition for the word ""disaster"" : it happens when untalented French movie-makers try to do a parody of a bad Bud Spencer-Terence Hill buddy movie. ""Le boulet"" is the proof that the French cultural exception is really about to die. The presence of Benoit Poelvoorde is this unbelievable cinematographic shipwreck is the only positive element :

Scenario : 0/10

Direction : 1/10

FX : 3/10

Actors (except Lanvin and Poelvoorde ): 1/10

Images : 2/10

G. Lanvin : 4/10

B. Poelvoorde : 6/10

Total : 2.4/10 (I still have the feeling that I over-rated this trainwreck)",0 "You cannot make a movie that is nothing more than a two-hour shoot-out. It just doesn't work. Apart from the fact that the 'shock' of the fight wears off after a while, having a battle scene that takes up 75% of the film's run-time leaves no room for character development - and hence you could not give a monkeys who lives or who dies. This was the same problem with 'We Were Soldiers', where all of the storyline was condensed into the first 30 minutes, freeing the remaining screen-time to be dedicated to nothing but non-stop gratuitous violence. You need to even out the action scenes with advancements in the plot to give the story any meaning and to keep your audience's attention.

What's even worse is that the battles aren't even that impressive. Certainly the visuals, sound and editing were better in both 'We Were Soldiers' and 'Saving Private Ryan' (a film made some years ago now).

There are obviously certain historic issues that need to be addressed, but when a movie is this dull anyway, who cares?

Any film that has me fighting to stay awake on a Friday night must have something seriously wrong with it.

3/10",0 "I was a bit hesitant about renting out ""Red Dwarf"" the first time one of my friends recommended it too me but I got it out anyway because I always like finding a new fantastic show, and this was definitely all that and more. While in the early series having a tiny budget used on props and the sets it still managed to produce fantastic story lines and new characters every episode, it was when they got a bigger budget(Season 3 or 4 and over) that they really let their creative style loose going to different funny dimensions, meeting equally funny new character's and with jokes about what different dimensions existed they still had great character jokes, which really made the humour of this show something to be reckoned with.

The character's in the show are a great example of how character interaction alone can make a show 100 times better, and in this we see such a wide range of character's, lead and co starring that make this show great on its own even without all the other dimensions (This was, as I said earlier most of what the first 2 or 3 seasons were like). First there is Dave Lister, who is a slob but is also a deep down very caring and compassionate guy and to the writers credit, they really make it so that just when you think Dave is just a useless slob they write an episode which reveals more about that character and how he is really a good guy. Then there is Rimmer, and prude sort of fellow who has always wanted to become an officer but, not being able to, due to being a complete incompetent worker and a general nuisance to be around has convinced himself that he is a great worker, but has not been promoted due to being so good at what he does (Head Vending Machine Maitenence man). Anyway, as the series progresses he is one of the best walls to bounce jokes with between him and Lister, and while they are always fighting deep down they both don't hate each other and Lister is actually quite understanding of the fact that Rimmer is a complete and utter Smeghead. After that there is Kryten, one of my favourite character's in a TV show in the 20th centuries, from him trying to be more human to his pathetic whining he is another great wall of jokes with all the character's. Last of the main character's from the early seasons (Kochanski replacing Rimmer for a small time in season 7) is the obnoxious but oddly lovable Cat, who is a descendant from a cat Lister smuggled aboard (Which is the reason Dave was put into stasis and how he became the only human alive) who has now become a human looking and sounding up himself cat mutant who has an odd addiction to fashion. All these character's make the show what it is and what it always will be.

Overall the time has become a classic that will (Hopefully) live on forever bringing in new waves of followers. Red Dwarf Forver!!!.",1 "Read the book some time ago and after watching the movie felt much the same sort of existential exhilaration - if there is such a thing. Maybe it was just the cold that I have, though. A little overacted at times, but otherwise like an exotic episode of the Twilight Zone, shot in glorious colour. The film reminded me another French film I saw in the theatre recently by the name of Cache, which I enjoyed very much. As for it's American counterpart, I suppose that you'd be looking at something like Lost Highway, David Lynch's bizarre account of a modern, urban couple trying to grapple with the unknown. This seems to be something of a genre for the French and they are quite good at pulling it off - as is evidenced with this film - with considerable style and enough depth of plot and character to leave you considering and reconsidering the film for far more than the sadly customary 10 minutes.

I almost shaved my beard off after watching it just to see what would happen. But I haven't yet. Or have I?",1 "Tom, now a cowboy (or cowcat) on a farm somewhere in Texas is involved in his usual pursuit of Jerry when a gorgeous girl cat arrives. He is immediately smitten and falls in love, hoping to impress her with a tough guy act, and serenading her with a mimed song.

Not taking too kindly to being treated as a slave in his love game, Jerry messes up Tom's plans and gets him on the wrong side of the farmyard bull. It's a pretty funny cartoon, especially when Jerry tampers with the speed of the record Tom is miming to, and there's quite a bit of inventive visual humor too. I just wish that Tom would get the girl for once.",1 "Psychological thriller .. well the thrills are a bit artificial and unrelated to the story but there's a bit of suspension still.

Large parts of the movie happen in the main characters mind. The ending is crucial to the integrity of the story. Until you get there you're feeling a bit like ""whats the point of this flick?"".

I personally thought it was a bit too dragging and slow to rank anywhere higher than 7/10, but a decent psycho-drama still.

Makes you think a bit to understand what its about. Look at the vote statistics, very young people vote low for some weird reason :-)

Gave avg 5 pts for the implementation, but the ending raises it to 7. Of course the fact that you find your self wondering whats going on during the film also is very positive.",1 "For all the big names in this film, it is truly pathetic.

Shallow, cartoonish bad guys, and one-dimensional characters throughout. I can't believe this one was ever released theatrically, nor why it is being shown on TBS now. Back in 1989 some of the now-big name actors like Ben Stiller were just getting started, but others should have turned this one down, like Liam Neeson. His casting as a backwoods hillbilly out for vengeance in the big city of Chicago may be the worst casting I can remember. Patrick Swayze does his usual pathetic job of trying to be tough and sensitive at the same time, and again I am unimpressed.",0 "Tchaikovsky (1969): Innokenti Smoktunovsky, Antonina Shuranova, Vladislav Strzhelchik, Kirill Lavrov,Alla Demidova, Yevgeni Leonov, Bruno Frejnndilkh, Maya Plisetskaya, Yevgeni Yevstigneyev, Liliya Yudina...Director Igor Talankin....Screenplay Yuri Nagibin, Budimir Metalnikov.

""I merge with you in your music""...........

This Russian film, from director Igor Talankin, was an obscure, independent foreign film when it was in theaters in 1969 and played in art-houses in the 1970's. But its impact must have been great, fueling the idea for other similar films about classical music composers (to name a few, Ken Russell's Mahler 1975, Amadeus 1984 and Immortal Beloved 1995). It is a long, emotionally driven and romanticized account of the life of Peter Ilych Tchaikovsky. While not every aspect of his life is covered, and his homosexuality is implied in the most subtle of hints, it is a glossy, beautiful tale with the theme of an artist and his muse. In the case of the real Tchaikovsky, it was his patron the reclusive millionairess Madame Natalia Von Meck. Their relationship is the focus of the film. Filmed on location in Russia and France, the film follows the life of Tchaikovsky, highlighting the key moments of his career. True to the depiction of him as a child, he was a gifted musician but a frail, sickly child with mood swings and psychological problems, problems which would continue through his adulthood. His first big step is a relationship with the prominent pianist Nicholas Rubinstein. In the film, Tchaikovsky occupies his time composing and teaching music to his pupils while studying music at the Conservatory, where he makes most of his friends. All this is very true, but the film completely ignores the fact that Tchaikovsky was gay and quite troubled by it, as this was a restrictive and very Catholic Russia. Only through small hints do we perceive his turmoil. His sudden marriage to Antonina was simply his way of attempting to quiet whispers and live a seemingly normal straight life. But after an attempted suicide, he divorces her. Meanwhile, his only relationship with a female is with the wealthy and older Madame Von Meck. She adores his music and supports him financially. They never meet and correspond only through letters, something which goes on for 13 years. For Von Meck, it appears to be a kind of mental love affair, and when she arranges for an actual meeting in a country estate, Tchaikovsky runs away, breaking her heart. There are many gorgeous and moving scenes, but these are limited to the ones between Tchaikovsky and Von Meck, such as the scene in the train in which Tchaikovsky, reading her letter, imagines she is in the train with him, and the two contemplate the nature of their relationship, one solely based in music. After the death of Rubinstein, Tchaikovsky begins to ponder his own mortality. Death comes again, this time for Madame Von Meck, who suffers a mental illness after becoming bankrupt. Tchaikovsky's imagination and creativity is fueled by these various experiences, and although we do not see him create the ballets he is most famous for - Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty and Nutcracker, we see the completion of his Piano Concerto 1 (which was said to be unplayable), his Fourth Symphony which he dedicated to Von Meck and his great operas, the romantic tragedy Eugene Onegin, which reflected Tchaikovsky's own doomed relationship with his one-time wife and the melancholy final opera Queen of Spades, which seems to be making a sad statement about his relationship with Van Meck, the inspiration for the old Countess who has the secret to winning in the card game. It appears that Tchaikovsky felt he used Van Meck and she haunted him after her death. The music to the film is a hodgepodge of Tchaikovsky music including the symphonies and ballets but the score to this film uses variations and Tchaikovsky-like melodies composed by Dimitri Tiomkin, a noted Russian film composer who also made music for American movies, such as Fall of the Roman Empire in 1964. This is a long, poetic, philosophical, dreamy and romantic film, filmed on location in Russia and France, including Paris. The cinematography tends to be both romantic and bleak, which best describes the moods of Tchaikovsky. This is an excellent film for music students to watch, simply because the acting is top-notch (the actor playing Tchaikovsky is hauntingly like Tchaikovsky himself) and although this is not an accurate and detailed account of Tchaikovsky's life, it's an impressive film worth viewing by anyone who loves classical music and that of Tchaikovsky, the Romantic from Russia.",1 "This movie is in one word great. The movie is set in a great atmosphere, and the two main characters acting is superb. It gives most people a chance to relate to one or the other sides of the troubles haunting their relationship. Several times along the movie i had a lump in my throat, and felt in contact with the main character. No scenes seem to be out of place, and the movie is by no means dragged to long. As mentioned, i could easily see elements of myself in the male character - and my girlfriend could relate to the actions - and reactions - of the female character. I have rarely left a movie-theater actually ""moved"" by a movie (often contemplating though), but this movie did it for me, leaving me thinking about my own relationship.

I would recommend this movie if you are looking for a good emotional movie - especially for couples - where my guess is that both of you will enjoy it.",1 "Well seems again those no good kids are about to learn a valuable life lesson through the art of dancing. Whenever you see a group of real gangster kids you know there is a well dressed hard-ass ready to teach the kids how to be successful and have rhythm. The idea has been done before, there is no originality whatsoever in any of the scenes made.

If I can give it one complement it would be the dance scenes, they were well choreographed and took some skill to it for that I applaud. Otherwise, yawn, has nothing to it. Story focuses on a man (Banderas) who one afternoon teaches a few bad apples how to salsa and change their ways.

""Take the Lead"" has a less the choreographed plot to it other than a few cool moves on the dance floor. I don't no why Antonio Banderas keeps doing these bad movies ""Spy Kids"" and ""Take the Lead"", what happened to ""Desperado"", nowhere in sight. Sadly his career has fell flat on its face.---4/10",0 "After viewing this film many, many times since I first saw it I came to the conclusion that this film basically put on screen my feelings as to why I disliked and still continue to dislike the 90's/Post-Millenium American Pseudo-Culture. At first I did not understand it (the metaphors and such) but having viewed it countless times over the past few years I have developed an understanding of this truly remarkable film.

Critics over the years have panned this film as a 'glorification of meaningless violence', when in fact the film itself is basically the 90's equivalent to Kubrick's 'Dr. Strangelove', where it turns the paranoia of a nation into satire and then deconstruct it in the best way possible. Everybody who is reading this review right now has probably seen the film anyway so I won't reiterate the plot, but what I will do is try and help explain the concept of the film since it's quite obvious that there are a few people out there who don't understand this film.

The 90's - A decade after the Reagan years and a time for the next generation to settle down and basque in the trails of excess that the previous decade left behind. What are we left with in Western Civilization? Media sensationalism and the counter-culture of people who watch car crashes.

Oliver Stone very much plays on the idea of 'serial-killer-turns-media-story-turns-pop-icon' which has been quite evident in the cases of people such as Charles Manson and Richard Ramirez. What Oliver Stone manages to do is portray the negative in the 90's, particularly American pseudo-culture in the 90's. You have Rodney King, O.J Simpson, Tonya Harding, Waco, The Menendez Brothers... and all these things are linked by a single medium, 90's television. The sensationalism of the media saturates most of Western Civilization today, and we live in a world where it's more important to see celebrities on the front of magazines or right-wing televangelists telling us that we need to give them money than it is to focus on the real issues that exist in this world. 'Natural Born Killers' relates to this. What 'Natural Born Killers' plays on is the question - 'why did we, the people, turn on to CNN and watch a white bronco cruising through the streets of Los Angeles one day in 1994?'. In turn, 'Natural Born Killers' plays on the culture-question - 'why do people stop to see car crashes?'. It also asks the question - 'Is that guy on television crazy because he's killed 90+ people or am I crazy for watching a white bronco cruise through the streets of Los Angeles?'. So there are 3 questions that 'Natural Born Killers' raises without a lot of people really understanding them. What the film does - instead of answering these questions - is let the viewer decide for himself or herself whether the serial killer on television is crazy for killing people or we are crazy for actually watching a serial killer talk on television.

So why do the critics despise this film? The critics despise this film because what they see on the film is themselves in Wayne Gale. Robert Downey Jnr accurately portrays the absolute false hysteria and false machismo of tabloid figures such as Geraldo Riviera and Oprah Windfrey et al, in his characterisation of Wayne Gale. He plays the archetypal media figurehead that lives in newsrooms, talking into mobile phones, smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee, watching television and living deceitful private lives. Another reason why the critics hate this film is because of the subversive message that it portrays in the script. The writers grew up in the 50's and 60's when the paranoia of Cold War was still in their faces everywhere they went. After the Cold War was over these same people started asking themselves, ""well, who is the enemy now?"". Some of them started realising that the enemy wasn't 10,000 miles away hiding in a mountain, the problem was not attached to a very large metal object that goes 'boom!', but rather the fact that the real enemy is in the corporations and media, the real power of a nation doesn't rely in the leader but the television. 'Natural Born Killers' subversively explains this, that THEY are the problem, and many members of the mainstream media didn't like because they were what the film was about.

Why do the general public despise this film? Because the same people who hate this film are the same people who the film-makers were laughing at when they made it. When the character of Mickey is on the television giving his interview, and the film cuts to a simple black and white image from a stock house of a typical American family sitting around the television, the same people who hate this film are the typical American family sitting around watching the interview, glued to the television like mindless zombies.

Overall - this film is brilliant and it tells it exactly how it is.",1 "David Bradley slides into the role once occupied by Dudikoff as Sean who, as a boy, saw his father shot by The Cobra's(Marjoe Gortner)henchman Andreas(Yehuda Efroni). The Cobra needed the money at the karate tournament to fund his ongoing germ warfare experiments for sale to terrorists, and ten years later has the disease ready. He needs a strong lab animal and David Bradley is that very animal. They use Sean's master(Chan Lee, played by Michele B Chan, impersonating him)to persuade him into considering drawing near East Bay Labs where the Cobra is waiting with bated breath for him. Steve James returns as Curtis Jackson, out of the Army, and attending the same karate tournament as Sean..except he's in the sword competition. But, when danger threatens Sean, Curtis is only willing to help out a friend(how they are friends is never elaborated upon). Dexter(Evan J Klisser, the supposed comic support/lackey)joins up with them to find out what The Cobra and East Bay Labs are up to. Though, soon Sean will find himself in the clutches of The Cobra and the deadly virus within his system. He'll not only need his friends to help rescue him, but the antidote as well. Chan Lee will see the error of her ways(she thought The Cobra was behind solving the world's disease with cures)and assist the team in trying to stop the mad man.

Not very good, with lots of plot problems and stupid behavior by the bad guys who go out of their way to be taken down by Sean and Curtis. The ninjas are merely wimps in costumes(even Dex is able to beat the crap out of them). The fight choreography is not very good as ninjas pop out for certain beat-downs. The good guys seem to rarely suffer the effects of blows to the face, but the ninjas drop pretty quickly. It's fun seeing James kicking ass, but even that can not save a dire, lame plot. The sequence towards the end where Sean tries to battle the virus within him through meditation is a howler. Even worse is Marjoe as Cobra who seems to have peed in his pants at the end as he tries to fight Bradley. The film ultimately is about watching Bradley and company mowing down men dressed up because real ninja would have finished them off rather quickly. Still, Bradley at least has a physical presence and seems to do most of his own martial arts work which helps at least add a hint of realism to his part, but watching these ninjas come out of the woodwork only to be thrown around and their limbs snapped with ease doesn't help the film any.",0 "It is amazing to see all the things you have read all your life in the big screen. It is not only the characters, but also all the background is related to the comic (and all the little details you can find).

I had seen no movie where you could find so few differences between the comic and the film (much much better than Asterix and Obelix, where the things look quite strange).

And the best of all: The actor playing Mortadelo is really Mortadelo (same face, same voice, everything!! is like the comic).",1 "There was a time when the drive-in was the place to be; it was at the drive-in that one could find gems like ISLAND OF THE DAMNED (an Italian fright film that began with a group of people coming ashore on an apparently deserted island, only to find that all of the adults on the island have been murdered by the children- a film that may very well have inspired the vastly inferior CHILDREN OF THE CORN). For some unknown reason, ISLAND OF THE DAMNED isn't even listed on the IMDb. David Cronenberg's first feature, THEY CAME FROM WITHIN (a.k.a., SHIVERS), is. Creepy in the extreme, THEY CAME FROM WITHIN is the type of grex that Cronenberg may have had in mind when he said this: ""Art is the tree of Life, Science is the tree of Death."" When Dan O'Bannon and Ridley Scott set about remaking Mario Bava's PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES (as ALIEN), they borrowed liberally from a number of sources- including the ""chest-bursters"" from THEY CAME FROM WITHIN. The final scene had great significance for us as we drove slowly out of the drive-in that night, into the waiting darkness...",1 "Trashing ""Perfect"" is an act of unnecessary cruelty. A film where every character attaches serious importance to Rolling Stone articles calls for a depth of insight and cinematic brilliance even Welles would have trouble summoning. One wonders what projects Godfather cinematographer Gordon Willis gave up to lend his expertise to this embarrassment. Perhaps this film has value in warning future generations against the emptiness of Trendy Living.

If any costume screen tests, outtakes, and deleted scenes featuring Jamie Lee Curtis exist, they could salvage the film for DVD. At 26, the enchanting Ms. Curtis delivered a powerful performance. Her dazzling beauty and inner power are the only facets of this creepy time-capsule that hold up today.",0 "I thought I had seen terrible movies in my life, but this one takes the cake... It's by far the worse movie ever made and I have no idea how it won the awards that it did... Save yourselves the time and agony and watch something else, anything else...",0 "Once you have witnessed the scene where Pamela (as a hooker??? how cheesy is that... at least the director knows why we are watching this crap...) gets the job done, you have no more reason to keep watching this atrocity... I put a 3/10 but for a girl or anyone who thinks Pam is ugly, this movie is not even worth that...",0 "Overall, not a bad movie for this type of bad movie, it is watchable, and laughably bad. Basically this is a rip-off of 'Halloween: Resurrection' But its pretty much as entertaining or better, with a lot less budget and worse acting (which makes it entertaining). This is a perfect example of an entertaingly bad movie.

Some of the acting was actually OK, but the two football players - ""Biff"" and ""Brad"" were awesomely horribly bad. Especially the erectile dysfuntion guy - I guess he was supposed to be closeted Gay or something but he was really, really, really horrible, easily in the top 10 worst actors I've seen. Could have used more nudity.",1 "A college prank where one got caught and sent to prison and the other didn't forms the basis for Sneakers, a stylish, but ultimately unsatisfying thriller. Sad because it's a waste of a really talented cast.

Gary Hershberger and Jo Marr area a couple of college age computer geeks from the seventies who if they had stayed on the straight and narrow might have wound up being Bill Gates and Bill Jobs. Marr got caught and Hershberger was not by dint of going out for pizza during a break-in. Marr got some serious jail time, but Hershberger became a fugitive.

Fast forward to the nineties and Hershberger has now grown up to be Robert Redford and heading a security firm under an alias. Redford employs the diverse talents of David Strathairn, Sidney Poitier, Dan Ackroyd, River Phoenix and on occasion Mary McDonnell. They break into unbreakable places and tell you what you're doing wrong.

Redford and his crew get hired or possibly a better word is drafted into working for a couple of slippery agents played by Timothy Busfield and Eddie Jones. Object is to steal a code box with a formula designed by super mathematical genius Donal Logue. In it Logue's designed a gizmo that can break ANY code.

Before long Redford and his crew are in conflict with his former college prankster now all grownup and played by Ben Kingsley. Who wouldn't want the Ultimate Codebreaker? Even I'd like to have that.

Sneakers is done with a lot of flash and style, but in the end it's all rather silly. A real waste of a good cast. You've got to catch at the very end where on a news broadcast it's said that Republican National Committee has gone broke overnight and Greenpeace is overflowing with money for its good work.

Now maybe that's Robert Redford's secret fantasy, but this isn't Never-Never Land.",0 "A two-time loser like Gator McKlusky (Burt Reynolds) will do anything to avoid a third strike and a long prison stint. So when a big city revenuer asks for Gator's help, what choice does he have? Gator's mission is to get the goods on Bama McCall (Jerry Reed), the nasty crime boss of a neighboring county. Gator gets something else he hadn't counted on, however, when he falls for television reporter Aggie Maybank (Lauren Hutton). Can he get the girl and the goon?

As is the case with most sequels, Gator is a vastly inferior movie to its predecessor, White Lightning. Everything that made that movie so good and so memorable is missing from Gator. While there are a few good moments like the opening boat chase, the movie doesn't have the same gritty feel to it that characterized White Lightning. Gator trades much of the action of White Lightning for a tired, dull romance between Reynolds and Hutton. Not only isn't it believable (especially if you know the Gator character from the first movie), but the outcome of the relationship is terribly predictable. ""Sappy"" and Gator McKlusky just shouldn't be used together.

But the most offensive part of Gator is Burt Reynolds. In White Lightning, he played it straight. From my review of White Lightning, ""One of the coolest things about White Lightning is that it presents Burt Reynolds as an actor at the top of his game. This was a Burt Reynolds who seemed to actually care about the final product and not just yucking it up with his buddies on screen."" In Gator, far too often Reynolds reverts to the clown he would become in movies like Smokey and the Bandit and Cannonball Run. That laugh of his just grates on my nerves. There are times in Gator when Reynolds and Reed are on screen together that I swear it's like a test run for Smokey and the Bandit. And it's not surprising to see Hal Needham's name in the credits as Second Unit Director.

Overall, Gator is a huge disappointment. I'm being generous with my 3/10 rating.",0 "Was it writer Tom Friedman's fault; or director Tom Kennedy's treatment? TIME WALKER makes the view want to take a walk. Sorry. Get this. A mummy from outer space is buried in King Tut's tomb over 2,000 years ago. He is let out of the tomb in California, and as he tries to find his way home, he leaves slim covered bodies all over a college campus and community.

Cast members are: Ben Murphy, Nina Axelrod, Kevin Brophy, Annie Barbierei and Shari Belafonte.",0 "Wonderful actress and fantastic screenwriter! Telling a story on several levels, one for everyone- the kids, the parents, the nanny's- the audience. I loved it, especially the casting through out- serious tragic actors playing funeral home sidekicks, delightful Colin Firth-as the frazzled Dad..and the kids were perfect! A very refreshing and entertaining change of pace from murder and mayhem, prevalent on the screens lately. A nice dose of magic is what going to the movies should be about. Now I can't wait for it to come out on DVD and see it again-On reflection I realized that Nanny Mcphee had lessons for the Dad, Evangeline and other characters,too!",1 "Someone obviously likes ""Petulia,"" the 1968 film directed by Richard Lester that I recently watched on video. Leonard Maltin, in his ""TV Movies and Video Guide,"" calls it one of the decade's best films, and a few of the contributors to the Internet Movie Database heap praise on the thing. If it isn't already obvious that I disagree with the admirers of the film, let me lay it out as clearly and as diplomatically as I can: this movie sucks.

I should now express my gratitude to the woman who stood guard at the box-office on that long ago Saturday night when I, a mere lad eager to see ""Bullitt,"" was refused entry to the second-run movie house where ""Petulia"" was the supporting feature on the grounds that one of these films (I know not which) was considered too adult for an 11 or 12 year old who looked even younger. The following summer I learned that ""Bullitt"" bit (what a dreary bore of an action film), and now I know that ""Petulia"" is just as bad. It's one of those semi-psychedelic, woefully pretentious ""60's movies"" about an adulterous affair between a middle-aged man, a surgeon played by George C. Scott, and a swingin' hip chick played by--who else?--Julie Christie. It's the kind of movie in which NOTHING happens. Because the lives of the principals are as dull and uneventful as the lives of any working stiff, well, it has to be art, right?

When I say that ""nothing"" happens in ""Petulia,"" I suppose I'm exaggerating just a bit. The film in the camera was not defective. It did capture SOMETHING, but that something doesn't add up to a whole lot. What we get are a whole bunch of disconnected scenes that are devoid of meaning but cut in such a way as to suggest that some deep truth is being conveyed. We see Scott being hit on by Christie outside a party at which they meet. Suddenly, we glimpse a child under the wheel of a car. After cutting back to the couple's conversation, director Lester shows us Scott at work in an operating room while Christie, perhaps unbeknownst to Scott, watches him through the door. Richard Chamberlain and Shirley Knight are hauled out from time to time as the adulterous couple's spouses but nothing they say or do has any significance. And then there's Joseph Cotton looking as though he belongs on a slab in the morgue. The whole thing is as arty as the director's two films with the Beatles but pretentious in ways that those films are not. Fact is, there was more art in those wild leaps the Fab Four performed in ""A Hard Day's Night"" than in a single frame of ""Petulia.""

Director Lester started in commercials and judging by most of his output, he probably should have stayed there. Like a TV commercial, ""Petulia"" shows signs of technical skill but no matter how impressive it may be to the eye, nothing can change the fact that, like a commercial, it delivers less than what it promises. It's like a car commercial that uses sexy images to equate the product with youth, beauty, and affluence when, for most people, the vehicle will provide nothing more than a means to get to the grocery store faster than they could on foot. It's a con job. So is this film.",0 "I really enjoyed this maxi series. It's too long to be a mini! This and the final portion are a whole lotta video..they total 14 DVDs. The initial smash series, Winds of War, was several more DVDs. So all in all, this was a long series! As I said, I enjoyed the entire ""package"". However, with 5 years between the first and the second series, much happened and the result was a number of actor/actress changes that make the second series confusing after seeing the first. Major characters, such as Natalie Jastrow-Henry, played by Ali McGraw in the first, Jane Seymour in the second. Aaron Jastrow, John Houseman, Sir John Gielgud. There are some others as well. Robert Mitchum and Polly Bergen reprise their superb performances as Capt. and Mrs. Pug Henry. Overall, despite the change in personnel, the acting remains great throughout the entire series. It's just kinda confusing having two different Natalies, two Aarons, two Byrons, two Janices, etc. I'm rambling, sorry. This series is long, but doesn't PLAY long. It moves along nicely and has enough plot twists to keep the viewers interest. I like this whole thing well enough to have paid to own it from start to finish. At least rent this a couple of DVDs at a time. It's worth your time!",1 "There might be a baseball movie out there that can rival how bad this one is, but I doubt it. For such great actors cast in some of the parts, I was sorely disappointed by the performances. The cinematography was poor, going from shots during a game that were obviously on a sound stage to crowd shots from any baseball broadcast. They would purposely do close up shots so you wouldn't see that nobody was actually there. Just not believable at all. I couldn't suspend my disbelief at all. Blech!",0 """Thou Shalt Not Kill...Except"" is a Rambo-style revenge yarn with a little Charlie Manson thrown in for good measure. Sargeant Stryker, a 'Nam vet, and his patrol, are harassed back in America by a cult headed by hippy-looking Sam Raimi, the future director of ""Spiderman"". They hatch a plot to take bloody revenge on the cult members and gore follows. Unfortunately, since this film is captained by Josh Becker, the director of the awful ""If I Had A Hammer"", the passable ""Running Time"", and the execrable ""Lunatics - A Love Story"", the execution is flawed. The acting is deliberately over the top and inconsistent, and the special effects are cheesy, but the main problem with ""..Except"" is its uneven tone and pacing. Though a tale of vengeance, it has long, boring passages of puerile, pretentious dialog and the action sequences are unconvincing. It's like Becker decided he didn't want to be associated with an exploitation film, so he tried turning the rig around during shooting. The result is a very questionable ""cult"" film.",0 "This film impactfully informs viewers of the efforts it took to change history in Massachusetts. I found myself being educated while riding the emotional roller coaster of those events as marriage equality was advanced and people were educated. Regardless of the final outcome of marriage equality in Massachusetts, films like this greatly inform people of what everyday individuals can do to be part of historic efforts towards advancing equality and fairness in our country for lgbtq people. I was inspired and felt better educated on the issues and strategies for moving forward. Many thanks to the filmmakers for making a movie that documents this history and educates people across the country, not just those living in Massachusetts. As such, the film is a call to action, not just a passive documentary record.",1 "The cheapness of this cartoon is evident from the beginning. Much of the animation is clearly recycled. Some of Bugs Bunny's jokes fall flat too but there's still plenty of zany, wackiness surrounding him to make up for it.

The story is this. Bug's baseball team (made up of very old men) is losing to a bunch of brutish, thug-types. He makes them a bet he can beat them all on his own. And, as usual, it's Bugs' wits and brain against the stupid, easily manipulated opponents.

This is also an earlier cartoon too. So Bugs' personality is not as honed and developed as later outings and the design of the character is a bit off. Still funny with lots of laughs tho.",1 "BLACKENSTEIN is a terrible movie and its title wouldn't suggest otherwise. Like ABBY (sort of like a Black version of THE EXORCIST), BLACKENSTEIN has practically no budget whatsoever and the acting is just terrible. Believe it or not, the two Blacula movies aren't that bad--BLACKENSTEIN, however, is abysmally bad--so bad that bad movie fans might (but probably won't) love it. Others with taste, however, won't!

One of the first things you'll notice on the DVD is that the print is really, really bad--though it does get a bit better later. This is because there just isn't much money to be made from this film and adding closed captions or digitally restoring the picture just isn't going to happen! You also will probably notice how odd Los Angeles is in the film. Most nights, there seems to be thunder and lightning and often there is an eerie fog about as well (perhaps this is just smog). Regardless, it's pretty funky weather for sunny Southern California! As for the plot, it's really not like the traditional Frankenstein story. There is no mad scientist and no dead people are reanimated. Instead, a sane researcher and his assistant work to attach dead limbs to living people who lost theirs in accidents. However, instead of working in a hospital, they work in the doctor's home which is more like a castle (in Los Angeles, okay?). Heck, the place even has a dungeon and Frankenstein-like laboratory! The assistant is a young Black lady whose boyfriend lost his limbs in an explosion in Vietnam. While the transplant looks promising, no one realizes that the doctor's evil butler switches the genetic formulas and the poor Black man starts to mutate and become evil. He, of course, goes on some obligatory rampages and since this is a so-called ""Blaxploitation"" film, you see two ladies' breasts--though it really made no sense at all and was very, very contrived. It's amazing to see how this made no sense at all, but given that NONE of the film makes sense, it's understandable.

So what is to like about the film......well,....nothing really except for the small sequence involving the comedian. One of the jokes, though a bit crude, is funny and he was pretty cute. The acting is purely amateur, the script is amazingly static and dull (something you'd never expect in a horror film--even a bad one) and the sets are cheap and make no sense. It's really too dull for bad movie fans to enjoy and I found myself falling asleep from time to time--it was that unexciting. By contrast, even the very worst Hammer horror film was light years better.",0 "This is the kind of old-fashioned entertainment that the studios used to churn out every week. Gorgeous Robert Taylor plays a prize fighter, Frank Morgan his moronic father, Edward Arnold a mob boss, and Maureen O'Sullvian is Arnold's beautiful daughter, who falls in love with Taylor. And hello, who wouldn't.

This is a piece very much of its time. Today, the relationship between the Tommy McCoy character as a young kid and the light heavyweight title holder Martin would be instantly suspect. How the world has changed.

The film manages to hold one's interest, especially with its exciting fight sequences. As an added treat, ""Hart to Hart"" co-star Lionel Stander, who played ""Max,"" has a supporting role. I'd know that voice anywhere.",1 "I rented this movie because of the actors involved - Ray Liotta, LL Cool J, Taye Diggs, Mekhi Phifer and the great Bruce McGill. However, the movie basically bored and confused me simultaneously. To put it simply, it's just too messy. The movie touches on some interesting subjects and has some potential - but the end result is, well, quite a mess.

Slow Burn seems to be quite inspired by ""The Usual Suspects"" - which is by no means a bad thing. But it all just gets too convoluted. I lost track of the tricks the movie tried to pull to surprise the audience toward the end. It seemed pretty forced as did all the flashbacks throughout the film. I will, however, give the movie credit for ""hiding"" the bad guy really well - I didn't guess who it was, despite being a big movie buff. The actors all do their jobs just fine, though I think LL Cool J was somewhat miscast.

All in all I would not recommend this movie. I guess there is a reason it was held back for 2 years ;-)",0 "I think it was a wonderful film. I remember when I watched this with my sisters, the oldest said to me that Hindustan people aren't gonna like it because the hero is falling in love with a British (white) girl. And it turns out to be true now that I have come to the boards and read almost every review I could find. I think it was a very beautifully acted, scripted and shot film. I have to agree that Luxmi didn't have much to do but dance and show off her pretty face, but after all if you look at the auditioning process, that's what she was hired to do. They needed a dancer and that's what they got. As per her lack of conversations with Kisna, well maybe that was due to the fact that she couldn't because she had devoted herself to worshiping Krishna and he was always a warrior in training. He didn't love her but had to obey his parents when they said ""marry her"", because of tradition. Since they were kids, he always ignored her why should he talk to her as an adult then? And by the way, if you had an eye for good film-making, you would see that the film is being told from the perspective of Catherine (as things happened and as she imagined other scenarios to have happened) how was she to know if Kisna and Luxmi conversed or not? The film and from the perspective with which it is told, is Catherine's. When you watched 'Titanic', didn't you want to know just a little more about Fabrizio? Didn't you want to a little more about why Guggenheim was aboard the ship with a pregnant teenager? or why explore what was really going on in steerage besides the party? Didn't you want to know Molly a little more? or see other parts of the ship besides first class? I did. But you couldn't because the majority of the film was being told from Rose's (the heroine) perspective. As per the music video you were so fussy about, um, isn't that like in every Bollywood made film? She was dreaming and that was her dream! Hullo!!!! Didn't you see 'Shakti' what sense did the 'Ishq Kameena' music video make other than to say that Shahrukh Khan's character was dreaming? As per the nudity and kissing scenes, I didn't see any. Anyhow, I saw Kisna! and I absolutely loved it! You can only argue about a great film! :-)

(Note: my review is in response to the many people who have bashed and continue to bash this intelligent film)",1 "This is one of those movies where the title does not give much information about the movie. I picked this up because the title seemed inane. I absolutely fell in love with the movie. I loved this movie from start to finish. Every once in a while, you need to watch a stupid movie just for the heck of it. This fits the bill. The Flatulence scene is one of the peak moments in this movie. I had to replay the scene two to three times just to catch it all because of how hard I was laughing. In fact, each time I watch this movie I repeat that scene several times, for the fact that laughing so hard I miss things, and because of how hilarious it is in the first place. This is a must view, if you love inane movies, or just need to relax!",1 "Degrading rubbish like this should never be made.

The sense of pointlessness lies not just in the fact that there's no story. It's possible to get away with having no story. Rather, every scene is part of some larger story we never see. Take the boxing scene. There's something pleasingly surreal, and yet accurate, about it; it's perfectly paced and the acting is faultless. It forms part of a grim story that I'm not sure I'd like, but at least, in the context of that story, it would pack a wallop. Here it's in limbo. Previous and subsequent scenes don't shed light on the boxing scene - they duplicate it. And really, only two of the countless incidents in the whole film show any kind of creativity and humanity: the boxing scene, and the confrontation between the `street punk' and the ex-policeman. That's all there is of value, and it's not much value. They're fragments of good films that were never made.

Sure, this kind of work has an effect. It's a smorgasbord of things painful to look at: blood, bone-crunching, cocaine-snorting (something I find I simply can't watch), rape, hands bent backwards and rocks to the back of the head. It's impossible to watch the film without wincing at the constant brutality. And yet, so what? There are people who think that anything which ""provokes a response"" must be great art, but I've never heard anyone actually advance a reason for believing something so ridiculous, especially when the response is as automatic as a wince. I feel as if I've been served sour milk and then been told that I've just drunk something of aesthetic merit - because it made my eyes water.

In Australia ""Bure Baruta"" went by the name ""Cabaret Balkan"", a title which makes it all the more clear how much inspiration Dejan Dukovski drew from Bertolt Brecht - and that's not a compliment. It's hard to think of anyone more fatal to imitate than Brecht. Brecht was a writer so talented he sometimes created beautiful parables despite his most earnest, theoretically motivated efforts not to; people who imitate Brecht are never so fortunate. They merely induce headaches.",0 "It seems that every once and a while, an occasionally brilliant film will catch my attention in the late hours of the night (or the early hours of the morning, as it was in my case); I found that film in ""He Was a Quiet Man,"" writer-director Frank A. Cappello's brilliantly acted, smartly written satire about that unlikely hero whose ""heroic"" act may not have been so heroic, and in fact masked an inner rage that may actually make him the villain.

A seriously understated Christian Slater stars as Bob Maconel, a frustrated office worker whose first words in the picture have him counting the amount of bullets in his gun and who his intended targets are going to be. Bob lives alone and works as a drone in one of those big technology firms where it's never made clear what it is that they actually do, or what everyone's jobs are. Bob's day-to-day existence consists of him feeding his fish (who he talks to and they occasionally give him bad advice, fueling his murderous rage), going to work, rarely being acknowledged by his neighbors, being picked on by his co-workers, and working up the courage to go on his deadly shooting spree.

Well, just when Bob finally gets the courage to do the deed, he is beaten to the punch by a fellow enraged office worker. In the middle of the carnage, Bob and the shooter manage to strike up a casual conversation. When Bob asks why he's not going to shoot him, the man replies, ""Because you're the only person in this office who's more pathetic than I am."" Bob takes this personally and guns down the assailant. Afterward, he rushes to the side of the office beauty, Vanessa Parks (Elisha Cuthbert), who was seriously wounded in the attack and is the only person Bob ever really liked. Her smile could ""light up a room,"" we're told throughout the film.

Bob is then branded a hero. The people he despised are now his best friends, including the office bully and the office slut, who would have never given the time of day before. (She gets her comeuppance in one particular scene that is all of hilarious, disgusting, and disturbing.) He gets a promotion, a brand-new office next to the big boss, Mr. Shelby (William H. Macy), and the company car. His neighbors finally acknowledge him; when one of them asks when did he move in, Bob replies, ""I've lived here five years."" He soon begins to visit Vanessa in the hospital, whose spine was severed by a bullet and is now a quadriplegic. She begs him to finish what the shooter started. When he relents, that's when the two begin a tentative relationship that begins to calm the deadly monster lurking within him. Later on in the film, however, troubling questions begin to arise about Bob's sanity and his grip on his new reality that he has found himself in.

As many have mentioned, ""He Was a Quiet Man,"" seems to combine elements of past similar-themed features including ""Falling Down,"" ""Office Space"" and ""A History of Violence,"" plus a few of the artistically weird storytelling aesthetics of a David Lynch picture. Similarities seem to end fairly early in the picture after Bob first becomes a hero and a media darling. It seems that when you finally have a grasp on where it's all headed, the picture does a 360 and winds up going right back to where it started, both metaphorically and literally.

Slater was pretty good in this film; his performance here worked from his first seconds on screen, his character of office drone Bob Maconel combining elements of the main characters from the films I mentioned earlier and hitting all the right emotive notes. For years, he's been hounded by his Jack Nicholson obsession and I think here he seems to have finally come into his own as a seriously demented loner who is quickly losing his grip on reality.

While by no means one of my favorite actresses, it was a delight to see Elisha Cuthbert in a role where her gorgeous looks are only part of her performance and are not THE performance; here is a beautiful woman who freely admits to using her sexuality as a means of getting ahead in life and now she's been reduced to nothing - a fact that she freely admits to having accepted - and finally having to take things extra slow because her most valuable asset has been taken away from her: her own body. Maybe I'm overreaching or being overly critical - I did like her in ""The Girl Next Door"" (2004) - she can act, it's that I haven't liked too many of her film projects since '04. Anyway, when she's confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life, for me, it's almost like stepping back to truly appreciate a fine piece of art. Only then, is she truly beautiful.

""He Was a Quiet Man"" is not a perfect film. The script is prone to occasional slips of the pen in certain places, but the performances (especially by Christian Slater and Elisha Cuthbert) and Cappello's artistic direction and grip on the finer points of the material make up for it. ""He Was a Quiet Man"" is one of those brilliant movies that forces us to look at ourselves and see what makes us tick. It's funny, it's dramatic and it's also occasionally quite disturbing, but it is an example of all-around great, late-night fanfare that deserves more respect from the movie-going public.

9/10",1 "As soon as i heard that they were bringing this film out i was expecting disappointment. I mainly agree with slyttle, who essentially slated it, because i have been a big fan of the series for a long time too. Where are the books we love? She talked about the lack of acting skill - true, the lack of good direction - also true, and the shoddy dialogue - which i thought was ""meh"".

It's meant to be a mish mash of Angus, thongs and It's okay I'm wearing really big knickers but it's not. None of the characters were even slightly right. Jaz for example. Tom was not in the tiniest bit ""hot"" and in mine, and my mates' opinions Dave the Laugh was actually fitter than Robbie. ""Wet Lindsey"" was altered to ""Slutty Lindsey"" and i unashamedly was waiting the entire movie to get a glimpse of Sven who is a main in the books but is mentioned once in the film and i don't remember seeing him on screen.

I do admit though that the soundtrack was not bad. In fact i might go as far as to say it was really good. I am essentially the key demographic and i disagree that it was completely without it's merits though. Some people around me found it funny whilst i found it kind of cliché and unstimulating. There was no mention of her idiolect (the way she speaks) such as Kiwi-a-go-go land and it's like they just forgot that the books existed.

Independently from the books (if I'd never read them) I'd say it's just another shoddy English Comedy that needed to be slightly more real and slightly more thought over. The characters need to be jiggled and the script needs to be fiddled with if they expect to bring out a sequel. I think that they were trying ti make it too much like Bend It Like Beckham, when really the books have enough merit to make their own, even better film.

I essentially got the disappointment that i expected.",0 "Considered ""shocking"" in its day (largely on the basis of PR), ""The Bad Seed"" remains little more than an interesting relic today. Yes, I saw the film on its initial release (I was 12). Even then, it didn't work -- as a film. From all accounts, it DID work on Broadway as a play.

Nancy Kelly, Patty McCormack, Henry Jones and Eileen Heckart reprise their stage roles here. Interesting that only Heckart understood the different requirements for film acting and stage acting. Her two brief scenes are the only honest (and heartbreaking) moments in the film.

Even director Mervyn LeRoy apparently hadn't the professionalism to alter the others' stage (and stagy) performances that had been set in stone during the Broadway run.

Nancy Kelly's odd, idiosyncratic sing-song line delivery is pathetically ""attention getting."" ""Watch me act the hell out of this,"" she seems to whine in every scene. Banging the table repeatedly while Rhoda plays that infernal piano as smoke billows outside and the yardman screams is NOT acting. It's indicating. It's commenting. But then, Kelly's every on screen moment seems to be ""commenting"" on her character's plight, rather than inhabiting that character. As an archival record of her stage performance, its valuable in revealing a certain style of acting that, in the '50s, was already becoming rapidly outdated. Kelly never enjoyed much of a film career, or a stellar stage career, for that matter.

McCormack is effective, for the most part, until her ""big scene"" where she reveals the truth of what happened at the picnic. Then, her limited acting skills are all too visible. She has two levels: phony sweetness and phony hysterics. Phony sweetness (when you know the kid is really a murderer) plays, for awhile. Phony hysterics in a child psychopath is the wrong choice (though it may have worked well on stage). Instead of jumping from ""sweet"" to ""rage"" without any transitional steps (always one sign of a poor actor), a ""real"" psychopath would have used the moment to launch into tearful ""vulnerable"" pleas for understanding. A far more effective and subtle choice -- both for an actor and a psychopath (all psychopaths are actors, after all).

Henry Jones' portrayal veers too close to a baggy-pants vaudeville comedian to be remotely plausible. Jones was an excellent actor. But not here. ""Ham"" caricature wasn't needed: real sympathy was.

Only Eileen Heckart delivers the goods. The clash between her performance (which is the real thing) and the rest of the cast is startlingly obvious -- even to a 12 year old audience member.

""The Bad Seed"" couldn't work today -- or even a few years after it was made. It was never a great play. It relied completely on the ""shock"" value of its theme. On Broadway, perhaps its most disturbing element was its ending -- yet that was jettisoned for the film version because of the ""moral"" dictates of the times.

In the play, Mommy dies and Rhoda survives to kill another day. ""What will you give me for a basket of kisses,"" Daddy asks. ""I'll give you a basket of hugs!"" Curtain.

Not here. Instead, we are treated to a tacked-on ending where Rhoda (in a noisy thunderstorm in the middle of the night, no less), sneaks out of the house and onto the pier to retrieve -- what? That penmanship medal Mommy threw back in the lake? One forgets. It doesn't matter. The orchestra and sound effects department whip up a frenzy of a storm while little Patty McCormack is required to -- what? Walk? That's it? Then, BOOM! Deus ex machina. God takes care of the plot by obliterating the little actress, uh, Rhoda, with a bolt of lightning. Then the camera pans up into the trees.

But wait! There's more! Cheapening an already cheap shot of a film even further, we must now sit through ""curtain calls"" of the actors as they appear, smiling, in the doorway of the Penmark's apartment. (Get the symbolism YET? ""Penmark"" and ""penmanship medal?"" It was that kind of play.) This bizarre sequence ends with Nancy Kelly mock-spanking Patty McCormack on the sofa.

Presumably so the presumably terrified audience can presumably return to their normal lives after the presumed shocks of this presumed thriller.

Even At 12, I knew I'd been ripped off. And the film looks worse with age. A deservedly ignored anachronism.",0 "Enough already!!! This movie is pretty stinky. The scots' accents are not very convincing, the yanks can't act, the dialogue is creaky, the skunk is stuffed, and the jokes are weak. The only nice thing I can say about it is that it's not quite bad enough to make you stop watching. Oh, yeah, and I like the cheap film stock. To top it all off, the music is by Ed Bogas! Ever play an accolade game from the mid 80's and you'll recognize his work, especially in the ""dancing"" scene. Sorry, Mack, this bites.",0 "Sybylla (Judy Davis) is a young woman living in turn of the century Australia. Unlike a lot of girls, she doesn't want marriage and a family, she would like to have ""a brilliant career"". What in, she does not quite know. Sent to live with rich relatives, she meets a neighboring land owner (Sam Neill) who is quite wealthy, single, and handsome. And, he seems to have an eye on Sybylla. They become mates and have wonderful meetings where pillow fights reign supreme. Is it time to just rethink one's priorities, in Sybylla's case? This is a great film, based on the author's own experiences. Women are who they are, even 100 years ago, and Sybylla wants to follow her best instincts, not the traditions of the time. As Sybylla, Davis is flat-out brilliant, for, in her hands, we see this young lady's intelligence, beauty and fierce independence come to life. Neill gives a nice performance, too, as a man who has the tables turned on him by a woman, for heaven's sake. The settings and costumes are wonderful depictions of life long ago and the overall production values are very high. Although this film could probably be called a feminist classic, do not let that keep you away, if that sounds unattractive. It is a richly rewarding tale of a person following her heart and, as such, is great encouragement to anyone who walks to the beat of a different drum.",1 "A washed-up boxer is given a magical chance to win an important fight, thanks to the ""big, tall wish"" of a little boy who idolizes him.

This is one of the most underrated episodes of the series, featuring brilliant performances from Ivan Dixon as the fighter and Steven Perry as the boy. Remarkable for its time as a TV episode featuring African-American actors in flesh-and-blood roles, but had nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights issues. Serling's sensitive script and innovative direction also help create a beautiful and superbly realized story about the importance of faith, and the tragedy of the cynicism that age and experience can create.",1 "Ballad of a Soldier is a fine, humanistic view of war as experienced by a young Russian soldier. The young soldier is everything a Boy Scout should be: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverend. Well, maybe hold the reverend.

Having managed to save a bunch of his comrades from certain death at the hands of the Nazis, the young soldier is called to the general's hq. There, the general tells him he's putting the lad's name in for a medal of valor. Fine, says the boy, but could I please go home to see my mother?

The general hesitates, but encouraged by the soldiers surrounding him, he lets the boy go home, making him promise to get to see his mother and come back to the front within four days.

So the lad goes home, and along the way he does favors for some of his comrades, he helps a lovely young maiden in distress, and he generally spreads good will. He gets home in time to give his mom a hug - there's an incredible scene with him and his dear old mom (wearing a babushka) running toward each other through a field of wheat. Then he wipes away her tears, and tells her he's got to go back. Immediately. A promise is a promise.

What a film. If you can watch this one without crying over the human condition, you're just plain not human!",1 "Dario Argento and George Romero team up, each telling a tale supposedly based on works of Edgar Poe. Romero's segment further solifies my notion that you can classify whatever George makes into two distinct parts: His Dead trilogy which is great and Everything else which turns out lacking. Blasphemy you say? Well bullocks to you, if you can prove me wrong please do so. Anyway, in this first segment that plays out like a longer boring version of 'Tales From the Crypt"", Jessica Valdemar (Adrienne Barbeau, of ""Swamp Thing"" and ""Escape From New York"" fame, and NO I will NOT even mention ""Maude"" it was a horrid horrid show) wants to off her dying sugar daddy with the help of her hypnotizing Docter lover only to have the old coot come back. Even the almost good last few minutes of it can't save it. Luckily Dario Argento's segment while not without it's flaws (such as a story thats WAY strecthed out), can't help but seem better. In that one Harvey Keitel beats the sh*# out of an angry cat and the feline's owner. But it's a bit more then that.

My Grade: C (the high Argento grade cancels out the low Romero grade) Blue Underground DVD extras: Disc 1: talent bios; Theatrical trailer; and a poster/stills gallery Disk 2: 'Two Master's Eyes' documentary; 'Savini's EFX'; ""At home with Tom Savini""; and a five minute interview with Adrienne Barbeau

DVD Easter Egg: On disk 2 press up until ""Extras"" is highlighted to get an interview with George Romero's wife about her bit part as the nurse in his segment",0 "I have to say that ALL of the Clancy novels that were made into films, with the exception of ""The Sum of All Fears"" were brought to life as great films. Harrison Ford reprises his role as Dr. Jack Ryan, who is forced in this film to step into the shoes of Admiral Greer, who is dying. While there is a lot of each characters personal lives carefully inserted into the film, it NEVER ceases to be clever and interesting. It's much better to watch than any senseless action picture with Bruce Willis or your wimpy little Ben Affleckish character. The film is perfectly balanced so that there is not a single boring scene in the picture. The wheels are constantly turning to make sure something dramatic is happening to really draw you further into the picture. I recommend this movie as well as it's two predecessors, ""The Hunt for Red October"", and ""Patriot Games"". Both of which are equally brilliant.",1 "This film is not an action movie like the title might imply, far from in in fact, it is slow moving yet relentless in it's growing tension. You feel that it will all reach a breaking point eventually and that's what kept me interested, along with very believable performance from the entire case. I don't want to get into any of the plot for fear of spoiling anything so I won't. I knew very little going in and I think that was for the best. I'm not trying to make it sound like this is a film full of big twists, because it's not, but what it is, is a film of moments, key moments that define the film, it's story and it's characters. These moments at times are surprises and other times inevitability. All said this story is well done, I do believe it could have been done better by a different cast and some rewrites, but that's not to say that this is a bad film at all, for what it was and what it had it all feels both good and right.",1 "I wanted to like ""The Royal Hunt of the Sun"", but it begs comparison to a far superior film, and fails to entertain. Religious clap trap may have gone a long way towards sinking the movie. I have no problem with Robert Shaw or Christopher Plummer's acting. It is the lack of movement that drags the film down. There simply isn't enough meaningful dialog, unless you are into blasphemy, to maintain interest. Ultimately you will wish you had watched something else. ""Aguirre the Wrath of God"". had much the same theme, searching for gold, while spreading ""God's word"", and Aguirre is a far better film. I cannot recommend ""The Royal Hunt of the Sun"", but do recommend ""Aguirre the Wrath of God"". - MERK",0 "WICKED STEPMOTHER is the kind of movie that happens to an actor who cannot understand that his or her time has passed, and that encroaching illness and the approximation of death should be an indicative that maybe it would be best to relax and enjoy the accolades, retrospectives, and lifetime achievement awards.

Bette Davis was coming off the mild success of THE WHALES OF AUGUST when she decided to do this movie about a witch who moves into a family's home and causes havoc there. Severely ill, barely able to remember her lines, and frail as a leaf about to fall from its branch in the middle of fall, she was forced to step out of filming only a week after production on the movie began.

Surprisingly enough, she claimed problems with the script among other things, making it clear that old age and illness had not mellowed her character one bit. What she seemed unable to understand that this sort of demands which she had been known for back in her prime was supremely out of style by now, and for an actress of her stature to assume she could throw her ego around just because, was pushing it a little.

Hence, her scenes remain in this movie and should have probably been either deleted and replaced with another actress. I can only assume that the director did not have the money to replace Davis, and decided to keep her character and have Barbara Carrera step in, adding a ludicrous set-up that would explain Davis' absence from the movie. As it is, WICKED STEPMOTHER remains as Bette Davis' last film, one that can be bypassed as an gargantuan error on her behalf.",0 "This movie is beyond bad and I don't know how on earth I'm even gonna be able to write the 10 minimum lines that are required in order to get this review published here.

However I will give it a go, apparently it's supposed to be funny, but having a no-sense making story or did I just write story I meant, I don't know what I meant because there is no such thing as a story in this movie.

There aren't any jokes either, and my guess is that 99% of the ""actors"" in this movie had no real acting-experience prior to this movie.

What more to say, it's a blasphemy towards comedies that it even refers itself as a comedy.

SNOWBOARD ACADEMY starring COREY HAIM and ERNIE wasn't great by any means BUT a masterpiece nonetheless when compared to this snooze-fest.",0 "I've read the reviews on this website and can only conclude that the two Johns involved with this movie (Travolta and Woo) must have paid a lot of people a lot of money to register with IMDb and write 10-star reviews to balance out the more valid 1 and 2-star reviews. This movie is absolutely atrocious in every aspect: directing, acting, special effects, dialog, plot-line, you name it. If Travolta were playing his role more tongue-in-cheek and the movie itself were touted as a comedy, then it might be palatable. But the movie and actor both appear to be actually taking themselves seriously, and the result is something that is just dreadful to watch. It took all my strength to actually see it through to the end all the while hoping that something redeeming would happen. It did not. Do not waste your time by seeing this movie. Use the two hours to weed your garden, mow your lawn, change the cat litter, or wash the windows. Any of those things are more enjoyable than sitting through this.",0 "I caught this movie on Lifetime Movie Network. I really only watched it because it's opening screen was the Bakersfield street sign. As a new Bakersfield resident, I was fascinated to find out how many places I could recognize in this movie. Not much. But I do believe it captured some of the ""Nashville West"" culture, with the cowboys, the country-western bar, Tony Llama sign. It also shows that the typical ""armpit of America"" slam I sometimes hear about Bakersfield does not take into account the many affluent citizens who own high-dollar extravagant homes. As for the movie, it kept my attention until the end, which is rare in my case for TV. I enjoyed the ending, where the ditsy blond turned out to be cold as ice. And the kinky twist, how she was in love with her female friend was revealed as she shot her to death. Oh, and of course, you had to love the gory handcuff scene in the end! This must have been along the road somewhere heading to Kernville, along the Kern River. That's it, pretty good movie, a cold-blooded Thelma and Louise.",1 "I wrote a review of Poster Boy on my website (www.BadGayFilms.com) and you'll be surprised that me big issues with this movie aren't found in the gay plot lines (it was pretty typical of most gay films.) Here is some of what I had to say, be sure to check out the website for my full review:

""...oddly enough my issues with this movie don't really come from the gay elements. For the most part the gay plot lines are pretty reasonable and believable though not very compelling. I'm only talking about the plot here mind you. The camera work will make you dizzy and the editing is sloppy. The actors do a decent job for the most part (Matt Newton as Henry Kray and Jack Noseworthy as Anthony) with some glaring exceptions (oddly enough Karen Allen as Eunice Kray and Ian Reed Kesler as Skip Franklin are pretty awful.)

My true problem with this film is the very basis for which it is based. The whole plot centers on a political campaign and while most movies that attempt to portray a campaign tend to stumble, this one falls flat on its face.""

- BadGayFilms.com",0 "Maybe it's the nature of the films he selects. In any case, Tom Hanks is in virtually every scene in this movie, and in many of them he is alone. This was also true of Cast Away. In both movies Hanks strives to overcome a series of problems, some realistic, some contrived. A modern day rework of Charlie Chaplin's ""little tramp"" style of story telling. The movie is not bad, but when the story becomes subordinate to the movie star, it becomes a distraction and the whole production suffers. This movie is another valentine that Tom Hanks has sent to himself. If you go to movies to see the stars rather than the stories, then this may be for you.",0 "This movie was the most terrible thing I've seen in my entire life. But it made the funniest MST3K episode I've seen in a long time. However, if you are a big fan of mullets, pedafiles, sketchy old prospectors, hoaky action sequences, bad teeth, hicks, and annoying squirrely kids with high voices...then see this movie!",1 "The Story about a boy-genius who wants nothing, than being a normal boy, is a well played and charmful story. The Boy is played by a real-life-boy-genius who plays the piano amazingly. Grandpa is the same actor as ""Hitler"" in ""Der Untergang"" and shows herewith his incredible talent for various roles.

The Movie has no gunfights, carcrashes or nudescenes. Its a simple, heartwarming story, which takes you away from the fast and hectic daily life into a almost 2-hour-story, which is nothing but good and charming.

A silent movie, but nevertheless a real good one.",1 "Let's see, get a lot of neat sets and locations together, mix in lots of special effects and costumed extras, ditch the script and just tack it together, and finally completely forget about any real acting attempt and you have this uh, movie.

The Danny Freemont character tries so hard to fill Indiana Jones' shoes that it basically ruins the whole movie, since Freemont could never be Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) and everyone watching is painfully aware of this to the point of frustration.

So then there is this Morgan Sinclaire character who goes about literally sucking up friends and enemies like some mad dust-buster (for what reason is unknown) and you would expect this personified evil to finally get what for, but what happens? He himself gets unceremoniously vacuumed up, and thus there goes the villain, sigh, whoopee.

Oh you will just love the good against evil fan-dance of flapping wings - what a dismal finale.

Best line of the this disaster - ""I wish we could all forget""; you said it lady! Unfortunately they didn't forget to produce this wash out.",0 "A handsome and lonely gym teacher Eddie Collins can't perform sexually due to his constant watching of his mother undress while he hid in her closet as a child.His only recourse is to kill the women he tries to sleep with and stash them in a pigeon hutch on his roof.He hires a prostitute to dress as his dead mother,the only way he is able to achieve sexual gratification...""The Arousers"" is the first film of director Curtis Hanson.Originally shot in 1971 under the title ""Sweet Kill"",this film lingered on the shelf until 1973 when executive producer Roger Corman had Hanson shoot two days of nudity inserts to spice-up the film.Angus Scrimm of ""Phanatsm"" fame has a small cameo here.Overall,this is a good piece of sleaze from the early 70's that should satisfy the exploitation fans out there looking for plenty of nudity,sex and violence.7 out of 10.",1 "Unfortunately, the DVD case doesn't warn you of the terrible quality of both the acting and the filming of this movie.

For over 50 percent of the movie, you cannot even see the actors. Apparently the filmmakers have never learned about lighting. They are in an unlit house at midnight, but you can't even tell where in the shot they are. Which is probably for the best, because the acting is so terrible that you're better off not seeing them. The story line isn't exactly great either.

Haunted House isn't even one of those terrible movies that you rent and laugh at because it sucks so badly. Its one of those movies where you genuinely feel cheated out of 5 bucks.",0 "Four youths decide to spend some time ""surfing"" (i.e. making out), when weird things start to happen.

This one grabs you by the throat and doesn't let up. You'll be amazed by the intricate plot and the new (to me) but talented actors. The story is fresh and filled with enough surprises and scares to keep you on the edge of your seat. Darkly beautiful, the photography alone is downright mesmerizing. Several images will stay in your head long after the closing credits. ""Lost Things"" cleverly avoids the usual Horror pitfalls for a dark and disturbing, not to mention unique vision.

So much for that, I can't continue with a straight face. ""Lost Things"" is nothing of the above, just boring and confused. Two stars out of ten.",0 "This film went straight to video, here is why:

The film has the misfortune of following one of the worst sequels of all time. ""The Skulls"" is a well known film starring Paul Walker, and ""The Skulls 2"" was the worst explanatory sequel since ""Highlander 2."" Everybody thought this movie would disappoint because it's a sequel to a bad sequel.

Secondly, ""Skulls 3"" is a feminist film anachronism. The audience is ready for women in serious roles. ""G.I. Jane"" was a huge hit. No longer is a film which begs the question 'why can't girls play too?' provocative. The films feminist themes are dated and cliched.

Finally, the obvious nature of the script rivals daytime drama. The roommate actually says, ""waddaya know? A sorority girl with a brain!"" (when describing herself).

Do not see this movie.",0 "A documentary following five families who have been touched by the issues surrounding Homosexuality and the biblical interpretation most often publicized by the religious right.

This movie shows what happens because of this and covers both sides of this issue in an even handed manner. I would be surprised that after watching this movie, many wouldn't change their viewpoint and be more tolerant of homosexuality. It has terrific interviews with theological scholars, Desmond Tutu, and many others.

My only concern is that those who need to see this most aren't the ones who will attend this movie.",1 "In an idyllic Scottish village, poor collie dog Lassie fails at sheepherding because she's afraid of crossing through water; a crusty old doc inherits Lassie, but he doesn't much want her either, even after she warns him of a collapsed bridge down the road. Despite a handsome MGM production, this non-adventure is unrelievedly depressing and infuriating (if the simple-minded plot doesn't gnaw at you, the ridiculous Scottish accents and muttonchops on the men certainly will). The collie dog used for the film is a beautiful animal but, let's face it, not particularly gifted for the camera (most of the time, she hovers about on the edge of the frame, constantly looking to one side for directions). Lassie takes a real beating in this one (including harsh owners, icy, raging rivers and bad weather of all sorts), yet, oddly, much of the focus is on doctor Edmund Gwenn and the wet-eyed, hand-wringing families of his patients. This downer is truly one of the dreariest family films of all time, not helped by a colorless supporting cast which includes a wooden Janet Leigh in an early role. *1/2 from ****",0 "This film could have been interesting, but it wasn't. The thing that seemed most odd about this film was that a few times during the movie, the group started fighting with the guy who was trying to figure out the puzzles and save the ship. I suppose they figured that if he was beat senseless he could solve the problems more efficiently. Anyway, I try to find some reason to see a movie in most of my reviews, so you might consider this movie if you're interested in weird uses of Shakespeare.",0 "I personally thought this film was good. 7 out of 10. I thought the acting was very good. But I have to admit the plot was interesting. Unusual. Different. But that is why I liked it. It wasn't like every other gangsta, mob, shoot 'em and kill 'em film I'd seen. There wasn't 60 minutes of blood and gore. Which I am glad about: there is too much in this industry anyway.

So if you want a movie that is a little different. And maybe even a bit unusual, go to your local video store and rent Gun Shy.

",1 "Bruce Leddy tried his best giving the budget to make 'Shut Up And Sing' aka 'The Wedding Weekend'.

The problem lies in the plot, Some moments are interesting, but usually bland.

A group of guys who sang together in a college a Capella group reunite 15 years later to perform at a friend's wedding and discover how their lives have progressed -- and in some cases regressed -- since their college heyday, an idea that seems dated and the lack of face-value, disappoints all the way.

Acting wise: Molly Shannon is the only actor who does her part well, while all the others try hard, though some manage.

on the whole 'Shut Up And Sing' isn't what you expect.",0 "Yes, Sean Connery did not want to be Bond forever and for the most part you can say he has done a rather good job of doing roles other than Bond. Then there are the head scratchers like that turn as a villain in the very dull ""Avengers"" movie. Or like here, where he decided to say the heck with serious acting let me be in one of those horrible films with one of those guys who can not act a lick in this case Miles O'Keefe, also seen in the dreadful ""Cave Dwellers"", which was also a sequel to another one that I have heard is bad itself Ator. Granted the movie ""Zardoz"" was strange too, and it made no sense as well, but it had a certain style and actually seemed to work even though there are still parts of it I have no clue as to what they were about. This one is just bad with an ending that makes one go what the heck just happened there. Did they not remember to write a good ending so they had to end it in the most vague possible manner. Not really much to say about this movie, only that Sean Connery is the only reason I gave this movie a two because he is a favorite actor of mine. However, he does not really add anything to this one, but it just makes the movie surreal just because an actor of his caliber is in it.",0 "Jessica Pare' stars as the lovely small town girl, who blossoms into a Super Model, only with destructive consequences to the suitors who are drawn to her !

Ever wonder what the value of ""Beauty"" has to the World ?, this film ""Stardom"", defines it to a ""T"", and then some.

Canadian Indie film, Directed by Denys Arcand and co-written with Jacob Potashnik delve into the world of glamor and Super Models, with the gorgeous Tina Menzhal(Jessica Pare'), who gets lovelier and lovelier with each passing shot.

Starring at hockey, Tina is ""DISCOVERED"" and becomes the cause celebere', a Super Hot property modeling everything from starring TV commercials to the hottest runways in the world.

Enter Barry Levine(Dan Ackroyd) a married man with children who dumps them and invests everything he has, emotionally and materially, into the doomed relationship. Being a May-December couple has its restrictions, which soon separates them and Barry's mental status.

Blaine de Castillon(Frank Lanangella) has his desires set on her, and pounces at the first opportunity , to woo and wed his pretty prize.

He is an Ambassador,control freak, who wants his every wish fulfilled, with no questions asked. Well, you can see where this is going.

In between, we can see Tina's development, and the lack of it, as her fame increases, so does her shallowness, and naiveté'.

Cast on Jerry Springer like talk shows, she never finishes her thoughts, but seems to win every argument without trying.

Getting the Best of everything in life becomes standard fare, an expected way of life with no consequences.

The runtime is 100 minutes , except in Argentina, they get an extra 5.

So, if you feel that you have gotten the short straw in life, then you will really enjoy this film, watch for the Freud quote, it is memorable and historic. I gave this 2000 gem a 9.",1 "I went to see this film because I have admired Kathy Bates' acting for years. I must say that I am confused as to why she would accept a role so beneath her abilities. Given that, she could have brought life into her character.

As for Sarah Jessica Parker. Well, her ability to portray emotions ranges from clutching her chest to clutching her stomach. And when is this 40+ year old woman going to stop squealing like a stuck pig. Girls in middle school are able to express themselves better.

The male actors were, well, unimpressive at best.

The story line could've have been developed a lot more, with interesting banter and twists and turns. But it wasn't. Yet there were times when there were some good one-liners.

For a inexpensive matinée, why not. For a full priced movie ticket...",0 "What the hell is wrong with Activision? They started off so well with the Spider-Man franchise back in 2000, on the original Playstation. Now they're shoveling tripe, pure unadulterated tripe on us--the hardworking consumer.

I brought the PS2 version of this game and sold it back the next day, it was so unbelievably bad. The graphics made me want to vomit. The PS2 is hardly a graphics powerhouse system but this was unforgivably ugly. As for the game-play, it didn't make me sick. No, it made me want to kill someone. Seriously, if a felon was arrested for committing a string of horrific crimes and offered playing this game as a defense at his trial, the judge would have to let him off--the game-play is just that bad.

Case in point, the mega-brawls. Every now and then, you have a major fight, with over eight enemies on screen at once. When this occurs, the game slows to a crawl and Spidey sinks into whatever surface he's standing on. It's like he's fighting on water, which just happens to look like concrete or grass. This same choppiness also prevents Spider-Man from using his incredibly limited repertoire of attacks effectively, since any attack activates about 2-3 seconds after the corresponding button has been pressed. Ugh, it stinks! However, what truly makes it horrible is comparing it to the highlight of this now failing franchise, Spider-Man 2.

In Spider-Man 2, also for the PS2, the game-play was so good. Yeah, the story kind of blew, but the control was so unbelievably immersive. You could climb walls, run along walls, wall slide, and perform 360 degree swings with the greatest of ease. You could smack someone into the air, juggle their butt, then, just for kicks, hang them from a lamppost, and so much more. Unfortunately, in this game, you can't pull off a fraction of the aforementioned moves.

In this game, if you want to climb a wall faster--too damn bad. You want better control over your swinging--not going to find that here. You want to unleash rapid fire combos on the bad guys--you'll wish you could. I can't begin to count the ways that this game whomps, in comparison to a title which predates it by three years.

Activision needs to shape the hell up!! They should stop trying to reinvent the wheel and go back to what they know worked. Ultimate Spider-Man was somewhat of a step backwards in terms of game-play, from SM2. Spider-Man 3, on the other hand, is like a quadruple back-flip from a skyscraper from SM2. I don't know what they did to hack Activision off, but before Web of Shadows gets anywhere near alpha, Activision needs to get the two lead programmers from SM2 back. Those dudes seemed to have a pretty damn good idea about how to effectively portray this character in a game. If Activison doesn't, I'm pretty sure that Web of Shadows will end up being another black hole of suck which they see fit to present us with. No, I didn't like this game.",0 """The Grand"" is a mockumentary about six internet poker players who gather in Las Vegas for a $10 million, winner-take-all tournament.

A game, eclectic cast - Woody Harrelson, Hank Azaria, Chris Parnell, Ray Romano, Werner Herzog, Gabe Kaplan - struggles with a mediocre script that, in tone as well as in style, steals clumsily from all those far superior Christopher Guest movies like ""Waiting for Guffman,"" ""Best in Show"" and ""A Mighty Wind."" In the case of ""The Grand,"" the humor is largely lacking, as each eccentric character plays out his little assigned shtick over and over and over again.

As executed by writer/director Zak Penn, the poker scenes are particularly languid and lifeless and utterly incomprehensible to any non-poker players who may happen to be a part of the audience.",0 "I got roped into watching this drivel by my girlfriend. It was On Demand and I had had a couple of beers so I said 'why not'. Well, if you're interested, here's why not: This galling display of perversion is so caustic to the sensibilities of any thinking person that I cannot believe anyone was truly happy with the film when it was completed. The characters are beyond unsympathetic and venture into the realm of embarrassing. Harper is a pathetic and hopeless individual if she made it as far in life as her storyline says she did without the skills she seems to lack. Worse, the life lessons she is supposedly learning clearly aren't sinking in if,after realizing her love interest is nothing but a lecherous, perverted, no talent, broke, lying loser who preys on naive, helpless girls when he exposes his intentions in LA at his former 'collector' friends' house, she happily goes along for the ride with only a little tantrum. Absurd. The collection of similarly abused women at the finale is just gross (""Class of '85!"" Good gawwwwwwwd). This film is such a poorly executed self indulgence that it doesn't even live up to irony. Just plain awful. I can't even say that its worth watching for a laugh, because there's nothing funny about. Characters don't develop in any substantiated way. One second people are one thing, the next moment another, for no reason. We are led to believe that harper becomes successful. How? We never see one piece of work. She never gets any connections to dealers or marketers. Suddenly she just appears, wearing a mournful-yet-put-together looking black dress instead of her usual MC hammer style washed out jeans (in the late 90's? San Fran? really?) and tee shirt. Jesus. Where'd that come from? A hopeless attempt at a heartfelt art movie that subverts its own intentions with its meaningless artifice and sloppy, contrived, indulgent imagery. I never post anything on the internet, but this was so bad I couldn't help it. STAY AWAY!!!!",0 "I sneaked into this R rated film when I was 13 thinking this film was something it was not. However I was rewarded with a truly funny film! At that time I got most of the jokes. In all that year I probably saw the film 10 times. We had a book of passes to the theater and were such fixtures we could get into any film, sans parent.

I just watched it again on Encore. This was the first time I have seen it since I was 13 and I am amazed at how well the film still holds up. It was also amazing to see the amount of talent Allen had to work with in the film. Such as Burt Reynolds, John Carridadine, Gene Wilder, Tony Randall and the always great Louise Lasser. You can also see how some of the skits inspired Saturday Night Live which was to come years later.

If you watch the film, and you should, you will be amazed at the look of the film. It looks as thought it was made much later than 72 but I guess Allen was ahead of his time. It may also amaze some people that Allen was actually funny at one time. With this film coming at the time of Bananas and Sleeper one could not ask for a better time for Allen to make this film. It also makes you think about Allen and his foster step daughter in the context of this film.

Do yourself a favor and rent Bananas, Sleeper and this film. Catch Woody when he was funny. His one liners in this film are worth the rental price alone.",1 "Two professionals of different kinds. One who has to cultivate an outgoing and accessible air because that's how she makes her living, and one who keeps his emotions in and tries wherever possible to stay in the background as part of his. Mutual attraction will place limits on both of their lives - if they manage to stay safe for long enough, that is...

Costner is well-suited to playing the stoic and intense action man, and casting Whitney Houston as a singer allows her a fairly comfortable start in the movies. They make an appealing enough couple and their chemistry together is of the simmering type. Some have criticised the leading female, but I believe her underplaying works well enough that we can glimpse a vulnerable dimension to her character.

The whole thing seems content to serve as a glossy potboiler for the shameless romantic - and help to shift millions of soundtrack units along the way, of course. It's something of an easy sell, I suppose, but I'm still left admiring how it's packaged. A triple handkerchief affair for some females, no doubt, but it's flashy enough in certain spots to be of moderate interest to the guys too. Cross-gender appeal is what Hollywood strives for, and they hit upon a smooth and stylish blend here.",1 "I am surprised that so much of the negative response to the movie revolves around Paul's antics. If you watch the movie, with your eyes open, you can see that everybody is laughing through most of Paul's more volatile moments. If you are one of the people who is down on the movie because ""I wouldn't let him do that to..."", clearly they don't belong there. The truth is that Paul knows who can and can't take it and adjusts accordingly.

The other criticism is generally... Does CJ really get anything from the school. I am one of CJ's biggest fans. Lets get that out of the way right now. But without the school, that allows him to play with equally talented people, he may be just like so many of the best guitar players that I have known.... the best guitar player in town in a local garage band with a revolving door membership that may get to play to the local drunks on Wednesday night for beer. Through his association with Paul, he has been to Zappanale, completed a west coast tour, been featured on MTV and played in more places than I can count. They do very well for each other.

I will say that the movie was more than I expected going in... but I would have liked to see more of the Sabbath show.",1 "Ehh.. I didn't enjoy this movie as much as I did the others. It gave away everything in the commercials. Just watching the commercials would be enough to watch the entire movie. I don't know if you guys have other opinions but.. I don't think this movie was worth the making. It should have been funnier. And didn't they already use the village in the other Scary movies? Maybe not, but I thought so. If so, they shouldn't repeat. The saw part(s) were good though. I won't say what I liked the most, because I don't want to give it away, but the end with the guy & the woman, is pretty funny :] Anyways, this movie wasn't worth seeing to me, but at the same time I guess it was. It just wasn't what I expected :]",0 "My experience with movies from Thailand have mostly been in the form of Tony Jaa and several movies by Pen-Ek Ratanaruang (Last Life in the Universe, 6ixtynin9, and Transistor Love Story). Most people would probably just recognize the former and thus miss out on some unique creations. One such creation is Tears of the Black Tiger. To sum this movie up in one sentence : A Love Triangle, with the protagonist being a good guy by nature, but becoming bad by circumstance.

It is hard to describe or categorize this movie, because it crosses over so many categories. At its core it is mainly a western, but not a ""realistic"" western (for example, Open Range or Unforgiven). Think more of an early John Wayne kind of western, but stylized to the nth degree (like in a spaghetti western) and taking place in Thailand. It is part homage and seemingly part parody of the stereotypical behavior in a western. I am not sure if the satire is intentional but it is definitely in the style of the classic western, albeit on 10 cups coffee. It is also anachronistic, as there are cars available yet most use horses. There is gun play, like in a western, but the addition of sub-machine guns and rocket launchers to the mix is what makes it parodic (along with the over-the-top acting and romantic melodrama).

The movie uses stunning natural vistas along with theatrical-like set pieces, full screen closeups, contrasting vivid color, exaggerated facial expressions, unique camera angles, unexpected non-period weaponry and over-the-top acting. There is also a musical element to the movie. The soundtrack is mostly sung, but is quite catchy. You may find yourself humming or tapping your feet/finger. The above fore-mentioned elements is where this movie excels. The action sequences are violent and stylized (a nice touch with the gravity-defying blood). It is the what makes this movie unique and was gives it life.

The romantic melodrama is the part that drags this movie down. At 110 minutes running time, it is at least 20 minutes too long. Most of that is monotonous, sappy, melodramatic and out-dated material related to the unrequited love story. For similarities, think of the ""melodrama"" of lets say, Gone with the Wind. Sex is implied after a sunset hug. For me, two people deeply in love with each other that never kiss, does not make any sense nor seem like normal behavior. This might be normal for a movie made in 1930, but it is very, very dated in the 21st century. I do realize that the director was going for the homage to a period movie, however, he focuses too much on it. A little less focus on the ""love story"" would have made this movie a bit more enjoyable. After watching 1/2 a dozen or so Thai movies, I have realized one thing. Thai is not a very romantic sounding language. It particularly sounds worse when whining or screaming. It sounds more like Klingon than anything else. So if you can imaging Klingons doing a Romeo and Juliet parody, then you can pretty much imaging what the love story will sound like here.

Tony Jaa has taught me that a movie can be meaningless, convoluted to the point of incomprehensible, full of terrible acting and still be incredible enjoyable. If I am in a movie and I notice that my ass hurts or is numb, it means I am not engrossed into what is happening on the screen. That is unfortunately what happens during the non-action sequences of this movie. The love story drags you kicking and screaming from the nirvana of the action. I still recommend at least one viewing of this movie (I have seen it twice), although you may want to have some sort of medicine on hand. Also feel free to add your own dialog during the long, long, long dialog sequences, as the original may induce some sort of violent seizures.",1 "This may be the worst episode of ST. The script seems muddled, the science seems plausible initially (identical particles of matter and anti-matter do annihilate and produce radiation, however human bodies are not ""particles"") until we see Kirk in the anti-matter universe. The instant his skin made of matter contacted the anti-matter atmosphere there would have been a big bang... The acting by Robert Brown as the mad (matter) Lazarus was over the top by even my standards (I consider Shatner an excellent actor) although his sane twin was done much better. As for the pluses there was the lovely Janet MacLachlan as a Lt. in charge of the Dilithium Crystals. Her role does however seem almost as if it were inserted by the producers as an afterthought. But the sentiment behind it is very much appreciated (although it was already being ""covered"" by Nichelle Nichols - still never too much of a good thing).",0 "I have been wanting to write a review of this movie for a long time because it made a major impression on me. Although I heard that there were many differences between the real life Rocky Dennis and his movie counterpart and in spite of melodrama and some cloying touchy feely cuteness , ""Mask"" often feels like real life , which can be both comforting and disturbing, especially considering that real people can and did have the disease presented in the movie (with frighteningly realistic makeup). Nevertheless, the movie really does go the extra mile. Cher and Eric Stoltz give the impression that they actually BECAME the characters. I almost disbelieved it was them although I saw other movies of theirs. The characters were three dimensional and the script was simply great, offsetting the heaviness of its subject matter with a surprisingly effective sense of humor. Rocky´s problems, social, physical and otherwise, were presented in a well balanced context that never wallowed in the problems but did not trivialize them either. In the end, it delivered the message that your problems are only as big as you make them as long as you never give up in pursuing your goals. To be sure, Laura Dern here is as mousy and awkward as in most of her other movies and Sam Elliot is mostly just there to look cool but all in all, this movie deserves 9 stars out of 10. It is sad on a macro level, cheerful on a micro level, and all around unforgettable.",1 "Terrible film, terribly overacted, terrible over-used plot. Although this movie sports some well known thespians, they cannot hide how utterly terrible this film actually is. Even accounting for a low budget you cannot but flinch from the attempted suspense which soon becomes repetitive, after 30 minutes I was wishing the unseen alien would just wipe out the motley bunch in one swoop. How an actor from 'the Godfather ' could associate himself with such rubbish beats me. Do not pay to see this film!",0 "From MGM comes a big budget historical drama which tells a great story with the accuracy of real history, not common-knowledge history, or (God forbid) the trash they teach as history in public schools these days. Engrossing from start to finish.

Norma Shearer is the star; no doubt about it. Tyrone Power has the top star box office power, but herein he's a supporting player. John Barrymore, 3rd in the cast, was every bit inferior to his offspring Lionel and Ethel; and inferior to Drew Barrymore as well. Ever the booze hound and womanizer in real life, his on screen presence is wilted and insignificant. ROBERT MORLEY is 4th, and he is the finest thing in the film, delivering a truly stunning portrayal of Louis XVI, a shy introverted man with no interest in politics, social functions, or even his new and beautiful wife; preferring keeping to himself and tinkering in his clock shop where his real ability shines bright. Giving an A+ performance as a quiet person who gradually assumes the initially unwanted roles of husband, father, and king; that's no easy trick for an actor.

Two things are omitted or downplayed. The absolute thoughtless cruelty of the royal class crushing the common citizens into poverty is shallowly and inadequately reflected in most history books; as it is also in this film. Omitted entirely was the role this very King and Queen played in the American Revolution. It was at this time that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin were on their mission to acquire French aid to fight England for our freedom. According to my encyclopedia, it was their financing of the American Revolution that's given equal credit with Royal Court extravagance which bankrupted France, ended Royal rule, introduced the Reign of Terror, and ended the lives of both King Louis XVI and Marie at the guillotine.

Americans ought not watch this history with excessive dispassion. We have endured decades of degeneration of our own traditional values by our home-grown liberals, while they infected our lives with welfare excess, crime toleration, agenda-based education, personal merit based on skin color rather than character, the eradication of our religion, and the trashing of our Founding Fathers.

By any standard, MGM'S ""Marie Antonette"" is a great movie to refresh our history, and perhaps to inspire a look at our own shortcomings. ""Let them eat cake,"" she never said it in real life, does not say it in this fine film.",1 Casper in a loin cloth can't save this turkey from its inept

script and terrible acting,0 "Very boring and stupid. I fell asleep several times (but kept on being awoke by my constant nightmares). Summed up in one word, this film is crap! Why is it crap? Because they're is too much talking, and often just say the same kind of stuff that's already been said. Characters are seen to have amazing powers, but never even use them. The whole film is just about one event that is supposed to happen, when it does, its crap and lasts about 10 seconds. There is also a lot of pointless killing, and characters die before you even get to know them. If you want to watch a manga, watch Akira, and if you've seen it, watch it again.

Rating: 4/10",0 "This movie made absolutely no sense whatsoever. OK they went over the line with going against political correctness. I guess that was the reason for this film. Word of mouth brings in people that are against political correctness or something like that.Thus,they fill a niche and make guaranteed money. Capitalism, the Howard Stern way. Thats fine,but it was a lousy product. The film dared to be different. By being overly anti political correct, that is ultimately what killed this film. The politically incorrect humor was diluted after 10 minutes of this film. It was just forced. Thus the shock was not only not funny, but not shocking anymore. Artie Lang was atrocious and so was Ralph Macchio. I can understand why Mr. Macchio is not getting parts. This was a film that did not need to be made. Yes usual fare of heavyset,middle age loser , living with his mom somehow an item with a beautiful woman. Predictable movie, taking place in working class town in NJ. Caricatures, stereotypes,lame humor,hard liquor but no beer. This movie had it all and managed to make it NOT work. The plot , party animal, fraternity type of misfits trying to win a softball championship against an elite snobs team. They even managed a stereotype here, making this obnoxious mayoral candidate a cousin of one of our protagonists. There you have the plot. See this at your own peril.",0 "We know we're in the hands of a master director to be from the first moments of the film. Enough about its plot and content has already been said here by other commentors - it is certainly impressive. Novello is a perfect choice for the neurotic and odd lead, causing the audience as well as the cast members to suspect him of being THE AVENGER. Here the ending was changed to protect Novello's reputation as a romantic leading man (as was the first talkie sequel in which Novello also played the lead, albeit to a slightly altered script, character and motivation). Here the cinematography and editing match the direction in all being top notch and the exquisite tinting in the restored version adds a great deal to the overall atmosphere of the film. All the players are fine with no real standouts except for Novello, who had a very successful career in silents (16 films) but retired from talking films after only 6 to become one of England's most influential composers until his death in 1951. See this one - it's a classic.",1 "My wife and I just came back from viewing the ""Ghosts of Girlfriends Past."" We went because she is both a big fan of Jennifer Garner from her Alias days, and she finds Matthew McConaughey charming. I went because I enjoy relationship stories.

The obvious Dickens formula was no hindrance to our anticipation of what we thought would be a funny and heartwarming story. So our disappointment in the movie was not due to the formula. In fact, I thought this handling of the Dickens outline was better than the ""American Christmas Carol"" which lampooned Michael Moore.

We found the movie distasteful on two counts. First, it was vulgar, second it lacked substance. We know the main character of Connor Mead had to be portrayed as a callous womanizer in order for him to repent at the end. What grieved my wife was the sleazy character, Uncle Wayne (played by Michael Douglas), who plays the Jacob Marley ghost in this story. What grieved us both was the portrayal of the brides maids as having male sex drives. Not surprising since the story was written by men.

The lack of substance was in two parts as well. First I found the love that Connor had for Jenny Perotti to be unbelievable and unable to convince us that Connor would actually repent in the end. Second, there was nothing learned about human behavior from the movie to make it truly redemptive. I found Mel Gibson to be much more believable in the movie, ""What Women Want"" with Helen Hunt. Both actors had more intelligent and substantial roles to play. But I think this is the key difference. ""What Women Want"" is a film by Nancy Meyers, a woman, whereas ""Ghosts of Girlfriends Past"" is a film directed by Mark Waters and written by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore .... men.

If you want to see a good movie of a womanizer who repents, rent the DVD of ""What Women Want"" and see that again if you saw it already.",0 "***SPOILERS***

Death Trap is a film horror film with a difference. It is possessed of a special evil power most films don't have - an evil power to ruin a perfectly good day, suck all the joy out of your heart and make you forget you'd actually been enjoying yourself, or maybe even forget the whole IDEA of joy.

I'd been having a good day when myself and a couple of friends sat down to watch one of the 2 shiny new movies I'd bought. The choice was Lucio Fulci's surreal zombie meltdown ""the Beyond"" or ""Death Trap"", Tobe Hoopers follow up to Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Being huge TCM fans we went for Death Trap, after all, Tobe Hoopers second film has to be worth watching right?

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!

So very very wrong.

Death Trap is basically a cut price, hillbilly, Psycho rip off. At the start we meet a female character, who fleeing from trouble stays at a grotty hotel where the nutcase owner ""shockingly"" kills her. Except where Norman Bates was fixated on his mother, Judd has a pet crocodile. (and you'll never see the end coming, not in a MILLION YEARS!!!!....oh OK, the croc eats Judd)

Then some more people show up, including the worlds most annoying family, and a mildly amusing Robert Englund as a horny redneck. Most of them die, but not in any remotely interesting ways. Oh, and a pet dog gets eaten by the crocodile, possibly the highpoint of the film (unless you really want to watch the future Freddy doing ""the nasty"", in which case my advice is - seek professional help!)

The main problem here is the pacing (and the script, and a lot of the acting, and the unoriginality, but hey lets stick to the pacing). The film is desperately slow, and I can't believe it only runs the 87 minutes listed on the box. If so Death Trap must be possessed of another evil power - that same power doctors waiting rooms and tube station platforms have to make minutes seem like hours.

Pretty much everything Hooper did right with TCM, he messes up here. The film is ugly, lacking in real atmosphere, and just so damned slow! The fact that it's mostly filmed on one set, and in overlong takes often makes it feel more like a film of a really bad play than an actual movie, complete with horribly overwrought acting like the cast are playing to the folks at the back of the stalls.

Worse, there's no real tension - the only scene with any suspense has a child crawling under the hotel to escape the crocodile, and using a child in jeopardy to provoke a response from the audience is a pretty cheap shot.

Death Trap suffers the same problems as the 2004 Dawn of the Dead - it's not scary, or really horrible, or funny. It's just painfully boring, it killed the vibe of a perfectly good day, and made at least one of my friends fall asleep.

There are all sorts of conspiracy's to try and explain exactly how come this film is so bad (haven't these people seen Lifeforce???), like Hooper walked off/was sacked/the film was re-edited by the producer/the distributor/bigfoot/George W. but the plain truth is that this is an ill-conceived, poorly executed failure. You can see how Hooper was aiming for a similar effect to TCM (the psycho killer in the clammy southern setting, the sudden deaths and OTT performances), but this time it just doesn't work. Perhaps it's the stagebound production, but then perhaps it's just the crummy screenplay...

Afterwards, the only way to try to make the wasted 87 minutes seem worthwhile was to then lend the film to some TCM loving friends and inflict it on them too. They didn't rush to thank me.",0 "There is only one way to describe this movie and that is that it is a complete waste of your time. A new definition for the low budget movie. Poor choice of scenery. The script must fit on a paper napkin. Only good thing I can say about this movie is Cherish, she looks beautiful (in the first 10 minutes). The movie starts of promising but after 5 minutes it's clear you made the wrong choice to go for the catchy title. If you really want to see this movie and even enjoy it a little bit try increasing the playback speed. When everyone sounds Donald Duck it wastes only 30 minutes of your time. It took me 15 minutes to start doing this and I am happy I did. By the way, Donald Duck is still 100 times better.",0 "Giant clichéd characters try to teach us morals as they go through shocking events. This movie is gaudy and fake. If I have to watch one more movie where a girl sleeps with the wrong guy and declares all men are (insert derogatory animal reference here,) I am going to puke. It seems that everyone in this production knows how stupid these girls are, so they are displaying it in the writing and in the acting. This movie is trying to hard to appeal to all those girls in the audience that feel this way. I wasn't touched watching Shallow Hal, in fact as an overweight person I was just plain disgusted, so don't relate to this movie. I don't want a movie to think it is smarter than me and try to prove it to me, it should simply be smarter. Thora Birch and Dominique Swain deserved better than this. Thora Birch is the only one who seems to have their head right in this movie. Her part is underwritten and yet another cliché, but she is so crazy that it doesn't matter. As for Busy Phillips, she made me laugh like a little boy during her ""we have to do this, for all woman"" speech. This movie may have worked as a black comedy with all of the cardboard characters, but Dominique Swain's part wouldn't fit in that movie. The last scene is the apex of stupidity with the slutty Busy saving the sweet Dominique in a ridiculously filmed and wrongfully acted climax to the film.",0 "Now personally I don't see what Anthony Quinn was squawking about in Larceny, Inc. Edward G. Robinson and sidekicks Edward Brophy and Broderick Crawford take over a caper that Quinn has planned. Robinson serves his time in prison and Quinn gets denied parole. It's not like Quinn took a copyright out on the idea and you can't count on him busting out of stir.

Nevertheless that's what Quinn does and he does see things differently which is the whole basis for the plot of Larceny, Inc.

Edward G. Robinson, as he did in a number of films, gets a chance to satirize his own gangster image and he does it quite well. This was one of his last films under his Warner Brothers contract and he went out in style. Robinson would be back at Warner Brothers in the latter half of the Forties with Key Largo which was definitely not a comedy.

Robinson is the brains and he gets stalwart support from Edward Brophy and Broderick Crawford, two guys who at that time usually played simple minded lovable lugs. Brophy went with the flow, but Crawford was quoted as saying that he was not the world's greatest wit, but he always resented playing half a one. He got his big chance at the end of the Forties with All the King's Men and an Oscar.

Robinson's adopted daughter is Jane Wyman and her beau is salesman Jack Carson. Wyman was also a few years from an Oscar for Johnny Belinda and Carson did break the mold of playing lovable blowhards.

It's a pretty funny film, best scene is when Crawford strikes a pipeline in the basement and for a minute they think they've struck oil in New York City.

And already refined too.",1 "I didn't think SciFi Channel could broadcast a worse myth-&-monster movie than MINOTAUR. I was wrong.

It's okay to make a movie on the cheap; not everyone has access to a big budget, and amazing things can be done with a little imagination and talent. But there's very little of those commodities here. Acting is at a high school level. Direction is worse. Dialogue is trite. Scenes lurch from one dull monster attack to another, with occasional babe (er, goddess) interludes to break the monotony. The goddesses look and sound as it they're reading cue cards at a second-rate beauty contest.

Why must the makers of such movies mess with Greek myth, about which they clearly know (and care) nothing? Here, Homer the tale-teller appears as part of Odysseus's crew. That's an okay idea. Except this Homer (played by the worst actor of the lot, which is saying something) scribbles notes (with a feather quill!) and fawns over the heroes like an embedded reporter in Iraq. Legend tells us that Homer was blind, and recited his stories from memory. There is great power in that idea, a hearkening back to a prehistoric, preliterate age of traveling bards and oral tradition.

A magical movie could be made about Odysseus, and Homer, but this is not it.",0 "Possible spoilers due to references to other literature…assuming you can't guess the ending within the first few minutes.

OK folks, I have a dirty little secret: I really love crummy sci-fi picks. Bad acting, scripts, cheap effects and breaking the laws of physics just make my day. Plan 9 from Outer Space holds a special place in my heart.

While Locusts passed the test on each of these, it will probably (or should) be quickly forgotten, being more schlock than entertainment. Also, as somebody else mentioned, the bug close-ups are actually pretty good, so Locust kinda loses a few points in the cheesy effects category. The cliché alarm rings constantly, from the mandatory troubled romance to the divorced father with the cranky kids to the gruff military general who allows a civilian to boss him around to the national politics to the job climbers to the…you get the picture.

Important things of note:

The brilliant lead scientist sometimes wears hip huggers, a low cut top and no bra, and is photographed from above. I guess they had to do **something** to keep male viewers watching. Hello women: tell me, was there anything to keep you interested in this piece of garbage?

A huge group of 20-somethings stand around watching bazillions of bugs up close as they cover the windows, yet none shriek, barf, or any of the other normal expected reactions.

If you have a basic knowledge of electricity (i.e. current only flows in a complete circuit), you will have problems with this flick. Forget it if you understand high voltage, current capacities, grounding, welding, and arcing.

The movie wraps everything up in the last 15 minutes. I won't say what happens, but if the ""feel good"" parts of the ending don't make you toss your popcorn, you're one tough viewer.

There's a genetic reference at the end that made no sense whatsoever, but I'm not a bio major.

There is a remarkable parallel to Carl Stephenson's classic short story ""Leiningen versus the Ants."" This is great literature (for real); if you haven't read it, spend 10 minutes at http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/shorts/lvta.html. It's top notch.

There is a remarkable parallel to one of my favorite crummy Sci-Fi movies ""Night of the Lepus."" Check out the IMDb reviews of this beauty.

This movie was a total waste of time on all levels.

1 Star",0 "I have to comment on Galloway Grumblefield's reply because I'm another white person (20-something male) who share's his/her sentiments and then some. The movie speaks for itself and I'd definitely recommend the miniseries ""Into the West"" as well which stars some of the same characters from Dreamkeeper. There are no words to describe the emotion that fills within me when thinking about the lives of American Indians. To me they should be regarded as the ""super-race"" for the sheer fact that they, along with the Buffalo, after being not only marginalized, tokenized, robbed, and yes, decimated almost to literal extinction (remember, even the kids and babies were shot by the U.S. army), they, into the new millennium are still here and their numbers have increased (as of the year 2000 there are about 2 and 1/2 million Native Americans alive today). Of course they're the poorest demographic in the country, worse than that of other minorities, comparatively speaking, and still are facing repression and other forms of harassment and forced relocation by the U.S. government (now empire). The good note is that films such as these shed light on the true nature of the Indigenous American as well as expose the inhumane and inhuman treatment (which exists TO THIS DAY) that they have endured on soil that belonged and by human rights still belongs to them. A progressive people's movement, which already exists, although pathetically fragmented since 9/11, needs to come together and at the center of it needs to be the will of the Native American, even spearheaded and centered around them. Justice needs to finally take its course. There are hundreds of activist websites dedicated to progressing the Indian cause, all a google search away.",1 "The Great McGonigle, ham actor extraordinaire, cares for his troupe of performers in THE OLD FASHIONED WAY, thorough chicanery, larceny & skullduggery...

Here is W. C. Fields in all of his pompous, vulgar glory: evasive, duplicitous, sneaky - utterly wonderful. Delivering dialogue in his unique buzz saw rasp, he gives out so many familiar lines that at times he almost seems to be performing a self-parody. This film brilliantly shows why Fields needed the sound cinema to let him be fully appreciated, and with Paramount giving him free rein to develop his material as he wished, it is not surprising that the film is a classic. Fans need look no further to find the essential Fields.

The romance between Judith Allen & Joe Morrison is a rather dull affair, although the young man sings well. Tammany Young plays Fields' loyal amanuensis. Movie mavens will recognize comedian Billy Bletcher as the tomato thrower & sour-visaged sheriff Clarence Wilson, both uncredited. Legend has it that Hollywood's first movie star, Florence Lawrence, derelict & forgotten, made one of her last unbilled appearances here before her 1938 suicide.

Fields found it useful to populate his films with at least one she-dragon, a female of frightful aspect against whom he could bounce off some of his best humor. This film has two: rail-thin, Nora Cecil - prim & dour as the troupe's suspicious landlady; and most especially silly Jan Duggan, horridly bejeweled & curled, as Field's wealthy target. Here was an actress, now nearly forgotten, who could easily equal in hilarity even Fields himself. It is generally overlooked how important her contribution is to the celebrated supper table scene with Fields & Baby LeRoy - one of the funniest sequences ever to appear in an American film. And her rendition of `Gathering Up The Shells On The Seashore' is a wonderful spoof of such sentimental songs as `When You And I Were Young, Maggie,' which were so popular in that era. Miss Duggan would return to briefly plague Fields in three additional films, including THE BANK DICK (1940). (She died in 1977 at the age of 95.)

Fields has included the old melodrama The Drunkard into the plot and to his credit he plays it ‘straight,' letting its honest antique sentiment speak for itself. In his own private olio, Fields makes a curtain call to show off his astonishing talent of legerdemain. It is wonderful to have his routine captured on film as he really is quite amazing - it is easy to see how at one time he was considered the world's greatest juggler. Now he is remembered as one of cinema's supreme comics.",1 "While 'Head' deconstructed the manufactured mania of The Monkees perfectly, '33 1/3' just wallows in its own self-awareness like a spoiled brat who didn't get a Playstation 2 for Christmas.

'Head' is dated, but '33 1/3' showcases the worst commercial excesses of the decade. The ""story"" involves a Darwinistic plot to take over the world by way of pop music. The Monkees are created test-tube style and are expected to lull the human race into submission. The members of The Monkees try to regain their individuality during thinly-produced solo spots. Padded with VERY LONG solarized, split-screen psychedelic dance numbers, it's no wonder that the entire Hippie phenomenon would be over within a year of 33 1/3. The mass media had swallowed up the original 'message' of the movement, and 33 1/3 was what was it spit out.

The worst crime perpetrated by '33 1/3' is a retro 50's number where rock legends Fats Domino, Little Richard, and Jerry Lee Lewis play second fiddle TO The Monkees. It's weird to think that when this aired, The Monkees themselves were complete has-beens.

'33 1/3 Revolutions Per Monkee' ranks with 'The Star Wars Holiday Special' as one of the worst variety efforts ever aired. If you need a reason to hate The Monkees, pick this up.",0 "In 1942, in an occupied Paris, the apolitical grocer Edmond Batignole (Gérard Jugnot) lives with his wife and daughter in a small apartment in the building of his grocery. When his future son-in-law and collaborator of the German Pierre-Jean Lamour (Jean-Paul Rouve) calls the Nazis to arrest the Jewish Bernstein family, they move to the confiscated apartment. Some days later, the young Simon Bernstein (Jules Sitruk) escapes from the Germans and comes to his former home. When Batignole finds him, he feels sorry for the boy and lodges him, hiding Simon from Pierre-Jean and also from his wife. Later, two cousins of Simon meet him in the cellar of the grocery. When Pierre-Jean finds the children, Batignole decides to travel with the children to Switzerland.

What a delightful movie this ""Monsieur Batignole"" is! The story is realistic, balancing dramatic situations with some funny scenes, like, for example, when Batignole is called in the train station to help a German soldier with a twisted knee. Another interesting and quite original aspect is the unusual number of French collaborators, since it is very difficult to see a movie that recognizes that they did exist in times of war. Further, Monsieur Batignole is not the usual hero, but a man driven by the reality to have a heroic action instead. The boy Jules Sitruk steals the movie with his attitudes, and Gérard Jugnot and Jean-Paul Rouve are fantastic. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): ""Herói Por Acaso"" (""Hero by Chance"")",1 "This doc is completely awesome in every way I can think of stuff being awesome. It's not even perfect, and there's some things in this film that I don't like. However, to be honest with you, most of this doc is so informative, and fun to watch that I still consider it to be one of the best documentaries ever made.

First off, let me give Sam Dunn some props. He's a lifelong head-banger himself, so he's as qualified as anyone should need to be to lead this film. I am also a lifelong head-banger. I also had to defend my love of this style of music to my parents, teachers, and friends, so I understand where his interest in this approach to the subject comes from. I'm sure most fans of heavy metal can attest to being faced with similar challenges while growing up, and it was good to see that I am not alone. This was a recurring theme in the film. That if you are a metal fan, you may be told or feel that you are weird, that you're a real outsider, but in fact, you have a lot of allies out there in the world. I also like the fact that Sam Dunn has the educational background he does, and is obviously making something productive and positive out of his life because too many people do write off metal heads as being stupid, low class, criminal, uncultured, and most likely, introverted, out of touch, and mentally unstable. He seems like a real good person in general, a friendly and talented guy, and a good person to be an ambassador for metal heads everywhere.

This doc is an investigative film that asks lots of questions, and it gives lot of answers in return. I can't imagine a true fan of music, no matter what kind, not appreciating the goals of Sam Dunn and his crew in this film. Simply, he was looking to find an answer to why heavy metal music, and it's fans, have been stigmatized and labeled as this horrible thing in our society. This is interesting stuff, and it's about time someone stood up and asked the questions, answered them, and presented it all in a package that no one can discount as being, ""low-brow."" Metal heads across the globe for over 30 years have been asking this very question, and it's nice to see someone really tackle it like this.

The heavy metal, ""tree,"" is a really cool thing, and while I hate the fact that too many discussions surrounding heavy metal spiral downward into arguments over what sub-genre a certain band does or doesn't fall into, it's a really well thought out visual aid to the film. There is so many great interviews in here, and most of them are from really great people. With only a few exceptions, I agreed with the views of the people being interviewed, but there were a few that left me scratching my head and yelling at the screen. Some of them were way off base, but that's okay, it only serves to bring light to the fact that many people can't, or won't, ""get,"" heavy metal music.

But like Sam Dunn says at the end of the film, ""that's okay,"" and I agree with him completely in that, no matter if other people understand why I love heavy metal so much, the fact is, I do love it and I do, ""get it."" I'm glad I'm not alone.",1 "This is much better than some of the IMDb reviewers have claimed. Its parody of the reporting styles of news channels is spot-on. I particularly like ""Look Out East"". I presume many of those responsible for the main channels and programmes must have seen this show. That being so, it's a mystery to me that they nevertheless carry on in the same hackneyed and repetitious manner. I can only conclude that they simply cannot do any better. What a depressing state of affairs.

The show has its faults. Ironically, it is itself needlessly repetitious. The writers seem to have had the same problem as the channels they lampoon: too much time to fill and too little material to fill it. There is a series of six programmes, but to see two of them (any two will do) is probably enough. The rest is just more of the same.

Also, the guy doing the Hollywood news is way, way, way over the top and out of kilter with the carefully measured performances of everyone else.",0 "Finally, we got the DVD! I bought it 2 days ago and watched it almost the whole Sunday. I was turning 19 that year and the event meant nothing but the brightest gem on the gleamy crown of the 80's optimism, happiness, joy, global spirit and most of all - search for ultimate humanity. There's no need to emphasize that LIVE AID (and everything else connected to it) is the singular event of the rock'n'roll history, greater then anything seen before or after. Not only for the plead of the spectacular names that joined the effort, but mainly for the cause and the relevance of it. It's probably the only time in our history when people joined hands globally to help people in need. Thank Sir Bob for the good you brought us and unforgettable moments of our lives.",1 "Barda is the next attempt of director Serdar Akar. He has made some remarkable films like ""Gemide"" and ""Dar Alanda Kisa Paslasmalar"". With his new step, he tries to bring forth the violence in the Turkish society.

A group of young and gonna-be part of high society friends, gather at a bar they frequently visit. One night, some guys looking awfully scary and dangerous enters and these two classes known to live together on the streets are left to fight trapped in a bar...

Well, to be honest, this is not the best picture from director Akar. Especially the characters of the youngsters are not accordingly established. The court scenes are far from being realistic. Especially the young actors does not seem to be ready for their parts. But the main issue here is that Turkish cinema and Turkish directors do not generally operate as artists who carries on their duty as an observer of the society. This film drives straight into that misty field...

The violence is everywhere in Turkey as well as the world, in the streets, in the metro, at the schools etc. but this somehow seems to be unseen by the Turkish cinema. Because, people would love to sleep and think that everything's going fine as long as the tragedy doesn't touch them. But that's not true at all. The truth is out there, in this film. Although it has some major negative sides, it's a brave step trying to show the reality...

Based upon a true story, what's happening is horrible, unbelievable and unacceptable. But you gotta see it to get to do something about it...

****** spoiler *********

By the way, at the ending of the film, the guys in the jail attacking the others are Zeki Demirkubuz, Cagan Irmak and Serdar Akar himself (the other two being some important Turkish directors). Seems like, the artists are trying to attack the mentality behind these horrible acts. Bad dream, nice try...",1 "This is a story of a girls quest to become a Musketeer like her father D'Artagnan. It's very entertaining and suitable for the whole family.

We all like Susie Amy who plays Valentine D'Artagnan, very much. Thought all the young musketeers were great and it was a lovely contrast with the older characters, their fathers. I am a big Michael York fan so it was good to see him back as D'Artagnan.

It could be a bit storytelling at times, but that is needed for younger viewers. The fight sequences could be slightly repetitive and many of the action movies are, but they were well done.

Think from reading other information, this wasn't filmed as a movie but as a TV mini series so it is quite long to watch in one sitting.

But all in all, what you'd expect, not difficult to follow but entertaining viewing for the family.",1 "When first saw Pet Cemetery II I wasn't expecting anything that would come close to the original, and I was right. First off the film isn't anything like the original the only thing remaining from the first film is the pet cemetery all other aspects of the first that made it good have been changed. The plot is basically a kid and his father move back to the town after the death of their mother/ex-wife, the kids makes friends with another kid who's dog dies and they bury it in the cemetery, well I think you know the rest. The predictability of the entire plot was just sad, I mean I could guess exactly what would happen next. The acting was average nothing horrible, nothing special. The film although directed by the person from the first was nothing like the first, whereas the first film used suspense and dark atmosphere with only very minor gore effects, The second film skips the suspense and atmosphere and goes straight for the gore, It seems like the director wanted to go in a different direction with this film in order to make it more action-packed, it really doesn't work. Overall this film ends up being everything the first wasn't, predictable, weak and just downright stupid. If your a fan of the original I wouldn't recommend this to you at all considering all the things you loved about the first have disappeared in this one.",0 "When we saw this epic swashbuckler on it's original release in the late 40s, little did we know that it was to be Errol Flynn's last great adventure/love story. It is still the essence of Flynn's screen personna, and it still brings joy to his fans. The only drawback here: Viveca Linfors is no Olivia deHavilland. Chemistry is sadly missing, but this is nit-picking. It is sumptuous on every level, and when a first-time viewer sees that staircase, a ""WOW!"" is to be be expected. Robert Douglas seemed to make a career of playing heavies, and in this film, he raises villainy to an art form. It has been a longtime coming, but THE ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN is finally available in DVD's glorious Technicolor reproduction. Let's wallow in it.",1 "I thought this was a very good action piece the guys from triton north star have done it again. Bas Rutten makes a great bad guy, and as for Diana Lee Inosanto she can beat me with a police baton any day. All in all this was solid action movie with some well thought out action set pieces. And Paul Logan gives a solid performance. I thing a lot of these straight to video movies good take some lessons form these guys. And watching some of the extras it really seems like everyone had fun making this movie. I can't wait to see what these guys will make next each one of their productions they seem to raise the bar. Once again I think this movie was just a lot of fun and that is what it's all about.",1 "I'm feeling guilty now. The comment I posted about Sharpe's Battle before wasn't objective. It was tainted by lust. I don't want to get a bad rep, so here's an OBJECTIVE comment, in context, for people who care about the quality of what they watch rather than just about the actor's looks.

Sharpe's Battle does have a lot of strengths. For one thing, the dialogue's good. In other Sharpe films, such as Sharpe's Sword, there's something a bit fake about the interaction between the characters, but in Battle its much more convincing. There's also some really gritty fighting, particularly in the town towards the end. Sharpe's fight with Loup is excellent, although I do agree with another review I read somewhere here in that the expressions of the characters when they hate each other has echoes of lust as well. Perhaps we could draw a lot into this about how love hurts. Being over forty years old and still not knowing that much about love in the true sense of the word, I will refrain from stereotyping what I don't understand.

The problem with Battle, in my opinion, is Loup himself. He's not a villain on the same scale as some of the ones we see around. Sure, he tries to be evil, but he just ends up being vaguely annoying. Oh, and why doesn't he attack Sharpe sooner? Surely he realises that he has him by the balls most of the time?

My score of 8 out of 10 stands, but hopefully I've explained it a bit better now.",1 "Beach Balls concerns a young man who wants to become a rock star and his adventures in this poor comedy. typical late 80s fare with some poor rock video/band performances, bad acting, production values, script,..you get the idea..even the cute girls can't save this dog..on a scale of one to ten..1",0 "This picture is impossible to defend. I saw it for the first time when I was 11 and I must say I liked it. But then I saw it again as an adult and the awful truth came out: 1) it is impossible for Steve Reeves to even try to act; 2) it is impossible for the supporting cast to act; 3) the sort of monster the argonauts face when they find the golden fleece is definitely funny (though he probably puts on the best acting of all); 4) Reeves's hairdo is unthinkable in ancient Greece; 5) any other ingredient you may think of.

But then, why did I vote with a 3 mark? 1) the film is supposed to be a mythological fantasy film and it was quite original back in 1958; 2) without any doubt it is the best movie ever made in its genre; 3) Sylva Koscina (the woman, not the actress).

Just terrible !!!",0 "I haven't seen such a bad movie in a long time, actually i haven't seen such a bad movie ever. What have Miramax done with the original manuscript. This movie was one of the best ever, in the Danish version. But someone bought the rights to this movie, and tried to make a Hollywood version. But dear ""Hollywood"", you can't make a box-office hit if you first of all take the Danish humor away, and then take out some scenes from the movie, just because (my own opinion)you think it doesn't suits the American people. But 10 stars to the original version, and 1 (They didn't have 0 stars)star to the Hollywood version.",0 "I'm an action movie buff, so I feel an argue to just go out and rent everything with Arnold Schwartzenegger in it. If you're like me, you've seen ""Conan the Barbarian"", think that cheesy is kind of OK as long as a lot of stuff blows up.

That's the only way you'll get through ""Raw Deal"". Also, you might have to fast forward through some parts.

Poorly acted, with a sub-intellectual plot, and cardboard characters, the film's dialogue is so bad it's actually funny at times. For example, say this slowly with a serious Austrian accent: ""You should not drink... and bake."" Does the film itself seriously? No, but sometimes campy doesn't make ""bad"" good. Sometimes ""bad"" just stays B-A-D. Skip this and rent ""Payback"", which has a similar tone but is done well.

Who should see this film:

-- Serious action buffs only, and then only on a rainy day,

and then only if you've gotten through Conan & Predator,

and then only if you're getting it free on TV.

Like most viewers, I'll give ""Raw Deal"" a 4 out of 10.",0 "I enjoyed Election Night the first time I saw it and laughed out loud at times. It is a film I recommend to people and that I have watched again. However, a sober re-viewing of this film made my laughter stick in my throat. It is a provocative piece, with a message that perhaps the filmmakers themselves did not intend, and for that reason I recommend viewing, but do not endorse the message in Election Night.

An Aid Agency worker, Peter, leaves a bar to try and reach the polling station to vote. His castigation of his friend and the barman in the opening scene reveal his humanitarian, multicultural leanings. His condemnation of racists is clear and concise.

What follows is his quest to vote in the election, and like all quest tales, the valiant hero faces a series of ever-more difficult challenges to achieve his goal. Utlimately, as befits a tale based on a protagonist out to accomplish a mission, the final test is to identify and overcome a weakness in his own character. For Peter, it is the revelation that he is just as capable of racist sentiments as the next man. And this is where the film starts to veer off-course. Peter is punished for his weakness by a punch in the nose, delivered by a character who reveals the complexity of attitudes to race by his confused comments. I do not doubt that the reasons for taking the narrative in this direction are to do with fulfilling the structural demands of cinematic storytelling, and are not the result of the filmmakers wish to make an anti-liberal statement.

However, the effect is one and the same. Humbled, defeated, Peter returns to the bar and symbolically, through his apathetic lies and rejection of foreign beer, 'converts' to the other side. Sure, this pathetic wretch toasting his Danishness at the end is funny, but it means the end note of the film is, 'Don't try to be tolerant, it isn't worth it and the recipients don't appreciate it anyway.'

I don't think this is reading too much into the film. The co-opting of Peter to the racist side at the end means the film endorses (I am sure unintentionally) the views of Peter's bar friend at the beginning - that attempting to understand and sympathize with other cultures and peoples just isn't worth the bother.

This is a film well worth watching, especially in culture studies classes as a primer for discussion. But try to think, as you watch, who you are laughing with, and who you are laughing at. And at what point do you cross the line?",0 "Starts off slow... so you think it's just taking its time, introducing you to the characters so you care when they (presumably) start to die horribly later on.

Nope. It starts off slow, because that's how the rest of it goes too. Assuming you've managed to stay awake past the first 45 minutes we have some of the characters going slowly mad while ghostly sheep or something run around on the edge of their vision and random shots of environmental disasters are scattered across the screen.

Just before you'd walk out of the cinema or fall asleep in your chair somebody finally gets killed (couldn't tell you who, despite all that build up), then they go mad/off themselves/get killed/whatever in quick succession.

So, all self-induced mania? Well an incoming group on an aircraft crash for no reason whatsoever so they obviously had the instant version of the mania.

Then it all goes completely to pot while crappy CGI see-through DragonMoose (tm) starts walking about and slapping people.

Honestly, it's worse than I've described.

Good job to the marketing team on getting all these positive reviews up here though! Two stars just for that.",0 "who loved Joan Crawford. Such an amazing era. The Technicolor oranges and aquas, Joan is a bit over the top but if you are an avid fan this will cease to matter.

She is the strong Jennie Stuart, chanteuse and Broadway star who minces no words. She meets her match with Michael Wilding, a blind war veteran who plays piano. He is a sympathetic gentle character who also has Dutchess, a boxer seeing-eye-dog to keep him company. At first she is resistant to his music and dislikes him because he is not intimidated by her. He seems to know her character very well. Strong, but scared of getting close to people.

The music is haunting and reminiscent of a gentler, romantic era. Joan is herself and then some, and eventually discovers the reason she cannot make an impression on the pianist. There is a nice twist to the end. Overall a do not miss for Crawford. 9/10.",1 "One thing is for sure: Ron Howard must be ashamed of his brother after watching this film. Clint has a memorable role as a forrest bum that meets his demise from the Ticks.

Peter Scolari must have needed the money to make a car note or something. And yes, the kid from ""Fresh Prince of Bel Air"" is in this one as a supposed tough kid from the Bronx or something, but comes across as a throwback from the mid-eighties breakdancing films.

If you decide to watch this film, do it in the form of the ""MST3K"" guys and enjoy yourself!",0 "I really liked this film (with the unusual title) due to a couple of things. First and foremost is the elegant sophistication of Anne Harding, a star in the early years of film but somewhat forgotten now. She is not your typical 1930s actress.......with her strangely attractive but outdated hair style and unusual beauty, she is very different from other screen icons of the time such as Greta Garbo or Jean Harlow. Playing a character who could have descended to hysteria and shrewishness, she underplays the part to perfection. I feel that she is sadly overlooked when the films of the 1930s are discussed.

Secondly, of course, is William Powell. One of my favorites, he does not disappoint here as the jaded playboy who seems to have unlimited amounts of money (as do all the characters). Not quite reflective of the Depression gripping the country at the time this film was made! His character is not very attractive as he philanders his way through cafe society but he does it with such style that he can be forgiven. Plus, his apartment is a decorator's dream!!! The story revolves around Harding trapping Powell into marriage, which she considers only ""business"". Needless to say she falls in love with him along the way and complications arise. It all ends well albeit a little abruptly. This is a film that reflects the end of the pre-code period with its straightforward approach to sex outside (and inside) of marriage. Very enjoyable.",1 "This is a thoroughly and completely delicious film! I really cannot think of anything else to say about it, but the rules require ten lines of text. One could speak about the flawless decor, the perfection of the costuming, the grace of the cinematography, the charm of the screenplay, the specificity and finesse of the acting, or the flawless interplay of the musical score with the visual elements.

This last comment brings to mind two boys on bicycles -- see the film and you'll understand.

One gets the sense that everyone involved with the creation of this film must have had an extraordinarily fine time working on it -- it's a work of art that's so overfilled with joy that it splashes off the screen! Although I am personally acquainted with no one involved in the making of this film, I am very, very proud of each and every one of them and would like to thank them for making my life better - if only for a few, brief moments!",1 "what's this?

the storyline is nothing but exploitation of action scenes, even the soundtrack is just too mesmerizing. This reminds me of Final Fantasy the spirit within where most critics mention that the movie is just a show off of special effect with awful storyline.

The usual bebop characters are just put down into some manequine-class action: FRUSTATING!

and what's with Faye? This will be rather subjective but I like the lady a lot despite her fashion style (she never appear cheap though, so treat her with respect). And in the movie.....what the....whoever write this script and direct it must be one horny person or someone who is trying to meet the demands of the horny fans; DISGUSTING!

The only part I enjoyed were the common bebop jokes and a tiny characterization of Faye and Spike in one part....

Well like I've mention, if you are a true bebop fans who reach personal level of the characters, don't bother with this one. It's just AWFUL!",0 "This is probably one of the worst horror movies of the 90's.The story is dumb,the cast is mostly annoying and if you want scares...check better somewhere else.Even not enough blood to satisfy gore-hounds.Only one good thing about this horrible picture:quite well-made creature effects.In my opinion,due to such ridiculous films horror genre is slowly dying.So my advice to you is simple:avoid this dreadful piece of crap.",0 "You'd be hard-pressed to find any redeeming qualities in director Bill Dear's new film, ""Simon Says"". It's juvenile, cliché-ridden, and utterly lame.

Simon (Crispin Glover) owns a store in the middle of nowhere that sells nothing. He has an apparent affinity for pick-axes, with dozens adorning the walls of his shed/store. Whenever he comes across other humans, he sports his best retard voice and begins asking goofy questions. No matter the reply, he grins stupidly, mumbles ""you forgot to say 'Simon says'"", and then proceeds to kill everyone in the scene.

The characters take on the most banal forms of teen stereotyping. There's a stoner dude, a meat head jock, a prudish Asian, and two rank-and-file sluts. None of them contributes anything of significance to the story. The dialog is contrived and forced. The actors might as well be reading from cue-cards. Rent any porno and you're likely to find stronger performances.

One neat twist is that the laws of physics do not apply within a 1-mile radius of Simon's store. Axes have infinite momentum. Some people can jump and change direction in mid-air. Others can magically teleport into charred corpses.

Simon's many strange catapults, which he can reload at the speed of light, rain an impossible number of axes down on his victims. His single-ax launcher is extraordinarily precise, piercing the chest of a perfectly useless character from more than 100 yards away.

There is no actual plot. Just a bunch of sterile characters being killed in impossible ways by an aspiring loon.

There are attempts at humor. None work. By the end of the movie, I realized the joke was on me.

Grade: F Avoid at all costs.",0 "I should have (still) known or remembered what a poor movie the first 'Summer' was. 'I still know' makes the original seem like a classic. I wouldn't even know where to begin picking this one apart. Why can't the producers hire some decent writers, I know you are supposed to suspend your belief when watching horror movies but it would be nice to see a more believable plot and maybe a few better written characters.

Jennifer Love Hewitt is certainly easy on the eye and Im sure she has more talent than the filmmakers allowed her in 'I still know' Shes pretty much reduced to walking around aimlessly wearing as many low-cut, two sizes too small T-shirts as the makers can cram into an hour and a half of film.

George Romero's 'Dead' series and 'Candyman' aside I dont ever recall any strong black characters in a horror film, Moesha & the fella out of 'High School High''s character's were terrible. It's got be insulting to the Afro-American community when they are mostly portrayed as Jive talking, foul mouthed and overly horny people in this type of movie.

As for the horror element? well... need I say more than killers walking around with plastic cable ties in their pockets in case they want to 'suntan' a pretty young girl to death on a sunbed. Did anyone ever think of simply reaching out and turning off the sunbed's power during all the screaming and panicking in this ludicrous scene. This series is truly looking like its going to be the 'Friday the 13th' of the 90's. The worrying reality is that its just as stale and crap.

",0 "Mary Reilly is set in Victorian London where Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts) is a housemaid to a Dr. Henry Jekyll (John Malkovich), he treats her & the rest of the servants well so she is relatively satisfied with her life. However, the calmness of the household is broken when Jekyll starts to stay out all night, he then says he will be collaborating with an assistant named Mr. Edward Hyde (John Malkovich) on his experiments & he should be treated as they treat him. Reilly meets Mr. Hyde who turns out to be a bit of a bad lad, meanwhile she has secret affections for her master Dr. Jekyll & soon realises they are both one & the same person...

Directed by Stephen Frears I will openly admit right here & now that Mary Reilly bored me stiff, I honestly wanted to switch it off & go to sleep but in the fairness of this comment I decided to endure the final 40 minutes. The script by Christopher Hampton was based on the novel of the same name by Valerie Martin which itself obviously took inspiration from the Robert Louis Stevenson novel The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, who was it exactly that thought telling the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from the perspective of his housemaid was a good idea? No offence but it sounds lame just thinking about it & sure enough the finished film is total crap that I personally found ways to hate it on many levels. From the absolute tedium of it all to the snails pace, to the awful romance between the main character's & the slushy sentimental drama to the fact it's one of the most boring films I've seen. I didn't like anyone in it, I didn't like the way the makers have taken a decent horror themed story & turned it into some horrible tedious romance & the lack of any horror or scares just sinks it without trace as far as I'm concerned. By the way did I mention it was boring?

Director Frears does alright, to give the film credit where it deserves it the production design & look of it are fabulous. This would give any period Hammer Horror flick a good run for it's money, then again I suppose you can stage a film like this when you have nearly 50 million dollars as your budget. Apparently Tim Burton was set to direct this but decided to make Ed Wood (1994) instead, he might have actually injected some horror & mystery into the plot while still retaining the Gothic romance just like he did with his excellent Sleepy Hollow (1999). There's no real horror or scares in Mary Reilly, it has a nice fog enshrouded look but little else. Animal lovers beware, there are shots of eels being killed & skinned, being the old romantic that he is Mr. Hyde takes Mary to a slaughter house & again there are various animal carcasses strung up being skinned & gutted along with various organs in buckets & strewn across the floor. A man is also killed with the end of his walking cane in the films most violent scene.

I am amazed this had a budget of near $50,000,000, it doesn't look like it although it's undeniably well staged & made. According to the IMDb Roberts got paid $10,000,000 for this, well she's terrible in it & her accent is awful. Shot on location in London, Scotland & in Pinewood studios. Generally speaking though there's a great cast here including Malkovich, George Cole, Kathy Staff, Michael Gombon & Glenn Close as the owner of a London whore house. At the 1997 Razzie Awards Mary Reilly was nominated for two, Julia Roberts as worst actress which she should have won & Stephen Frears as worst director which considering the film looks alright is maybe a bit harsh.

Mary Reilly is in my opinion a terrible film & it's as simple & straight forward as that, when I watch a film I want to be entertained & not bored out of my skull & that's just the way it is. Thank god I saw it on cable TV & didn't spend any of my hard earned money on it. Mary Reilly sucks & she should have stuck to being a lowly servant girl.",0 "If you thought that 'Little Red Riding Rabbit (1944)' was an offbeat adaptation of the fairy-tale, then you haven't seen nothing yet. Tex Avery's 'Red Hot Riding Hood (1943)' opens in the usual fashion, but, after that, any resemblance to any known fairy-tale character, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. The Wolf baulks at having to play the one-dimensional bad guy for the hundredth time, and threatens to quit if the animators can't come up with anything original; Red Riding Hood and her grandma agree with him. So Avery throws together 'Red Hot Riding Hood,' an adult cartoon set in the big city – the Wolf is a sex-crazed womaniser, Red a knockout nightclub dancer, and Grandma a libidinous old lady with her own high-rise penthouse. Yes, I warned you this one was different! Somebody must have forgotten to inform Avery that he was producing cartoons for children, since there's actually little to laugh at for anybody who isn't yet acquainted with the birds and the bees.

However, for those of us who have surpassed that particular checkpoint, 'Red Hot Riding Hood' is very funny. The sheer audacity of a children's cartoon about sex – particularly given the typically innocent and wholesome image of Little Red Riding Hood – is something to be applauded. When Red first appears on stage, tossing aside her outfit to reveal a decidedly immodest red costume, I was genuinely taken aback, and then felt somewhat ashamed of myself. No doubt the animators in 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)' used Red as a template for the similarly alluring Jessica Rabbit. Also worth noting is that 'The Mask (1994)' directly referenced 'Red Hot Riding Hood' in the scene where Jim Carrey wolf-whistles (in the full sense of the word) Cameron Diaz during her nightclub performance – I'd never realised this. The interaction between Wolf and Grandma is more conventional than the rest of the film, but still enjoyable. For fans of Tex Avery and MGM cartoons, this one is essential viewing.",1 "The only thing that disturbed me in this movie is its clear bias towards pro-choice, which is obvious from the very beginning. Unfortunately, it makes the film look like a propaganda piece. However, the movie does provide a very powerful picture of what it is like when you get pregnant and don't want to. Beyond the technical-medical-moral issue of abortion itself, the movie also shows very well how, basically, the main problem of a women living an unexpected pregnancy, be it in 1952, 1974 or 1996, is often that she is downright alone and must face the indifference and despise of society at large and of most people around her - including the father of the baby.",0 "My father's family left a small island off the Donegal Coast early in the 20th Century and this film gave us a wonderful insight into life on such an island.

The reality of the film really made it for us, the soda bread (or scone bread) as we called it on the table, the turf fires and the whitewashed walls. Even the seal colony is like Inishtrahull Island where our Dad was from.

I recommend this film without hesitation if you have any roots or interest in Ireland.

One blooper we noted in the subtitles. A kid is being teased for speaking Irish at the start (the film clearly shows why the language was so damaged in the early 20th Century and who was to blame).

His fellow pupils are shown in the subtitles as saying ""Eject, Eject"" when of course they are actually shouting ""Eeejit"", the word Idiot in an Irish accent!.

One other blooper we noted in the subtitles was a complete misinterpretation of Killybegs, a fishing port in Donegal which was titled something completely different.",1 "This feature stands alongside ""The Gold Rush"" and ""Modern Times"" as among Chaplin's best. If it lacks the exoticism and technological sophistication of the other two, it has some marvelously funny set pieces.

Chaplin, as the Tramp, gets mixed up with a pickpocket while visiting the circus. Mistaken by the police for the criminal, he runs into the center of a clown act in the center ring and, without intending to, wows the audience in a way the clowns never did. His next escape attempt leads him into a magician's act in which he finds himself, to wild applause, frantically trying to stuff various small animals -- doves, ducks, piglets -- back into top hats on a table but finds himself swimming in the little beasts. There is a scene, lasting only a few minutes, in which Chaplin imitates a mechanical man that is about as funny as anything he's done.

The inevitable sentiment is damped down. There is a circus girl that Chaplin falls for, but she is attracted to a newcomer, a debonair tightrope walker. It doesn't interfere with the comedy.

There's no point in going on too long about the plot. It's mostly a series of set pieces. But the plots never meant too much in Chaplin's films from this period anyway.

Recommended without qualification.",1 "I was absolutely amazed by this film. It has changed my entire perspective on life. After seeing this I want to smack myself for every time that I've ever complained. Ever been depressed. Ever ""suffered"". I am very disappointed that Beyond Borders was not released in cinemas in my country, and did not do well worldwide. I think it could touch so many more lives like it did my own. I am so much more grateful for what I and everyone else in the Western world have/has. We have very little to worry and stress about. Our lives are so trivial and we need to understand just how lucky we are. On top of it being an amazingly meaningful movie, it has a very well developed storyline with excellent acting by both Angelina Jolie, Clive Owen and everyone else.

Please see this movie. It is wonderful and breathtaking and emotional and heartwarming and covers almost every other feeling you could have.

And if you are one of the people brave enough to do something about the situations discussed in the movie, I thank you so much, from one human to another.",1 "The story has been remade so many times very few people know of the original, and the best, in fact I had not even heard of it until I found a copy in my dads huge collection of old video tapes, and I decided I might as well watch it, what else to do, in the end it ended up being one of the best films I had everseen. Filled with amazing power, and the best visual effects that I have seen in any film from the thirties, much less the twenties. It also has some wonderful performances by its hole cast, and is expertly directed, in almost a Spielberg way, with the talent of Alfred Hitchcock. No matter how against watching old movies you are, you should watch this masterpiece, I have watched it over and over again, it never gets old.

If you enjoyed The Lost World, you might also like, On the Waterfront, Its a Wonderful Life, and Jurasic Park.",1 """La Fille seule"" is an absolute gem of a film that is particularly fascinating because its structural simplicity belies a complex, multi-layered character study. And the subject of writer/director Jacquot's scrutiny is a headstrong, independent young woman who, while acknowledging her vulnerability in the face of several personal crises, refuses to sit idly by and play the victim. The camera utterly adores actress Virginie Ledoyen (who portrays Valerie with raw vibrance), which is perhaps why there is never a dull moment in a film that was shot in real time so that viewers could get a glimpse of even the most trivial of daily tasks that Valerie undertakes. What is also interesting is Jacquot's low-keyed exploration of sexual harassment in the workplace and of how brief, chance encounters with strangers can have long-term effects on our personal attitudes and perceptions.",1 "Gangs of New York quickly became one of my favorite movies of all time. I can't think of another film like in recent memory. And the acting in this movie is unreal. DiCaprio is great, this is the role that changed his image from pretty boy to badass. That being said, don't forget about Day-Lewis. He's fantastic. I know, he's always fantastic, but not like this. His character, The Butcher, should go down as one of the best villains in cinema history. But enough about the acting, how about the directing? Masterful. Scorsese is a genius. He takes his movies above and beyond what others are capable of. He's truly in a league of his own. The mechanics of this movie are amazing. The sets, the dialog, the costumes, the camera angles, the sound, the music... all are flawless. The last shot in the movie(the one of the cemetery along the river with New York in the background) is easily one of the coolest scenes of all time, of any movie. Its incredible. I have no idea why this movie is not in the IMDb Top 250, I think it deserves to be in the Top 50!!! If you haven't seen this movie and you enjoy watching movies whatsoever, go watch this movie. ITS INCREDIBLE!!!",1 """Tomorrow the World"", the play in which this picture is based, was popular on Broadway during the WWII era. It was to expect it made it to the movies. Ring Lardner Jr, one of the best American writers of the time undertook the film adaptation aided by Leopold Atlas. Leslie Fenton, the director made the best of it.

An American family living in the midwest accept to house and care for a German youth whose father was friendly with the head of the household, Mike Frame, a widower, with a teen age daughter.

When Emil Bruckner arrives, he immediately makes a blunder when he describes his plane trip seated next to a fat Jew. Well, little does this little brat know that Mike is seeing a school teacher who happens to be Jewish. Leona Richards is the epitome of kindness and patience. So is Pat, the daughter who tries to show Emil around and help him make friends in her circle. Emil does everything possible to destroy this family that welcomed him into their home. Little by little he tries to get his way until everybody finds out this little boy is a bully and a coward.

The cast of this 1944 movie is headed by the great Frederic March, one of the icons of the American theater and the film industry. He plays the decent Mike Frame. Betty Field makes an impressive appearance as the kind Lee Richards. Agnes Moorehead, is also good as Aunt Jessie, who is charmed by the rotten Emil. Skip Homeier, repeating his theater role is remarkable as the young Nazi sympathizer who gets a lesson in how wrong he has been about his American hosts.

This is a movie that has a dated look, but still makes an impression because of the strength of the treatment it received from the writers and the director.",1 "Chicken Little could have been excellent. The idea of the falling sky on the chicken and the chicken running helter-skelter informing everyone about what had occurred while the people do not pay any heed to his pleas is based on a children's fairy tale.

But alas, Chicken Little, was just a bland, silly story which has a abominable ending, with half-baked side stories that are not focused upon. The chicken is always bullied and ridiculed by everyone who think that he is formulating his own stories about the sky falling down.

Though I missed a part of the starting, it wasn't that much important. They show the town running everywhere but then realizing that the Chicken Little had just imagined that the sky was falling and had mistaken it for an acorn.

Then there is a dramatic dialog about the father of the Chicken who is embarrassed and tells his son to not keep high hopes and the Chicken agrees and goes off to school where he is bullied by his classmates.

He has a few friends like the Ugly Duckling, a Pig and Fish out of Water. He decides to sign for baseball where he is always told to take the bench while his nemesis Foxy Loxy becomes a star. This happens until the finals where the Chicken Little is responsible for the team to win and is respected and the people of the town forget about his past life, that is, the trouble he had caused by alarming everyone about the sky falling.

Then he thanks the star whom he had wished for doing something magic before the match so that the people could forgive him (sorry for not informing before) and his father too is proud of him. Then at that moment, the sky actually falls which has some properties, like it can change and adopt the color on the object on which it is placed, like it turns brown whenever kept on a brown wall, similar to a chameleon.

The Chicken informs his friends about this and they tell him to inform his father but he feels that if he tells his father and is father thinks that he had gone crazy again, he would be mocked and ridiculed. So, he doesn't inform his father, even when the fish is taken away.

He and his friends try to rescue him and succeed but are attacked by the aliens who are planning to destroy earth by entering the planet from the broken fragment of the sky. The chicken alerts the town about the aliens but the aliens leave before he could give them the proof, and so, the chicken is ridiculed again for wrongly alerting them. Even his father loses trust in him.

The chicken, therefore, is depressed until he finds the baby of the aliens who is, by mistake left back on the earth. Therefore, the aliens attack the earth to search for their baby and Chicken little, his father and his friends deposit the baby to the alien baby to his parents and they forgive them and don't destroy the earth and go back. At last, a movie is made on Chicken and the town celebrates. In the middle, two or three scenes are inserted showing the attraction between Chicken and Ugly Duckling.

The things I liked about the movie are: (1) I liked Chicken Little as I found him cute and his voicing was done well (2) I liked the way they showed the part of the sky falling and the properties of the sky.

But, sadly, Chicken Little fails to impress you. Its side stories, like the love between Chicken Little and Ugly Duckling, are shown blandly and you don't sympathize with any of the characters. It has a weak script with bad dialogs and nothing that funny or captivating and has referred other movies in it, which is sadly stupid and unnecessary. It has one of the worst and the most hurried up endings. Therefore, in the end, you do not feel that Chicken has suffered much and endured a lot of pain before achieving success in the end. The adult aliens are just so stupid, and are shown to be lovable at last. But before that, they were busy destroying planets?

I would give this movie a 4 out of 10, and would not recommend this film for people who have high hopes with Disney and Pixar.",0 "Very disappointing! I saw this documentary at a screening event and I actually walked out of the theater cause it was so bad. The sound editing was terrible, fisher's voice is enough to drive anyone into a mental institution (seriously - like freakin long pointy nails on a chalk board), and the bottom line is i don't think anyone really even knows of or cares about this man. I mean I certainly never heard of him, my friends never heard of him, so why make a film about him? why? My suggestion to the producers....try making a documentary about something worth watching next time and hire a different editor and sound person while you are at it. Also, maybe go back to film school, if you even attended, and try it again",0 "This film is so unutterably terrible that it remains the best (worst) example of a bad film I have ever seen. Worse than American Ninjas 3 with its rubber knives & awful acting, worse than Sickle even (The Slaughterhouse Massacre with its stupid archetypal characters, wafer thin plot & shameful acting) - why, it's EVEN worse than The Thin Red Line (for which I still want compensation for the hours of wasted life & trauma.) The only reason to watch this film is for comparative purposes - if it's anywhere near The Killing Edge, it isn't worth the time you'll take to watch it. SO bad is this film, in fact, that 10 years after having seen it it remains like the North Star in my discussions on films with my best mate - i.e., well at least it was better than The Killing Edge

So go on, watch it. It's like THAT tape in The Ring - once you watch it, things will NEVER be the same.",0 "When Tyrone Power gambles, he really gambles. He loses big and has to pay up to Adolphe Menjou, the owner of the casino. But instead Adolphe gives him an assignment in wooing Loretta Young and posing as an Russian count at the same time.

That's basically the idea behind this charming film. In fact, the whole film really does rely on its stars' charm and Ms. Young's loveliness. They're not given much to do and for that matter this isn't what I'd call a funny movie. Based on an idea by actor/director Gregory Ratoff, who has a supporting role, the movie drags in the second half. Looking back on it, I feel now like I am giving it a hard time, but there wasn't much to it, really.

Watch ""Day-Time Wife"" first (both can be found on DVD together on a 10-movie set of Ty's.) For its production values, I give ""Cafe"" a '4,' but don't expect to be falling out of your seats.",0 "This collection is okay but it misses many videos from both eras. I think if bands put out ""greatest hits"" videos, showing only half of their hit videos, it is a let down to their fans and to the casual watcher. This set only includes the 3 hit Roth Era videos from 1984. Notably missing is their MTV banned ""Pretty Woman"" video, the live video for ""Mean Streets"" and ""Unchained"", and any of their unforgetable appearance at the '83 US Festival. Missing from Van Hagar series is Live Without a Net videos, and ""Feels So Good"", ""Top Of the World"", and ""Amsterdam"". Perhaps those will be included on the second volume?",0 "Every once in a while, a movie on the video store shelf catches your eye. Not because it looks like it is going to be a quality film, but because it looks like it will be utter trash. This is a film of that type. For an hour and a half, one has to put up with atrocious acting, home video camera quality visuals, lame special effects, and a plot that never really seem to show up. To make the movie worse the viewer has to sit through about ten minutes of previews for action figures and the soundtrack for both this film and another one of equal bad quality. So, if you are looking for a useless cheesy movie about some guy who wants to take the world over with head exploding rap music (no I did not make that up) then rent this movie right away. If not, find something good.",0 "I watched this movie on TCM yesterday for the first time. I have seen other movies starring Edward G. Robinson and have always liked his work. Without Robinson this movie would flop. Yes, Burt Lancaster stars in it too but he does not add much. Others could have played the role of the son and in fact Lancaster seems miscast as Robinson's son.

When watching a new release I don't have the luxury to weed out the biases one acquires from watching something filmed in one's own date and time. One distinctive mark of a good movie is how it appeals over time. This movie was made more than 60 years ago yet it transcends time. The styles and fashions of the 1940s fail to get in the way of the story which seems just as real today as it was back then. This is the hallmark of a great movie.

Edward G. Robinson plays his role perfectly. One would think that the character and actor are one in the same but this was not the case. Robinson's character lives in classic denial. He is convinced of his lie. When confronted by Lancaster you can see the pain in Robinson's eyes. I enjoyed this movie and the wonderful performance by Edward G. Robinson. It's a joy to unearth such a treasure as this movie turned out to be.

Also fun was watching a young Arlene Francis and Henry Morgan. They strike me as such nice people. I enjoy watching old clips of ""What's my Line."" Also, growing up I always liked the comforting presence of Henry Morgan who is still alive today!",1 "I loved the first Highlander movie, loved the series, and have found every movie after the first to be pretty awful - but I watch them anyway, hoping against hope that they'll prove me wrong. I thought it couldn't get any worse than Highlander: Endgame, but I was very much mistaken. This is just a terrible movie - like watching a train wreck.

If they didn't destroy continuity in every movie and rewrite the history of the Highlander universe, it might be bearable. Like every other Highlander movie, this one acts like nothing came before it and nothing about it makes sense - it's an insult to the intelligence of the fans. And we have to suffer through yet another half-witted attempt to re-invent the source of immortality and what happens if ""there can be only one."" The post-apocalyptic world is just plain dark and dreary. Endgame was sort of heading in that direction - it was significantly more world-weary and tattered than the world of the series. However, The Source just plain doesn't make sense. For the world to have gotten in this condition, more than a few years would have to have passed, and Joe Dawson should look more than a couple of years older - by rights the character should have been dead before this movie takes place. But hey, I guess they figure we can't add either.

The fight scenes are terrible - the speeded-up special effects destroy the fun of the fight scenes, and you always expect one decent sword-fighting scene in a Highlander movie - not this one! If I had realized how bad this was going to be, I could have resigned myself to ogling Methos for a couple of hours. This movie is so bad even *that* isn't enjoyable. If I had seen this in a movie theater I'd have wanted my money back. As it is, I want back the time I wasted watching this dreck.

I'm giving up Highlander movies for good. As far as I'm concerned, There Can Be Only One Highlander Movie - and this isn't it.",0 "LAKE MUNGO might sound like a teen flick or some camping murder spree so let me tell you clearly that this clever film is not another one of those. LAKE MUNGO is a tiny budget ghost thriller with about 4 major sequences I personally found terrifying. Actually frightening. Yes. The premise is this: a nice ordinary family in a rural town are heartbroken when their 15 year old daughter drowns at a family picnic. About a month later they realize her spirit is in her room at home and as a ghost she wanders through the house at night. The film is actually about the mind bending emotions the family experience in missing their beloved daughter but not wanting her as a ghost. And then the genuinely scary stuff starts. It is not a violent movie, nor is it a Blair Witch wannabee, it is a melancholy ghost movie with a terrific emotional dilemma and absolutely hair raising fright scenes. They film is made to resemble a 60 Minutes investigation... and uses home movies, call phone camera scenes and séances mixed with psychological settings and tape-recording confessions. I had no idea what was going to happen next and the revelations both visually and in the plot twists are astonishing. LAKE MUNGO has already been bought for a US remake but this little indie original from Australia is the real deal: a genuinely scary ghost film like THE SIXTH SENSE or the 1961 film THE INNOCENTS. I actually yelped several times in fright. And yelping is not my regular reaction. LAKE MUNGO in its present version might turn up in a horror fest near you and if you see it mis-labeled you will find it is the surprise of the event. EEK ! Remember the original 1980 film THE CHANGELING with George C Scott? Well it is as spooky as that.",1 "After just watching a few minutes of this movie.. they did the usual non indians playing Navajo people. Portraying the Navajo Police as blue jean wearing police force is not correct. This was not researched or set in the proper place. Yuma, where the Las Vegas cop was to be met is over 6 hours from Window Rock, AZ. Window Rock AZ is in the Northwestern part of the state... The Navajo Police wear badges not name tags.

I have taken this back to Hastings and demanded refund of the rental fee of fifty two cents.

Would have been nice if they filmed NEAR THE REZ.",0 "Hack director Fred Olen Ray unleashed this loser back in the mid eighties. ""Stars"" Sybil Danning and John Carradine are in the film for about 5 minutes each, and Cameron Mitchell has the good sense to not show up until about 50 minutes in and then gets killed about 15 minutes later. It's for sure none of these actors listed this on their resumes. As for our lead, David O'Hara, well let's just say he shouldn't have quit his coaching job. And the second male lead, Richard Hench, who doesn't enter the film until it's half over, seems to be reading his lines from cue cards offscreen. At times he appears to be in a trance. Some of the furniture has more life in its performance than he does.

Of course most of the blame falls squarely on the director's shoulders here. Olen Ray can't seem to pace a scene to save his life; they all just drag on and on with the actors taking long, I mean long, pauses between each line of dialog. You can just feel precious seconds of your life slipping away while waiting for them to complete their discussions. Naturally we need some pointless t & a to pad out an already stretched film, and plenty of go nowhere scenes that do nothing to advance the ""plot"". The best I can say for this garbage is that it is only 84 minutes long.

Skip this film and watch the 1980 flick The Awakening, which covers pretty much the same ground. While not a great movie, it's worlds better than this dreck.",0 "How much do you know about intercourse? Well, Woody Allen's wacky masterpiece ""Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask"" tells all. Whether it's the nerdy court jester (Allen) who wants to do it with the queen, Dr. Doug Ross (Gene Wilder) having an affair with a sheep, the most unusual game show, a man's experiences in transvestitism, the attack of the giant breast, or the epic tale of an ejaculation, the whole movie is a laugh riot. As you might imagine, there are some great lines, particularly in the medieval sequence.

One thing that I've always wondered about is what in Woody Allen's life prompted to make so many movies like this. Granted, he grew up during the sexually repressed '50s, so when sex became an acceptable topic in movies, he was ready to show it. But still, how does he come up with these sorts of things? Oh well. The point is that this is one hilarious movie.",1 "It's been a while since I acquired a headache from a movie. For that, I thank ""Bee Movie,"" a dreadfully mindless excursion into the worlds of both copycat kiddie fantasy and shameless commercial promotion (for a show that's been off the air for years).

This was a movie I never even wanted to watch. So the disc was inserted without my blessing into a DVD player that should be praised for its patience at showing such garbage, and I was subjected to all 90 or whatever minutes of this trash festival. I was told I wouldn't even notice the nasal, whiny, someone-please-strike-him-mute voice of hack comedian Jerry Seinfeld (that's right, I said it, Seinfeld *and* his show are two of the most cruel things that can be unleashed upon mankind). Naturally, that was wrong.

Basically, that meant that the movie was basically a rehash of movies like ""A Bug's Life"" and ""Antz,"" both of which were very good movies in which insects dreamed of a better life and had the fortitude to make it happen. That sentence should be its own genre by now! Even the actors I had genuine respect for (Matthew Broderick, John Goodman, and Larry Miller, the hilarious voice of the pointy-haired boss in ""Dilbert"") were unimaginably uninspiring. They had absolutely no shame, wasting what seemed like hours on jokes about rock star Sting. They even sank so low as to feature a character called ""Bee Larry King."" Next time, can we please get Dugong Dr. Phil a role in a ""Madagascar"" sequel?

When a bee stings, it dies. It's a fact of biology. And this putrid bug corpse starts stinging the moment the disc drawer is closed.",0 "I have never seen such an atrocious pathetic attempt at a crime thriller. The complete ignorance to the truth of the way computers and the internet work was only one of the poor elements of this film, but it managed to disappoint in every other aspect as well. The story was contrived and uninteresting. The characters were plastic and unconvincing. The manufactured suspense was nothing more than frustrating and annoying. Had there been any research done on the factual basis of this story, there may have been some interesting thread, but as any intelligent person who has even the slightest understanding of how technology or the internet works, this movie is an obvious farce. Even with only the expectation of an average fictional ""techno-phobic"" type story, I was disappointed by the lack of any real original content. Of all my experience of Tom Clancy's work, this is the worst and most disappointing example I have ever encountered. Even on the larger scale, this movie is one of the worst, hopeless, disgraceful, and offensive efforts I have ever had the misfortune to witness and endure. The worst 2 dollars I have ever spent.",0 "This movie has less plot than a porno. There is no real point to the movie, except that everyone is sleeping with Harvey Keitel. The man shows that he knows nothing about self control, although he is trying to teach people about ""cults"". She was better off before her family hired him to ""help"" her.",0 "I've always been in love with Italy. In my opinion it may be the prettiest European country I know (I'm European myself and I've seen most of the other countries, so I know what I'm talking about). I like its buildings, its landscapes, its history, its people and its culture. So when being able to see an Italian movie, or should I call it a mini-series, that deals with all these aspects of Italian life, I knew I had to watch it.

I could keep this review very short really, because all I want to say is: watch it for yourself! I'll do my best to describe it, but in my opinion there isn't a better way to understand how good this actually is, as by sitting through the more than 6 hours and enjoying every minute of it. From the fifties on until today, we follow everything that happens in Italy: communism, anarchy, the Maffia, natural disasters, an economic boom, but also banal things like for instance soccer (in fact everything that has any importance in the history of Italy and the minds of the Italians) is shown in this movie. You'll see everything evolve through the decades and follow it all through the eyes of the Carati's, a family that isn't spared of any fortune or bad luck...

This movie may seem incredibly long to most of you and I'm sure that many people will never watch it, just because of the length. But those people are really wrong. If you take the time to watch it, than you'll not only get to see something of Italy's history, but you'll also get to know the cities, the landscapes, the people. Everything that makes Italy what it is today.

Perhaps it is because I'm so interested in Italy and everything that ever happened there, perhaps it is because I'm a great admirer of the European cinema. I don't know, but what I do know is that I loved this movie and that I recommend it to everybody who wants to hear it. I give it a 9/10. This is an excellent drama that shouldn't be missed by any.",1 "The story can be good but the animation is so bad that makes watch anything but this show. Every character it's very ugly, there no beauty in a single episode. I hope some day Lucas think to make a real animation show with an art good as the greatest scifi animations like Galaxy Rangers (this a real piece of art, no this ""Ugly Wars"").",0 "Firstly, there is no proper story line ..... just taking a boy meet girl story and putting it in a historical backdrop doesn't make sense at all .... specially when it is not authentic at all ... its predictable and boring ..... more so because of the constant Urdu dialogs which was hard to comprehend ..... many people are saying that the fight sequence portrayed are good but its not worth it ... when you are portraying a vicious battle a little more gore is expected ... not pushing each other and making them fall to the ground ... thats bogus .... i liked the other films of AG they were good ... but this one is worthless ... the only good thing about the movie is aishwarya her ... acting is really good ... hrithik looks misplaced .... and he is often out of sorts if the role doesn't demand his dancing skills ... so it was expected .... if you do want to watch it ... go with your friends and chat your way ... through the movie .. because what happening on screen will not appeal you at all ... for such a stupendously bad story the movie is painfully long ... on the bright side it gives you a lot of time to talk with your friends ..... and carry some medication it might help .. u may need it ... good luck ...",0 "this film rocked - feature quality. tbs are treating us well with a show like this. daryl hannah as an action hero, who would have thought. also a very sexy opening - the sequel to this is going to be fun.",1 "It's a real shame I haven't seen a single preview or a billboard for this movie. Whatever, though - the box office opportunity was wasted because someone or other didn't have faith in humanity (I mean seriously, anyone with a droplet of testosterone in them would find this highly entertaining, so of course there's a market for it), but this movie's cult status is assured.

Spaceship carrying terrifying bloodthirsty monster and a mysterious hero (well, not that mysterious) crash lands on Earth during Viking times. I repeat - Vikings! Swords, battles, mead- drinking and all-around Norse badarsery are featured prominently. The acting is good for the most part, the writing isn't stupid and formulaic, and the director keeps a brisk pace throughout the film. And the space monster is simply terrific, imbued with the perfect amount of personality.

If I was 10 years old when I watched it, I would have been running around on the ceiling for months. Being the mature and responsible grown man I am now, I didn't exactly do that - instead, I recommended it to all my friends and watched it 3 times.",1 "Don't know why this movie appeals to me this much except for the excellent Leo Genn who makes any movie better. It is one of those that I can watch over and over. I think it is that there are so many great British character actors and Allan Ladd isn't bad but his usual self. The story line is simple but then I was a small child at the beginning of the war and all the movies were very simplistic. I think that is what I enjoy. Not a lot of side drama, just a straight forward telling of men at war in the old idealized style.

The editing is a bit choppy in places and the old blue screen is obvious in odd places but ""Sorry for the man who hears the pipes and was na born in Scotland.""",1 Kudos to ABC and Disney for making an MOW look like a real film. Can't believe this story wasn't told sooner. Hope it becomes a series. I could watch Robin Hood's daughter and the middle-aged merry men every week. Performances were strong. The actress who played Gwyn is beautiful and should have a long career. Way to go ABC!,1 "I just saw this film at the Woodstock Film Festival and it was one of the highlights for me. I went in having no idea what to expect and was more than pleasantly surprised. There is not a note of false dialog, it's heartfelt, but not overwrought. It tells a story of a mother trying to support her son and mother in Mexico from LA. When the Grandmother suddenly dies, the 9 year old boy crosses the border to find his mother. From this description it might not sound like much, but seek it out, it's well worth it. All around the acting is wonderful, particularly the young boy Carlitos, played by Adrian Alonso. America Ferrara has a very brief role in this film, don't just see it for her.",1 "I agree with the previous poster that this movie is not very believable. The problem is that I get the feeling this person doesn't realize the intended audience and never read the book. While not a faithful adaptation of the children's book, it did a fantastic job of capturing my imagination as a young child and creating new wonderful adventures in my mind. There isn't a museum or gallery that I attend without thinking about Claudia and wanting to hide out and create a wonderful adventure for myself. Yes almost 30 years after I read the book and saw the movie, I still have fond memories that are obviously lasting a lifetime. A job well done. (on the flip side, avoid the 1995 made for TV version).",1 """Henry & June"" (1990) by Philip Kaufman which is based on the book by Anais Nin is a wonderful film, a rare and admirable example of how an art-house erotic film should be made. It tells an interesting story that concerns the famous and scandalous American writer Henry Miller during the period of work on his first major work, ""Tropic of Cancer"" in 1931 in Paris and two women without whom the book would not have happened. One of them is his wife, June Miller, who is a constant presence under the different names in all Miller's works. The other - Henry's (and June's) close friend, lover, and confidant, Anais Nin. The film is an adaptation or mediation over the Anais Nin's journal which she wrote for 60 years and described in it the intimate details her inner world, including experiences with sexuality, and the meetings and relationships with prominent bohemian personalities of literature and art, who came from around the world to Paris, always known as the Mecca for creative individuals. Nin said about her life long writing in diary, ""This diary is my kief, hashish, and opium pipe. This is my drug and my vice."" Anais met in Paris provincial but talented non-conformist Miller and his exotic, sensual, and irresistible wife June (Uma Thurman never looked so attractive, as in this movie) and began affairs with both of them that would change their lives and influence enormously both Miller's and Nin's literary work. Anais is also known and praised as one of the first and the finest female writers of erotica. One of the reasons for film's success was director/writer Philip Kaufman's ability to delicately transfer to the screen the erotic intense atmosphere of Nin's writing as well as the spirit of Bohemian Paris in the beginning of the 1930s.

At the of Anais' request, her journal was published only after the death of all the participants in the events. Anais' relationship with Henry and June, which led to her own realization as writer, served as the basis for the Philip Kaufman's film. Kaufman wrote the script together with his wife Rose, and made a brilliant, disturbing, outrageous film, which had made history by having been the first USA film to receive the NR-17 Rating, so called ""kiss of death"". Henry and June is an adult film in the literal meaning of this word, it is the movie made for adults which explores in the insightful, exiting and artistic way the motivations, inspirations, and desires of the famous figures of Art. The acting is universally good with terrific Maria de Medeiros as Anais Nin. It is impossible to take one's eyes off her face - so charming, lovely, and desirable she is. She possesses the power of commanding the screen and she is the best thing in the movie which belongs to her Anais Nin.",1 "One day I thought I'd try a Bollywood film not expecting much, the movie Dil Chatha Hai was suggested and was I surprised. The cast, story lines, song's (which I kept humming over and over) made me say 'Oh Yeah' there's someone else just as good as Hollywood. I have since watch other films to see if DCH was a fluke but for me there still was that Bollywood magic. I am also glad to see that some of the film companies are starting to expand into other more controversial subjects about the morays and tabu's because I find not only is the films entertaining but I have learned a lot more about the culture and it's people. The actors and actresses are diverse not cloned, that may be why I do not have a favorite each contributes to the Bollywood mystique. And I must not forget the song writers and singers whomever they are because to me they share as much credit as the cast. My movie library now has more Bollywood films than any other I am quite sure that I am just one of millions world wide that say 'thank you' to the Bollywood industry.",1 "Lost In A Harem is one of the best Abbott & Costello films for 3 reasons: One, unlike most of their films in the 1940s which were produced at Universal Studios (and available on DVD in a Universal set), this one was done at MGM with that studios usual higher production standards, including a few spectacular musical numbers. Two, it is one of only about a dozen filmed appearances of big band great Jimmmy Dorsey, who performs, with his band, a number called John Silver (""15 men on a dead man's chest"") which I haven't found elsewhere, and a few other songs. Three, the ""Pokomoko"" routine (""Slowwwwly I turned, step by step I crept upon him . . ."") is done to perfection by A&C with Murray Leonard as the Derelict, which I've always remembered as one of my favorite A&C routines since I was ten years old. Furthermore, there's a real live giant (Lock Martin), full costumes and exotic sets as you would expect from MGM, a magic skit by A&C, hypnotism, a fine performance from Douglas Dumbrille as the bad guy, and more good music. I would rate it below Abott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, In The Navy, In Society, The Naughty Nineties, and perhaps 3 or 4 others, but definitely in their top ten or twelve. But since it's not in the Universal set, it's not available on DVD anywhere.",1 i enjoyed reading the books more than watching the same tired old animation by rankin bass...fine for kiddies but still below par animation...why they went back to this low grade animation after ralph bakshis fantastic animation in the lord of the rings beats me. and the voice-overs were done by the same people from the hobbit..i think they were way below the voice-overs in the lord of the rings movie .. the hobbit was neat in its time but the return of the king is an unfair adaptation of the remaining 11/2 books ...i heard they are making a live action version of the lord of the rings in 3 parts i hope they use generated effects for some of the characters because midgets arent the same as hobbits ...i look forward to seeing all 3 movies,0 "This movie is silly but funny. We can see the lovely Kate Hudson and the charming Matthew McConaughey (from EdTV) in this comedy as a couple who have everything to be wrong. Of course the end is very predictable, but this don't take the movie's fun. The 'princess Sophia' nickname is still one of the best nicknames I already heard for a guy's part. (laugh)

obs1:Kate Hudson wears a beautiful yellow dress in this movie. With 'Isadora Duncan'the diamond neck less, she is even more beautiful. obs2: Michelle's character (Kathryn Hahn) has a beautiful hair color. (red)",1 "I'm not sure how close this is to the book by L.Ron Hubbard, I'm assuming its not very close at all, because quite a lot of the stuff in the film, would SURELY not escape the notice of the original writer, but might slip by the hurried screenplay writer.

A lot of the points have already been covered, but I'll recap the stupidity and some derivative aspects of the film of the film from my point of view 1). 1000 year old Harriers in perfect working condition 2). people learning to fly them in a simulator in a week 3). The ships look pretty much a rip-off, of the dropships in Starship Troopers. 4). Music during the film sounds like you've heard it before 5). The Psychlos (inspired name!) coming across as the most stupid aliens to conquer a world. 6). 1000 years and they still haven't finished mining the planet! 7). The assumption by the Psychlos that man (i.e. man animals as they call us) is weak and stupid and can't mine or do anything constructive, yet there is still the evidence of everything man built after the invasion. Who did they think built the skyscrapers... cats? 8). Buildings remain, though surely they would crumble long before 1000 years with no maintenance, and the cities would be overgrown as the grass and trees reclaim the earth. 9). Military bases still having power, surely the Psychlos would have destroyed any and all bases to ensure of no uprising?

If the film had been better, Travoltas performance might have seemed good, but in comparison to the rest of the movie, his performance is just another 'highlight' of tedium.

Just so we are clear, this is NOT the worst movie in the world, but Travolta and co sure tried hard to make it the worst one!

The story flips to and fro, with Terl making ludicrous choices that only serve to help the hero of the film.

Its called Battlefield: Earth, but it might as well have been called Battlefield: USA, because we don't ever get to feel the scope of the destruction of the planet that the title suggests it should.

Some of the special effects are good, others are worse than Television effects in their execution.

I still can't decide if I think the Psychlos look is daft or inspired, but definitely not one of Patrick Tatopolous' finest hours (Stargate, Independence Day, Godzilla etc).

Frequently, John Travoltas character (Terl) constantly refers to Forest Whittakers character as being stupid, yet its Terl that makes all the daft choices that enable the hero to succeed!

The only good thing is this film didn't harm Travolta, because it would have been a shame to see him go down again after his resurgence after Pulp Fiction, I think Hollywood saw it as his one indulgence.

The film cost $80 million to make, and you have to question where the money went, because it certainly wasn't lots of mesmerising locations.

I'd be interested to know if the book is as bad as this, if its not, the scriptwriter needs taking out back and shooting, and then make sure they've got plenty of ammo, because they then need to hunt down every person that thought the script was good and worth filming.

A premise so utterly wasted, you feel flushing the money down the toilet would have been a more worthwhile use instead of spending it on this film.

Coming next week, Battlefield: Earth special edition...... you get a copy of Annie in the box instead!",0 "The role of William Wilberforce in the abolition of the slave trade is an important one. I was interested in seeing a dramatization of the life of this important historical character and of the period in which he lived.

First, regarding the movie: it is a well acted period piece. It effectively shows many of the conventions of the period though it does so through a familiar stilted manner--in the way that an 18th and early 19th century gentleman of privileged means would want one to portray his or her time. The actors are all first-rate and they play their roles with both sensitivity and insight. The screenplay is somewhat confusing since the settings of the flashbacks in the movie are not sufficiently different between the periods to provide the sharp contrast that aid the viewer in following the story. They are also somewhat unnecessary since they are based on Wilberforce narrating his life while pursuing a late-life romance that never existed in reality. More on this to follow.

Now for the history, which is nearly non-existent. Mr. William Wilberforce was one of many abolitionists instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade, this much is true, and his lifetime commitment to his cause is one from which to draw lessons. Unfortunately any lessons that the movie can hope to tease from the history is purely fictional. Mr. Wilberforce befriended but was not in the same party of William Pitt, who was to be Prime Minister. He was an independent MP and his work habits considered poor. There is no evidence that Pitt ever offered him a place in his government though Wilberforce allied himself with his friend. He went through a type of religious conversion after traveling through Europe in 1784, not spontaneously as a result of study. His opposition to the slave trade did not come from a childhood friendship with John Newton but after meeting James Ramsay in 1783. He consulted Newton later in life after his activism. He did not become completely committed to the cause until 1786 after some urging by the abolitionist society known as the Testonites. He supported Pitt during the War with France in the suspension of Habeus Corpus and the infamous ""Gagging Bills"" that outlawed public gatherings of greater than 50 people. He did not marry a woman who followed his career and was herself an activist. His wife was, indeed, Barbara Ann Spooner but she displayed little interest in Wilberforce's political activities, tending herself to bearing him six children in less than 10 years and tending to his failing health later in life. They were married in 1797.

While Wilberforce's contribution to the abolition of the slave trade is undeniable there are others whose commitment and sacrifice was just as great or greater, such as Thomas Clarkson and others. The movie, therefore, comes off as a bit of anti-historical propaganda and, so, being a historical fiction of sorts, in the final analysis fails.",0 "I haven't bothered to read all of the other comments but I'm sure it must have been stated before -- this is a completely mediocre comedy that is simply yet another attempt by Hollywood to ride on the coattails of much better films like ""Rushmore"" and ""Napoleon Dynamite."" Whereas those films had one or two quirky characters, the hack director of this film decided to up the ante and make ALL but one or two characters ""quirky."" Was this an attempt to quadruple the laughs? If so, he failed miserably.

I was thinking about a great teenage comedy film from the late '70s/early'80s - ""My Bodyguard"" which carried a similar theme of a young, loser kid trying to find his place in the world. That film not only appeared a million times more real but it also limited the ""quirky"" quotient to one character -- Ruth Gordon.

C'mon Hollywood, stop cannibalizing yourself. Let's see something new...",0 "Taye Diggs makes a second dazzling preformance. He is the real deal. Morris Chestnut enterance was one of the best on screen. Nia Long shows why she has few equals. Terrence Howard gave a stellar preformance as Q. The cast performance was stunning. The only film that I never wanted to be an end to. Hopefully, Malcom Lee will do it again. A must see film in an industry full of lilly white trash.",1 "Saw it before, and watched it again last night, even though I normally don't watch films twice. Period.

I think this is a brilliant film.

The humour in it is great, even though I knew what was coming. I mean: the fact that I remembered some of the lines from watching it a couple of years ago, while I can't remember what I had for dinner yesterday, speaks for itself. In my book anyway. :-)

Regardless of the comments, by others or myself, this film deserves a chance, so if you've never seen it I heartily recommend watching it. I'm (pretty) sure you'll love it.",1 "This so-called ""documentary"", tries to ""document"" that George Bush and CIA planned 9/11, and that no Muslim would or could ever blow himself up in a suicide-attack (though they do everyday in Iraq).

The documentary is SO full of flaws and direct lies, that the creators of this ""documentary"" have even admitted it. But they don't care if there is evidence or not, as long as CIA and Bush did it.

The whole notion is paranoid and Americanistic - I.E. the idea that everything, good and bad, is caused only by USA, and that the rest of the world doesn't matter or doesn't exist.

It is a retarded Conspiracy theory. It is total Paranoia. I hate when paranoia somehow gets viewed as fact. When speculation gets turned into fact. I am a conspiracy-basher. Ever since i saw a conspiracy-Mockumentary, by a french director, named ""Operation Lune"". TV told it was fact. As an idiot i believed it blindly: because it is was on TV. Then years later i found out that it was a fake documentary, to highlight how easy it is to make people believe any conspiracy with a documentary with made-up facts. And at that point i knew how Hitler had made his lies into fiction. I knew the horrible power of the Conspiracy theorists. And i knew that i had to fight it. Because if Conspriacy theories are not challenged at every given moment, then they turn into fact for most people.",0 "The little dudes taking on the big dudes. We all like to see it, and we love to see them win.

The problem with this documentary is not so much the content but the lack of it. The story of Argentina is told by the film makers, and by the factory workers. Great, but they are not really experts, are they? An academic would have been far more credible. Unfortunately the film makers were loyal to ideas close to their hearts, and they should have been loyal to the truth, wherever that lies, I'm not sure as the film was partisan, to the point of cartoon. Unfortunately i left the cinema thinking it only told me half the story, and as such I couldn't trust it.

Facts were replaced with chants. There was one scene of a riot which tried to make the rioters out to be heroes and the police out to be violent oppressors (rather than people doing a pretty fundamental and difficult job already without having a bunch of people throwing bricks at them)which didn't wash well with me, and the difficult issue of the workers taking a bunch of very expensive equipment was never really explored. Was it intended that those who paid for it would be compensated, or was it to be donated to them in the interests of trying to keep a business running? One of many questions never answered.

The world isn't black and white. This documentary made it out to be just that, and as such, insults an audience which knows better",0 "I don't have much to say about ""For Your Consideration,"" except that I liked it, in spite of the negative reviews it received, and I wanted to say that here in case other viewers, like me, put off viewing it because the reviews put us off.

""For Your Consideration"" is a small, brief (86 minutes), sweet, funny movie. It's not as laugh-out-loud funny as ""Best in Show"" (few movies are) but I liked it better than ""Mighty Wind,"" which I also liked.

Christopher Guest's usual crew is in its usual fine form. Catherine O'Hara is funny in a whole new way, with at least one scene that is quite poignant and unforgettable, at least to struggling artists. John Michael Higgins does a very funny William H. Macy-like character. Jane Lynch is dead-on as an ""Entertainment Tonight"" style tabloid ""journalist.""

I even liked the ventriloquist Nina Conti -- and I normally run from the room when a ventriloquist comes on.",1 "This was a pretty sad piece of work. All it is is another vehicle for Bb Drek to show off her tremendous body (and face). The acting is terrible in here and the story is muddled. Frankly, it's not much more than a soft-porn flick.

What's disappointing is an actor of Robert Mitchum's status to stoop to this level. Yeah, and he acted poorly, too. If I didn't know it was him, I would have thought it was some amateur thespian. He, and the guy who played the police chief, sounded like they were just reading their lines. Jeff Fahey is the only actor who sounds like he knows (or cares) what he's doing.

Derek is nice to ogle in her steamy scenes but this is a horrible movie.",0 "Though it runs only seventy-five minutes, it still seems remarkable that Buster Keaton's fertile imagination is built upon short, quick gags that pass by quickly--so quickly that it staggers the mind that anyone could come up with enough to flesh out seventy-five minutes. The gags themselves are gracefully athletic and consistently come unexpectedly, given Keaton's slight build and features that make him look old beyond his years. He plays a train engineer whose attempts to join the Confederate army are rebuffed (as are the affections of his beloved, believing him to be a coward) but who almost single-handedly manages to win a major battle by using his train to confound the Union army. There's great attention paid to detail--quite a bit is happening both in the foreground and the background of the frame--and the jokes are both laugh-out-loud funny and amusingly ironic; but Keaton's genius is his ability to isolate the individual within the crowd and draw out that individual's endearing strengths--his connection with each member of the audience is subtle but sublime.",1 "Nelson Hayward (Jackie Cooper) is running for senate as a man tough on crime. His campaign manager Harry Stone (Ken Swofford) demands the candidate dump his mistress (Tisha Sterling) and backs up the demand with threats to expose the politician's shady past. But Stone approves of the candidate's publicity-minded lie that anonymous killers are threatening the politician's life, little guessing that Hayward will murder him and blame it on these invented assailants. Hayward sets up a tricky alibi for himself that includes a surprise birthday party for his wife (Joanne Linville). No one guesses the truth except that annoying Italian cop in the rumpled raincoat—our redoubtable Lt. Columbo (Peter Falk).

Except for comic scenes included to pad the running time, this is a top-notch ""Columbo"" episode. The dialogue—from a script credited to four writers, not counting the story credit—is particularly sharp, especially in the scene where Cooper turns the tables on Columbo and insists on giving him his undivided attention; this time it's the suspect interrupting our clever detective with irrelevancies. Swofford, Linville and Sterling all give sterling support; and Jackie Cooper makes a splendid villain—a charming but unscrupulous politician with a wrinkled but handsomely boyish face that makes him look like a mortified schoolboy in the last scene.",1 "The greatest thing about this movie is that on the back of the DVD case, it states that it will go down as a cult classic rivaling the fame of the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

I stumbled upon this movie when a friend was going to throw out an electric guitar of his and decided to give it to me. I didn't feel right just taking it without giving him anything in return, so, being the modest person that he was, he told me simply to buy this movie for him as he had noticed it at Suncoast a few days earlier. Being a fan of zombie movies I, of course, was compelled by my own curiosity to watch it. I now see why he wanted to own it.

Every line of dubbed dialogue is the most unintentionally humorous thing you will ever hear. The zombies wore masks, instead of makeup, that were covered in maggots that strangely made them look even worse than the zombies in Zombie Lake and a bit like Tusken Raiders. As if that weren't enough, they were also skilled in the art of using gardening utensils as weapons. They even have a scene where one zombie hands out said utensils to the other zombies, a la every ancient war movie you've ever seen. Lastly, who could forget the stunning man-boy with a Norman Bates complex?

Do yourself a favor, and at least rent this movie. It deserves to be seen by everyone at least once in their lifetime.",1 "First off, the opening we see a ""news reporter,"" a woman who looks about 19 with bad teeth who wouldn't be able to get a job as a news reporter in Walla Walla, let alone anywhere else - and in the first ten minutes she actually compares herself to Diane Sawyer - now that was laugh out loud funny.

It's supposed to be for ""channel 12"" yet the ""cameramen"" are holding Cannon xg1 consumer cameras. Pretty amateurish.

So the idea is she's interviewing a serial killer in the vein of Michael Myers and Jason, he's kind of funny and has personality - for about ten minutes. Then after the joke is played out, it just drags on. More ""set up"" of stereotypical slasher film plot points - yeah, we get it. It's a five minute skit dragged on for a whole movie.

By this time you're allowed to think too much about what's going on and any rational adult is going ""why is she promoting this as he sets up killing a bunch of people."" Then it turns into a real slasher film - bad acting, overdone music, not scary - unwatchable. I had read good reviews about this and now I'm just officially never trusting reviews anymore. That was the last straw. This movie sucked.",0 "This was a very odd movie, it was a mix between Movie and porn.

It was most likely Steven Baldwins worst film, I also noticed that One time Bond star George Lazenby had a small part in the film, I thought he did really well considering the type of movie it is.

This is a movie that you could watch if you had Absulutely nothing else to watch, thats why I watched it.

There where some very nice nude scenes however.

Stephen Baldwin, What the hell are you doing? You use to do quality films, fire that agent of yours.

go to your local video shop and you'll find this movie in the B-grade waste of time section, it should be right next to Gladiator or some other crappy Russel Crowe Movie.",0 "Prisoners of the Lost Universe is a remarkably underwhelming fantasy/adventure film that offer very little in the way of thrills or excitement. A brief plot synopsis: A couple is accidentally transmitted to an alternate reality and quickly become separated. The woman, Carrie (Kay Lenz), has been taken prisoner by a vicious warlord named Kleel (John Saxon). Her new beau, Dan (Richard Hatch), with the help of a ragtag band of misfits, sets out to free Carrie and find a way home.

I'm not sure how many South African made movies I've actually seen so I can only hope that this isn't an example of that country's film industry. Prisoners of the Lost Universe plays a bit like a cross between one of those cheap sword and sorcerer movies so popular in the 1980s and something like Romancing the Stone with a bit of cross-dimensional time-travel thrown in for good measure. None of it works, mainly because the whole plot is terribly tired and has that ""been there, done that"" feel to most of it. The quirky characters that pop-up throughout the movie aren't interesting enough to care about. And the relationship between the two main characters, Carrie and Dan, is handled in such a ham-fisted and forced manner that it provides nothing in the way of a spark for the movie. The relationship between the two main characters exists only because in these kinds of movies there is always a relationship between the two main characters. The lone bright spot for me was John Saxon. His over-acting in every scene, even when doing nothing but lying on a bed, was a joy to behold. However, I could have done without the orange MC Hammer-inspired pants he wore during much of the movie. In the end, this one's a real dud. A 3/10 from me.

One last note - I knew I was in trouble right from the start when I noticed that both of the vehicles the main characters were driving had right side steering wheels. This wouldn't be so unusual, but they were supposed to be in California.",0 "watched this movie tonight, it was very very dry...we almost turned it off............................but we figured to keep going.......boy was it a mistake............... the acting.............sucked...............the plot...............well it was more of a made for TV movie based on a true story............... if you value any sec of your time...don't watch this...i want my time back but will never get it....just say no to indy films...they all suck...they are just like this... I was asking my wife..""do you think they got paid for this?? like the main actors"" we figured maybe like a few hundred a week? awful awful stuff.. I don't know why I keep seeing crappy movies but there are just so many of them!!!!!!!!!",0 "Please forgive me but I fell in love with this movie even if it's not exactly the kind of movie that is hip.... Three young boys have no clue how a naked woman looks like so they save money to go to town and ask a hooker (Melanie Griffith) to show them her delicious body. One thing leads to another and V the hooker ends up staying by one of the kids (Michael Patrick Carter) who tells his dad (Ed Harris) that she's a mathteacher. And then in pure Pretty Woman-style the kid wants the hooker as his mum and tries to unite dad and the whore...and does it work? You know the answer but just a pimp (Malcolm McDowell) wants his moneygoat back... Well well, you laugh and I guess you are right as this history could have end up in something terrible but there is a freshness à la ""Stand By Me"" that makes ""Milk Money"" great and of course the performances from both Ed Harris and Melanie Griffith...just as usual Malcolm McDowell suffers from terrible overacting.",1 "This is a low budget movie and it has it's flaws but I liked it because of the way it showed how loneliness, alienation and a bad upbringing can turn a man from being a quiet introvert into a peeping tom and then a murderer and then full blown insanity. Laszlo Papas has the unfortunate habit of mumbling his lines but maybe this was done so to deliberately display the ostracised nature of his character. If so, my apologies to Mr Papas. Belle Mitchell, who previously had appeared in House of Frankenstein and The Beast With Five Fingers, also stars as the landlady of the boarding house where the title character stays.",1 "As many have pointed out, it wouldn't seem as though Scorsese would be interested in an 19th century period piece. Yet, I see this film as very similar to ""Goodfellas"". Each catalogue the lives of people who live by a very strict code of conduct. Each has their particular sense of honor and loyalty. Each have methods of dealing with those who step outside the box. In ""Goodfellas"" it is guns and fists (or kitchen knives); in ""The Age of Innocence"" it is gossip and dinner invitations. Both films are rich, elaborate representations of a specific way of life. Scorsese is a filmmaker completely in control of his craft. Every aspect of this film adds an integral part to it. Nothing is incidental or superfluous. The production design in this film is as good as it gets. There is so much detail in every scene. The houses these people live in a founded on the principle of appearances, much like their lives. Everything in them is designed to disguise or distort the truth. I love that fact that the walls are covered, floor to ceiling, with pictures. These people strive to be living portraits, perfect in every visible detail. The music and sound is perfectly suited. There is a bitter loveliness to the score. The classical movement that Scorsese uses is lovely and meaningful. The acting is fantastic. Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the greatest current actors. He gives a very deep and complete performance. I could feel his despair and claustrophobia. Michelle Pieffer is very ironic and cynical. She, like Lewis' character, is a real being trapped in a world of contrived illusion. Ryder's performance is one of the key performances in the film. She is sly and cunning, completely in control of her surroundings. Yet she is able to mask her devilish manipulation as a sweet, shy exterior. I love the narration of the film. It would not have made sense in this film for one of the main characters to narrate, as in ""Goodfellas"". The world in this film is determined by what other people think and say. So it is apropos to have a exterior commentator. Woodward does fine work as the cynical, satirical commentator, exposing the rotten underbelly of this world, and doing it with wily delight. The cinematography is some of the best I have ever seen. Scorsese never moves his camera without purpose. Each shot is executed for the maximum emotional and cognitive effect. The scenes are edited masterfully. Many times he will cut away right in the middle of a shot to an image that perfectly metaphors the mood and context of the scene. This is one of the most tightly composed films of Scorsese I have seen. I need to watch this film more times. It is very complex. It is a great film.",1 "I'd heard that this film was very sad before I saw it and knew how it ended but that didn't prepare me for just how harrowing this film was.

Instead of focusing on the military this war film focuses on two children, Seita a boy in his early teens and Setsuko his four year old sister. The action is not fast paced as we follow the children's lives from the death of their mother in a fire-bombing raid through a stay with an unpleasant aunt and trying to live on their own in an abandoned air raid shelter to their inevitable end. By taking it slowing and showing the mundane aspects of their lives the viewer grows to care about the characters, especially the delightful Setsuko to such an extent that that I was smiling during flash backs showing her playing while simultaneously sobbing at her loss.

This is not a film to be watched if one is depressed but it should certainly be seen by as many people as possible at least once, it may show two children in war torn Japan but it could easily be set in any war zone at any time in history.",1 "one of the best movies ever, i loved it it was brilliant, and i loved the parts where Ryan (Lucas Grabeel) actually fired back at his sister. all in all nothing i dislike about it. 10/10. this was one of the BEST musicals i have ever seen, i think musicals are making their comeback in the form of the HSM cast. I think the actors and actresses did a brilliant job playing and bringing the characters to life. I think this second one is better than the first, and Troy's penguin slide at the beginning made me laugh a little. My favourite song was I Don't dance which is a brilliant combo of singing and dancing and baseball at the same time. So like i said before all in all nothing to complain about.",1 "How can people even like this crap. It wasn't completely horrible with humor only a 2 year old could laugh at. Didn't laugh once, instead, I spent most of the time shaking my head in disgust of the stupidity that this show is absorbed in. Don't get me wrong, I like my potty or dumb humor if you will. I like as much as the next moron (yes I am a moron) but there is a line to everything where it's just no longer funny and instead, completely moronic and a waste of time. This is one of the two shows that Adult Swim needs to cancel ASAP (the other being Superjail) Two horrible shows, and they canceled Harvey Birdman (one of the best shows ever) to make way for shows like this. Ugh. I wouldn't even wish this hell upon my worst enemies. I'd rather listen to Jonas Brothers than have to watch an episode of this ever again.",0 "Overall, I thought this movie had a nice theme. The way the director displayed the various types of people in the Wolof village was excellent. He had the older Wolof people seeming wise in their traditional-looking costume and tone of voice. He had the ""Kings"" who were of western (American) influence as the sort of rebel group, however harmless and sort of stupid, which I found funny. They were so stuck on looking and admiring people like Jimi Hendrix that they didn't know much about anything, even the American innovative rock which seemed to be their purpose.

Then you have the regular students and the Ins who were somewhere in the middle, however in a different way. They seemed to be half traditional Wolof and half French influence due to their teacher. I thought it was interesting how the director portrayed the views on the teacher. He was well-liked and always wore a white suit (as if he was a good, pure man), despite his rude and ironic breakdown in the restaurant. The director's main point seemed to be to show people of non-African (or even African culture) exactly how it was that they were able to be colonized, and just how much of it went on.

Despite the good story of the film, there was a lot that went wrong, too. What went wrong was unfortunate because it seemed to be all things that should NOT have been a problem in film for that time. The same scene being shot in plain day and then pure darkness was not only confusing at first, but extremely annoying. I also found the Foley annoying, because it was noticeable. When you view a movie, you shouldn't NOTICE that a slapping sound is weird or unrealistic sounding, and it was in this movie. The music in the background, such as ""Sitting on the Dock of the Bay"" seemed out of place considering it wasn't even played when showing the only American-influenced group of people.

So although the movie had the right idea but poor structure, I would recommend the movie for older people that are not African. When I say older I mean mature enough to recognize culture differences, and I say non African because I think the director was aiming more towards SHOWING colonization to others.",1 "does anyone have a copy of this film as i would be grateful to purchase it......have been looking a long time !!! if a copy is out there i will gladly cover any costs incurred to make & send it to me. the content of this film is truly a must for all to see. so revealing of the hatred endured & the unprecedented will to survive.i appreciate the work these actors portrayed of the human spirit to survive !!!!!!!!!i am drawn to movies with the content of the holocaust......the devastation endured & the strength to worship & honor their faith... literally in the face of death is a tribute to believe in one's faith no matter the cost, to remind the world that hatred for others must not be tolerated !!",1 "OK, this wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen, but it was far from one of the better ones.

I did not emphazise with the lead character, or even the supporting characters - and kept asking myself why this exec guy McCallister and his wife got so much attention. What was the point? The only one I felt for to some degree was Alice, you could literally feel the stress she's under for having to negotiate between the writer and the network guys, always pretending it's not all that bad and everything is hunky-dory.

The story line seemed to go nowhere. From the beginning I expected the things to happen that did happen, but I kept waiting for a twist, a punchline, SOMETHING. No need to say, it did not come.

What really bugged me, though: I did not think that Mike's original material was all that good. It tried to be really deep, I guess, what with the brother's suicide, but from what I saw in the movie, it would have been just as lame. So I just couldn't feel any regret for the producer's walking all over the writer and the pilot. If at some point I would have seen something really good, I probably would have felt differently.

If you want to spend time with an unoffensive so-called comedy that will not really surprise you or make you laugh, go see this movie. On the other hand, there are lots of funnier, more powerful movies out there...",0 """Falling Like This"" is a jiggle-cam no-budget indie loser not worth the time. The flick has no story, no point, no purpose, no moral, no message, and comes off like a bad class project. What is supposed to be a slice of life flick about a couple of rebellious teens goes something like..see the kids take a bath, see them drive a truck off a cliff, see them play darts and look at the sky and drink beer and get busted and hang out and pitch a fit and go to juvi and...yada, yada, yada. If you want to watch amateurish films, there are much better amateurish films than this on late night t.v.",0 "Pre-Nazi Germany is a hotbed of escalating tensions, but decadent nightclub performer Sally Bowles is oblivious to the encroaching horrors. If you know a little about Liza Minnelli and you're curious, ""Cabaret"" should make you a fan; if you're not interested or just don't like her, ""Cabaret"" probably isn't the movie for you. Liza is the heart, soul, and centerpiece of the picture; when she's on-screen, everybody else is irrelevant. Movie-fans still discuss whether Liza was actually acting the role of Sally Bowles or just being herself (her Oscar-win still draws debates--Diana Ross in ""Lady Sings The Blues"" is oft-times described as 'robbed' for the Best Actress statue). Indeed, time has proved that Minnelli had a whole lot in common with Sally, the parallels are even echoed in much of the dialogue, but this part utilizes her entire range (sarcastic sass, vulnerable imp, high-powered musical presence) and she's fabulous. She doesn't do anything small, even her quiet moments are extraordinary. Her final speech to Michael York (""How soon would it be before we started hating each other?"") is a knockout, as good as any of her musical numbers, and when he lashes out in anger, she sighs, ""If you wanna hit me, why don't'cha just hit me?"" She can be fragile and wounded, but it's in her spirit to get right back up and perform. The film is a burlesque nightmare, amazingly directed and photographed, filled with great actors and songs and a deadly-serious finale. It's a classic. **** from ****",1 "An incredible piece of trash, with cheeky ""artsy"" pretensions.

The cardboard myth, the cinematic Potemikiniade, the clay-footed colossus that is Lucian Pintilie shows again his hideous and incompetent face.

He was once upon a time, several decades ago, a talented theater director and a promising movie-maker - but he never had the resources to substantiate his career. He simply has no grasp of what the cinematographic aesthetics MEAN. He believes that filmic art is synonymous with hysteria, brutality, vulgarity - and, oh yes, exhibitionism! If he doesn't command the actors to take all their clothes off and parade their nakedness in front of himself and the camera, he doesn't feel he's alive! This scabrous piece of film about the Romanian miners is one of the most amateurish and trivial he ever made. It's amazing, how certain semidoctes can achieve intellectual orgasms by watching this worthless insult to decent cinema.",0 "If you have insomnia and are wary about taking prescription medications, then this CLUNKER of film should do the trick! I rented this on the strength of imdb comments....I should know better when it comes to ""psych thrillers"" and ""horror genres"" that my taste doesnt reflect 3/4 of the population. I have no problem when a movie contains an ambiguous ending...BUT...when a director leaves the viewer without even THAT MUCH, the film then becomes a ""so whats the point of the whole DAMN THING ANYWAY? I dont buy into the ""art house"" symbolism crowd either. The acting is okay, the directing is okay, but there isnt enough of a STORY, other than, did he or didnt he?....and if thats all the director was going for...then again I ask...SO WHAT? who CARES?.....and though I have no problems with sex scenes in a movie(as long as there is a reason for it) what was the point of this film to have a minor one....except to ""just film a sex scene""...yeah, really original...If you like a story that goes ABSOLUTLEY NOWHERE, then CHASING SLEEP is for you....",0 "As a Vietnam veteran with 40+ years of demons to deal with, I found enormous relief in this movie -- no political agenda, no concerns about whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong. Simply a superb characterization of the damage war does to people who experience it. This movie is about no war in particular -- every war in general.

I don't believe it's possible to always avoid armed conflict. But I certainly do believe that it has to be undertaken for the right reasons, with the support of the international community, in such a way that there is no question that we will succeed and with the clear understanding that no matter how justified, there's going to be enormous collateral damage to the people involved. They need to be honored and cared for. My gratitude to the cast and crew of ""In the Valley of Elah"". Thank you all. I wish more people could and would see your picture.",1 "It's not too often that I really want to see a particular movie. But this was one of those exceptions. The trailers were pretty funny, and I figured if they were just a small segment of what the rest of the movie is like... it should be hilarious. Well, I think they used the funniest parts of the movie to put in those trailers. It seems like the movie is focused just as much on action and plot as it is humor (which I didn't really expect since the trailer portrayed it as mostly comedy). The only problem with that is the movie is so complicated and twisted that I lost interest in its story early on. The movie could have been redeemed if it had great action sequences. But it doesn't. The movie could have been redeemed if it were fall-on-the-floor funny. But it isn't.

The story is the number one problem. There are too many twists and turns. In some movies that can add some suspense and mystery. But in this movie, it just fails. And I think it's because the movie tries to be too much. It tries too hard to be a great action film, a comedy, and a twisted mystery-esque flick (I'm not sure what you could call it). Had it placed all its energy in one or even two of those... I think it could have been much better.

And to top it off... I don't think there is much comedic chemistry between Jones and Griffin. The trailers look promising in that area too, but again, the movie falls short.",0 "Good Morning, Miss Dove is a property that I'm surprised Frank Capra didn't think to direct. It's entirely possible that Capra was a male chauvinist who only thought in terms of men who sacrifice like George Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life. In many ways Jennifer Jones is the superior of Capra's George Bailey.

Jennifer's crisis comes real early in the beginning, she's the daughter of a well bred and prominent family whose father has just died. She thinks she's come into it, but she finds she's inherited debts beyond belief because dad was borrowing and living well beyond his means. To keep his good name, she gives up the life she expected like George Bailey and in the process becomes the moral center of her small town.

Her road was much harder than Jimmy Stewart's because Miss Dove never married, she instead devoted her life to teaching history and geography and never getting to see the faraway places with strange sounding names that she only read about. That song could have been written for her. George Bailey did have Mary Bailey and the kids, that was denied to Miss Dove.

That's just one of the flashbacks in a film that has many. In fact the current story is the fact this rock of the community is undergoing a health crisis and is admitted to the hospital. As she deals with her health issues and the many people who wish her well, her mind reflects on just how much influence she's had on generations of kids passing through her class.

She's a severe woman Ms. Dove, having denied herself a personal life. But she's also a kind and caring one and that comes through with all the people we see her interact with.

Despite a fine cast of players, Jennifer Jones dominates this film in a fine portrayal of what is essentially an unglamorous part. It's the kind of role you might see someone like Bette Davis or Katharine Hepburn do, but Jones is just fine in it.

If you're not a fan of Jennifer Jones, you will be after seeing Good Morning, Miss Dove.",1 "Plot of this somewhat engaging loincloth romp: girl beats boy, boy beats girl, enlightenment, happy ever after. And if you can't follow the plot, don't worry, because the Worst Narrator of All Time will be happy to spell it out for you.

After her mother is clubbed one time too many by her caveman domestic abuser, Tigri and her gal pals take to the jungle with their pet panther and ""the Wise One"" (an irritating old crone). There they mature into leggy swimsuit models and ""dance restlessly"" ""without knowing why"", although we know why, and it has something to do with Loincloth Boy and his rugged pals, with whom and their ilk the lonesome doves have had nothing to do these many moons.

There is some marginally amusing reversal-of-sexes stuff as the gals club the caveboys into submission, but the tables are soon turned. Before we get too far into male dominance a visit from a pelican/ugly puppet, followed by a giant, nicely resolves our conflict.

The outstandingly Bad aspect of this otherwise modestly bad film is the narration. The dialog is spoken entirely in Cave-ese, which we moderns of course do not understand, so a helpful narrator is along to fill us in. Unfortunately in addition to translating the dialog the narrator insists on telling us WHAT WE HAVE JUST SEEN, EACH AND EVERY TIME, so that the entire movie consists of the viewer watching things like: the girls gesture at the guys to pick up a dead panther, whereupon the narrator solemnly intones in his best pear-shaped tones: ""and the women force the men to carry the panther back to their jungle home"", which of course is WHAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT. Since the narrator continues to state the bleeding obvious throughout the entire flick from beginning to end, it draws the viewer out of the story and into an ""I can't believe how stupid this is"" state of mind.

However there are people who take pleasure in doing exactly this, and for such people this is an under-appreciated candidate for Worst Film of All Time lists. I recommend it highly.",0 The documentary style understatement used in this picture makes a welcome change from the usual encountered in other films of this type. There is some fabulous photography and very lightly and subtly sketched character portrayals. Altogether fascinating and unconventional I should think it would repay many repeated viewings. The emotion controlled as it is comes through all the more effectively.The Christmas scenes amongst the prisoners were very effective and the battle scenes conveyed confusion and small acts of heroism shining through. Who cares if they used an American ship for Graf Spee - some people are so pompous - its a superb picture.,1 "Disney was busy trying to lift the art of animation to new heights by having his artists do an ""under the sea"" type of thing, long before anyone would be seeing films like PINOCCHIO or THE LITTLE MERMAID.

MERBABIES is thin on plot but the art work is gorgeous and the visual elements are what make it worth watching. A dazzling array of sea creatures are having a circus-like parade that includes a number of sight gags with the creatures taking on the looks of elephants, donkeys, horses and other animals. Finally, just when the atmosphere couldn't be any cheerier, everyone scatters at the approach of a hard breathing whale (as in PINOCCHIO).

The merbabies ride to the surface surrounded by a sea of bubbles and emerge atop the water, safe from the monstrous whale.

Easy to see that Disney was doing experimental procedures for PINOCCHIO before its release two years later.

Visually stunning, if a bit too cute for some tastes. All of the art work is first rate and much more impressive than in the earlier Disney shorts from '33 and onward.",1 "If you thought ""Trail of the Pink Panther"" was a poor excuse for a movie, you haven't seen anything yet.

With Ted Wass standing in as US detective Clifton Sleigh (as in ""one-horse open""), he goes through all the pratfalls in the book as the only other detective clumsy enough find where the missing Jacques Clouseau is. If you can figure the logic to this choice of detectives other than pratfalls, you're smarter than anyone else in this film.

And Wass takes a lot of pratfalls. A lot of them. I hope he got combat pay.

He even gets to interplay with Herbert Lom and Burt Kwouk, veterans of the series. Not to mention Robert Wagner, Capucine and David Niven. Not that this matters much. It's simply a chance for everyone to waste time while Blake Edwards continues to beat this dead horse for all it's worth.

Poor horse.

Two stars. If you like pratfalls, you may want to catch ""Curse"". Otherwise, stick with the original.",0 "A distant companion of the rash of late 90s realist urban films set in London estates, along with the likes of Wonderland, Nil by Mouth and Intimacy. Mike Leigh's film starts, roughly speaking, from a position of tense, impecunious stability and simply slides through the misery gears. It's a very difficult, unrelentingly bleak film to watch with no humour (black or otherwise) to leaven the experience.

I suspect that the development Leigh has in mind for Phil's family is that they learn to value one another through the events of the film. The issue I have is that they seem unhappily resigned to a situation of mutual, coexistent alienation in the first place. Unlike Leigh's other films, the drama is externally applied rather than coming from one or other of the protagonists. The acting is of a high standard although the actors are, in this light, pawns rather than agents and I find the film consequently weak. 3/10",0 "Thumb Tripping is a little-known hippie road movie made in 1972. It's little-known for a reason. The reason is that it is somewhat poor.... and those who saw it (of which there were few) did not build for it a word-of-mouth reputation of any note. There are a few cast members in it who went on to bigger and better things, notably Meg Foster and Bruce Dern; also the director Quentin Masters would later score a sexploitation hit with the Joan Collins movie The Stud. However, in this film there is very little of interest other than a freewheeling narrative that offers occasional insights into the permissive and casual attitudes of the youth of the late '60s/early '70s. In most departments, Thumb Tripping is a tedious, dated, muddled and totally forgettable misfire.

Young hitch-hikers Gary (Michael Burns) and Chay (Meg Foster) make their way around California together, hitching rides when they can and spending evenings under the stars. Gary is a kid from a decent background and a home in Connecticut who has chosen to postpone going to college in order to ""discover himself""; Chay is a more freewheeling type who just wants to experience the here-and-now while she is still young. During their wanderings, Gary and Chay come across various weird types and sometimes find themselves caught up in bizarre adventures. They're picked up by road-racers Smitty (Bruce Dern) and Simp (Larry Hankin) who threatens them with a switchblade; later they hitch a lift from an embittered woman (Joyce Van Patten) who has hated hippies since her daughter ran away to become one; another time Chay finds herself being ogled by a middle-aged trucker (Mike Conrad); and in their final ""thumb trip"", they find themselves travelling with dysfunctional husband-and-wife alcoholics (Mariana Hill and Burke Burns).

The episodes come and go without leaving much of an impression, partly due to the fuzzy soundtrack (which renders much of the dialogue inaudible) and partly because of the thoroughly uninteresting main characters. Michael Burns gives a non-performance that may one day be recommended by doctors as a cure for insomnia, while Foster fares little better as a dislikable female lead whose character seems to think she's free and happy but in reality is just a self-centred slut. The gallery of background characters are far more fascinating than these two, but they come and go too quickly to make much of an impact. The script (by Don Mitchell, from his own novel) has no idea where it's going and merely ambles along from one pointless situation to another. Where Easy Rider was similarly plot less and freewheeling, at least it had interesting characters and situations, and charismatic performers. Thumb Tripping has none of that and is a very tough film to endure from low-key beginning to unsatisfying end.",0 "I have no idea whose brilliant idea it was to make this movie. There's almost no action, no plot, and no point to it. As others have stated, even the MST3K-enhanced version of this movie is terrible. I heard Universal actually sold this movie to another company. It's not hard to see why.

The Creepers' acting is horrible in the movie and so is everyone else for that matter. Pass the movie up if you see it somewhere, you will be bored to death if you don't!",0 "This film is a little gem. Take two characters, down on their luck and of different ages, throw them together via sheer coincidence then add a series of spices in the form of insecure, nasty villains with just a taste of a road trip. We watch this film hoping anyone close to us will never experience the day to day life of the characters we meet. We are but onlookers, knowing that all that unfolds in front of us will not be terribly savory. But as the story unfolds we grow to like both the key characters because they have been forced into their predicament, and while they will be helpless for much of their plight their spirit will hold and eventually ring true. It is nice to be taken for a ride with a script that tells no lies and leaves us with hope. This simple little British tale is a gem. There is a lot to like about this gritty little film.",1 "As unpopular as this comment will be, this film is a total sham. It's so one sided and false that it would be funny if so many people didn't buy into it. John Lennon was a fascist who supported the communist Russian, Chinese and North Vietnamese governments through personal and band proceeds from their shows. His support of the guerrilla movement of the vicious Black Panther's is covered but oddly enough it is glorified. Let's remember that the Black Panther's were one of the largest violent anti American groups during that time period. They shot, stabbed and beat people for disagreeing with their views and bombed businesses and government buildings. No surprises here, this is to be expected out of Hollywood. I just wish that more of our young people had the benefit of the truth of historic record instead of relying on these kinds of factual inaccuracies to guide their thought process.",0 "I absolutely adore Tenko - I saw it on video for the first time when I was 19 years old and was absolutely hooked! When I found out that only Series 1 was available on video, and that the BBC had failed to release Series 2, Series 3 and the two part special Tenko Reunion on video, I was hopping mad, I can tell you!

Finally, UK Gold repeated the entire series last year, and thanks to a fellow Tenko fan named Patsy, I now have the whole thing on video for me to watch over and over again!

The characters in this series are so real, that the viwer really does care for them deeply - Ann Bell is Marion Jefferson, the wife of a British army colonel, who finds herself appointed leader of the British women; Sister Ulrica (Patricia Lawrence) is the formidale nun, leader of the Dutch internees; Beatrice Mason (Stephanie Cole), the determined, no-nonsense doctor; Major Yamauchi (Bert Kwouk), the strict but at times compassionate commandant of the camp; nurses Kate Norris (Claire Oberman) and Nellie Keene (Jeananne Crowley); and so on, were just some of the protagonists who made this series so unforgettable.

Some of the most dramatic storylines occurred in Series 2, where a Eurasian woman, the evil Miss Hasan (Josephine Welcome) and a sly internee named Verna Johnson (Rosemary Martin) called the shots. Series 3 took place in Singapore, when the War had ended and the women had to cope with being free, trying to get used to their lives after years of imprisonment.

Gruelling, dramatic, shocking, funny, gripping - Tenko was all of these things, and much more. If it is ever on television, I urge you to watch it.

FYI: I recently met the actress Louise Jameson, who was so brilliant as Cockney Blanche Simmons in Tenko. I told her how much I loved the series, and she said that Tenko was her favourite acting job of all time - and she's been in Doctor Who, Bergerac and EastEnders to name just a few!",1 "I love this movie more for the truisms it presents regarding the heart of a man as well as for the wonderful kung fu it represents. The main character displays a depth of emotion that is not often seen in this genre managing to convey in word and memory induced vignettes the tragedy of his life, the wrongs he has committed to survive and his sorrow at what he has become. The man he has wronged is also compelling in that instead of exacting quick revenge as we see with other martial arts films he wants to know his families murderer to find out why he killed them. The ultimate protagonist and leader of the Eagles is also good but more in line with other kung fu baddies than as a truly original character. I would recommend this movie because it manages to tell a story of vengeance and human frailty without sacrificing either of them.",1 "I really liked this movie!! It shows you more in depth on ""the enemy"" & ""the villain"". I actually felt sorry for Sadako. & the actress is really really pretty.

I believe compared to the other two movies of this Japanese trilogy, Ring 0 is by far the best. It shows you how Sadako came to be, the girl in the well, & the girl on TV.

Sadako is a teenager {How!? When she kills as a little girl!? Doesn't make sense? It will if you watch it.} & she is in an acting troupe to get away from her problems, & she witnesses love & fear.

You get to see the REAL side of her, & see how unfair Sadako really was treated.

Please watch this movie. It will do you good & a good change compared to all that other craptacular American horror flicks that are really comedies.

This movie will make you think & touch your heart.",1 "Noticed this on cable last night and wasn't sure I was going to watch the entire film; there was another movie starting in about half an hour that I was thinking of switching to...but by the time the reminder for that film came on my screen, I knew I was in for the duration.

Praise lures you in with the shockingly gnarly realism of its sex-crazed female protagonist Cynthia, portrayed with beyond-fearless, jaw-dropping commitment by Sacha Horler. Cynthia is RAW, literally, and she lives for only one thing: physical pleasure. She's an animal, basically, an primal being totally devoid of any domestication, a wildebeast in perpetual heat, and our 'hero' Gordon is both repulsed and attracted (as we are) by Cynthia's blatancy - she's everything he's not, and eventually he submits to her warped energy, her whirlwind of over-indulgence (and of course her sexuality), and for a short while his life has meaning.

You realize going in that this film will not turn into yer basic ""and-they-lived-happily-ever-after"" number, so we're not surprised when -=- MINOR SPOILER -=- Gordo finally has had enough; this damsel of the deranged has literally drained him dry and he has to cut her loose. The most poignant part of the movie, for me, takes place at the end, when, quite simply, Cynthia isn't there anymore, and we feel her absence just as profoundly as Gordon does.",1 "Albert Brooks spends two hours whining and feeling sorry for himself, and noone else helps this script. Various semi-celebrities walk in and out of the scenes, for no reason at all - it seems the director was grabbing whoever was walking by to fill in the time. Skip it.",0 "I would love to believe that either Ravi chopra directed this film in his sleep, or that he had some inspiration from Ekta Kapoor because i REFUSE to believe that he would actually make a 3hr film for justifying a 3 minute monologue!

Coming from a banner of BR films' repute (that too celebrating it's 50th year) this film disappoints (on so many levels), to say the least, as it is everything that BR Chopra would not make.

Perhaps the idea was to make a film that would remind us of the era that was 50 years ago. I say this because the dialogs are so cliché, it's disturbing. the characters are so one-dimensional its appalling. and the story is so predictable, I wonder if a toddler wrote it.... the dramatic payoffs are simply comical and the audience was left laughing at a scene where sympathy was expected....

salman tries to bring comic relief to the first half, but due to bad direction and worse dialog, one can't help but feel exasperated. the second half is so slow that ""i wanted to rip my arm off, just so i could have something to throw(at the screen)"" (yes, it's joey's line)

I was surprised to find that Mr. Bacchan, and Hema Malini could actually act so badly (hema-ji, has little or no role anyways) .... and Rani Mukherji and AB Sr. have none of the magic one has come to expect after ""Black."" the less said about john Abraham, the better. (Two words: Acting School!) in the second half the cast and crew tried it's best to put the audience to sleep, (and a few did in fact doze off) but i kept up with caffeine and bore the film (as it bored me) so i could warn others about this heinous crime against film making!)

let's now come to talk about the branding... OMG!!! Eros jewelry, Brooke bond, nerolac, kotak... please stop!!! i'm here to watch a film, not an advertising campaign!!!

OVERALL:

The Good: The kid, Rani Mukherji's bathroom-mirror scene, Amithabh Bachchan's 3 minute monologue at the end

The Bad: Everything else you have to endure to GET to the end!!

The Ugly: the dialogs, the dialogs, the dialogs, the direction, the costumes and jewelry!

Final word of caution, watch at your own peril!",0 "...I managed to pack into a dozen scenes with the whole period of Nazi tyranny in a convincingly evil way."" - Malcolm McDowell about his work in The Passage.

When I saw The Passage back in 1981, in Moscow, I had no idea that it had been a big flop in the USA where it only lasted a week upon theatrical release, that it was considered a bad movie a failure. It would be much later that I recognized very famous and talented actors who were in the film, James Matson, Anthony Quinn, Christopher Lee, and Patricia Neal. The film was directed by J. Lee Thompson, the Oscar nominated director of highly successful The Guns of Navarone (1961). By the time I was watching The Passage at the theater, I had not seen Stanley Kubrick's A Clock Work Orange or notorious Caligula, and I did not know what Malcolm McDowell was capable of as a screen villain. I did know McDowell from the Lindsay Anderson's O Lucky Man that also had been released theatrically in Moscow several years prior The Passage. O lucky Man had left a deep impression on me and huge part of it was McDowell's performance as Mick Travis, the young naive man with the most charming smile who wanted to succeed in this world. Watching McDowell in The Passage playing the psychotic obsessed Nazi chasing the family of the anti-fascist scientist across the Pyrenees I was horrified and genuinely scared. Every time he would enter the screen, I felt physically sick anticipating some horror act to follow and McDowell never disappointed. I won't argue that the movie may not be a great or even a good one but I do remember McDowell's performance all too well, and I could not forget him in the movie for 28 years. Now, after I've seen so many movies and memorable performances, I realize that McDowell was over the top and judging by his own words, he knew it very well and did it on purpose:

""I played this real nasty Nazi who was chasing these people across the Pyrenees. We all knew real early on that the movie was not going to be any great work of art and so I was determined to have some fun with it. My attitude was that if I was going to play a Nazi, I was going to take it totally over the top and do it right. I ended up playing the character like a pantomime queen. What I was doing was so far out that James Mason turned to me one day and said, 'That's wonderful dear boy, but are you in our film? You seem to be doing something different from the rest of us'...""

If after so many years, one performance in a supposedly bad movie stands out and you can't get it out of your mind, and you remember the exact day when you saw that movie, who you saw it with and how you felt, for me it means that the movie was not bad at all.",1 "The film Dead Poets Society is a film that explores the idea of ""Carpe Diem"" (seize the day) from the viewpoint of a classroom of young men at an all boys boarding school. Their teacher Mr. Keating (played by Robin Williams)helps them stretch their minds, and exercise their right to defiant acts of love for life and poetry, rebuttlng society. The director Peter Weir treats you with eye candy by using various camera shots of beautiful scenary, and neat techniques. Weir takes you on a roller coaster that leaves you gripping your seat, enjoying life, and thinking ""Carpe Diem"" in your own life. There are some very depressing scenes, but they are very artful, and teach you of appreciation for those brave members of society that dare stand up for their beliefs, and rights to wrestling around with life. I thought Ethan Hawke (Todd Anderson) gave a true life twist to the film, Robin Williams (Mr. Keating or also known as Captain my captain) added an element of excitement, and Robert Sean Leonard (Neil Perry)added passion that leaves you mesmerized. I just saw this film in English class, but I immediatly fell in love with it, as I know you will.",1 "Probably the best film adaptation of a Steinbach novel that Hollywood ever managed. East of Eden doesn't make it since Kazan used less than a third of a towering novel.

Of Mice and Men is a profoundly moving story of people caring for each other during a very difficult time in American history. Lon Chaney, Jr. does the best work of his career in a deceptively demanding role. The one sour note is the bewilderingly hammy performance by Betty Field.",1 "I saw the movie at the Venecia Film Festival. It is a terrible movie. I am even surprised it was selected for screening even as 'hors competition'. First let me say that even though Azema and Arditi are forcedly advertised as main characters, Arditi has probably a maximum of 10 minutes of screen time and Azema hardly says any word during the whole movie. Everything is terrible. Acting is bad, story and editing are awful, and even the filming of landscapes of south of France is totally un-inspired. The movie never builds any tension. We are not sure why Larsan is such a threat to begin with. Then it does a really bad job at setting the stage for the mystery: it never takes the time to clearly help the audience understand the lay-out of the house or where people are supposed to be so that when the murder happens, we really understands that there is clearly something unsolvable about the mystery which would help grad audience attention. Because the movie is so messy and fuzzy, it is tough to understand that there is something really challenging happening here. And then, there are the moments when you are supposed to laugh probably to ease the tension that was never there in the first place. These are the most pathetic. You feel embarrassed for the actors playing such bad lines. In summary, stay away from that movie. It is not worth spending a $ on it.",0 "Its sad that a film as wonderfully made as this is so grossly misunderstood.

Let me say this right off that bat. If you're idea of a horror film is I know What You Did Last Summer and you consider Scream and The Exorcist to be the most shocking films ever made, this is not a film for you. If you havent seen I Spit on Your Grave, Evil Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead or Last House on the Left, this is not a film for you. If you've never listened to ""Living Dead Girl"" or ""Superbeast"" this is not a film for you.

Now having said that, this is a film for me. It is a film for true horror fans, the kind that stay up and watch Dawn of the Dead and The Beyond, who know who Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento and George Romero are. This is a film that was meant to be seen by people like this and will only be enjoyed by people like this. This is not exactly mainstream stuff here. Only a small percentage of people enjoy this stuff, and for those people, this film is a true rivival of classic exploitive horror.

Rob Zombie has created a homage to 1970's exploitation/horror films, and he has been extremly successful in achieving that goal. The film borrows largely from Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Last House on the Left, with his own little bits of original demential thrown in and an assortment of other horror film references. The film tells the tale of four teenagers who are terrorized and tortured by a bizarre southern family living in a remote farmhouse in 1977. The film uses all sorts of camera tricks--negative colouring, split-screens and seemingly random inserts of grainy snuff-like footage of various S&M and gore images; the off-the-wall effect is similar to what Oliver Stone did in Natural Born Killers. The film is not about plot, or about characters. Its purpose is to shock and disturb, to serve no other function than to entertain through exploitation and disgusting and bizarre violence. Just as you think the limits of weirdness are approaching, Zombie takes the film a step farther, and before long you surrender yourself to the mercy of the film and just accept things for what they are. The film has the feeling of an out of control freight train being piloted by a madman and the climax of the film is truly bizarre. The reviewers who wrote the film off as overly-sadistic with little in the ways of character development, plot or suspence have come to see a different kind of film, perhaps more at home with titles like The Sixth Sense or Silence of the Lambs. The have no busineness debasing a great film like this.

Rob Zombie has created a film that is both a homage and derivative at the same time; most things in the film have been done before, in one shape or another, and the level of gore is a fraction of what was intended, due to its shameful R-rating. To see the inevitable Unrated Directors Cut on video is going to be a true horror experience.

But this film is something has hasnt been seen in decades and it has been made with the utmost care that only a true horror fan could provide. It is a film made by horror fans for horror fans, a true labor of love by Mr. Zombie, despite some flaws. If you arent sitting the theater going ""hey, theres Bill Mosely from TCM 2!"" or ""hey, that shot is a homage to the cover of Evil Dead!"" or ""hey, he wears peoples skin like Leatherface!"" then you probably arent meant to be seeing this film. But for those who are, the film is a true gem and a rarity; it is a kind of film that hasnt been seen on the screens in over twenty years and probably wont be for another twenty years. Get out there and enjoy this rare experience while you still can.

An instant cult-hit.

Grade: A

For true horror fans only. Everyone else just wont get it.",1 "In an early episode of The Sopranos two of the younger gangsters are forced to wait for entry into a nightclub when Scorcese pulls up and is ushered into the club as a VIP.

""*I* liked Kundun!"" shouts one of the gangsters, irony oozing out of the screenplay.

I had received that episode of The Sopranos through my rental queue and Kundun was due to arrive as the next disc. Spooky. That comment made me think it was not going to be a good film. And it isn't a good film The first 30 minutes are greatly hampered by some very stilted performances from a cast clearly struggling in an English language project. They manage to convey less emotion and commitment than the puppets in Parker & Stone's Team America.

As the film goes on the central performances improve but the pace of the thing never really picks up. The plot manages to be both epic (nations collide) and small (boy grows up) at the same time, but it is ultimately the smallness that you are left with : the story simply never takes off.

The Dalai Lama is, rightly, played with a stillness and spirituality but there are not enough moments where this stillness is played off against more fiery elements or where any wit shines through - we're simply expected to look at the unblinking face and think ""aaaah. Such wisdom!"" Well, sorry, I need a bit more than that.

Finally, there are some arty shots that look reasonably attractive but are not made transcendental as they seem not to add anything to the surrounding (in)action. They appear to be put in just for their own pretty sake.

A very disappointing film from the man who directed Goodfellas (one of my top 5 favourite films in history).",0 "Loved this movie version of Pride and Prejudice!! The characters had more life. The movie version verses the play version is more exciting and more interesting. The constant change of scenery suited me better than the play version where the scenery is pretty much the same. Elizabeth and Darcy's attraction for one another was more strongly felt than in other versions. It was also very interesting to watch Darcy struggle with his feelings for Elizabeth. I watched that part over and over again. Colin Firth made an excellent Darcy. He was arrogant and passionate at the same time, plus very handsome. I could not get enough of him. The characters that played Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were also excellent. I enjoyed the outside scenes with landscapes, horses and carriages. The home interiors were also more elaborate and fantastic and more in keeping with my imagination of what I thought they looked like after reading Jane Austens book. Have seen this movie version of the book many times over. I will never tire of this version of Pride and Prejudice.",1 "First and foremost I want to say that I am not disrespecting the people that organized this film or the actors. They are doing what they gotta do I guess. I do believe some people in this movie have talent, but it's not being expressed.

It seem like black cinema has reached an all time low. This is the most stereotypical movie to come out since ""Birth Of A Nation"" but yet it's embraced by the black community for one and Hollywood seems to be OK with it. Why? Is it because it represents every stereotype out there about black people. My aunt enjoyed this movie while my father and I were the only ones who realized how offensive this was.

This movie is about a young, fat, extra dark, illiterate, welfare, woman who loves chicken,is getting molested by her father,and has two kids. Is this all black filmmakers can do today? We come off as monolithic because we're always falling into the bag every time. I can watch the news every day and see these representations of black people. And this is suppose to be inspirational? Anyone could of made this movie. The script literally seemed like the whole movie was improvised. If the girl precious drops a crumb on the floor her mother literally goes into 100% ghetto mode. ""You ain't sh*t you fat b****. That's why nobody wants your fat, black a**.You fat ugly b**** you ain't never gonna be nothing in life"". I wish I was exaggerating but I'm not. We've got to get beyond promoting ignorance. And it wouldn't be as m=bad if we saw a balance in black cinema, but this is all we're seeing.

But on the other hand the black audience embraced it. But when a positive movie like ""The Great Debaters"" or ""The Miracle at St. Anna"" come out we don't support it. Let's wake up and see a wider view of what black people are capable of and stop supporting everything that's a stereotype.",0 "People have sex for many reasons, one reason being that for however fleeting sex can give us a sense of unboundedness, without time. That fleeting chase to orgasm which we take again again takes us to God and we feel whole--for so terribly a brief time, but whole. People masturbate for many reasons, some people masturbate a lot because it is the best they know of to the truly transcendent moment from which we come and to which we go. An orgasm, any orgasm, is a ""petit mort"" and only in death do we get to hold the Divine Presence in fullness. The human soul is sadly unattended to in our contemporary culture because of the moral bankruptcy of the conventional religious institutions. People have no where to turn, they have no tutors, no credible religious mentors, so they undertake the journey on their own and end up with loveless sex and the inevitable next step, a slow, but certain, death. When the young man masturbates on his dead fathers porn he does the only thing he can do in his state of spiritual abandonment. The adults in his life live in a world without sin and hence no salvation. The desperate and painful masturbation is his recognition that his father could not love anything or anyone.",1 "I first learned of this film back in the early 1980's, while watching an episode of the ""Siskel and Ebert"" movie review show on PBS. One of them (I can't remember which)favorably reviewed it as one their undiscovered gems. Miraculously, it appeared on HBO a few weeks later. My wife and I both thought, ""What a charming movie!"" I didn't realize until much later that it had been re-dubbed with ""softer"" Scots accents for American audiences. I just thought the dialog was a bit stilted due to colloquial speech. For me, this just added to the charm.

Gordon John Sinclair performance as Gregory is a classic. The anguish displayed on his face when he finally garners enough courage to ask Dorothy (Dee Hepburn) for a date, just as she enters the shower room is pure, teen-age angst! Any man or boy, who has experienced the same dilemma, anywhere in the world, can empathize superbly with Gregory. Even better is his feigned indifference when he realizes Dorothy stands him up, while waiting beneath the huge clock at the union.

Dee Hepburn's performance as Dorothy displays the same infuriating ambivalence any boy has experienced when asking out a girl, he truly knows is indifferent to him.

Perhaps the best performance is that of the script, with the subtle clues, thrown in by director Bill Forsyth, as to who really is ""Gregory's Girl"".

The viewer is not even sure at first, who Madeline (Gregory's sister)is. The knowing glances stolen by Susan (Clair Grogan) and her furtive and clandestine conversations with Dorothy begin to tell the tale.

The supporting performance by Robert Buchanan as Gregory's best friend Andy, almost steal the show. I always remembered his classic line: ""Nine losses in a row and what do they do? Sack the goalie and put girl on the forward line!"" In his Scottish brogue ""girl"" comes out as a rolling ""gare-ell."" Great stuff!

Perhaps the best scene in the entire movie is Gregory's and Susan's ""gravity defying"" dance in the park near the end. What imagination and how utterly, typically, and wonderfully adolescent! I almost wish I was a teen-ager again.",1 "Take some young ladies, probably models, who can't act.

Take some young lads, probably models, who can't act.

Put them on a yacht, and throw in a script that seems to have been written minutes before. Get a guy from somewhere, call him a director and tell him to make some astounding rubbish. As it's going to be absolute tat you might as well try to make it controversial. Oh, and there's no budget either so it's gonna look cheap. Yep, it's gonna be something like an English version of Cabin Fever. The film is appalling on every level. The old cliché of 'you'll never get back the 90 minutes of your life' applies here. Only 15-18 year old's will rate this movie, as it's aimed at them. Really, really bad.",0 "I have to agree that this was not the most technically advanced film I have ever seen, but it was made 5 years ago and we are used to seeing great effects today, but it is a good story. Wes makes for a very interesting lead and the plot leaves clues and questions that only the planned series could have answered. It was unfortunate that the series was not picked up at the time, but it has left the door open for the remake that is currently in production in Canada/Germany. And with todays CGI, and an industry first from VICON, there are only good things destined for this show. I can see Ice Planet (2001) quickly becoming a new classic in sci fi. thefoxcub . ice-planet.TV",1 Sea of Love is a decent film. Pacino is in good form after a long break in the 1980's. Hes a lonely alcoholic cop in search of a killer. Not a top flight thriller but delivers with nice plot twists. Also has good performances by John Goodman and Ellen Barkin too.,1 "The opening night film of the 2006 Melbourne Queer Film Festival, this is an overlong, aimless and rambling piece of fluff.

THANKFULLY the original novel's touchy theme of emerging adolescent sexuality was tastefully handled. Larry Clark, TAKE NOTE.

- If you're a fan of the original novel, don't bother. While the characters and major plot points remain the same, the parts in between these make no sense or have had their context COMPLETELY changed.

- The young lead actors, while charming, seemed confused and crippled by the badly paced and downright bi-polar script.

- If I hear ""fubbulous"" and that g-damned muzak played again, my head shall explode Cronenberg-style.

CONCLUSION: Love the book, movie BITES ARSE. Two star rating: one for the film getting made, the other for the young actors giving it their best. Expected so much more from the writer/director of the ABSOLUTELY SPANKING (read: fantastic) melodrama ""Desperate Remedies"" (1995) Sorry Mr. Main.",0 "Oh!...I am in awe of how terrible this movie is. I am a huge horror movie fanatic. And i finally got a chance to see this. It is one of the worst i have ever seen, next to ""Troll 2"" (that might even be better). I could barely make it through. The directing was awful, the storyline is SO awful, characters are 2d, special effects are worthless. It was so bad, i wanted to laugh and cry at the same time. The story is about a Nerdy boy who lives with his Christian ""mommy"", who gets picked on at school by bullies in the bathroom. They spend a lot of time in that bathroom it seems. The cousin of this infamous nerd is a bad ass motor cycle riding 80's boy toy who's reckless with the ""babes"". They all seem to tamper with this phone-line 976-evil, that tempts them into doing naughty things, via ""satan"". After some time, the main character (nerd), gets obsessed and the evil takes him over. Wow. Then the tension builds!...He goes on a minor rampage taking foes out. I wouldn't want to spoil the terrific ending in case your tempted to see this (note the sarcasm). If i could rate this below a 1, i would.

It is a waste of anyone's time. You will actually kill brain cells by watching it.",0 "This is a western that should have been better than it was, considering the fine cast and production values that went into the making of the film. Picture is about an Indian agent John Clum's efforts to have reservation Apaches police themselves and the surrender of Geronimo are the picture's highlights. There are the usual animosities between soldiers and Indians, and the agent's clashes with the military's preference to disarm the Apache police creates further tensions. An unnecessary sub-plot has an Apache widow smitten with Clum, who is already married. Audie Murphy, was perfect for this kind of role and is good, as is the supporting cast. The movie was filmed in colorful wide screen CinemaScope which captures the beauty of western vistas.",1 "This film is kind of interesting in a number of ways. The Second adaptation of Richard Matheson's ""I am Legend"", it stars Charlton Heston as the title character, a scientist who has built himself a fortress.

The portrayal of the monsters is interesting. Matheson wrote them as classic vampires, including in his narrative scientific explanations as to why they would be repelled by crosses and garlic. Vincent Price's version (The last Man on Earth) kept it in that vein. The more recent Wil Smith vehicle made the zombies more of a cross between Orcs and Zombies, with a hint of CGI in them.

In Heston's version, the creatures are more like the mutants of ""Beneath the Planet of the Apes"", taking on the quasi-religious nature of the latter group. Very daring, especially for 1971. Even more daring was the interracial sex scene between Heston and Rosaling Cash. (Would never get past the censors today, but it only merited the film a PG rating!) The violence is also very graphic for the time. There was a period in the early 70's where producers could show blood and breasts, and enjoyed the heck out of it for a few years before the MPAA clamped down.

Some parts of the film are definitely dated, like the zombies with Afro Haircuts (which quickly fell out of fashion after this film. Co-incidence? I think not!)",1 "Escape from New York is probably the first modern action movie, and still stands up pretty well. Not quite up to todays CGI effects, but the main character Snake Pliskin played by Kurt Russell is probably the coolest action hero (or anti-hero) ever. Up until this role Russell was probably best known for his Disney movies and it was a great casting job that totally changed Russells image. I can't say enough good about this film. If you like your action gritty and your hero's to be dripping with attitude you'll love Snake.",1 "Another ninety days, another Seagal release. This one seems like a sequel to Submerged, in that Seagal is working as part of a team again (thus meaning that other actors get the bulk of the meaty action sequences) and this movie (sadly) is all over the place (plot-wise) as Submerged. Seagal plays John Seager, freedom fighter and freelance mercenary, who after getting shafted by his current employer, goes to work for an enemy of the said employer, and proceeds to shaft him. Any further explanation would be either: a major spoiler.....or news to me, as i couldn't keep up with the movies many plots and twists. What is of major importance to all Seagal fans however, is the action. And this movie (the second by Faunteroy, director of the equally fragmented Today You Die) has plenty of action (to make up for the lack of logic, perhaps?) and (what seems like) no fight-doubling for the stout sensei. Upon further inspection, the fight scenes (as usual) are shot extremely fragmented (why use one edit, when forty will do) so it's hard to tell. Seagal certainly performs a few of his (feared lost) classic Aikido moves (the fight in the bathroom, being a brutal notable) but the surrounding stuff (i.e, plot) is up there with the manic confusion of The Foreigner, Out for a kill, Out of reach and Submerged.

A fair portion of this, could be down to the fact, that Seagal crammed filming this one with (roughly) about three other direct-to-video classics......so i guess you've got to credit quantity over quality, nowadays? As a lifelong Seagal fan, i enjoyed it, but i fear it'll lose him more fans, than create new ones. Technically, it's sound, the performances are OK, the action scenes are fine....i just wish these Direct-to-video releases would tone down the 'filler' plot, thus making the movie easier to understand? As for Seagal, one can only hope that the forthcoming Prince Of Pistols puts him back on the big screen (where he belongs) as i feel these 'small' studios (and their directors) are doing this once great action icon, no favours.

Bottom line, If you're a Seagal fan, you have to buy it. If you're a casual viewer, rent it, but i'd be surprised if you rented another, given the somewhat superior quality of other equally budgeted releases on the shelves at the moment. One for the fans. 7 out of 10 (only for the presence of Seagal)",1 "A few people on this page have compared SECRETS to a sort of Aussie 60s version of THE BREAKFAST CLUB but I have to steadfastly disagree . THE BREAKFAST CLUB was one of those productions that Hollywood used to churn out in the mid 1980s in order to sell a few records . SECRETS has an entirely different feel to it , in many ways it feels neither like a cynical marketing excersise nor a feature film but more like a theater play , and even though I haven`t bothered to check I`m probably right in saying SECRETS started life off as a play . Check out the character of Randolf who starts off by speaking in a scouse accent then when he gets found out reverts to an Australian accent . This type of deliberate internal logic gaffe is not uncommon in stage plays since it gives actors the chance to show off a bit and of course the story is entirely low concept just like you`d expect from a stage play .

This is a very uncinematic movie and the director seems to be lost in what to do with the characters . Check out the early scenes where Didi sits alone drawing . She`s been down the basement with Danny but neither of them have said two words to one another . Very difficult to believe . But I guess the selling point to this movie is more to do with the music of The Beatles rather than character interaction but the music featured here is of the band`s early stuff and I much prefer their later material

As a strange footnote last year Paul McCartney`s daughter Stella was married on the island of Bute where I live . We had some really big name celebs like Madonna and Gyneth Paltrow over for the wedding and the local population were totally star struck just like the characters in this film . Quite pathetic really",0 "Here we have two movies for the price of one. Unfortunately one movie plus one other movie does not make even one good movie. Method is the story of a beautiful actress in the come-back role of a lifetime. So, Rebecca (the beautiful actress) portrays a serial killer in a supposedly true tale of Belle (the beautiful serial killer.) A major portion of Method is the movie Belle. Herein lies the problem--the movie in the movie is actually more interesting than the movie we are paying to see.

We are to believe that Rebecca(Elizabeth Hurley) is so mentally unstable that, spurred by her overbearing mother's interference, begins to associate completely with the murderous Belle, finally assuming her character. (Hence: ""Method""). There is a predictable ending to ""Belle"", and a surprise ending to ""Method"", which is also predictable.

Two stars out of ten for ""Belle"", one star for ""Method"". An extra star for Elizabeth Hurley(sorry about the bias, I just think she's beautiful). Total = 4 stars out of 10.",0 "Actually, its hard to describe whats wrong with this film. Everything should be in place. Hepburn,Tone, Stevens, good supporting cast. Good photography. Ah, yes, the writing. That's probably the problem. The writing is syrupy sweet, the dialog appropriate for the 19th century, and then it was probably over the top in social correctness. The plot-well the plot is in the simply dumb.

As any film buff knows, Hepburn's career was not like a meteor. She had a good start, but had a sucession of terrible films which didn't make money. From a business point of view, for most film producers, a film is good if it makes money. Most do not care if the film is loved by the critics. Its nice if everybody praises the film, but bad films and bad box office have usually ended many promising careers. Hepburn's greatest accomplishment was overcoming her ""sophomore jinx"" There are many ""flash in the pans""- in sports, the arts and business. What counts in the end is staying power. Just look at her life accomplishments. She ended her career like she started-one of films greatest stars.",0 "This movie made me very very angry, and not because of what it implies. But because so many people are actually swallowing this hogwash hook line and sinker. How can anyone possibly believe this crap when i would take you 15 minutes and an internet connection to find out that more or less every single claim is simply not true.

The people behind this mess simply don't have a clue. They seem to have made no actual research of their own. They have just put together a number of other peoples ""research"" without even the slightest attempt to even check if the facts are correct. If they had, they would have known that Flight 77 had Rolls Royce engines and the wreckage shown in the film DOES match the engines of Flight 77. Or maybe they do know and are just lying about it.

And this is certainly not the only time the film makes false claims about evidence presented on screen. They also fail to mention that not a single structural engineer supports the idea that there were bombs in the buildings.

Other things such as the gold under the WTC and the faked phonecalls are just ridiculous and makes me wonder what they were smoking while making this film.

And as usual with these stupid conspiracy theories, they fail to present any coherent theory of what really happened, they simply line up a number of lies and imagined anomalies in the official version and claim that this is evidence the government did it.

But I wont go into detail about all the errors and lies in this film, other websites that have done that already. The stupid message aside, even the technical aspects are not that impressive, the graphics are pretty ugly, the music dull and even the speaker voice gets pretty annoying after a while.",0 "Che: Part One felt very complete and fulfilling. I found myself looking at Ernesto ""Che"" Guevara as a very well rounded person. Not as an ideological self fulfilling man but as an articulate man with thought out rational decisions as well as a man with many useful talents.

The acting of the cast all around was very good but Benicio Del Toro took the movie by storm but he did this in a very subtle way. His performance displayed how Che's spirit was able to superseded the hardships faced in the Cuban Revolution. It did not display any brutality or recklessness but a devotion to a cause. Del Toro's perforations was that worthy of an Oscar nomination but I don't think Che Guervara cared to much about awards.

The directing by Steven Soderbergh was visually stunning at times with much of the scenes shot in the forest. What kept the movie upbeat though were the scenes of Che in New York giving interviews and addressing the U.N. It added an extra layer to the film allowing you to see another side of Che. The side in which he shows his political and speaking abilities. The writing was very good with the dialog always keeping you engrossed. The music, though not much of it, was very good and stayed within rhythm of the rest of the film.

Overall the film succeeds in showing Che as a well rounded man never developing into oversimplified or unnecessarily complex portrayal of a man. The movie was very accurate and refused to take on a role of being inspiring or Hollywoodish which I enjoyed. The only problem with the film I had was that it seems to have a little too much of a feel of a war film rather than a biopic. Still I highly recommend this film.",1 "First off let me just say two things. One, I thought all the actors did a good job in this film and that the rant that follows should not detract from the excellent job they did. Also the production values were excellent, nice camera work, good lighting, set design, etc. Secondly, let me say that any anarchist will find this movie an insulting sack of crap. Nor do I presume to be a card-carrying 'anarchist' myself, but I know enough of them and enough about them to say that this movie would absolutely p*** off every single one of them. Here's a few reasons why:

Every anarchist in the movie is some degenerate, idiotic, codependant, politically insignifigant drugged out sexual deviant. It did everything but show the ""anarchists"" feasting on live squeeling babies in terms of villification and demonization of anarchists and political activists in general.

Not that animal rights or corporate clearcutting are insignifigant political agendas, but this film portrays all anarchists as more interested in trees and minks than say, pre-emptive aggressive (resource) wars, media manipulation, rascism and classism, police brutality, government oppression, corporate / political coruption, or water rights. In fact at no point do any of the very real and very serious issues just mentioned get any attention at all. It seems to me that Jordan Susman went out of his way to pick the two most trivial items on the activists schedule today and focussed exclusively on them for the sake of portraying anarchists and activists in a negative light. Again, the people protesting for animal rights and trying to save our redwoods get all my sympathies and I hope for the best in those issues but it is my opinion that these issues got way too much attention in light of the complete absence of other political messages in the film.

I guess I should warn of '*SPOILERS*' but this film is such a piece of crap you won't care, so don't bother not reading the following lines because the 'plot' they expose is thin and contrived at best.

Some of the 'messages' in this film are disturbing.

Consider that the only 'decent' characters in this film are young republicans, police, and the fbi. Seriously, I'm not kidding.

Also, note that the lead character very rarely gets any sex until he gets in bed with a hot young republican, who happens to live in a household full of hot and horny young female republicans. At no point do any of them ever say anything ignorant or insulting about activists or anarchists, and they never show a single young male republican (my guess would be that this is because even this blatant propaganda film would have a hard time displaying well off young white republicans in a positive fashion). The message here is that when decent people become anarchists, they do not get laid. Apparently, only evil anarchists get any sex.

For example, the old hippy. After a brief period of 'developing' this character into a fullblown cliche of someone with an ineptly designed political agenda, poorly chosen social issues, and a wide array of tiedied t-shirts, the film reveals that he is a pedophile. And he is considered one of the ""good"" guys (by the end of the flick anyways). The only restraint that the producer showed in weakly portraying this character was that he did not have him 'ohmming'. I kept expecting it but never saw it in the film, thankfully.

The many ways the 'johnny black' character is villified is disgraceful. First he is shown as the only activist present with a plan and/or any motivation towards actual change at all... And then he leads the rest of the characters in a wildly rebelious spurt of ... slapping bumper stickers on stop signs... Ohhhhh. Then he is portrayed as this hacker-come-stalker as he regroups his 'troops' for a wild romp of... spiking redwoods. Apparently spiking redwoods was not quite villianous enough so they had him recruiting a bunch of whitepower nazi @$$holes to help him *BLOW UP THE CAMPUS MALCOMN X STUDENT BUILDING*. I'm sorry but that is the *last* place any anarchist I know is going to blow up. After numerous demonstrations of his sociopathic insecurity, he eventually succeeds in hooking all his troops on various hard drugs as he sets up a heroin (or cocaine, couldn't tell) distribution ring as he and his newly acquired whitepower chums make a bunch of bombs that wouldn't be as powerful as the Simtex this guy apparently has tons of anyways. Disgraceful, utterly disgraceful how poorly this character was portrayed.

Or the female anarchist, i forget her name. Message with her is, all female anarchists are home-wrecking whores who hold up their self esteem by manipulating men sexually.

Or ""Double-D""... Codependant raver/skater boy. Has absolutely nothing in common with anything to do with anarchism. Was shown at one point skateboarding inside, in a crowded room, as he and his anarchist buddies played with turntables and bongs. Hard to see past all the cliches in that one scene.

Or consider the 'happy ending' of this film... Puck sells out his cohorts to the FBI for fun and profit, 200k in profit actually. Wow, who knew being a narc could be so fun and rewarding.

I could go on but thinking about this POS but it just p****s me off. This movie plays like it was funded by the GOP and filmed by COINTELPRO government spooks on location at an army base. If you watch this, and believe me, you shouldnt, I think anyone who has ever seen Reefer Madness and thought it was the most absurd piece of crap ever filmed will find there is a new film to fill those shoes.

To put in perspective how crappy and insulting this movie is, consider that I have been a frequent user of IMDB for years now, frequently visiting this site several times a day. I have never disliked a movie so strongly that I felt compelled to sign up for a user account and bitch about it online but I was willing to do that to set the record straight on this piece of crap. Jordan Susman I will never, ever force myself to sit through another of your ""films"" ever again under any circumstances.",0 "Keep your children away from this sorry production, lest they be put off WWII history forever.

The three principals are too well known to play the parts in this particular production. Their twisted make-up and sometimes dreary imitations of the famous personages take attention away from the central heart of the story, which is (or should be) the evolving relationships of three countries and leaders.

This IDEA was interesting, but the execution becomes dreary in the long run. It should have been kept to under ninety minutes. Instead of a shorter, punchier piece this becomes a rambling mess.

The idea that this is a proper representation of history can easily be challenged. The newsreel footage does not adequately contextualize the diplomatic exchanges between the three leaders of that war.

For hard core WWII history buffs only.",0 "While ""Airplane!"" is widely regarded as the best comedy of 1980, this gem is often overlooked.

This movie has too many hilarious scenes to count, and contains many clever one-liners that will leave you rolling. The humor here isn't always obvious and in-your-face, but it's lurking within nearly every line in every scene.

The wacky set of characters add flair to the well-written storyline. This is one comedy which never gets old or boring, from beginning to end.

Stars Chevy Chase, Goldie Hawn, and Charles Grodin are at their best, while the supporting cast also does an excellent job. This is a well made comedy in all aspects. It is perplexing how this one fell below the radar.

Keep in mind that this movie is not really aimed at the stupid. If you need to be hit over the head with jokes in order to recognize them, this isn't the movie for you. At the same time, the movie is not pretentious, and the humor is not hidden. If you can appreciate its deadpan tone, you will find it to be hilarious.",1 "If you are looking for a good family move, this is it. But beware, you might want to have the Kleenex handy. I know I and my wife did. The whole movie is touching but the ending really hits home. Especially for me being a parent of a little girl myself. I rented the movie and was told by my wife to have the Kleenex handy. It really makes you think about your life and what you want it to stand for. The acting is good, but the cast itself really makes this movie special. James Garner, Brian Dennehy, Bill Cobbs and Lee Meriwether make this movie worth seeing just to see these great actors together in the same movie. Abigail Bresslin as the little girl makes you stop and think. Her character may be brash but she really makes sense.",1 "This movie was so bad, I can't explain it in words. The movie just shows a monster that rapes a woman and some nuclear bombs flying through the air. I hated the first Urotsukidoji, but this one really SUCKS!",0 This film one would think was a woman's film but the rating say otherwise. The chemistry between the female and male lead was the only interesting part of this film. If it was acting then that is impressive! Watch it if your not really wanting to get engaged because you won't.,0 "Fantastic! While not overly plot driven (what porn is?), this video gives us the chance to watch the amazing and beautiful Jennifer Simon as she struggles, and shows her helpless side (among others). I love the twist at the end. All around, a very enjoyable film!",1 "among the best 3 movies of 1997, along with good will hunting & l.a.confidential. this movie has 3 top artistes giving off their best. the story is simple, and yet so complex. the characters are out-of-the-world and yet so real. as good as it gets revels in this paradox.

touching at the raw chords, a story of a man who cannot (or rather does not want to) reveal his emotions. helen hunt plays the woman that turns him around, the one person who makes him ""want to be a better man"". greg kinear plays a brilliant role as the gay friend. he would have bagged the oscars in most years, his tough luck that he ran into robin williams giving his career best performance in good will hunting.

as good as it gets is funny, endearing, touching, dark, sad, cathartic, confusing and enlightening all at once. one of the modern masterpieces. the casting director deserves a special award for this casting coup. watch the movie for the brilliant performances, the arresting chemistry between these superstars, the heart-rending moments between them. this is one of the best movies of the 90s.

A deserving 9.",1 "I saw this film with the title ""The Very Thought of You"" and think that ""Martha, Meet Frank, Daniel and Laurence"" is far more apropos and distinctive, although a bit of a mouthful to casually mention the film to friends. I expect that far too few persons will see this delightful film. I was particularly charmed by Laurence's description of the ""perfect woman"" and even more charmed when (as if I might have missed it) it was replayed! The film is worthy of smiles and laughs throughout, with an especially funny moment which rippled through the audience in laughter for many moments into the next scene. It is artistically directed and edited, intelligently written, and well acted (except when Monica Potter seemed to sound like Julia Roberts -- I can't imagine why she would want to do that). Interestingly, Joseph Finnes is also outstanding in one of the films that I believe is among the best of the decade: ""Shakespeare in Love."" I find the implausibility of this is irrelevant -- it's an 83-minute movie that sets out to capture a mood, tell a story, and entertain. I expect that many will easily brush this film off as ""cute and sweet"" but I personally would love to see more films that are as well-constructed and intelligent.",1 "What, exactly, makes Petulia such a great movie?

Is it the ravishing Julie Christie, who never seemed more appropriately out-of-place? The kismet-touched production, which was somehow at Haight-Ashbury at the right time? Maybe it's the editing, the fractured juxtaposition of images that both disorients and clarifies, making it more than the sum of its parts? The images by Nicholas Roeg, the fluent guidance of Richard Lester?

What about the pitch-perfect supporting cast— Shirley Knight, Joseph Cotten, Richard Chamberlain (!), even Austin Pendleton, Howard Hesseman, and Rene Aberjonois (the last two mysteriously uncredited on the IMDb)? Certainly, the haunting John Barry theme doesn't hurt. And the great George C. Scott, so far removed from the pyrotechnics of a General Turgidson or Patton, anchors it all with the kind of unshowy performance that most so-called great actors never get around to giving.

It's all these, and more. Most of all, for me it's the profound and true sadness it evokes, its humor which does anything but lighten or elevate— the spiritual emptiness to which Petulia testifies. 40 years later, few movies have captured the spirit of contemporary life so well. It's terribly pertinent. And yet, Petulia is (like the character herself!) a paradox— so very much of its time, as well, that it seems caught between two worlds. Time is rarely this kind to a movie, but this one is anything but a relic, much less an exercise in nostalgia.

Life is full of regret, both for things we've done, and things we've not done. The older I get, the more I love Petulia.",1 "Lady In The Lake (3 out of 10)

Phillip Marlowe movies marry us to the detective's point of view. He is in every scene, and we never see what happens behind his back. The Lady In The Lake takes this one step further. Here the camera itself is Marlowe. The majority of the movie is Marlowe's P.O.V. -- the camera shakes when he gets slapped around, and ""our"" eyes close when he kisses the girl. No Stedicam, of course, so the camerawork is pretty stiff, but not nearly as stiff as the acting.

The Raymond Chandler plot is as good as you might expect, and I allowed myself to accept the gimmick; however, the acting is worse than I have ever seen in any A-movie of the studio system. Beyond horrible. Did the actors feel silly talking to the camera?

Lila Leeds is stunning in her brief turn as a receptionist. If I had to be busted with pot, like Robert Mitchum, I'd do the perp walk with her any night.",0 "To date, my favorite among Christopher Guest's projects is ""Best In Show."" I had seen ""Waiting for Guffman"" which is also good. And I finally got a chance to see ""Spinal Tap"" directed by Rob Reiner but which features the majority of Guest's ensemble cast. While it was okay, it certainly wasn't all that. ""A Mighty Wind"" is probably my least favorite though it had its moments.

Nonetheless, his stalwart ensemble cast is quite simply flawless and most of the regulars return to make ""For Your Consideration"" quite a funny send-up.

The standout performances here are undoubtedly Catherine O'Hara & Fred Willard. While Catherine is most funny, there are some very tender and very poignant aspects of this performance that really kinda grab you. Fred Willard who plays the jerk reporter, extraordinare to perfection is actually sorely needed here - I could not imagine how the flow of the film might have fared had he not been.

Watching the transformation of personalities as a result of an internet RUMOR makes for some delicious fun - the cast appears to be having a blast as well.

If you are indeed a fan of Christopher Guest and his projects, this will not disappoint in the least.

Definitely recommend!",1 "I love bad movies, and the moment the babe bad-ass pilot arrived, with a nickname like ""Charlie"", I smelled a pearl.

The stock shots from old Pentagon tapes don't mix with the scenery, the Americans act like lapdogs the the ""Petrovian"" military commander... ""I give the orders, you obey"" but I can understand. The guy is a cheap Dr Strangelove, wheelchair and cigarettes included.

Also highly-trained, expensively-trained pilots join ground missions, and if someone says no the bad-ass babe pilot says ""If you don't allow me I'll ask my father, General whatever"". Yeah, right. US Army, just like Junior High.

The hero, of course, takes a Rocky Balboa-grade beating, but is ready to beat the two main villains, with his bare hands. Oh, they do that in a cage, in the middle of their Evil Compound, but NOBODY is watching. Of course the hero does not kill the villain, who killed his brother (great and original plot device) and flees.

Best part is: The hero is escaping, after a few ""let's blow the villain's drug stash"" and ""let's blow the villain American dollars stash"". Yes, now I know the ""writer"" watched Lethal Weapon. He shots a few thousand henchmen, direct from Imperial Troopers Marksman School. After the last two, he run out of bullets. He IGNORES the 1644 guns dropped around the massacre area, pulls a biiiig fracking machete, and starts to slaughter the other 544 remaining henchmen. Those are helpful enough to simply run towards the hero, holding their Ak-47s. I know, even the things that grown in my bellybutton would simply stay away and hose down the guy with hot lead, but he's the hero, come on.

Did I told you the hot bad-ass babe pilot goes to his rescue and of course is captured by the villain #2, in a split-second...

Oh, the villain killed HER brother too.

After a Mexican stand-off between a guy holding a hot bad-ass babe pilot (and a pistol) and a guy 10 meters away holding a big knife, the villain #2 makes the hero drop the knife. He does, but holds a small cute kitchen knife on his back. The villain #2 (oh, surprise!) points the gun towards the hero, who throws the knife, carving it from, well, 100feet right in the villain #2 forehead (apply directly to the forehead! apply directly to the forehead! Now I know what it means).

The villain #1 arrives, shoots the hero and goes away. Yes, he wanted the guy pretty dead, but could not point the gun to the hot bad-ass babe pilot and waste her, too. Also he never wondered about... flak vests. Neither did she, because the hot bad-ass babe pilot forgot about the guy who killed her brother, and started to sob and cry and yell ""don't die please don't die I need you you can't be dead don't die!"" The villain #1 flees, and think as a real mastermind: ""the area is surrounded by US Army choppers, I'm in a forest, that I know like the back of my hand. Should I simply use one of my 332 safehouses and wait things cool down or should I jump into my tiny little cheap chopper bought on an Airwolf surplus sale"" Meanwhile...

A big Apache chopper lands, near the hero and the babe pilot. The Apache pilot does what every single pilot loves to do: Handles his 40 gazillion dollars chopper to the couple.

I don't need to mention that the villain #1 is also a bad-ass pilot.

And the little thing makes turns around the Apache.

They only manage to kill the guy when they decide to use ANOTHER useful resource: The Angry Rant While Firing.

The hero says ""that's for killing my brother Sam!!"" and fires the canon The babe says ""that's for killing MY brother Jim!"" and press the trigger, showing another Apache firing the rockets, a kind of gun with 0% of chance of downing another helicopter unless it's parked and marked with a big ""aim here to blow this thing"".

The best part is when they arrive at the base. The extras surround them, and start a chant ""USA! USA!"". It's not only cheesy, it's hilarious.

I'm not American (d'oh!) but I don't mind American patriotism when it's part of the plot. I've got goosebumps from the President's speech in Independence Day (go ahead, sue me) but hey, COME ON. Even Rambo never chanted ""USA! USA!"". Not even Chuck Norris. (But he could, of course) Oh, the couple of heroes start to french-kiss and talk about their honeymoon, while the extras chant their patriotic mantra.

The film is so wrong, is so bad, I only recommend it if you're really into trash movies. Otherwise stay away. Really. As a friend, I beg you.",0 "I am actually watching this garbage on MyNetworkTV on a Sat. night. Yep, that's what we Bakersfield viewers got stiffed with with our ex-UPN affiliate; the cable-only WB affiliate became CW. ""Landslide"" looks to be as memorable as ""10.5"" or ""10.5: Apocalypse."" I should point out that there's only one major landslide; the rest is pretty much a imitation of ""The Posideon Adventure"" except w/ soil. & I wasn't paying 2 much attention, but did the trapped guys have enough oxygen to survive during the film? There's only one notable washed-up thespian on this movie, nee Alexandra Paul, the most streamlined female lifeguard on ""Baywatch."" Damn, I wish I coulda been a screenwriter for a natural disaster TV pick. I'd b stinkin' rich! (sort of) As of now, it's 9:32, so about ¾'s of the movie have passed, & those damn guys are still trapped. & there's a guy preparing some TNT or whatever. I think he's preparing another landslide or something. Also I've got the TV on mute since I don't like listening to the dialogue. & I didn't even know there was a inside joke about Cindy Sheehan in ""Landslide""; guess the writers managed to read a newspaper while preparing this crap.",0 "1st watched 3/20/2004 - 7 out of 10(Dir- James Mangold): Complex psychological thriller that ends up being a story-within-a-story. I don't want to give away too much so all I'm going to say is that this is a well-done scary movie that starts out as a drama about a bunch of people and how they end up stopping at the same motel and then 1-by-1 those that are present start dying. Eventually we find out that they all have something in common(I'll leave that for the viewer). The director does a good job of re-directing our focus so that we have no idea what's going on until the final surprise half-hour. Known for his cop movies, this is a departure for him but he does an excellent job with the material. The acting is credible enough but it's the story that's really the star in this movie. It's similar to a TEN LITTLE INDIANS type of plot but it doesn't go the same direction. All-in-all this is scary well-done escapism with a twisted ending.",1 "Not even an excellent cast can help this often muddled film. Bring back the westerns of the 1950s, they had class, intelligence, and people who could speak their lines.

Renee Zellwegger has the part that Shirley MacLaine would have had in the old days. Suddenly, she is on scene as a widow, and after Cole (Ed Harris) asks her if she is a whore, the two plan a house together.

Viggo Mortensen is his side kick and deputy Everett Hitch. Mortensen falls for Zellwegger as well but there is no absolute final conflict between the two men.

It is Jeremy Irons who is the real laugh here. This erudite actor is horrendously miscast as the villain. Irons sounds more like a sophisticated gentleman than a bad guy in the 1880s.

Since when has Chester Arthur ever been mentioned in films? While it is true that the film takes place in the territory of New Mexico, 40 years before statehood was achieved in 1912, the only thing we might remember Arthur for is becoming president after Garfield was assassinated. Students of history would remember the Pendleton or Civil Service Act of 1883, but that's another story.

Even the scenes with the Indians have little to no action. Ed Harris, you're a terrific actor and I liked you with that big brim hat, but this picture is a definite bomb.",0 "I wasn't really impressed by this movie; it's pretty much your standard teenage film. The plot revolves around a girl from New York City who moves to somewhere in Jersey and then attempts a new school. She is fan of a band who breaks up and they give a final concert with an after party.

Now without many spoilers I will summon up the plot for you real quick. Desperate to go to the concert she and her friend try all the teenage clichés and so many things we have seen before to get in. She finally meets her idol, the singer of the band and comments him on his alcohol addiction. We can all predict the outcome of the film from a mile away. There is also a subplot with a High School play. Where is trying to get the lead part.

The acting isn't impressive but I have seen worse. Lindsey Lohan played better in Freaky Friday and Mean Girls. Which were also better movies by the way.

In the end this is just another Disney high school movie, where popularity stands central and predictability is inevitable. Some people might enjoy this, but for the majority of the moviegoers this is a major let down. Grade 4/10",0 "I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It really did capture the Balkan temper, passion and mentality. What I did not enjoy is the sudden transition to a tragic end, but nonetheless it deserves to be there. The main actor was great and there could not have been a better choice for the actress. The soundtrack was fantastic and added so much value to the movie (especially the transition to the last scene on the train), even though it contained really only 2 songs. I sometimes find myself re-watching that scene a few times. Also, the minute silence over Tito's death scene is masterful. Much props to the director for leaving me with two of the greatest scenes i've seen for a while. Overall, a must watch movie.",1 "Before i geared up to watch this movie, I hadn't expected much (which perhaps fuelled my enjoyment even more) as other reviews on the internet promised bad fighting sequences and flat acting. I beg to differ, however. The korean lead brings with him a series of quirky expressions and is very likable, and Shu qi's stoic attitude makes his wild expressions stand out all the more.

Despite not knowing each other's mother tongue, it is altogether believable that their marriage would work out, given Shu qi's entourage's quirky mistranslations that turn anything they say into sweet nothings. (Think about it, they would never have the chance to argue!) I entirely recommend watching this, as it had me rolling around in laughter. The first 5 minutes or so may be a bit of a drag, though-however, it is well worth enduring.

My advice for anyone who has yet to watch it? Don't take it too seriously!",1 "Did anyone else notice that Patrick Stewart was not actually on location in Thailand with the rest of the cast. All his scenes were in a studio or against a 'Blue' screen, even when appearing to be in scenes with other actors - probably the best Special Effect in this film. Perhaps he did not realise how bad the film really was as he was not really there.

Special effects reminded me of Jason and the Argonauts (1963), although not as realistic.

It's difficult to rate the film out of 10. If you take it as a serious film it rates very low, but if you think of it as a comedy then it could be rated quite highly.",0 "I was flipping through the channels and saw this was on this afternoon. It is a very poorly done remake. Many of the lines were so poorly delivered that I got the impression that the actors new it wasn't going to be very good.

On the other hand, I highly recommend the original Jimmy Stewart version. It has all of the charm that this version lacks. Stewart's Dowd cannot help but be loved, while Anderson's Dowd feels wooden, and I ordinarily like Harry Anderson. When watching the original, you find yourself hoping that Harvey is real and you come to love him. In the remake, you find yourself not believing that any of the characters are real. They all come across as actors on a stage acting a part rather than actually being the characters. If you want to see Harvey, do yourself a favor and see the original. This version is not very good.",0 "I think this show is Fantastic! From waiting patiently for the very first show to appear, I watched that episode and I have watched and enjoyed each and ever episode since the first one! In fact my husband tapes them for me to watch again later on in the week. I find myself waiting and looking forward to the new show coming up the following week! In this day and age it is wonderful to have this type of show to look forward to watching! So exciting, so wonderful, so real.....family type situations at their best....as well as at their saddest too! It's good for all ages.....little children to older adults! Babies to Grandparents (one of which I am, a Grandmother..not baby! HA! HA!! It's truly refreshing TV at it's best. My Thanks to Animal Planet for another good one! Thank You again Animal Planet and my Thanks also goes to everyone in the cast and crew of The Meerkat Manor show!",1 "A cute show. Nothing made me roll on the floor, but still cute. Carole Lombard was soooo beautiful. And she was secure enough in it to take a comedic role where she would make faces, and have her hair wet, and other things that many beautiful actresses would not. I recommend.",1 "How bad is this film? VERY! I don't know where to start... well I do. Expectations were low from the opening credits listing (no not just because Dolph Lundgren was top billing) but a guy with one of the worst names in the business - Randolph Mantooth - was SECOND billing, obviously I wasn't expecting much. The love interest role fell to a woman who looked like she would be more comfortable in a porn film, add to that:

1) Some very bad acting (mostly from big Dolph) 2) A totally rubbish villain 3) Offensive Russian accents 4) straight-to-TV plot 5) Some cheesy sex-related one-liners that are disgusting and offensive

then you have one really, really bad movie. Just when you thought Dolph couldn't stoop any lower he does. In fact Dolph sums it up himself with a line from the film - asked if he knew what Agent Red was he replies ""sounds like a bad action movie"", boy was he ever right!",0 "We saw this indie film when it made its commercial debut. The other night it was shown on cable and we decided to take another look. Directed by Robert M. Young, and based on a novel and screen play by Edward Pomerantz, ""Caught"" is an erotically charged movie.

Joe and Betty feel sorry for the young man who seems to be a drifter and employ him to work in their fish store in New Jersey. Betty, who is obviously a sexually repressed woman, finds in the new man the excitement she is sorely lacking in her marriage. When their son Danny returns from the West Coast, things take a turn as this is a doomed romantic triangle from the start.

Mr. Young, the director has gotten excellent acting all around from the cast. Edward James Olmos is Joe. Maria Conchita Alonso is Betty a woman of a certain age who discovers pleasure with a younger man. Arie Verveen, is Nick the young man who is the object of Betty's passion.

""Caught"" is worth a look, as it won't disappoint the viewer who stumbles into it.",1 "THE EXPERT, starring Jeff Speakman, is the definition of DULL!!!

Dull, characters, dull situations, dull direction, dull actors, dull cinematography, dull music.

I don't really understand this movie. Is it supposed to be an action movie? It's almost as if Speakman wanted to be in a serious movie but the level of acting and writing found in THE EXPERT is below your average TV drama. And there are some typical ""Speakman pummeling bad guys"" scenes here and there but the main aspect of the movie relies on some sort of believable drama, which is totally wrong for Speakman or is so badly directed that it just doesn't work with the action star. In the end, this confused movie looks and feels very nondescript and bland. The worst aspect of THE EXPERT is the music. The composer is a Jerry Goldsmith wannabe, with his pompous and melodramatic score, which simply doesn't belong in this kind of (dull) movie. It's as if the producers knew they had a very dull product on their hands and they asked the composer to make the film feel more compelling and dramatic with his score, which makes the entire movie look even more confused, goofier and dull.

Don't waste your time watching this, even if you're a Jeff Speakman fan.",0 "I had the pleasure of seeing this movie with my parents when I was ten and I really enjoyed it. In fact, whenever I see it on now I still enjoy it. This movie is a movie the whole family can get behind. This one is not about some obnoxious little brats outsmarting their parents or some other adults at every turn ala ""Home Alone"", this one is about kids doing something that all kids really enjoy exploring. Though they do their exploring at a very extreme level. It starts with a series of dreams that one friend tells another and pretty soon they make the device that was seen in the dreams. It apparently makes some strange spherical airtight shield. They decide to make a ship to put the device around and they put in some air tanks so they can breath. They then take their device for a rather humorous test drive, but near the end of their first run something seems to take control of their ship...they avoid disaster and then another dream shows them how to make a device that seems to provide air. The next time they try the ship they let the force take them to a spaceship far away. In it they meet up with some aliens. The movie goes at a rather good pace and is very funny. I really enjoyed it at the theater and so did my parents at the time. A few surprises are also included as well in this one.",1 "Let me start out by saying that I grew up with Final Fantasy and (even though I dislike most of the games, especially FFVII) the PS1. I had played and beaten FFVII and hated every bit of it. I thought the dialogue was cliché and poorly written, the backgrounds kindergarten crayon-style looking and the overall game play to be very boring. As a kid I got FFVIII for Christmas, played it and beat it. It took me over a hundred hours to do it, but I did it! That was the most intriguing part though! Every other game I had ever played was beaten in a couple of hours and barely played again. Final Fantasy VIII gave me something I had never seen before in a video game...a challenge.

Not to mention epic beauty and dialogue that still fascinates me today. When I was maybe thirteen or so I lent this too a friend and he lost the third disc so for a long time I was replaying the first two discs or just crushing Ultimecia as best I could in the finale of the game. I had the PS2 at the time and spent a lot of time playing Tekken Tag, Devil May Cry and the GTA games. Yet I always kept the PS1 hooked up...until it broke. Also, my copy of FFVIII which I received the year it was released (1999) was in pretty haggard condition. Unfortunately I was without my favorite game for about four or five years! One day while speaking with a friend, he mentioned he had found a working PS1 emulator for the PC. What did I do? I found the PS1 emulator and pirated every FF for the PS1. Illegal yes, but totally necessary for a FF addict. Plus the PS2 FF's left a bad taste in my mouth, all of them missing the greatness which was FFVIII. Being eighteen at the time when I started to replay FFVIII I was more intelligent and had a better understanding of how all the junctioning worked (when you're ten years old and just looking for fun this can prove to be the most confusing thing ever). Playing it again I was brought back in time; the epic beauty, the to-this-day unparalleled cut scenes and the infinite possibilities with junctions and GF's (Guardian Forces). I always have wondered why they never brought that aspect back to any of the later FF games. It was what made the series unique instead of MP which always runs and you never have enough ethers for the last battle!

Now, being nineteen years old and having played some of the finest RPG's out there like Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Star Wars KOTOR. Being nineteen and having played some of the finest action games out there like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Call of Duty, and Batman: Arkham Asylum. This is still the greatest game I have ever played. A video game epic on a level that no PS3 or Xbox 360 insert has achieved. With a love story that feels real and that actually moves you and evokes your emotions. Characters that live in a world of fantasy but are similar to people we all went to school with and an ending that deserves GREATEST FINALE OF ALL TIME AWARD! If you have never played this game, go out and get it now! Or played it and just rushed through it so that you'd be able to say you played all the FF games, play it again! You will not be disappointed when you take a hundred hours and play this game straight down to the bone core and suck all the marrow out of it.

Best Game Of All Time.",1 """The Secret Garden"" is one of those rare films that forces you to see Life's inherent beauty. It is a gothic tale which miraculously transforms itself into a pastoral idyll. For once, we enjoy the intoxicating experience of seeing unhappy people find love and bliss, instead of watching happy people meet their disillusionment. What's more, the principal characters are children, who, in an odd twist, are able to mature only because they've found the bliss of being young. Like Mike Newell's ""Enchanted April,"" ""The Secret Garden"" celebrates the curing effects of the natural world and the possibility of human beings rediscovering (or discovering) their sense of contentment. It dares us to consider that our existence has a magical component that we cannot articulate. The film's lavish photography and beautiful landscaping serve to underscore these themes, as does the soulful celtic soundtrack. It is simply impossible to watch these children and not be moved to thankfulness for own humanity, however flawed it may be.",1 "this was one of those films where the premise made me groan. I pictured a tedious slightly cheese-ball dated experience. Boy was I wrong. This movie was so well-done, so well-written and directed that I didn't want it to end. One setting is all that exists and Hitch certainly knew how to stage this and make it work. Hitch is truly the master at 1 set movies, from Rope to Rear Window to this. Intense! I consider it one of his greatest films alongside such classics as Shadow Of A DOubt and the afore-mentioned Rope and the dark comedy The Trouble With Harry.

Of proof of Hitch's genius, look for his cameo. Classic!

This is a must-see!",1 "this is the movie that killed the ninja turtle francise. The turtle costumes and splinter looked horrible as compared to the other films and the jokes are old and tired, for example - ""Im a turtle and i can't get up"". Thats so overused its annoying. The one bright point was Casey Jones returning, but he only makes a cameo in the film and is totally wasted. A sad end to the ninja turtle series.",0 "As I recall this film was completed in 1995! I tried to watch it earlier tonight but it's so horrifically dated. Just because people throw the music you like into a movie doesn't mean it's a good movie. Please, apply some critical thinking here people. This is an absurd attempt to cash in by ex-scenesters who are, in all likelihood, now in nursing homes. I really wish that us xedgex kids, as a culture, who instead embrace things that mattered instead of things that pandered to our sometimes limited worldview. Call me crazy but Lebanon getting bombed is more important than your friend getting bombed. Open your eyes and pursue real art, not this drivel! P.S. WOULD IT HAVE KILLED YOU PEOPLE TO LIGHT THIS THING DECENTLY!?",0 "Other than seeing a young Sandra Bullock looking cute in a film that was made before she was a star, there is not a lot of positive things I can say. Several young people share an apartment, joined together by Rae Dawn Chong's character, MJ (that in itself should be a tipoff because I cannot remember a Chong movie post-Commando). Tensions mount at the big party and MJ's self-destructive personality causes the friends to break up when the party ends including a couple that just got engaged during the party.

There are some uncomfortable scenes such as when Bullock's 16 year old brother jumps into bed with MJ and says that she will be the one to ""deflower"" him and then immediately falls asleep. Basically, the movie had the same effect on me!",0 "`Vengo is a call, a song, a hymn to life, to love, to mourning, to blood money. A hymn to the Mediterranean spirit.' Tony Gatlif.

Well with this been said, I don't think I have very much more to add. It's everything what the director said. I never really liked musical movies, I am like most people. And I must admit that as well as me others missed out on great movies.

I have worked for a long time in a video store and I saw that many musical movies were put aside. It doesn't mean that musicals are by definition good, but it's like our system block them automatically away and we won't watch them. Why? I don't know. Because of our childhood? Does our body protest thanks to movies like Sound of music and Mary Poppins and etc.

Could be. Even Dancer in the dark didn't do well in the video store. From an instant when people heard that some people sing in it they left it behind and didn't wanted too see it although it was directed by Lars Von Trier.

But those who did see it thought it was great! Well, it is the same with this movie, those who saw it thought it was great, those who heard people sang in it, didn't even bother to turn their back and try out on something they always rejected and therefore missed something. I really liked Vengo and I enjoyed the music allot. And I didn't regret it for a second.",1 "I know that I am probably two decades older than the target audience for ""One Tree Hill"". I saw this particular episode by accident. I think the subject matter of school shootings is very important. I just wished that the treatment here was more imaginative and, especially the final plot twist at the end of the episode, not so contrived.

The only bright spot in this episode was the credible performance of Colin Fickes as Jimmy Edwards, the distraught student who held his fellow students hostage. I felt that the actor was on an entirely different level than the others. The stars and the supporting cast were very bland and uninteresting.

At least with this episode, I kept thinking about how ""Degrassi: The Next Generation"" did a much better job than ""One Tree Hill"". I noticed that the average age of the actors on ""One Tree Hill"" is around 23 or 24 years old while the actors on Degrassi is closer to high school age. Sometimes when it comes to television shows or movies about teens or young adults, it depends not only on the script but the casting and the talent of the actors.",0 """Django"" director Sergio Corbucci's Spaghetti western ""The Mercenary"" about an itinerant Polish pistolero Sergei Kowalski (Franco Nero of ""Camelot"") in Mexico at the turn of the century who takes a poor ignorant peasant (Tomas Musante of ""The Bird with the Crystal Plumage"") under his gun arm and elevates him to the status of hero of the Mexican revolution beat Sergio Leone's ""Duck, You Sucker"" by three years. In ""Duck, You Sucker,"" an Irish revolutionary (James Coburn) took a penniless peasant (Rod Steiger) and elevated him to the status of Pancho Villa during the Mexican revolution. Indeed, the basic plots of ""The Mercenary"" and ""Duck, You Sucker"" resemble each other closely, except the characters and the endings differ drastically. The peasant here in ""The Mercenary"" is Paco Roman, a young, wifeless, childless, blue-collar laborer toiling in the mines of a wealthy aristocrat with a taste for opera. In ""Duck, You Sucker,"" the peasant was much older, with a brood of trigger-happy sons, and a passion for thievery. In retrospect, the similarity between ""The Mercenary"" and ""Duck, You Sucker"" shouldn't seem too surprisingly when you consider that the same scenarist, Luciano Vincenzoni—who penned ""Death Rides A Horse,"" ""For A Few Dollars More,"" and ""The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly""—wrote both ""The Mercenary"" and ""Duck, You Sucker."" ""The Mercenary"" was Corbucci's first Mexican revolutionary western that he would follow up with ""Companeros"" starring Franco Nero as a Swedish arms dealer, Tomas Milian as the Mexican peasant, and Jack Palance as the villain.

""The Mercenary"" opens in an arena with clowns simulating a bullfight. The main clown is really Paco; he is on the run from wealthy mine owner Alfonso García (Eduardo Fajardo of ""Bad Man's River"") and a deadly but dandified gambler Curly (Jack Palance) who is in league with Garcia. The Polish gunman Kowalski (Nero) sits in the stands and watches Paco until the time for the sundown comes. At that point, Corbucci and his multitude of writers—among them Franco Solinas of ""A Bullet for the General"" and Vincenzoni—flash back to the first meeting between our heroes who later become fast friends. Two Mexican mine owner pay Kowalski to get their silver. Curly follows them after he sees them talking to Kowalski. Curly is deeply interested in them because he had to have one of his henchmen, Studs (Franco Ressel of ""Sabata""), killed for trying to kill Kowalski. You see, Kowalski caught Studs gambling with loaded dice and made him swallow the dice with a glass of milk.

Anyway, Curly kills the two Mexicans and rides out to get the silver and Kowalski. Meanwhile, at the mine, Paco and his fellow miners—exploited at poverty wages—dine on execrable food and Paco discovers a lizard in his food. Everybody has a good laugh about the 'meat' in the grub. Later, in Garcia's office, the mine owner comes face-to-face with Paco holding a pig on a platter with a pistol sticking out of its mouth. Paco hand feeds Garcia the lizard and the two are enemies for life. When Kowalski shows up to pick up the money, he finds himself surrounded by Paco and his men. They are going to kill the Polish gunman until the Mexican army, with a vengeful Garcia in the ranks, intervenes with an artillery barrage. Vincenzoni wrote a similar scene in Leone's ""The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"" as Tuco was about to hang Blonde from a hotel rafter. In the middle of all the shooting, the wealthy Paco explains that the silver can never be gotten to but he has fistfuls of paper money. He pays Kowalski to teach him how to operate a machine gun and the two become revolutionaries.

Kowalski takes his hard earned money and leaves Paco, only to be trapped in the desert by Curly and his gunmen. This time Paco intervenes in the showdown between Kowalski and Curly and kills all of Curly's men and forces Curly to walk away without a stitch of clothing on in humiliation. Now, Curly has it in for Paco as well as the Polish soldier-of-fortune. Essentially, Kowalski teaches Paco how to run a revolution until an interfering woman Columba (Giovanna Ralli of ""Cannon for Cordoba"") joins them and turns Paco against his pal. As they make more money, Kowalski's demands become outrageous. He prefers to be paid in coin and he forces Paco's army to stop in the middle of the desert so that he can improvise a shower to cool himself off. No sooner have Paco and Columba wed and left Kowalski tied up in a stable than Garcia and Curly arrive, again with the Mexican army and a bi-plane that drops bombs.

Spaghetti director Sergio Corbucci wrote and directed twice as many westerns as Sergio Leone. Corbucci lacked Leone's flamboyant style and his lucky break in establishing the Italian western. Nevertheless, he was his equal when it came to staging gunfights and helming snappy action stories. Franco Nero became his Clint Eastwood and Corbucci gained fame as Burt Reynolds called him 'the other Sergio' for his diverse oaters. Corbucci bucked the 'southwest' look of Spaghetti westerns with his oddball oater ""The Great Silence"" and his muddy western ""Django"" where the hero dragged around a coffin with a machine gun stashed in it. Corbucci maintains a furious pace throughout ""The Mercenary,"" even though it starts up with a flashback and sacrifices some suspense—because you know the principals cannot die until the flashback ends. Predictably, the body count is as high as the film's cynicism. At one point, Curly jams a hand grenade into a revolutionary soldier's mouth and blows him up. However, Corbucci shows uncharacteristic flair when he stages a killing and a torture scene and declines to show the violence in each scene. In one scene, a thug batters the truth out of an unwilling victim while we watch Curly ride around in a circle. This kind of subtlety is very unusual for a Spaghetti western.",1 "Writer/director Frank E. Flowers makes ""Haven"" in the disjointed, jumped-up style resembling his production team's more successful ""Crash"", which is supposed to be this film's selling point. But, ""Haven"" only emphasizes what goes wrong with this type of picture. Instead of fresh, it's frazzled. As the story lines wobble around, the cameras leave a relatively engaging Victor Rasuk (as Fritz).

Then, reminding you of ""Crash"" connections, the film's hooded ""Romeo and Juliet"" storyline takes hold. ""On the idyllic shores of the Cayman Islands, Shy (Orlando Bloom) and Andrea (Zoe Saldana) share a secret her parents can never know - they are in love. But a night of passion leads to the discovery of their secret and a devastating act of vengeance by Andrea's brother (Anthony Mackie).

""Meanwhile, a shady American businessman (Bill Paxton) has fled with his daughter to the Islands to avoid federal prosecution, only to be drawn into a dangerous web of deceit. As lives intersect and truths are revealed, a chain reaction of violence is set in motion that will determine whether love can survive the fall of paradise,"" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

It all ends by… stopping.

**** Haven (9/11/04) Frank E. Flowers ~ Orlando Bloom, Zoe Saldana, Bill Paxton, Victor Rasuk",0 "This is Chris Farley's single greatest achievement. Farley is non stop funny and so is the cast surrounding him. If you like any funny fat guy movies, you will love this movie as much as I do. Especially the story around the campfire.",1 "I enjoyed the first Dragonheart very much. This new one was certainly inferior to the first, but I found it worth my time. It was released straight to video and that is a obvious sign of lacking. It was short and the plot was fairly shallow, but it did have it's moments especially comedic ones.

It doesn't do the original justice, but its still fun",1 "I expected to get a minimum of understanding of life in the Grande Chartreuse, of what brings people there, of why they are so few, of how they maintain this immense edifice, of their role in the making and selling of their famous liquor, a good dose of Gregorian singing, an appreciation of the architecture. Instead I got 3 hours of sketchy, incoherent and repetitive shots. Three close ups of faces were repeated 4 times, the rope of the main bell was activated many times, a dark screen with flickering candles was seen too often, the shaving of monks heads is shot at length, including several minutes showing the barber (not shaved) looking flabbergasted ! Oh ! yes, they sell the liquor, because on the left of the monk using a laptop there is a letter in French from a Wines and Liquors company (seen for 5 seconds). The movie also had too many shots purposely and gratuitously out of focus. In short, an exercise in artiness leaving much to be desired. Two thumbs down.",0 "This is a funny movie folks.

Don't be put off by some of the other reviews written here as they completely missed the point.

This is a black comedy/farce folks. Though seemingly played 'straight' as it were, it in fact, has its tongue firmly in cheek.

The plot revolves around a string of murders, mostly young comely lasses at a California high school.

It appears all too hip Rock Hudson, playing a groovy guidance counselor and football coach has been having romantic dalliances with a lot of the student body(s)...

Meanwhile he's helping his protégé, John David Carson, an awkward, high school senior lose his virginity with sexy substitute teacher Angie Dickinson.

When the bodies start piling up, perennial police detective Telly Savalas comes into the picture.

Roddy McDowall gets thrown in for comic relief as a nervous high school principal along with Susan Tolksy as his even more nervous assistant. You'll remember Miss Tolksy as the comic relief in the late 60s TV Series, Here Come The Brides as Biddie Cloom.

Finally Keenan Wynn gets thrown into the mix as a bumbling local Chief of Police who gets more than he bargained for when he tries to solve the identity of the murderer himself.

Legendary ladies man, five time married, Roger Vadim directs this sexually charged flick. You'll recall that Vadim was married to both Brigitte Bardot & Jane Fonda and had a love child with none other than Catherine Deneuve.

You'll never see a high school again filled with as many thin, beautiful coeds as Mr. Vadim presents in this movie all sporting the shortest of mini skirts that is, while they're still IN their clothes. Lots of 'Playboy-esque' nudity runs throughout the film without it becoming graphic or embarrassing. Angie Dickinson looking in top form even shows a little skin!

This flick has cult classic written all over it and would be a great movie to remake.

Just remember NOT to take it seriously folks. Of course, the idea of students and teachers so casually engaging in sexual escapades is something you would not want in real life. That goes without saying.

But again, this is an adult farce with lots of black comedy. When the first victim is found dead, principal Roddy McDowall can only comment on what a great cheerleader she was so it's obvious pretty much from the get-go that we're in an altered state of reality here.

Though not a comedy classic, it's a fun, sexy movie that doesn't take itself seriously and moves right along at a brisk 91 minutes.

Even more fun to watch with a group of friends.",1 "Okay, let's face it, this movie is trite. I was expecting a much better film, never mind better cinematography. But it's slow, tired and worn. The trailer was a better film than the movie... it moved, it had action and it left you wanting more.

The story starts off slowly, and never seems to really reach the speed you wish it would attain. The idea is good, the day in the life of two men who meet in a traffic accident and everything goes downhill after that, but the execution is severly lacking.

I don't know if it's the fact that the director treats us to so many shots where we see the back of someone's head as a shadow covering half the screen, or trucks rolling by in the forefront of the picture as scenes whiz by. Or maybe it's the unrealistic idea that a man who is trying to prove that he's a good father would stoop so low.

The acting is well done, but the characters that they play are one-dimensional and predictable. You aren't going to see much suspense here.",0 "This movie was so disappointing. I could not believe how bad this was. I don't know about the theatre you were at, but at the one I was at, the whole they're was LAUGHING. It was so fake and hi-tech to be a horror movie. This is definitely a sequel that you MUST see the first one to understand the second one and this is a sequel u DON'T NEED TO SEE. I couldn't believe it. There was only two victims who saw the movie and had to pass it along, and right there was your climax. It was too dull and not enough information. Aden(the young boy)is too weird in this one and makes it too obvious of the outcome that I won't share with you if you haven't seen this movie. I recommend not going to this AT ALL! It is sooo bad...I expected SOO much better. **out of **********",0 "Let's face it, reality TV is anything but. They, typically, are the lowest denominator of television and entertainment. There are exceptions to this, of course. Mostly these shows run more as talent shows than as anything else, though (such as American Idol, Fight For Fame and Last Comic Standing), but beyond them there are very few that can even count themselves as decent, let alone good. Somehow this show, with it's costumed heroes, dynamic rescuers and dark avengers, is a far more real show than those ""reality"" shows that are more fake than most scripted entertainment.

As I have said, this show has heart. There is a soul to it, a morality. This is epitomized in Stan Lee's statement to The Iron Enforcer, ""Superheroes don't kill people, they save them"". Every elimination thus far has not been one of popularity, appearance or even of ability. It's been about choices, about the core of the person's being and the choices that they made. The Toy Man was eliminated for his shallow vanity and greed, while Nitro G was eliminated for his callous dis-concern for the little girl he was supposed to save.

To watch this show is a rare joy. I can't remember the last time that I laughed so hard. To watch these ordinary people live out their deepest fantasy is an absolute sight to behold. To watch them play the part of the hero, to be what they've always idolized, is actually inspiring, and nothing so much that the costume doesn't make them how they are. It merely draws attention to them and their acts.

Any one of these people would make excellent superheroes. Even the two I felt were the most ridiculous ideas (Fat Momma and Cell Phone Girl) have made me think twice about them after seeing them both in action. Major Victory portrays a powerful old-school hero persona, The Iron Enforcer shows a very dark Modern hero (His comments about deploying himself into Iraq struck a chord) and Monkey Girl, despite her laughable name, has a tenderness about her that rips at a person's heart.

People who will like this show will be fans of superheroes first and foremost. It doesn't matter what denomination of hero you belong to (Bat Man, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Wonder Woman, Green Lanturn, etc...), you will enjoy this show and the fantasy that anybody can be a super-hero. Also, fans of reality TV should also enjoy this show, being one itself.

But, like I said, this show has heart. And on TV today, this is a very very rare treat to behold.",1 "This film certainly caused quite a stir when it was released in 1978. Today, ""stir wise"", it would result in a large yawn. This is the story of a young girl growing up in a brothel in Storyville, New Orleans when the brothels were very popular and just before they were all shut down. The stir was caused by the apparent nudity of the then 13-year old star, Brooke Shields. The film uses an adult body double for her nude scenes. There is a fair number of topless scenes involving the older women, especially Susan Sarandon, who plays Brooke's prostitute mother. It depicts the everyday life in the brothel, showing the prostitutes as just people trying to survive and make a living. There is music, alcohol, cocaine and, of course, sex. The story is OK, the acting OK, the cinematography also OK. Basically nothing in this film is more than OK. I think it's worth a rent, perhaps. I believe that numerous children did grow up in this fashion, being the children of prostitutes. The Storyville brothels were eventually shut down and that is depicted as well.",0 "In 2005 Pascal Thomas adapted an Agatha Christie story for the screen, signed up Catherine Frot and Andre Dussollier for the leads and enjoyed the minor success which prompted him to do it again ergo Zero Hour. In my case top-billed Danielle Darrieux - still acting in her ninety first year - was all the inducement I needed to get it up at the box office and the fact that Thomas has made another competent film is a bonus. If you like movies in which the actors wear timeless, well-cut clothes, move in a well-appointed château with a seascape thrown in for good measure and behave in obligatory mysterious ways so that an eventual murder has been long anticipated then you won't be disappointed. Chiara Mastroianni, looking more like her father every day is also on hand to remind us what we lost when her father died and if she bears only a passing resemblance to her mother that's not so important because mum Catherine Deneuve is still very much with us. It's doubtful if Chiara will ever achieve the iconic status of her parents but she gets acting jobs because casting directors and producers know she can deliver rather than because of her genes. An enjoyable romp.",1 This film is rubbish don't get it confused with Hard Boiled it's a light comedy with light gun play and the cover does not reflect the contents of the film. Only watch this film if you are a die hard Chow Yun Fat fan and even then you will be disappointed.,0 "The locations, hairstyles, costumes were superb. The top talents of all entertainment trades were used in this treasured piece . You can imagine how prized those vintage gowns are today, especially since so many were ruined in the filming of Titanic. I especially loved my mothers black drop shoulder New Years Eve gown. The best hair stylists were used, she said, and she has stills with all the major actors from that location which was filmed at the historic Ambassador hotel downtown Los Angeles. Her almost platinum blond hair was in the soft roll of the times, longer than most of the players, but she was the most glamorous of the New years revelers. She so enjoyed all the actors even though Polly Bergen tore a tiara off her head in the wardrobe trailer, citing that ""she is supposed to be a floozie, not a princess!!!"" It was nice that they addressed her by her real name, Susan. She said that they used lots of smoke machines and quite a few of the actors smoked on top of the machines, which made for very dry eyes and throats. She was the date of Hack Peters. It is a great mini series to curl up to and own for the actors are the best!!",1 "Pretty dull. Some somewhat Argentoesque aspects, like the opening, which seems like a flashback (it's not) and a long tracking shot. Psycho hangs over this film more obviously, though, with a sinister mother character, a wimpy young man, voyeurism - and a psychoesque murder, as well as music clearly stolen from Psycho's shower scene.

Some memorable images, but an unmemorable film unworthy of a second viewing.

My reasoning for seeing it was a bit odd. I recall having seen in the late 1970s or early 1980s an advertisement/public service announcement, promo, or trailer of some kind on TV. This would almost certainly have been network TV, since we didn't have cable. Camera was zooming in going up a narrow white staircase, I believe there was a heartbeat on the soundtrack, and the camera might have zoomed in on a vent on one of the walls in the staircase. I believe there was a voice-over saying something about a ""silent scream."" Visually, that's all it was - camera zooming up a staircase.

I thought it was possible, and it was also suggested to me on either IMDb's I Need to Know or Horror message boards, that this was a trailer for Silent Scream (1980). However, there was not a staircase like that in the movie, and unfortunately no trailer was included on the video. For some reason, I also wonder if it could have been a fire safety promo, or an antiabortion ad.

So, even though I'm not keen to watch the movie again, I would like to see the TV trailers for it!",0 "After I saw the animated version of Lord of the Rings by Ralph Bakshi, I was pretty upset. Now that I've seen the animated version of Return of the King, Bakshi's version seems like Oscar material compared to this drudgery.

I'm sure enough people have seen the new versions of Lord of the Rings to know that it's not impossible to make a good film adaptation of the books. However, it is mind-boggling to wonder how and why the people that made Return of the King couldn't come close to making it even remotely enjoyable. There is NO cohesion to the story, as the movie starts out with Frodo and company sitting around and talking about how glorious their victory was. WHAT victory? The movie just started! Then we see the hobbits running around Mordor without any understandable explanation to how they got there. Granted, I read the books and knew why, but you can't just leave the narration so open-ended like that.

I need to take this next paragraph to smash on the music alone. It is SO horrible. I wanted to smash myself for letting my ears be raped with such aural torture. The story has some made-up character called ""the Minstrel of Gondor"" sing most of the narration, and therefore we hear repeated lines such as ""why does he have nine fingers??"" on the soundtrack.

This is probably the most deplorable movie I've seen in a very long time. I would recommend it only to those who need to understand what a bad movie really is.

1-10 Scale Overall-2 Direction-2 Animation-3 Music-1 Story-4",0 "I couldn't stop. At first I thought I was only going to view the first 10 minutes then hit the bed, but I simply couldn't stop. The screenplay is so perfectly done that there is actually not a boring moment, not at all. And those excellent children and the surprisingly adorable Martha! I've always loved the original book and the Broadway musical of Secret Garden and now I love this enchanting film even more! The seventy minutes went without feeling any of them, I even forgot to check on my sleeping baby as I usually would! The beauty of it is breathtaking, the plot and pace is gripping and the whole film is quite beyond expectation! It's better than the other film 'The Little Princess' as The Secret Garden seems to suit grown ups better! I'd very much love to see a musical film made out of it someday!",1 "I really enjoyed this movie. I have seen most of the other air buds and am wondering what sports they will come up with next. Tennis, Gymnastics? well i am a soccer player and really did like it, especially as a kid. In the movie it also makes a point that no matter what you are you can do anything. Out of all of the Air Buds, this is by far my favorite. I suggest it for family's. Also another good Air Bud movie I liked was Air Buddies. Some people may not like that one because the dogs talk but that was my other favorite. It is more for kids than adults but some may still enjoy it. i don't know what to write so i am just typing stuff sorry. I hope you enjoy this movie and find this helpful.",1 "It has been over thirty years since I first saw this movie and I still remember its effect on me. I bought the novel soon after and read it until the pages fell out. Someone asked me at a job interview who my most influential person and I said Jacquelyn Helton because she had the courage to do what she thought was right all the while knowing what the outcome would be. This movie is an inspiration to anyone who takes life for granted and makes you realize that no matter how long you live whether it is 20 years or a hundred, its not the length but the quality of that life, make it count, and above all else, love.",1 "I pre-ordered this game in January this year and got my copy 2 days before the official release date, and i wasn't disappointed.

I can't credit John Williams and CO enough for the superb sound and music, you really feel like you're in the middle of a Star Wars film, blasting Stormtoopers or Saber Fighting a Sith Lord.

The story is a bit predicable, but if you're a Star Wars fan, you won't care!

The saber fighting is superb in single player mode, fast paced and very Episode I and II like! The force powers are well done, divided into 3 levels, level 1 a basic version of that force power and level 3 the most powerful version of that force power.

You can also live your Darth Vader dream and grip an opponent and throw him off an edge or just crush'em!

The movie cut scenes are a bit blocky but they're well enough done to get jist of it.

Multiplayer Saber physics are changed in the multiplayer mode, the saber fights are slowed down considerably due to the lag factor, you'll find out what I mean when you play it.

But all in all a fantastic game, one which any Star Wars fan should have! It should also appeal to Star Trek Elite Force fans too, with the same game engine and the nice guns you get in the game.

Rating 9 out of 10",1 "The name of the game in Ghost Game is that 11 people on a reality TV show must all live in a hunted location. The last one to stay with out running away wins. This year's location is an abandon war museum ware a horrific massacre took place during a time of conflick. What they don't know is that in this game they might be gambling with there lives.

Ghost Game has a few moments that might make you jump but over all this is just another quickly made d-rated horror movie with all the same clichés. We have a group of young people in there twenty's, we put them in a creepy location that always dark and by the end they all die off in horrible ways. What I just describe is what most d-rated horror flicks in the U.S are like. This one the same only now it's from Asia.

All the characters are not interesting. Our lead character is the girl who won last years show. She a stereo typical star for a horror movie. A young hot girl who over all is nice and innocent. At the end it's even reviled the only reason why she on the show is to get money to help her sick mom. The other charters just come off to me as stereo types you find in a class room. We have the nerds, the super hot snobby girl, and the prankster who has a crush on the snobby girl.

The story is confusing. At first I thought I could follow it until it neared the end. All 11 players are to stay in what used to be a military base ware the commanding officer ruthlessly slaughter prisoners. When facing his own down fall he shoots him self in the head. Years go by and a strange death is caught on camera showing three guards just falling dead from shock. This gets the attention of the producers' of the show Ghost Game. So our 11 heroes must play a survivor rip off but our lead finds her self stallked by a Ghost of one of the victims. This slowly leads to strange events happening all around the others. That's until it lead us to the big unspeakable horror that lead me scratching my head at a pure lost. The final Climax takes a couple times to watch in order to get what happen. Even after getting it still leads to one vary stereo typical ending for a stereo typical horror movie.

The ghost in Ghost Game are okay in some scenes but in other (especially near the end) I did not find them that scary at all. In fact I found the final ghost to be humors looking because the actor was just trying to hard to look scary.

Its not the worst horror movie I have ever seen. Near the beginning there a few creepy scenes and I will admit there were some good moments that I enjoyed but that not enough to save it.

I supposed this is good when you literally have nothing ells to do. There is some, but not much entertainment value in it. I for one however will guarantee you that once you see this movie you will forget about it in a week or even less. So I would not even recommend renting it. Its one of those movie you wait to come on TV (and if there really nothing ells good on) to watch out of pure boredom.

That why I give Ghost Game a 4 out of 10",0 "As with most of those here commenting on this, I am blown away with the power and grace Bruce Marchiano brings to this masterpiece. The depth of power of his heart and eyes is so overwhelming as to be almost too great to bear; I think my heart will burst under the load save that He carries me with my light yoke (6:34 & 11:30). That it is utterly unknown but to Christians is of course the same story as with Jesus Himself, He Whom the pagans would co-opt to their own agendas and uses, a tactic that only backfires in the end as they prove from their folly that they know nothing of Him.

One point I must make against those who use the profound depth of this as a platform from which to condemn Mel Gibson's equally (though differently) anointed masterpiece, The Passion of the Christ, with priceless Jim Caviezel (though I'll always regret dear Mel didn't play the title role himself which would have been beyond awesome): they're quite wrongheaded on the score, for the testimony of Bruce and his company and Jim and his company are one in describing the divine (and therefore the counterattacking demonic) manifestations so present in the making of these jewels in our Lord's crown. What great grace the Lord has brought us in these precious brothers so to condescend to grace our lives with such inspiration according to His Perfect Word.",1 "The initial premise of a Gothic cop and horror movie hybrid is a pretty good idea and certainly prompted me to hire out the film!!!! However the film is badly hampered by wooden acting, especially in the case of the Police Chief who reminded me of Kenric and Moss from a Black Adder the Third episode and seemed to be unable to grasp the difference between screen acting and stage acting, the main one being that you don't need to scream your lines at the camera!!!! Carly Turnbull's performance at Albany was very flat and while acceptable in places seemed like she spent the majority of the film reading her lines of an autocue!!!! Having said that the two main leads did put in a pretty good effort with Kevin Howarth, who I think is criminally underrated, proving his worth yet again as a villain by contributing a very convincing and creepy performance showing his characters descent from maverick cop to homicidal monster. Luke Goss did his best and put in a comparatively good performance. Also Matt Lucas cameo is well acted proving he can play straight as well.

Another resounding floor in the film has to be the Americanisation element, with the Police acting like American cops dressing like American cops and doing all but speaking in American accents!!!! The attempt to dress Luke Goss as Vin Diesel is especially frustrating. Also the parasite is a blatant copy of the stomach burster from the Alien quadrilogy!!!! The director Andrew Goth does well all being considered and uses the camera angles and cutting to good effect but with all the gaping plot holes and wooden acting he was unable to turn it around but as they said in Wayne's World ""You cant polish a turd"".

All in all a good idea that went horribly wrong!!!!!",0 "I just watched Watch Me When I Kill this evening and found it to be a very good film. This woman stops by a chemist to pick up some painkillers. she is told to come back another day by some voice she hears. the chemist is lying dead in the back of the shop. so she is now involved in a murder case. there were some quite gory senses with throat-slitting, and strangulations, apart from that i found it to be a very good storyline. I though that the director of the film, (Antonio Bido) did i very good job in making the film, i found the storyline to be quite gripping to watch as the story made sense more than some other Italian horrors that i have seen. Good Movie: Recommended",1 "I really believe a fourth grader could have written better dialog and plot. The idea for this movie creates tremendous potential which is totally wasted on sheer stupidity of conversation and illogical plot. Movies involving time travel can be tricky but if done right, can also be very thought provoking. This movie doesn't even try to go there. This movie, like so many scifi's today, is overly focused on special effects with the plot and dialog treated as an afterthought. I'll have to remember the name, David Van Eyssen, and make concerted efforts NOT to watch anything directed by him. Foolish waste of time. I really have nothing more to say about this movie but the submission filter wants more lines. So here they are.",0 "Can anybody tell me why almost everybody loves ""Back to the Future"" yet nobody ever deigns to mention this little beauty in the same breath? It more than deserves it.

Quaid is excellent as the cocky yet likeable ""Tuck Pendleton"". Here is a character who has personality to spare and a nice line in putdowns. You get the sense that he gets as exasperated with Jack as we the audience do. Quaid can really deliver when given the right material, something that Hollywood provides all too scarcely.

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS HEREON)

Short overacts but is still pretty funny, and anyway, I suppose exaggeration is forgivable given that he's playing a neurotic. Ryan is cute but in all honesty is not given that much to work with. It's credit to her talent that she manages to stand out at all.

Mr Igo is a cool villain, but one of many elements in the plot that aren't exploited to their full potential. The film is so bursting with invention that often things are touched upon and then dropped before they've really been explored. This all goes to show, however, that the film doesn't stand still for a minute, which can only be a good thing, especially when you have Quaid firing off the wisecracks.

It's fair to say that amidst all the general good fun the special effects aren't always something you notice, but they are superb, especially for '87. Never once do they undermine the story.

It really is Quaid's film though, personal favourite lines including ""Dip, Dip, Dip all you like. Nothin's gonna fit ya"" and ""You better, you two-faced sonofab**ch""

An absolute blast from start to finish; this really is unfairly overlooked as being 'just another remake of 'Fantastic Voyage'"", when in reality it compares well with acknowledged classics of the comedy adventure genre such as ""Back to the Future"".",1 "I nodded in agreement when it was mentioned a single photo taken during combat has the power to make or break a war. At a time when the war chest is drained and the battle seemed to be drawn out longer than expected, you need public support to cough out funds and make donations to the manufacturing of arms. In the dying days of WWII, that photo you see above, gave reason to galvanize the American public into making donations for that final push. Now think Abu Graib. Nuff said, on its adverse impact to the war machinery.

For WWII movies, the Pacific theatre has arguably fewer number of films made by the West, especially those whose focus is on the ground troops, as compared to the European theatre, and possibly could be due to the availability of locales, as well as budget and (non) permission to film at the actual place. The Iwo Jima here is a substitute backdrop, not the real Iwo Jima with black beaches that you can see right after the end credits roll, as if in silent meditation of the soldiers on both sides who had given up their lives fighting for their cause.

And the Battle of Iwo Jima had its historical significance given it's the first landing of Allied troops on Japanese soil, and one of the bloodiest yet with high casualties on both sides. It also opened up the American eyes to the tenacity of the Japanese troops and their relentless defence of the homeland from invasion, in a Digital Domain CGI-created massive naval beach landing. Those looking for recreated battle scenes will probably not be disappointed with the level of detail shown in Flags, like the weapons, and the infamous use of flamethrowers to smoke out hidden troops in bunkers.

But this movie is not an all out action film. It's not a macro look at how the Allies secured their first foothold in Japanese soil. Rather, it takes a very personal look at the surviving men who hoisted the American flag over a prominent knoll in Iwo Jima. While there are countless of versions of the circumstances surrounding this lifting of a symbol, be it for morale boosting purpose, or politics, or for abstract ideals like hope, the definitive version as recounted in this story is actually quite ordinary, fueled by a mix of human desire for something monumental, as well as the listening to orders to a T.

Told in a non linear fashion with flashbacks and voiceovers, it is extremely difficult that you'll be bored by the movie, unless your expectations have been set the wrong way. There is plenty of material and themes that the movie touched upon, although it can be argued that each doesn't necessarily have enough focus, issues like racism and prejudice. What makes this film compelling is the story of the survivors, being whisked back to the States to be part of propaganda to raise funds. Accuracy and accountability take the backseat against the hail of heroism, and it evolves very quickly into a media circus.

Flags examines the lives of those in the photo who survived the battle, their reluctance to be called heroes, the demons that they faced while on the battlefield, the constant reminder to kill or be killed, the lies they have to tell to sell, and their sense of morality sacrificed for the lesser of two evils. Being soldiers, they have to do listen to orders, even if at the moment, it sounds absurd (I believe those who have been through service in the armed forces will agree on this). It is the conflict, and the need to lie through their teeth, which makes it all the more a sorrowful struggle, especially when you have to deny a fellow brother his moment of recognition, and denying his family the need for closure.

And of course, we all know how fickle the press can be. On one hand they can praise you, on the other, someone's always looking at ways to demean and cast doubts. Flavours of the moment, potshots of controversy like whether the picture was staged, ring to mind that icons can never escape from the cynical eye. Politicians, rich businessmen and the military brass too are cast in none too positive light, as they get portrayed as men who like association with power, fame, and glory.

Clint Eastwood again never ceases to amaze me. Here's the star of spaghetti westerns, Dirty Harry himself, who has aged but still showing no signs of slowing down. Like fine wine, he has started to show his talents in the films he makes, and award winning critically acclaimed ones too. But what I'm really pleasantly and thoroughly enjoyed, is the score that he wrote for Flags. It's restrained, yet powerful, kept simple in instrument, yet never lacking in grandeur. Being a filmmaker is one thing, but having contribute to a highly effective score complimenting the movie, is another. Not many can do that.

Flags of Our Fathers is a must watch, and I'm already eagerly anticipating the companion movie, with viewpoints from the Japanese, fighting the same war, in Letters From Iwo Jima, and it should be equally powerful.",1 "No doubt not the best from director Jack Arnold, but very watchable. A college professor(Arthur Franz) nicks his hand on the teeth of a prehistoric fish and turns into a murderous man/beast. Parts of this movie can be very chilling and then a few moments later you want to shout ""That's pretty funny"". Watch this in tandem with one of Arnold's better flicks TARANTULA and you will have a fun and thrilling evening.

Franz gives a great performance compared to the rest of the cast that includes: Joanna Moore, Nancy Walters, Whit Bissell and pretty boy Troy Donahue.",1 "Unfortunately, the late, great Joe D'amato left his favorite horror format for this mixed-up caper of romance, revenge and the powers men and women hold over each other.

There is very little gore here, but many relationships. This spells disaster for a Joe D'amato Pic.

Obviously, Joe wanted to branch out from his usual Gore and Chicks flicks..but this bomb will put you to sleep...or hurt your finger from holding down your VCR's Fast Forward key.

Take my advice, Skip It!",0 "**Spoilers**

I saw this movie yesterday, I don't really know much about Rob Zombie, I don't listen to his kind of music. I'm not a big splatter fan, but I did like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and other horror films, so I thought I would give this one a chance.

I actually liked it at first, it was kind of scary and bizarre enough, but it just became more and more sickening, the evil family in this movie was just absolutely disgusting, which wouldn't have been so bad, but they are almost treated as the heroes of the movie, I get the feeling that Rob Zombie doesn't find their behavior all that reprehensible.

One thing that happened was just to ridiculous, there were 5 local cheerleaders that went missing that keep getting mentioned in the movie, and when one is discovered in the trunk of a car, dead, with the words ""trick or treat"" carved into her, they send 2 cops to check things out. That place would have been crawling with cops, my suspension of disbelief doesn't go that far.

I don't mind downbeat endings, sometimes I find them preferable, but this ending just took the cake, I think mostly because it wasn't presented as a downbeat ending, again, I get the feeling that RZ views this as a happy ending. Also, if they were going to end it that way, couldn't at least one of the villains have gotten their comeuppance? I would have loved to see that evil, annoying (but very pretty), blond bimbo get whacked. But of course, I think the director saw them as the heroes of the movie.

I felt dirty after watching this movie.",0 "Laura (Molly Lamont) thinks she is being frightened to death. She is not a very pleasant character, just the way she talks to people. Professor Leonide (Bela Lugosi) and his companion Indigo (Angelo Rossito) arrive. Rossito had a featured role in ""Freaks"" and was hugely in demand in Hollywood. Bela is fantastic as usual as Leonide, someone from Doctor Josef Van Ee's (George Zucco) past. The way Bela looks the Doctor up and down and sneers ""old friends"" with a wealth of meaning - is there anyone who could doubt he is one of the all time greats!!!!

It is a pretty ghastly movie - nothing makes much sense. The doctor's son produces a photo of a masked couple - he thinks it will clear up the identity of Laura. The ending is fantastically bad with every thing in the plot but the kitchen sink. And any film with Joyce Compton as the second lead (however madcap she is ) you know is not going to be a grade A production. Still the ""Natural Color"" does look very natural - not garish or artificial. The biggest mystery of the film is why it was filmed in color in the first place - when there were so many lesser musicals that could have been enhanced by color.",0 "It is interesting that a number of films set during the 1900s and early 1910s, both comedies such as 'The Assassination Bureau' and serious dramas such as 'The Riddle of the Sands' and the Robert Powell version of 'The 39 Steps', focus on diplomatic attempts to prevent the outbreak of a European war, even though we know that in real life such attempts were to end in failure. Perhaps this reflects a view that 1914 was the year that witnessed the modern age's loss of innocence and that the history of the twentieth century would have been immeasurably happier if the First World War had indeed been averted.

'The Prince and the Showgirl' is another comedy that looks back to the pre-1914 era as a lost golden age. It centers upon Grand Duke Charles, the Prince Regent of the Balkan state of Carpathia, who, while in London for the coronation of King George V, meets, and has a brief romance with, Elsie Marina, an American-born showgirl working in a London music-hall. Their association is encouraged by officials of the British Foreign Office, who are seeking to encourage the pro-British policies of the Carpathian government and to prevent a shift towards a pro-German stance which could threaten the peace of Europe.

Laurence Olivier is today- rightly- regarded as one of Britain's greatest heavyweight actors of the twentieth century, a man who (unlike some of his fellow theatrical knights) was at home in film roles as he was in the classical Shakespearean dramas in which he made his name. Marilyn Monroe is- perhaps wrongly- widely regarded as a lightweight Hollywood starlet whose main talent was looking decorative in a series of undemanding parts. When the two went head-to-head together, however, there was an unexpected result, with the lightweight beating the heavyweight by a knockout.

The above boxing metaphor was suggested by the numerous stories about the strained relations between Olivier and Monroe during the making of the film, supposedly caused by what he saw as the inadequacy of her performance. If those stories are true, I think that Lord Olivier should perhaps have looked more closely at the beam in his own eye than at the mote in hers. Although this is not Monroe's best film, there is nothing particularly wrong with her portrayal of Elsie, who comes across as a typical Monroe character- empty-headed and flirtatious, but basically decent. It was Olivier's Grand Duke who struck me as the main problem with the film.

Although Charles is supposedly the Hungarian-born ruler of a Balkan kingdom, he speaks English with the heavily guttural pseudo-Germanic accent normally associated with British actors playing Nazis of the 've haff vays und means' school. To strengthen the impression, he occasionally barks German interjections such as 'Himmel!', 'Dummkopf!' 'Schweinehund!' and even 'Donnerwetter!', an imprecation I have never heard a real German use. (The few extended examples of German dialogue in the film suggest that the Carpathians not only speak English with a German accent, but also speak German with an English one. To judge from Sybil Thorndyke's efforts, their French is even worse).

Given that his persona is uncomfortably close to the standard cinematic version of an SS officer (an association that must have seemed even more apparent in 1957 than it does today) and that his preferred method of solving the political problems of Carpathia is to imprison without trial as many opposition politicians as possible, Charles is not exactly love's young dream. His emotional coldness and obsession with formality and protocol suggest a caricature more than a real person. Caricature may be appropriate in certain types of comedy, especially satire, but in romantic comedy it seems misplaced, as the romances of real, or real-seeming, individuals are more interesting than those of cartoon characters. Moreover, for romantic comedy to work we need to be able to believe in both parties to the romance, not just one. While Monroe tries to make Elsie a real and likable person, Olivier seems content to draw upon a combination of two stock comic characters, the 'funny foreigner' and the 'stuffy aristocrat'. Although older man/younger woman love-stories were as common in the cinema of the fifties as they are today, this one seems particularly incongruous. Monroe was already in her thirties when the film was made, but the naïve and innocent Elsie seems much younger, whereas the middle-aged Charles seems a man old before his time, an impression created as much by his stiffness of manner and bearing as by his grey hair. The gap in the ages of Charles and Elsie seems considerably greater than the nineteen-year gap in the ages of the actors.

Halliwell's Film Guide praises the film for its 'good production values', that publication's normal shorthand for 'expensive sets and costumes'. Certainly, those elements are impressive, although Elsie's hairstyle and figure-hugging dress seem to reflect the fashions of 1957 more than they do those of 1911. There is, however, little else in the film that impresses. Perhaps Olivier himself was less than impressed by the film, as it was his first experience of directing other than his three famous Shakespeare adaptations, and it was to be his last until he directed a version of Chekhov's 'The Three Sisters' thirteen years later. My lasting impression will be of an unconvincing romance between two ill-matched characters and of an uncharacteristically poor performance from a great actor. 4/10",0 "I really wanted to like this film as the rarity of WW1 epics in today's Hollywood is noticeable. In the end, I was left disappointed at a movie that meshes CGI action with a Pearl-Harbor-ish love story and cliché characters that have reunited from most every other war film here. There's the brash cowboy lead, the minority figure (whom I though could have been used a lot better than he was), the ""religious guy"", the hardened veteran ace and his nemesis (whom flies his own black-and-white aircraft so we can distinguish him from his red-colored henchmen friends) - gosh.

The first 20 minutes starts out honest enough, but the disappointment followed shortly thereafter. How is our hero allowed to FLY A PLANE OFF OF THE AIRBASE to visit and woo his French girlfriend - whom by the way picks up English in a surprisingly short amount of time? A scene where our hero lands his aircraft, runs through the middle of an ongoing battle and tries to lift a paper-mache aircraft off of the hand of one of our other heroes - are you kidding me? Anywho, the plane is too heavy for me to lift so I'll just have to CUT YOUR ARM OFF! Are you kidding me? It had me laughing it was so pathetic. I thought we'd seen the end of the one-armed pilot but on no - they've affixed a hook for a hand so he can continue on with the sub par script. Again - laughing hysterically now as I watched the film. The hook isn't even CGI-ed in there, it's just an obvious cover for his existing hand - making his one arm to what looks like a foot longer than the other.

To add insult to injury, they give this poor chap some hokey battle cries like ""Knights of the Air!"" and ""Beware of the Hook!"".

By film's end, all credibility is lost. Jean Reno's prowess is sorely underused in this film. Some French is spoken in the beginning and adds credibility, but by mid-film, the production must have moved back to LA or something cause it's all English from there.

What we need from an attempt like this is something more along the lines of history - make all of these young me who they really were! I was saddened to see a picture of the real Escadrille at the end of the film, as if this film is some kind of testament to their sacrifice and service. Yah - just like Pearl Harbor was for the sailors of the Pacific Fleet.

The ONLY thing one can take away from this is the four or five semi-respectable dogfight scenes, though the aircraft are filmed with what seems to be turbojet power aircraft and fly-by-wire control. Stalling only seems to occur when the script calls for it. Our hero makes several dead-on shots from a six-shooter from HIS PLANE at ANOTHER pilot. No wind resistance is taken into effect mind you, otherwise our hero could win this war all by himself if they keep him in the trenches.

Get it from your library for free if you can or watch it on an inflight plane trip. Otherwise, pass on this...",0 "This movie starts out with a promising premise, a manned flight to Mars is planned but just before lift off there is a problem so it is decided to surreptiously remove the astronauts from the ship and fake the whole thing (of course many people believe this is exactly what happened with the Apollo moon landing but that's a different story). The first sign that this movie going down hill fast is when James Brolin asks Hal Holbrook 'how many people know about this' and Hal replies something like 'only a few' but we have already seen about 75 people involved which later turns into about 750. The second worrying sign is when we realise that OJ has a speaking part. Then Elliot Gould turns up to do his best robot impression. We start to ask questions like how does a car accelerate like it's on a hill in San Fransisco when it's on what looks like a flat stretch of road in Houston with no foot on the gas and why when Elliot Gould is arrested by the conspirators on a fake charge is he released the same night to continue his investigations. Unfortunately this movie has no redeemimg features.",0 "Melies had a sense of playfulness about his films, and this is one of the more amusing ones: Melies takes a head -- which is Melies' head, attaches it to some bellows, and blows it up like a balloon. True, there's no deep thought involved, but there needn't be. It's less than a minute and easily sustains the one joke.

Melies was inventing techniques as he went along, borrowing from other media, just as D.W. Griffith shortly would. There is an exuberance in seeing something done for the first time that is sorely lacking in later uses of the same editing effect. I suppose it's because Melies was having fun himself.",1 "I watched the Latin version of ""USA UP ALL NIGHT"". I don't know where else to comment about it.

The host was Shelly Moreno; a sexy blonde Latina with a sexy fresh attitude. She would always wear skimpy mini skirts and bathing suits. She was extremely nice and at some points gave her opinions for some Horror movies.

Those were the days when this program was the best possible Friday night entertainment. I miss the old days... I can't even count how many movies I watched it on this show.

To the producers of Latin USA Network; I praise you and thank for the good memories. Hopefully, one day, this show will return in it's Latin version.",1 "Gunbus was the UK title of this film. Some trench scenes were filmed at Marston Mortaine in Bedfordshire (Disused LBC clay pits). I know this because I was an extra for some scenes - my one and only venture into the film world. But I was a mere dot on the screen and absolve myself of any responsibility for this dire, almost unwatchable attempt at comedy. 18 million dollars? Well, the catering was good.",0 "The Story Of Us is a wonderful movie in its own subtle way. I won't go into specifics about the plot, as many others before me have already done that. All I will say is that it's probably not for the younger crowd. In all honesty, if I had seen this film in my early twenties (and I'm now almost 40), I wouldn't have appreciated its subtlety on long term relationships. It's aimed at those of us who have been married, or in a long term relationship. Although I don't have children, the rest of this movie had many ""oh yeah"" moments for me. The Story of Us, is a complex, yet ultimately simple, explanation of long term relationships...all those 'little' things about the other person that drive you insane about them, but that if you're both willing to work on, make the relationship all that much richer for it. Wonderfully thought provoking. If you have ever been in a long term adult relationship, I'd be hard pressed to see how you COULDN'T relate, at the very least, on some small level to this film.",1 "I watch a lot films; in a week it differs from 5 to 10. This screenplay was unique in way that made me think about myself and life and how vulnerable we are.

These two very interesting characters where the moment you met them you want to learn more about them is acted by two very talented actor/actress named Nick Stahl and elegant Vera Farmiga. Before the half of the movie I presumed the big twist about the Nick's character but it was hidden and portrayed in a fine way that when the answer is shown to the audience, you don't feel so much surprise but also you don't feel cheated in any way. Hence, it feels like life itself.

Consequently, the ending which was very beautiful cinematographically with a touch of reality that makes it absolutely delicious that leads to pause when Nick's character ends the film with the line: Isacc Knott, Public Radio, New York.",1 "It's obvious that the main reason for this film's existence is an attempt to recapture the magic of the first pairing of Cary Grant, Irene Dunne, and Leo McCarey, namely 1937's ""The Awful Truth."" Unfortunately, the material isn't quite up to the task. The plot seems aimed at children; it can't be taken seriously, as it completely ignores any adult consequences arising from it. The film's saving grace is sex. While implicit in other screwball comedies, here it seems more pronounced, perhaps an attempt by Grant, Dunne, and McCarey to prop up the obviously weak material. And it works, creating for adults who care to look a sexual dimension, a dimension under the surface, one that's funny, outrageous, and even daring for something made in 1940.

Cary Grant has married Gail Patrick. Married couples on their wedding night have sex. Irene Dunne rushes to stop this and succeeds. (Patrick complains to her mother on the phone that they drove ""all night, **all** night!!) But Dunne seems to be a rather liberal lady, having no qualms about Grant's hesitation in telling his new wife the truth, nor with him going so far as to bringing her home and carrying her over the threshold! As Dunne has dallied with Randolph Scott, perhaps she's giving Grant the option of dallying with Patrick. Grant's hesitation in telling Patrick the truth may be an indication that part of him does want to at least consummate his new marriage. When outside forces prevent him from absent-mindedly doing so, as in the arrival of the insurance claim adjuster, he expresses relief. When he learns of the existence of Scott, he embraces jealousy as a means of getting his mind off wanting to make love with his new bride.

It's interesting that even though Randolph Scott makes the obligatory declaration that, despite being on an island alone with Irene Dunne for 7 years, nothing happened, Dunne never validates this. In fact, her bemused expressions seem to indicate that she has trouble buying this as much as Grant does. The film is in fact consciously ambiguous here; it does nothing to paint as impossible the idea that perhaps Dunne and Scott were actually intimate on the island.

The sexuality of the film comes to a climax in the last scene. Grant ""wants to go to bed"" in her room, while Dunne won't let him as long as he won't forgive her. She lies in bed, cooing with ecstasy at how comfortable she is, her expression dangling sex, suggesting if Grant needs time to think about it, he can wait until Christmas: ""We'll have a **lovely** Christmas; what's 59 days more?"" Grant can't take it anymore, forgiving her ""for whatever happened"" and comes back dressed as Santa Claus, looking to get his present now.

Like ""Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House,"" the film has a number of sight gags and jokes at the expense of Cary Grant's sexuality. Here it uses the well known fact that Cary Grant and Randolph Scott lived together for a number of years when Grant was between marriages as ""bachelors."" It has Grant almost swoon at the sight of a topless Scott taking a dive, and later has Grant sitting in his office, reliving the moment in his mind. And then there's the scene of Grant looking through women's clothing, holding them up to a mirror, while telling a doctor, ""I have to go, he's waiting for me in the car!""

The hilarious sexual undertones of the film are really brought to life through Irene Dunne. Her delivery, her expressions, her energy, are all very saucy. Cary Grant is very good reacting against her. It's for this reason that the two are able to rise above the silly material to create a rather sophisticated sex comedy, one that forgives natural indiscretions on the part of each party, and it's for this reason I give the film an 8/10.",1 "There's perhaps a special reason why The Fox and the Child hit a special note in my heart. Having just said goodbye to my new fiancée - of oh...one day - for an unknown period of time, I was a bit overwhelmed with varying emotions and was suffering the fallout from putting on the brave face she needed to see.

I watched a few movies and TV shows, but my interest darted from what I was leaving behind to what is out there and what I haven't seen. For that, I have this movie to thank.

Being a nature lover and having heard about the film beforehand, I was sure I was going to like it anyway. But I didn't just like it, I loved it.

The technical mastery is astounding. How did they do it? How did they capture the animals in the way they did?? It's just wonderful.

The moral of the tale is a good one and while the ending is oh so French and ambiguous, it's a happy/sad one. Again, it caught me a bit off-guard. As a man who usually keeps his emotions to himself, the ending was tough going while on a plane full of people I would be seeing for the next 15 or so hours! Perhaps it's because the ending made me think back to what I left.

But for those few hours on the plane, I was happy to see something new and original. And that's life. Sure, there are those things you love and feel comfortable around...but the great outdoors holds many a mystery. So the next time I see something out of the ordinary while out in the open; I'm going to explore it, observe it and embrace it. That's precisely what happens in this movie and that's precisely what you should do with this darn good movie/nature doc too. 8/10

P.S. It's two months on from the plane journey. We still don't know when we'll see each other again, but we will.",1 "If you, like me, love exciting and well-done historical epics, look no further than Mel Gibson's fantastic Mayan adventure film. I saw this movie for the first time about a year after its theatrical release, and I seem to remember it receiving mediocre reviews at the time it was released. I don't know where the bad press came from, as this amazing film had me on my seat's edge from start to finish.

The movie opens in a Yucatan jungle in the 16th century, where a tribe of Mayans tries to live a peaceful life. The village is attacked by warriors from a more advanced, city-dwelling Mayan tribe, and people are butchered and slaves are taken. One of the captives, a young man named Jaguar Paw, manages to lower his pregnant wife and young son into a crevasse to hide them from the pillagers, but when they are left with no means of escape, Jaguar Paw realizes he must survive and return to save them. What follows is a heart-pounding chase through the jungle as Jaguar Paw races to save his family and his civilization from extinction through civil strife.

The film is spectacularly made, with excellent production design and make up that truly places the viewer into the Mayan world. The actors, drawn from real Mayans, were utterly convincing in their roles, aided greatly by Gibson's decision to have all the dialog spoken in the Mayan tongue. For those who are turned off by foreign language films, don't worry. It's not a dialog-intensive movie, so you won't strain your eyes with the subtitles.

What I really liked about this film (and what I think caused it to get some bad press) was how it pulled no punches in its depiction of life in the Mayan world. In our politically correct society, it is often our tendency to depict the societies of indigenous New World peoples as utopian ways of life that were brutally shattered by the evil, conquering Europeans. This film does not glamorize tribal life, but attempts to portray it with a good mixture of pleasant serenity and brutal violence. You don't have to be an expert in Mayan culture to know that tribes were constantly fighting, killing, and enslaving one another, because that's how all society has been since the birth of mankind. And it's certainly not racist to portray something truthfully, the way it most likely happened.

Another thing - please don't let Mel Gibson's recent obnoxious behavior deter you from watching this film. Whatever your feelings about Gibson, the man can certainly direct a good movie, and this one is no exception. I just hope he directs another epic very soon.",1 "The first impression which is going to be created in viewers' minds is that why is this film named ""Matchbox"" ? Yeah, it is true that all the film's actors are angry. Does that mean that the film should be titled ""Matchbox"" ? If the same logic is applied than its name should have been ""red tomato ketchup"". There is no clue to this in the film. Greek cinema is known because of masters like Angelopoulos, Pantelis Voulgaris etc. For those who wish to explore more of Greek cinema, Yannis Economidis' film ""Matchbox"" would come as a great shock.It is with firm conviction that I state that I am yet to come across any world cinema film in which the actors do nothing but hurl the best of filthy abuses on each other. This does not constitute a drawback for the film as it has its own virtue. One cannot term this film ""low budget"" but as it was entirely shot in the two rooms of a house, it can be assumed that the producer has not spent mega bucks for it. This is an ordinary Greek film which viewers would not like to remember for the rest of their lives.",0 "I have been in search of childhood anime for awhile now. This movie was at the top of my list. I haven't watched it since I was very young. I remember renting it over and over. The story line is very interesting and playful. I loved every character in the movie. The pictures and the way the animation was drawn was one of my favorite things. The score for the film gave me goosebumps even as a small child. Definitely a must for any anime fan. I was overwhelmed with excitement when Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind came back into print on DVD this year. Maybe this movie will come back into print, but I doubt it due to the risqué nature of the film and modern definition of G rated movies. Absolutely Great movie. Hope I get to see it again soon.",1 "Ask anyone with a cursory knowledge of classic cinema what the early talkies were like, and the chances are they will mention something about the lack of camera movement. Usually this is stated as if the static camera leads, ipso facto, to boring, static films. How ironic then that this all-talking backstager is spoiled by a camera that just won't sit still.

Applause was directed by Rouben Mamoulian, one of many theatre directors brought to Hollywood at the beginning of the sound era, and like many directors with a stage background (James Whale, George Cukor, Orson Welles, Laurence Olivier) he was fascinated by the possibilities of cinema's mobile eye. Giving Mamoulian a camera was like giving a kid an expensive hi-tech toy, and he wouldn't let it go to waste in a soundproof booth. Instead, he has it swooping across rows of faces, dollying in and out of dialogue scenes or lodged up in the rafters.

This all gets remembered because it was unusual for the time, and therefore ""clever"". But what does it actually add? Sometimes, the camera moves seem to have some purpose, such as a dolly in on a significant object or a standard pull-back-and-reveal manoeuvre, but these are so wobbly and badly paced all they draw our attention to is the picture's artificiality. Other times the camera pans wildly all over the place for no apparent reason, reminding me of nothing more than a bad home movie. When the camera is still it is often at some daft high angle or pointing at the actors' legs, to no real advantage.

And it's not just the camera moves. Mamoulian is a shameless technique junkie, throwing in dissolves, screen wipes, layered sound, montages, giant shadows and anything else the technology of the day allowed. It's usually fairly clear why he uses each of these; in fact it's too clear, as every cinematic point is laboured to death, such as the over-the-top montage reflecting April's troubled mental state after she finds out what her mother does for a living. It would be more bearable if Mamoulian, like other directors who rely on exaggerated technique such as Michael Curtiz, FW Murnau and Alfred Hitchcock, at least knew some basic cinematic grammar, but he is a novice when it comes to screen storytelling. His dialogue scenes are blandly presentational – no close-ups, no rhyming angles, no thoughtful framing. All these things were by then established cinematic conventions, and they still are, for good reason; they bring human interaction to life on the screen.

Having said all that there are a few touches that do work. The all-round coverage of the dance hall at the beginning shows us both the backstage point-of-view and the diversity of the crowd, with the silhouettes of top-hatted pipe smokers in the balcony subtly pointing out that the burlesque gets some high-class customers as well. In the romantic café scene there is a subtle dolly out to reveal that the couple are now alone, but the moment is ruined by moving too quickly and clunkily to their exit. Helen Morgan's final scene makes effective use of background noise from the street outside, but again Mamoulian fails to hold the moment, instead following it with another wobbly shuffle of the camera and a meaningless high angle shot.

Of course, the whole point in bringing in theatre directors at this time was the notion that they would be the most capable in coaching actors with dialogue. There's no sign of this with Mamoulian. Helen Morgan's acting is just bad hamming (or ""spamming"" as I call it). She was at her most sensitive and emotive when singing, as her performance in the 1936 version of Showboat demonstrates, but she is underused as a singer in Applause. Fuller Mellish Jr is OK, but his cartoonish performance is wrong for this straight drama. The standout is Joan Peers, whose turn I would describe as average, the best anything can aspire to in Applause.

Mamoulian's champions tend to paint him as a failed genius in the style of von Stroheim and Welles, an artist whose artistry fell victim to studio straitjacketing. This is partly true – as time went by Mamoulian would be forced to rein in his technical excessiveness, and would learn to temper it with standard cinematic method. It's actually during this process that his pictures start to improve, and I'm even glad that he never totally lost his showy style, because he was occasionally even great in genres such as the musical or the swashbuckler, which require a bit of flamboyance behind the camera. Applause however is raw, uncultivated Mamoulian, fresh from the stage and wowed by movie-making gadgetry. Cinema may be the more technologically advanced medium, but like theatre the job of the director is to bring out the best in the actors and the story, not to smother them.",0 "Of all the versions of Zorro I've seen (that includes Douglas Fairbanks, Tyrone Power, Guy Williams, Antonio Banderas, Duncan Regehr and even George Hamilton), this one is the worst by far. It's ridiculous from beginning to end. The story barely resembles Johnston McCulley's writings (Zorro is now a Governor!), but that's a lesser problem. The main ones are ludicrous acting, terrible directing and totally trashy script.

I'll start wit the main character himself. Let's face it, in almost every version, Zorro has always been more or less effeminate in his public identity to hide his stronger secret one, but in this one that aspect is exaggerated. He is (or acts like) a true f*g who would make Liberace look as macho as John Wayne. Alain Delon is a competent actor when well directed (remember 'A Plein Soleil' or 'The Leopard'), but here he is awful and unbelievable as the sissy Governor, and only slightly better as the heroic Zorro.

The script must be witnessed to be believed: it's extremately cliched, filled with bad, unfunny jokes, and it gives an annoying dog named Assassin (which can open secret doors in houses and things like that) almost more screen time than Delon. And every time Zorro appears on screen somebody screams ""Zorro!"" (""thank ya, Sherlock, I hadn't realize"", I almost surprised myself shouting to my TV set).

And leave the soundtrack alone. It couldn't have been more ridiculous: it consists mainly in a song that plays again and again and AGAIN during the entire movie, with a chorus that says ""Laaa-la-la-laaa-la-la, Zorro is back!"" Poetic, isn't it?

In summary, 2 out of 10 (it saves itself from a rating of '1' because I thought that part of the looooooooooooooooooong final fight between Zorro and the bad guy Stanley Baker was slightly entertaining. Only slightly).

Never see this movie. Go for the exciting ""Mask of Zorro"" instead.",0 "I have studied the 20th century faces of women's history for quite some time, and have long adored the likes of Alice Paul and Inez Milholland Boissevain (despite her luxurious faults). This film revealed itself to me at the perfect time, as I prepare a presentation on the faces of woman suffrage, it is ever-present in my mind. I loved the film in it's entirety and highly recommend it to all women, their children and any man willing to sit through it. I would also advise rewinding it, and viewing it again, as my second time through was just as delightful and revealing as the first.

I cannot pick out a favourite scene, but the journey of Emily Leighton was poignant and inspirational... as she realized the importance of equality, and that she did, in fact, have ""the head for"" politics.",1 "Everywhere I seen a review of this movie it was always the same, this is bad. So I was ready to view it, only one problem, not available over here but fortunately a good friend offered me a full uncut version. Only 1 minute into the movie I already knew something was terrible wrong. The first girl murdered was dressed sexy. Not that I have a problem with that but mostly that attracts more then the gore. Anyway, the good part of the movie is indeed the gore. It's not all in front of the camera but they really show the result. It's gory but easy to take. But there is of course the movie itself. The acting of some is really bad. For example the interrogation is a big laugh, she never impresses me as a copper. And the killer is a cheap version of Leatherface, his clothes, mask and hair is a copy! Furtheron they also listened what they did with Evil Dead and Nightmare on Elm Street, I mean the children singing chants. Some scene's are too long, could have edited it better. And some scene's had nothing to do with the movie, for example when one of the guys goes home with his girlfriend her sister opens the door, what we have next is nice to see but has nothing to do with the script, and a lot of girls show their body, clothed, in an explicit way. I told before, I have no problem with that if that doesn't let you forget the storyline. I gave it a 3 just for the gore, could have been much better...",0 """Reign of Fire"" is a cheeseball special effects fest that is a great time killer if you have time to kill. I recommend it only if you want to kill some time and brain cells in the process. Here are the reasons (spoilers herein): (1) The computer generated dragons are pretty neat. (2) Christian Bale did pretty good as the main scarred survivor. (3) The scene with the dragon attacking the castle was very poetic. (4) There was a tinge of a medieval mentality going through this film. (5) The mixture of recent, old-fashioned, and ancient weaponry fit together perfectly to give an idea of how combat flying, fire-breathing reptiles. (6) The Brits and The Americans fighting amongst themselves showed that cultural differences will breed a bunch of dissent and angst in situations where survival is at stake. (7) Amongst the Brits, differing views of survival were seen. Seven reasons gives a score of seven.

The downers in the film were (1) Matthew McConaughey as the tooth and nail American commander. He doesn't strike me as the tooth and nail type (watch ""The Wedding Planner"" and you'll understand). (2) The Americans are portrayed as if they are a bunch of marauders. Stereotyping anything sucks and it should be stopped. (3) The story had gaping plot holes and lots of tedious dialogue. The writing overall was lacking in many spots. Overall, this is a film that feels like cheesecloth. Watch it if you want to kill some brain cells but I suggest many other titles. Here ends my rant!",0 "What makes ""Mifune"" stand out from standard Hollywood movies are the painfully real characters, who make it feel like a real-life romance between two people rather than a hypothetical story about hypothetical characters none of us is ever going to meet. And it's really funny, too!",1 "In California, Maria (Andrew Mia) has awful nightmares with and visions of her sister that committed suicide one year ago. Her roommate Chris (Heidi Androl) invites Maria to travel with her and her friends Tanya (Kathryn Taylor) and Rose (KellyDawn Malloy) on vacation to her uncle's house in Saguaro, Arizona, to relax. When the group arrives in the house, they immediately go to a night-club to have fun and chase some local guys for sex; however, the evil El Charro (Andrew Bryniarski) is seeking Maria killing her friends with his machete.

The slasher ""The Curse of El Charro"" is a gore mess. The characters in general are unpleasant and I do not understand how the four girls could take a road trip together: Maria is a deranged woman; Tanya is an amoral slut; Rose is a lesbian drug dealer; only Chris seems to be an average person. The screenplay is awful, and in the beginning, Maria is confessing her nightmares to a priest that seems to know something about her fate. Then, a group of young women from California that seems to be in a permanent heat goes to a desert place in the middle of nowhere to drink booze, use drugs and have sex with hillbilly strangers, in a totally weird and unusual situation. The creepy El Charro kills every character with his machete without any further explanation. The conclusion seems to indicate that the insane Maria actually killed her friends, but it not clear. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): ""A Maldição de el Charro"" (""The Curse of El Charro"")",0 "In the beginning of the film, the bad acting from the two old people shows you what kind of movie watching experience your in for. Right after that, we go to a charming funeral scene where a daughter slaps her father and that is hilarious, really the only entertaining second of the film.

The blond lead role chick looks like one of the dumb sluts from the ""The Hills"" show (whatever the hell that show is about, I still don't know, or care).

Oh, and driving while smoking and listening to your iPod is a winning combination. But at least that particular scene leads to our first kill, which is pretty good, its distribuingly inventive.

Right after the 1st kill, we get to the requisite unnecessary sex & nudity, but during sex scene this ridiclious music with over the top soaring strings is playing, its stupid.

At least the production value is OK, but the scenes of dialogue are really useless, and really awful horribly done. Whoever wrote that dialogue really sucks and hopefully will never work again and be killed. The attempts of a ""deep"" story are really lame. The rock music used is really lame LAME ass San Diago sissy pop punk KRAP! And they continue to play the damn lame ass weak pop punk over whole scenes of dialogue, it really makes no sense at all.

At least the Tanya character is really hot, but ALL these people need to die. And what the hell kind of lake is this? Did they just dig a big hole and fill it with water and neatly put rocks around it? People that make these movies are idiots with the way they do stuff like that, they just suppose that they audience can't tell how awful and stupid their sets look.

The hot nudity that takes place is really excellent at least. Where are the girls that act like that? I want to find a girl that says ""Lets see if you have the wood to light my fire"" What??? A girl that hot is going to have sex with a guy in the woods an hour after meeting him and say that???? Yea...

The death scenes are pretty excellent and effective, all the actors do a much better job dead than alive. And its nice to hear an original score, but its really just highly derivative of other horror scores, especially Friday the 13th, John Carpenter, and Stravinsky.

Ohh, anyone reading this review MUST BE WARNED!! I have seen hell and it is when the sheriff kisses the old woman!!! Phuking nasty!! So nasty makes me want to hurl, literally made me gag, and is making me gag thinking about it right now.

But overall decent gore and good shooting of the old woman in the head.",0 "I'm so glad to know that I've already seen the worst movie of my life.. This was a ridiculous movie, both story and acting were so bad, that I could only leave the theater with a smile on my face, knowing no movie would ever beat this one! You should know I watch art-house-movies on a regular basis, but this one went way too far in trying to renew the fine art of movie-making.

I must say I'm not a great fan of opera, so that may have been quite good. For those who do like opera, maybe you should rent this movie, but make sure you turn of your TV-screen and that you don't understand a word of the Hungarian language.. Seriously, those things will ruin your experience.",0 "This ""movie"" is just AWFUL! Sequels like this should be forbidden, because such movies are just made, because the original Film was a Blockbuster. I hate movies that destroy the spirit of the first film. Highlander 2 is another good example for that. Bad Animation, ridiculous Actors and Story (Asians in the medieval Europe...). To the middle ages: Where the original did a great job creating an quite authentic atmosphere etc. this thrashy rip-off felt more like an pumped up version of xena or this absolute horrible new adventures of robin hood series which should also be forbidden.",0 "I first read the Earthsea books by Ursula K. LeGuin back when I was probably about 9 or 10. They were wonderful - I could feel my imagination soar and create mental images of the characters, the environment, the storyline... mainly based on the wonderful writing of Ms. LeGuin. When I saw that the SciFi channel was going to air a miniseries based on the Earthsea books (and man did they plug it over and over...), I was instantly enthused about it! I had to see it! I marked it on my calendar! No one else was allowed to watch the TV while this was playing on the day it premiered!

When I actually did watch the miniseries on the SciFi Channel, my reaction was of complete disgust - the storyline, while using parts from the actual books, was neither complete nor in order, the characters didn't seem at all like they should be (even including their descriptions in the books), and everything just seemed wrong. The acting by Isabella Rosselini and Kristin Kreuk, and a couple of others, were decent enough, and the sets seemed to be well made, but that's about the only good things I can say about it. Probably the only element that matched my mental images that I had formed from reading the books was the gibbeth character.

It's a shame when production companies and television/movie studios are allowed to take some great work of written fiction and butcher it to the point that the original author is embarrassed about it (see Slate 12/16/2004 - http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2111107 for Ursula K. LeGuin's own words about how ""SciFi Channel ruined my books""). Authors should be allowed to have final say about how scripts adapting their works are developed, instead of having to sit back and watch the monstrosities that are created just because they sold the rights to their works to a studio. Shame on you, SciFi Channel... I wonder how badly you're going to screw up ""Battlestar Galactica""? Perhaps they should just stick to playing science-fiction movies and series reruns.",0 "This sequel kept my attention for about the first hour before taking a sharp left turn into sheer nonsense territory. Unlike the original, ""White Noise 2"" has very little to do with ""communicating"" with the dead, instead coming off more as a ""Final Destination"" sequel/super hero/""Exorcist"" type of combination that jumbled the entire thing into pure ineptitude. A man's family is brutally slain in an apparently random shooting in a diner. Three months after the incident, he attempts suicide and is revived just before fully ascending into the ""white light"". Following his near death experience, he has seemingly acquired an ability to see disfigured ghosts, hear ghosts through technology, and foresee people's untimely death through a luminescent glow. It's when the movie delves into some kind of Satanic ""twist"" that completely took me out of the movie. I dug a few of the jolt scenes and suspenseful ""race to save a life"" moments, yet the conclusion is very confusing as it attempts to come together and put the pieces in place... So my point is: the final ""explanation"" and multiple twists ruined the movie. Don't bother with this...",0 "Who else but Franco Zeffirelli could make what is the best opera movie ever? He has made several of them. After all, his productions at La Scala in the '50s catapulted that opera house once again to reign among the world's best, and preceded his move into film making. Known for lush period costume dramas, Zeffirelli surely doesn't disappoint in that department. In fact, visually, LA TRAVIATA ranks among his best work. Controversial innovations, luxurious locations, and superb casting make LA TRAVIATA even more unique. His editing down of several (repetitive) arias, and visual depiction of many of the arias' contents through flashbacks caused much controversy in Europe where I first saw it in its 1982 premiere. However, the controversy was generated by opera purists, since from a purely artistic viewpoint, not to mention a strictly cinematic one, LA TRAVIATA has never been so well expressed, in fact no opera has. The cinematic enhancements and cutting a few minutes off the running time to make the work more accessible only made opera more attractive to all. The beautiful actual locations of the Seine, old Paris, the French countryside, and opulent palaces are a treat to watch as the wonderful music, conducted by the Met's legendary James Levine is played. Neither is pushed back to the background. Both elements blend into an unforgettable whole. If one wants to see pure opera, one can buy several versions of LA TRAVIATA especially filmed live at an opera house, and watch the musicians in the orchestra pit play, the conductor's gestures, and hear the superb voices of the usually out of character (physically and age-wise) singers on stage. The performances are usually longer as many arias are repeated several times, something film can avoid through its unique advantages. In this case the performance on film runs 1 hour 45 minutes, without the elimination of any arias (just avoiding the repetition described above). In contrast, the opera house experience, including two intermissions usually runs twice that length, if not longer. This version of LA TRAVIATA is not only fine movie-making, but showcases the superb voices and musical excellence of the best of the classical recordings. With the sublime Teresa Stratas in the title role, and the now legendary Placido Domingo as her love interest, one cannot ask for better leads. They are also of believable age, and display great chemistry together. The young Domingo's fiery Latin emotions with his imposing looks, and the very slender and also young Stratas' passionate interpretation (especially in her facial gestures) are totally convincing and captivating, as are, needless to say, their vocal talents, among the greatest of the century. Added touches such as subtle shots focusing on the period's social customs, and a knock-out ballet sequence in a party scene are among the final master touches to this unique production. One simply cannot compare, say, the ""classical"" version released two years later featuring Dame Joan Sutherland (possibly the greatest soprano ever, but at the end of her incredible career)and Luciano Pavorotti (to whom comparable comments also apply). But two extremely overweight leads pushing sixty portraying young lovers obviously lend a different perspective of this great opera. Placido Domingo and Zeffirelli have since made more opera movies, and they are all excellent. But here, Domingo is in his prime, and looks the part. (He has obviously aged as consequent opera films were made, up to ten years later in fact.) And Zeffirelli here is still at the stage designing grand opera productions around the world, while still in his creative prime as a film maker. As for Stratas, her Violeta (la traviata, the woman led stray) is, for me, the highlight of many highlights. She combines compelling acting, unforgettable vocal agility, and (almost unheard of in opera) a very thin, attractive physique. It is almost to good to be true. Many viewers who are not opera buffs do in fact think she is a dramatic actress dubbed by a great soprano. An incredible package indeed, and this applies to the entire production. Definitely a 10. Someone should put pressure on Universal (who is still selling the same 16 year old video) to restore this gem, and re-release it on video and DVD. I just bought another VHS, and was disappointed it was still the original version. With DVD's growth, I'm sure that will soon change if it isn't already happening. Don't miss it in any version you can get your hands on.",1 "I started out liking this film, with its fine cast and hippy-dippy Argo City, but the film eventually gets so boring and goes on and on and on.. Especially on the ""director's cut"" DVD - it has 30 minutes of extra stuff that should have stayed out. If this film were skillfully edited down to about 1.5 hours it would be bearable, but some of the lines are pretty stupid, and the Dunaway character is no more than a cardborad cutout villain, with a pointless Brenda Vaccarro running around squawking about nothing. Watch this and you will enter a Phantom Zone - of boredom...",0 "Although I am not a purist or any other kind of radical as well as usually abstaining from strong language I am forced to say just one thing...: THIS FLICK SUCKS!!! The story is not only as cheesy as the Sherwood is green, it is so predictable that you have uncovered the plot after 10 minutes... if you haven't fallen asleep after the first 5... If you have the choice between seeing this ""movie"" and staring at a pure white wall for 2 hours... watch the wall!",0 "The concentration camp survivors interviewed in this documentary broke my heart... hearing the man who saw his best friend eaten by German Shepards... and the gay man who courageously freed his Jewish lover, only to see his lover act even more courageously by choosing to return to his sick family, to die together with them. These stories are real, they are devastating, and they MUST be seen by everyone.",1 "This film works on many levels. What's odd is that one place it is weak in is the plot - it does somewhat tie it all up and make sense but my main point is it doesnt really matter - the director set out to make a scary ghost story and that it is! I see horror films from all over the world so I am pretty jaded when it comes to something ""scaring"" me but this film has many sequences that truly are frightening and disturbing. Some of the images have stayed with me for weeks. The lighting, the art direction and the use of muted colors (aside from reds used effectively)all make up for a creepy, eerie visual. I have to laugh at the arrogance of some of the comments on this and other ""horror"" films that claim since it didnt scare them the film is NOT SCARY. That is b.s. What scares one person may not scare another. You can say the piece didn't scare you but to make such a sweeping statement is vain. I personally didn't like any of the Friday of 13th movies, but obviously those films work on some level for millions of people. This film is so non-American in it's pace and core that that is what might turn off some viewers, but that's what I loved about it. The director just sets up the camera and keeps it on a space and then has things slowly emerge from the sides - he has you start to look and scope and wonder if you are REALLY seeing something as opposed to the lazy, bloated SHOCK moment of most US horror films. There are moments when people are confronted by visions/images of ghosts that move and terrorize just like real dreams - slow movements, awkward movements as the ghost approaches you. Terrifying. The film definitely doesn't know how to wrap it all up but in many ways, I found this film even scarier than the original RING. Well made ghost story. Seek it out, fans.",1 "Aside from the ponderousness, I was especially dissappointed to see an icon, Michael Caine, play a sniveling, groveling religious fantatic, alternately crying and kissing his St. Christopher's medal, in hopes of gaining absolution. Well, he'll never get it for this performance. And what were Charlotte Rampling and Alan Bates doing in this heavy handed message movie? Did they arrange a private screening for the Pope?",0 This version with Jeff Goldblum is pretty good.It is one of them films where nothing spectacular happens until the end but the end is worth waiting for!Some of the scenes are very similar like the cartoon.Goldblum was the perfect choice to play Ichabod Crane as he is tall and thin!That's all I'll say but if you like The Legend of Sleepy Hollow story and the new film and are able to check this out do so because it is a very rare film and it is a good watch for the mystery and horror fan!,1 "What nonsense negativism from Steve ""Cod"" Carver in his post which does not even seem to be aware that the script is directly adapted from the celebrated Chris Cleave novel of the same name published on the same day as London's actual ""7/7"" attacks in 2005. This was one of my favorite's from Sundance 2008, and as an accredited film critic I am looking forward to the 25th anniversary edition in a few weeks time. I'm now sorry I missed ""The Escapist"" at Sundance which has also not yet been released commercially this side of the Atlantic. Incendiary is the first in a string of excellent Michelle Williams' performances, of which the best by far is in Wendy and Lucy. Comments here are always subjective. But when they slag others' professional judgments on the basis of little knowledge of either cinema or the world, they should be kept to oneself.",1 "Whatever happened to Heather Thomas, anyway? She provides almost the sole reason to watch this lunk-headed teen comedy. Well, I take that back. There's also character actresses Sue Ane Langdon and Marya Small (both familiar to '70s tv viewers) and the young Felice Schachter seems very sweet as Scott Baio's soon-to-be girlfriend. But what happened to Heather? She dominates this lame movie even when she's not on screen. You would think producers would have been lining up to sign her. Was she dismissed as a beautiful bimbo? Unfair if she was. Thomas is a much better than that other more famous Heather, Locklear. Check out her performance if you don't believe me. Frankly, I think the wrong Heather from '80s tv became famous. ""Zapped!"" star Heather Thomas demonstrates a charisma and sexual allure the other Heather can only guess at. Not to mention acting ability. Damn that Aaron Spelling!",1 "I don't understand how this movie could acquire so many positive reviews. The fact is this movie is utterly predictable from the very first opening scene to the ending credits. Storyline, acting, and the music all serving up a feeling of I have seen and heard this many times before.

The film portrays the internet as a place where surfers only enjoy seeing other people suffer. I guess to anyone not familiar or has used the internet would watch this movie and then happily advocate internet controls which would basically be a system controlled by government. Of course this is something to be resisted because the Internet has become the last bastion of free speech.

I couldn't wait for this movie to end simply because I knew exactly how it was going to and indeed did pan out. I must also say that it wouldn't have mattered which character bought the farm in this movie because I couldn't care less about any of them.

The message in this movie is that we have become a society with zero morals (which could in fact be correct)but the sickest of all are the internet users where the only joy they will get is to watch humans suffering live on TV or the internet. I believe this is an extremely cynical point of view and what this movie actually promotes is what it portrays to be against.

The only thing this movie will do is simply add to the frenzy of calls to have the internet controlled by government who will duly oblige given the chance. Well they are already trying to get it done by spreading fear of identity theft and in general the gullible masses are now beginning to believe that the moment they input their credit card details in to a computer their immediately a victim of identity theft. But as well all know, or at least all of us who use the internet for many reasons including and what I consider to be the most important of all and that is to seek out the truth when it comes to news the internet is in fact the last bastion of free speech, well in Europe it most definitely is.

My negative review isn't because I fear this movie is shocking enough to have governments reaching for the control switch. In fact the movie isn't shocking at all. Its just a plain bad movie from start to finish. If you like predictable poorly written scripts and movies with no character depth and sanitised death scenes you will like this. To me it stank to high heaven of a made for TV movie",0 "I am 95 years old, so I have seen almost all figure skating stars of the twentieth century. I saw most ice shows in Vienna, especially those with Austrian World Champion Felix Kaspar, Austrian Olympic Champion Herma Szabo, Austrian double Olympic Champion Karl Schäfer and the Olympic runner-ups Ilse and Erik Pausin. After World War II there was again a lot of exhibition skating in Vienna, with double Olympic Champion Dick Button and Austrian Olympic runner-up Eva Pawlik who was entitled the ""Pawlowa on the ice"". When I watch the movie ""Frühling auf dem Eis"" with Eva Pawlik (who was also a good actress) all the marvellous figure skating impressions come back to my mind. I love this movie because it is part of Austria´s figure skating history that is unique in the world.",1 "This drive-in rarity is perhaps best enjoyed in the same style as Mystery Science Theatre 3000.

Plot: Alternately silly and confusing. A doctor suffers a minor car accident, then, strangely enough, a young lady has a car accident right next to him. He goes for help at the conveniently-nearby spOOky castle. Strangeness ensues. Dialog: Originally in Italian. On the DVD version, you get your choice of dubbing and subtitles. Both are bizarre and occasionally howlingly funny.

Special Effects: Mostly performed by shaking the camera. A few smokepots. A monster that is about as lame as Ed Wood's giant octopus from ""Bride of the Monster.""

Music: You got the synthesizer AND the bongos, but no wocka-wocka guitars or plinked wires. Thankfully, no moaning.

Vampiric lesbianism? Of course. It's required in movies like

this.

Female nudity? Yes, since the plot *absolutely*required* that the female lead wander about the castle and its exterior in either a towel wrap, a negligee, or nothing at all.

Male nudity? A short special-guest appearance by the half-red-and-half-blue guys from Star Trek (or their poor cousins) in thong loincloths.

Sex? Eh, barely as racy as your typical R Rated Motel Fare.

Gross? Hardly.

Funny? Often,",1 "The Director shows us a legendary war story,a ballad will be sing from mothers to sons. boy goes war as a kid.there become man.gain victories and self-trust. and turns back saw his mother just one second.and turns back with his love in his heart hopes. and missing of his mother. with a road journey he also shows the situation of Russia at 2nd world war. a film to clap every time you watch. and it is a white-black film because there are no choices for that time but it uses that as a specialty.as a foreigner for Russian culture and i didn't live in a war and i effected by their force to win the war despite they are poor and they are defeated from 2 villages they were telling we have to work more.and in the film the people meet each other very easy only the Suraa and Aliocha in the train.he-he that shows their great love.10/10",1 "I really tried to like this film - an excellent ensemble cast and technically well-shot, however the addition of the US scenes (credited as being shot in Kentucky) appeared to be stuck on simply to provide US 'appeal'. There appeared to be no sophistication of the plot - and it simply boils down to; Jocket gets cancer, his horse tears a ligament and may be put down. Therapy for both before eventual recovery, and both win the Grand National at Aintree. Even Edward Woodward didn't appear to be overstretching himself, and whether you could believe John Hurt as a successful jockey with his size of frame requires a massive leap of faith. It just hasn't stood the test of time, and it's re-release on DVD may gain a few extra viewers, but if there's a car to wash or dog to walk, your time may be better spent doing these task instead.",0 "Well, the first one was full of clichés and the killer Santa wasn't that scary, but I give it the benefit of the doubt since they were trying to explore deep childhood fears that some of us may have had!

But my friends, this sequel!!! To begin with, if you see the 2 movies one after the other like i did, you'll save a lot of your valuable time playing it in fast forward, since this Part 2 has about 40 minutes with footage from the first one. Then we get to the new footage, and... voilá: After a few sips from the leading actor's performance, we get to see him in his most absolute and complete crap acting... well, i can't describe it, not even in my mother tongue. It's so bad U have to see it for yourselves! Take a good look to his evil laughter and to the eyebrows! I believe his eyebrows act better than him! For real!

And the plot? Well, the plot is just what you're expecting for! After his parents death, and later his brother's (in the first movie), he became so disturbed that starts killing everyone who crosses his path, or blows his nose to a red handkerchief! He does all this while, in a retarded ape style, keeps repeating: PUNISH! PUNISH!

At least take a few minutes to appreciate the eyebrow master in action!",0 "Cheech wrote, directed, and starred, so stack this with Chong's solo resume (""Far Out Man"" !?)and you see who was the true talent.

Some have passed this film off as second-rate 80s fluff, but they're missing a lot. East LA is, upon second look, a timely take on the overreactive Reagan-era round-'em-up, ask-no-questions immigration policy, in which many legal residents and citizens were actually deported. Plus, Cheech's character grows from initially fawning over a French woman in the opening scene and living a typical apathetic American life to falling in love with a Mexican woman and helping others in their quest to work in the U.S.

And it's funny...""Whas happenING!"" ""I like your pants"" ""Get behind me, Satan!""

",1 We read mixed reviews about Umrao Jaan...one is always apprehensive when going to see a remake of such a classic...not sure what to expect..I found the whole tone of the movie to be so morbid and Grey. Sure it is the story of pain but it is not told with grace. THe problem with the movie is definitely the way in which it is told. In most of the scenes the character of Umarao is shown crying weeping or fearful ..quite the opposite of a courtesan's character which is about presentation entertainment. Good scenes fail to make an impact. And the choreography is terrible too...merchant has done a terrible job no grace!!! All in all don't waste your time on this movie,0 "Whenever one thinks of Steve Buscemi the actor, one probably thinks of the line about his character in FARGO, where a girl says, ""Well, he was funny looking...more than most people, even."" That has more or less summed up the parts Buscemi has played throughout the years, way back to the mini-series of LONESOME DOVE. But he's got more range than that, as he showed in LIVING IN OBLIVION(1995), and this movie, which he also wrote and directed. The nice surprise is he also has the makings of a fine writer and director. There's no real plot here, which undoubtedly will throw some people(and has, if some of the comments are any indication), just observing a certain type of people(working-class and barflies) and how they live their lives. While it may drag at times, there's enough truth and detail to keep you interested. Buscemi also directs actors well; this is the film which convinced me Chloe Sevigny was for real. I understand Buscemi is making another film; I look forward to it.",1 "Look, I love good and bad films, but this film is terrible. I'm not one who needs linear plot, but the level of convulution (Is this a word?) here is staggering. The movies tries to tell an interesting story about a box with a worm and fails, badly. Jeez, where to start. For one, the ""chase"" sequence where SPOILER everyone is on rollerskates, come on. How about the faux tension build up when the team of transvestites arrive (leading to the afore mentioned chase scene). Oh, what about the dialogue between the main thug and the scientist, explaining what is in the box. Bad, Bad, Bad. There were some interesting parts, about two. But after that another terrible scene, like the ending SPOILER SHE HUMPS THE WORM!!. Look, this film was made by an pretentious under skilled director in conjuntion with woefully bad actors using a script penned by a commmunity college screenwriting class drop-out.

PS There is no relation between this film and Eraserhead or Shallow Grave. Those are two good films, this one is the opposite.",0 """A mysterious mansion holds secrets and terror for the owner and visitors alike in this thriller, based upon a classic stage play. Cornelia Van Gorder has taken up residence in an old mansion that was the scene of some mysterious deaths years ago. The recent owner of the mansion was a banker who had embezzled money and had hidden it somewhere in the mansion but, he was killed before he was able to retrieve it. Now it appears that someone is stalking the mansion…"" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

This lesser re-make is most appealing in that it stars enjoyable Agnes Moorehead (as Cornelia Van Gorder) and features fine support from Vincent Price (as Malcolm Wells) and Lenita Lane (as Lizzie Allen). Ms. Lane is an exceptional employee, you'll have to agree; she also served as director Crane Wilbur's wife. Lane and ex-""Our Gang"" member Darla Hood (as Judy Hollander) ended their feature film careers with ""The Bat"". Little mystery, some suspense.

**** The Bat (8/9/59) Crane Wilbur ~ Agnes Moorehead, Vincent Price, Gavin Gordon",1 "One of the most faithful nuns in her convent, Sister Maria finds herself obsessed by the Devil. Obsessed, not possessed, because Satan is an external force in this film. A strapping and vampiric lad, the Devil brings out Sister Maria's inner desires for both sex and blood. Plagued also by her devotion to God, she tries to fight these forbidden desires and lusts with prayer and penitence only to have them come back ten fold. Sister Maria is suddenly caught between Satanic submission or death.

Satanico Pandemonium is a good nunsploitation effort in the vein of, the more celebrated, Juan Lopez Moctezuma'a Alucarda. It has sex, nudity, lesbianism, child seduction, self mutilation, blood, and death(not necessarily in that order, of course). The ending is clever and surprising following a bloody and ravenous climax. If you're a fan of nunsploitation and offbeat cinema, do yourself a favor and check out Satanico Pandemonium. You won't regret it.",1 "This is the sort of crap film that gave foreign films in the US a bad reputation: Excessive intellectuality, shortage of action, repetition of themes ad nauseam, interminable navel-gazing, etc. For a high-school student's project, this would be acceptable, but for a professional filmmaker, it is a total disappointment. Since all the viewer can do is stare at endless, static presentations of the same actors, it might at least be fun if they were highly attractive. Alas, they are not. Jeanne Balibar is moderately attractive, as is Bruno Todeschini. (Balibar does take her shirt off at one point, but her tits are hardly something to get excited over). The rest of the cast would better be unseen. Let me emphasize that this piece of tedium is 2.5 HOURS LONG. There's barely enough material here for 60 minutes worth of movie.",0 "This is one of my favorite films of all time with a brilliant cast. Cher puts on the performance of a lifetime as the mother of a child frowned upon by society because he looks different. Eric Stoltz also gives a hell of a performance as Rocky Dennis, the teenager who's head is a weird shape because of a growth problem. When Rocky finally gets accepted into a school and does really well, his Mom and friends give him a massive cheer and applause! Touching stuff. Sam Elliot gives great support as Rocky's mom's fella. Rocky later meets Diana, a beautiful blind girl and romance blossoms. When Rocky teaches Diana how to 'see' through touch she is delighted at her new way to see and this has to be one of the most beautiful scenes ever committed to camera in a movie. This is by far one of the best films of all time.",1 "Staying right with the third installation's method of haphazardly taping together some goofy, inconsequential plot out of a few recent horror flicks (this time Saw, Grudge, and Village get the honors) to produce yet another stagnant parody that produces yet another few hilarious moments. The funniest moments come from unexpected twists..when a certain movie is hilariously and unexpectedly ridiculed or when the current antics of one certain galaxy translating, love crazed megastar are exploited, but as usual these end up being the exception to the stale, repetitive humor. Unfortunately, those with a thirst for the underperformed slapstick genre have little else to do but sift through the few gems found here in the meantime that these types of comedies simply do not get made with the same respect that they used to be.",0 "Frank Giorgio, the owner of a lobster place in Brooklyn is facing the possible loss of the business that has been in the family since the 1930s. To make matters worse, his own marriage has failed before his own eyes, as Maureen, his wife of many years has decided she has had enough, and moves out. Frank's life, as he knew it, is coming crashing down on him. One of the solutions for his problems is to sell the business to a franchise restaurant who wants the location, but being so proud, it is something he doesn't want to consider. His own sense of loyalty to the place his parents dedicated their lives to, plays heavily on his soul.

All this is happening around Christmas. Michael, the son who has left Brooklyn to make a name for himself in Seattle, returns for a visit with his fiancée, the gorgeous Kerry, whose family is rich and might be interested in investing in his father failing business. Michael is torn between his own ambition about the company he has established in the West Coast, or come to the help of his old man.

""Brooklyn Lobster"" was a rare surprise to find the other night on cable. It's a story written and directed by Kevin Jordan, who evidently knows what he is talking about, since it appears it has some biographical slant to it. The film involves the viewer because the situation at the center of the story feels plausible. It's a different kind of story without following any formula.

Mr. Jordan was lucky in finding Danny Aiello, an actor that always projects honesty in his work, to impersonate the older Giorgio. Mr. Aiello is one of the best reasons for watching the film, as he pulls us into the story without any effort. Daniel Sauli is also good as Michael, the son who has left, only to come back and finds out things are not good at home. Jane Curtin, a rarely used actress, plays Maureen, the wife that has decided to move on, rather than to stay with Frank, yet, she still stays close to home.

This is a film that feels real from beginning to end thanks to the solid writing by Kevin Jordan and his clear view of a family in trouble.",1 "Yes, this movie was a flop, but who ever judged a movie by how the box office does. A lot of dreck does good. A lot of gems die. This is one of them.

This is a movie about friendship. Two needy people find each other. They're very different, but together, they become better and stronger people. There is deep friendship, but whether there is a sexual element, I'll leave to you. Neither girl is shown to have a sexual focus, either to males or females.

Robin Johnson, who deserves all the fine line written about her, is great, but Trini Alvarado is also good. She has to be the lesser role, but she is no less important. Pity Robin Johnson could never make it big, but if she's reading this, I hope you're happy, and you've made a mark, which most actors never do. I heard you on the DVD.

I wish the two could have stayed together. Remember, alternative endings are not just for DVDs. Think one up yourself.",1 "Is it possible to hurt those who are incorrigibly superficial? Probably. In René Clair's Les Grandes Manoeuvres, an amusing film of manners, morals and seduction, you can watch how to do it in style.

Lieutenant Armand de la Verne (Gerard Philipe) is a dashing young officer of the 33rd Dragoons. His regiment is based in a small provincial French town. The time is well before World War I. de la Verne has a reputation of having seduced just about every daughter, wife and mistress among the town's grande bourgeoisie and petit nobility, not to mention their maids and a number of night club singers. He's charming, confident, light-hearted and may even mean some of those endearments and pledges he whispers, at least when he's whispering them. His regiment will be going on maneuvers in 30 days, and a wager is placed between his friends in the regiment and their civilian friends. A woman will be chosen at random, and if Armand has not seduced her before the regiment leaves, he and his friends will pay for a sumptuous farewell dinner. If he succeeds, their friends will pay. Armand is supremely confident. So are his friends. The woman turns out to be Marie-Louise Riviere (Michelle Morgan), single, divorced and the proprietor of a millinery shop. The women of the town have been polite toward her but suspicious. She is, after all, an outsider and divorced. A reputation can be extraordinarily fragile when upper-class gossips start whispering together. Not only does Lt. de la Verne begin finding reasons to be gallant toward Madame Riviere, so does Victor Duverger (Jean Desailly), a cautious citizen of the town who is just as worried about his own reputation. He has two sisters who don't approve. Marie-Louise has no wish to see her reputation ruined, despite all those who are observing and who love to have something to talk about behind their fans. Then, to Armand's befuddlement, in the process of seduction he begins to fall in love. By then, everyone is aware of his attempts with Marie- Louise, and all his well-worn (and previously successful lines) are repeated with laughter by his friends, by the women he has seduced and in some cases even by those he didn't. Marie- Louise hears the whispers...even worse, she learns of the wager. This movie which is so stylish, which glows and smiles with such elegant artificiality, has a decidedly ironic ending.

The movie is permeated with a gorgeous sense of unreality. The costumes and colors are vibrant; the scenes in the town streets, the drawing rooms, the ball rooms are almost like exquisite drawings. The officers strut along in their red pants, polished black boots and stiff collars. It's apparent that to be a success as an officer one must dance well. Michelle Morgan is a vision with her long neck, blond hair and enigmatic eyes. Gerard Philipe, however, is the center of the story. He's a seducer, a happy comrade, a man who loves a challenge in love and is unafraid of a challenge for a duel. He is so completely superficial that his growing acquaintance with love and his final look at a pair of closed shutters is touching. Gerard Philipe was one of France's greatest actors and leading men in the Fifties. He was 33 when he made this film. He was dead four years later. He said he was feeling poorly and went to his doctors for a check up. They discovered he had cancer of the liver. He died weeks later at the age of 37.

And for those whose pulse may not quicken at the thought of watching a foreign language film, remember that René Clair worked in Hollywood during WWII (and was stripped of his French citizenship by the Vichy government). Look for I Married a Witch, It Happened Here and And Then There Were None.",1 "This film has earned its cult reputation due to the fact that it's ridiculous - and as you might expect, this reputation isn't exactly unfounded. Mad Foxes is just as ridiculous as it's meant to be and then some...however, while I enjoy a good silly flick, the inconstancies and illogical nature of the film don't help it as the plot doesn't move well at all, and the film gets confusing too often, which isn't good when the plot is as simple as the one here. The plot is pretty much routine for a rape/revenge flick, and focuses on a guy and his girl who end up getting on the wrong side of a neo-Nazi biker gang. The gang beat him up and rape his girl, so he vows revenge on them...blah blah. The way that the plot moves isn't very fluent, and usually just jumps from one scene to the next; which can be irritating. There are a few good sequences in the film, and these include things such as a man being blown up on the toilet and a Nazi-style bondage session towards the end. In fitting with the rest of the film, the acting and the dialogue are both terrible; but the film is very funny on numerous occasions, and while I can't say I overly enjoyed Mad Foxes; it might appeal to those who enjoy seeing movies at their worst.",0 "After seven years and seventeen pictures at Warner Brothers, Doris Day moved to MGM to star in a dramatic musical based on the life of 30s singing star, Ruth Etting. The film was called ""Love Me or Leave Me"" and would co-star James Cagney. Shot in CinemaScope and Technicolor, it was a lavish film.

Doris Day gave the performance of her career and matched the great James Cagney in the acting department. The critics were raving loud and clear and rumors of Oscars for Miss Day and Cagney were often discussed.

The story concerned a young singing hopeful, Ruth Etting, in 20s Chicago who meets a tough gangster, Martin Snyder, who strong-arms her to fame. First in nightclubs, then radio, the Zigfield Follies in New York and finally, Hollywood films.

James Cagney attacked the role of Snyder with frightening realism. His experience as an actor culminated in an explosive performance and garnered him a Best Actor Oscar nomination.

Doris Day, the first actress to get billing over Cagney in over 30 years, deserved a nomination, but lost out to Eleanor Parker in ""Interrupted Melody"", also at MGM. She was remarkable throughout most of the film. There were times when she lost character and broke into her ""girl next door"" personality but those mistakes were few, however, and I'm sure when Miss Day sees the film today, she could kick herself.

She is the showcase of the film, however, and delivers, vocally, some beautiful music. In addition to the Etting standards, two new songs were added. ""I'll Never Stop Loving You"", which became a big record hit for Miss Day and an Oscar nominee for Best Song, and ""Never Look Back"", a gorgeous ballad done with a full orchestra.

Her big extravagant Follies number, ""Shaking the Blues Away"" was typical MGM and a far cry from anything she did at Warner Brothers.

Cameron Mitchell as Johnny Alderman, the musical director who loves Etting, Harry Bellaver, Robert Keith and Tom Tully were all first rate. Even Veda Ann Borg in a walk-on, was fun.

I loved this picture and recommend it highly. You won't see Doris Day used to better advantage than here. She and Cagney were excellent together, and memorable.",1 "One of the main problem is the massacre of most of the motivations that guided Ged & helped me relate to him as a character. In the original, Ged started out with a delight in control over other creatures; this delight was warped by his pride, which was the origin and core of the conflict. His desire to impress arises from his interactions with a witch's daughter, leading to his first summoning of the shadow (not to mention the fact that the daughter plays a key role later in the story). In an equal-and-opposite kind of way, Ged's pride and power unleashed his own potential destruction. The mini-series detaches the characters from almost any sense of motivation, turning them into pieces passionlessly moving about in something akin to a bad D & D adventure.

For the record, I voted with a rating of 2/10. Under ordinary circumstances, I need to black out from the pain before I rate something this low; unfortunately, the fact that the movie claims to somehow be related to Le Guin's series warrants a further deduction for misrepresentation.",0 "When ""X Y & Z"" opened in New York, it faced unanimous horrible reviews from the film critics. Rex Reed gave it a zero and went after Elizabeth Taylor, Michael Caine, Susannah York and Margaret Leighton with a vengeance.

Rex went on about the new wave of sex in the movies and said about this movie: ""Well, sex is back in ""X Y & Zee,"" as wretched and slimy a pail of slop as I've ever seen dumped on a movie screen, with the misguided Elizabeth Taylor playing chief pig in the pig sty...""X Y & Zee"" is a depraved lesbian horror film with flabby, oatmeal-colored Michael Caine trying vainly to out-weight and out-scream the bloated Miss Taylor before they both get thrown out of the Screen Actors Guild."" Believe me, he said plenty more.

Me, the fool, went out and saw this on a double bill and wish I had listened to Mr. Reed. If you were among the pot smokers and free love people who staggered out of the 60s wearing your ""I Hate Doris Day"" tee shirts, you probably got a big kick out of this trash. I left the theatre disgusted.",0 "I am just baffled as to why this show is so popular. This show is one of the poorest animated series I've ever seen. Characters such as Mandy are bitter and painful to watch, while the rest are lacking in basic intelligence, like Billy for instance. Sometimes, an idiotic character in a show is a good thing, but this show overdoes it, and that aspect doesn't work for it. It just degrades the quality of this cartoon even more. This show has no integrity, either, as its values are corrupt and poor, and after watching an episode, what has one actually learned from this, or what purpose has this show made? It tries to aim at comedy, but most of it is unintelligent comedy, which they overuse quite often. What's even worse is the graphics. This cartoon has some of the poorest animation I've ever seen, and that is another turn-off for this show. This show bothers me very much, and I don't see why people enjoy it so much. To me, this show has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and it's nothing special from any other show on TV. If anything, it is much worse and should be ignored in favor of other shows that have much higher quality production values. I think that this show should be canceled, or if not, the creator should give this show a massive ""face lift"" to provide the show with a more positive aura.",0 "This movie represents the kind of self-righteous pious moralising that renders one quite nauseous. To put this in context, I watch many movies from all parts of the world, and I enjoy slow art house movies as much as fast moving dramas or intelligent action movies. I hired this on DVD, based on positive buzz, and did something I very rarely do with DVD's. After half an hour or so, I could see exactly where this movie was going, and I began to fast forward through the move, reverting to play to observe key plot points. If you fancy being preached to by being beaten over the head by a moral maniac, then you might enjoy this over-rated nonsense. If it were artistic, or intelligent, then I could forgive this movie it's sins. Yet it has the ultimate sin, which I do not often encounter in movies, which usually have something to recommend them, of being rather dull.",0 "This review is just about 1 episode in general. I saw some eps of earth 2 a long time ago (i don't recall them as being anywhere above a 5 star rating), but when i saw this episode today i felt animated to write a review. The first 30 minutes weren't really interesting, just some:""oh there's a time rift, black-hole whatever thing in this cave"". The fun actually started when they ""got a theory"" about how this time-rift whatever works. There were spiders at each side of the rift and after a spider bit one of the actors and he suddenly started to be in love with one of the other actors they got to set up a theory. Some time ago in this ep a spider bit one of those Grendel's(at least they are called so in the German translation) and it got angry as hell. So... 2 different types of spiders. One makes you feel positive and the other negative. Think logical and you might think of a positive and a negative magnetic pole. a positive on the one side of the rift and the negative on the other side of the rift. Sure... 2 magnetic spider webs equals 2 poles = magic rift of instant teleportation. When the rift broke down they came to the conclusion that they might have brought a spider from one side to the other and by removing the ""wrong"" spider by placing it in a plastic tube, TAdaaaah the magic rift appears again.

Someone talked about brain in this series.... i think this is the hardest anti-brain ep i ever saw in sci-fi for a long time..(OK except for Andromeda maybe).

My final words: go watch battle-star galactica or the ""new"" enterprise for some serious sci-fi. earth 2 has some serious problems explaining things(and sci-fi is mostly about stuff you can somehow explain... as its called SCIENCE-fiction) and the story wont keep you longing for the next ep. This last paragraph is my personal thought only so pls don't flame me about that.

Best regards Dobs",0 "Unintentionally hilarious trash. Dyan Cannon's opening line,""God I feel horny!"", Rachel Roberts confessing to a lesbian affair,""It was a hot night and I had a thin blouse and no bra"" Gene Hackman's reaction, Cara Williams drunken appearance at the club,""The truth is we're all tramps"", Janice Rule's outfit, Lori's funeral, Rule writhing on the floor in drug induced lust,etc... all create hilarity in a seriously intended soaper:replete with subplots and a hospital setting. Some of the dialogue is priceless. All of this is interpolated by prolonged, graphic scenes of surgery. It's ""Desperate Housewives"" with gore. An interesting and diverse cast adds to the fun, and for intended comic relief, there's Christina Holland(from TV's ""The Courtship of Eddie's Father"")as a student studying sex, and tape recording her sessions. Dyan Cannon is in good form in her regrettably brief role. And was the song ""Costume Ball"", sung by Cass Elliot, written specifically for this film? Check this one out, and laugh and scratch your head at the same time. DVD PLEASE!",1 His movies may not be the most original but they are the best. He has amazing whitty dialogue and always pics the perfect actors for the characters. This movie is essentially the same as 100 girls (hence the name 100 women) but hey when you're on a winning formula stick with it. The script and acting are second to none and the laughs are plentyful... don't be fooled by the fact it was straight to video because this movie is cinema at it's best!,1 "That little black and white film is in a way fascinating because it is not for us, its western audience, attached to Mexico only but to any south American country where the presence of Indians is important and where these Indians are systematically victimized and pressurized by the conservative if not reactionary governments and their armed forces. This film may explain why so many of these countries have lately voted for popular candidates against their establishments. Yet the film is in a way very passé, and even irritating. We have seen and heard too much about these brutalities. They exist but what is the film trying to do ? To make us feel guilty and cry, and then open our purses and give ? Probably. But time has passed and too many of these gifts of ours have ended who knows where, but not on the table of the poor. Time has also ripened and finally, at least through ballots and ballot-boxes, these people have decided to recapture their destinies and to repossess their riches that had been confiscated, maybe with a commercial contract signed by a powerless insect in front of the all-powerful business vultures coming from the West. Finally these people seem to have decided to do what they have to do to be free and then to make the profit of their work stay in their country and help their people, their children. Salvador Allende has finally resurrected from his quasi-execution by Pinochet. El Pueblo Unido Jamas Sera Vencido. The film though shows how tricky things may be. The grandfather thinks he is getting the mickey out of the officer with his violin and his cornfield. In fact the officer is playing cat and mouse with him, as revealed when the violin disappears from the grandfather's ammunitions hole in the cornfield and reappears in the hands of that officer. Then the grandfather understands he has to face this situation, confront it and hence to die, since anyway all the leaders of the revolutionary armed group is was part of are prisoners and will soon be dead. This reveals that the guard who gave the grandfather a weapon twice pretending it was a taco for the road must have had an equivalent spy on the other side since the military forces knew every intention of the revolutionary forces. The real sad note is the end, with the grandson playing his father's guitar but this time not to cover up some plotting, but only to survive and feed himself. In other words military action is never the right solution because it creates human suffering and it changes nothing : it seems that military action always leads to the victory of the most conservative and reactionary.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne",0 "You know, sometimes I just don't understand what the heck is going through Adam Sandler's head. He's a funny guy with natural charisma and, I would guess, a reasonable level of intelligence. So why does he feel compelled to write and produce films of such appallingly low quality? It worked with his initial efforts, Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. Those two films defied any sense of logical criticism. They were sloppy, yet contained a maniacal sense of anarchic glee. He seemed thrilled at what he was getting away with. Yet, since the release of those films over a decade ago, he has continued to crank out by-the-numbers mediocrity that lacks any feeling of comic discovery.

It is my unfortunate duty now to inform you that his latest, You Don't Mess With The Zohan, is by far his most wretchedly awful film to date. Sandler's character this time, a Mossad agent who dreams of being a hairdresser, would probably fill a lame Saturday Night Live skit, but stretched to over 100 minutes is akin to Chinese water torture.

Zohan isn't any normal secret agent; he's a walking caricature of crass Middle Eastern stereotypes and snickering vulgarity. With a Wham!-inspired haircut and a penchant for shtupping elderly women, he finds employment at a small salon run by the sweet, yet blank, Dalia (Emmanuelle Chriqui), a Palestinian woman with no patience for Zohan's sexism. As can be predicted, despite their antagonistic relationship, they soon are yearning to ""make the bam-boom"". Their insipid love story intermingles with a laugh-free subplot featuring Zohan's nemesis the Phantom (John Turturro) and a hapless Arab cab-driver (Rob Schneider, ladies and gentlemen...) ineptly planning murder attempts.

Now, racial stereotyping and crude humor can be used to great comic effect in the proper hands. The makers of Borat toed the line brilliantly, delivering great vulgar hilarity mixed with social commentary. You Don't Mess With The Zohan is not even in the same time zone, much less ballpark. The film is amazingly hostile and mean-spirited, mocking its targets with unfiltered scorn for the majority of the running time, yet tacking on a ""we're all the same"" message at the end. It's like the school-yard bully who beats the snot out of you all semester but wishes you a good summer at when vacation time rolls around. Why did no one involved in this debacle pull Sandler aside and gently suggest that this material was unfilmable? Also concerning is the amount of animal abuse presented for cheap laughs. There is a particularly soul-killing scene featuring Zohan and two friends playing hacky-sack with a cat. Now, a good writer would use this undeniably objectionable act as a springboard to a larger pay-off. That would redeem the bad taste and warrant the scene's inclusion. Not here however, where the only apparent joke is that a trio of grown men are kicking the stuffing out of a helpless animal.

What is almost fascinating about Zohan is how little interest the screen-writers have in their own story. New story lines are launched at random to replace the ones running out of gas. I couldn't believe that the introduction of an evil land-developer to the film occurred near the end of the second act. It would seem that writers' Sandler, Judd Apatow, and Robert Smigel knew that their material was limited and hoped that by padding it liberally, no one would notice. Hence, the heavy helping of crotch close-ups, homophobia, hummus jokes, and dry humping present. As well, the endless cameos come off as desperate and pointless, although it is amusing that Mariah Carey has finally found a fitting companion piece for Glitter.

To call You Don't Mess With The Zohan a misfire is a grand understatement. It's a dreary trudge through migraine-inducing territory that is all the more unforgivable considering the level of talent involved. There's an old adage that it takes true skill and artistry to create a truly horrific film, as hacks will only produce bland mediocrity. Well, Zohan is a colossal achievement, a film that will receive endless mentions on ""Worst of 2008"" lists, and the rants of legions of angry ticket-buyers. With that said though, Sandler may have inadvertently found a point of agreement for Israelis and Palestinians. I think that both sides would agree that You Don't Mess With The Zohan flat-out SUCKS!",0 "One of the best documentaries ever filmed. Zwigoff is a genius; Crumb is a genius (eccentric but a genius) and the film is brilliant. If you enjoyed it at all you have to see ""Ghost World"" and ""American Movie"". Cannot recommend it enough.",1 "Definitely better than the ridiculous ""Righteous Kill"", that we had the doubtful honor to view today also, at the same press screening, here in Bucharest, Romania.

""Death Race"" is a honest to God action movie, without any bigger-than-life pretensions. The script follows correctly an old tested and tried recipe, everything is at its place, and although you can easily plot out the whole course since the beginning, somewhat even this sounds good - you simply have the guilty pleasure of savoring again a story that you know from dozens of other movies.

The influences from the racing video games are explicit, and well mastered - me, I fully felt as while playing ""Death Rally"". Even certain aerial shots are obvious quotes from the computer game imagery. The narrative is nervous and thrilling, the effects professional, the violence degree precisely balanced. Maybe the main virtue of the movie is the cinematography, with admirable chromatic and plastic values. All in all, what it promises, it delivers: a cheap show, well done.",1 "

This movie is absolutely nothing like the first one. Bateman is gone, and instead of a main character living in a complicated, fractured, psychotic world, we have one who is merely ambitious and kills people. She never really seems crazy. Or evil. Or believable, really.

William Shatner does a typical job as the professor she's stalking.

Every character in this movie was trite and done to death. There wasn't a single scene that had any originality or edge. A sad, sad legacy for a very interesting first movie.

2 out of 10.

",0 "-If one needs more proof why foreign films are superior to American crap then look no further this gem. it's beautiful, magical, funny, sad, and wonderfully romantic

-Amelie tells the story of a girl with a highly active imagination. statues come to life, TV's can talk to her and pictures can move around. Her mom dies in a semi-hilarious scene which means she has to spend the rest of her life with her dad. Her dad is a very distant man that seldom shows affection. he's not a bad father by any chance, in fact he loves her daughter more than anything in the world, but he just dosen't know how to express his love for her properly so he becomes a bit distant from him This leads to Amelie having to retreat into her imagination to find people to talk to since her dad won't. she makes up imaginary friends to play with and keeps herself entertained by over imagining what she sees in everyday life

-the movie really begins about 20 mins. into the story. She discovers through TV that princess DI has died in a car crash and so shocked by it that she drops a marble in her hand. the marble rolls in the bathroom till it hits a wall. she pushes aside the tiny wall to discover that it's where a little boy hid his toy a long time ago. so she decides to return it to him, and when the boy whose now a man finds it he's so grateful that he begins to cry. this leaves Amelie feeling so happy that she decides to spend the rest of her life doing good deeds to those who deserve it. she helps out a grocer whose been emotionally abused by his manager, helps a blind man cross the street whiles describing everything in sight, and she reunites a weeping widow with her husband through a letter. as things move along she meets a guy that she falls in love with and the entire 4th act of the movie basically shows how the two of them get together

-french director Jean-Pierre Jeunet brings a unique visual style to this movie. it's almost as if you're watching the movie through a dream. it also one of the best cinematography ever to be committed on film. the beautiful Audrey Tatou plays the title character and the supporting cast also do an amazing job. this is one of those movies that leave you in a good mood after you watch it. plus it will leave you in stitches from laughing so hard. the ""Orgasm Montage"" has to be one of the funniest scenes in cinema history and that is one of the many reason why this movie is awesome

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED",1 "Excellent casting. Scott Perry did a bang up job on this short. I personally recalled elements of Alan Arkin's ""Simon"", Lucas' ""THX-1138"" and the British sit-com ""Asylum"" (Simon Pegg). For a small production, it was well shot and appropriately lit. I especially enjoyed the fact that Perry played the character ""straight"", as it were, and gave that realistic push in order for the audience to appreciate the plot. I hate the point system, and cinephiles might become physically ill at my rating as compared to the history of short film, but I think it's a keeper. I mean, it ain't no ""La Jetee"", but as far as relevance to virtual reality and drug culture, it does have a place.",1 "Having seen Vanishing Point and enjoyed it, I was pointed in the direction of Two-Lane Blacktop (which is very difficult to get hold of in the UK!).

What I enjoy most about this film is the story. There is no real introduction as such; the film begins with a drag race and ends, abruptly with a drag race. It is a chapter in a longer story. Where did the cars come from? Why are they on the road? Where does their journey end? This gives me the impression that I am looking in on a week or so of several lives as they meet and then go their separate ways. In that respect the story is about the brief relationship of four individuals, rather than the individuals themselves

There are several incidents during the journey and we can see from these that some of the individuals learn and others do not. The car accident they come across following the short race against the Charger and Warren Oates' character picking up a gay hitch-hiker are notable moments.

The low quality of the film compared with more modern films show it up as a relic of its time and give it a documentary quality, making it seem more realistic, particularly in tandem with either poor acting (rehearse your lines!) or superb improvisation.

I enjoyed this one as much as Vanishing Point, but for slighty different reasons.

IJ 10/01/06

P.S. I'm not sure if I'd prefer a Pontiac GTO or a Dodge Challenger but they both look amazing on screen!",1 "How to make a film in Italy.

A script that has anything original or ""important"": war is bad, that's it. But it's a ""liberal"" point of view, so it's good and it's enough.

The same actors seen in every Italian film adding the usual comedian out of a night show (Favino) to have a ""known one"", and an homage to ""bigger names"" of the director's circle, giving a cameo to Orlando (Moretti's best one) and Cederna (Salvatore's own).

Bad acting: in Italian, every actor murmured in some local ""patois"", and hardly you can understand what they say. That's a cliché of every Italian war movie, that Italian soldiers uttered strong local accents: war movie or comic film. Not else.

Even budget wasn't SO low, no attempt to research what's the right uniforms, vehicles, terms, historical details, as none of the blue-nosed liberal producers wants to talk with the ""militarist"" who collect or study military history.

Spice all with ""I'm an artist"" attitude, and you have a typical Italian movie.",0 "I just finished the movie and honestly can't begin to say how disappointed I am. The initial pain comes from the horrible music that they used. After that you've got a relatively bad script... after that you've got some minor league talent.

I mean-- I could go on listing the horrible aspects of this movie, but I will say that I respect the passion these people had for the project. Passion can't do enough to make the film okay.

I think the worst part of this is that reading the info for this movie on Netflix made it sound so interesting. I put this on my list with some decent excitement thinking I was going to get a low budget good indy film and after the first shot of Conrad playing mood to show how lonely he was in front of the TV-- well I knew it was going to end in pain... for me.

Please avoid this at all cost. I know saying this might actually make someone else go and rent it (I'm usually one of those people... don't want to be a sheep), but trust me on this one.",0 "Looking at this movie, I wondered if I did not already see it. The theme is not original (anymore), we have seen the setting in other movies, the acting is poor, as is the story. So, there is no reason why I should recommend this movie to anybody.",0 "I never intended to watch this show in the first place because I thought the name of the show was ridiculous and I don't particularly like Brooke Shields. Well, this series pleasantly surprised me. Kim Raver is fantastic, Lindsay Price is uplifting, and Brooke Shields is growing on me. This show balances comedy and drama effectively, and maintains a realistic tone while delving into the hackneyed fairy tale scenario of working businesswomen. The overall concept of the show is not fresh, but delving into the fictional lives of three strong women is refreshing all the same.

Just a warning: the pilot leaves a bit to be desired, so watch the next few episodes before you make a decision. I was slightly disappointed with the pilot because Brooke Shields was over-acting and the casting choice for her husband seemed random to me. Also, Lindsay Price's character started a relationship with a billionaire so quickly that it seemed even more unbelievable than a story line like that normally would.

Nice additions: Sarah Hyland as Wendy's daughter, Robert Buckley as Kirby, Andrew McCarthy as Joe Bennett, and Wendy's assistant (I can't find his name).

When it comes down to it, I wouldn't be watching if it weren't for Kim Raver. She's the backbone of the show.",1 "I looked at this as simply a good story, a solid drama that happened to have the sport of boxing figure into it. ""Boxing movies."" if people insist on labeling this under that category, were particularly popular around the time of this film. Many of them had similar stories about a good guy being told to take a dive or else. Yes, that was in here, too, but it wasn't anywhere near the central part of the story. This film was more of an earlier ""Raging Bull""-type tale in that it concentrated on the friends, family, freeloaders, criminals and women surrounding the main male character.

This was more of a story about a decent man who gets carried away with success and with the power and money that goes with it. As good as the lead actor, John Garfield, was in here - and he was good - I was more intrigued with the supporting characters.

Lilly Palmer looked and sounded the part of a refined sweet, pretty French girl (whatever that means) and was a good contrast to the uneducated and quick tempered brute (Garfield). As in so many stories, she wasn't fully appreciated by her man until the end. Anne Revere, as Garfield's mom (she seemed to always play the lead character's mother in 1940s films) was fascinating as she always was and kudos to Joseph Peveny as ""Shorty"" and Lloyd Gough a ""Roberts."" Both added a lot to the film. Wlliam Conrad and Hazel Brooks added some great film noir-- type dialog, berating each other once in a while.

These actors, and the photography of James Wong Howe, make this a cut above most if not all the so-called ""boxing films.""",1 "I had a negative bias towards this movie because of the description that I had read about it, but soon after it started I was impressed by the camera work and technical quality (including the special effects) of this movie. The fighting scenes were sometimes unrealistic, though the gun with two bullets actually had only two bullets in it. In general, I was positively impressed, though the end left a lot to be desired. The flight attendant caught in all the fighting acted quite well, even though her role was quite irritating at times.",1 "In The Purple Plain Gregory Peck became the latest in a long list of American stars playing Canadians in order to appear natural in a British production. At least Peck did not attempt an English accent as he did in The Paradine Case where he drifted in and out of one during the course of the film.

The Purple Plain is set in the China-Burma-India Theater of World War II and Peck is a pilot with the RAF. He's a man who takes reckless chances on missions because he's got nothing to live for, his wife having been killed in the blitz in wartime London.

But a doctor friend, Bernard Lee, decides what Peck needs is a new woman and a new purpose in life. He introduces him to missionary Brenda DaBanzie and also to a lovely Eurasian played by Win Min Than in her one and only film. If The Purple Plain has a glaring weakness it's her, she's beautiful, but can't act.

Peck may have a new outlook on life and a reason to live, but that fact is lost on Maurice Denham his bunkmate and copilot. On a routine mission, Peck, Denham, with new navigator Lyndon Brook crash in the Burmese jungle. Will they all survive as Peck's leadership is put to the test?

If the jungle looks familiar, The Purple Plain was shot in Sri Lanka, Ceylon at the time which was for a brief period, a most popular place for film locations. Around the same time Elephant Walk was done here and later on the acclaimed Bridge on the River Kwai. The Purple Plain is beautifully photographed in that jungle.

The Purple Plain is not as good as The Bridge on the River Kwai, it certainly is much better than Elephant Walk. Peck delivers a stalwart performance and gets able assistance from the rest of the cast with the exception of his leading lady. It's worth a look the next time it is broadcast.",1 "if you want a review of modern American society, look no further than mtv. what they feature is utterly saddening (although i do have a weakness for, and do enjoy, jackass). but my super sweet sixteen is probably of one the worst. (ill get to the other mtv shows later.) to begin, we start at some rich girl's (or rarely, boy's) mansion and she's planning a massive sweet sixteen party where she gets anything she wants. a $50000 country club? check. a $500 dress? check. a $100000 audi? (and it better not be used) check. what's sad is, the parents have their hands tied. they don't seem to care that they could be well taking their estate into bankrupcy, just to please some stupid brat.

what is the lesson in all of this? first of all, mtv is full if hypocrites. i mean, how do they launch anti-drug and anti-smoking propaganda, when in their shows, they promote rudeness, debauchery, heavy drinking, lavish spending, materialism, etc? second, this program shows how parenting has changed over the last decade or so. gone are the days when parents were respected authority figures. now, especially with all these modern gadgets coming out, kids don't feel like they should earn anything and feel like they don't need to respect anything. and you can't even try to put some disciplined without being labeled old-fashioned, or even worse, be acussed of child abuse. and we complain why our beloved country is falling down in all senses of society. so sad.=-{ by the way, the 10 star rating, that's me just being sarcastic, before you all get all pissy at me.",0 "After viewing this movie, I'd have to say that it was probably the worst decision of my recent past to spend money on it. This movie is just god-awful. Brittany Murphy portrays a girlfriend who is crafty and intuitive but at the same time clueless. Suspecting hidden motives and doubting everything, which gives us the answer to the rhetorical question posed in the beginning (the answer to which, by the way, is exactly what you would expect). This movie it seems cannot decide whether it wants to be another pointless fun movie or try and get something serious and philosophical across. It fails miserably at both. The acting is dull, and there is no interest in trying to understand the characters (the poor writing makes the viewer give the extra effort to figure them out for themselves which frankly is not worth it). Recycled cheap laughs (singing in the bathroom) are just stupid and the whole movie seems like a commercial for a certain musician who in my opinion is just as good at creating moving songs as this movie is at getting good reviews. Basically I warn you very strongly not to see this: the characters go on a journey but seem intent on leaving you in the dust as they do, lackluster performances and lame jokes accentuate the diverse plot in a way that takes whatever potential this movie had to be decent and throws it down the drain.",0 "I'm a jaded horror-movie fan, hence approximately once in a blue moon do I get to watch a film from this genre that has me glued to the screen rather than bored or sneering/almost laughing at the gore when I'm not supposed to. But perhaps that was the key here, the essential ingredient - or rather the lack of it: the fact that there is no gore. Just like in the Japanese ""Ringu"", the eeriness comes out of what is insinuated rather than catchup-stained limbs flying through rooms as if they had wings. ""Kairo"" remains interesting in spite of its 2-hour length, although a little editing snip here or there might have made it a little more compact. The dialogue is mostly standard, i.e. not that interesting (with some exceptions), so it's the ghost scenes that elevate this movie above 98% of the usual horror crap. The story is slightly muddled (or were my subtitles bad?) but it matters not. ""Kairo"" shows once again why the Japanese (or Orientals in general) have an upper hand in the genre in recent years.

And even if you disliked it: it still beats watching a Stephen King or Wes Craven film, doesn't it? Plus, Japanese actresses are so much better-looking than the increasingly ugly, masculine blonds Hollywood serves us lately...

""Printo screenki"": this is how one male character referred to a certain computer-keyboard feature...",1 "Since this movie is an adaptation of Mr. Koji Suzuki's Lemonheart which is among the 3 stories contained in Ringu 0: Baasudei that was released in 1999, it's sufficient say that the director did pretty well with altering some of its contents to suit the interpretation of the previous movies (Ringu and Ringu 2) which was also unparalleled. I don't think the storyline was confusing at all since it mostly concentrated on Sadako's life (Derived from Lemonheart) and doesn't really focus on the curse of the video tape. I think it depends on ""how well"" you understand this movie that will determine how much you appreciate it or not. Since I took the time to search for an informative website that clarified some of the scenes from the movie, I've accrued better understanding of the story and respect for it.

What I truly love about this movie is the fact that they wanted us to feel sympathetic towards Sadako's character albeit the wickedness of what we see in Ringu and Ringu 2. Bravo to Yukie Nakama for portraying Sadako's character effectively. She's one of those few actresses that can truly set your emotions rising and falling from within. It's designed to tell us the tragic story of Sadako's life before the cursed video tape, which exceeded from my own expectations. That is what makes it unique from the previous movies. It's dramatic atmosphere haunted me and made me justify why such a character would turn out to be malevolent in Ringu.

I can see why many are baffled by the story since the one who directed this is not Nakata Hideo and obviously lingered a bit from the previous adaptations (I guess you might say more on the book than Ringu and Ringu 2.).

My verdict: 10/10***",1 "Tex Avery's first excursion into animated sexual frenzy is his best, ranking as one of his three greatest cartoons (the other two, in case you're wondering, are ""Who Killed Who?,"" also 1943, and ""King-Size Canary,"" 1947). Although Avery would explore this theme in five more cartoons (or six or seven, depending on whether you want to count ""Big Heel-Watha,"" 1944, and/or ""Little 'Tinker,"" 1948; your call), none of them quite reach the heights of the original. (At least not in overall effect: Tex's single most outrageous gag of this sort is in the long legally undistributed ""Uncle Tom's Cabana,"" 1947, and involves a cash register hidden under the aroused male's coat. Nuff said!) Some have suggested that having the Wolf's pursuit by Grandma follow the raging libido scene was a mistake in pacing, but it all works for me. It's too bad Avery didn't complete the opening misdirection by having the FIRST title card read ""Little Red Riding Hood,"" but it goes by so quickly, and is drawn so conservatively that it doesn't really hurt. Besides, is there a context in which this film could be realistically expected to be shown where the audience would be truly surprised when it doesn't turn out to be a straight version of the fairy-tale?",1 "I'm always looking for a good haunted house/ghost flick, and I have to say I haven't seen a good new one in years. Instead of something new, here we have a movie that borrows aspects and ideas from a bunch of other haunted house/horror flicks and combines them into one... making this very unoriginal and very dull. Watch The Shining, Poltergeist, The Changeling, Amityville Horror, and others instead of watching this rip off flick.",0 "This is, without a doubt, the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. First of all, the title is all wrong. The main character is not a nymphoid because, well, she's just not. She is not really a barbarian. She is actually pretty much a wimp. The dinosaurs aren't actually dinosaurs. They're mutated monsters. And the place where it was shot was not any sort of hell; it was actually quite nice. The acting was terrible. There weren't even many speaking parts. The plot was non-existent. I hate this movie with a passion.",0 One wonders why this was even adapted from the stage. Maybe the play was worth seeing but this movie arrived a few years too late to be a decent critique of lad culture.

Yaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwn!

Lazy adaptation. And as for the ending? We didn't write any decent scenes to wrap the film up so we just wrote these stupid captions instead!

Come on guys! How could a screenplay that had such noticeable flaws ever make it to the screen?

Don't even bother seeing this.,0 "A rehash of ""Love story"" - the opening monologue is a verbatim translation - this film is a prime candidate for ""cruel and unusal punishment"". To say that the actors have the acting range of wooden puppets is actually insulting to said puppets. The lead actor should be disbarred from acting ever again. To sum up, given the choice between a root-canal and watching the movie, i would exhort you to choose the

former.",0 "With this cast and budget you will expect more.

John Cusack has made a number movies that border on the strange, yet still work. Neither he, his sister, nor Sir Ben could do anything to save this travesty of trite poorly written garbage.

The movie is nothing more than a series of sight gags and poor ones at that. The plot goes nowhere, the writing is contrived, senseless and the characters paper thin. If you think of a movie as being three dimensional where the story and characters bring a depth to the imagery, this stinker comes across as flat as steamboat mickey.

Dan Akroyd's appearance in this brought back memories of another truly awful movie, 1991's Nothing but Trouble. Frankly this movie is the type of project that kills careers and gets agents fired.",0 "I loved this film. It filled my heart with joy and was sexier than any porn film I've seen. I was utterly convinced by everything in it and have watched it again and again. For me, as a pro-Palestian activist of many years standing, I did not care where they were or what they were doing there. This film was very masculine and very gay, a combination that I find wonderful. The snoggin (as we call it in the UK) was really sexy and utterly convincing. The film was far too sort. I needed more between Jossi and Jaggar - in particular more kissing because it was wonderful. The icing on the cake would be to learn that there were any lesbian or gay people involed. The actors were fine but it helps our cause.",1 "I was expecting a dire film but was shocked to see just how good the camera work, direction and soundtrack was. Some of the shots were exquisite. I know thats not what these films are supposed to be about but I will be looking out for more from these directors. The story was pretty so-so but the presentation and art was superb.

Not sure how a sequel will sit

Screamers the Hunt is out soon - I'll look out for that as it is by the same director I think.

Ten lines needed to post a comment - ah OK. All the cast looked great too.",1 "It was refreshing to see John Wayne looking so young and healthy. I hadn't seen any of his earlier movies in years. There is a great surrounding cast with the gorgeous and mysterious Marlene Dietrich, and the ever so calm and collected Randolph Scott. In this adventure Randolph plays a villain. Who would have thought it. He plays the part very well and is almost likable with his sophisticated charm as he attempts to devour all the gold mines with swindling ""illegal"" paperwork. But in the end his evil ways show through and he is undone by his own greed. But we want to see the good guys win, that's what makes for a great ending. And what a knock down, drag out fight it is. This is one of the best saloon brawls I have ever seen. The plot is straightforward and easily followed, with a plot twist or two to keep it interesting. The sets and props look real enough to convince one you are in Alaska. If you like any of the top ten listed actors/actresses you will enjoy this movie. I got my version from Netflix. It seems they are stocking up on some great older flicks for folks that don't need ten cars flying through the air or over the top special effects,to enjoy a movie. Look for it, enjoy it. I did",1 "This is it, folks -- the worst movie ever made.

I know, I know, there are many who argue that ""Plan 9 from Outer Space"" and ""Manos: The Hands of Fate"" are worse ""films"" than this one. Well, I'd advise those people to give ""Troll 2"" another viewing, this time with an open mind. As something of a self-made authority on the worst of the worst in modern cinematic torture, I feel qualified to make the bold assertion that ""Troll 2"" is the cream of that particular crop.

From its laugh-inducing ""soundtrack"" (apparently recorded using only a vintage 1980s Casio keyboard) to its unilaterally awful acting, ""Troll 2"" is a life-changing experience, similar to the Middle Ages' trials by fire. If you succeed at ingesting this festering piece of cinematic detritus in one sitting, you will emerge a new person, like a phoenix rising from its own ashes. The watching itself may be painful, but it is ultimately worth the pain to be able to say, with conviction, ""I survived 'Troll 2,' and I'm still technically alive.""

The special effects in this movie are, indeed, special -- like a one-legged blind woman with Alzheimer's. Trivia: one of the various Emmanuelles from the infamous ""Emmanuelle"" series of softcore porno movies designed this movie's pitiful costumes. That should give you some indication of their quality.

The acting -- my God, where do I start? Suffice it to say that, if you set any cast member on fire, I would lay down even money that he or she would have a hard time convincing onlookers that it hurt. They're really that bad. More trivia: One of Elliot's ""boys"" in this movie would later go on to reprise his role (Idiot in Bad Movie) in the Lou Diamond Phillips classic ""Bats."" Even more trivia: The father in this movie was a local dentist, and most of the extras were bona fide Utah residents, as well. Talk about low-budget.

Back to the soundtrack -- There's not a single scene in the movie where the music is appropriate to the on-screen action. I get the impression that the ""composer"" employed for this stinker was, in fact, a failed auditioner for Def Leppard's still-vacant keytarist position. Seriously, it's rare, even in straight-to-video dogs like this one, to hear music of this woeful caliber.

What more can I say that hasn't already been set forth in previous reviews? This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and that's saying something. It's physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausting to watch this film -- I recommend doing it alone, at least the first time you see it...that way, you can concentrate on its truly majestic badness -- and on feeling your brain cells die off, one by one, until you are no longer able to speak.

Good luck to you, if you decide to watch this one. It doesn't get any worse than ""Troll 2.""

ADDENDUM (October 2007): This is still the worst movie of all time. Its status as such will never change. ""Troll 2"" is simply the perfect storm of bad writing, casting, direction, cinematography, costuming, score, makeup, effects, acting, editing, and inspiration.",0 "This is botched in a hundred ways. Factual errors aren't the point - all biopics play with the truth for dramatic reasons, but the story here is inept. The story starts and ends nowhere, investing none of the events with significance. There's no sense of drama, no building of tension, no interesting characters, nothing but Diana Ross bumbling around the sets looking awkward and projecting little personality. How does one re-create a 1920's Harlem whorehouse and manage to make it look as interesting as a Motel 6?

And the singing - there's no doubt Diana Ross has a voice, but she doesn't display the slightest connection with the material. No one could imitate Billie, but one would hope for some kind of interesting interpretation to help pull off the impersonation. But Ross phones in the tunes, with little feeling or style.

Most of the other characters are cardboard, with Richard Pryor doing the weirdest role of his life as a timid, comical piano player.

Absolutely unwatchable for anyone but die-hard Diana Ross fans, and for Billie Holiday lovers and movie buffs, sheer torture.",0 "Perhaps best described as Good Morning Vietnam meets Schindler's List. Robin Williams plays Jakob, a Jewish prisoner in WW2 Germany who hears some news about the approaching Russian army, and lets it slip to his friend Mischa who believes Jakob has a radio to have gotten this news. Rumors then spread throughout the Jewish ghetto and soon everyone believes he has a radio, so he decides to make up news in order to give them some sense of hope in this holocaust. It's important to note that Williams is NOT trying to be funny in this film, which is appropriate considering the setting. Well written and produced with noteworthy performances",1 "I am a Romanian guy (although I do not live in Transilvania or near Bran :)) and I live in Bucharest. Even if living in my country is not like living in Germany or UK or USA, we are not beggars... this movie is nothing but bad taste: bad directing (if you look close you will see the same old car filmed twice - for example), bad script and above all... bad acting. I do not even know what is the most disgusting thing: the offense brought to Romania and to its people or the stupidity of the story. Of course, they go hand in hand, but what can we expect from this kind of movie/actors/stuff. And for who wonders: I found the movie on a friend's DVD containing other important stuff and only curiosity led me to the end of this movie. As I said, a strong 1, because I can not note it bellow...",0 "The first one was bad enough, and the short skirts, one take filming, and Jack Palance in funny hats just made me nauseous.",0 "License To Kill (1989) is an inanely dismal installment to the Bond franchise that is best forgotten. It stars Timothy Dalton in his second and final performance. After aiding old time friend and FBI man, Felix Leiter (David Hedison) in a drug bust, and standing up for Felix at his wedding, Bond returns hours later to discover Felix's wife is dead and that Felix is barely clinging to life after being fed to a shark. Seems drug lord, Franz Sanchez (Robert Davi) was none too thrilled about Bond and Leiter's bust. From his posh villa in Mexico, Sanchez is perfectly content to let bygones be bygones. But Bond wants revenge.

Told to drop things by his superiors, Bond defies the British government, is stripped of his double-o ranking and embarks upon a campaign of revenge. To this end he seems perfectly in tune with the aspirations of Pam Bouvier (Carey Lowell), an undercover FBI agent assigned to pick up where Felix left off. Together, Bond and Bouvier prowl the back streets of Mexico City, doing battle with Sanchez's psychotic henchman, Dario (a very young, Benicio Del Toro) while Bond attempts to bleed Sanchez maul, Lupe Lamore (Talisa Soto) for information.

What is particularly disappointing about this film is the sudden absence of fundamental elements that we have come to expect from a Bond movie; scantily clad women, witty one liners, memorable action sequences – and above all else – a certain amount of seriousness on the part of the actors to suspend the audience in the art of make believe. But there is nothing even remotely engaging about a misguided vignette that has Wayne Newton cast as a charlatan leader of a religious cult. Nor is there anything memorable about the brief moments of action that round out an otherwise boring movie in which the bulk of the plot concentrates on Sanchez – sneering and plotting while other men with guns shoot it out with Bond and Bouvier.

MGM/UA's DVD is the absolute worst transfer of any of the Bond movies. Riddled in aliasing, pixelization, shimmering of fine details and severe edge enhancement, the video is never stable long enough to appreciate the story – such as it is. Colors are dated with overly pink flesh tones, weak contrast levels and a generally gritty digital that is distracting to say the least. Blacks are more deep gray, whites are either blooming or dull and age related artifacts are quite obvious throughout – much more so than expected for a film of this vintage. The audio is stereo surround, but is generally strident and lacking in bass. Extras include two documentaries, audio commentaries, promotional materials and the film's theatrical trailer.",0 "It started on the road and probably shouldn't have gone farther. Psycho delivery driver gets fired due to poor driving. Stalks woman who reported him, and her family. I would tell you the ending but technically that would be a spoiler - though nothing could really spoil this cookie cutter predictable attempt. A very UN-thrilling thriller. May attract a few young males hoping to see Yasmine Bleethe in Baywatch attire - but, sorry guys - no bikini today.",0 "This movie is a beautifully acted psychological thriller. The film describes some of the ways in which victims of pedophiles suffer. Another sad message is that victims of sexual abuse may be doomed to seek similar treatment over and over again for the rest of their lives.

I've loved Joseph Gordon Levitt since he played ""Tommy"" on Third Rock From the Sun and he's grown into a powerful actor. I wasn't familiar with Brady Corbet's work but he is equally moving as the young man trying to remember the sexual trauma he experienced as an eight-year old boy.

Elizabeth Shue and Elizabeth Long are both tragically perfect as the clueless mothers of these two boys.

Obviously, this movie is truly an expression of love for the writers and directors - for everyone involved. This story and its message are so important, and a cautionary tale for parents everywhere.",1 "When you see a woman buried to her neck and children about to stone her, the brutality of mankind is shown in full view. Regardless of how one feels about the Afghan war in Canada, the overthrow of a regime dedicated to treating women worse then dogs was justified. It is hard to believe that in the modern Muslim world there are still people willing to humiliate and torture women. If this is how the majority of men still want to indoctrinate their boys in school to behave, then the world will remain a cruel place for woman from Morocco to Indonesia. I find it hard to believe that any Muslim living in Canada would oppose the United Nations intervening in a society were music at a wedding is a crime. To lock up young women and force them to marry against their will was a problem in many countries till recently. Few women in the west would tolerate such control over their bodies by men. I am ashamed that some generally good religious Muslim men in our community still refuse to condemn such outrageous behavior.",0 "Really, watch something else.

I can get down with action films... but this one is just a bit too ~hardcore~ for its own good.

I know, in a film, you're supposed to suspend your disbelief, but when is enough enough? The rooftop jumping, toilet dropping scene is proof enough for this.

If the goal of these two Catholic boys was to destroy those who were considered ""bad"" in the eyes of God, why did they not kill Willem Dafoe's character, seeing as homosexuality isn't accepted in the eyes of God, especially by the Catholic church?

I'm wondering why Willem Dafoe even entertained this script. Maybe he bought too much junk on eBay and needed some cash. Maybe he just wanted to wear that pretty dress some place. I don't know.

I do know, though, that we now make fun of the guy who loaned it to us.

And he'll never hear the end of it.",0 "The story is about three prisoners and their life in jail captured by a documentary directer Juhi Chawla. As per as acting is concern: Jackie Shroff is average,Nagesh Kukunoor and Gulshan Grover is good,Juhi Chowla is brilliant and above all Naseeruddin Shah is excellent as usual.The script of the film is well written and directed it in a good way. The story comes to end with an unpredictable twist and we can see that how a single incident connects three different peoples for ever just like three walls in a room. The ending doesn't destroys the movie, it makes much more better. I saw almost all the films but this is probably the best movie directed by Nagesh Kukunoor.",1 "This film is really bad, while you have several characters from the Great TV series, it is clear they knew crap when they saw it because they gave nothing in their performances.

The Guardian which is the main bad guy, is just a joke beyond words. HE is not at all menacing, mainly just an idiot, who repeats himself, makes poor jokes, with pasty skin and S & M gear on. You get practically no flashbacks of note, which is a staple of the series, nor do you get really great fight scene, these scenes are rushed and edited so poorly you would wish they had just skipped them altogether and the film goes where Highlander 2 proved you should not go, the near future.

All of the acting is bad in the film, the sfx are bad, the editing and camera work are bad and the script was really bad. There really is nothing good about this film including the main plot point of the source that is any good. And I haven't even mentioned all of it yet.

I have never been a big fan of just ignoring a movie in a series and so forth. You just deal with it and move on is what i usually say. However, i would not shed a single tear if this film is trashed and they were to start over, because this movie is just plain horrible and an embarrassment to highlander fans.

There is talk of it going to the sci fi channel, but this film isn't even good enough for that, it should be on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I can't even believe there had been talk of a theatrical release, the series had better production values.

There is also talk of it going through a re edit, but without addition filming I can't see how you can fix it.",0 "This has always been one of my favourite books. I was thrilled when I saw that the book had been made into a movie, for the first time since it was written, over 50 years before.

I think Romola Garai is brilliant as Cassandra, but it is a shame that some of the dialogue she is given just does not compare well with the book. Bill Nighy did not seem to be the right actor for James Mortmain, who I think is more of a stiff-upper-lip type, not so artsy as Nighy portrays him - Mortmain has written a book but it's a scholarly work.

I know a book has to change when it becomes a movie, but I missed characters like the romantically-minded school teacher and the dressmaker's dummy that Cassandra ""brings to life"". I also miss details like Topaz and Rose having long blonde hair (described beautifully in the opening pages of the book) and Thomas being 15 - so not quite as precocious as he appears to be in the movie.

The movie captures some of the book's charm: the castle, the countryside, Cassandra's emotions, but I felt it was unnecessary to make up a particular scene between Cassandra and her father (I think this was done to accommodate Nighy's acting style) and I was really disappointed by the ending, where Cassandra seemingly lets go of her love, writing it off as a general experience, rather than declaring her love, as she does in the book, and her hope that the man she loves will return.",0 "To sum it up right away : as far as I'm concerned , the script is very lame , plot is full of highly unbelievable events , dialog is clumsy and doesn't sound convincing at all , acting is mostly bad , story is plagued with one stereotype after another , there is not enough gore , violence and perversion to justify this pathetic , unimaginative exercise in bad cinematography ... I'm not saying that everything in this movie sucks , but it's mostly garbage . That's just what I think , I hope the fans of this completely irrelevant and inferior visual wanking will not be offended because this is nothing personal . I just hated watching this pointless little snot of a movie .

I love Japanese movies and cherish every opportunity to get my hands on them , especially if they're twisted . I hoped this was twisted , or at least watchable . What I got is something almost on the same level as the early Bruce Lee movies . I liked them when I was in primary school , but that passed almost 20 years ago .

"" School of the holy beast "" is good Japanese exploitation , and same goes for "" Shogun's sadism "" . "" Sex and fury "" is so pale , unimaginative , restrained and melodramatic compared to them that it makes me sick to my stomach . It would make me sick even if I hadn't watched those movies .

If you like watching naked chicks kill people so much that you can tolerate completely silly and childish story with no originality or depth whatsoever - than watch this . You'll see the main actress butt - naked , sword in hand , splattered with blood of her enemies - and not just once , but twice . Wow , what a treat . Too bad the movie doesn't consist only of these two scenes , because it would be much better that way .

2 out of 10 .",0 "I saw this with live orchestral accompaniment at the local high school. We cheered and booed the dashing hero and dastardly villain and had a fantastic time. They were amazingly professional and should take this on tour at old theaters with orchestra pits. Go ArMack! If your local symphony orchestra does this as a silent movie show, the movie is good enough to enjoy even if the music isn't as great as ours was.

This is definitely the sort of thing that inspired The Princess Bride, one of my all-time favorites. Lots of swashbuckling adventure, romance, and humor. The plot worked a lot better than most movies I see (or don't bother seeing) these days, and it was very well paced. I was surprised how few dialog cards they needed to use, too.

I thought the color looked kind of washed out, but maybe that was the computer projector they were using. I'd love to see a 35-mm print on a big screen.

If you're looking for a movie to perform live accompaniment with, this is an excellent choice.",1 If you don't have anything to do and you really love to see bad movies without a red line. Well I still wouldn't recommend this. Some movies are so bad that you can laugh at them. But this is so bad you'd probably be more likely to become a serial killer before likening this movie. this is a movie that has OK effects which is sad on such a bad movie. I think it's a waste of space in the video-stores..

Sh*t-planet is a more soothing name for this so called movie.. I would probably recommend it to my wurst enemy...

What ever you do don't watch this movie.. it's not only the wurst Science fiction ever seen it's also the wurst movie ever...,0 "Often when a classic movie is forgotten there is a good reason for it. However this is not the case with Eagle & the Hawk. Sure it's no masterpiece but it's a pretty solid WWI movie that focuses on the realities of war. It reminds me somewhat of ""All Quiet on the Western Front."" It's not quite as good as that but it has similar themes.

The movie stars Fredric March & Cary Grant. Cary Grant is probably the more well known star today but back in 1933 March was the bigger name and he is the main star with Grant as the supporting player. I love Cary Grant and he does a pretty good job here playing a character that is not completely sympathetic. This is the type of part that you would not really see from him later in his career. However March is the real star of this picture and he is absolutely fantastic as a soldier who slowly loses his nerve. It's a real shame March is not better remembered today. Overall March and Grant have great on screen chemistry and interact well as two WWI pilots who dislike each other yet respect the others' abilities. The ending in my opinion is also quite memorable.

The only sour point of the film is a small cameo by Carole Lombard. Don't get me wrong I am a big fan of Lombard but her part is pretty pointless here and it doesn't mesh with the rest of the film. It just seems the writers wanted to add a little romance to the movie whether it fit or not.",1 "Great film.......I laughed, I cried and I've done a lot of thinking and reminiscing since seeing it.

I think anyone can relate to this film about coming of age. It brought me back to a time in my life when people would constantly tell me ""these are the best times of your life"" when actually I thought they were some of the most confusing and difficult times! Yet some of the things we hated as kids we tend to spend our adult life trying to recapture.

I recommend this film to anyone.....especially anyone who loved where they came from but couldn't wait to grow up and move on.

Go see this film and enjoy!!!",1 "The main problem with 'Jacked Up' is the incredibly unrealistic storyline. A boy 'accidentally' shoots a cop while stealing his car. The same boy, with a typically bad conscience, believes he should get to know the cop's family. The whole cast look older than the characters they portray are. For example Dre looks in his twenties when he has only just finished high school. It's small errors like this that are 'Jacked Up's' downfall. Another problem is the acting of the 'gangsters' in the story, their is know real evil in the characters. This makes some of the characters less believable. Other than these minor mistakes, 'Jacked Up' is an enjoyable film. A advise it to any viewer who can buy a copy from under £10.

8/10",1 "when i see a movie review with such polarized opinion, i want to give it a chance. i bought this as a previously viewed DVD from a national video rental chain and only paid $5. not worth the $5. all the bad has been said already.

the acting is about on the par of a softcore film on cinemax. bleh. the only thing i liked about it (maybe didn't dislike is more appropriate) is that the actresses in this movie are pleasing to look at.

i didn't think i would be getting a great movie here and biy was i right. the worst movie i have seen a quite sometime.

this one's going in the garage sale pile.",0 "First of all, the title is kind of misleading: yes, there are blondes in this movie, but they use guns approximately 1% of the running time (at the most). Unless the title refers to their others ""assets"", in which case it makes more sense. Anyway, this spoof of ""Basic Instinct"" (with such side targets as ""Indecent Proposal"", ""Body Of Evidence"" and ""9 & 1/2 Weeks"") is certainly not lazy - there's a visual or verbal gag every 10 seconds or so - but, unfortunately, only a small portion of these gags score; the first 10 minutes are the best, the last 10 minutes, in particular, degenerate into sloppy idiocy. For most of the people involved, this was their first and last film; one that I would have liked to see in more is former Miss California (or so the Troma DVD cover claims) Elizabeth Key, who is not only beautiful (though the nudity is provided by the other leading lady, Gloria Lusiak), but a pretty funny comedienne as well. *1/2 out of 4.",0 This was a great movie really enjoy the viewing of it. It is fun but yet has some very real meaning. The movie has a real light side that makes it very enjoyable. I would recommend this movie to anyone. The actor and actress do a very good job in their roles. The movie really make you think about relationships and how they could turn in many different direction. I also liked the back drop for the movie it was easy to follow and enjoy. I also like the way the plot was carried out throughout the movie. There was a nice even follow in the movie. The character in the movie were just right but not over bearing. All the character seem to flow together and match each other perfectly.,1 "I only saw one episode of this train wreck, and never seeing it again will not be enough to erase it from my memory.

I could not believe how poorly written this show was. Some shows have a feel that they were produced on the first draft of a script; this one felt like the scripts were taken from rejected ideas.

The plot of the episode I saw involved one of the guys and his nervousness of getting committed to his girlfriend. As tired and worn out as this cliché is, the climax of this plot was the girlfriend surprising him by moving into his apartment building in order to strengthen their commitment. Not his apartment, mind you -- his apartment BUILDING. Has this actually happened to anybody you know? I was aghast at how stupidly the dialog played out. I could write better stuff half asleep under the influence of pain medication.

Aside from this lame story, nothing in the show made any real sense. Why a pizza place? It added no comedy to the show and was a pretty mundane idea. With Seinfeld they always met in an ordinary coffee shop. But the background there was irrelevant; the acting and dialog were superb. Here the pizza place was a distraction from the horrible lines being said, only, there was nothing noteworthy about the pizza place.

Notice the years this show ran, from 1998 - 2001. This is when reality shows started to take off. Shows like this made viewers switch.",0 "The family of a mob boss have plenty to hide within the confines of their beachside castle. There's a body or two buried in the garden, the internment of one of these was witnessed by a criminal on the run, but he says nothing when caught by the police. Some years later that same criminal is released and he returns to blackmail the family of oddballs, lunatics and murderers. In the days before his release the family had killed a few people randomly, but now they get rid of the bodies in a vat of acid in an outhouse. Are you still with me, OK stay tuned it gets more and more hard to follow, the family also have a sister who was locked up in an asylum after she murdered her father, except she didn't, as the truth the doctors told them would be worse for her mental state. OK now, the woman we think is the mother is in fact the daughter, except she isn't, she's an imposter, then the father comes back, except it isn't really him, oh and there's rape, incest a hint of paedophilia, oh and there's some Nazi's who gas merkin wearing naked women, oh and one of the family escaped the Nazi's and now she's traumatised by those memories. Now getting back to the random killings, one of these guys rapes the mother, or was it sister, daughter, I don't think even the director knew, but yeah this girl gets raped and then he gets murdered and the sister who sleeps with the same guy after he raped her mother then gets upset because of his demise. The son, now there's a loon, he is a psycho, if only for his dreadful dress sense, in fact everyone seems to wear bad wallpaper inspired clothes. Hello are you still there, for those who are I hope you're following it because I'm pretty lost. Oh I forgot to mention there's a dog strangling too, for those who love such things, yeah this film is just full of ideas, none of them very coherent, just for good measure and to complicate things even more, the director goes for lots of crazy psychedelic camera-work, shot from crazy angles and with lots of headache inducing zooms in and zooms out and zooms in and zooms out and zooms in…I'm dizzy just thinking about it. The saving grace is the fine acting, all the performances are spot on….eh no I'm lying, they're all pretty dire, all these actors went to the Scooby doo bad guy school of acting, lots of sinister looks and eye rolling. The orchestral score is unusual for a Gialloish film and its also pretty mundane and distracting, as is the awful dubbing. So in a film which approaches so many subjects you might think its full of sex and nudity….eh no.

Oh I forgot to mention the Etruscan skeletons, damn.",0 "The TV guide described the plot of SEVERED TIES as thus : "" An experiment on a severed arm goes awry "" so right away I thought this was going to be about an arm that`s got a mind of its own as seen in THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS or THE HAND or someone getting an arm transplant as in BODY PARTS . Both premises are tried and tested , or to be more accurate tired and tested so I was curious as to how the producers would approach the story . I actually thought they were making an arthouse movie like PI down to the use of B&W photography at the start of the film but the makers seemed to have tired of this approach after 20 seconds and decided to make a splatter comedy similar to THE EVIL DEAD . I`ve very little to say on this except that I disliked THE EVIL DEAD movies and I disliked SEVERED TIES and it seems really unfair that films like this use an obscene amount of rubber when the third world is crying out for condoms",0 "I went to see 'Shakespeare In Love' because it won the Oscar for Best Picture. I didn't like it (simply not my cup of tea), but I just loved Gwyneth Paltrow. One of the most wonderful performances of the decade. Then I saw 'Great Expectations', another delightful performance, and right now she's one of my favorite actresses. What do you do when someone's your fave actress? You scan their filmography looking for other movies to watch. I ran through Paltrow's list on IMDb and came across 'Hush'. The 4.5 average rating didn't look too promising. Then my sis also told me she thought this movie was awful, but I decided to rent it anyway.

The movie tells the story about Helen, Jackson and his mother Martha. Helen gets pregnant, they marry and go live with Martha in her giant house. Martha's very possessive over Jackson. More and more it becomes clear Martha's not the nice mother-in-law she appeared to be. She's spreading lies between the two lovers and things get worse. This all leads to a, looking back on it, predictable sequence of scenes.

But... there's Jessica Lange. She plays Martha. She really got on my nerves. Actually, when the movie was over I completely hated her. She does a fantastic acting performance. I really wanted to strangle her sometimes. Her character that is. Gwyneth Paltrow plays a quite vulnerable and likable young woman. That combined with the evil Lange caused this movie to be suspenseful for me. Really. It was predictable, but it was the kinda movie where we (I anyway) so want the heroine to win over the evil character. It is not the best movie ever made, but I was really sucked into it, especially because of Lange's perfect portrayal of an utter bitch.

So I can't believe why this movie only got 4.5 out of 10 here on IMDb. I overall liked it and grade it much higher:

8 / 10",1 "I keep giving Fangoria movies a chance and keep being let down. This is it. I decided to give this one a chance because it is by the same maker as Angel of the Night which I thought was pretty good. No more, if Fangoria has their name on it I will steer clear. This movie SUCKED!!!! They may have a great magazine but they should think twice before putting their name on crap like this. AVOID at all costs!!!!",0 "There is very little i can say about this film that hasn't been heard before but i will anyway.Errol Flynn was and always will be the greatest swashbuckling adventurer the cinema has ever known. THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD is by far his most fondly remembered role. Nobody was ever better as the dashing rogue swinging from trees,waving his sword or flirting with Maid Marion(the beautiful OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND).But Flynn is not alone.He is joined by what is my opinion the best supporting cast ever assembled in an adventure film. Claude Rains is brilliant and the evil and despicable Prince John.Basil Rathbone(one of the very best screen villains)plays Sir Guy of Gisbourne to the max. Little John is played by the always wonderful Alan Hale(Flynn's on and off screen buddy),Eugene Pallette is a hilarious Friar Tuck and Montagu Love adds to the fun as the corrupt bishop.The film is further enhanced by the early use of three color technicolor and the outstanding music by Erich Wolfgang Korngold.William Keighley and Michael Curtiz both sat on the director's chair for this film and both give their touch to it.The climactic duel between Robin and Sir Guy is by far the most imitated and influential sword fight in cinema history. So for those out there who want to see something worthwhile i recommend THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD,not only for being Flynn's greatest role or being the best of all Robin Hoods but for being one of the greatest adventure films of all time!!!!!!

AN EASY 10 OUT OF 10",1 "After ""Blair Witch Project"" the scary ""mocumentary"" business went through the roof. Ten years later, the trend is still going strong, with at least a couple dozen films with the same concept of hand-held terror. ""Lake Mungo"" is by far the best since ""Blair Witch"". It accomplishes much more than this year's other big effort, ""Paranormal Activity"", which, I found rather tame at best. Played almost as a television news special, ""Lake Mungo"" is the most believable entry thus far. The downplayed, monotone performances of the actors is very effective. The naturalism they maintain only adds more edge and anxiety to the story. And speaking of story, unlike most of the other first person horror movies, ""Lake Mungo"" actually has a good one. It's an honest mystery, full of secrets and lies, wrapped around a paranormal thriller. It has enough twists, turns and enough surprises/scares to keep anyone's attention. Rarely have I experienced so many chills in one sitting. Don't wait for the Hollywood re-make already in the works, there's no need, the Australians got it right the first time (unlike you, Hollywood.) Don't miss one of the best horror films of 2009.",1 "That might sound a little harsh. It certainly wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen, but it's down there. The events that transpire throughout the course of the film stay true to V.C. Andrews' novel, in some ways. Four siblings are locked in the northern wing of their grandparents' house by their selfish mother and sadistic grandmother after the death of their father has left the family in debt. The movie does open up before ""Daddy's"" death, and there is even a scene where the oldest daughter, Cathy, is given a music box by her beloved father, just like in the book. However, the relationship between Cathy and her father seems almost irrelevant to the whole feel of the movie, from what I can remember, because unlike in the book, their relationship is not developed well, not much beyond that one scene in fact. And there were sequels to the book that were able to expand on the effects Chris Sr.'s death had on Cathy, especially seen through her incestuous relationship with her brother, which was cut out of the movie. Then there is the night of the father's birthday party (only in the movie, there are no guests), and the family is waiting for him to come home from work. He never does. Instead, a couple of police officers show up at the door. Cathy screams. Cut to Cathy and Chris in a bus (was it a bus? In the book, they were in a train), on their way to their grandmother's house, or rather, mansion. Blah blah blah. The kids arrive, are locked away in a northern room, and that's where they stay for the next few years. You have to pardon me. I know all about the book. I know it by heart. But I haven't seen this movie for years so I don't remember exactly how long they were imprisoned in the film. In the book, it was like 3 years, four months and 16 days. In the closet of this sequestered room, there are stairs leading up to the attic where they often like to play, and where Cathy practices ballet. Cathy and her brother Chris do not go on to have a love affair, though, like they did in the book. Yet there is still plenty of abuse. Besides the obvious fact that they are being locked away from the world, the grandmother also cuts Cathy's beautiful hair and slaps the children and stuff. And Chris and Cathy do like to take baths with the other one watching. The ending is the worst part of this movie. It strays far from the book's conclusion. It goes for sensation, unlike V.C. Andrews, whom I think knew what she was doing when she had the story end the way it did. She also left room for a sequel. Jeff Bloom really didn't. I read that there was talk of a sequel, but they never got around to it. I'm glad. Petals on the Wind was my favorite in the series, and the rest were really good too, better than the original because the characters were more complex. I shudder to think of what would have been done to them in a film adaptation. Overall, this is not a movie worth seeing. Fans of the book will most likely be disappointed, and those who haven't read it probably won't like it much either. I don't know quite why the movie failed to live up to the book. Well, no movie seems to, just by principle, with rare exceptions. On top of that, the acting wasn't very good, though Kristy Swanson does look like Cathy would. Though perhaps that's because I originally bought the movie tie-in copy of the book, and the kids on the cover were modeled after the actors. There certainly was a vague resemblance between Cathy, Chris and their younger brother Cory, twin of Carrie, on the cover and the actors who played them. On some of the movie covers, it shows the illustrated picture from the book cover. It is cool. It shows four kids standing in the attic doorway as if they are prepared to enter a dangerous other world, looking scared. The main failure though is probably that the way V.C. Andrews wrote the book cannot be duplicated by any director or screenwriter. And the prologue was ten times better than Cathy's voice-over during the opening credits. But mainly, this is the kind of story to be read, especially since I feel that V.C. Andrews was a much better writer than most people give her credit for being, most of all this movie, which by the way, she had a cameo in. She was a window-washer. So if you want the story, read the book. Read the whole series, if you want. I gave the first four books very high ratings on Amazon, though they disturbed me greatly, and in a way, I hate them for that. And it takes a lot to disturb me. Forget this. I give it a 3 out of ten.",0 "When you get experienced enough as a filmmaker and you learned most of the tricks of the trade, you realise that the best thing to do for an art-house director is to stick mindlessly to whatever made you successful with the festival-going crowd and the film critics earlier. Never mind that you have no new ideas and that the most your film does is deliver the 'good old feeling' everyone expects.

That's a fate Kaurismaki seems not to have been able to avoid with his Lights in the Dusk. Totally devoid of ANY new or creative ideas with respect to what we have seen from him before, Kaurismaki's feature recycles his lately trademark - and otherwise very appealing - darkish, yet basically cheerful coloured backgrounds and surroundings behind and around the actors. But the story is the most feeble ever... No real suspense, only mindless clichés about a totally hapless main character (no, this is not irony on the film's part, guys, this is just the 'good-old-Kaurismaki-feeling' we yearn for and it only seems to work because his other films were enjoyable on their own). Plus some sentimental music tossed in (who would have expected that from Kaurismaki? ;), without the real possibility for the viewer to relate to the characters (you feel no sorry, no empathy, only anger at most about how incapable they are).

And finally, even at about 75 minutes, this movie is waaaay longer than it should be: another sign of running out of fresh ideas. Hey Aki, you'd better take a rest and come back with something that's more up to your standards. And my advice for the potential viewer: watch the other parts of the trilogy (The Man Without a Past, 2002; Drifting Clouds, 1996), and skip this one.",0 "Spaghetti Westerns are Clint Eastwood to the average dork like me. Apparently they also meant high camp comedy to many in Europe. The DVD information says this movie took more lira in Italy than 'The Good Bad and Ugly'. The comedy spaghetti was family fare apparently. What a flight of whimsical ideas this one turned out to be. The spaghetti western era ended with this one. An idea that had travelled so far that it had finally arrived backwards and inside-out. Very strange.

Klaus Kinski gets dubbed out of earshot and Terence Hill has the voice of a girl with the blue-eyed, doe-eyed smile of an angel. No wonder Patrick McGoohan dug deep in his own character-filled pockets for an inspired way to project his cavalry h'Officer. Yes, he came up with the, possibly, historically accurate idea of a Thomas Meagher....""I am an American"". He looks dreadfully sun burnt too. Location filming in Monument Valley did his Celtic skin no good at all. This movie can only be viewed as episodic, a series of set-pieces. I am sometimes annoyed by McGoohan's accents as they blur his diction and my enjoyment of his delivery. This time, his accent is SO inspired, SO unpredicted, why, it's Genius !!",1 It really is a surprise to me a made-for-TV movie will be that enjoyable. If someone famous like Tom Hanks or J.Lo are in this movie. It's gonna be a huge hit. But all the actor/actress in this movie are good enough to beat anyone of them. Richard Ruccolo is one of main factor to make this movie funny. Hope he can make more good movie for us in the future. Anyway. U may find that this movie is impossible to be better than Hollywood movie. But it's free on TV man!!! Nothing beat that.,1 "Lovely Susan Hayward comes to town looking for a few good men. They're in short supply in that Mexican town so she takes what she can get. Her husband, Hugh Marlowe is trapped in their mine with a broken leg and surrounded by Apaches. She hires Gary Cooper, Richard Widmark, Cameron Mitchell, and Victor Manuel Mendoza to rescue him.

Of course it's the gold that's attracting these guys, but having Hayward along on the trail is certainly diverting enough. They arrive at the mine with husband and Apaches still there.

There's little suspense here, mainly because the men fill out the casting stereotypes we've come to expect from them. I can't say any more on that subject lest I spoil the viewing if you're at all interested.

I can't wrap myself around the concept that Marlowe was even alive after a few days journey to town and back. It's what makes the rest of the film somewhat ridiculous in my eyes.

Still the stars perform admirably and they are the reason for watching Garden of Evil.",1 "**SPOILERS*** Originally called ""1/9"" or the NYC Seventh Avenue subway line that runs the length of Manhattan Island and ends at the tip of The Battery ""Adrift in Manhattan"" connects three lonely people who live along its route.

20 year old camera store worker Simon Colon, Victor Rasuk, is obsessed in photographing people on the streets, as well as subways, of New York. One day Simon comes across this lady sitting in the park and becomes infatuated with her multi-colored, or rainbow, scarf.The lady in question Rose Phipps, Heather Graham, becomes very agitated, and even frightened, when Simon mails a number of photos he took of her at her brownstone.

We never quite get what Simon's reasons for mailing his secretly taken photos of Rose were but it almost gets him fired from his job. Instead Rose soon becomes almost as infatuated with Simon as he's with her to the point of inviting him into her home and, to Simon's utter surprise and delight, forces him, a virgin, to make love to her!

Like Simon we soon find out that Rose is not all there, emotionally, in that she's estranged from his husband high school teacher Mark, William Baldwin, and is suffering from a deep depression in the tragic loss of her and Mark's two year-old son Casey, Leim De Villa. Rose's sexual relationship with Simon soon starts to effect her work as an eye doctor in her treating a patient of her's the refined elderly and cultured gentleman Tommaso Pensara, Dominic Chianese.

Tommaso is slowly losing his sight and in him loving to paint that's as well has him receiving a slow and painful death sentence. Tommaso is also in danger of losing his job in the mail room in that he can't see the letters and packages in order to correctly distribute them. It's Tommaso's co-worker Isabel Parades, Elizabeth Pena, who not only takes the time to help him out at his job but cover up all his mistakes. Isabel also falls in love with the some 75 year old bachelor who for the first time in years feel that he's wanted for himself not his talents; in his music and his art.

All three main characters, Rose Simon and Tommaso, in the movie interconnect with each other due to their proximity to the 1/9 subway line. And it's that very reason that makes their lonely and desperate lives, who are aimlessly adrift in Manhattan, that much more worth living!",1 "Please, for your mental safety, stay far away from this awful movie! It's not even funny. Everything is failed. Director Gilles Paquet-Brenner tried to do like Michael Bay so he moved his camera at every image but he just managed to give us an headache. On stage, Titoff is not funny. On TV sets, he's just dumb. But on screen, it's catastrophic. He got dead cow eyes, he's unable to say a line with conviction,well i don't have enough words in English to tell you how Titoff is bad! The music is awful, the editing is terrible, the story has been written by a four years old kid,well, Gomez & Tavares, it's just a pain in the ass,the movie you don't want to see. Compare to it, VERCINGETORIX is a master piece!",0 "Synopsis - In 2012, the United States economy collapses and life for everyone is not the same. Once a NASCAR champion, Jensen Ames, (Jason Statham), hits rock bottom and spent several years in prison. His life was improving and changing for the better after meeting and marrying Suzy (Janaya Stephens) and having a baby girl. Then the steel mill closes, and he loses his job. But that was not the worst thing to happen to Jenson that day. Suzy is brutally murdered, and he is framed for her murder. Jenson is sent to Terminal Island, the worst and toughest for-profit prison in the country run by Warden Hennessey (Joan Allen). She has created the country's most popular pay-per-view sport, a kill-or-be-killed car race where the inmates race to win their freedom from prison after 5 wins. Every inmate driver is driving a monster car that they built which is loaded with machine guns, missiles, flamethrowers, napalm, and no rules. Warden Hennessey convinces Jensen to secretly take the place of the late 4-time superstar winner, Frankenstein, and wear his metallic mask in the race. If Jensen wins just one race, he can go home to his baby daughter. To get to the finish line, Jensen must kill his competition before they kill him.

My Comment - This is kind of a remake inspired by the 1975 movie, ""Death Race 2000,"" in name only. This movie stands on its own. The title ""Death Race"" tells it all. If you want to see an action pack race where all the drivers go through a gauntlet of death, then this movie is for you. There are some scenes that take the race to the max. If you ever had road rage, I am sure you would love to be driving one of these cars. You can see why the for-profit prison puts on these races, because I calculated that they would make a tremendous profit of $12.5 billion for 3 pay-per-view races. Jason Statham played his usually part as the tough kick-ass Jensen Ames very well. I know everybody will like the ending. (Universal Pictures, 1:39 minutes, Rated R)(8/10)",1 "I enjoyed this movie a lot as a kid as I enjoyed the flash guns and the other nifty computer stuff. This movie also has a bit of nudity in it, funny considering this movie was rated pg. It even has a couple of good deaths in it too. Just not the kind of stuff you would find in a movie these days unless it were just showing a male butt on screen. Here you get brief images of models and it is quite nice to look at. The plot has a plastic surgeon's patients dying off. What is strange is that none of these women seem to need any surgery to begin with. One particular girl kind of gets close to the doctor and through a series of events they uncover strange going ons. This movie is very entertaining as it has it all it seems. Good action here and there, some mystery, and some nice imagery. You also have a cool flash gun that stuns a person for a good while when used. It also has its rather funny scenes as a couple of those deaths that happen when they are filming those bad commercials are just great. The cast is rather good too, as Albert Finney may not be an action star, but he does really good here. James Coburn is also very good and they have a nice assortment of attractive girls too. They just do not make them like this anymore unfortunately.",1 "I wanted to love it, but Brian De Palma's ""The Black Dahlia"" is a flat, paceless, uninvolving, constipated bore. It bears few of the director's signature set pieces, and possesses none of the energy of classics like ""Body Double"". ""Dressed To Kill"", ""Blow Out"" and ""Scarface"". Based on the rambling, seedy novel by James Elroy, which I read and enjoyed very much over a decade ago, this filmization of the novel fails in its casting, structure and set design. Although the film's period Los Angeles has all the trappings of ye olde Hollywoodland, it looks like a movie set. Josh Hartnett is totally unconvincing in his central role, as is the highly masculine Hillary Swank as a ""femme fatale"" (give me a break! she belongs in an Almodovar movie!) who sucks Hartnett into a convoluted web and her unappealing mouth. Scarlett Johannsen, who looks ravishing in a shot or two, is weak as water, and owns little screen presence. The narrative is unbelievably matter-of-fact and most of the film's surprise ""revelations"" are plain silly. More conservative critics have focused on the film's ""sleaze"" and ""trashiness"". If ONLY there was more sleaze and trash. This is lightweight film noir that will will send most viewers back to the video store to rent the DVD of ""LA Confidential"", an excellent adaptation of another Elroy novel. This turgid celluloid clunker is something I will soon forget.",0 "Eccentric, brilliant and extremely likable scientist Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) manages to convince a journalist named Veronica Quaife (Geena Davis) working for 'Particle Magazine' to accompany him back to his apartment so he can show her his invention that will, according to him, change the world. Eventually Veronica agrees. Seth shows her his 'Telepods'. Devices that reintegrate objects placed in one pod and reintegrates them in another. Veronica is suitably impressed and takes the story to her ex-boyfriend and editor Stathis Borans (John Getz) who doesn't believe her and says that Seth is trying to con her. Seth contacts Veronica again and asks her to cover the remaining development of the telepods. Veronica sensing a massive story that she will have exclusive rights to, agrees. After some teething troubles Seth feels he is ready to test the pods out on himself. Unfortunately a fly is trapped in Seths pod as he is teleported. The computer which controls the teleportation decides to splice Seth's and the Fly's genes together. Veronica notices drastic changes in Seth's appearance and personality as he undergoes an horrific transformation into the Fly!

Co-written and directed by David Cronenberg I thought this was quite simply an excellent horror film. The script by Cronenberg and Charles Edward Pogue is gripping and really works on an emotional level unlike so many horror films, I actually felt sorry for Seth by the end and the rest of the characters are fleshed out very well so that we care for them. The pacing is excellent, starting off at a sedate pace but never becoming boring and then building up to the gory climax. The acting from both Goldblum and Davis is superb, if they have ever turned in a better performance than I have yet to see it. There are actually very few characters in the film, Seth, Veronica and Stathis is about it. The special effects look pretty good. There isn't much blood or gore, a bone sticking out of an arm and a melted hand is about it. But there are lots of disgusting gooey effects as Goldblum changes into a Fly. It's very well made and looks good. I've nothing really bad to say about it. It was an absolute pleasure to spend and hour and a half of my time watching this. Highly recommended, especially for those who value a well written story with good characters. Don't miss it.",1 """Big Night"" came off to me exactly like a movie that a bunch of actors who were friends decided to make together and of course each one wanted at least one big dramatic scene for themselves, so those of their friends that were writing the script and the friend directing gave them each one. And that was pretty much the entire story. They forgot that acting is not about ""playing a character,"" it is about giving the audience an experience. My experience was that they were not in the least concerned with me, the watcher. It was all ego on the screen. I was bored throughout.

I felt the same way about ""The Imposters,"" which Tucci also co-wrote.",0 "Appropriately, ""Monk"" is USA's lead-in for the highly superior dramedy ""Psych."" The two shows are both billed as mystery comedies, but that's about all the similarities between them. While ""Psych"" is a clever and original show that does fresh and funny things every week, ""Monk"" is an unintelligent show that ran out of fresh and funny things after the first few episodes. You have Tony Shalhoub as Adrian Monk, the ""defective detective,"" who is far too OCD for his own good. You have Bitty Schram (older episodes) and Traylor Howard (newer episodes) as his assistants, who put up with the worst out of him just because of his intelligence (as far as IQ goes; not emotional intelligence). Then you have the cases every week, which I think are always murder investigations. The point is, there's only so many things you can do with that when you refuse originality. The same holds true for the obsessive-compulsive jokes that come pouring out of this show like moviegoers from a Rob Zombie flick. Moments are funny (some in scattered episodes even verge on hilarious), but if you want a terrific show, stick with ""Psych.""",0 "ATTACK the GAS STATION is a very enjoyable movie from the koreans. The movie has a very different feel to it from most comedy i seen. The koreans has a very different aproach to comedy. When you see the title name it might sound retarded or something. What funny about robbing a gas station................Well when you watch the movie your going to fall in love with charaters i mean these Guy dont care about nothing. IT show us the past of each character on how they deal with society which is the paint guy, BULLdozer my favorite, the head leader and a guy with long hair.

These four misfits are just bored and they decided to rob the gas station for fun and they get into alout of trouble with gang members, with the police and you would be like man i wish i was there . This movie is just amazing. I really enjoyed when the hostages has to fight each other when bulldozer is feeling bored. JUst watch this movie if you want to have a good time. My friend who seen this movie loved it!!!!! track this movie down.

10/10",1 "Speaking as someone who has made an extensive study of the live-action Disney films of the 1960s-1970s I can say with some authority that this is truly one of the worst films ever released by Disney; almost unwatchable. With the charming Dean Jones and Yvette Mimieux at the center of a romantic plot this film has its moments (along with a delightful Maurice Chevalier, in what is a small role though curiously first-billed), but it is constantly derailed by the need to add monkey antics to the mix. Bringing in trained animals is a constant source of mirth in Disney live action gimmick comedies; it works in a Bubblegum Pop/ College Comedy setting (see the Disney film ""The Monkeys Uncle"") but against the backdrop of an American desperately trying to save an olive farm in Provence the entire film just fights against itself for a hundred minutes. Supporting characters rage about for no apparent reason, constantly entering and exiting the plot with no apparent motivation; and we are supposed to believe (and the plot hinges) on the concept that the entire village would be outraged that a man would use trained monkeys to pick olives for a harvest that last but three days a year instead of hiring locals is a stretch even by Disney standards (and this is the studio that convinced us a boy could turn into a dog and a car could have a mind of its own).

This was released in the year following Walt Disney's death. One might wonder if he would have chucked the entire thing rather than release this to theatres under the Disney name. It is truly shocking that this film made it to DVD before many other, better-remembered titles from the era.",0 "What can I say? Truly awful. Get has-been stars and some hip new ones to make a lesbian-themed film for HBO. The result - a dry stale muffin that's been overcooked. Everything about this film is embarrassing, from the sanctimonious and passé treatment of lesbians as victims to the terrifyingly awful third installment where Sharon Stone and Ellen DeGeneres offer an achingly sentimental tale of sperm banks in a style that only be described as thirtysomething on prozac or ecstasy. It feels so chaotic that you often wonder if they actually had to act. As for the rest, the first installment with Vanessa Redgrave contains more holes than a golf course; while the second with Chloe Sevingy and Michelle Williams feels too hip for its own good and sits uncomfortably with the other two parts.",0 "TCM:B is not bad compared to conventional crappy horror. It shows the ""beginning"" and birth of our favorite horror star Leatherface, and his mad family. (read plot summary for details). So here's the wrap-up: The good: Better gore, better use of the chainsaw by Leatherface, nice cinematography, nice story which underlays the first one.

The bad: more or less the same story, nothing original out of the ordinary. Ermey stole most of the madness, with less leatherface on screen The ugly: plot holes/gaps, bad editing, shaky camera at the end Now, the trivia in the IMDb says there were even more gorier scenes that was cut. This was sad. 'cos basically, the golden rule of a sequel to any horror is that it should be scarier/gorier/bloodier than the first one. Though there were some nice gore scenes, it wasn't enough to surpass the first one.

Anyways, wait for the unrated DVD if you want to see the gore. Otherwise give it a pass.",0 "I saw a screening of this last year at the Tate modern, i had heard a lot of the rumours surrounding this film... Was Robert Frank going to be there, was it the only screening that year... Well no on both points, it was however the only time it was likely to be shown in London this decade. But it did contain some of the most legendary and amazing rock and roll images that exist.. there were groupies having mass orgies on private jets, TV's thrown over balconies, awesome drug taking, celebrities, and sheer backstage boredom. Half way through, however, i did think, this is rubbish, its just full of rock clichés. But then i thought, actually no. This is where the clichés come from, they were the first people to do these things... And that is what you have to remember when watching this film, it is truly a snapshot in to the creation of rock and roll. If you get a chance to see an authorised screening of this film... Don't miss out. If that never happens, there are always copies floating about....

Joe",1 "For a movie that is of no interest whatsoever, this has quite a lot going for it, especially in the acting department: Larry Hagman, Susan Sarandon, Joe Don Baker et al are relaxed and agreeable. But no one manages to channel the glib repartee into anything resembling a character, in part because their contributions are mere slivers of celluloid crammed between pictures of cars driving around. Which does make a depressing kind of sense, since it's a racing movie; what makes no sense at all, especially given some promising set-ups, is the total absence of kinetics or pyrotechnics. It's a total arbitrary mess, looks like it wasn't even storyboarded. The filmmakers revert to slow motion every single time anyone does anything other than drive in a straight line, but that doesn't fool anyone. The one punctuation mark of the whole movie comes at the climactic Baker-Alan Vint coin toss, and I laughed as hard as anyone, but a REAL movie has one moment like that per scene. Allow me to lodge a special protest on behalf of poor Daina House, who is required to regress from classic tough-chick to wilting sex object the moment some creep gives her a flower.",0 "Being a child of the 80's I grew up on horror, everything from Freddy to Pinhead (and of course my favorite, Jason). I remember being 7 years old and watching Dawn of the Dead, it freaked me out, I had nightmares for weeks, even seeing it when I was 25 it still freaked me out. After that I became a zombie freak, Night of the living dead, Dawn of the dead, Day of the dead, Return of the living dead and more recently the 28 films became some of my favorites. Seeing the trailer for this film I thought it looked great, I knew it was a low budget film but this didn't bother me, seeing that some of my favorite films are low budget ""b"" films. When I saw it in the store I grabbed it and payed $14 (even though i usually buy used films much cheaper) for it seeing that I was already interested in the film and it was attractively packaged. That night I put it in kicked back with a beer and anticipated some awesome zombie fun. Boy was I wrong, this film was simply horrible, the acting was poor the story was non-existent and the quality was straight garbage, seemingly an attempt at a blairwitch type video camera affect and a total copy of the concept off diary of the dead (which wasn't great but is eons better than this), but with no plot. This film is unworthy of even existing, I own over 600 films and and love everything from evil dead to good fellas, night of the comet to American beauty and I can honestly tell you that i feel like destroying this film because it is a disgrace to my collection, avoid it at all cost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!",0 "After three big-budget Broadway-based period musicals in a row, Barbra Streisand obviously made a conscious career decision to convey a more contemporary image on screen. She succeeds in spades in this often hilarious 1970 comedy adapted by Buck Henry from a hit Bill Manhoff play and directed by Herbert Ross. Streisand plays Doris, a loud-mouthed fetish hooker who claims to be a model and an actress. She gets thrown out of her apartment when her neighbor, a nebbish bookstore clerk and aspiring writer named Felix Sherman, reports her clandestine activities to the landlord. This causes a confrontation in which she is convinced he's gay and seduces him. Another fight ensues causing them to get kicked out of his apartment. The rest of the film is mostly their bickering as they travel from one apartment to the next and carry out their improbable, Pygmalion-like opposites-attract romance.

In the same year he made two greatly underrated films, the mature ""Loving"" and the manic ""Where's Poppa?"", George Segal makes Felix a lovably insecure schlub and provides great chemistry with Streisand in her first non-singing role. They have a great scene in the bathtub where both are completely stoned as his fiancée and her parents walk in, and he has a funny scene where he pretends to be the TV to help Doris get to sleep. For Streisand's part, she wears a hysterically tacky negligee, dances in a go-go cage, appears in a soft-porn flick called ""Cycle Sluts"" (we only hear the riotous audio - ""Where are you putting THAT?"") and says the ""F"" word (unfortunately cut out of the DVD version though it's obvious when she says it). It's not her best screen performance, but it's one of her funniest. Henry's sharp dialogue and Ross' quick pacing help considerably in making this an enjoyably vulgar romantic comedy. The 2001 DVD had no extras other than three trailers, none for this movie.",1 "I Liked ""Death Note I/II"" too much, both at conceptual level as well as executional level thus as soon as I saw the poster, I grabbed the movie. However, this movie was a disappointment to me as it laked all the good things of Death Notes movies such as tight paced plot, adequate and intriguing twists n turns, the mental battle between Kira and L and the Reaper....

For the starters, movie plot involves the last 23 days of legendary L as he tries to battle out a group of environmentalists whose plan is to make world a better place for living by spreading a deadly Virus (mixture of Ebola and Influenza virus) and thus reducing the size of ecological footprint of mankind by reducing the number of living people rather than researching new energy efficient technologies etc. Wow! what a bunch of green crusaders who do good by killing people (have not they thought of any thing else???) However, L successfully saves the day with the help of a small maths genius and a not-so-small daughter of an virologist. Though L tries to pull out the old charm but most of his acting is focused on acting goofy (read here, eating so nonstoppingly that makes the average viewer nauseating, and sit, walk and type with such an awkward body postures and movement that merely watching them, hurts).

Another dampener is that there is no one intelligent enough to stretch L's mental abilities to the last point (as Kira did earlier) rather here L acts more like anyone secret service agents (he even throws something to save the lil kid in the movie). However the makers of this spin off must have forgotten that if it is any other secret service agent movie than please there are better options than watching almost physically disabled L. So in the end, it is a movie with a hole ridden plot that dwells more on mannerism of L rather than a good storyline.

Come on Guys, Bring Kira Back Please and please Bring the Old L back, at least one more time.",0 "Hallmark entertainment should leave these Jules Vern films alone. They did a bad job on filming,20,000 leagues under the sea,which was around a 3 hour bore,now,their version of Mysterious Island,again another bore which lasts about 3 hours. The special effects were bad,a bunch of relatively unknown actors,do not waste your time with this one. If possible,go to your video store or purchase a copy of the 1961 version which is far superior than this one. The 1961 version has well known British and American actors,good special effects that were outstanding for that year,even today they stand out,this film also has a Bernard Herrmann music score.",0 "84 minutes b/w movie by Fred the Hammer Williamson. It won't win any screen guild awards but no one expects it to. You see it to watch Jim Kelly, Richard Roundtree, Jim Brown, and Fred Williamson kick a$$. That's what they do. The 2 minute car ride on the BQE with no words could have been done away with and the funky dog is used too much. I liked the movie. Bad guys pi** them off, bad guys get killed. That simple.",1 "I saw this film at a student theater and I was completely underwhelmed by it. The acting is terrible (were they actors?)and the only part of the production that didn't make me laugh was the jokes.

Spudmonkey? What type of a title is that? The story is lifted directly from 'Hollywood's cliché underdog story writing' manual, yet the writer/director still manages to destroy this basic formula.

All the characters are so hollow that it is hard to offer even an ounce of care factor, and the original music was horrible to listen to.

The $2 that was wasted on the making of this movie may have been better invested on a lotto ticket. I hope the director of this film (can you call it that?) is ashamed of himself.",0 "The only thing I can really praise about this film is that for a feature film made with a $3,000 budget, it's a respectable achievement that should inspire other film makers that it is possible to make a film on a practically non-existent budget. And the type of film that Scott Ryan has made is perfect for a low budget film, a gritty documentary style. Its a style that suits the budget and available equipment. Other than that, however, there's not much else.

This film tries to give the impression that it is a documentary following in the footsteps of a Melbourne hit man named Ray Shoesmith as he goes about his business: killing people. The documentary maker Massimo Totti follows Shoesmith around asking question and filming murders.

In one key scene that typifies the whole movie, Shoesmith and Totti are driving in a car at night through the Victorian countryside with a drug dealer in handcuffs locked in the boot of the car. Shoesmith and Totti are arguing about whether or not Clint Eastwood was in The Dirty Dozen. Shoesmith stops the car, opens the boot with gun in hand and asks the captive in the boot if Clint Eastwood is in the movie. This is basically what the entire film is about: showing a hit-man and his victims casually talking and discussing pointless and irreverent topics like their favourite cars, football players and what they want on their hamburgers. Other glib scenes involve Shoesmith telling Totti that he's not going to share a bed with him in a motel if he takes his pants off. Scenes like this, of meandering vacant ramblings, are given a large amount of time in the movie, and my guess is they're supposed to be funny scenes. Other lengthy scenes involve Totti asking Shoesmith how much money would he have to be paid before he would eat human excrement and why has he never been to the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. 85% of the film is made up of scenes like this and frankly it gets really boring.

Scott Ryan gives a decent performance as Ray Shoesmith, but there is a problem which affects the whole movie. There are no characters or characterisations in this film. The characters are portrayed as superficially and rather clichéd. There is no depth in this film whatsoever. In this ""documentary"" we never learn why Shoesmith is a hit-man, we never learn who he kills and why or how he feels about it, we never learn who he works for and we certainly never learn what makes him tick. All we get to find out about him is that he hasn't the slightest conscience of killing people (in fact the whole thing means very little to him) and he thinks he's rather funny. He indulges in inane chit chat about pointless topics. I think what Scott Ryan is trying to do here is make a joke, the one joke this film is about: a hit-man who is an average bloke who talks about mundane things.

Unfortunately it fails on almost all fronts. In fact, its the worst aspects of 3 different types of cinema. It's not particularly funny, it doesn't work as a 'documentary' because you learn nothing slightly interesting or fascinating about the characters nor do you gain any insight when you see them or him in action, and the acting is so unnatural that it comes across in some parts as a bad improvisation game, it doesn't work as a gangster film because the majority of the film is spent on dull conversation.

This film is called the Magician because obviously like Shoesmith's dead bodies (which you never see but he does talk about) he makes things disappear, however a Hit Man knows how to hit his target, something this film certainly failed to do.",0 "What a delight! Finally, someone has made a send-up of 'b' horror movies that is both hysterically funny and scary at the same time. The premise is simple: A group of young film makers (think hot, scantilly clad babes) break into a dilapidated movie studio hours from the wrecking ball (the studio was closed years before after the tragic accidental death of a teen idol)to make the last movie ever there. Through the course of the night, the actors and crew are picked off one by one by a killer. Is it a ghost, or one of their own doing the horrific deeds? The fact that this was THE last film ever shot at Roger Corman's famous Venice studio is not lost, in fact the flim makers play up Corman's history with aplomb. Director Brian Katkin stylishly designs scenes to play off the no-budget elements and raises the bar. Clever, well directed, Katkin keeps his tongue firmly in cheek as he takes material that could have been pedestrian and adds both wit and silliness to make it come alive. But don't let this fool you. The film is genuinely scary, walking a tight-rope between farce and fear. Murder and mahem abound as freely as do the breasts. Again, playing off 'b' movie stereotypes, the audience is treated to an enjoyable romp. Producer Damian Akhavi (Shakedown) who had a hand in the script, show a sure hand and eye for this material. The ensemble cast of mostly unknowns create funny, memorable characters that the audience genuinely cares about and their untimely deaths are certainly felt. Kuddos also to composer Christopher Farrell (a long time Katkin collaborator) whose effective score guides the viewer from laughter to fear and back to laughter with ease.",1 "The only people who find this show funny are teenagers, Anglophile Americans, middle class people who think this stuff is cutting edge and people with questionable intellect.

When this show first appeared, it seemed to be genuinely making an attempt to be fresh, interesting and relevant to modern Britain but it quickly became apparent that it is, in fact nothing more than an 1/2 hour Carry on film, only with less subtlety and innovation.

If you want cutting edge British Comedy then go for Blackadder, The Day today, i'm Alan Partridge, Brasseye, Spaced, The Fast Show, The Office or the excellent Peep Show.

If on the other hand you want silly, surreal yet still very funny British comedy then go for Garth Marenghi, The Mighty Boosh, The IT crowd or Even dare i say, Red Dwarf.

Little Britain may make you smirk from time to time but essentially this is the most god awful piece of crap imaginable. People who think this is funny, will look back in ten years time and feel embarrassed and ashamed of themselves. Most likely, they'll claim they never liked it at all. This isn't just a step backwards in the history of the magnificent British comedy scene, it's a jump

Avoid at all costs.....it's total, utter crud!",0 """Cutting Class,"" the directorial debut of ""Excalibur"" screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg, receives a failing grade because it doesn't know what it wants to be: a slasher flick, a comedy, a teen drama, or a hybrid of all three. Add to that, so much potential arises within the script by Steve Slavkin for satirical jabs at the high school movie experience that you find yourself, when the movie mindlessly passes over these moments, banging your head against the wall at such wasted opportunities.

It's as if the filmmakers were cutting film school class themselves. But the movie isn't all bad, with some nice production values and some gory special effects-laden deaths, it helps keep it from being a complete bore. ""Cutting Class,"" however, still receives a failing grade in my book when you think the movie couldn't get any more tedious, when it reverts to type and descends into typical slasher/haunted house movie territory in the third act. And don't forget about some gratuitous female nudity as well (so keep your eyes peeled).

The story surrounds a would-be love triangle between high school outcast Brian Woods (Donovan Leitch), cheerleader Paula Carson (Jill Schoelen), and her basketball-hunk boyfriend Dwight Ingalls (Brad Pitt). Brian and Dwight were once the best of friends, but that turned sour when Brian was accused of murdering his abusive father and as a result was sent away to a mental institution for a few years. Now that he's been released, it isn't long before a series of gruesome murders begin occurring on campus and low and behold, Brian is the main suspect.

""Cutting Class"" does has some pretty cool deaths - a burning in a pottery kiln, an impaling here, a death-by-copy machine there, an ax to the brain - that are flawlessly executed. Most of these deaths happen to men who are apparently connected in some way to the lovely Paula Carson. Most of these men are in fact obsessed with Paula, including Principal Dante (Roddy McDowall), which is a little disturbing. The main problems arise in the tediousness of a whodunit that's all too obvious in the end. The performances are mostly below average. The worst of these is poor Donovan Leitch as Brian Woods. The film builds him up to be a sympathetic, misunderstood outsider but instead he turns out to be way too creepy, sneaking around in the dark and even once appearing in Paula's bathroom as she washes her hair.

""Cutting Class,"" perhaps if the filmmakers weren't busy cutting class themselves during their film school years, maybe they could have made a better than average teen slasher flick.

3/10",0 "Ninja Scroll is the best anime and it seems to me that Ninja Resurrection tries to live in the fame of it's ancestor but has no real ties to Ninja Scroll besides Jubei the vagabond. The art direction is of a totally different style then Ninja Scroll and Resurrection is only an hour long, if that. It ends all too suddenly and there are plenty of questions still left unanswered by the end. Not worth seeing.",0 "I put watching this movie off for so long because I basically knew I was going to have mixed feelings about it. This movie means a little more to me (and my family) than most people seeing I am a sibling of someone depicted in the movie. Granted this was just a movie and everyone is entitled to their opinion...it just upset me to see how my sibling was depicted in the film. From knowing my sibling, the director wasn't even close. Pretty sure he would feel the same way if someone depicted one of his family members incorrectly just to make a buck.

I find exploiting horrible events to make money disturbing and disgusting. Movie says (synopsis of movie on back of the DVD case) that it was told from different perspectives...I want to know where my sibling and his comrades perspectives were in this movie?! Sigh..some will do anything and everything to make a name for themselves.",0 "Guys,

this is a pretty good movie. This is a really black (dark) comedy. This means nothing about the Russia, but it's cool. BTW,the translate from Russian to English is completely sucks. It seem the guy who made the translation know almost nothing about Russian language and about English as well.",0 "I could not finish watching the entire movie, I got about 3/4's of the way. First of all, the movie is way too long(100 minutes), and the blood effects are just way too fake, I mean I know low budget is low budget, but the killing scenes are just too comical. The ape looks like a retard making comical grunts, and posturing, and the costume is just plain lame. I did love the opening credits, great job there. The acting was very bad, and when the ape lifts the cop car, that was just too ridiculous, it looked so fake, I think this film would have been better if a different approach to the ape was used, and they limited the blood and gore, the movie had potential and that's why I give it a three. Finishing a film is an accomplishment and these film makers did just that.",0 "I am one of the world's biggest fans of the original Phantasm. But I have to admit, that the sequels really do nothing for me.

Number four is the closest thing to the original. It lives the same world, but isn't distracted by pop culture phenomena of the time the way 2 & 3 seemed to be influenced/commentating on 'Evil Dead' and 'Home Alone'.

As much as I like seeing the Tall Man, Reggie and Mike back in action, Jody still seems forced into the series. I really wish that Coscarelli had just left him dead and moved on. The whole 'living ball' thing is plain silly.",0 "Seriously, I don't know who wrote the screenplay. The show started without relevant expository, and the worst of all was the Japanese guy. He was introduced in the first scene as a normal geek and BAM, he controls the time/space continuum(repeated 1,039 times). I mean, if that is not convenient scripting, I don't know what is. The characters are all unbelievable. Is like they live their lives as normal people and BAM, hey you know what, I think I can fly/bend time/read your mind/paint the future/blah blah. After all the hype, I don't know what people sees in the show. The editing sucks, the dialogue corny, the direction confusing and worst of all, it pretty much like a stylized but dumb-down version of X-men! I'm no fan of series, and if this is what they have to offer, I will keep my staple of Simpsons and Seinfeld reruns.",0 "i love how this movie shows what can happen if you are a teen mother, and if people find out. i think it was heartwarming and some points honestly brought tears to my eyes. Danielle Panabaker gives a great performance in this movie. this movie, to me, is an excellent thing for teens and their parents to watch. even people who aren't teenagers yet may like this movie. this can really show you that having sex as a teen, or even preteen, has it's consequences. all in all, i really like this movie a lot.lifetime is doing a great job by using such hot, young actors/actresses in their movies. i most definitely give this movie two thumbs up and five gold stars.",1 "This avant garde piece miraculously comes off without being cliché or dismissible (as is so common with artsy avant garde film). Peggy Lynch (I'm assuming is his daughter) goes through a sequence of harrowing events that had some connection with the alphabet. I particularly liked the bed-wetting and the dirt. The person I watched this with said the dirt looked very ""inviting."" I strangely agreed. Only Lynch could make dirt inviting. Very interesting work. 8/10",1 "I thought the movie was horrible. It had good intentions until Shue went crazy. With all the characters in the movie you would have thought the director would have used them more. For instance the mother, what mother would not come to see her first grandchild because she was scared to fly. How did she get there if she was afraid to fly? The housekeeper who knew something was wrong but never thought to call the husband to say to him ""I found a knife in the crib."" I mean there was a lot of unanswered questions. The girl Jenny, the diary. I hope there are no plans for the making of a ""First born 2"" This could have turned out to be a good movie if the director would have used his characters more.",0 "My friends and I viewed this a week ago with breathless anticipation. Receiving accolades from various award giving bodies in Manila and handpicked to represent the Philippines in this year's Oscar, we expected this film to follow the ranks of some of the best Filipino movie classics that were previously shown abroad. Unfortunately, we were left feeling cheated and disappointed.

The Good Points: The production design, cinematography, sound and the technical framework of the film were exceptional. Truly ahead of all the other films currently being produced in the Philippines nowadays. Some aspects of the film's dialogue were funny, especially the interaction of the couple who reside right above Cuneta's apartment. That was just simply hilarious. Koronel's acting was also the best in the film - in fact, I think it was the saving grace of the whole flick. Every time she graced the screen, she was superb, and her Darna stint was funny as well.

The Bad Points: Cuneta's acting was lackluster (I still think she can do best in drama films over comedy ones). The insertion of Cuneta ads (i.e. Alaska and McDonalds) was just plain tacky. Also, Cuneta's portrayal of a poor, struggling city lady was unbelievable and unrealistic. She, with her porcelain white skin, looked like she just recently re-bonded and highlighted her hair. She just didn't quite suit this role (to her credit, she's one of the best dramatic actresses in Philippine Cinema). Moreover, I think the film researchers didn't really do their job well. Some of the street scenes were not based on facts. When Cuneta tried to extort money in a passenger bus, almost all gave money, mostly in bills, to support her plight. This doesn't happen at all, much less, in ordinary buses. Secondly, when Cuneta paid her fees in the jeepney, nobody attempted to help her pass on the money to the driver. This does not happen at all either. Jeepney passengers, as protocol, almost reflexively, will extend their arms to help pass on fees to the driver. For someone who loves watching realism in Philippine Cinema, these scenes will not fail to disappoint.

To end, I think this film was vastly overrated. Don't expect too much from this film. However, I'd recommend it for Koronel's acting and some hilarious dialogues that, sadly, only come in spurts.

3/10",0 "The old Ms. Wanda Dunn (Gladys Cooper) had survived many times against death along her long life. Now she is afraid of Mr. Death, and does not open the door of her room in an old building for anyone who knocks the door. When the police officer Harold Beldon (Robert Redford) is shot in her front door, the reluctant woman opens it and lets him in. She helps Harold and she tells him about her fear of Mr. Death and that her time was coming, therefore she could see him. When a contractor (R.G. Armstrong) comes to demolish the building, he explains the ""old gives space for the new"" to her and she finds that her new journey has begun.

This beautiful tale is among my favorite episodes of ""The Twilight Zone"". The heartbreak story about the fear of the unknown is magnificently performed like a play on the stage by the awesome Gladys Cooper; Robert Redford in the beginning of his career and R.G. Armstrong. I believe this unforgettable tale shakes with every mature person, and there are many fantastic lines, like for example, ""better living in the dark than not living at all"" or ""old gives space for the new"". My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): ""Nada na Escuridão"" (""Nothing in the Darkness"")",1 "When people make movies as bad as this, do they attend their premieres? I really wanna know. How do they show their faces? I guess ""comedies"" like KICKIN' IT OLD SCHOOL must appeal to some kind of illiterate unschooled trailer-trash drool-toothed dipsticks, otherwise somebody fellated some major pole to get this greenlighted.

Was it the minimal ""draw"" of comedians Jamie Kennedy and Bobby Lee (both naturally funny guys, but atrocious in this movie)? Was it the anachronistic break dancing craze, a proved cash cow in the distant past? Was it that comet that passed near Earth and birthed a two-headed calf?

The fish-out-of-water premise always has potential: Justin (Alexander Calvert), a hot young breakdancer in the 80s, lands on his head and goes into a coma. He wakes 20 years later (retaining his 14-year-old mentality, which explains why he is now Jamie Kennedy) and reunites his break dancing team from the old days - Miguel A. Núñez Jr., Bobby Lee and Aris Alvarado, losers all, who can't dance any more, let alone act.

They enter a dance comp for some inane reason, but Justin's agenda is to show his ex-girl (Maria Menounos) he can still kick it, so she will leave her asshole boyfriend (Michael Rosenbaum) for him. It could have worked, had this movie hired an actual director, actual writers and actual actors.

What irks about KICKIN' IT OLD SCHOOL is that, like many movies of its lowbrow ilk, stupidity and non-talent is lauded. It is not a bad thing that Our Heroes ""win"" the day, but that they win without any effort; they win when others are so clearly superior; they win by being the biggest retards on stage - and that is supposedly how you win. No, kids. It's not. Even this bad movie (and others like it) is not made by people who DON'T know what they're doing. Yet this movie tells us a competition can be won if you don't know what you're doing; it tells us that all those years of practice for the other competitors counts for nothing; it tells us you can be a virtuoso at a craft without going through the rigors of becoming a virtuoso. (Like those bogus exercise-machine ads that claim, ""You don't even break a sweat!"" Hey, great! No pain AND gain!) And that's entirely unacceptable.

The funny thing about this movie (--there's something funny about this movie?) is that Bobby Lee's ""Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto"" bit looks hilarious in the trailers, in the film, like a Chinese burn. So too with the down-wid-it tongue-in-cheek title, all the failed gags, embarrassing plot points and mistimed bits. Nothing works outside of the thirty-second trailer.

What almost became an Olympic sport in the 80s has been marginalized in the 2000s, but the people who still do it, do it extremely well. And that's the only redeeming factor in this movie - the dancing. Dated though it is stylistically, we appreciate the astounding expertise of the kids who can still jam, break, lock, snap, crackle and pop it.

Unfortunately, expertise is something Jamie Kennedy and his crew of jackasses lack, so we know how it's going to end - yes, he wins the dance comp, gets the girl, and somewhere, Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire and Gregory Hines are turning in their graves.

--Review by Poffy The Cucumber (for Poffy's Movie Mania).",0 "A strange guru-type character named Khorda suddenly appears on the scene and offers to guide a bunch of young hippies looking for some direction in their lives. We as an audience however know something is amiss having witnessed a coffin earlier floating ashore following the flute-playing of a most unusual looking black man who we later see arrive at the castle-like house in which the hippies seem to be squatting now acting as something of a servant/follower to Khorda. It's not exactly too surprising to us the viewing audience when we learn Khorda is actually a vampire preying on these clueless, direction-less kids. Will any of them escape his ghastly influence?

I really enjoyed this one. While it's basic underlying plot is largely the usual expected vampire story, there's some neat differences here that set this one apart from others. Quarry's Khorda is actually more a character akin to Charles Manson or even Jim Jones as his uses his guru rhetoric, something they mistake for guidance and understanding, to gain influence over his followers. His speeches are actually very nicely done and the one he gives on the nature of mortal religion is in particular very thought-provoking (and almost sure to offend those with strict Christian sensibilities). I also like this one's visual style. The opening of the coffin floating in the water and the black servant dragging the coffin actually rather reminds me of the German expressionist period and the film NOSFERATU (1922) in particular. A lot of the later vampire visuals though remind one more of the 60s Italian Horror films and the British Hammer films. I also like the inventiveness shown at the end when the film takes a number of unexpected twists and turns I never saw coming on first viewing. There's some problems with logic (as is often the case with films of this type) that stretch credibility (Pico attempting to stop Khorda at night instead of during the day, Khorda having a host of weapons that could potentially be used against him just laying around, etc.) but nothing so unforgivable as to take away one's enjoyment while watching this unfold.",1 "This is a true sleeper in the film noir category, because so few people saw it in original distribution. There was a legal dispute caused by the original title, ""Sound of Fury"" which some felt was too close to Fritz Lang's ""Fury"" filmed earlier.

Much of this picture was filmed in Phoenix, and the old city courthouse is very prominent, with it's beautiful copper doors. A true 'dive' nightclub, the ""La Jolla Club"" later known as the ""Guys and Dolls"" was used for a key scene.

Lloyd Bridges showed his wonderful range and capability as a wild-eyed psycho, and Lovejoy was tragically sympathetic as a tortured regular guy gone terribly wrong. The cast was very strong.

This is on a par with any of the noir films of the late 40s-early 50s, and holds up today.

Enjoy!",1 "This is exactly what I'd do if my gang's territory was being threatened by conspiracy and rivalry in the criminal underworld - hide out on a nice beach playing fantastic-looking firework and sumo games with me mates and some random passing woman, listening to crazy old men singing in incredible voices, watching out for assassins in fishing gear and generally building myself up for a massive showdown. Beat Takeshi is a genius with this kind of stuff, he makes his gangster a real man in full 3D, hardened by a hard life but still full of uncertainty and needs, and who in the world could have outdone his deadpan but humourous face, especially in those bleak final scenes. Shame about his appalling TV ""comedy"" though.",1 "Of course I already knew at advance that this movie would be a bad one but in a way the movie was even worse than I could had ever anticipated.

Real problem with this movie is how amateur like it got made. Bad directing, bad editing, and bad camera work. It also doesn't help that the movie is very cheap looking, this lets the movie look all the more weak and ridicules.

The sound also got messed up pretty bad. The one moment some of its sound effects are too loud while the other things and dialog are too soft. This is also variating and at times you can't even hear some of the characters, while the others are clearly understandable, even when they are in the same scene's at times.

Also the story is just plain ridicules. I mean, an Egyptian mummy buried somewhere in the good old USA? It's just their way of saying; we want to do a mummy movie but we don't have the money or resources to go for Egypt for it or try the recreate it somewhere else. Also the way the entire story progresses results in the fact that nothing in the story just ever works really out. It makes the movie boring and real tiresome to watch. And of course the story needs to feature a couple of teenagers in the main lead but oh well this always had been the case in these sort of genre movies since the '70's on. The movie and it's story really start to get out of control as it heads more and more toward its incredibly poorly done last 20 minutes.

The scare effects of the movie just don't work out and they try to enhance it by adding some gore but instead it works out all the more ridicules since it's just not very convincing looking. The special effects are just too lame. The movie also doesn't exactly get scary due to the fact that the mummy is a beautiful, young, half-nude, Arabic girl.

The acting in this movie is all in all not that bad, especially considering the genre but of course the actors aren't exactly helped by the movie its incredible weak and silly script. What's even the main point in the movie its story? The movie really isn't going anywhere with its story. There is mummy on the loose who kills a lot of people in an horrible way but yet no one seems to be worried about the fact that their friends getting killed. The cast mostly consists out of young unknowns with the exception perhaps of Bruce Boxleitner who is a well known in certain circles.

Well OK there are worse movies to watch out there but that doesn't make this movie a good one. The fact that the movie has such a tiresome story is the foremost reason that this movie is a completely dull one that certainly isn't recommendable, not even for the genre fans or lovers of 'bad movies'.

2/10",0 "Very curious, the telling of this story. And very un Lumetlike. Not only is it somewhat non-linear, but it is done in a kind of telegrapheze. The scenes are almost jump cuts of each other. Serpico's mustache-beard becomes the time frame, and as a side bet, his frenetic wardrobe. Has a man ever worn more hats, almost like he is badly in search of a character.

For me, this movie was something of a one trick pony, very tiresome after the first few minutes. Okay, I get the point, you don't like cops on the take, and for the rest of the film mostly you watch them gobble the money, until finally in the last few minutes you go to a newspaper.

Not a single scene I would ever want to see again.

Whereas The Fugative Kind, The Verdict, plenty of those scenes I have watched over and over again.

Though at least this is early Pacino, and he is not trying to yell his fellow actors off the screen.",0 "1970s kung fu movies have never exactly been known for outstanding (or comprehensible) plot. So, if you're anything like me, you were expecting this movie to be like the rest of Jackie Chan's early career: silly, unrealistic, and largely nonsensical, but fun nevertheless just because of Jackie's sheer force of personality. And, of course, his incredible stunts and fight scenes.

Unfortunately, New Fist of Fury fails even to meet that modest standard. The entire first half of the movie is apparently dedicated to the development of the plot. Bad move on the filmmakers' part. A kung fu movie is about kung fu, not lots of boring... *talking*. Jackie doesn't even start to learn kung fu until the movie is nearly over, for pity's sake! This would be forgivable, I guess, if the resulting plot were at all interesting. No such luck. Besides which, most of it simply becomes irrelevant by the second half of the movie, when everything hinges around a straightforward martial-arts-school showdown. As for the ending... well, I don't want to give anything away, but let's just say it's incredibly abrupt and surprising. And not in a good way.

This isn't to say there aren't fight scenes. There are several of them pointlessly interspersed throughout the tedious plot development, and one big one at the end that *almost* makes the rest worthwhile. But when the fights do break out, even when Jackie is actually involved, this isn't the almost cartoonish, balletic violence we see in his other movies. Rather, it's fierce and bloody -- the actors in the final fight scenes chomp down fake blood capsules like M&Ms -- and seems to hinge around the frequent use of kicks to the groin. (The guys kicked in the groin, inexplicably, are all given lingering closeups.) The fight scenes are still incredibly cool, of course, but not worth sitting through two hours of cheesy dreck.

In brief, this movie is too ridiculous to work in terms of plot, and its fight scenes are too nasty and spaced-apart to redeem it.

A few particularly ridiculous things to look for, if you watch this movie anyhow:

1. The high-pitched whoops and screeches during the old kung fu teacher's speech. (I don't know if that was a loon being tortured to death, or the cries of agony from one of the groin-kick victims.) 2. The old kung fu teacher's leaping-and-shouting related death, and the fact that his body still stands there looking annoyed afterwards. 3. The Japanese army captain's dubbed-over voice. ""Weaselly"" is a vast understatement here. 4. Jackie's Fist of Fury technique -- described on the back of my VCR tape case as ""a new and deadly art, never before revealed on the screen"" -- which involves waving his arms up and down slowly during funky 70s hypno-music. Deadly indeed.",0 "An amazing movie... Not only is the acting incredible, but the realistic plot segments help you to really feel for the characters. I believe the key to this movie may have been how disturbing it was. Each segment allowed for a very vivid portrayal of the abortion issue, without necessarily 'taking sides'. If you've got the time, check it out!",1 "I loved Darkwing Duck when I was 5 years old and I still love it now! It's interesting how most cartoons from childhood seem lame when I watch them now but Darkwing Duck remains funny and entertaining. The witty dialog, action, diverse characters, and style made this show unique from most Disney cartoons. If they ever remade the series I would most definitely watch it!

One thing I find interesting about this series --there is a large amount of violence including knives, heavy artillery, and explosives. Some of the villains are high-class sociopaths (Negaduck) and there is subtle adult humor. As a child, these depictions of violence never had an affect on me and as an adult I find the cartoon to be more interesting due to the use of classic weapons.

The family life of Darkwing Duck is also quite interesting. Unlike most cartoons where the hero either has no children or a family of his own, Darkwing has a spunky, adopted daughter and a sidekick for his family, as well as a former criminal sorceress for a girlfriend. I found this family dynamic to be refreshing and interesting. Being raised by a single parent myself, I felt like the show was acknowledging children like me who don't come from ""whole"" families with a mother, father, and 2.5 children.

Overall I think Darkwing Duck was one of the most original and interesting cartoons to emerge from the early 90's and when contrasted with today's cartoons it has a very different approach that makes it unique. I await the release of the next seasons on DVD.",1 "This is class TV. This production and it's second part Cold Lazarus was paid for by the UK tax payer and co-produced by the BBC and (also publicly funded) Channel 4. Several attempts at trying to find out why these two screen plays haven't been re-shown have met with limp excuses about licensing and the two channels not being able to get their act together to cooperate on a re-release. However, I'm aware both have been shown on recently on other European channels in other countries. Work that one out. The good news is I've recently got a hold of (legally) recorded versions of these shows. That's after almost 10 years of looking. Phew.",0 "Somehow, this is the worst alien invasion film from 1996. Though both Independence Day and Mars Attacks! have their fair share of flaws, this film is nothing but flaws. To start off, it's got some of the worst acting by an entire cast in a major motion picture. Some of this is due to the wretched dialogue, but most of it is due to what seem like first-take scenes. Charlie Sheen is overacting incredibly, and everyone else is just plain wooden. The story would be interesting if it were not botched completely with unbelievable situations and silly action sequences. The direction is entirely unremarkable, and the special effects are wholly un-amazing. Plus, it's got a kid in it - a sure flaw in any film for adults. Truly terrible.",0 "...this is an extremely well-conceived, well-written, well-acted, and well-made film. The dialogue, in both its everyday scenarios and heated exchanges, is excellent; and the mockumentary style meshes perfectly with the nicely segmented, ever-twisting plot. Then, after making light of some serious history, the ending takes a dark, ironic turn to drive home its message that whatever political system you choose, the worst elements in human nature are here to stay...",1 "After Stalin died, Khrushchev denounced him in started allowing more artistic freedom (this era was known as the ""thaw""). Probably the two best results film-wise were ""Letyat zhuravli"" (""The Cranes are Flying"" in English) and ""Ballada o soldate"" (""Ballad of a Soldier"" in English). The latter portrays Pvt. Alyosha Skvortsov (Vladimir Ivashov) getting a leave of absence during WWII so that he can visit his mother. He travels across the countryside, meets various people, and falls in love with Shura (Zhanna Prokhorenko), a young woman whom he meets on a train.

One of the interesting things about this movie is that it starts by telling the audience that Alyosha got killed in WWII. Even though we know throughout the whole movie that he eventually gets killed (which the movie doesn't show), we always root for him. The movie in fact begins in the same place where it started. The opening shows a road in Alyosha's home town, and the last scene shows him walking down the road after seeing his mother. We don't find out how he gets killed, we just know that he is a hero for his country.

All in all, a great movie.",1 "I don't know what was appealing about this movie, the lack of realism, the excellent character development, the beautiful shots, the acting, or the escapism into another reality: a Europeanized America. It was a little predictable, but the aspects that were predictable were done in a manner that was very imaginative. Bill Murray and Owen Wilson were great together. Steve Zissou(Murray) is one of the most lovable, strange, and thoroughly interesting characters I have ever encountered. Anjelica Huston presented us with some very real material, in her portrayal of Zissou's wife. I won't waste time trying to explain the plot, but I will recommend this movie to anyone who's willing to indulge in a (I stress the following word) smart and fun oceanic adventure.",1 "I've seen ""The Eye"" and ""The Eye 2"" and enjoyed them both, so when I heard about this one I got my hopes up that I could watch another scary horror movie.

I settled down, and at the start it seemed as though that was exactly what we were going to be treated to ... but then it all went downhill. I found myself wondering whether the film was supposed to be a horror film or a comedy film. To me it was neither. There were some great scary moments in it, but then you'd get an attempt at some at comedy. Notice I said ""attempt"". I don't think I found any of it that funny at all, and all it did was ruin the suspense and horror aspect of the rest of the movie.

The actors didn't really seem to know what to do or act in a lot of the scenes - and that didn't help either. The only saving grace is the length of the film - it's short!

I've given it 3/10 only because some of the scary bits were quite well done, but don't take that as any sort of recommendation. My advice - give it a miss, especially if you've seen the first 2 and expect this to be anything like them.",0 "OK, am i wrong, or is the comments area in IMDb there for commenting a movie? What can i say? Some of the people in here are not commenting the movie, they adapt it to our own reality and try to make sense out of it. I will not make the same mistake....

The movie itself is a complex of thriller-drama-action-SciFi and i have to say that Tony Scott did a very good job (especially for his action scenes). Denzel and Val are very good but the applause goes for Jim and the new girl Paula Patton. She actually steals the first role from Denzel. And Jim who plays for about half-or-less an hour makes you think immediately that he is the bad guy. What more can you expect from an actor?

The film has a fast pace that doesn't let you get bored and although it lasts about 2 hours, it's coming to the end quite quick. I have to admit that there are some errors (the-country-hurt-my-feelings explanation for the bad guy turned to a terrorist is at the least laughable, the time-travel theories cannot be minimized into a 2 minutes analysis such as portrayed here), but after all, when you see a film of this kind you do not expect everything to be clear as the stars in the night sky (without clouds of course).

And that's the BIG question. Do you watch this kind of movies for entertaining reasons, just simply to pass your time relaxed, make your mind forget the things you worry about the rest of the day etc, OR you want every single movie you watch - even a SciFi-action-thriller like this one - to make you think about our cosmos and the universe and the societies and the world and whatever?

Answer the question, what you REALLY want and expect for any given kind of movie and i promise that you will find yourself to be more amused after you watch any film from there on.....

For myself speaking, this film deserves a brave 8. It was pretty amusing - and that's really the whole point, isn't it?",1 "Once more Doris Dörrie makes us dive into the deep absurdity of life in general and love affairs more specifically. Through precise observation and careful staging she displays the weakness and the strength of the characters. Two examples: One of the most powerful scenes is when Linda (Franka Potente - Germany's latest shooting starlet) prosternates herself in front of the Holy Virgin during the Semana Santa in Seville and prays for strength and courage. When the unfaithful husband is about to be discovered and drops to his knees asking his daughter for help is another scene that made me both laugh and weep. ""Bin ich schön"" is one of the best satires on society I have ever seen and Doris Dörrie may well be seen as the European counterpart to Woody Allen.",1 "Being a gay man and a horror movie fan I was really looking forward to seeing this...but it's really not that good.

Film begins with two men making out in a car--until they are attacked and beheaded by a guy in a Satan suit. The next day is Halloween and four gay friends are attending the party in West Hollywood. They all fit the typical slasher film stereotypes: the nice guy (Dylan Fergus); the innocent, nervous guy (Hank Harris); the party animal (Andrew Levitas) and the one who wants to be loved for his mind NOT his body (Matt Phillps as a drag queen). While getting there they make fun of the guy in the Devil costume. During the night he stalks them...and kills them one by one. Who is he and why is he doing this? Don't bother asking--the film doesn't tell you!

The film is beautifully shot (some VERY nice images here) and the murder scenes are very gory and well-done. Also the actors were hired for their looks and bodies--but they're really pretty good! Fergus is handsome and likable; Harris is a little TOO nerdy; Levitas is drop dead gorgeous with a GREAT body...but overdoes it a little; Phillips is excellent as the drag queen--he looks stunning as a woman AND a guy. Also they are joined by Bryan Kirkwood who's pretty bad. He's obviously straight and seems uncomfortable. But there's two BIG problems with the film--the script and dialogue.

The script is chockful of stupid moments--someone is killed on a crowded dance floor...and nobody notices; the killer magically appears everywhere his victims are; we never find out who he is or why he's doing this. One one hand I thought thought this might be a tribute to the stupid 80s slasher films which were ALSO full of stupid incidents. On the other hand I thought---is that something we should pay tribute to? And the dialogue is just dreadful--no gay man (or straight man) talks like these guys.

But, all in all, it was fun seeing a slasher film with gay men and showing off some nice partial nudity (no frontal but the guys are shirtless 90% of the time and there is a group butt shot). I'm giving this an 8 because the guys were just incredible and gave good performances...but I can't say I loved this.

Recommended for gay men and horror movie fans who have no problem with gay guys. There's also plenty of room for a sequel. Let's hope there is one--with a better plot and dialogue.",1 "Yes, cheated, especially when i reached the IInd half and realised all the gags were copied from 'Rat Race'(2001) with slight changes to cater to the desi crowd. Sanjay Dutt doing the bus driver routine (aka Cuba Gooding Jr.), Ashish Choudhary & Asrani in the plane (aka Amy Smart and Breckin Meyer in the chopper) and the final showdown where the large crowd gapes at them, the hot air balloon and even the digital display of the total donation amount!! I have stopped expecting originality after the 'jaane bhi do yaaro' days and am being probably a bit too harsh in saying that but I cannot help it as the Hollywood movie scripts copied shamelessly over (well the ones that can be, that is) are usually the movies that i have already seen. Hence, since last month, i have taken a break and have started watching Korean movies instead..that is till they run out of Hollywood scripts to photocopy. That said, a few gags in Dhamaal (choohon ka race?) does manage to bring a smile on your face and the effort deserves a 7. Watchable with friends who don't mind slapstick, goofy and over the top comedy capers.",0 "This is quite possibly the crown jewel in the long and illustrious career of an extremely troubled and very funny man. Fields has a field day sending up a style of melodrama popular at the time. At one and the same time, this is atypical of Fields' work generally, but still has his fingerprints all over it as well. Highlights are far too numerous to list, but Fields's rendition of the song, ""The Fatal Glass of Beer"" (you can't really accurately call it singing), the running gag, ""It ain't a fit night out for man or beast"" and the ending are hilariously perfect, with a sense of timing of which Chaplin would have been proud. Most joyously recommended",1 "In my opinion, this is an excellent holiday special which is very appetizing. However, I couldn't bear seeing Snoopy and Woodstock having to endure all that torture. In addition, the thing that really makes this special worth watching is the score, especially ""Little Birdie and ""Linus And Lucy."" When those songs are performed, I always get warm and tingly. I would have to say that's my favorite song of this special. If you ask me, Charles M. Schulz was a really good artist. In conclusion, I highly recommend this excellent holiday special which is very appetizing to everyone, especially all you fans of the comic strip who have not seen it. When you see it, prepare to smile, have a good time, and bon appetit.",1 "Very entertaining movie about seven youngsters (20 somethings cast as high school students) who go on a camping trip to summer house owned by the parents of one of the seven. The main character, Mike, freaks out when he sees a smashed overturned car. He insists that this is the beginning of a weekend of horror. He's right.

The usual murder-the-teens plot unfolds, but TNOT keeps it surprisingly well done. The creature and its powers are farfetched, but they work in this film. Even if you don't like anything about this film, Mike's lines will make it worth your time. They're hilarious!

8/10",1 "I recognised a name or two in the cast, then I saw that it was a Hammer Horror film, so I thought it was worth at least a try. Basically a younger Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates, replacing Peter Cushing) is the misunderstood scientist, who is determined not just to study life and the human body, but make it. With the help of some grave robbers and his anatomical knowledge, he wants to create what could be the perfect human specimen. Of course the Monster (David Prowse, the man inside Darth Vader in the original Star Wars trilogy, replacing Sir Christopher Lee) created is an aggressive thing that obeys a few orders to get meaty rewards, but ultimately it is not a perfect specimen. Also starring Kate O'Mara as Alys, Graham James as Wilhelm Kassner, Veronica Carlson as Elizabeth Heiss and Bernard Archard as Prof. Heiss. This is supposed to be a remake to Hammer's original Curse of Frankenstein, it is not counted as the sixth in the series because of this fact, and because it is a little ridiculous. Adequate!",0 "Two teens wake up ready to go on a class field trip. Along the way one of them drinks contaminated water and they both become zit-zombies. They can only eat chocolate and the disease only affects teenagers. The infected teens gather together and hatch the devious plan to travel to Hershey, Pennsylvania to contaminate the country's chocolate supply and dawn the remaining populace a zit-juice dripping existence.

This screwball punk rock black and white comedy is some kind of bad. To be blunt I think I'd need to be on dope or something to get a kick out of this one. You got to give the actors credit for walking around the entire production (and I use that term loosely) with burst zit appliances on their heads. The music ain't half bad though.",0 "It's unfortunate that a film with a good cast never really becomes as good as it might. The idea of women working during the war in the war production plants was critical to the war effort, and the attempts at coping with an almost unbearable life situation with women workers sharing a house while their husbands are overseas was common enough to have true dramatic value; yet, this movie never seems to reach its high potential.

The reason seems to be in the incredibly poor script, not so much in terms of plot, but in relation to what seems to be substandard language. It's unfortunate that the actors are saddled with such lines as: ""If I see you looking sideways at another girl, I'm going to hit you over the head with an axe handle,"" ""It's okay, mom, he's going to marry me,"" ""Why don't the mice pay their share of the rent,"" ""You don't carry a mop length-wise...you carry it like a fishing pole,"" and ""I'm going to beat those rugs until they sit up and yell 'Uncle'.""",0 "(Minor Spoilers)

Let's be honest and a tad realistic about this film, shall we?

By TODAY'S standards, this is a ""cheesy"" kinda film compared to what technology we've got. And I think at the time of this release we had gotten ""Close Encounters of the Third Kind"" and ""Star Wars"" so our expectation levels were running higher for ""special effects"" and ""whimsy"" than this.

But I still can get entertainment out of this film.

How?

By remembering how old I was when I saw it and WHOM I was with when I saw it. My family.

I was a child. This film wasn't in my all time top ten, but it was...fun. It was one of those movies local channels threw on Sunday afternoon before or after a televised ball game..or when a ball game was rained out. Come on, admit it..you remember!

And that's the point. This film's special effects were nice..not spectacular..not even up to Ray Harryhausen's standards, but the Harryhausen mark was there which made it entertaining (Admit it, you LOVED the walrus scene!! How 'bout that Cyclops?!?! As a child this was all good! You remember!!).

For very young girls, this Sinbad was REALLY nice to look at back then. For the very young guys, so was Miss Jane Seymour and Miss Taryn Power. Then there was the story which was kinda fun, the adventure which was kinda whimsical and the happy ending where the bad guys got theirs'.

This was done at a time of assuming children would love this kinda stuff. Back then, more would have. Now, most children don't even think ""Spy Kids"" can give them a buzz.

This movie is about childhood and remembering what it was like to have an imagination and watch a story unfold for nothing but the sheer enjoyment of it...the fun of eating ""Good 'n' Plenty"", ""Snowcaps"", ""Malted Milk Balls"" and Popcorn without thinking about calorie content to make this even more fun to watch...and the ""eye candy"" of Wayne, Seymour and Power help a so-so story that's really better than a lot of stuff I've seen today that they charge ya $10 a ticket for! Parents may not have liked it as much as the children but that too is part of the fun!

Have a heart when watching this. Watch this as a ""fun"" romp....as remembering when families watched shows together (..or in my case my dad mumbling under his breath about how the game was due on and he had to sit through this 'crap' first!), the pre-teen tingles of watching a handsome Wayne, young Seymour and/or Power (...ya know...before having breast implants and weighing 95 pounds was mandatory in Hollywood for women to do this kind of film work?!?) and telling your parents you were REALLY interested in the story...really.

Maybe I've got a more ""nostalgic"" view about this film..its because I'm not looking for academy award winning material with this kind of film, but it does its job of...entertaining...and if you have children and want them to be children for a tad longer, this may be the film fare for them. Or just for you, if you want to curl up with some popcorn and remember ""the good old movie fluff days"" where special effects were done by hand and stop motion photography by the ""grand-daddy"" of the genre and a Sinbad movie where Sinbad actually looked like you might imagined him to look like back then and evil characters who were evil and got theirs....pretty much simplified.

Open your mind and when you have a moment...enjoy. Don't take it seriously just sit back... watch...and HAVE FUN..with your children, as a family.",1 "London to Brighton is a superb slice of British crime pulp; a no nonsense, down and dirty tale of two relatively weak individuals, given the parameters of the genre, desperate to get away from the lifestyle they've grim-and-bared up until this point. Systematically, one particular character must balance evading capture with the taking on of the moral responsibilities that come with looking after a much younger individual they've unwittingly roped into this world by way of child-prostitution. If there is a distinct shrill ringing throughout us as the film plays out, it's because while conforming to gangster genre conventions, we see most of the world and most of the film unfold through the eyes and ultimately with two females: a very young girl and a middle aged woman, two people we feel are under threat and will have harm come to them if they're caught. This is in stark contrast to usual crime film fare; in which crime infused males can be on the run, or can owe a debt, or whatever – but do not necessarily carry the same vulnerability. Thus, London to Brighton, with its scuzzy and raw feel, comes across as scarier; more frightening in its depiction of a world, the characters within and overall attention to genre.

The girls on the run are twelve year old Joanne (Groome) and the much elder Kelly (Stanley), a prostitute. They're played by two actresses more familiar to televisual work and as low-down supporting roles in feature films, but here are given the chance to shine in lead roles, snapping up the opportunity in the process. Their predicament is a set up that can be pitched in little to no words, immediately getting across a sense of urgency. The film begins with the two in a public toilet; panic-stricken and acting in nervous manner; something's gone wrong and they're about to go on the run from a London based crime syndicate as those connected to the organisation chase them.

The film gets across a sense of the sort of danger they're in without ever really showing anything, instead opting for the talk of an off screen event or individual. On this occasion, the talk of potentially of going to prison for what it is they've done is most prominent an item of which plants seeds of great worry in our minds as we observe these relatively hapless, physically out of breath with their clothes torn and clearly in a bad shape, people stumble through the seamy, low-level based locations they inhabit. The introduction of Derek (Harris), Kelly's pimp, and the potential threat that he carries as a character is only brought into perspective when it is revealed he answers further still to an individual higher up than he is; the son of the leader of this organisation. Where Derek is more extroverted and animated; Stuart (Spruell), the higher up, is calmer, dresses more formally and talks in a quieter manner which quickly pushes the boundaries out further as to whom acts as more of a threat, without taking away any of the initial menace Derek inhabits. This minute, but observed ploy, captures the film's tone of getting in deeper; of assuming something to be of a specific nature but then having to recognise a new threat, or new predicament, which furthers feelings and emotions.

As an event which spawns the mess everyone finds themselves in, it is revealed that Joanne is a runaway wondering the streets of London, and is quickly picked up by both Derek and Kelly when it is made apparent a local crime boss, Stuart's father, wants a younger girl to feed some depraved sexual cravings. Joanne carries with her a mouth, an ability to small talk her way through conversations with adults that we truly feel she might actually possess. The locale in which she is required for whatever perverted plans are in store for her is presented by way of brilliant, white light; a blinding light that reflects off of seemingly marble walls; floors and white pillars dotted around the room. The mise-en-scene and colour gives it a disturbing sense of resembling ancient Rome, specifically in appearance; in all its rich, beautiful, robe-decked in-glory. The sheer contrast of locales between what we're presented through the cities of London and Brighton, the latter of which itself looked like a sunny; beach-housing; amusements displaying safe haven compared to London, is stark, disorientating and disturbing.

The film really is fine feature debut, amongst the best of last decade and sits alongside works such as Donnie Darko; One Hour Photo and Memento. There's a real sense of terror in London to Brighton; an immediacy which you feel is born out of the two female leads and their place in the film working within a genre which would usually, in terms of Kelly's role as a prostitute, see them relegated to a nothing supporting role or to act as mere eye candy. Its willingness to have its women act in an independent and strong manner sees them break away from orders in a very male dominated world, that of crime, and renders them characters whom have limits; morals and know that when the line is to be drawn, it must be drawn, no matter what the consequence or whom one is dealing with. London to Brighton forms an exciting passage of film-making out of a relatively routine idea, with guided attention toward mostly all of the characters, Stuart of which goes through his own series of frightening changes later on; awareness of how the film should 'look' at very specific points and gets the best out of a low-key cast. Director Paul Williams has triumphed.",1 "This week marks the release, at least in the U.S., of the documentary Into Great Silence, which takes us inside of the Grande Chartreuse Monastery in the French Alps and is the home of a group of Carthusian monks.

Thankfully, filmmaker Phillip Gronig, has ignored every ""rule"" when it comes to making a documentary. Not counting the monks chanting of the Divine Office, in the 164 minutes of the film scarcely 10 minutes worth is devoted to dialog. There are no expository narrations nor even the customary music soundtrack that one would expect. Instead one is made privy to the rare opportunity to glimpse a world seldom seen outside of the order itself. It is deep, wonderful journey into the Great Silence of the monks life. A silence where the still, small voice of God can be heard.

Modern lives, like ours, are often so full of noise, that the silence that we experience here can almost be overwhelming at times. After all, most of us try to fill each waking hour it seems with some distraction. Just look at the time we spend watching television or listening to the radio. It's almost, at least in my case, that we fear what the silence will say to us. Even our prayers are often so full of words that we can drown out what God has to say back to us. This film has echoed some of the feelings that I have been trying to come to grips with recently. It has reinforced that great need in me to listen. I am beginning to understand, slowly I might add, that the more I listen, both to God and to others around me, the more they have to say to me. So often I get caught up in trying to ""say the right thing"" that I end up using the time that other people are talking trying to think what I should say next. This is no more true than in my prayer life.

The watching of this film has been something of a retreat for me. Where all of my desires, pleadings, and static that normally occupies my time with God was replaced. Replaced by the Great Silence.

""Oh Lord, you have seduced me. And I was seduced.""

Just as a side note, there is a second disc that accompanies the movie which has more background on the order along with a wonderful segment of the Night Office. The ""extras"" on this disc tell you just enough to where you will probably want to know more. A couple of excellent books in English that I can recommend are Halfway to Heaven by Robin Bruce Lockhart, the recent An Infinity of Little Hours by Nancy Klein Maguire, and Carthusian Spirituality the writings of Hugh of Balma and Guido De Ponte.",1 "I tried my best to keep an open mind! ""Miracles"" borders on camp. Story lines make no sense. The boy ghost says the evil spirit ""wants everything."" Really now? That's a truly exciting revelation! Especially when in an earlier episode, at his funeral, the same boy ghost shows up all happy, and at peace. We are led to believe there's closure. Can't the writers make-up their minds? Or, are they trying to save money by not hiring more actors!

One episode even turned an old lady into jelly! She caves in and tells her deep, dark secret because one of our dopey investigators had the audacity to ask twice. Wow! That would convince me to spill the beans to a bunch of strangers after keeping my mouth shut for well over 50 years!

The acting is not inspiring, either. There's no chemistry. At times I get the feeling the main characters don't know if they are going to be filming the next episode. Sometimes it seems like the actors are trying hard not to giggle. Keep in mind this not supposed to a comedy show!

This series is a cross between X-files and Bewitched. A confusing mess to say the least! Good try, no cigar!",0 "A Paul Naschy vehicle in which he plays an East Indian guru named (what else?) Krishna who may or may not be responsible for gang of murderous zombies on the loose in London, but the real 'stars' of this flick are the unintentional humor and the relentlessly kitschy soundtrack (the end title theme is particularly memorable, in that ""so bad, it's good"" category). Other things to watch out for include the stock footage of London, grinning zombies, a blinking corpse, and an ""out of left field"" plot twist. Stupendously bad, but terrific fun for those into this sort of thing.",1 "CONTAINS SPOILERS THROUGHOUT. 'Chicago Joe and the Showgirl' is based on the true story of Karl Hulten and Elizabeth Jones. Hulten was a Swedish-born American GI stationed in England during WW2. Jones was a Welsh-born woman who had drifted through several professions, including striptease. When Hulten and Jones met (in October 1944), they embarked on a crime spree that lasted for only a few violent days.

This is the same premise that's been told better elsewhere. Hulten and Jones had the same dynamic as Bonnie and Clyde, or Starkweather and Fugate (the couple who inspired the movie 'Badlands'). A cheap psychopath meets a girl who wants some thrills. She's aroused by the danger he represents. Her arousal emboldens him to increasingly violent acts.

'Chicago Joe and the Showgirl' opens with an unseen American narrator informing us portentously that this story is absolutely true, and that nothing has been invented nor changed. This sort of statement activates my baloney barometer, but I felt better when I saw David Yallop credited as scriptwriter. Yallop is a brilliant journalist who has authored several true-crime books, impeccably researched and scrupulously accurate. As the opening credits rolled, I recognised the voice of the narrator: he is John Lahr, an American journalist based in London, likewise noted for scrupulous accuracy in his writing. Lahr does not appear on screen in this film, perhaps because his somewhat comical facial features would remind audiences of his father Bert Lahr. (Coincidentally, the two stars of this film -- Kiefer Sutherland and Emily Lloyd -- also had actor fathers.)

I'm sure that Yallop knows far more than I do about the Hulten/Jones case, yet I spotted two inaccuracies. When Hulten and Jones first meet, he invites her to pick out a well-dressed woman whose fur coat Jones fancies, which Hulten then steals for her. Later, as they seek greater thrills, their crime spree escalates until Hulten murders a cabdriver. In real life, the coat Hulten stole off a woman's back was white ermine; in this movie, it's a darker fur. More crucially, the film reverses the order of these incidents: in real life, Hulten stole the fur *after* he murdered the cabbie, with Jones eagerly witnessing both crimes. I assume that the filmmakers deliberately reversed these incidents so that the couple's crimes would build up to the homicide that got them nicked.

Emily Lloyd (Welsh by name but not by upbringing) makes a creditable effort to copy the working-class Neath accent of Elizabeth Jones. (Ironically, the real Betty Jones was not very good-looking, even by 1940s standards; the real Karl Hulten was far more handsome than Kiefer Sutherland.) Sutherland gives an impressive performance; in early scenes, he strides through London in a lieutenant's uniform and returns the salutes of enlisted men. Later, we learn that he's actually an AWOL private.

This film's art direction is elaborate, yet wretched. Kiefer Sutherland's performance as a 1944 psychopath is compromised by his 1990 hairstyle. (U.S. Army soldiers in WW2 were not issued styling mousse.) Emily Lloyd and all the other women in this film have coiffures and make-up reflecting somebody's 1990 notion of 1940s retro, rather than actual 1940s styles. Women in wartime Britain had to improvise cosmetics or do without; it would have been nice to see some mention of that here. Yet I was impressed by a brief scene of an elaborate multi-tiered wedding cake ... made of cardboard, with a secret compartment containing the real and far less impressive (wartime) cake.

At one point, the killers duck into a cinema to watch 'Double Indemnity'. (Was this movie screened in wartime England?) I dislike movies in which the characters attend a (better) movie that conveniently reflects their own situation.

After the couple are arrested, the British authorities hand over Hulten to the U.S. Army for military trial. The film gets this detail right: Army lawyers deposed Hulten, then chose to give him back so the Home Office could try him in Crown Court. The movie's climax is utterly laughable, featuring the collision of two old-movie clichés. A line of helmeted and bewhiskered British bobbies (out of 'Dixon of Dock Green') face off against a line of trenchcoated American reporters with snap-brim trilbies and elaborate flashbulb cameras (out of 'The Front Page'). I expected the bobbies to twirl their truncheons and mumble 'Here now, what's all this, then?' while the reporters would grab candlestick telephones and shout 'Get me Rewrite!' Actually, this last scene isn't meant to be realistic: it's shown from Betty Jones's viewpoint, and she's now entertaining delusions of showbiz glamour. Still, this climax reminded me of several much better films -- the musical 'Chicago', 'King of Comedy' and especially 'Sunset Boulevard' -- in which a delusional criminal basks in imaginary stardom while Justice closes in.

At the end, Lahr's narration returns to tell us the outcome: Hulten was executed in HM Prison Pentonville a few weeks before V-E Day. Betty Jones was given a long prison sentence, and eventually paroled. The grim truth is that this 'wild' couple, often deemed the British version of Bonnie and Clyde, were two very common criminals indeed. So were the real Bonnie and Clyde -- in their entire crime career, Bonnie and Clyde never stole as much money as Jesse James grabbed in a single hold-up -- but at least Bonnie and Clyde were brilliant at self-promotion, and they'll be famous for a long time. Hulten and Jones were cheap and worthless, and they deserve to be forgotten. So does this movie, which I'll rate 3 out of 10.",0 "Lol, please. People... please. If you honestly consider this a good movie, something is sincerely wrong with you. The acting.. the plot.. literally everything in this movie was so utterly horrible. To enjoy this movie you'd have to have an IQ under 40. It was like a neighborhood teen gathering his friends and filming over-dramatic racism. I can't begin to talk about how horrible the acting was. This movie was about as ""real and in your face"" as a water-pistol.

It's not even worthy to be compared to American History X, which was a great movie. Romper Stomper was alright. However I still believe the most insightful, smart, intelligent, powerful Skinhead flick is ""The Believer"". Which was also a low-budget film, but with a vastly complex story-line and amazing acting-- let alone, actor. Ryan Gosling as the main character Danny Balint in The Believer, I believe, blows all the previously mentioned movies out of the water.

Want a good movie? Check out The Believer.",0 """What a turkey!"" This is a simple line spoken by one of the characters as he's watching a random movie in the drive-in theater, but the phrase is actually much more applicable to the production he's starring in himself! This is a truly abysmal low-budget horror flick, put together by a bunch of amateurs that know nothing about cinema but simply wanted to cash-in on the success of such contemporary classics like ""The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"". Two very UN-heroic police detectives investigate a series of murders that all took place in a Californian drive-in movie theater. It looks like some nutbag is practicing his sword-swashbuckling techniques on the horny customers there. The suspects include the theater's owner (who used to be a carny), the simple-minded janitor and the local pervert that spies upon young couples. Apart from some filthy gore (the best bits occurring in the opening minutes already), there's nothing to see here, unless if you're an admirer of bad acting, bad directing, bad editing, bad photography and even worse music. I couldn't understand half of the dialogs because all the moronic characters were mumbling, and the other half just didn't make any sense. The ""red herring"" climax is overlong and, despite its short running time, there are still way too many boring moments in the script. The concept and set pieces easily could have resulted in a much better (pre-slasher?) horror movie, if only some talent was involved. Incredibly bad film, avoid like the plague.",0 "I rate this film as about average for the genre at the time of production, although its major failures are from its adherence to the premise of the 1950 Stewart Granger version of King Solomon's Mines. King Solomon's Mines is a 20th Century modernization of the H. Rider Haggard novels set in the 19th Century. As a VERY LOW BUDGET African project, the two movies maintain the consistency of an imaginary Africa that may have seemed reasonable to a 19th Century English audience.

I especially enjoyed some of the quips that reference a not so hidden casting of Hollywood camp in serious roles. Elvira is cast as Sorais, and Richard Chamberlain as Allan Quatermain declares on meeting her, ""I've seen some amazing things in my life, but never anything to compare with this!"" The films are full of the cliché scenes that filled Tarzan and earlier jungle films, clichés that have since become attached to the Indiana Jones films by those unfamiliar with the earlier genre. Some of the earlier jungle films were produced under extraordinary duress, and attempts here to produce tongue in cheek replicas of the earlier works can certainly be missed by those whose only familiarity with film is through the post 70s media.",1 "I believe the writers of this film started off knowing that they wanted some boob shots and a ""sex scene"" at a cheerleader camp and then wrote a ""horror"" plot around it.

We rented it just because we saw that Leif Garrett was one of the stars -- and he's just as believable as a horny high schooler as the fact that you will never guess who the killer is! The cheerleaders spend more time swimming and laying out in the sun than practicing their cheers (although Garrett's rap was bad enough that I only needed to hear him practice it once) and the main character Alison wonders around into creepy shacks in the woods looking for soda.

Of course, like most horror films, the characters are stupid, but the sheer idiocy these ""cheerleaders"" display will make you laugh out loud. The gore is silly unless getting your wrists slashed by pom-poms frightens you. Finally, undoubtedly, the hysterical pep-rally-like ""sex scene"" is what makes this movie worth seeing. If you're looking for a scare, pass this one up, but check it out if you and your friends are looking for a funny slasher flick that is nothing but pure cheese.",1 "This is a film that deserves to be seen. Though it is getting no publicity, WORD OF MOUTH, should serve this very special film. A solid performance by Sam

Jackson and all of the supporting cast. Bob Rafelson, a very famous director of such classics as FIVE EASY PIECES and THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS

TWICE, has brought his talents to this movie. It looks fantastic too. As in most film noir movies, like the ""Big Sleep"", there are story holes occasionally, but the acting, tension, dark humor and fast pace, keep you interested always. There is nothing boring. If you like dark movies with tough minded actors, this will not disapoint you.

This movie reminds you of so many good films that Bogart and Bacall made. I give thumbs up and a 10 !",1 "There are so many things to appreciate in this movie. First and foremost, Bob Hoskins and Helen Mirren give outstanding performances as the First Couple of London's underworld. He, with the Cockney-made-good aspirations for status and the ""class"" he can never attain, epitomizes the hands-on manager overtaken by larger events. She, the cool-headed savvy- tough-and-sexy moll, is almost on top of things enough to redeem the situation but not quite. The key elements of the underworld ruling coalition-- dirty councilor and policeman, lieutenants of varying backgrounds both tough and educated-- make you believe in how this man has achieved peace through strength.

The film's plot is Byzantine whodunit, with gangland-style violence as an accent piece that seems downright tame in the age of ""Pulp Fiction"". The real hidden star, though, is late-70's London-- oh so run-down and yet full of the potential that drives Harold's ambitions. The views from boating on the Thames are unrecognizable to those who have only seen modern London--- the sole landmarks in common are Tower Bridge and the Savoy hotel. The towers of the City and modern Docklands are just a twinkle in dreamers' eyes.

Overall TLGF is a modern tragedy in the true land-of-Shakespeare tradition, somewhere between Macbeth and Hamlet and King Lear: ambition, betrayal, and the sweep of history interact richly without being heavy-handed in symbolism or over-artiness. This is a satisfying and complex film that invites re-viewing and reflection.",1 "Last week, I was flipping around on cable, and I ran across the opening credits of a movie called Little Witches. I left it on and was greatly rewarded. This movie has a brilliant plot, top-notch dialogue, and great acting. And by ""plot,"" ""dialogue,"" and ""acting,"" I mean, ""nudity!"" This movie is about a group of Catholic schoolgirls who throughout the movie get naked and summon the devil, but not always at the same time. The four main characters in the movie embody the four achetypes that are represented in literary works of this nature, The Bad Girl (who doubles as The Slutty Girl), The Good Girl, The Black Girl, and The Fat Girl (Yes, she gets naked too, but unfortunately, she and The Black Girl don't get as much nude screen time as The Bad Girl.) Each of these characters develops as the movie goes on. The Bad Girl gets better at Latin, the Fat Girl takes off her glasses after becoming evil, the Good Girl becomes less mischievious, and the Black Girl... Well, the Black Girl is really a third wheel. Another character in this movie is The Good Guy. He is a construction worker who establishes that he is good early in the movie by saying to his fellow construction workers, ""Okay guys, show's over,"" and turning down the music on their boom box after they all watched The Bad Girl strip for them by her window for a few minutes. An interesting quirk of the Good Guy is that, not unlike the Amazing Hulk, his strength comes and goes. This is revealed in a certain scene when The Good Guy can't summon the strength to the get out from under the naked Bad Girl until his girlfriend (the Good Girl) walks into the room. Well, all of these characters's personal dilemmas intertwine until the movie reaches it's climactic finale in which the naked Fat Girl is stabbed by an unidentified appendage of the demon that the girls summoned. This movie was very good, but it could have been better if it were not for a few glaring flaws. One is the title of the movie. The movie actually has nothing to do with real witchcraft, and perpetuates the stereotype that witches are brides of Satan, rather than the nature-worshipers they actually are. Another glaring flaw is that although the nudity was gratuitous, it should have been more gratuitous. There were some scenes with a lot of tension that did not lead up to nudity. And the very HOT Black Girl was underused. She was shown nude briefly, only a few times. Same with the Fat Girl. But I do give credit to the movie for having the guts to have an overweight semi-main character (even though she was very stereotyped), and especially that they showed her naked. It was nice to see a naked girl who wasn't an ultra-skinny model type. But the biggest drawback of the movie was that there was no lesbian-erotiscism! Not even any implied lesbian-eroticism. In conclusion, although this movie has it's flaws, it's very sexy and definately worth a rent. It's also fun to make fun of, MST3K-style.",1 "We saw this movie for free as a promo video, and after watching it we all vowed to never speak its name again.",0 """Wife vs. Secretary"" is a warm and touching movie about the business world in 1936. It seems farfetched because many people were still struggling after the depression. It showed the public how some CEO's lived in luxurious apartments, have art deco offices, and visited mansions and exotic lands for business.

What's nice is to see Jean Harlow as a regular person who is a secretary to the CEO, Clark Gable, who is married to Myra Loy. True is seems unbelievable these glamorous people could be part of the business world but this is Hollywood's version. And to top that, Harlow has a young James Stewart as a struggling boyfriend. What luck!

It's a fun and thoughtful movie to watch - thanks to the director, Clarence Brown, and the screenwriters. It would have been a different movie without the Production Code of 1934 and not as good.",1 "I detest slapstick and even as a child I could never understand why an audience laughed when people got poked in the eye (the unspeakable Three Stooges), fell down (the mawkish, tiresome Charlie Chaplin), or ran into and destroyed things (the ineffable Ritz Brothers). This is the only movie I have ever seen in my life where I not only thought the slapstick was hilarious (trying to impress the blind date), but it made me laugh out loud---something I don't think I've done more than two or three times in watching a movie. This is comic perfection from beginning to end, and not even the dismal, dislikable, annoying Diane Keaton (what IS it that is so off-putting about her?) could hurt it. Allen, in addition to his many other talents, is a brilliant actor-comedian. His characterizations are so good as to transcend acting---it is as if one were watching him being secretly photographed from real life. I don't know another movie actor I can say that about.",1 "I recently had the immense pleasure of meeting Ernest Borgnine at New Jersey's Chiller Con, and he looked and sounded great at 91 years young. This inspired my friend and I to watch some Borgnine films, and he suggested this rather obscure yet terrible piece of garbage (though he meant well, and I certainly didn't mind giving it a shot). It's an unfunny ""comedy"" where Bette Davis shacks up in a trailer with former crook Borgnine and they decide to dress up as hippies in order to rob banks. And I don't mean just once, but several times, in the same idiotic costumes. And these banks never seem to grow wise.

It's boring and uneven, and the ever-vain Jack Cassidy is a pain as a stuffy lieutenant trying to crack the case. I don't claim to have seen all of Bette Davis' greatest film at this point, but I've seen enough of her finest work to be comfortable in declaring that BUNNY O'HARE has got to be in the running as her worst film.",0 "**WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD**

Short version: this movie sucks. Long version: as somebody else wrote, the hole is in the plot line. Or better, there are lots of holes, but mainly:

a) Martin has a perfect alibi, yet he's the suspect from the beginning and nobody believes him. But, since they find him (dead) with the key, he MUST be guilty. And Liz must surely be rather strong, if she can plunge him in the river so easily. And rather quick, to put the key in his pocket without anybody (in the audience) noticing. Martin dies only a few yards away from Liz's house, but no one seems to care about that.

b) Hello? Did anybody tell the psychologist there were THREE dead bodies in the cell, one of which with his head crushed? How come the police acts as if nothing happened and no one ever talks about it? How come Liz was never questioned SERIOUSLY about these deaths? The first version of the story ends with everybody coming out of the hole happy and smiling, but the psychologist seems to believe it.

c) the hole is abandoned since WW II, but there still is electricity. The hole has an emergency exit which can be locked from outside, in order to make it completely unuseful. The door of the hole has a glass part, but nobody tries to break it.

d)The door key magically appeared in Martin's pockets some time before, because he won't let us know who gave it to him, and if we knew it, that would mean that someone else knew about the existence of the hole, and that would have made it too complex for the writers.

e) Nobody in the school noticed that the boys didn't go to Wales, and their families didn't notice they didn't come home. It took at least three days to understand that there was something wrong.

f) Liz is so convincing when she talks, that everybody instantly believes her: see the ending.

g) Think about this: when Liz came out, the door was OPEN. If Martin was on holiday, who the hell could open it without a key?

I think that's enough to explain why the movie doesn't work.

A thriller is a dangerous game: if you want to play it with the audience, you must be sure you can handle it. As many famous screenwriters said, you've got to take the story and shake its foundations: if it ""survives"", you've probably got a good movie coming on. This one crumbles quite miserably.",0 "i've seen this show first through a music video and fell in love with it right away because of the good storyline and the worked out characters that are complicated with many problems and dark pasts.

the characters are mysterious and dark but you can connect with them so good that it is almost magical. you follow the story with the shinigami Tsuzuki Asato and Kurosaki Hisoka as they meet and slowly get a strong emotional band after a rough start there dark pasts and there enemy Muraki connect the two to work together to stop the evil maniac.

the show has a good balance between the dark moments and lights up when it's getting to tough.

you have to like yaoi to like yami no matsuei even if it's not shown that well in the beginning.

there are only 13 episodes and in my eyes that way to few for such a series. the story can't possible be told in only 13 episodes and the last episode calls up lots of questions that aren't answered but even with this little minor downside is yami no matsuei great to see

the show is based on the manga and even if it's so short it's a must watch for the fans of yaoi and anime

the darkest emotions combined with love, friendship and great unnatural powers is incredible",1 "Ida Lupino was one of the best screen actresses of her generation. If one should doubt it, take one look at ""Deep Valley"", which was filmed when she was about 32 years old. Ms. Lupino transforms herself into a much younger woman, who makes the viewer believe she is a girl in her late teens, or early twenties.

Jean Negulesco had a lot to do with the good work he extracted from his players. The film, which is rarely seen these days, presents us with a dysfunctional family living in an isolated farm in California. Libby, the young daughter of the family is seen tending to her sick mother who is bedridden; her father doesn't seem to talk to the mother, leaving Libby in a difficult position. To make matters worse, Libby suffers from stuttering and from shyness, as she feels trapped into duty and not having the same things other girls, her age, can do.

""Deep Valley"" is a film that presents a plausible romance between Libby and Barry, a convict working on the road construction nearby. Also, Jeff Barker, one of the men from the highway project falls for the young woman's beauty. Things become entangled as Libby finds the escaped man, Barry, and they fall in love. The lovers are doomed from the start, as one realizes Libby and Barry have no chance in being together. What Libby feels for Barry makes her speech problem go away as she regains a confidence she never had.

The film is worth a look because of Ida Lupino. As Libby, she makes this girl come alive without ever striking a wrong note. Dane Clark is also quite good as Barry, the convict. Wayne Morris plays Jeff Barker, the man that loves Libby, but he realizes she doesn't care for him. Fay Bainter and Henry Hill play the older Sauls.

The film is helped by the musical score of Max Steiner and the black and white cinematography created by Ted McCord.",1 "What a great and seasoned cast that was assembled for this ""sting/grifter"" wannabe. Didn't any of them read the script? This was confusing and boring with a poor payoff at the end. The sound track was pretty cool. Check out the two music videos on the DVD.",0 "I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw The Hills Have Eyes Part II at Blockbuster, I didn't even know that Wes had created a sequel from his brilliant classic. My boyfriend and I didn't even hesitate to pick it up, we thought it was going to be another awesome fright fest of the blood thirsty cannibals with probably better effects since Wes had pretty much made good money at that point and also established himself as a great film maker at that point. So we watched it last night with the lights off and you know what happened after the movie was over? We just looked at each other with the most blank stare as if we just saw a car accident. The Hills Have Eyes Part II was just a poorly made film and Wes should be ashamed of himself for ever thinking that this would have been a good movie. The characters were just ridicules and not to mention that he brought back characters that either died in the first film or would have no purpose in this sequel. Not to mention the characters from the first film have flashbacks from the first Hills have Eyes movie, but also the dog has a flashback as well! This story was just a bomb.

We have a group of teenage friends on a bus just going across the country, one of the girls happens to be Ruby, the little cannibal girl from the first film that saved the baby, somehow she's established herself into a model citizen that has a bubble gum personality, until she bumps into her old relatives at the same site with the group. That's right, they're all at the same site and now they are invited to dinner, where I'm sure they'll be the guests of honor.

The Hills Have Eyes Part II was really pathetic and low, not to mention beyond unbelievable. They didn't explain some of the deaths, they never explained what happened to the rest of the family from the first film, we only see the brother, and he has a pointless role because you don't see him for the rest of the film. Also of course some how the blind girl manages to save the day... I just, I can't, I'm sorry, I just really hated this film. I can't believe Wes did this to his own classic tale, just please do yourself a favor, stay as far away from this film as you can, it's no wonder I didn't hear of it, probably people don't wanna think that it ever happened.

1/10",0 "This is one of my favorite stories from the Night Gallery. It looks so ordinary on the surface - a bright sunny day and a father is checking out a military academy he might send his wayward son to. There's no spooky music here or characters screaming in terror. In fact, if you were to stumble across this episode while channel surfing you might think it was just some boring two-star family drama. When you sit and watch it, however, the horror slowly drips down on you until you're drowning in it, not knowing if you should laugh or scream.

Pat Boone plays the lead and makes for interesting casting. He's probably the ultimate Hollywood goody two-shoes and yet here his performance leaves you wondering whether the father is a good-guy faced with a gut wrenching decision, or a bad-guy simply contemplating an evil one. Very disturbing. Good directing from Night Gallery regular Jeff Corey and some creepy cinematography from Lionel Lindon add to the chills. It's a pity that smart (or at least different) approaches to horror from Hollywood, such as ""The Academy"", seem to have mostly died off with Rod Serling.",1 "This movie had a great impact on my life, when you think about it, anyone of us can be a victim of someone as mentally disturbed as Kenneth Taylor. The charm of a Narcissist Psychopath which we find everyday. There are so many sick people out on the loose, it's scary. I saw this movie as a teenager and never forgot about it. The book by Peter Maas is incredible, I bought it through the internet and highly recommend it. I am currently studying Psychology and this character is a very good subject for study. If anyone out there knows where I can purchase this film, I would highly appreciate it. Please send me any information regarding this film to camarito87@hotmail.com Thank you.",1 "This movie is so perfect! The story, acting, scenery and general attention to detail are wonderful. Kristin's character is complex, as are the others- there are no flat characters here, no ""he's the good guy and he's the bad guy."" The plot is also rich and is a refreshing contrast to so many of the predictable, clichéd flicks playing at the mall theaters.

I have to give it a 10. It is flawless and fascinating. If I could, I would give it bonus points for having such unique subject matter, as well. After all, films about medieval Norway don't come out every day- especially not from the perspective of a young, strong, female character.",1 "A poor couple spend a Sunday together. They desperately try to have a good time but their pockets are just too empty to think of anything else.

This is one unbelievable film. Genre is Neo-realism but the style is poetic. I think this is Kurusowa's best. Of course it lacks the complexity of 'Rashomon', grandeur of 'Ran', brilliance of 'kagemusha' or even novelty of 'Seven Samurai' but this film is no doubt a fantastic depiction of human misery by the genius himself. There are so many scenes where you are so much into the scene that you don't realize that the camera has not moved in a long time. For example when girl leaves the room and Yuzo walks around frustrated the camera doesn't move. It gives a very theatrical feel. Every single track is a master piece. I loved the scene where Yuzo goes inside a hotel to meet his friend and he see people in changing rooms and staff rooms. Its brilliant. Its out of the world. How the hell he thinks about about such fantastic locations. Baseball , Ticket line, Yuzo's home, Opera, hotel. Its just fantastic. Parallel allusion drawn with sunshine and rain was phenomenal. Significance of the cigarette bud was sheer genius. Clap, coffee, home. Its unbelievable.I have no idea why people call it Kurosawa's transitional film. Great director make all kinds of films. which one is Spielberg's, Kubrick's or kiarostami's transitional film? I think if a person doesn't like this film then he has no idea what poverty is. 10/10.",1 "This documentary is as true as the Bloody Mary Urban Legend; I am ashamed that PBS can produce something so vile, repugnant and sexist (and wrong; one of the 'abused mothers' - Sadia Loeliger - is actually a recognized abuser).

The 'feminist' who produced and endorsed this give women and mothers a bad name, and I wonder if they still can look at themselves in the mirror.

It says that many children are denied the love of their mothers; HELLOOOO! The children are denied FATHERS!!! It's so obvious an Italian (me) notices it! Don't bother with this work of fiction; it'll only make your blood boil.

Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories: 1/10 (but deserves even less)",0 "Grace Metalious' explosive best-selling novel is given the Hollywood treatment in 1957's ""Peyton Place"". Devoid of so much of the nonsense that has been known to permeate other melodramas, ""Peyton Place"" is a beautifully filmed, effective film that uncovers the hidden scandals of a quaint, New England town. With fine acting, score and cinematography, this screen classic translates well from its literary heritage. And the film's unraveling of the town's secrets is handled well - building up like a ball of snow as each successive scandal is unearthed.

We meet the townspeople from the point-of-view of Allison Mackenzie(Diane Varsi), the sweet and sheltered daughter of Constance(Lana Turner). Constance struggles to be a good mother and community member, while rebuffing the advances of handsome school principal, Michael Rossi(Lee Philips). On the other side of the tracks live Constance's housekeeper whose daughter, Selena(Hope Lange), struggles as a victim of abuse by her own step-father. In the midst of these primary plots are several other tales revolving around sex, love and the war. No one is immune to the reveal of secrets, which have a domino effect all across town.

""Peyton Place"" shook the foundation of Hollywood's censorship board by exposing such taboo topics as sexual abuse and abortion, but not once does it come off as exploitative. On the contrary, the film is firmly grounded in emotion and genuine feeling. And while the movie straddles the line of good taste, a plot involving the war effort and its effect on the young men of Peyton Place proves to be profound. Lana Turner does her job well as the repressed mother. In fact, heated passion can be sensed underneath her aloof, icy-cold exterior - a chill factor even more effective 2 years later in ""Imitation of Life"". And the incredibly good-looking Lee Philip is a perfect match the screen beauty. But it is really with the sensitive performances of Diane Varsi and Hope Lange that this film gains its legs. And Lloyd Nolan cannot be overlooked as the town's warm-hearted doctor. ""Peyton Place"" could have been a heaving, overblown showcase, but instead made its way into becoming an important melodrama that has stood the test of time.",1 "Dario Argento tries to use the camera inventively and playfully, but even all the gimmicks in the world couldn't have saved this excruciatingly dull thriller. The uninteresting plot moves slowly and gets increasingly ridiculous, reaching a real low point when the murdered is revealed and explains his/her motives (they are just as unconvincing as their delivery). The film has a stunning final sequence, but until it gets there you may have already lost your patience. (*1/2)",0 "best movie I have ever seen, great humor, great actors, the story it self is hilarious! the ending is quite predictable, but fun anyway. I can't say anything else than see it NOW! Its too fun, especially Lars Kaalunds performance",1 "Once there was a promising Italian director with a nearly perfect hand when it came to splatter fun like ""Deliria"" (Stage Fright) and who eventually delivered the exquisite, tongue-in-cheek postmodern zombie flick ""Dellamorte Dellamore"" (Cemetery Man) with Rupert Everett in his perhaps finest leading role. That's fifteen years ago, with Soavi having done lots of TV work in the meantime -- maybe the reason why ""Arrividerci amore, ciao"", his first big-screen venture after more than a decade, is exactly looking like a professionally executed RAI Uno television assignment. The biggest problem of ""Amore"" is the script, working moderately, occasionally even quite well for about an hour, after which the story is rapidly mutating from a pretty tight, at intervals hard-hitting crime flick into an extraordinarily boring wife-murder yawn ultimately dissolving into lukewarm air, the end being one of the most awful letdowns in Italian thriller history. It's probably my last Soavi movie: Arrividerci Michele, ciao.",0 "Back in 1974 Tobe Hooper was the Next Big Thing for creating THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE. Then he was King of the World when he directed POLTERGEIST.

This was followed by a series of disasters of Old Testament proportion's. LIFE FORCE, a quickly forgotten (but very nicely done) remake of INVADERS FROM MARS and a really bad CHAINSAW sequel.

After doing lots of work for TV he hit rock bottom. If you think it hurts seeing a cool guy like Peter Jackson do big budget crap like KING KONG, it's even worse when a cool guy like Hooper does no budget crap like CROCODILE.

But with THE TOOLBOX MURDERS Hooper is back at the top of his form.

Like POLTERGEIST, this deals with the theme of The Bad Place. In POLTERGEIST it was a subdivision built on an Indian burial ground.

THE TOOLBOX MURDERS is set in an elegant old hotel (actually the Ambassador Hotel on Wilshire Boulevard) which has seen better days and is being cut up into apartments. The hotel had been built in the Golden Age of Hollywood; it has a mysterious history that the main characters learn about to their peril.

The movie's great strength comes from the collection of excellent actors that Hooper has assembled here. Angela Bettis, the leading lady, ought to be a big star. Correction, make that a huge star. Her performance is the heart and soul of the picture. She plays a would be schoolteacher who moves into the strange old building while her husband completes his medical residency. She's troubled by the strange noises she hears in the building, and the strange events that cause her to dial 911 and then find that there's no real emergency. This does nothing for her credibility with the police.

She makes two good friends in the building. Rance Howard (yes, Ron's dad) plays a retired actor who may know more about the building than is good for him. Juliet Landau plays a neighbor who mysteriously vanishes. When a secondary character speaks of having lost a large amount of weight, you know the person shouldn't start reading any long novels.

This causes the heroine to go into full Nancy Drew mode. She ties her hair back in a sensible ponytail and begins to explore the building, acting on mysterious clues that have been given her by the old actor. She learns that there are secret passages in the building, unaccounted space big enough to hide a whole townhouse within the walls of the apartment complex.

There is violence. There is blood. But, like Hooper's CHAINSAW MASSACRE, some of the goriest footage is projected by the viewer's brain. Hooper stated that in going through old papers from CHAINSAW's production he found that they only purchased 1.5 ounces of stage blood, while the remake probably bought it in gallon tanks. Quick cutting and effective use of light and shadow let his CHAINSAW have the grossest possible gore effects almost entirely coming from the viewer's imagination. Toward the end, though, the blood and gore in THE TOOLBOX MURDERS gets more overt and that costs the film the other two stars.

Watch this one twice. Once for the movie itself. Then watch it again for the director's commentary. It makes you appreciate just how good this movie is, and teaches valuable lessons on how clever artists create solid work without massive budgets.

By the way, this is a ""remake""- note the quotation marks- of a movie with the same name. Different setting. Different decade. Different story. Different characters. Different dynamics between them. Completely different type of villain. Other than that it's a pretty faithful remake. Not.

I can't close this without a nod to the awesomely beautiful Sherri Moon. She plays Daisy Rain, a would be actress who plays what I call the Janet Leigh character: remember the very first time you saw PSYCHO and then boom the whole story dynamic shifted?

I'll grant you, there are some things about the story that are hard to deal with in the context of the real world, a lot of Why didn't and Why couldn't questions about bodies and body parts that are stacked like Lincoln logs in a secret part of the building. Corpses have been accumulating since the early days of talking movies, but nobody in the area notices the smell? I can answer all those questions in one statement: Because this is a thrill ride of a movie, not a documentary on The Discovery Channel, that's why.

I'm looking forward to seeing MORTURARY. There was a Canadian film by that title many, many years ago but I don't know that there's supposed to be any connection.

By the way, both Hooper and Angela Bettis are from Texas, both from Austin. Being a Texan myself, I see that as a good thing.

I turn sixty next month, so I figure I'll have another twenty years of movie-going left in me. I will live long enough to see Angela Bettis become a big star. I will. I will.

A footnote: The outtakes are far bloodier than the movie itself, and were probably cut to ensure the R-rating as opposed to an NC-17. For my two cents worth, I'd suggest that you skip them. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.",1 """Death Race"" puts me in a moral dilemma. Its deliberately trashy, shallow and inept, and for some reason I still like it. Making my feelings even more conflicted is the fact that it was directed by Paul W.S Anderson, a director who tries to turn movies into video games, and always fails. But as they say in Hollywood ""you're only as good as your last picture"" so Anderson is as good as anyone right now.

Not too far into the future our economy has collapsed (maybe McCain won), poverty reigns supreme and crime has become unstoppable. The prisons are filled beyond capacity, and Americas number one form of entertainment is watching the inmates fight to the death. The fights to the death got old and America needed something new. Death Race was invented. The concept is the same as death fighting, only you slug it out in an armor plated car with machine guns. The last man alive wins, and if you win enough races, you win your freedom.

Enter Jensen Ames, a former Nascar driver prior to his prison conviction, who loses his job when the local steel mill is closed. He goes home to his wife and infant daughter, only to have a masked man break in and kill his wife. Ames is framed for the crime and sent to prison.

Ames is sent to prison, where the warden Hennessey, played with excellent restraint by Joan Allen, informs him that he must replace Frankenstein, the most popular death racer, if he is ever to leave the prison. Ames agrees, and the games begin.

As a satire ""Death Race"" completely miss fires. The opening prologue informs us of the downfall of American society, and its never brought up again. Were informed that Death Race has become more popular then the Super Bowl with more then seventy million viewers but we never see one of those people watching. For some reason the drivers are paired with sexy women to navigate, even though they have a pit crew to do that. The women are in it for ratings, to make a statement about our own for sex as well as violence, but the viewers cant see the women inside the cars, so how do they help ratings? Just a few examples of the missed satire.

But this isn't an Oliver Stone movie. When you buy a ticket to see ""Death Race"", you want to see some death and some racing. And you get both, but mostly death. The racing scenes are electrifying. The combination of great stunt work, special effects and art direction give this films action the boost of adrenaline it craves. Andersons vision is to immerse us in a ""Twisted Metal"" video game, and he pulls it off with magnificent results. He captures the sadistic mentality of ""Twisted Metal"" perfectly. One driver turns his car around just to shoot another driver.

""You cant drive backwards"" his partner remarks…I beg to differ. That scene will remind ""Grand Theft Auto"" fans of many rampages.

Anderson keeps his eyes on the finish line and ""Death Race"" moves towards its conclusion in a heart beat. Despite my immersion in the story, it was way too predictable. The framed for murder set up is too obvious, and before you can even figure it out for yourself they give it away. And as for the ending, only a few things can happen at the end a prison movie, and you know what they are. But despite the twists you can see coming a mile away, they're still satisfying. ""Death Race"" is one of the few examples where a bad script can become a good movie.

The acting is wonderful all around. Jason Statham is a read deal action super star. He's got the physique of Van Damme and a million times the acting ability. His character's quest to see his daughter gives the film its only sliver of humanity, and all a prison movie needs is a sliver.

Joan Allen as the warden plays her character so tightly she could probably crack a cashew with her but cheeks. Hennessey is so tightly wound I often wondered is she was going to implode. And towards the end she gets a chance to deliver some perfectly timed profanity. Maybe the last four letter words you;; ever hear out of her mouth.

Newcomer Natalie Martinez has infinite sex appeal as Case, the sexy vixen who rides in the passenger seat beside Ames. But more then a pretty face she gets a chance to act, and proves shell be around for years to come.

Ian McShane is perfect as the simply named Coach. His job is to coach. His weathered face and gravelly voice perfectly fit's the prototype of a man who's spent a long time in prison. But he was good in a stinker like ""Hot Rod"", so its no surprise here.

Director Paul W.S Anderson has always attempted to make his films into video games, and ""Death Race"" really does play like a video game. That's the films intention and it works. It satisfies the blood lust lurking deep within us all. Society hasn't gotten to the point where we watch snuff films but watching fictional people kill each other is still loads of fun, and so is ""Death Race"".

¾ stars",1 "Martin Scorsese directs a savage and brutal masterpiece. A young boy(Leonardo DiCaprio)witnesses the killing of his father the Priest Vallon(Liam Neeson). Amsterdam Vallon(DiCaprio)returns from a fifteen year or so stay in reform school to the Five Points area of NYC seeking revenge against Bill the Butcher(Daniel Day-Lewis), his father's killer. Bill is a racist bully and believes he is the king of New York, or at least his own little corner of the world. Amsterdam gets in the good graces of the Butcher only to plot his demise. Along the way the young Vallon meets a pocket picking whore Jenny(Cameron Diaz)and reluctantly falls in love. The tribes of the city are summoned for the mother of all knock down drag out duels with the Butcher and Amsterdam intent on slaying the other.

The scenes of 1840s and 1860s New York City are awesome. Great photography and camera work. The most dramatic scene is of the blood covered and body cluttered snow at the film's beginning. This of course seems tame compared to the carnage that brings this epic to a close. Day-Lewis is commanding in his role of the Butcher, one the most egotistical and racist savage characters unable to escape your memory. DiCaprio seems an awkward choice for his role and at times seems unlikely to achieve his character's accomplishments. Diaz was down right fetching and I still believe she could tempt a dead man. Also in the cast are Jim Broadbent, Brendan Gleeson, David Hemmings, Joseph P. Reidy, Henry Thomas and John C. Reilly.

Sometimes a little bit too wordy and slow, but still this almost three hour film is strong enough to hold your interest and imagination. In spite of the nay-sayers I believe Scorcese is a master among his peers. And being Irish is no requirement for feeling some pride or sorrow.",1 "I saw this film several years ago on television here in France and thought it was great. It was so eerie and atmospheric. Jean Simmons was lovely and fetching as young Caroline whose evil Uncle Silas, played superbly by Derrick DeMarney and his unscrupulous cohort Madame Rougierre try to do away with her in a gloomy mansion along with the aid of Silas's son Dudley (Katina Paxinou is brilliant as Madame). Unfortunately, I didn't have a VCR back then and so I couldn't record it. Now that I have gotten a video recorder, the only place that I've found it to be available is over in the States. They only carry the American released version from the early 1950's when Jean Simmons really caught on over there. The films title was changed to ""The Inheritance"" and a scene where Uncle Silas has Dudley propose marriage to Caroline had been cut by the censures (incest was taboo in American cinema back then). Uncle Silas then forces Dudley to leave the house only to sneak him back later in the wee hours of the morning. In the American print we are not sure who that someone is (or why someone is being sneaked back into the house). It would seem confusing if you had never see the uncut British original. Lastly, in the British version Uncle Silas overdoses and dies. For some strange reason, in the American version he kills himself with a self inflicted gun shot wound. If you can get the British one, do. If not, the American release copy is a worthy second. **** out of **** stars. P.S. It's also a great book (""Uncle Silas"" by J.S.LeFanu) and it's back in print!",1 "Last of the Dogmen takes you into the past while remaining in the present. Tom Berenger and Barbara Hershey have good chemistry together.Tom Berenger makes an awesome ""cowboy"" type of romantic lead. Native Americans are well represented. This movie helps open the eyes of what it was like for the Cheyenne Indians plight to escape the forbearance of the Whiteman. Like Lewis Gates says: ""I was born a hundred years to late,"" which is exactly the way I feel. The music portrays romanticism, and boldness, kind of like the westerns of days gone by. The dog ""Zip"" is an actor in himself. He is well trained. The scenery is awesome! Take me to Canmore, Canada, or is it the Oxbows? Which ever, I loved this movie! Would like to live this dream come true.",1 "I took my children, ages 8 and 5, to see the movie over the weekend and I'd have to say that I enjoyed it every bit as much as they did. The character portrayed by Emma Thompson was simply wonderful. Even though she used her ""magic"" to get desired results from the children, all one had to do was look into her eyes and see the genuine compassion she felt for the children. The whole scenario with the fairy tale books and logic behind WHY the children misbehaved to much made them not nearly as bratty as one would have expected from such behavior and actually made me feel a bit sorry for them so they became almost likable in their attitudes. They weren't just ""brats"" for the sake of being brats; they had a genuine fear of losing their father which, ultimately would have happened had he married that harpie Mrs. Quimby.

My children absolutely loved the whole barnyard animal scene, especially the dancing donkey. Second to that was the food fight at the wedding. I found this movie to be appropriate for children of ALL ages and simply enjoyable for myself as well. I highly recommend this movie!!!",1 "Sprightly comedy-mystery that holds up thanks mainly to Brian Aherne's expert fumbling with petty annoyances. All in all, he cooks roasts about as well as he opens doors, that is, not without considerable practice. He's supposed to be a mystery writer, but as a real-life sleuth, he's about as effective as an American Clouseau. I think I detect some subtle spoofing of the many amateur detectives of the period (Ellery Queen, The Saint, Boston Blackie, et. al.). And it doesn't hurt that Charlie Chan (Sydney Toler) turns up as a police inspector. Watch Jeff (Aherne) get decked in a fight, get about every clue wrong, get weak at the sight of a corpse, and generally behave like the anti-Sherlock. Good thing he's back- stopped by gorgeously competent wife Nancy (Loretta Young). As the charmingly inept Jeff, Britisher Aherne is simply superb, and, I would think, at the apex of his American career.

Also, it appears the concept may have started off as a stage play since the action is mainly confined to Jeff & Nancy's dingy apartment. However that may be, the supporting cast is a collection of lively and familiar faces, especially Hollywood's favorite dumb cop, rubber-faced Donald McBride (Bolling), along with the grandly smitten furniture mover James Burke. The fractured events all move at a sure-handed pace thanks to veteran comedy director Richard Wallace. My one complaint is that better use is not made of the best dragon-lady of the period, Gale Sondergaard (Mrs. Devoe), who's often sinister enough to scare the stitches off Frankenstein's neck. Here however she plays it fairly boring and straight. Anyway, it's a nifty little comedy with a good mix of laughs and chills, and I expect war-weary audiences of the day (1942) found it great escapist entertainment that holds up well, even today. (Also—be sure to catch the amusingly apt very last frame.)",1 "He may not be quite as well known among casual fans of Italian genre films as the names Bava or Argento, but Sergio Martino is responsible for some of the absolute best Gialli ever made. His earlier, frequent collaborations with Edwige Fenech are almost legendary and produced some of the best films this genre has to offer. Movies like The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh, All the Colors of the Dark, and Your Vice is a Locked Door and Only I Have the Key are all among my favorites. Unfortunately, Scorpion with Two Tails does not come close to measuring up to Martino's previous successes. There are any number of problems I had with the film, but chief among them is that it's about as dull as any Giallo I can remember seeing. A plot involving an Etruscan Cemetery, a missing shipment of heroin, bad guys trying to find both, and a beautiful young woman with visions of Etruscan ceremonies – it just never drew me in the way Martino's other films have. Also, I never really cared for any of the characters. Elvire Audray plays the role usually played by Edwige Fenech in one of Martino's movies (she almost resembles a blond Edwige). But to be blunt, Elvire Audray is no Edwige Fenech. She has none of Edwige's screen presence or charisma. Genre legend John Saxon is on hand, but his role is so small that it really added nothing to the film. Saxon was most likely hired to put a ""name"" on the cast list. And when the killer was revealed, it had no effect on me at all. I didn't care enough about any of the characters to even care who the killer was. Also, I'm not a big fan of supernatural elements being thrown into a Giallo. These movies should be all about black gloved killers, stalking their human prey for greed, money, or jealousy. The risen spirit of an ancient Etruscan just doesn't feel right. As much as I hate to give a Martino Giallo such a low rating, I don't have a choice in this case. Scorpioin with Two Tails really doesn't deserve much more than a 3/10.",0 "What a complete surprise this movie was. It's funny... poignant... and VERY sexy.

For his first film, Vince Rocca has delivered a great piece of entertainment... enough to make Kevin Smith jealous.

He has a solid cast, especially Nikki Stanzione, who I'm shocked not to have seen before this film. And Nichole Rayburn just sizzles on the screen... add that to some snappy dialogue, and you are in for a treat.

Also look for a great cameo from Ginger Lynn Allen... I really do think this woman has some great performances in her, no pun intended. I would love to see her in some larger roles.

And, the soundtrack is fantastic! Honestly, I would buy a CD with these songs on it in an instant. So, anyone affiliated with Kisses and Caroms, please release the music on cd, or tell us how to track those songs down.",1 "The film was awful went it came to the fighting between the French and the Syrians. There should have been a lot more gun fire between the French and the insurgents. There should have been a lot more explosions of French artillery shells bombarding the city. They show the city against the background of a early sunrise; however, there was no heavy columns of smoke that resulted from the French artillery shells exploding in the city There was also no sound of French airplanes and having them bomb and machine gun the Syrians' positions.

In addition, the way the French troops move around the city was terrible. In a combat situation, troops would have their rifles at port arms so they be ready to bring their weapons to a firing position just in case they get fire upon. They would not be walking around the city with rifles on their shoulders and walking in a parade ground formation.

One person stated that the American people during the 1920s never heard of the Syrian revolt. I suspect one reason why the Americans never heard about it that the American press was concentrating on Prohibition, robbers like Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, organized crime like Al Capone, labor strikes that occurred after World War I, and the communist scare of the 1920s. Even if it was printed in the paper, it was just a sideshow event that never got much notice. I bet that today most Americans still don't know about the revolt in Syria. The only time we paid attention to Syria was during the various Arab-Israeli Wars and Syrian intervention in Lebanon.

It was and still easier to concentrate on doing war movies against the Japan and Germany since we won those wars.",0 "Against any common sense, I decided to watch another family comedy starring Eddie Murphy.On my defense, I had two excuses to do that.The first one is that Imagine That is co-written by Ed Solomon and Chris Matheson, responsibles for Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and its sequel.The second excuse is my continuous apology for Murphy, who I keep considering to be a great comedian, even though he keeps wasting his talent on atrocities like Norbit and Daddy Day Care.Well, unfortunately, Imagine That is another atrocity in his career.

The screenplay from this ""film"" is ridiculous and irritatingly cloying, not to mention it is developed with an unbearable slowness and that every situation seems to have been manufactured with waste of other family comedies (Another ""tense"" conclusion in which the father has to choose between an important business meeting and the school concert from his daughter? Really?!).

Frankly, this movie could have been told in less time and with more humor.Wait a minute...they had already done it! The episode from The Simpsons where Homer uses Lisa to bet in sport events covers the same narrative field from Imagine That, not to mention it transmits the same message with more honesty and more laughs.Murphy is absolutely wasted in here, and the same applies to the supporting cast, which has other solid actors like Thomas Haden Church, Stephen Root and Ronny Cox.

In summary, Imagine That is an execrable and vomiting movie which is really insulting to the spectator.Avoid it like a plague.I still cannot understand how Murphy is so stubborn in burying his career.",0 "The movie doesn't build up the main characters at all, They are just presented to you. No view into the main characters life at all.

Your perspective from the beginning of the film is that the Paul character is your stereotypical movie 'bad guy'. His character lacks substance and meaning throughout the entire film.

No insight into why the murders are taking place. No insight into his past, Nothing at all.

He is so stereotypical that he snugs his chin into his chest before going in for the kill, A typical horror film cliché. It used bleak lighting, typical music, and on top of that you have the AWFUL acting.

Unfortunately the acting is so bad that it kills any originality that could have been.

Maintenance completely lacks originality and substance even though the storyline could very well of worked out with a better cast of characters and better direction.",0 "Anthony Hopkins once again plays a killer who is playing games with the authorities - not dissimilar to his role in Silnce of the lambs except he doesn't eat people in this film.

Ted Crawford knows his wife is having an affair with a policeman and so he shoots her through the head! Trouble is this killer is clever and despite acting ignorant in court knows how to play the system. He is up against Willy Beecham an eager young DA.

While the film wasn't sleep inducing it was hardly thriller of the year stuff, the storyline was slow (painfully at times), There was no suspense to keep you on the edge of your seat, no gripping storyline, and no action.

OK if you have nothing else to watch but not one to highly recommend",0 "Plot (and I'll keep this brief – no point in dragging it out): Quest of the Delta Knights is the story of a boy, sold into slavery, who becomes the leader of a revolutionary group out to stop the evil Lord Vultare from discovering Archimedes lost storehouse and the knowledge it contains. This knowledge includes a weapon of unlimited power.

My plot description almost makes Quest of the Delta Knights sound good. Unfortunately, Quest of the Delta Knights is one big old dog of a movie. Nothing in the movie makes sense. It's a mish-mash of ideas and characters that don't go together. Imageine every sort of pre-16th Century character you can think of and you're bound to find them fighting and living beside each other in this movie. Viking, knights, Italian scholars – it doesn't matter. Also, I've seen this movie several times and I'm not quite sure where it's supposed to be set. Someone mentions England, but there are Viking roaming around. With Leonardo Di Vinci as a character, you might think Italy. Again, how do you explain the Vikings? How about Atlantis? It's anyone's guess. And because the whole thing looks like its straight out a Renaissance festival, maybe the setting is supposed to be California? Makes as much sense as anything else you'll find in the movie. This is just one small example of the numerous inconsistencies and annoyances you'll find in Quest of the Delta Knights. Believe me, there are plenty more.

Watching Quest of the Delta Knights, I decided that some people will do just about anything if the price is right. Apparently the producers of this turkey offered David Warner enough money that he was willing to embarrass himself by taking on not one, but two roles. How much money does it take for an actor to agree to star in something like this? Many watchers would also recognize Richard Kind in the role of wise man/Magi Wamthool. But the casting of Kind has to be one of the most puzzling in movie history. I realize they were going for comic relief but they failed miserably. Kind may even have embarrassed himself more than Warner in his mercifully brief performance.

I could go on and on, but really there's no point. My opinion of Quest of the Delta Knights should already be painfully obvious. If not, I'll spell it out for you – it's an incredibly bad movie with one ridiculous set-piece after the next. There are few, if any, redeeming moments to be found. I must admit, however, that my experiences with Quest of the Delta Knights have been softened by watching the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of the movie. The MST3K guys make it a barrel of laughs. So, while I rate the movie a miserable 2/10, I'll give it a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.",0 "Elfen Lied is an beautiful, emotionally charged story about human nature with a catch. The catch is that the tale contains extreme amounts of adult content in every episode, from dismemberment to nudity. If you are capable of looking at this content and understanding its bearing on the story then I highly recommend the series. The story on a surface level may be straight forward, a mutant goes on a rampage against it's oppressors, however the draw lies in the implications of the story. Psychological problems, tragedy, love, betrayal, and human emotional response to all the above flow from the storyline, making Elfen Lied much more than a first look at the plot may suggest. The characters are multi-dimensional, and will be both loved and hated over the course of the series. By the time the series drew to a close I personally was quite attached to the protagonists and admittedly cried during the final episode. Further concerning the adult content, I cannot stress enough the maturity required to view this series. This anime has the most blood and nudity I have ever seen in one place and contains plenty of adult language. If you are too immature to watch the characters for their personalities rather than their bodies or are of weak constitution pass on this series. If you take this warning seriously and consider yourself capable of handling it, Elfen Lied makes for an excellent, engrossing story worthy of thought, laughter and tears.",1 "Carl Reiner's 1982 pastiche on 1940's film noir has never received its due as a genuinely clever, often hilarious salute to a genre that is ripe for satirical treatment. Filmed in a rich black-and-white by Michael Chapman, the film unique intercuts footage from actual films of the period to make it seem like the then-current actors are interacting with the stars of those movies. Consequently, Steve Martin looks convincingly like he's talking to the likes of Humphrey Bogart in ""The Big Sleep"", James Cagney in ""White Heat"", Ingrid Bergman in ""Notorious"", Alan Ladd in ""This Gun for Hire"", Burt Lancaster in ""The Killers"", Kirk Douglas in ""I Walk Alone"", Fred MacMurray in ""Double Indemnity"", and several others. The result means there are some contrived plot turns and certainly variations in the graininess of the film stock (since 1982 was still well before the enhanced computer graphics we see today), but the film is still quite a kick after a quarter-century.

The basic plot is straightforward. Rigby Reardon is a classic, world-weary gumshoe in the Philip Marlowe mold, who is hired by the beautiful and mysterious Juliet Forrest to find out who killed her father, a renowned cheese scientist. The story gets complicated because a number of random characters are introduced through the creative editing of the classic film clips. Reardon meets up with some familiar faces, and just to watch their non-reaction to Reardon's antics is worthwhile in itself. Credit needs to go to the smart screenplay co-written by Reiner, Martin and George Gipe. Most of the scenes, originally intended as straight melodrama in their original context, have been turned into uproarious slapstick comedy routines (including Martin in drag as Barbara Stanwyck's blonde femme fatale from ""Double Indemnity""), wicked double-entendres and shrewdly off-kilter dialogue scenes.

The film's climax lifts a long dramatic sequence from 1949's ""The Bribe"" in which Ava Gardner, Charles Laughton and Vincent Price actually appear to be playing more substantial roles in this movie. In what is probably my favorite of his early screen performances, Martin has a good time as Bogie wannabe Reardon, gratefully harnessing the manic energy he displayed in his previous collaboration with Reiner, ""The Jerk"". Just before she broke out big in ""The Thorn Birds"", the stunning Rachel Ward lends a hint of welcome sarcasm to the sexy, Bacall-like languor she provides as Juliet, tapping into a genuine comedy talent rarely used since. Reni Santoni has the only other role of significance as the grinning Captain Rodriguez, who gets entirely too preoccupied with Reardon's pajamas. Legendary costume designer Edith Head did her final work on this film, which is fitting since she did many of the costumes on the earlier films. The 1999 DVD unfortunately has no extras.",1 "...no really they did - not just because this film was so awful, but you simply never know! To take some of the UK's finest character actors, take one of the funniest antidotes to 'chick-lit shopping novels' I've ever read to produce this steaming pile of 'god-awfulness' beggars belief. Okay, so casting 'talent Dyson' Anna Friel wasn't the greatest idea ever but Joanna Lumley and Greg Wise couldn't even carry it on their (absolutely!) fabulous shoulders. These types of movie are one of the reasons that the UK film industry is still flagging ('cough...nepotism...ahem). The director tried some bold moves and techniques but poor Anna just wasn't worthy of them. My partner still hasn't forgiven me for taking him to this, do you know how many Arnie / Bruce / zombie films I had to (uncomplainingly) sit through as penance? The book is outstanding, her best ever, if you are thinking of renting this movie I urge you to buy a book instead - and if you're not a big reader then you could stick pins in your legs as you watch it, it may help you stay awake.",0 "I think this ""film"" proves that Buffooning Myself Poorly is about as tragically un-self-aware as are all of its hamsters.

I briefly entertained the foolish thought that the plot may actually have been going somewhere when the tall skinny bitchy one started telling her fellow ""cast members"" that this was exactly what Roland wanted them to do--get all their issues out and create conflict and fulfill their stereotypes.

""Yes!"" I thought. ""Perhaps we are finally in for some self-critique"".

But then it quickly degenerated into something like the bastard child of ""The Blair Witch Project"" and ""Undressed"".

Please indulge me, as there are few things I just have to get off my chest (May Contain Spoilers):

1. Why the hell did they run aimlessly through the woods instead of running down the road they obviously came in on?

2. How in the world could Jake be such a stupid freaking idiot?

3. What, oh what was the purpose of having the scenes with the actual RW folks (other than as filler)?

I think we see why Jon and Mary-Ellis failed as soap producers--they couldn't produce dialogue or plots believable enough to satisfy even the basement-dwelling standards of daytime television.

Rating: 1 - I'd give it a big fat goose egg if IMDB had such an option.",0 "Dennis Mitchell (Mason Gamble) is a five year old boy, who's clever and always curious. Which Dennis doesn't meant to be a bad little boy. But his neighbor George Wilson (Walter Matthau) is been suffering for some time, Because of Dennis' antics. When a poor, grease thief (Christopher Lloyd) comes to Dennis' home town for robberies. But he didn't think that he can't match with this little kid.

Directed by Nick Castle (The Boy Who Could Fly, The Last Starfighter, Major Payne) made an amusing comedy family film, which is based on a comic-strip by Hank Ketcham. Gamble is very likable in the title role. Matthau is perfectly cast as Mr. Wilson. The Cast includes:Joan Plowright, Lea Thompson, Robert Stanton and Paul Winfield. But the Script, Written by John Hughes (The Breakfest Club, National Lampoon's Vacation, Pretty in Pink). Who also produced this film manages to somewhat rip-off his ""Home Alone"" style mischief violence for laughs. Which isn't that bad, since it was a modest hit at the box office and audiences of all ages should enjoy this. Watch for a young Natasha Lyonne for a bit part and Devin Ratray from the ""Home Alone"" fame. (*** 1/2 out of *****).",1 "I was drawn into Days in Dec. '06 when Chelsea was treating Nick horribly - just before he turned into 'The Lonely Splicer'. For a few days, I turned it on just waiting for that storyline.

Then I met Bo - which shocked me as he looks so much like my husband. Eventually, I recognized Steve from an episode of The Nanny (as I'd never watched ANY soaps before this...) Then I followed religiously the Shawn and Belle escape from Phillip (who I couldn't stand at the time) and Sami and Lucas's wedding triangle.

Now! I'm all about Phillip and Belle!! Since I'm new (?) perhaps, I never saw much chemistry between Belle and Shawn. I think Phillip's macho side is a more ""normal"" alpha-male - just determined and pained looking at times --- all that money weighing him down??! It seems totally realistic to me that Belle would be hard pressed to ignore the support and safety Phillip could provide - nature calls! I've been reading that regular fans are unhappy with Belle's new promiscuous side - but, this is a Soap Opera, right? Anyway, since enjoying this show so much, I've put some time into the other Soaps, but this one seems in a higher class altogether. The parenting tidbits of advice actually help me with my kids! (and spouse!) I guess just feel like I can relate to the characters - despite whatever plot mechanism is underplay.

Thanks to all who work for this show!!!!!!",1 "This awful movie has very little resemblance to H.G. Wells fantastic novel. I only watched this film because Pamela Franklin, whom I'm a huge fan of, was in this film. I guess she needed the money real bad to appear in a stinker like this. Director Bert I. Gordon has done some wonderful, low-budget campy films in the '50s and '60s, but this isn't one of them! Some people like this film because it is so bad and cheesy; I mean I usually get a big laugh out of films like that, but this film is a total bore. Contains a few laughs, but not many. Perhaps if I watched it stoned, I might find it funnier, because everything is funny when you are high. The very fact that former child evangelist, Marjoe Gortner is in it is enough to type anyone of that it is a very, horrible movie. I feed bad for Ms. Franklin that she even appeared in such a rotten egg of a movie. No wonder she gave up acting!",0 """Frankenstein Reborn"" is another of those direct to rental flicks that usually makes you hesitate before you rent. Just the fact that viewers are ready to shell out a few bucks in the hope that ""this time"" they'll be pleasantly surprised says quite a lot. Unfortunately, there are not many emerging Roger Cormans out there, and movies like ""Frankenstein Reborn"" proves that fact. Another poster on this title claims some connection to this dreary movie, defending it because the cast and crewed ""cared"" about what they were doing. I'm sure Kevin Costner ""cared"" about ""Waterworld"", but it was still a terrible movie. All the audience has to go on is the finished product, and to be blunt, most don't give a damn about how much work or money went into the effort. ""Frankenstein Reborn"" is a bad movie. Bad acting, bad script, bad effects, and obviously too bad to be released into legitimate theaters. The quickie shooting schedule shows, everything looks threadbare (especially the ""nightclub"" location which looks like someone's basement with a cardboard bar and some flashing colored lights bouncing on the walls. Check out the ""nurses/lab assistants"" with their meticulously polished inch-and-a-half long nails and nary a rubber glove in sight. See the monster with half a pound of Silly Putty on his face and yarn for hair! Ninety percent of this tripe is shot in close-ups, evidently because you'd be able to see the edges of the sets or the kitchen sink. Perhaps it's time to leave the poor old Frankenstein monster alone, this version brings nothing really new to the genre even though I'm sure the director thought he was being revisionist. While I do commend those who attempt making a movie, I cannot say something is good when it's plainly not. This movie isn't good...and when I shelled out the rental fee, I paid for the right to say so.",0 """Cavite"" proves that if the story is good enough, technical excellence is unimportant. Filmed on video with a crew of two, and no budget whatsoever, Cavite is a gripping, roller coaster of a ride. Called to the Philippines, a completely Americanized, young Filipino-American discovers that his mother and sister have been kidnapped. A cellphone planted in his backpack rings and he learns they are held by terrorists and he must follow every direction he is given or they will be killed. Guided by the terrorist's voice on a cellphone, what follows is a tense voyage through the underbelly of Cavite, a city in the Philippines. Although this is at its soul a thriller, by focusing on stark images of third-world poverty, the film cleverly illustrates why terrorist acts have appeal for many. Like all classic thrillers the stakes get higher and higher and the tension grows as the story moves on to its inevitable climax. Although some critics have indicated that they thought the lead actor was lacking in ability I found exactly the opposite -- he is the perfect ""everyman,"" trapped in a situation not of his making. This is great storytelling. I saw this movie twice and recommend it highly.",1 "Chevy Chase plays Andy Farmer, a frustrated writer, who moves with his wife, Elizabeth, to a farm in Vermont. Nothing seems to go the way the couple expected. The Farmer's bribe the township into creating a Norman Rockwell persona in order to sell the farm and return to New York.

This movie is more stupid than funny. Pathetic jokes that keep falling flat and missing their mark. Jay Cronley's novel was done a disservice. Madolyn Smith-Osborne holds her own with what she has to work with. This is no where near the caliber of Chase's ""vacation"" movies.",0 "The film begins as a documentary, explaining how a triple-homicide plays out in the Pine Barrens, located in Southern New Jersey. Although the film captured my attention quickly, it stalled out into early points and didn't seem to connect later in the film. For example, they employ an ex soaps director to direct the live broadcast, yet he not only does not accompany them to their live broadcast, he is basically left out of the film entirely. The shaky camera work, I think, worked well in some cases, but was overdone. Some camera shots just don't make sense (the camera angles from outside the camp, looking in, for example).

The 'documentary' also doesn't play out like a normal documentary. It was close, but maybe thirty minutes or so in, I could tell something was a little off, and didn't make sense.

The movie had a ton of potential. Done a little different, and with a different 'twist' ending, it could have easily been a great movie. As it stands now, the 'twist' at the end barely made sense, and although I understood what they were trying to portray, it came across as a cheap ending, a 'it was all a dream' sort of conclusion.

To be honest, I'd skip this one if I had the choice.",0 "The lead couple had no chemistry. Uma Thurman is too posh to be in this role. They dealt with this situation in the simplest way, Meryl Streep just tell's Uma Thurman she is Uma's bf's mother. The movie then goes on and on and I don't care anymore, I just want it to be over. There is nothing really unique about this movie. The trailer summarizes the movie well. The breakup is a poor ending, and there's no great conclusion. This was just a temporary relationship, now that it's over, we can move on. We never end up sympathizing for any characters. The premise of the movie was good, how they developed it was awful. Meryl's character was limited by what she could say. This is hardly a comedy.",0 "Note that these shorts are not ""extreme"" horror films in the American sense. The film that comes closest to contemporary American sensibilities in this vein is the South Korean one, ""Cut.""

Namely, if you're a strict fan of recent American ""scare-core"" movies and you don't particularly go for foreign films, you should probably steer clear of these. Otherwise you'll probably yawn and feel gypped because they don't scare you out of your skin. (But please take note that they don't intend to.)

These films are more unsettling and eerie than horrifying in the way that American audiences have come to expect in the horror genre. With the possible exception of ""Cut,"" they are not mini ""popcorn films"" and should be watched with silence and an open mind.

""Dumplings"" is very strong; it immerses you in the unique (and close) ambiance of its setting. The pacing of the plot is also good. ""Dumplings"" seeks to make the audience feel vaguely sick and recoil rather than scream or skip a heartbeat. It has a very sly, dark sense of humor running through its core.

""Cut"" also has moments of levity and twisted creativity and is entertaining. There's something almost baroque about the visuals and it's got a denser, more packed plot than the other two shorts. Ultimately, I found it less effective than the other two pieces, which opt for the understated instead of overt ""extremes."" I liked the very beginning of ""Cut"" the best, with its strange and alluring female specter; I found myself wishing the filmmakers had developed this scene as a narrative instead of the main story.

""Box"" is more similar to ""Dumplings"" in feel, being dreamy and surreal; however, you are invited to inhabit the main character more. The film is a psychological drama and relies heavily on its use of wintry imagery and symbolism, which makes it an engrossing experience. Ambiguity and the audience's projections on the story are crucial; especially toward the end. You might recognize some visual motifs from other Japanese works such as the original versions of ""Dark Water"" and ""The Ring"" (""Ringu."") None of these is a ""popcorn"" flick, with the possible exception of ""Cut."" I recommend ""Three ... Extremes"" for fans of East Asian cinema and also aficionados of foreign films in general.",1 "Dasgupta's Kaalpursh is easily one of the finest films to come out in Bollywood. A mind-blowing astounding film. What a film! A film which isn't a commercial in any aspect, yet your gloved in it. Any award given to this flick will be insulting it. Two Thumps Way Up!

Performances: Mithun Chakraborty is a Legendary actor of Indian Cinema, My favorite actor. His performance here once again proves that he's the best in the business. Rahul Bose is outstanding, he's an actor who has the potential to go down as one of the most natural actors of Indian Cinema. Sameera Reddy is effortless. Others are also Good.

'Kaalpurush' is outstanding, mind blowing film, Which is rich in each and every aspect. Bravo!",1 "There is NO Esperanto in this movie

I watched this movie specifically because IMDb lists Esperanto as one of the languages used. But IMDb is mistaken about the languages used in this film. There is absolutely no Esperanto at all. It's almost all English with a couple of words of Navajo. Do not watch this film if you're looking for Esperanto movies. Other options instead are ""Idiot's Delight"" (with Clark Gable) which has a bit of Esperanto, ""Incubus"" is all Esperanto (although completely mispronounced), and there are some Esperanto street signs in Charlie Chaplin's ""The Great Dictator."" There was supposed to be some spoken Esperanto in ""Gattaca"" as well, but I never heard any.

Aside from that, the other reviewer is right. This movie is a complete mess.

Spend your time elsewhere.",0 "OK, now here is a ghost story that came way under my radar and turns out to be a superior ghost story with a couple of twists. A lady children's book author is plagued with nightmares of a little girl disappearing in a swamp and images of an old house. When viewing a television story, she notices the house in her nightmare and the surrounding area, specifically a marsh where she keeps seeing and following this little girl. She tracks down the property and moves into the house, in a small remote area close to a little town. After installing a door she finds in the cellar, strange things begin to happen and what were her nightmares are now becoming too real. Yes, the house and the marsh hold deep secrets in the town and the house, and she enlists the help of a local paranormal consultant played very well by Forest Whitaker. He moves into her house with his equipment and quickly realizes the supernatural is at work. This movie succeeds on every level with excellent performances, and a very tight story that keeps you guessing until the final reveal. Are her nightmares really lost memories of a past she has forgotten, and if she is the little girl ghost then how is that possible? All the questions are answered, and I had a real ball with this one. Highly recommended.",1 "In a nutshell, if you've seen five average, gory suspense movies before, you've seen this one. By the end, you won't care.

The movie has been described already in other posts, so I won't get into that. What I do want to stress are the horrible characters, and the buckets of clichés and plot devices.

The movie starts out like any typical hack'em up suspense flick with moody music, quick edits, and lots of in-your-face gore, some plot, and then some odd characters -- the cast of suspects. These suspects are all acting totally wrong given the situation, and that is why we suspect them. We never find out why they are acting weird except for the actual killer. One suspect goes on behaving suspiciously and letting the cops think what they will, and it's never explained why. Another obvious suspect is totally ignored by the cops, and is even left alone with the woman who knew all the slashed-up victims.

The police too, are stupid way beyond Keystone Cops. They follow leads into apartments, discover PIECES OF THE VICTIMS, and just hang around alone, poking through things without phoning for back-up, knowing the baddies could be back at any moment. This happens twice. Then, when attacked in a dark alley by the murderer in a car, while the murderer is threateningly -- but patiently -- gunning the engine in neutral apparently waiting for the cop to decide where to run, the cop runs straight for a fence, and the inevitable man-climbs-fence-while-chased-by-car scene, instead of calmly stepping back through the OPEN DOOR into the brick building he just came out of. He also neglects to take down the licence plate, or, apparently, to tell the rest of the police department to look for that car in the area. It shows up again under the APARTMENT BUILDING of the woman they're trying to protect.

And the pathetic attempt at pathos. There's a scene where one guy is crying -- and i'm not making this up -- while passionately squeezing a handful of semi-digested peanuts.

Nothing fits. There's no motive for the way the murderer is working. The police suddenly divine patterns of how the murderer tells the police who the next victim will be, and if you've got two brain cells to rub together, you know who's going to be marked for death next. The murderer gives away far too much information, as if wanting to be caught, but it doesn't play out that way at all.

Positives. The acting by the main female lead was decent. There was nothing she personally could do about the script or the director, or the other actors. There's lots of blood, and other than the rubber arms, all the gory props are at least reasonably believable.

The movie generally looked good. It was appealing, appropriate, and professionally done up in post production. The music was good, and I'd say some of it was a poor copy of the dramatic classical music in ""Old Boy,"" but this movie was made first, so maybe it was the inspiring predecessor.

Anyway, best avoided.",0 "I've been to ibiza twice and i love movies, so a movie about ibiza sounds perfect. unfortunately, not in this case. this is definitely one of the worst movies i have ever seen. they have taken a very beautiful place - ibiza - and made a very disgusting movie out of it. its really sad that a person who is nearly 50 years old, and a woman of nearly the same age impersonate 2, 15 year old horny ""mates"". for gods sake Kevin looked older than his parents. maybe a little research would have helped these pathetic actors. they're so sad, they even don't know how 15 year old losers behave.

very bad movie, and totally unfunny.

1 out of 10 (and thats because it was filmed in ibitha only).",0 "Has anyone else noticed how the reporter, Curt Chaplin, is always putting his hands on people to align them with the camera? Why don't they put something on the floor to guide people to? And he says some things that are clearly geared to embarrassing to litigants, too. I hope people get paid enough for it to be worth it, and mean-spirited as you may think I am, I'd really like someone to slap Curt for ""glomming"" onto them with his hand. I think it is very inappropriate. I also think that Judge Milian has come to be a little bit too much like Judge Judy, haranguing people isn't what I want to see. Still, it's a great court TV show. Curt, if you ever read this, keep your hands off of strangers!",0 "Less importantly, I can't figure out why Sharon Stone is the number one credit when the story isn't really about her character. Other than that, this movie has good intentions and a great story. However, there were a few scenes that just felt overly tense, such as when--possible spoilers--Kevin begins choking on his food and loses consciousness, when Max learns of Kevin's death (which is more disturbing than emotional), and even the scene where Loretta is strangled (but not killed), which is otherwise understandable. This seemingly is supposed to be a family-friendly film, but with these scenes the filmmakers make it look more like a horror/thriller. If the filmmakers had not done this, I believe this film could very easily have been given a PG rating. -6 stars for the tension.",0 Loved it when I first saw it. I recently (about a month or so ago) got it on DVD. Now I just have to get The Monster Squad on DVD. LOL. This movie is one of my favorites from the 80's. Why? Well for one thing the story and plot were really well done. I remember that every time it came on cable I had to watch it. It doesn't matter how many times I've watched it. It brings back what the 80's movies were all about. There isn't many movies of today that can compare to (a lot of) the 80's movies that were made in that time. I wish a lot of 80's movies were available on DVD. Sadly they aren't so I have to watch them on VHS. A few of them are kinda worn out. Explorers will always be a favorite of mine. Kids today should watch this movie. The special effects aren't overplayed and they fit with the movie just enough for the story. I don't care what anybody says this movie sparks the imaginations in kids and let's them believe that anything is possible when it comes to dreams!,1 "some pictures are stupid, other's are fun. Wayne's World is so stupid that it becomes funny. but you'll have to be in the mood for a comedy if you watch this. especially with a comedy like this one. the first time I saw this movie, I thought it was boring. in fact it is. you see the stupidities of two young men who are trying to have a television show. it's predictable that someone will notice them and give them a chance, which will lead to giant mistakes or jokes (if you may call it a joke). in fact, it is a joke. it's one big joke and it ain't funny. if someday the devil will make you choose between damnation or watching Waynes World II (because there really is a sequel on this), what will you choose? I know. I will choose...",0 "First of all, the Tokyo Babylon manga is one of the most amazing things I have ever read. The characters were deep, sympathetic, and non-clichéd, and the story lines were very original. Congratulations to the ladies in CLAMP for creating such a beautiful story.

That said, what on earth was this? Both of the Tokyo Babylon movies were more like bonus features - ""Okay, you read the manga, here's some other cool adventures they got up to!"" Which is a nice thought, but it really has no purpose. You cannot condense a series like this into a couple of movies - they tried it with X and it didn't work, they tried it with TB and it worked even less. There was none of the depth, none of the message, none of the character development - it turned into just another comic book, a collector's item.

It was also rather irritating (TOUCHY SUBJECT ALERT) that half of the plot was ignored. Let's face it, folks, Tokyo Babylon is, in large part, a homosexual love story, learn to live with it. In the first TB movie, it seemed that Sakurazuka Seishiro's romantic advances were targeted more towards Sumeragi Hokuto than Sumeragi Subaru, and in this one, they were almost completely absent. Without this major part of the story, Seishiro is worthless - he becomes another clichéd villain.

The animation was very pretty (as it always is in shojo) and the voicing couldn't have been better. Like I said before, it was a nice thought, but it simply isn't worth the trouble. 3/10.",0 "Well once again a DVD box at the rental store drew me into a wasted night.Who could resist a movie that claims to have been banned in 37 countries?So ,even though by now I should know better,I rent this thing and take it home.

So we have a traveling circus and one of the attractions is the freaks or strange people as I think the sign on the tent said.Also traveling with the circus is the support group of guards and mechanics etc.Anyway a few of these support guys and a girl decide to rob the circus during it's travels.The group decides that the girl should cozy up to the owner and trick him into marrying her where the group of plotters will have access to his fortune.Apparently the owner of this fleabag circus has big money somewhere although looking at him you'd never figure. The owner is a repulsive mess,bad teeth,greasy hair and big yellow boils all over his body.

The boil covered owner of the circus feels more at home with the freaks of the show than he does with normal people.He considers them his family.His family protects him as one of their own when they feel he is in trouble.Therein lies the main plot I guess you'd say.

This movie really sucked bad.It was just too much for me to believe that the beautiful young women would have sex with the oozing nasty owner for all the money in the world.She was so hot she could have found a much cleaner and less repulsive sugar daddy.The sets were lousy shots of tents and the Ferris wheel was shown over and over.There never seemed to be any people at the circus and all the workers just sat around slurping beer from bottles that somehow came with no labels on them.And the sound track was the most irritating soundtrack of any movie I've ever seen....one after another of bad fakey attempts to recreate old scratchy songs like they sounded on records made in the 20's and 30's.On and on these miserable songs went until I was nearly mad.

And the acting was bad.Terribly bad.And I'm not even sure this movie had a script as many of the actors seemed to fumble for their words.Or maybe the budget was so tight that re shots weren't allowed?The freaks themselves weren't really all that freaky except for the one that looked like a miniature version of the Toxic Avenger.Special effects were minimal,little bit of gore near the end but for the most part this movie was just people doing mostly talking.A couple of women showed their breasts but they were small and uninspiring.I think I gave it a 3 mostly because of the breasts because really this movie was probably a 1 or 2 at best.

It's very apparent that this movie was nothing more than a sad weak blatant rip-off of Tod Browning's ""Freaks"".This mess is totally forgettable and I probably wouldn't have even finished watching it had it not been a cold rainy day with nothing else going on for me to do.

The only way this crapola was banned in 37 countries was for being so bad.Skip this crud fest and watch Browning's original.",0 "When i got this, i was expecting some sort of knockoff wannabe of ""Invasion of the Body Snatchers"" or such from the title ""The Pod People"". No such luck. A better title of this would have been ""The Egg People"".

Oh jeez, what a stinker. And a pointless stinker. I felt sorry for the little alien kid, Trumpy, left alone in the forest at the end as i could just imagine it thinking, ""What the hell did *I* do to deserve being abandoned like this?""

Pointless story. Pointless ""acting"". Pointless editing. Everything and everything completely pointless. And why is it impossible to find a kid to do the dubbing voice for a kid? A woman's voice sounds like a woman's voice, not a little boy's. To hear a little boy speaking with a woman's voice was a bit startling. And a bit freaky.

However, the movie wasn't a complete waste. The cat actor did an excellent job of being the cat hiding under the bed. Should have won an academy award for being ""Best Supporting Cat Hiding Under a Bed in a Foreign Film.""

If you see this movie in a dollar bin, spend your hard-earned dollar on something else with actual value. This movie will just make you groan how you foolishly wasted good money.",0 "This was intended to be a serious movie which came out at the same time as the big budget remake of KING KONG. I remember as a kid, reading the poster in line at the theater which stated ""not to be confused with King Kong"", which is hilarious in itself. I ended up walking out (after the dumb guy in the ape suit wrestles the plastic shark in the pool scene) near the beginning and got a refund.

If they spent more than $50.00 to make this movie, they were fools.

You will be too if you watch this piece of crap.

",0 "Two Thousand and None is a film about an individual facing his death. This is a tragic situation, and the tragedy is present throughout the film. The main character, a paleontologist named Benjamin Kasparian, however, has a really admirable and stoical attitude towards dying. The contrast between Kasparian's bravery and the worry of people close to him is a source of warm and humane comedy. However, the movie seems to be made to provoke thought about the value of life rather than to amuse the audience.

It's really a shame that Two Thousand and None doesn't seem to have found it's audience. People who would love it haven't seen it and most of them never will. Myself I was fortunate enough to see the movie in the Finnish television, but in order to have access to a DVD version, I had to order it from Italy with a name L'Uomo di Talbot. Fortunately the original English audio track was included.

Anyone with a terminal condition called life should see and enjoy this film and learn from it.",1 "I remember thinking Spongebob was the most stupid thing in the world when it first came out, but after my friend convinced me to watch one episode I found out that it actually was a decent show. It was cute and original. The episodes were witty and funny, having jokes that people of all ages found funny while still keeping it innocent and clean. My entire family loved the show. Each episode was fresh and new, while still keeping it's old charm; but after a certain point things turned for the worse. The episodes got shorter and used the same ideas over and over again. It soon became less silly and more stupid. The animation is more spastic, the voices have lost all of their luster and are now shrill and annoying, and all of the characters have lost their personalities that we once loved. Spongebob has lost all of it's value and all of it's charm. They should have stopped making new episodes a long time ago to preserve it's greatness, but it is too late now. Oh how much I miss you Spongbob... (And all other good kid's shows)",0 "...and I think part of the reason for that is, aside from some notable uses of symbolism (some subtle, some not so subtle, in part due to the photography), the story is rather simple. This gives Bergman room to try and get us to understand these characters. In lessor hands (or rather, hands not as proficient in the soul-searching drama as Bergman is) this could be almost a TV melodrama. But I would disagree with some critics- notably with Ebert- that Bergman has lost his tone with this picture. In some ways it is more modernly set than some of his other films (and that it is in English sets it apart from some of his trademark Svensk Filmindustri pictures), however it doesn't hurt it terribly so. There were times while watching the film, mostly in the first fifty minutes, that I thought this was one of Bergman's best, by giving his control somewhat over to the actors, who are all sensational. While it doesn't quite live up towards the end, and feels abruptly finished, the climax doesn't feel too compromised. The Touch is like the Adrian Lyne film (which draws itself from a Chabrol film) Unfaithful, only this film seems a little more steeped in reality than outright sexuality.

Karin (Bibi Andersson, one of Bergman's key actresses) lives a rather calm, routine life with her husband Andreas (Max von Sydow) and their two children. After her mother dies (which I suppose sets up her emotional indecisiveness for the film), she meets David (Elliot Gould), and the two slowly begin an affair. But David is not the most stable of people, and it shakes Karin up at first. Soon they fall in love, but are separated, the sort of usual machinations with an infidelity story begin to unfold, and yet not losing the emotions from before. The three key actors of the film, Andersson, Von Sydow, and Gould, seem to live in these characters, and especially Gould (for whom this would be his only role with the director) conveys a sort of double nature that is also within Karin. His performance is one that I would put in a list of his best- you can tell everything he wants and fears in his face and actions, within the careful framing, this is a man on the edge. Bergman had once described Gould as a ""difficult"" actor to work with, but that tension came out the right way on screen, at least from my perspective.

As I mentioned, in lessor hands this could become a further melodrama, and part of the films refusal to subvert to that category is a credit to not only Bergman, but to cinematographer Sven Nykvist. Whenever I see a film with their collaboration (or even if it's Nykvist with, perhaps, a lessor director), I always watch for how Nykvist moves the camera. How seamlessly he follows these characters, and in their darkest recesses he lights them like the light and control on their faces is part of the writing. A lot of times (appropriately so) one may not even feel the presence of the camera, as if Nykvist doesn't even have a technique. But it is here where not only does he and Bergman go with their touches of light and dark, they also go for a documentary feel in the production.

Basically, this is an experiment for Bergman, as it is for his fans to endure. He's experimenting with a genre done hundreds of times, he experiments with music (unlike some of his dramas, which includes Bach or Mozart, here it's kind of pop-sounding for the period), and he experiments with his cast this time around. Is it as powerful and awe-inspiring as his ""trilogy"" or his other great works? Probably not. But it is unfortunately panned down as a lessor work of his, which isn't necessarily true. The film also needs to be seen by more people of today, as it is virtually impossible to buy on video or DVD. A-",1 "By the halfway point, I had this film in my liked column, but then it just went on and on and on, in fact, even though I have left the theater, I still think the film is running. This is a thriller with no thrills, an intellectual mystery with no mystery or intellect. It posits a mystery 2000 years old and feels like it was filmed in real time.

Who is Robert Langdon, the hero played by Tom Hanks? I get no feeling for anything about the guy, his claustrophobia is presented as being important, but it is an uninteresting embellishment and is clearly not important to the story.

The whole story for the film reduces to. . .well, I don't know what it reduces to? I seemed to just be watching pretentious people running around on fool's errands. This is not always a problem in a movie, no one can adequately explain The Big Sleep and I defy anyone to clearly tell me what happens in the recent Russian film Night Watch, but those films have a surfeit of characters that make the twists and turns interesting to follow. Not to mention a wonderful visual strategy that makes them breath. The Da Vinci Code is a suffocating film that does the impossible; it makes the Louvre look boring.

I was puzzled by the casting. With all American Tom Hanks on board and the French Audrey Tautou, the German Jurgen Prochnow and the competent Brits: Alfred Molina, Paul Bettany, and Ian McKellen, we have a Chinese dinner approach to casting ""one from column A and one from column B"", but this cast doesn't gel.

They each do their little bits, but the whole does not add up to more than the parts. There were too many little things that rankled me or anyone with half a brain. The Louvre is filmed so blandly, that it doesn't really matter that they really used the real place for a location. Also, the Louvre does not have steel gates that come down when a painting is removed from the wall. Also, Tautou introduces herself as a ""French Police Cryptologist"". French Police Cryptologist? The French have a national police? The Louvre wouldn't be in the Paris police jurisdiction? Does your city have a staff cryptologist on its police force? Too many ludicrous things happen that made me ask questions while it is happening, not after it's all done when you would get the Hitchcock ""refrigerator moment"". I can take religious hooey, but I can't take scientific hooey. Even the car chases are uninteresting, and badly filmed.

One more thing, if I am ever shot and have to leave a clue to the identity of my killer, I will write that he was an albino monk in a cassock with a cell phone and an automatic. There can't be that many running around, even in Paris.",0 "There was a time when my best friend and I, as teenagers, decided to see every single film that a local second-run multiplex carried. We pulled it off for over 2 years, and saw lots of great movies. This wasn't one of them.

We avoided seeing Fievel Goes West for most of its run; we found out it was going to be pulled out, though, and saw the last showing on the last day. We learned several things; one- parents of children are very suspicious of older males without children, when they are in a children's movie. Two- Bluth and Spielburg hate childless people.

I found the movie to be cloyingly sweet, with a childish plot and script, annoying dialogue, idiotic jokes, and very little in the way of humor. Granted, were I three, the movie would have been a gas, but unlike many other ""childrens'"" movies, there is *nothing* directed at the adults in the audience. No asides, no double-layered jokes... nothing.

The voice-acting is great, of course, but I cringe when I think of what the movie makers put their talented cast through. Every voice actor and actress in this deserves something better...

The animation is great and Disneyesque, but very ""bouncy"". I don't know how else to describe it. Everyone's skeletal structure is 100% cartilage or something... after years of watching anime, despite the quality of the animation, it's actually embarrassing to watch. At least it's not as bad as the 30's Van Beuren stuff. I can appreciate the technical wherewithal, but not the ""entertainment value"" of this style of animation...

Bottom line? Bring a kid along, and enjoy the child's enjoyment... otherwise you're going to need insulin afterwards.",0 "Short answer: If you love the old Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf, do not see this movie. You will be nauseated.

Longer answer: In the Dungeons and Dragons community, there is an old joke that the characters ""kill things and take their stuff."" Well, Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary managed to kill Beowulf and take his stuff. Then they proceeded to kill Hrothgar, the helm of the Shieldings and take his stuff. Then they killed Grendel and took its stuff. Then, they killed Wealtheow and took her stuff. And so on, and so forth. These two imbeciles with Underwoods (an orangutan could have come up with a more sensitive treatment of one of the seminal pieces of English literature!) completely changed the tone of the poem from a serious heroic epic to just another post-modern round of ""no more heroes"" buffoonery.

The literary atrocities of Messers Gaiman and Avary upon the source material are as follows: 1. The poem has been dechristianized: On the one hand, it does take out a glaring anachronism (the action of the poem takes place during the Migration Period of the AD 400s-500s, when they would still be following the traditions of the Aesir religion, but the poem was written down in a very Christianized context in England, and the anachronism does add a richness to the language) The only sop to the underpinnings of the source material come in a discussion between two urinating Danes over the relative merits of Christianity and Aesir-worship, and later when Unferth suggests praying to Christ as well as Odin, a suggestion that Hrothgar rejects out of hand (perhaps a reference to the opposite situation in the poem, where the Danes throw off Christianity for a time, hoping that the old gods will smite Grendel where the Christian ones had apparently failed).

2. It is implied very heavily that Beowulf was a liar and braggart in his earlier exploits, including the race with Breca: As with many of the other changes, it seems to be part of a deliberate campaign by Gaiman and Avary to strip away the heroic nature of the source material, turning Beowulf into just another trendy 21st-century flawed anti-hero.

3. The characters often speak with a much more modern speech pattern (see, for instance, Unferth's first confrontation with Beowulf, where he comes off as much more smarmy than in the poem) that is jarring to the ear and that often seems to lead, yet again, into Gaiman and Avary's unspoken goal of de-heroizing, de-mythologizing, and de-bunking the poem.

4. Beowulf does not kill Grendel's Mother: In the poem, it's reported as fact that Beowulf kills her after a ferocious struggle. Nowhere in the poem does it suggest that she seduces him and he lies about killing her. Again, it's the old song of ""everything you know is false -- there are no true heroes."" 5. Beowulf fighting in the nude: Beowulf does forswear the use of arms in fighting Grendel, but nowhere does it say that he would fight the monster in the all-together, tackle-out (with only strategically-placed objects protecting his modesty). In fighting with Grendel's Mother, it is explicitly stated that he is wearing chain-mail armor and that that saves his life. I'm giving a pass to her appearance, as it's never stated exactly what either she or Grendel actually were supposed to look like.

6. Hrothgar is almost explicitly stated to be Grendel's father: No, no, NO! Nowhere in the poem was any mention of Grendel's father made, least of all it being Hrothgar, whom Grendel's Mother would not have been able to have ""known"" anyway, as he was a consecrated king, and it is implied that Cain's kin could not go near signs of rightful royalty. (Cain, the first murderer, who is claimed to be the ancestor of Grendel's kind, not ""Cain,"" the not-appearing-in-the-poem whipping boy of Unferth's, that is.) 7. Hrothgar and Wealtheow have no issue, because Wealtheow will not sleep with Hrothgar due to his sleeping with Grendel's Mother, and the subsequent romantic subtext between her and Beowulf: Wrong again. Leaving behind the fact that Wealtheow probably was not as nubile in the poem as in the movie and showed no romantic interest in Beowulf whatsoever, she and Hrothgar had two sons, and as mentioned before Hrothgar had not slept with Grendel's Mother.

8. Hrothgar gives his kingdom over to Beowulf and then commits suicide by jumping off the tower of Heorot: At this point, I walked out of the theater and demanded my money back, as the movie had officially jumped the shark with no hopes of return.

In short, the movie was little more than a parody, a lampoon on a great epic.",0 "Back when cable TV started, there were tons of softcore porno movies being released to late night cable. Most of those movies were borderline retarded, and they were put together just to show lots of women prancing around topless and engaged in bedroom scenes with each other or guys. I later discovered (from reading about it on the internet) that many hard-core porno movies would also shoot an alternate soft-core version for cable TV, and these movies would be released with different titles. Sometimes even the names of the actresses would be changed, so that the porn actresses could build up a resume in non-porn movies. Since it is often the dream of many porno stars to break into mainstream acting, I guess that made sense.

So what was the motivation behind Dead Doll? Apparently this was never an alternate take on a porno movie, so it was just what it is, a horribly bad T&A movie. At least if I knew that Dead Doll was just the leftover exploitation of some cheesy porn movie, I would understand why Dead Doll is so awful. Unfortunately, Dead Doll is the creative expression of someone's mind. I hope that guy got some therapy. As a soft core porn, it is not bad if you fast-forward through most of the movie. I saw Dead Doll in about ten minutes, and that was only because I actually stopped to watch and listen to the dialogue of most of the scenes. That was a big mistake. You can probably watch Dead Doll in about three minutes if you fast forward through everything except the T&A.",0 "Remake of a 1978 James Toback film, ""Fingers,"" in which Harvey Keitel played a crook who aspires to be a concert pianist. In ""Beat,"" Tom Seyr (Romain Duris) is also a thug. He deals in low-end apartment house real estate, which frequently requires him to chase out tenants who would otherwise stay indefinitely under tough Parisian eviction rules.

He and his buddies release rats into buildings, bash windows and toilets with baseball bats, and otherwise terrorize renters into beating hasty retreats to assure the success of impending building sales. And Tom tries to keep in touch with his dissolute widower father Robert (Niels Arestrup), who is also a nefarious wheeler-dealer.

Tom's more cultured late mother, we can surmise, kept these two guys from descending into the gutter, while she was alive (we never meet her – there are no flashbacks in this film). She had been a successful concert pianist before her death a few years earlier, and Tom himself learned piano under her influence.

Now, his chance meeting with her former manager results in an invitation to audition. But he's 28 and, though he still noodles around on his piano at home, he hasn't practiced seriously for 10 years. Still, he feels a pull to follow in his mother's footsteps and make something better of his life. So he finds a teacher - a recent immigrant from Beijing, Miao Lin (Linh Dan Pham) - who schools him uncompromisingly to prepare for the audition.

The resolution of this story is at once both inevitable and surprising, but the film turns on Duris's energetic, cat-like, springy presence in virtually every scene. He's forever on the move, and with his short fuse and inscrutably smug little smile, one never quite knows what he will do next. Just that it will be quick and decisive.

For anyone even peripherally familiar with musical performance, it requires an unacceptable level of suspension of disbelief to think that this musical slacker could within just weeks polish his chops to a soloist's level of proficiency. The thought of it is pure nonsense.

Duris is interesting enough to watch, but I was disappointed in this film, and not because of the absurdity of the conceit about musical performance. My hopes going in were high because of Jacques Audiard's earlier highly suspenseful films, ""Read My Lips"" (2001) and ""A Self Made Hero"" (1996). I thought that the male leads in those two films, Vincent Cassel and Mattieu Kassovitz, respectively, were both more intriguing than Duris is here.

For that matter, if you want my nominee for the most tightly wound, electrifying male performer of the year, it isn't Romain Duris, it's the Turkish-German actor, Birol Ünel, who plays Cahit in the astonishing film, ""Head-On."" (In French, English, Mandarin & Russian). My rating: 7/10 (B). (Seen on 09/05/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.",0 "I was travelling in Indonesia in 1984 and got picked up as an extra for a day, filming some of the chases between the two jeeps near Bogor. I've only seen a rough copied version of the film from German TV, but I don't think my scenes made it. I was 19, got paid US$15 plus lunch, and it was great fun! I had to wear a checked shirt and had my hair blackened and plastered down. I had thought I would be one of many extras, but when I turned up outside the backpackers that morning I was the only one. They then checked I could drive, and I was told to drive the jeep at about 70kph up a hill outside Bogor. That turned out to be very fast, so we had to do it again. I often wondered what happened to the film, and then one day found it accidentally browsing this site.",1 "I watched the film with my DVD player on double and sometimes quadruple speed and I don't think i missed a thing.

Since when does the army(of any country)take the time to have each soldier laboriously sponge bath one another? Why, when a soldier comes into the barracks drunk and late while everybody is asleep, does he pee on another guys face? WHY DID EVERYBODY JUST STARE AT THE CAMERA!?!?!?!?!?! Yeah, there were some artistically done shots, but they were not enough to make up for the three minute shots of absolutely nothing happening. For instance the time when the soldiers were all standing in a group. The camera panned across there faces, which took like two minutes. Then when the camera got the end it started panning back in the other direction. The whole scene took like 5 minutes and and I didn't even recognize any of the people in it.

I've seen a lot of art-house films and a lot of art and film in general in my life, but this film was just kinda boring.",0 "It's a different kind of movie about coming of age. Dermot Mulroney is great as are most of the cast. Dermot Mulroney is a working-class, high school boy whose time to grow up has come.

Not a formula film in any way that I can tell. A great cast. Lili Taylor, Sam Shepard, Delroy Lindo, Mary Kay Place, Benjamin Bratt (not his best performance perhaps), Will Patton, Burt Young.

The ending was great, in my opinion. In fact, what said it all for me was at the end of the film, the change in the expression of Dermot Mulroney's face as he sat in the back of the pickup. I thought the acting was good. A strange movie, I grant you, but I feel it was well worth the watch.",1 "This could have been a good plot had the screenplay wanted to delve deeply into the terrain of conflicted morals; instead of taking it for granted that we accept that the events that happen are the result of a man following his only logical option. It's utterly manipulative and trite film-making, with everybody concerned thinking that they can just throw us some closeups of big doe eyes, and we'll suddenly forget that this is NOT action taken by those wanting to claim superior motivation.

If you're driven to pursue illegality, then chances are you're desperate, but do you have to be boneheaded about it, too? Why not try to get some of your colleagues onside in the scheme? In for a penny in for a pound, after all... That would of course eliminate your 'lone man in search of justice' angle, but at least it would make more sense, instead of feeling like a dupe, which unfortunately seems to be the practice of the whole tale.

""One Good Cop"" is suffocatingly mawkish. Were it not for the violence and improperly used talent involved, it could easily pass for a dreary teledrama instead of a fully-fledged motion picture. It's trying to convince us that it has a singular approach; but the reality is that its type is nothing but bland and needlessly ubiquitous, which is a far more depressing snapshot of how life and the movie business works than any of the faux emotions tossed our way here.",0 "After watching Silkwood, I became fascinated and mesmerized by the true story behind it. I read the book, bought A&E biography video, and the History Channel's video: Contaminated, the Karen Silkwood Story. Despite reading other comments, I totally disagree about Karen Silkwood who probably saved more lives and lost her own to protect her colleagues and neighbors in Crescent, Oklahoma. If she had not spoke up in the seventies, Kerr-McGhee would still have a nuclear reactor plant in Crescent, Oklahoma. What most people do not know is that Karen's mysterious death haunted a huge ENronlike company. The plant closed in the following year. The shocking discoveries such as missing plutonium and horrible working conditions for its employees.

Two showers for the entire company! Karen Silkwood's life was tragically cut short but she did more in 28 years than most people can do in their entire lifetime. Meryl Streep played her wonderfully. Kurt Russell and Cher played their roles quite admirably. This film was showed to high school students who became equally fascinated by the story after viewing the history channel's video. After the film, they even wanted to watch the biography video. Now anything that can keep teenagers interested in plutonium and nuclear energy is worth all the trouble. THis film's only criticism from the students was that there was too much smoking in this film. Granted, all the main characters smoked in the seventies. After all, I think lung cancer from smoking was far less riskier than working in a nuclear plant.",1 "Uinasu senki, a.k.a. Venus Wars, is a pretty good war film. However, I find it lags in some spots, and I never really was a fan of animated characters on a moving live-action backdrop. Other than these minor complaints, the movie is enjoyable.",1 "This anime is awesome. Great story, perfect animation, a little bit of romance, some ecchi stuff, a bit of gore (a LARGE bit of gore), but THIS gore perfectly fit into the story and into the atmosphere of Elfen Lied. The story seems to be a little bit simple for the first look, but when you get further and further into it, you will find out, that you are really caught, and this great piece of art won't release you, until you watch it all. Otherwise, it's really masterful drawn and animated, and the switching between edgy cuteness, and terrible brutality + merciless murdering is great. The main character, Lucy/Nyuu is really great and they have described her emotions, decisions and psychics very well. It's just too awesome to resist!",1 "It was exactly a quarter of a century after George Kelly's Craig's Wife opened on Broadway that Joan Crawford followed Rosalind Russell - who had starred in the first film version - into the role of the eponymous Mrs Craig. Crawford, lacking Russell's natural warmth, was perfect casting as the cold, manipulative control freak and could well have phoned it in. As it happened the supporting cast included the likes of Ellen Corby and Lucile Watson but there were albeit superfluous as Crawford could carry this one by sheer willpower and force of personality. Wendell Corey was still getting work wherever mahogany was called for and he did about as well as anyone with the thankless part of Craig, who is there merely as something - as opposed to someONE - for Harriet to fool, foil and manipulate. Inevitably, of course, she gets her comeuppance although she was never a magnificent Amberson so much as an insignificant Craig.",0 "This remake of ""Internal Affairs"", a great movie in its own right, adds a Whitey Bulger-John Connolly Boston twist that just BEGS for brilliance - it's a can't-miss story line with a powerhouse cast.

However, it's a huge disappointment. Despite such compelling material, Scorsese only skims the surface, opting for gloss instead of substance, adding confusing sub-plots that serve mainly to hook the audience. These sub-plots destroy the momentum of the film and pull the whole thing off the tracks. Without these (no spoilers), the film may have had a chance. Scorsese's trademark violence stingers are now overripe at best. Am I the only one who started to yawn when people were getting pounded over a loud soundtrack in ""Casino""? I doubt it...

There is some pretty silly ensemble work here, too - we're not talking ""Glenngary Glen Ross"" or ""The Usual Suspects"" here by any stretch. Most of the bad highlights usually involve Wahlberg's profane fool of a character. Overall, the individual characterizations seem to be either shrill, as in the case of the annoying Wahlberg and chest-thumping Damon, or flat, like Sheen's police captain. Nicholson's Whitey Bulger take is completely lacking in menace - it's amusing, if nothing else. Only DiCaprio's brooding Billy Costigan stands out, but he's got nowhere to go, both literally and figuratively - the sub-plots basically turn his character to face the wall...

Much has been made of the ending here, but I would describe it with one word - ""cowardly"". I just couldn't respect this film much, particularly in light of ""GoodFellas"" and other Scorsese masterpieces. Overall, 4 stars and only because it's him - probably the worst best picture Oscar since ""American Beauty"".",0 "I loved the first Michael Davis movie, Eight Days a Week. It was charming and cute. The second one was mostly a rehash of the first but pretty good. This one though is truly awful.

The movie tries really hard, all Michael Davis movies do, but the level of humor for the most part is really crass and hackneyed. What was cute and clever in the first two is now bland and bitter.

I wanted to at least like this movie, but there is so much here that is truly awful and/or stupid. I could go on, but I won't.

Check out Eight Days a Week and 100 Girls. Avoid this clunker.

",0 "Scarlet Dawn casts Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as a Russian baron rudely displaced by the forces of the Russian Revolution and now has to fend for himself in a world not terribly hospitable to former aristocrats. He's also not terribly suited for any kind of real work.

Doug might have been caught by the Reds but for the fact that his former servant Nancy Carroll didn't give him away. Nancy's got a big old crush on Doug and they do marry once arriving in exile in Istanbul which throughout the film is referred to by its former Christian name of Constantinople. They marry and settle down with Doug now reduced to washing dishes.

But Fairbanks's former mistress Lilyan Tashman who's always playing bad girls of a sort on film spots him and offers to have him get back into somewhat the style he was once accustomed to as part of a swindle against father and daughter American tourists Guy Kibbee and Sheila Terry.

Good thing this film has the incredibly short running time of only 57 minutes, usually those were given to B westerns because it's both tedious and melodramatic. The ending is rather unbelievable. Doug knew he was in a Thanksgiving special and really overacts to cover up the defects of a unbelievable story.

What I didn't understand was that Fairbanks was trained in the military profession, why didn't he just become a mercenary soldier after leaving the new Soviet Union? That didn't make sense to me at all.

I'd only see this if I was a dedicated fan of any the main players.",0 "After having seen this movie about four times I have to say that this movie is a biting look into the life of 4 friends that may make you uncomfortable, or hit you right where it hurts. Quaid and MacDowell and Kinnear and Collette are two married couples who have been friends, shared lives, stories and the raising of their families for 12 years. Collette drops the bomb, alone, on Quaid and MacDowell, that Kinnear is leaving her. The movie unravels the friendships by exposing that neither Quaid or MacDowell like Kinnear and Collette very much,individually, after their secrets and lies are exposed. I think true friends overcome, and real friends fall by the wayside, as in this movie.

Great acting, dialog, direction, etc..But a intense, deeply emotional film that may cause you to look at your friends and your spouse differently. And ask the question: Could it all fall apart?",1 "This entire movie just felt entirely too rushed. The opening sequence where Stepmother gets her hands on the wand happen all in the confines of a song about how in love the prince and Cinderella are, and then we're OFF! The songs were terrible for the most part, the plot seemed to keep inventing new parts of the kingdom out of nowhere (suddenly it's a seaport town), and the action was at times even too cartoonish for a cartoon. There was also entirely too much time dedicated to the prince and his father who are both, frankly, completely uninteresting characters. The movie also creates an entire subplot about another character that was left completely unresovled save for a brief glimpse of a picture of what may happen to her, and the end credits put over snapshots of the happy couple seemed entirely too smarmy for a movie that's supposed to be ""Happily Ever After THE END"". The voices were almost all completely wrong, Gus and Jacques' new voices made me cringe, and Anastasia sounded like one of the Animaniacs. Of course, there were a few good things, it was always fun to see Lady Tremaine (the stepmother) appear on the screen and when she left you wished she would come back, and the movie would be entertaining enough for a child, but it sadly doesn't even scratch the surface of the true classic, the original Disney's Cinderella.",0 "I had no idea what State of the Union was going to be about when I went to see it last weekend. Once inside the movie theater I was told that it is a sequel to the movie XXX. Stunned that I was about to see a Vin Diesel (have nothing personal against him but I found that odds are high that if he is in a movie I won't like it, especially after the dreaded ""Man Apart"") movie I almost got up to leave. I was reassured, however, that he was not in it. Sitting through the first few minutes I saw names that I liked--Ice Cube and Samuel L. Jackson--and decided to give this one a shot. I didn't see the first XXX. I wish I hadn't seen the sequel. But I did. At the end I was wishing that Vin Diesel would come and save the day by shooting the characters of Willem Dafoe, Samuel L. Jackson, Ice Cube, the College Boy and the entire biker crew. To say this movie doesn't have a plot would be insulting movies which don't have a plot but at least attempt to have one. A tyrannical Secretary of Defense who wants to kill everyone, starting with the President, in order of succession so he can lead the country? A crew of DC thugs who come to the rescue of the country so they can live in a country where they are ""free to jack cars""? This movie has the same effect on a viewers intellect as does junk food on his body. It kills it slowly. And with enough Whoppers and curly fries like this one one could become brain dead. Hollywood really should put warning labels on these prepackaged cookie-cutter action movies ""This movie may kill your brain cells!""",0 "From Stephen T. Kay (of ""The Shield"" fame) comes a Get Carter 're-make', but viewers shouldn't treat this as a re-make of the film - rather a modern re-interpretation of the book ""Jack's Return Home"" (1970). The basic premise is the same, an injustice followed by revenge - but this film is an excellent work in it's own separate right. The limited connections between the films are the book, the film title and a few references to the 1971 film (and Caine's presence in both). There is a lot of ""film snobbery"" out there about Stallone and it's true that he's had his fair share of c*** films, but this isn't one of them. His acting would put a lot of people to shame, in fact it's a superb performance (also see ""Copland""). His presence dominates his scenes, only Caine and Mickey Rourke's presence competes. The supporting actors are very good too and the storyline is such that if you blink you'll miss the thread. People who say ""I didn't get it"", frankly just need to see the film again. It definitely deserves multiple viewings. Also, look how many comments the film has - always a good guide as to whether a film has made an impact or not - twice as many as the original and 2/3 as many as Taxi Driver.....

Not to mention the film is beautifully shot, brilliantly edited and has a Greeaaat soundtrack!",1 "I had a feeling when i rented this movie i may not like it because of all the horrible straight to DVD movies these days.It reminded me a lot of the movie ""room 6"" that came out a year earlier.Literally the exact same plot in almost the exact same screwed up hospital which no longer existed.Hallucinations and weird nurses running rampant as some chic is trying to escape encountering other weird patients who are trapped.Finally some soul ripping creature dressed in a black cloak is killing off each patient in her dreams.This movie makes no sense.There is no way to tell what is really happening and it has no continuity.She wakes up from a nightmare to find out she's still in it. Meanwhile her boyfriend is searching for her after she was struck by a car and nobody believes him that she's missing.I agree the plot is predictable and lame.It is a complete rip off of the other film i mentioned.If this was a sequel to it then it would make more sense,but it cannot stand on it's own.I couldn't even stay awake to watch the rest of it as i lost interest thinking i have seen this all before.",0 "Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.

I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.",0 "This was one of the first anime movies I had ever seen. It is still also one of the best. There are aspects of other anime movies that bug me, but Golgo 13: The Professional doesn't have any of those problems. This movie is non stop action. The characters are very real and very complex. The plot is very well written and the ending will completely surprise you. This movie makes you completely forget you're watching a cartoon. One complaint: The music sounded like something out of Scooby Doo.",1 "I saw this series a long time ago when it was aired on TV. I really liked it. Especially the mix between drama, humor, cop stories and a attorney stories. All rolled up in one. The chemistry between the characters was good. And i also remember different kinds of interesting side stories concerning family matters. It is a pity that it wasn't successful. Because it stopped after only one season. Unfortunately, because i really liked it. So now i have a question. Because I'd like to see this series again. Does anyone know if it is available on DVD (or download) anywhere? Please leave a comment on that. Í would be grateful. thank you very much.",1 "I like to think that after shooting this drek Hitchcock left for the USA one jump ahead of a mob of discerning movie-goers handicapped by the huge amounts of tar and feathers they were carrying. It's the Romantic in me. Of course the truth is vastly different if unconvincing; Hitch went on to become the idol of those who worship mediocrity and managed to dazzle Truffaut (and if ever two over-inflated filmmakers deserved each other ...). So, what of this, his last effort on British soil for a couple of decades. The glib answer is that Hitch had no gift for 'period' pieces - witness Under Capricorn, the biggest turkey since the one Scrooge bought for Tiny Tim - but that implies that he had a gift for SOMETHING. Lots of folks out there think so but it's always proved elusive to these hard-to-please eyes. Charles Laughton hams his way through the lion's share and grudgingly allows the likes of Leslie Banks, Maureen O'Hara and the best actor in the movie, Bobby Newton, to get a look in. Oh, yes, it's about smugglers and set in a papier-mache Cornwall. Easily Pleased Enjoy.",0 "This film is about the life of a woman, who got caught between 2 lovers against a backdrop of the turbulent times of the Holocaust.

Words cannot describe how beautiful and powerful this film is. Everything is excellent. The sets are beautiful, and the scenes are beautifully composed. Ilona is great as the lady which every men would fall in love with. She has this graceful elegance which is very magnetic. Laszlo's work as the restaurant owner is convincing, he has every detail of the restaurant under control. The music is great. When I listened to the song ""Gloomy Sunday', I felt this chill spreading through my body, as if I was going to be the next victim. Another highlight for me is the uptight secretary who lives by the book, which is clearly a satire about the German culture. The plot is highly touching and powerful, and I do urge everyone to see this beautiful film.",1 "The first ten minutes of this beautifully portrayed anime is a clear warning message for those with weak stomachs to find their entertainment somewhere else. Elfen Lied starts off with a cliché type of storyline: humans keep mutants locked up and experiment on them, mutants try to kill humans. However, after the first episode, I found myself captivated to go on. Even after (I think the eighth episode) where a puppy is mercilessly beaten to death, I kept being drawn in by the spiraling storyline, and found myself spending another thirty dollars on the final DVD. I have yet to watch it.

Those with weak stomachs better avoid this story in all. My sister at age thirteen (I'm fourteen) was absolutely terrified after watching the first episode. She had a good two weeks of nightmares, but continued watching. The storyline is addictive, so stay away unless you are prepared to watch every last second of gore, tears, and kisses.",1 "Vixen Highway looks someone got their friends together and decided to make a movie. The entire film is amateurish. Besides a bad script (was there a script?)and bad acting, parts of the films are overexposed, there are sound problems and the film editing was laughable. Most of the characters had no point to them and appeared to be thrown in just to take up space. Women, for no apparent reason, dressed provocatively; even a policewoman walking around with her shirt open. The only two who can act were Dave Quimby and the actor who played Bobby Brazzel (I notice that his character is not in the credits on IMDb, is it because he doesn't want to admit he was in it?) but even they couldn't shine in this mire of quicksand.",0 "Neither the prospect of eighty minutes of biting headwind nor snow showers has been able to keep me from the National Film Theatre over the three weeks so far of its Buster Keaton season, and every time the films have yet to disappoint: ""Battling Butler"" is no exception! I'd instantly give this a 9 if only I could justify it relative to the early scenes; despite the pitch of enthusiasm I'd reached by the end of the film, I'm still not quite sure in all fairness that I can.

It definitely takes a while to get up to speed (at the start, I took the father to be a doctor giving his sickly son only three months to live!) and for the initial reel or so it depends largely on a single extended gag -- the elegant fop's complete unsuitability for an outdoor environment. Alfred's elaborate al-fresco living arrangements echo Keaton's trademark fascination with complicated contrivances, and there's one very typical bit of misdirection where we wait for the shotgun's recoil to knock Alfred backwards into the water, only for a somewhat different turn of events to prove his downfall; but this film doesn't come properly to life until its hero engages our sympathy as well as being a walking joke. In ""The General"", we engage with Johnnie Gray almost immediately -- in ""Battling Butler"", Alfred remained a cipher for me until the moment when he nervously rehearses ""Beatrice Faircatch""'s newspaper advice on making a proposal, with such an earnest air: it's funny, but it's also touching, and it's no coincidence that it is with his subsequent first steps towards standing on his own two feet -- tearing up and throwing aside the useless newspaper column -- that Alfred Butler may finally be said to have progressed beyond a simple one-dimensional character, and the film can really begin.

From here on the picture becomes a Keaton classic, sweeping the hapless hero further and further from the cushioned normality of his life with a series of escalating and plausible coincidences. Ultimately the worm will turn, of course -- but not in the time and manner that we are expecting. And Keaton acts here not just with that famous face but with every line of his whole body: triumph, exhaustion, despair, apprehension, indignation, timidity, pugnacity... and finally, in the last scene, sublime confidence in his own skin, modelling a costume so incongruous that only Buster Keaton could carry it off with such genuine elegance!

The scenes of Alfred's ordeal are hilarious and moving by degrees -- it's almost impossible to analyse Keaton's appeal. 'Sweet' is quite definitely the wrong word, as is 'lovable': Buster is no Little Tramp. 'Bittersweet' might be closer to the mark... or 'poignant'; the metaphor of the man who gets knocked down but keeps on trying has never been more apt. There is a brief vivid moment when Alfred, bewildered and worn out, turns his face aside into the arms of his second with such a hopeless little air that instead of a laugh, it raised a murmur of pity from the auditorium. But Keaton never allows himself to milk the audience for sympathy -- the best of his films may mingle laughter through tears, but he never falls into the trap of sentimentality.

I'm not sure if this is among the best of Keaton's films... but it's certainly one of those I've ultimately enjoyed the most so far. I've changed my mind: I'll give it a 9 after all, and say I'm dropping a mark down instead from a 10! :-)",1 "I wish I had something nice to say about this movie. But aside from a few quick shots of Eliza Dushku's boobs, ""Alphabet Killer"" is a dull, hunt-the-killer movie. There are no special twists, no special effects, nothing exceptional or outstanding about the movie.

The acting is believable enough but it's no testament to the cast's acting abilities; as I said, it's just straight forward, nothing spectacular had to be done by the actors.

The plot was simple. There is a killer that has to be found, so go find him! There are no close encounters with the killer in the movie until the end of the movie. There wasn't a character development of the killer's motif. Heck, there wasn't even development of the heroine's ""disease."" I didn't get scared, excited, upset, or anything in this movie. All throughout, I was just blah. The movie is based on true events so it was factual, but told in an obviously fictional manner so it felt like taking a course in psychology with Ben Stein as your professor.

Save your money. Get this at a Red Box. You know what? Don't waste your time. Watch it when it comes on TV...and watch it as the background ambiance while playing World of Warcraft or as your bedtime going-to-sleep movie.",0 "And, as such, it follows the basic guidelines of the arduous journey from misery to happiness. This type of formula is typically very thankful to translate to film, easy to make and ready to be milked for sentimentality for all its worth', which director Gabriele Muccino dutifully does. That is not to say 'The Pursuit of Happiness' does not deliver what it set out to do, for it wholeheartedly does and then some.

Based on a true story, the pursuit of one man to reach the American Dream in San Francisco in 1981 tells the cloying story of Chris Gardner (Will Smith) and his son (Jaden Smith) living in shelters, spending nights on paper towels in run-down, seedy public bathrooms and generally suffering daily hardships by the bucketload. Chris is a good man, but his wife (Thandie Newton) cannot cope with his empty promises and economic struggles, so she splits and takes off to New York City. Now Chris is left with their five-year-old son and an unpaid internship at a prestigious stockbroker's firm. You will be pressed to find a more likable character in film this year, and Will Smith plays him until your heart really breaks for him.

But in my opinion, this is no breakout ""epiphany"" role for Will Smith. The truth is that he has always been a strongly capable actor, although it is of course usually within the comedy field. In the comic moments of the film (and there are definitely quite a few), his funny bone translates excellently. In the drama side of the tapestry, he performs well enough – but it is a thankful, rewarding character to portray, much like 'The Pursuit' is a thankful, rewarding film to make owing to its underdog formula. It is, in this way, the type of film that safely elicits a few tears, chuckles and smiles but ultimately offers no revolutionary insight or social commentary in the way that The Great Gatsby aptly addressed the fickleness and simultaneous necessity of the American Dream.

The real treat is possibly Jaden Smith as little Christopher, and it becomes apparent that either the Smiths have groomed this kid for low-key, understated acting from a young age or that he is a true natural talent – or both. Perhaps his performance is nothing mind-blowing, but it is so rare for child actors to perform this subtly. Usually they fall prey to desperately cutesy or annoying antics, but Jaden Smith does not. ""Simpsons"" staple Dan Castellaneta also chips in aptly as a mentor at work of sorts.

If I have been too unclear or critical so far, let me say that I enjoyed this film immensely as a diversion. This does not change the fact that it is trafficking too heavily in stereotypes and Hallmark staples such as ""Don't ever let anybody tell you that you can't do something"" (yes, Will Smith actually says this at one point) or that it rigorously rubs Chris' misery in our faces in every step of the way, even though we clearly got the gist of his miserable conditions early on in the film. It's almost shamelessly cuing viewers in to feel by unpaid parking tickets, taxes, homelessness and a leaving wife to top it off. The fact is that the film expertly camouflages most of its shortcomings and the end result is even, solid and compelling.

'The Pursuit of Happiness' emerges as a safe but inspirational tale that is undeniably readily-molded for both public praise and Oscar buzz. It is difficult NOT to like a film like this, and the pursuit is no exception at all.

7 out of 10",1 "This movie is sheer visual poetry. Although it is in subtitles and I don't speak a lick of French, I found myself not needing to read the subtitles as the visuals told the entire story. This is rather impressive, as the story is very complicated. It tells the tale of one man's life by interweaving four different elements of his life: Childhood, Middle-Age, Old-Age, and a Film Noir Fantasy World. To give it even more of a chance of being confusing, these elements are not shown chronologically. However, ""Toto..."" is not confusing at all. It pulls off this complicated plot beautifully. This movie truly is a Modern Day Classic!! DVD? When? Criterion Edition!",1 "Considering the year and political climate of the time, this was a remarkable film. Today (2001) it is rather passe to have a black actor in a major role, jazz as the defining music, unstructured modern dance a la Martha Graham, and progressive political ideas bantered about. I am amazed that this film was not blocked by the McCarthy witch hunting. Additionally, this movie evokes the feeling of optimism percolating within post WW2 America. Anything was possible, Korea had not yet erupted, and there was still a homey and ""gee wiz"" attitude towards the future. A great movie to contrast with ""Coming Home"" staring Jane Fonda. As an adaptation of the William Saroyan play, Cagney and Bendix et al have captured essence of its anima and message.",1 "When a woman he has just met disappears on the island of Rhodes, Harry's innocence is doubted. But as he begins to examine the woman's past he realizes his closest friend could be involved in murder.

Robert Goddard is a solid and reliable British writer of clever and complex mysteries. However this adaptation of his novel Into The Blue as a vehicle for John Thaw is disastrous from word go. Embarrassingly miscast, Thaw struggles with accent and intent as he blunders from one scene to another, and he is horribly betrayed by a great clunking script and ghastly supporting actors - Ba is particularly awful as Harry's reluctant sidekick.

Find Goddard's original novel and avoid this turkey at all costs.",0 "Kal ho naa ho is a great story combining laughter and tears to perfection. Some viewer comments strangely focus on SRK's far-from-realistic performance, totally missing the point of this film in my opinion.

It goes way beyond technicalities such as realism, along the lines of a fairy tale dealing with a multi-dimensional range of emotions and relational situations at a deep symbolic level, somewhat reminiscent of the french new wave of the 60's at its best.

Poetry should not be scrutinized for its lack of realism but rather taken in from a distance, its inner message interpreted at a more intellectual level, with candor and an open heart. A such, kal ho naa ho hits the mark much like a wonderful display of fireworks.",1 "I was confused from the first 2 Min's of the film!!.. I found it boring, confusing, poorly acted! I have seen soaps with better scripts. In fact.. script was probably on the back of a postage stamp! i turned it off after watching the first hour... shockingly POOR! 2/10 is been generous!! Don't waste your time with the movie!!! Unless you enjoy bad acting... and how the h*** did this get on DVD, in fact someone on benefits could of fronted this movie!

LOL this sums the whole movie...

quote from the over view ""Plot Synopsis: This plot synopsis is empty.""

this is a empty movie and should never of got past the ""short film project""",0 "This film is utterly terrible on all fronts, and it is remarkable that it was made at all being as unfunny as it is.

This is clearly an attempt to be a slapstick film in the mode of Airplane. There's a difference - Airplane was original and funny, and had talented actors in it.

At least Tia Carrere was nice to look at as usual.",0 "As moronic as one would expect. For the brain-impaired this is a treat: one explosion after another, and a whole bunch of ""tough"" guys snarling and threatening each other in almost every other scene. Woods makes the most (which isn't much) out of a standard psychotic-bad-guy role, while Stallone is not only unconvincing but quite laughable, as well. Sharon Stone tries hard to be even worse than Stallone, which she manages quite often. Eric Roberts is his usual menacing ""or-I-'ll-kill-ya"" self, and his character hasn't aged a day since he killed Stone's parents some decades ago (a scene which is shown as a flashback a couple of times), or are they implying that the nearly middle-aged Stone is eighteen in this movie? (For those not convinced that Stone's small breasts come from a land called Siliconia, this movie will be a disappointment; the shower scene removes all doubt.) Steiger neither looks Latino nor does he do a Spanish accent that goes beyond silly. The dialog begs for a MST3K treatment.",0 "Barbra Streisand and George Segal combine there comedic talents to make one of the finest comedies of all time. This film is a combination of good acting, good directing, and is an all-around good movie. It is very much Simonesque (to invent a term) in its aptitude and subtle comedy. The way to tell a superb comedy, is if after the the film, you are left with a feeling of nostalgia. This is definitely one of those films.",1 "Serials are a low point in film history and the period around the Great War was bad for the French film industry, as well. Commemorating both is 'Les Vampires,' probably one of the best-remembered serials and the most accessible French motion picture of any kind from its era.

Serials are banal sensationalism aimed at lowbrow tastes. They always have been, from their inspection in magazines, newspapers and other cheap literature, which has continued to this day with television. It's always been economical--promising return costumers looking for a satisfying wrapping up of previous installments' cliffhangers and loose ends. Usually, the budgets for them are quite thrifty. Additionally, it doesn't require much imagination if one repackages the same devices for each episode--and even less if one repackages the same devices from previous serials--all of which Louis Feuillade, more or less, did here.

Feuillade further popularized serials in France, which was probably inescapable anyhow with the flood of American films (and serials) into the cinemas. For some reason, he seems to have garnered more respect than any other maker of chapter plays has--even to this day. I don't know of any other director mostly known for serials offhand. His pictures have had widespread popularity--in their day, but also 'Les Vampires' seems to remain one of the most praised representations of 1910s cinema. It's not evident that it has anything to do with a mastery of film-making, though; to the contrary, I think that's absent. The long takes from fixed camera positions get very boring, especially the scenes of extended length--those of the characters' every action: scaling buildings, driving off in automobiles, how exactly they go about their crimes and such, as fellow commenter tedg and others have described.

As other filmmakers did, Feuillade alters tinting to suggest changes of light within the story. Other filmmakers, especially those in Denmark, actually changed the lighting of the scene for the change in light within the scene, which usually required a well-positioned splice to allow for time to alter the lighting scheme. Danish filmmakers from around this time tended to avoid editing and camera movement, too, but they replaced it with innovations in mise-en-scène, which aid the camera in creating brilliant images, as can editing and movement of the camera. Such innovation, staging, composition, or mastery is lacking in 'Les Vampires.' The actors do all the work, and the camera just sits there.

You might, but I don't like this serial's content, either. It's a series of convoluted story lines involving a reporter detective and his sidekick Mazamette (played by an awful mugger of an actor) trying to rid Paris of Irma Vep and the underworld criminal gang known as the ""vampires."" To me it seems to be nearly seven hours of each side ineptly attempting to capture, imprison or kill the other.

In episode eight: Why did they give Mazamette's child a gun, and why did they originate such an elaborate scheme to arrest the bad guy in the first place? Why would they use a kid? Where was a gun in the hands of a decent shot when it should have been in other scenes? And, the vampires require a justice to arrive after enough time has been provided for possible escape to declare their prisoner guilty, although, to their credit, they never do that again. Anyhow, you see my point.

(*Summary title taken from ""The Serial Speaks,"" New York Dramatic Mirror, which is quoted in the chapter on serials in ""The Oxford History of World Cinema."")",0 "Sylvester Stallone's career took a turn for the worst here with ""Get Carter,"" a dry action film about revenge. Jack Carter returns home to his brother's funeral and decides to solve the mystery surrounding his brother's death. Perhaps the only thing interesting about the film is the friendship made between Jack and his niece, but even this is marred by a plot twist that's handled with such discomfort that it doesn't seem to belong in a movie with the Italian Stallion. Also starring Michael Caine, from the original ""Get Carter,"" and the ever-so-versatile Alan Cumming, I really expected more from this movie. But the film loses its steam after the opening credits.",0 "The late, great Robert Quarry is once again a vampire in an A.I.P. picture. The difference here is that he's not a dapper Bulgarian blood sucker but an enigmatic stranger with mustache, beard, and wig, who mysteriously appears one day and entrances a group of hippies. The philosophical musings that he utters are of great interest to them, but of course all he really wants to do is feed on them.

""Deathmaster"" wouldn't be as notable were it not for the magnetic presence of its star. Quarry is a pleasure to watch. His character is inspired by the notorious Charles Manson, and has a certain charm about him. One can see how easily impressionable people would fall for such a person. He really makes his existential dialog come to life.

The picture serves as a good snapshot of the early 70's and parts of its culture. It looks good for its low budget ($110,000) and actor-turned-director Ray Danton keeps the picture moving along well.

The supporting cast isn't too bad. LaSesne Hilton (in his only film role) has a very striking face as the vampire's familiar, prominent character actor John Fiedler is engaging as the unlikely source of assistance for would-be hero Pico (Bill Ewing), and sexy Betty Anne Rees, playing Esslin here, would turn up two years later as Quarry's girlfriend in ""Sugar Hill"". It's also a real hoot to see Bobby ""Boris"" Pickett of ""Monster Mash"" fame as one of the hippies.

Makeup effects and gore are passable, and the music by Bill Marx is effective enough. ""Deathmaster"" may come off as pretty dated now, but that actually plays a part in its appeal. It truly belongs in its own time and place. It's a good dose of low-budget 70's exploitation horror.

7/10",1 "Noah Baumbach, the immensely talented writer, and director of ""The Squid and the Whale"" clearly demonstrates he is one of the brightest young directors working in America today. Having admired his previous films, we were looking forward to this new work in which he presents a part of his life, baring his soul, something some other movie makers would shy away from. This experience must have been a painful reminder for Mr. Baumbah of his past, or maybe it served as a catharsis.

If you haven't seen the film, please stop reading here.

The Berkman household in Park Slope, Brooklyn, appears to be normal when we are introduced to the family. These are the kinds of parents that encourage their two children participate in discussions in which books are at the center of the conversation. What's more, Walt, the eldest boy, seems to know a lot about what is discussed. Bernard, the father, is an author that hasn't got a lot of recognition and now teaches college to support the family. Joan, the mother, also a writer, is starting to get her work published. The two sons, Walt and Frank are clever beyond their years.

Evidently, not all seems to be happy in the house. First, one notices Bernard making the couch in the morning, in which he has slept in order to ""ease his back problems"". Joan, is a supporting mother, but somehow, she appears to be distant. Both parents sit with the kids one night to tell them about their impending separation. Of course, this takes Frank, and especially Frank aback by the announcement. The semblance of a tightly knit family begins to unravel in front of the children's eyes.

For Walt, the situation is not as crucial as it is for Frank. Being older and being a city kid, Walt has seen this happening among his age group. For Frank, however, his parents break up is the end of the world, as he knew it. Both boys are resilient in accepting the situation. It's clear Bernard and Joan love their sons, but the idea of not having both parents around at the same time is devastating.

""The Squid and the Whale"" is a film that lays bare the emotions the two boys are experiencing. Basically, it's their film as it shows how they have to adjust to the new circumstances. They both adore their parents, but the resentment is clear as they blame Bernard and Joan for daring to fall out of love and in a way, abandon them to a new reality the older Berkmans didn't prepared them for.

The quality of the acting Mr. Baumbach gets from this ensemble cast is absolutely amazing. We believe we are, in a way, intruding in this family's problems. We are voyeurs to the tragedy their separation presents for the boys. Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney are perfect as the elder Berkmans. Mr. Daniels, especially, gives an inspired performance for his take of the stingy Bernard. Ms. Linney, one of our best actresses, is marvelous as Joan.

What the director has done with the young actors, Jesse Eisenberg and Owen Kline is something incredible. We can't think of any other director that could have accomplished what Noah Baumbach has in guiding them to make the great contribution both these teen agers gave to the film. Both actors are up to the task and there are never a false move from anyone of them.

The supporting cast is interesting. William Baldwin plays the tennis pro Ivan. Anna Paquin is good as Lili, Bernard's student that is wiser than her young years indicate. Halley Feiffer is perfectly sweet as Sophie who likes Walt.

The film has been photographed in a faded technique by Robert Yeoman that gives the film a nostalgic look. The musical score is fine, reflecting the era in which the movie takes place.

The movie is a triumph for Noah Baumbah who clearly shows he is an unique voice for these times.",1 "Only film geeks could get anything out of this piece of garabage! I meant to spell it that way by the way. Listen, anyway, this film premiered in Tulsa Oklahoma, with a pretty darn loyal following pretty darn excited to see it. It was awful! A complete waste of money. Felissa Rose was the only saving grace to this turkey about zombies who are sent from the devil. The acting is about the worst acting in cinema history, even Brink Stevens and Tom Savini couldn't save it! Ugh! 0/10",0 "The movie does a nice job of contrasting Pacino as an insightful, sensitive, and articulate dude when sober, against someone who inevitably says and does really stupid things when he's blotto. I like the fact that the movie doesn't beat you over the head with this message.

Pacino gives another outstanding performance, and he is beginning to look like the ultimate winner of the Pacino/DeNiro sweepstakes, based on lifetime achievement (although neither career is far from over).

This makes a good double-bill with ""The Big Easy."" They both feature Ellen Barkin at a time in her career when sizzling sex scenes seemed to be written into her contract.",1 "It is impossible to review this film without comparing it to Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 version. This production has no romance, no mystery, no suspense, and no atmosphere -- all of the things that made Hitchcock's version a masterpiece.

The only thing that makes this film watchable is Diana Rigg's new take on the character Mrs. Danvers. I found her to be the only believable character in the production -- different than Judith Anderson's interpretation nonetheless, but well done.

If you've never seen a film version of Rebecca, watch the Hitchcock version instead of this one.",0 "Firstly, Rear Window by Alfred Hitchcock is one of my favorite movies, however it is important not to compare this to that classic. Remakes are often less impressive than the originals because you know what's coming and because older films relied much more on acting as opposed to present day films which tend to rely on special effects, violence and sex.

That aside, this film was overall a fairly enjoyable film to watch. My one major complaint for this one is that it wrapped up too quickly. By the time we have this guy getting accused of killing people, he's shoving the mother's head into the door and coming to the main character's house and slamming people's heads in with a bat.

I think the film could really have been improved by letting the suspicions and tensions run a little longer. It seemed like we found out that he really was the killer too soon.

Otherwise, I thought this was a fun film to watch mixed with some funny moments. It's worth watching.",1 "I am biased, as are all film reviewers. There are certain types of films we are naturally more positively predisposed to, and this is one of them for me. I love history and aviation and so it's not at all surprising that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Heck, there were a lot of very similar movies in the 1930s and 1940s--films about young cadets trying to make it through flight school, bombardier school, etc. After a while, they tend to blend a bit together in my head and I am sure that the average viewer would get tired of the genre pretty quickly. But if you also consider that this film was made by Warner Brothers (who made a lot of similar films) and stars some wonderful actors that I truly enjoy watching (George Brent, Olivia DeHavilland, John Payne and Frank McHugh), it's natural that I should like it. But, on the other hand, will you? Well, if you love this type of film, you are sure to be impressed. If you have not, then you probably will find that the film is a tad contrived and clichéd--particularly regarding the romantic triangle in the film. But considering how marvelously done the flying sequences are (exceptional for the time), the consistency of the writing and acting and the overall fun of the film, I think the average person would still probably give this movie a score of 6. I myself give it an 8 but realize that a good compromise between non-aviation/old movie lovers/history teachers and nuts like me is a score of 7.",1 "I have not seen the latest Pink Panther movie starring Steve Martin, but from what I gather, it at least has redeeming qualities. Its most popular credit is the song Beyonce provided for it (I'm not a fan - ""Check on Me"" is it called?), and most had no idea the song and movie were connected (I also read that Martin's comedic timing slightly saves the family film). Clearly, it can't be as bad as Son of the Pink Panther... can it? I mean Son is really bad; I've heard Peter Sellers (the original Inspector Clouseau) roll in his grave a time or two, but I thought there was thunder outside when I saw this. A then-unknown Roberto Benigni (yup, that wacky Italian who, five years later, would beat Tom Hanks AND Edward Norton for the Best Actor Oscar and declare he wants to ""kidnap you and make love to you"") plays what many suspect to be Clouseau's offspring. Of course, it's up to him to solve the case, which I won't even bother going into detail with. My favorite scene, uhhh... some physical comedy with a bicycle toward the beginning. Can't we all, as a whole, agree to never make or support another Pink Panther movie ever again? The Bobby McFerrin (?!?) musical intro to this gunk should have served as enough indication that the genius work of Blake Edwards and Sellers should not be outweighed by a steaming pile of pink whatsit.",0 "I cannot believe anybody but dull-witted Hanna Montana fans might like this stupidity. I actually thought the commercial for this movie was better than the movie.

1. How does a guy who is afraid of heights catch a freshly-cut-off flying thumb thrown from a dying homosexual from 30 feet below? I was expecting the token gay lisper to say ""Nice catch!"" before slipping into the liquid....

2. How many times have YOU been been bit on the butt by a wild rat while crapping in the desert?

3. At least the talking computer didn't say, ""Dave, I feel it!""

4. Do eagles frequently drop bloody rats on groups of soldiers?

5. Was the dark-haired female scientist a sapling from the tree of Algore? Because she was about as wooden.

Why is it that Hollywood chooses to remake perfectly good movies and then make them worse when they do? I think they are smart enough to stay away from certain sacrosanct material, such as Casablanca (can you imagine the all-black soul version starring Eddie Murphy as Sam, Ilsa, Rick, and Laslo?), Gone With The Wind (although that stupid sequel Scarlett was bad enough to try), etc. But why even do these idiotic remakes? Have these writers really run out of ideas? Did someone put alcohol in their blood surrogate?

How many unnecessary ""luv"" sequences are there in this movie? "" To boldly go where no man has gone before"" oral sex preview; wooden actress and lead scientist; reporter dude and pothead desert chick; even the ""don't ask, don't tell"" gay reference about not having a date.... come ON! Can you possibly make a movie without gratuitous sexual ANYTHING in it, unless it is the weather report? AND did you notice that the two heroes who die-- the gay guy and the Chinese guy-- are our E-N-E-M-I-E-S? One for the homophobes, one for the xenophobes!!!! The only redeeming feature of this movie were the very cool forward-looking computers.",0 "Has a number of scenes that easily meet requirements to be spoofed by MST3K. Best example: Landau throws a child-like temper-tantrum in the control center, threatening not to come back until he has full control of the goings-on. Plus, a lot of the dialog is simplistic, cartoon-like, i.e. not very realistic at all. There are a number of fallacies and absurd situations: 1) Connery says the 5-mile meteor will have the power of 250,000,000 tons of TNT (or 250,000?); either way that would be an understatement. But okay; I'm nit-picking, 2) Less nit-pickingish is calling the potential impact (only!) ten times stronger than the strongest earthquake; it's more like a million times stronger, 3) It's impossible to redirect a meteor when it's only days away from impact (again, nit-picking, or maybe they didn't know that then - though I doubt that), 4) it isn't possible to destroy a meteor that big (and that fast) with a series of nuclear hits, 5) One of the space centers only discover a big one going towards NY when it's just minutes away from impact! What were they doing, sleeping? 6) And does it have to hit NY of all places? Why do these meteors and asteroids always aim for the well-known cities? 7) It should have been more devastating; they showed it's impact to be more like that of a huge earthquake than a meteor, 8) the absurdity that governments would actually think about politics when the future of the entire planet is at stake - and that they actually need convincing that warheads need to be used?! The film is also quite slow.",0 "The first year was new and fresh and sometimes funny. They should have finished at year 2. The stories became bad after the first years. Especially after adding the other sister… The unwell undeveloped characters and bad story lines and the bad, bad, bad copying of everything -the last few years especially! - Harry Potter and all the stupidly unfunny movie spoofs. I just watched an episode were Leo is trying to hurt his sons through a dark side of his (so Star Wars one may say) but eventually one of the kids created this figure because… who cares? Please tell me it didn't do well in USA. Please!

They could have it so much better!",0 "I got to see this movie this weekend. I had to BUY a copy to get this one, and I Loved it. Maybe I have been slow to get into M. Night Shyamalan movies. I saw ""Sixth Sense"" and ""Lady in the Water"" close to when they came out. Then after ""The Happening"" I decided I had to see ALL of his Movies in the last couple of weeks. I'm glad I saw most of his works and some DVD Extras before I saw this one. If it had come out AFTER some of his better grossing movies, this might have been appreciated as one of his best ever! (Following ""Sixth Sense"" and ""Signs"" anyway.) I feel that this movie may be a bit Autobiographical, and would love to confirm that with something more than Movie Trivia correlations. I can't believe this early in his Movie Making he gets Rosie O'Donnell, Camryn Manheim, and Julia Stiles to play supporting Roles! This is the same guy who gets Kids into Roles BEFORE They get Oscars!

Shyamalan's works are always more than one layer of meaning, as might be hinted in double entendre of the Titles. I see Josh's search for God, not as a doubt of his faith, but as the first search for the meaning of the faith he saw in his Grandfather.

There are so many reason's I loved this film besides the obvious art of Writing / Directing of Shyamalan and this wonderful Supporting Cast that I mentioned above.

The hints as to Shyamalan's personal history? The fact that the character Josh has both parents as Doctors; Josh at an Early Age seeking more Meaning in Life than his peers; Josh in a Parochial School. I'm sure there's more I missed, and will view again when I am more Wide Awake.",1 "This movie is bad even by Matt Helm standards. It's as incomprehensible as the previous movie, ""Murderers' Row"", but lacks the ambiance of a French locale or the flamboyant villain that saved that one. The action sequences are totally lacking any credibility whatsoever. It's a shame that this one chased away so many movie goers that they decided not to turn out for the splendid (by Matt Helm standards) ""The Wrecking Crew"", the last and best of the series.",0 "Actually she was 15yrs old , She only made 1 porn movie at age 18 before FBI arrested her , so all her movies were made when she was underage , Some other pornstars investigated during the early 80's and possibly appeared in porn movies underage include Alexandria Quinn , Kristara Barrington and Ali Moore , These other girls didn't draw as much attention possibly due to the fact they weren't very popular or overly attractive , at least one of the pornstars appears alongside Traci Lords in more than one movie , There is one movie were possibly all of the actors appear making nearly the entire female cast underage at the time the movie was filmed. Does this still happen today ?

To the guy from netherlands , first of all , she was arrested the day after her 18th birthday , would have been 8th may , thats late 87 is it ? and you say she coulndt have possibly made any movies before she turned 16 , yet she was penthouse pet in September 84 and the story read she had starred in dozens of porn movies , so she starred in dozens of porn movies prior to September yet her first movie according to you wasn't produced and released until late 84 ?",0 "That' right, a bloody soap opera, what the hell were they thinking? Let's do the check list of what they did right with this Galactica remake, I can count that on one hand. Better effects and cooler Cylons. That's it! What's with this Politically Correct B.S.? I'm all for having female pilots. But why make major changes on key characters, I mean Adama was Spanish, Starbuck wasn't a woman and Boomer was a African American Male, not a Asian American Female. That's one, two killing off Boomer for a Cylon replacement. Then she falls for a human and has a baby, how much of soap opera do you call that? Next, the Cylons were created by a race of alien reptiles which they turned on and made extinct. Like they want to do to us. Did want to be too sci-fi-ish? Did they watch the original show, it was a science fiction. It's suppose to be a science fiction! Now let's talk about the bullets. Lasers are sci-fi anymore, they actually exist! Plus, it's not sci-fi about laser battles in space, it's science fact that a bullet would not work in a area of non-gravity, like SPACE! So, having a space battle with bullets makes no sense what so ever. If you got hooked on this crapper then stop watching it. Go cold turkey and realize that the show is a turkey. I give it...THE NOOSE!",0 "I can't believe I actually sat through this movie! OK, the music was great, and Gena Rowlands was excellent... but that's it! It's unfortunate, because the subject matter had so much potential, but this was terrible! Juliette Lewis was... interesting - but some of her lines and their deliveries were like nails screeching on a chalkboard. Uma Thurman could have been excellent, but she wasn't given much to work with in terms of a script.

The other thing about this movie is that it at times is too pretentious for its own good symbolism that tries to work with the main plot but comes across as just too much of a bad art house effect (watch for red traffic lights and you'll see what I mean).

A laudable effort, but nothing can save this ship from sinking.",0 "Low budget film-making at it's best. Seriously, this movie is everything an indie film should be. Dark and gritty with plenty of nudity, violence, and drug use. No big name actors, either. Fans of Killing Zoe should definitely check this out.

Even though Joe Dekko is obviously a real lowlife, you can't help but like him. Colin Gray O'Hara (whom I have never seen in anything else) gives an outstanding performance. Perhaps we will see more of him in the future.

This film has been out for quite a while. I keep hoping that someday it will be released on DVD, but I'm not holding my breath. They don't make movies like this anymore.",1 "This movie should never have been made. All of the 13 Olsen-Banden films belong to the Danish movie treasure. All of them are good, some of them are great, but all of them are Classics. I say this; there are only thirteen Olsen-Banden film.

It is better to pretend that this mistake was never made, as it is nothing but a sad and pathetic attempt, to reanimate a series that ended gracefully a long time ago.

There is nothing more to say, while many of the old actors are still there, several of them died under recording, unfortunately this wasn't enough to stop this atrocity from being made.",0 "Some movies are overwhelming with a power to evoke passion in a viewer, which wraps them up in the director's illusion throughout the runtime. A few motion pictures become truly life altering experiences, and Bloodbath in Psycho Town manages to fit in that category. The morning after I watched this barrel scraped 'slasher'; I woke up to a hefty £200 pound fine for unpaid parking tickets that I was unaware that I had ever received. I got up and went to play for my local soccer team and we were knocked out of the London lower league cup by a crunching 3-0 defeat at home. Much later I received a phone call from my girlfriend telling me that she wanted to discuss a rumour that she heard about a 'gentleman's only' weekend in Amsterdam, which I thought I'd got away with a few months earlier. Then to add more pain to this bizarrely unfortunate day, my beloved Arsenal were beaten 4-2 by their biggest rivals Manchester United in one of the most important games of the season. To make matters worse, all these drastically unlucky occurrences began with ninety wasted minutes of my life that I spent in front of this totally forgotten Z grade Troma trash. It's almost as if…well, the ESP plot line had escaped the feature and invaded my life. Hideo Nakata's The Ring was a famous story about a video that could jinx its viewer to the worst kind of bad luck. Well now I'm sure I've uncovered an earlier example of this bizarre phenomenon. To be honest, I was somewhat relieved when seven days had passed and I was still alive!

Eric and his girlfriend Donna head to the remote town of Casa Della with three days left to finish their video project for graduation. Eric has decided to make a documentary about the village because it has a long history of bizarre occurrences. They bed down at a dilapidated mansion, which is owned by Eric's father and was the scene of a recent unsolved murder. Donna feels that the abode may well be haunted, but her boyfriend disagrees. The following day, the couple head out to interview the locals and ask them for their opinions on the tragedy that happened only a week earlier. All that they find is a group of psychic palm reading hippies, who seem afraid of Donna's subtle telepathic abilities. Before long the inevitable hooded nut job turns up and begins stalking the dumb-as-you-like students. Despite being given hundreds of blatant warnings from residents and even voices from beyond the grave, they decide to get to the bottom of the mystery. Just who or what could be behind the recent disappearances?

There's not too much to put into words about this one, mainly because not a great deal happens. But I will tell you that 'Drip of Blood in a Timber Yard' is a much more suitable title. Troma has an awful track record with the slasher genre. Movies like Angel Negro, Girl's School Screamers and the abysmal The Creeper have made Blood Hook and Graduation Day – the 'best' of their output - look like Apocalypse Now in comparison. Alessandro DeGaetano's offering continues the barrel scraping tradition by being so mind numbingly boring that you'll believe you've been locked in a concrete tomb for the entire runtime. With a title like Bloodbath in Psycho Town, I must admit that I expected a few gruesome murders. Unfortunately I only got one dry chance to see the killer use his blade, which is hardly a Bloodbath and just isn't good enough over ninety minutes. This was in fact so damn tedious that the director was forced to include as many as five pathetic sex scenes featuring the same 'great-oak' couple. These were not only hilariously unconvincing, but they were obviously added only to pad an otherwise miniscule plot line.

The hero and heroine of the feature are eminently watchable for the simple fact that they represent mankind's mysterious personality-link with wood. Yes, if you thought that you had previously viewed timber-like performances, these two will leave you convinced that they studied drama in the Amazon forest under the tuition of an ageing group of trees. Eric was particularly amusing, as he effortlessly proved that not only the T100s in the Terminator movies are devoid of human emotions. His girlfriend managed to dictate the tedium with her constant nagging, which was as unrelenting as the dire script. Not only were they a pair of human gateposts, but they also lacked conviction, talent and any kind of visual appeal.

On the plus side, Psycho Town does manage to build a smidgen of atmosphere in places. I liked the Blair Witch-alike interview scenes, which of course pre-date that movie by a good ten years. But it's too little too late as a huge majority of the runtime was mind numbingly insipid. This only just manages to slot into the slasher category, which is due to the brief appearance of a mystery killer in a bright yellow rain coat. But one victim just isn't enough and the whereabouts of the touted 'bloodbath' is one of cinema's biggest mysteries. I've heard that this has recently been re-released on DVD under a new title. I wouldn't be surprised if it was something like, 'Tonnes of naked chicks, gore and Academy Award winning actors in a huge Massacre'? But the net result is the same inconsistent mess of a movie that isn't worth your hard earned money. Don't forget that if you buy it – you could suffer as much bad luck as I did…",0 "Knowing is a terrific film by the director of Dark City that combines bone-chilling horror with a great story and amazing visuals. There is a feeling of sheer dread throughout, especially if you know how it's going to end. I had to keep telling myself it was only a movie. The musical score is excellent and really accentuates the terror and emotional impact of the whole movie. Nicolas Cage pulls off one of his best performances in years, and even though a lot of what he does ends up being futile, I really felt for all the characters. It seems a lot of the problems people had with the movie had to do with the plot, and while it's not flawless it's still really well told. Alex Proyas is known for being a stylistic director, and for this reason you should probably watch this with a certain frame of mind. Try to feel your way through the movie instead of over-thinking every little detail. It's an emotional roller-coaster ride and one of the best movies of 2009 so far. On top of everything, the action scenes are awesome.

EDIT: Upon further review, my opinion has changed about this movie. I still think it's really well made, but I have to comment on the weird symbolisms and imagery used in the movie. For example, the rabbits may seem out of place until you realize that rabbits were sacred to the religion of Baal, a solar deity. This and other things in the film are related to kabbalism and occultism. If you believe in the Illuminati, you know that they control Hollywood and put their symbols in many films, for example the Nick Cage movies National Treasure 1 and 2. This movie may be part of a broader agenda by very sick and dangerous people. Their final goal is to sacrifice all of humanity to their solar deity who they still worship. You may not believe it but its symbolized everywhere. So enjoy the movie but understand what these things mean.",1 "The action unfolds in 2010, almost 15 years after the world has blown itself up, Only one missile born nuclear weapon is left, and whatever mutant survivor holds the Keys to its launch controls will have the power of ultimate obliteration. The world is threatened again!, Phillip and Marlowe – two guys trapped in a bomb shelter for more then a decade with nothing else but canned food and 1940's detective books – are the only hope. They've got the keys, they've also got the whole Punk District of Edge City after them! Life after the bomb is just one big blast! Loved the film, and great music Starring John Stockwell from ""Christine"" also with Michael Dudikoff from ""Bachelor Party"" , Michele Little From ""My Demon Lover"" and George Kennedy from ""the Naked Gun films"", All up I give it 8 out of 10",1 "While ""Old Man Dobbs"" concocts some awful mixed drink (""smooth!"") some red-eyed alien briefly appears outside, and then an alien spacecraft flies overhead and causes his drink to bubble away to nothing. ""Consarned aeroplanes!"" Those Dobbses, always encountering UFOs. Why, I could tell you a thing or two about J.R. ""Bob"" Dobbs...

But anyway, twenty years later, ""Old Man Cranston,"" a well-dressed Santa Claus-looking fellow with a yellow British Rolls Royce lets teenager Carl have the key to his old haunted mill. Carl and his friends will use it for a Halloween ""Spook Alley."" Meanwhile, a rival group wants to win the Spook Alley contest, so they decide to scare Carl and his friends out of using the mill, since everyone finds it scary in and of itself.

Unfortunately, there's an alien called a Varrow living there who would like to kill off every human on Earth one at a time. It can disguise itself as human beings.

As SCTV's Count Floyd would say, ""Ooh, scary, kids!"" This is a pretty lame movie (albeit with a neat location), and another user comment indicating it had to do with a radio contest at least makes a little sense of it all. I wonder what sort of distribution it got prior to making it to video. I saw this on videotape as The Varrow Mission, in an old clamshell case box. No photos on the box at all, usually a good indicator of bad quality (see badmovies.org's ""How to Find a Bad Movie"" - this one might rate 16 points). The box made this sound more of a horror/sci-fi movie than whatever this is.",0 "I've never read any Jack the Ripper books.

I've never seen any Jack the Ripper movies.

I didn't even know the story behind Jack the Ripper until the other day. Then I saw From Hell. The title of the movie is ironic because it seems the movie itself came ""From Hell."" I will never get that 2 hours (and $8) of my life back. The movie was slow moving, incredibly predictable, and had a slow, drawn out climax.

The scenery was amazing, and the special effects were fantastic. That much I'll give. Even the acting was good. It is just that the story stunk.

Don't go see it. Rent it. Maybe even wait for HBO. You already know what happens anyway.",0 "With the sudden eruption of great Mexican films in the last few years, we are now being cheated upon thinking all Mexican films are worthy of a good review. This film, is not at all entertaining. With poor acting from most of the cast, a weak plot obviously drawn from Robin Hood, this movie proves to moviegoers that marketing can go much farther than the quality of a product. This movie starts off with the birth of Tigre, not wanted by his father who accuses his mother that the child isn't his, is tossed out of the window. With no idea how he grew up we see him arriving to his aunt's, a prostitute, house where he was sent to live. A very stupid conversation over a bottle of tequila convinces him of joining the army, where his best friend is killed in battle by his own captain. After defending a woman and killing the man who was beating her, a local journalist takes it upon his own to publish the story, with his own literary add-ons, and even invents Tigre's basis for his future in crime. Tigre accepting just to get revenge on the man who killed his friend who is now the police captain. He forms a posse o beautiful woman with whom he starts to steal from the rich to give to the poor. This is basically the whole story. Stupid situations, stupid problems with stupid solutions. Steer clear from this mexican movie and just wait to see what Alfonso Cuaron or Alejandro Gonzalez has in store for us in the future. One good tip is to stay away from films where most of the cast belongs to Mexican soap operas and unjustifiable nudity just to try to cash in at the box office.",0 "I recently rented this movie, figuring it would be cool, but what do i get???? JUNK! The classification of this movie as being ""HORROR"" and/or ""THRILLER"" is absolutely laughable! One expects ""horror"" to be blood and/or guts gushing out on-screen, but the only real ""blood"" is from what appeared to be a dead animal? But, even that is just a split second of viewing, to leave it rather questionable, as to if it was just a paint can.

Now, on to the ""thriller"" part......well, this is laughable too. I was on the edge of my seat, just waiting for the movie to end! There isn't anything to get all excited over in this movie, besides waiting for it to end.

Save your money, and rent a good movie, like........Hellraiser movies. Now, those are horror movies!",0 "Just about every adult born before 1970 will know who ""Peanuts"" are. That lovable gang of children, with Snoopy, the worry-wart Charlie Brown's pet beagle, is the center of it all.

This movie, Snoopy Come Home, is a great film, for young and for old. I remember watching it many dozen a time when I was between the age of 4-6. Every character has something a child can relate too! The musical score to this movie is fantastic, each tune being both catchy and sounding delightful to one's ears.

If you have a sensitive child, I'd strongly urge you NOT to let them watch this film, as it WILL run the risk of damaging them down the track in years to come! From being hilariously funny to downright sad, there's a lot to love in this little animated dog, and a lot of attitude! So from giggling at Snoopy's delightfully cute laugh, or clicking your fingers along with one of this film's many tunes, this is a perfect movie for a parent and young children.",1 "No wonder KATHARINE HEPBURN was considered box-office poison around the time of QUALITY STREET. As a James M. Barrie heroine, she's as mannered and coy as ever in a silly, very dated comedy of manners that never manages to be the witty romp it strives to be.

Only FRANCHOT TONE gives the story any semblance of wit or reality, looking handsome and fit as the suitor who finally sees through the deception around him.

James M. Barrie has had little success in being transferred to the screen, except, of course, for his PETER PAN. His other works became feeble domestic comedies on screen--namely ""Alice Sit By the Fire"" which became DARLING, HOW COULD YOU? with Joan Fontaine, and worst of all, QUALITY STREET. Both deserve to be forgotten.

I would venture to guess that this is the sort of dated period fluff that gives films of the 1930s a bad name. (Unfairly so, since many films of the '30s were deservedly praised). It's so stylized in its comedy, so forced in its humor that even the wonderful ERIC BLORE is at a loss as to just how many double takes he should do. Even such wonderful actresses as ESTELLE WINWOOD and FAY BAINTER have a hard time doing anything with their material.

Do yourself a favor and skip this one. Not even the staunchest James M. Barrie fan will want to sit through it.

Trivia note: If you're alert enough, you can catch Joan Fontaine in a bit role.",0 "What can i say, i love the Twilight Zone style shorts (and i'd say this was akin to that sort of sci-fi /horror) but this has got to be one of the most affecting short films that i've ever seen without it having to lower itself to the reliance of gore and visual explicitness.Simply a gruelling and incredibly paranoid half hour. Shot on an obviously low budget with minimal casting and mininimal locations (i.e. one room) it achieves maximum tension and maximum freakishness without actually being overtly freaky. A completely different viewing experience from what the ordinary filmic audience is used to.The acting was superb from the main character and my only quarm with the entire production is the last few seconds could have been a little more in the same vein and less showy (not in an f/x sense but more in a well,was it him or was it the mirror? Regardless,it's one of the most (not terrifying, but i think psychologically draining would be an accurate summary) nightmarish shorts you're likely to see.Check it out now!!!! A+",1 "A group of plumbers use their vacation time to inspect houses that are claimed to be haunted by ghosts. The audience follows them through the houses with their technology and expertise, leaving us to be the judge.

I watched a few episodes of ""Ghost Hunters"" on a recommendation from a friend (who believes in ghosts, although his girlfriend doesn't). I was told it was pretty spooky and that it might show me that ghosts were possible. I don't think him and I watched the same show.

Two men are trained as plumbers with no scientific background. They use such devices as thermometers and video cameras to detect ghosts. I heard them say things like ""it's cold here, must be where the ghost entered"" and ""I feel really scared and uncomfortable in this room"". How is that in any way convincing?

The evidence was really nothing special, either. A cold room means there's a ghost? I'm not sure what that's based on. A flash of light is a specter? A bad feeling is a presence? The closest thing I saw to any ghost in this show is a door that opened and closed on its own. Nothing floating, no voices, no spirits. Just a door that opens and closes, which I didn't find very impressive. Doesn't air pressure do that in houses all the time?

If you believe in ghosts, you might find this show pretty amusing. If you don't, I don't think this is going to be the kind of program that convinces you. There were some good moments as far as drama goes -- they are very soap opera-like in how they deal with girlfriends -- but the actual ghost hunting is rather weak.",0 """Inland Empire"" is best enjoyed if you look at it as a summarization of Lynch's career. Everything that is good or bad about Lynch, depending on who you are talking to, can be found in this production. I don't think it is top tier Lynch but it does feel endlessly fascinating because it allows the filmmaker to use every trick he has learned in over three decades of movie-making. I'm not wasting my time with plot points - each viewer has the right to come up with his/her own interpretations. Not unlike Lynch's ""Lost Highway,"" I think it got something to do with repressed anguish and role-playing. But, who knows? I did think it was a bit long. I do want to recommend viewers to watch it either very late at night or early in the morning - it is the kind of movie that feeds on a specific kind of environment. The brilliant sound design need to be appreciated without any distractions.",1 "I just saw a copy of this movie and it was awful. Nice camera work and clean edits made for a vast comparison with the weak plot and horrible acting by these b-movie stars. The only thing one could hope for is to see Kristy Swanson get naked, which she didn't even do (three years after her Playboy shoot she has packed on a few more pounds which is probably the reason!)

To even think of this movie as a thriller is impossible: the focus is more on the Baldwin and Swanson characters rather than developing a true thriller plot of who is killing all these people.

Overall don't waste two hours of your time, life is far too valuable.",0 "I went to see this in the theatres after hearing about how many oscar nominations it was up for. It is painfully slow, very bloody, with no plot to relate to (unless maybe you live in NYC). The only reason I didn't leave before the 3 hours of torture were over was because I was expecting it to get good (oscar nominations) and I paid full price to go.

If you haven't seen it yet, don't waste your time or money.",0 "What can I say about THE PLEASURE PLANET that I haven`t said about umpteen other tedious soft core porn films ? Very little . It`s just another movie with a very weak plot used to set up very unconvincing set scenes between male non actors who spend too much time in the gym and bimbos who have obviously had silicon implants . Actually the sex scenes in this movie are somewhat less convincing than you usually see in this type of film as the cast members grind their hips together giving pained expressions like they`ve got constipation or something . No wonder a lot of people claim sex is over rated , they`ve probably watched too many of these films on late night cable stations",0 "Let me start by saying I think that people who torture and harm animals are sick and should definitely be punished. That aside, this program shows these officers and people stretching the definition of ""animal abuse"" to ridiculous proportions. Before watching this show, my first impression was that it is wonderful that society has taken a proactive stance against people who hurt animals and made a division of law enforcement specifically to stop it. After watching it I have mixed feelings about the people involved.

One episode I remember, some ducks were in a parking lot some guy owned (but was rarely there), and one of them was sick. It ended up dying, and the people on the show were talking about how the results of why the duck died were inconclusive, and they were angry because they couldn't charge the owner with any crimes or tickets. I'm sorry but that's just insane - people now have criminal liability for animals that randomly come on their property and die? The same episode showed these two incompetent officers going after a cat and completely tearing this guy's apartment apart, wantonly destroying his property, and literally throwing boxes of his stuff across the room to get it out of their way.

Some of the shows detail some pretty sick people, but at the same time, some of them go a little too far in their zeal to just find people to prosecute. Many of the shows I've seen, maybe it's just chance, were officers harassing poor people who were kind enough to take what little extra money they had and feed an animal or let it stay on the property. Then fining them or arresting them and acting like these normal, compassionate people who were of meager means and doing what they could were actually sadistic freaks because they couldn't afford to get some stray dog they were leaving scraps for a $8,000 kidney transplant.",0 "Shot for $5 and some change in a dirt lot in someone's backyard, this straight to video film about a cult of somesuch or another has undeservedly made its way to DVD. ""How"", I ask? Did enough people actually watch this sub-mediocre production to warrant taking the time and energy to transfer it to a digital medium?

Count me among the guilty for having rented this back in the 80's, when straight to video had begun to glut the market with piles of these forgettable ""horror"" films. Count yourself among the fore-warned if you manage to read this in time to prevent renting the DVD, or worse, buying it.

Outside of the slick cover, there's nothing else in between, but if you won't take my word for, read some of the other user comments before proceeding with wasting your money.",0 "Arguably the best of the latter-day Disney cartoons, Beauty And The Beast is a stunning film that can be enjoyed by adults and kids alike. After a lengthy lull for the studio, stretching right back to The Aristocats, they finally returned to form with The Little Mermaid in 1989. This 1991 film, based on a Madame LePrince De Beaumont novel, is an absolute delight and marks a high point in Disney animation unmatched since the days of Dumbo and Pinocchio. So impressive is this film that it was the first cartoon movie ever to receive a Best Picture Oscar nomination, an award it conceivably might have won had it not been up against the mighty Silence Of The Lambs in the same year.

In a small provincial village in the French countryside lives a beautiful young lady, Belle (voice of Paige O'Hara), and her inventor-father Maurice (voice of Rex Everhart). Belle is obsessed with books and loves stories of romantic derring-do, but the rest of the villagers find her odd - her nose is always stuck in a book, and they think she should be more in tune with what is happening in the real world. Most of the girls in the village have a crush on the handsome hunter Gaston (voice of Richard White), but he desires Belle.... even though she thinks he is nothing more than a brainless, muscle-headed fool. One day Maurice sets off for the nearby city to sell one of his inventions but he gets lost in the woods on the way and ends up seeking shelter in a foreboding castle. Belle grows worried by his absence and sets out to search for him. She too finds the castle and, upon entering, discovers her father imprisoned under the custody of a fearsome beast (voice of Robby Benson). The beast agrees to free her father as long as she takes his place. Initially Belle hates being confined in the castle but gradually she discovers that the beast is not as cruel and heartless as he appears. Just as she is about to fall in love with her captor (thereby breaking a long-lasting curse and turning him back into the prince he once was), a mob of angry villagers - led by Gaston - turn up to kill the beast.

Beauty And The Beast is distinguished by splendid animation, memorable voice work, brilliant songs and a perfectly-paced narrative. The animation is a fantastic leap forward for its time, utilising computer generated imagery that brings the characters and places marvellously to life. All the vocal talent is spot-on, with O'Hara and Benson doing lovely work as the titular characters, while the likes of Angela Lansbury, Jerry Orbach and David Ogden Stiers provide memorable supporting voices. The entire film has about it the feel of a stage show, most significantly during the song routines - tunes like ""Be Our Guest"", ""Gaston!"", ""Tale As Old As Time"" and ""Kill The Beast"" are instantly catchy, and are brought to life in vibrant, well-worked out sequences. The original story is an archetypal fairy tale and the makers follow it to the letter, adding a few clever trimmings of their own. Individually, each sequence is brilliantly put together creating an overall sense of awe and wonder, and the whole story flows smoothly putting barely a foot in the wrong place. A great film for the family, Beauty And The Beast is outstanding entertainment.",1 "It's pretty obvious Omar Epps and Tupac are awesome actors. If you don't get it from this movie, watch some of their other work and you'll get it. This movie's script was kind've crap and unbelievable. We're supposed to believe that before the movie Bishop was down and then all of a sudden at the beginning he turns into some cold, calculating guy willing to murder his friends? Man, please. But Tupac had a lot to say, but just didn't have it figured out; he was a little confused. And he got killed before he got a chance to raise up out. But I think Eminem has some of the same emotional complexity and while he has the same death-wish kind've attitude, the rap game isn't as dangerous as it once was. I expect we'll see Eminem grabbing a lot of the roles that Pac would've played.",0 "The film starts beautifully with a montage of old pictures and film of the childhood of the characters coinciding with a song by Bill Callahan that really fits the mood of the beginning scene.

Paddy plays an incredible cool headed ex-military freak that would stall anyone in their shoes. Great images of terror when he arrives to vandalise in a gas mask.

The drug scenes are well done (coming from experience)and the hatred and cruelty in this film are well portrayed. The characters really make you hate them, and you feel good about the revenge that is taken upon them.

The revenge plot of the film is a bit heavy sided until you come to understand the actual events of the past through the 8mm black and white scenes ...

Great British film. I recommend it highly if you aren't too squeamish about violence.",1 "This feature accomplishes perfectly what GREEN GRASS OF WYOMING failed to do four years later - both deal with similar subjects: adolescents training to bring horses to trotting race success. This film however is filled with poignancy, beauty and self-assuredness. It was the first starring role for Lon McCallister, a young man who made 42 films but only nine after this one, retiring from the screen at 30. It was Jeanne Crain's fist starring role as well, being only her fourth film. Both are absolutely radiant in the leads and so appealing you want to adopt them. Lending able support are Walter Brennan and Charlotte Greenwood (doing a prototype Aunt Eller-like job). Willie Best and particularly George Reed provide additional fine work. Reed is a find and one wonders why he was not the choice for Disney's Uncle Remus. This is a film full of beautiful color cinematography (it earned a deserved Oscar nom in this category) that is also extremely accomplished in the difficult tracking shots that put us right IN the races. The Academy failed to honor Hugo Friedhofer's excellent musical score but it deserved a nom as well. This is a radiant film that is perfect for adolescents to watch, especially those in love with horses and racing. I am astonished it is not available on video. Do seek it out.",1 "John Cena's movie debut and last i hope, Cena's acting is actually fine to be honest so what makes this movie terrible? The Score is absolutely dreadful and i'd say this is what kills the movie. Yup the background music in this film is what completely ruins this movie it is cheesy and the whole film in general feels like "" Made for TV "". If anything the WWE should just leave the acting to The Rock and Steve Austin who have proved they can act. You might notice some T2 references including the ending fight scene which just seemed to look like a copy of T2'S fight scene. watch out for tons of movie errors including this:

Continuity: At the gas station, after the cop's car gets shot, it shows the car having a flat tire. Triton proceeds to get in the car and take off, driving with all four tires fully filled.

Its so bad its enjoyable to watch but it is a pile of crap",0 "the way this movie begins is very odd, but then again, so is the movie, but it's a GOOD odd. One of the catchiest lines in the movie was ""when you F*ck a duck it's hard on the duck, so you have to break it's neck when you're done. you can't f*ck a duck and let it live"" There was a good group of actors and actresses in this title, and I don't really recall it out in the theaters. I have been looking to pick this movie up at best buy, but it's not available there. Sadie Frost is totally hot in this movie, and her running around in panties and a tank top after a drug/alcohol induced stupor was pretty hot.

but the genius in this movie lies in the story itself.",1 "It's the story of a married woman falling in love with another man. The married couple - Max von Sydow and Bibi Andersson - does live in fine rapport, their personalities matching well. Both are quiet, contemplative, and very rational persons, not liable to act spontaneous. The intruder - Elliott Gould - on the idyll which they embody together with their teenaged daughter is in contrast an impetuous man, uncompromising, overbearing, and tormented by inner contradictions and compulsions. Andersson tells him at one point that he hates himself. The two clandestine lovers aren't appropriate for each other. They have difficulties to accept the other's social behaviour and stance and don't like it to lie to their environments. But soon they cannot live without each other anymore.

The point of the film cannot be to show how two contrary characters complement each other, as Andersson was even more happy with von Sydow before and because it's all told in such a detached manner. The portrait of a love would like to involve the spectators to convey the joy and pain of it. Instead the question why Andersson turns away from von Sydow toward Gould seems intentionally perplexing. The dialogues and acting of the lovers is cerebral and cold, as if they were reciting dazedly on a stage, astounding themselves with their actions and feelings. As if they were actuating on an impulse isolate from their personalities. This impulse or drive is not eros, as especially at the beginning of their affaire sex is more a problem than a fulfilment to these two diffident lovers. Maybe love or the need to feel and give love is itself such a drive, an autonomous thing asserting itself regardless of the circumstances and the characters involved.

The central metaphor of the film is a medieval wooden statue of Mary, recently excavated after being buried for centuries - like Gould's and Andersson's potential to be lovers or man and woman. But with the disinterment of the Mary there also come alive insect larvae inside her, corroding her from within. Before they meet Gould attempted suicide and Andersson was reduced to a wife. They flower in their new love and it destroys their lives.

Civilization means in many ways the domestication of our impulses. Therefore Andersson realizes that she must not harm lastingly her family and Gould's hidden wife/sister. This is true. But Gould is telling her that she is lying to herself by not eloping with him and he's right, too.",0 I'm making my way through all of Lynch's films so I figured I'd start with his early short films and I am very pleased with them. I really liked Six Men Getting Sick and this one was great too. I will be commenting on the rest of them as well. The Alphabet is very ambiguous and let's you come up with your explanation of what's going on and I think that is great. David Lynch is a genius in so many ways. I think it's wonderful seeing where my favorite filmmaker started out and very inspiring. I am still trying to figure how he pulled some of the stuff in this film off and wondering how I could do something like this myself. I will continue to enjoy Lynch and be amazed by his work. I hope you can as well!,1 "My five year old did not enjoy this movie because Pooh and friends spend most of the movie scared and in perceived peril. Much of the movie looks like they are walking through the Mines of Moria. Everyone is scared, everyone is nervous and it translates right to the kids watching. The gang just goes from one bad situation to another. What is the point? At the end of the movie (which does end sweetly) my daughter exclaimed, ""I never want to see that movie again!"" As for the DVD extras, I've never been a fan of how Disney handles the heffalumps. Every heffalump sequence seems like an acid trip. The DVD includes an older episode featuring morphing heffalumps. It was just more disturbing stuff that my kid didn't enjoy.",0 "This film was quite literally a banging spectacle. I could see the sub-text of 'pity this poor deluded girl' but I instead chose to ignore it and applaud the young woman's decision to work her way through all those men. On film. I only wish I could have joined in! It's her right, so dont get all snotty, people.

More footage of the actual bang would have been appreciated, and indeed, I believe many guys will pick this film up expecting it to be pure porn. It's a bang-me-do!",1 "In 1988 former cameraman, theater director and Army documentary filmmaker William Wesley made the superbly eerie and grisly living dead horror zinger variant ""Scarecrows."" Some thirteen years later Wesley finally resurfaced with this snazzy direct-to-video terror shocker which centers on a dry, dusty, desolate patch of remote desert backroads haunted by the lethal, murderous, unrestful eyeless, zombie-like, asphalt-encrusted, crumple-faced spirits of four extremely vicious and dangerous chaingang convicts who were all killed in a brutal roadside massacre back in 1967. Rugged Federal marshal Lou Diamond Phillips, feisty lady cop Lori Petty, antsy mob informant Steven Williams (the tough, determined bounty hunter out to bag Jason Vorhees in ""Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday""), and several expendable fuzz who include Dale Midkiff (the dumbbell doctor dad in ""Pet Semetery"") and Alex McArthur (the chillingly emotionless serial killer in William Friedkin's ""Rampage"") encounter the fiendish undead felons when they make the unsound decision to use the titular condemned, closed-off highway as a shortcut. Meanwhile, a mob assassin pursues our beleaguered bickering bunch.

Ingeniously blending a tried'n'true fright film premise with elements lifted from your basic chase action yarn and rough, gritty, noir-leaning crime thrillers, ""Route 666"" provides loads of crisp, pacy, straight-up grue-slinging creeped-out monstermash fun. Wesley directs in the same taut, spare, stripped-down no-nonsense manner which distinguished ""Scarecrows."" Philip Lee's sharp, panoramic cinematography vividly evokes a quietly unnerving wide-open feeling of total isolation and vulnerability. Terry Plumieri's countryish shuddery score likewise hits the spooky spot. The cast all turn in sturdy performances: Philips is less stolid and more agreeable than usual, Petty has spunky charm to spare, and Williams delightfully supplies the hilariously whiny, craven and conniving comic relief. Better still, we've got nice cameos by venerable character actors L.Q. Jones as a folksy sheriff and Dick Miller as a gruff, gravel-voiced bartender. In short, ""Route 666"" is just the place to find plenty of good, gory, neatly streamlined and to the point horror pic kicks.",1 "I have read the book by John grisham and i was not greatly impressed by his work . But the book was a worth read, it had some nice moments and the mood throughout the book was good. I expected a good adaptation of the book in this movie even though the rating was below 6. But what i saw was the opposite. Right from the start there has been many changes in the plot. I do understand the movie would have been more boring if adam and sam had been just talking most of the time but it made sense in the book and the movie is senseless. A few characters in the book were totally missing here and some new characters have sprung up from nowhere which r not in the book. I didn't like the casting of sam as well.

If u liked the book, so be it, don watch this movie.. Even if u din like the book, don watch it..It is no way near the book..",0 "THE CRUSADES is a film of awesome power with some of the finest costumes, epic battles and all the pagentry expected of the legendary Cecil B. DeMille. Henry Wilcoxon's Richard the Lionheart gives (along with his star turn as Marc Anthony in DeMille's CLEOPATRA the previous year) the greatest performance of his entire career. Mesmerizing in its power, just as effective today as when it was filmed in 1935. A must-see for all who esteem the epic/spectacle genre. Fine performances given by an all-star cast right down to DeMille regulars in supporting roles. They don't get much better than this!",1 "I have seen many terrible movies, most of which can be fun to watch if only to make fun of them. This movie is worse than those. The dialogue is terribly delivered (the best delivery is from the comic-relief robot!), terribly written (contrived, preachy, and generally painful). As an example, the dialogue is littered with things like ""I am going to make more noise than two skeletons making love in a tin coffin."" And by littered I don't mean a sprinkle, I mean virtually wall to wall, most of it is even completely gratuitous. Also any movie that has a line like ""what is this some kind of bad sci-fi flick"". Just avoid this movie. It sucks you in. I sat watching wondering how it could get any worse... and it does. Each twist and turn takes this movie deeper into the abyss. 1/10 (which is as low as it goes!)",0 "Truly, this is an awful film. I loved Finding Nemo and I enjoyed Shark Tale, and I saw this film expecting it to be less good than either of these films but worth a watch none-the-less. This was not the case.

Obviously I am not the target audience for this film. I am seventeen and this film is clearly aimed at children much younger than myself. However, most children's films are made bearing in mind that they will mostly be seen by adults as well. This film can't have been - there are no jokes for kids, let alone adults. The whole thing feels like a bad computer game; an impression emphasised by the bizarre pause that follows everything any of the characters say. The ending, especially, gives the impression that somewhere there's a kid with a console playing out the action.

Not everything in this film is appalling. Sometimes - just sometimes - it comes up with something that really is moving or humorous. However, the tears and the laughter quickly dry up when you remember that you saw the exact thing in Finding Nemo or Shark Tale, only better. The level of plagiarism this film reaches was previously unknown to me. Never before had I seen anything that ripped off anything else to the degree that this film does. Even Freddie Prinze Jr.'s enthusiastic vocals can't lift this one - he's clearly trying his best and, although his best is not wonderful, it shouldn't have found its way into a film this poor.

Overall, the animation is shocking, the characterisation is non-existent and the story has clearly been stolen and dumbed-down until it means nothing, makes no sense and makes the audience feel far more willing to buy that Finding Nemo DVD. Avoid. This. Film.",0 "Most of this movie is the sort of mindless melodrama Hollywood and Paris produced in abundance in the 1930s. The acting is all fine, but the story is strictly from hunger.

At the end, however, you get to see Josephine Baker in a major production number, the sort of musical extravaganza that made her a star in Paris. There, for five minutes, you understand that she was a lot more than just a woman in a banana skirt.

Watch the rest of the movie if you're into melodrama.

But definitely watch the end. It explains the French reputation of Josephine Baker.",0 "to lie and sneak around to get what they want. That is basically what Lola does and urges Ella to do in order to get to do things that her mom won't let her. I didn't think it was very cute, and it makes all the pretty girls at school out to be b*itches, and that includes Lohan's character, Lola. She really wasn't that nice and felt she had to brag to be popular in school. And it wasn't very funny. It felt very childish, almost like the target audience was 7 year old girls. You could definitely tell it was a Disney film. And to be aimed for young kids, they have Lola looking to be with a much older guy, and they have him drunk most of the time he's in the film. And they have Lola and her friend running around NY city be themselves. Those aren't exactly the things you want to show your 7 year old is the proper thing to do.

FINAL VERDICT: Not very good. Don't watch it if you are over 10.",0 "I love animation from the Fleischer Studios, along with Disney,Rankin/Bass, Hanna/Barbera and Studio Ghibli from Japan; this is a excellent film, and beautifully animated from the very studio that delight us with KoKo the Clown,Betty Boop,Popeye the Sailor and Superman. My favorite characters from the film are Princess Glory, she's really beautiful and I should tell you that this film is the reason I love her singing voice actress - Jessica Dragonette; Prince David and Gabby the town-crier, he's very funny. The film also has an excellent soundtrack with great songs too.

I was quite intrigued with the story of Gulliver and his adventures in the land of Lilliput,I had watched the Mickey Mouse cartoon ""Gulliver Mickey"" from 1934 and the version with Sanrio's Keroppi the frog; I think I would like to read the original novel sometime; I love literary films both animated and live action. In short, Gulliver is great fun, and should be enjoyed by everyone in the family - young nor old.",1 "What a piece of junk! I would really like to know how movies this bad are made. Dennis Quade is as bad as Mark Wahlberg in the Happening.

The whole plot is a kid becomes a mass murderer because his dad didn't spend enough time with him. That's it! Nice home, school, neighborhood, but dad was working hard, not home, so he is so sad he just has to become a mass murderer. And convince others who are sad to murder also, because people were mean to them.

Dennis Quade was horrible in The day after tomorrow, and he stinks this one up also. this could have been good, but they worked over time to ruin this one. There must be a great story behind the making of this bomb. I would love to know what it is.",0 "well mainly that out of the 3 predators, two of them are killed easily, i mean watching them fight that one alien was like watching a 2 old child fight a lion. however the one ""main"" predator who is the biggest wuss ever to come from the predator home world because he has a soft spot for humans, well human, kills dozens with relative ease also, in aliens the acid burns through a lot of METAL floors, however this woman's face has developed the ability to with stand this potent acid? i therefore deduce that the woman is in fact a terminator, sent back in time for a completely irrelevant mission....at least my explanation makes more sense then the movie!",0 "I wish I could give this film a negative number just to emphasize how AWFUL it is. To be honest, I'm not even sure how to begin to explain it. Here goes: It basically concerns a man, who's name escapes me at the moment, well, anyway, this fella has a fetish with dolls. He takes his fetish with dolls a little too far and begins killing women to make his dolls. In the end, he said he just wanted to make girl's dreams come true. That's about it folks. As stupid and amateur as can be. Usually I enjoy foreign films, but as with American films, there is plenty of junk to be had. I just wish I could get a refund! Do yourself a favor, avoid this film. And seeing that I am the first one to review it, I set the tone hopefully.",0 "Nice movie, so funny. Recommended. (You may need to learn Korean culture to have the jokes in full effect)

My wife is Korean and she is explaining why the scene is so funny.

Get Korean friend and watch it together.

One Two Three Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten

Cheers, SV

By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.",1 THE PURPLE PLAIN is a British war film which means it`s rather understated when compared to its American counterparts . There`s not a massive budget involved which means little in the way of spectacle and if truth be told the special effects involving a RAF fighter-bomber coming under attack from Japanese flak is somewhat unconvincing . It also contains a few too many stiff upper lipped chaps

I do give credit to the movie for bringing some type of psycological thought to the story though . The movie revolves around Canadian RAF pilot Squadron Leader Bill Forrester who is a suprisingly complex character for this type of movie . Forrester is a man who knows what grief is and it threatens to tear him apart . However the complexities and characteristics of Forrester soon become pushed into the background as the story concentrates on the adventure antics of the hero trying to escape from behind enemy lines

THE PURPLE PLAIN isn`t a movie that`s dated well . No doubt when it was released in the mid 1950s audiences ( Especially those who crewed an aircraft or fought in the Far East ) could relate to it more but it seems slightly cliched now . But like I said it does try to be a character study instead of a straight forward war movie and it does contain some effective moments,0 "People like this show? Why not just watch ""Girls Gone Wild""-- it's just as trashy, the girls are cuter, and it's not full of high-maintenance idiots. College degree?!? What a joke. One girl got a degree in communications (yeah, the same major as all the football players) from some school that nobody has heard of, and the other girl is ""taking online classes."" I'm rolling on the floor laughing. What else are you going to do with your time in the brothel? And what idiot counted a massage therapist or real estate agent as a college degree? Look, if their CV's were good enough for a real job they wouldn't be prostitutes, and if they were remotely pleasant, tolerable, or intelligent people they could have a hot rich guy who is less than 50 years older than them.",0 "Maybe a reason some people are praising the actors' performance highly but not recommending to see the movie is because the actual experience of watching ""In the Valley of Elah"" is just too unsettling, like a mirror of our actual experience in Iraq (whatever your political views may be).

Notice that although the movie's crime story is solved by the end, it turns out not to involve any conspiracy, the exact reverse of what the story has led us to anticipate (we misread the army official's behavior, assuming the military must be trying to cover up something). We're pulled into the whodunit but we don't get the satisfying twist that crime stories like this usually give us. The young soldier wasn't killed while heroically trying to uncover a dark secret. Instead he dies senselessly and for nothing.

But isn't this experience, this let down while watching the movie, a lot like our real life experience of the past 4 years? We wanted to believe Iraq was somehow linked to the terrible crime inflicted on us, but our early hoped for retribution has instead come up against a completely different reality: no weapons of mass destruction, and a lengthening war no one wants. The David of our hopes marched into Iraq, but the lengthening shadow of Goliath still stands before us.

Terrific movie. Works on so many levels at once, never preachy, never obvious, completely real. I didn't leave the theater feeling great but I felt fully engaged, and I felt like it mattered again to be an American. The people in this movie are, almost every single one, so likable (at least sooner or later they are), and the places are so recognizably American in ways I care about that the movie was an affirmation. Except, of course, the people in this movie - like all of us - are trapped in a war with awful unforeseen consequences, hitting where we live, even if the bombs don't. So the would-be affirmation leads only to sad disappointment and remorse, the more heartfelt for its real-life applicability.

In the movie it's pretty clear that Mike Deerfield is destroyed exactly because he starts out as such a good and decent young man. Besides being brave (getting out of the Humvee to take the photo), he has a heart and a conscience, and therefore couldn't rationalize away his part in killing the Iraqi boy, no matter how unintended. In one sense, Mike tries to be like a David who faces the monster Goliath of war.

But that's the conventional view. The much more disturbing one is that Mike's downfall is rooted in the fact that he himself has become a monster, no matter how unintended. And, sadly, isn't Mike really a stand in for us? In the Valley of Elah the roles have been reversed and America has become the bad guy in some crazy unintended way. Notice that America is clearly the Goliath in power compared to a bunch of rag-tag Iraqis, no matter how murderous some of their intent. Yet we are felled by a small Iraqi boy's fearless stand (why didn't he just run out of the road?!), the boy's implied recrimination shooting for Goliath's heart instead of his head - no less deadly for that.

A fine and decent people are brought low, their best motives twisted around and perverted until they find themselves inflicting barbarity they never thought was possible, just like the father in the movie who can't believe until the end that his son's comrades could be culpable. That's why the father hangs the US flag up-side-down, making the universal distress call: something's gone seriously wrong and we need any help we can find to get out of our Valley of Elah.

The powerful thing about this movie is that we are propelled seamlessly if uncomfortably back and forth across these two understandings of who is David and who is Goliath. The reverberations continue for a long time.",1 "In browsing the comments for ""Sunset Blvd.,"" I see that virtually all of them tend to understand that this happens to be one of the best pictures ever made. Don't just ask me, ... or the majority of the other posters here..., consult with The National Film Registry and the American Film Institute.

Atmospheric, well acted and shot, an intelligent and slightly offbeat script, and a host of themes explored. What more could you want from a film?

For those of you who cavil about this one, I find myself remembering how in the early 90's I would have sworn that ""Old Style,"" or ""Michelob"" were the epitome of beers. It is only after I'd experienced a host of better potables that I become an adequate judge of real quality. For those of you who dismiss ""Sunset Blvd.,"" I have to wonder just what IS a quality film in your estimation? While I don't particularly care for Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix, I can appreciate that they are above average talents, just not my cup of tea. So, maybe it's NOT the movie, perhaps it's you.",1 "First, a word of caution. As an American, I am not familiar with Norman Wisdom. I know that he's a bit of a British institution and he was beloved behind the old Iron Curtain, but his movies and television programs were not popular here in the States--in fact, he's almost completely unknown. Because of this, I don't have the sentimental attachment to him or his work. What went over well years ago does not necessarily translate well to today--at least if you aren't already a fan. I just saw TROUBLE IN STORE and didn't particularly like it. However, I am a glutton for punishment so I decided to try his films one more time.

However, before the film began, I read through the reviews on IMDb. Unlike the universally positive ones for TROUBLE IN STORE, the reviews for JUST MY LUCK seemed strangely divergent. Either they loved the film or they disliked it strongly--with not much opinion in between. That's pretty interesting but also didn't help me decide whether or not to watch the film.

Well, my initial instincts were unfortunately correct. I didn't particularly like the film, as JUST MY LUCK seemed an awful lot like a Jerry Lewis film--with broad humor and comic bits that were overdone--with every last bit of comedy squeezed dry from the skits. For example, the movie theater scene is just dreadful--going so far overboard with its timing and pace.

My advice is that if you are British or Albanian or Russian, by all means see and enjoy this film. Otherwise, it might just be tough to take for more than about 30 minutes. And, no, this is NOT like Mr. Bean in any way, despite another review to the contrary. Mr. Bean is funny (especially the original TV show).",0 "I have seen ""Mask"" many times and it remains one of my favorites, since the first time I saw it in 1986. Rocky Dennis was a true inspiration and a wonderful human being. We can all learn a lesson from Rocky. Cher, Eric Stoltz, and Sam Elliott were the perfect cast to tell this true story of Rocky, and they did an awesome job. Cher has stated that it was her favorite film to make, and Sam Elliott is sexier than ever. Eric, of course was wonderful as Rocky Dennis. The music used in the film is excellent and appropriate, Lynard Skynard, Springsteen, Bob Seagar, Little Richard, Steely Dan, and The Grateful Dead to name a few.. A great classic Rock soundtrack should be made available from this film!",1 "An excellent interpretation of events in the lives of the Borgias. Of course, it is impossible to know how things truly happened, but there are good historical accounts, which seem to have been taken into consideration in the writing. The costuming is exquisite, and it would be hard to ask for a better story.

Rodrigo Borgia, as Pope Alexander, is shown as the wily fox he must have been. Lucezia is shown in a more sympathetic light than historians traditionally give her. Her portrayal is very realistic, and her bizarre relationships with those closest to her are such that the reactions she has to events in the series are entirely believable. Her brothers, Juan, Joffre, and lastly, Cesare, are well cast and very believable, as well -- particularly Cesare. His encounters with Machiavelli are extremely well done.",1 "This version of Steinbeck's novel drew quite a lot of attention in its day, not because of its financial success (it was a box-office failure) but because it was considered very daring of Hollywood to film a story with such an uncompromising finale. If one sees the film nowadays, however,one glaring, seemingly unimportant compromise is obvious----the character ""Curley's Wife"",the only woman in the film---has been given a name...Mae. Steinbeck deliberately leaves her nameless,partly for symbolic value,but also to deliberately and permanently link her with her brutal,stupid,bullying husband. The approach to the story in this version is deliberately pseudopoetic and larger than life---while Aaron Copland's beautiful, folkloric,""typically Amercan"" score plays in the background, we see shots of rabbits and squirrels scurrying about.(The music soars to a huge climax in the final scene---in other versions that scene is played without a note of music.) The acting is perhaps deliberately somewhat artificial, but in a few cases gets downright hammy. B-Western star Bob Steele plays Curley with a hilarious, permanent sneer and a skulking walk; he also delivers his lines like a typical villain in a melodrama. Instead of playing Curley's wife as the pathetic yet lonely and almost unconsciously sexy woman that Sherilynn Fenn made her in the 1992 film, Betty Field makes her obnoxiously slutty, whiny, loud and shrill, and we are annoyed and repelled at her instead of being made to empathize with her plight. Charles Bickford is excellent in his role. Burgess Meredith is quite good as George,at least for the most part,but either he or Lewis Milestone miscalculated horribly in the scene in which he makes his ultimate tragic decision---his popeyed expression as he comes to this decision is unintentionally sidesplitting.

This does contain Lon Chaney, Jr's. best performance (as Lennie), but he falls short of John Malkovich's 1992 portrayal. Horrifying as it may sound, Chaney's 1939 Lennie has been the subject of countless cartoon parodies--it's the inspiration for all those cartoons that feature a huge bear saying ""I done a clever thing,George, duh,I done a clever thing"", as well as Bugs Bunny's abominable snowman saying ""I will hug him and pet him and squeeze him and hug him and pet him and squeeze him,and "", well.....you get the idea.

Still, this film is worth checking out as an example of how John Steinbeck's novel (and stage play) was performed in the 1930's.",0 "Hi everybody! I found the movie really an exaggeration of all the most common stereotypes about Sicily. I hope that the audience of such a movie is aware that this is a movie set in a small town of Sicily of 40 years ago, and that it does not ABSOLUTELY describe how cities are there nowadays.

To all people that think that this is the reality, I strongly invite you going visiting Sicily. The movie was made on purpose to describe terrible happenings only and make Sicily and its inhabitants appear as the very hell... The part I disagree most is especially the beginning where Marja was a so good holy creature and everybody else was a devil... even the music in the background recalled the hell, whereas look at the peaceful music background played during those few extremely peaceful parts set in Finland, during the sauna near the lake (rantasauna) in the middle of the forest...

Reading the comment of Masuchris (which wanted to give a motherly advice to her 17 years old daughter about marrying a Mexican guy or from any other terrible nation) really confirmed my fears: people cannot really make the difference between a movie talking about the worst case, the worst possible experience one can have in a certain place and what the reality is normally.

Please, do not believe that this has been a good description of what Sicily is, because it is not.",0 "One the most beautiful films I saw in the last fifteen years, together with ""Burnt by the Sun"" from Mikhalkof, ""the Piano"" from Campion and ""Heavenly creatures"" by Jackson.

It's filmed in a very artistic and original way, quite a perfect fusion between independent/innovative and classical/stylish styles. Like if Polansky, Cronenberg, Bertolucci, Spielberg and Annaud were made one! Kubrick's influence is noticeable too, in the very ""quiet"" way of filming that give this ""surrealistic"" feeling to trivial events. It's incredible to feel so close, so empathetic to characters so different from us...

I was very moved AND fascinated at the time.

I'd recommend it to anyone who likes unique movies, and it can be watched with pleasure by anyone who not the ""technolywood"" kind (Cameron & Emmerich fans, stay away from this one, you'd be bored to death!) I'd like to see more from this director...",1 "Monogram's Charlie Chan films tended to suffer towards the end by lack of caring. The plots ended up confused and messy aimed more at Birmingham Brown and the Chan son of the film being silly while Charlie said wise things. Here, thankfully, the film is blessed with a decent mystery, different sets than most of the others, and several good supporting performances, in particular by the always wonderful, and sadly not well known John Davidson.

Here we have the death of a chess expert and assorted other goings on that make this one of the better later Chan films. I don't want to say too much since the joy here is in the watching, and this film is certainly worth watching.

7 out of 10",1 "What a great film. Contradiction is the king and nothing is what it seems. Yet, if we analyze the reality of life The Phantom of Liberty does not seem so crazy. I will not describe what happens in the film because you need to see for yourself, but I would like to say why I like it. I love surrealism and Bunuel is the king of surrealism. He would put things together, twist them, run them through a wash machine and come out with elements that one might think would never work together, yet they make perfect sense. He would analyze ones desires, urges, thoughts, social behavior, and when we go deep to ourselves, we discover that, yes, we do have thoughts similar to what we see in his film but, most of us, we keep them to ourselves because we are afraid to voice them loud out. We are afraid that others will perceive us as crazy. Well, not Bunuel, he is not afraid of anything. He wants to go deep, and why not. Perhaps the world would be a better place if we followed Bunuel… or at list we can watch his film and forget our own life for the duration of his film.",1 "I saw the review for this late one night on TV and i have to say, i was quite surprised to see Matthew from Eastenders doing a Ouija Board! It was a British film and I knew then immediately that I had to see it for that reason alone. I was one of the many people who were fed up of American horrors that are not even scary. It was 2/3 weeks before I actually i did get to see it at the cinema late one night with my friend and it was a good thing I did. It was an excellent film. I have never been so scared out of my life whilst watching a film! For the first time in my life it actually made me jump back in my seat- and that was pretty embarassing seen as there was a whole row of girls a couple of rows back!

The plot itself is good and the scenes in which the djinn chases its victims down long flights of stairs and dark warehouse corridors were simply brilliant. The director had used all the resources to the limit and had used them well. I did feel that the film itself was very short and if they had more characters bring killed of, like in Scream, it would have been better but nevertheless it lives truly up to being called a 'horror film' and definitely makes Jeepers Creepers look like the tweenies. Americans should stop making horrors now and let the British take over as it clearly obvious that we are better at it!

For a low-budget British horror, this is truly more than brilliant with a superb ending, superb actors and superb scare factor! And for a low budget film, this is wayy better than any American Hollywood blockbuster that I have ever seen this year. 'Signs' was a pure disappointment and it couldnt even scare my little 12 year old brother let alone me and it was labelled really scary and someone even wrote that 'you shouldn't see it alone'. HAHA, yes, you should take your friends with you to have a great laugh! Because it AINT SCARY! If you want scares, LONG TIME DEAD IS DEFINITELY THE FILM TO SEE.

A brilliant 9/10. Maybe the film could have been longer.",1 "I didn't want to watch it, but my husband insisted. I hate ""The Sopranos"" and all violent films/television. Why did I like this then, you ask? Because this was an exceptional production, and I hope they will do a series. The acting was incredible, big-screen quality. The child who played Cadenas' son was the best child actor I've seen.",1 "Enjoyable British sci-fi outing of 1967, which sports not only a venerable Cushing-Lee pairing, but exciting scenes of overheating 1960's British automobiles to boot (the steaming, hood-up MG scene will be particularly horrific for current/former MG owners who've ever dealt with this aspect common to certain vintage British cars).

Filming must've required a specialist staffer just to continually drench the actors with fake sweat.

Of particular interest for Monty Python fans will be the final scene, which is the only time in the whole movie that the decidedly low-budget monster actually appears: no, I'm not going to spoil it for you!",1 "A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971) ****

Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Patrick Magee, Michael Bates, Warren Clarke, and Adrienne Corri Written and Directed by Stanley Kubrick 137 minutes Rated R (for strong explicit sexual content and rape, perverse nudity, brutal violence, and some language)

By Blake French:

Stanley Kubrick's ""A Clockwork Orange"" holds the recent record of being the number one film of all time on my charts. The film is everything that you'll never want to watch. The scenes are disturbing, gut wrenching, mind twisting, and way over the top. In result, ""A Clockwork Orange"" has the most powerful and overwhelming dramatic impact that I have ever experienced in a mainstream film.

""A Clockwork Orange"" is the story of a young man named Alex DeLarge, who is, by day, a regular student who lives with his parents at home, but, by night, a homicidal rapist/killer with his accomplices who dress up like demented clowns at a bleak freak show. He and his buddies weasel their way into the happy homes housing innocent people by chanting the same deceiving phrase every night: they scream that their friend has been critically wounded in an accident near by--and plead to use their telephone to call for help.

For a few unfortunate souls, this devious trick proves to be successful in nature. One night, however, a woman known as ""The Cat Lady,"" refuses their plead, and calls the police in suspicion. Alex, being both smart and sneaky, somehow manages to break into this perverted woman's home, while his accomplices wait outside. Once indoors, a fight begins. A struggle featuring a sex toy owned by ""Cat Lady,"" one that not only causes panicked arousal, but also is featured as the weapon of her graphic and disturbing murder. Alex quickly flees the scene once the police sirens reach his shaky ears, but when he gets back to his pal's waiting outside, they return their experiences with him by bashing him over the head with a hard object, allowing their jumbled escape, but his certain demise.

After the process of being sent to prison, Alex grows to learn to tell offices and guards what they like to hear. He reads the bible, is never involved with any major fights or complications, and almost volunteers for a new kind of experiment. An experiment so probationary it is still being tested and held under wraps. What it does, though a series of ""sessions,"" is cure a violent individual from his sickness; he will feel terrible pain if involved in any sort of violence after the medicine takes place.

The scenes involving the ""cure"" of Alex's disturbances are truly emotionally troublesome. They are so explicit and detailed that I myself felt tempted to look away from the screen at points. This is not a film for those who are prone to walk out of movies, those who are easily offended, or especially for those with week stomachs. This is the most grizzly enumerated film I have even screened, but it happens to be one of the most perfect and precise in message. I definitely don't recommend the production to everyone, though.

The soundtrack to ""A Clockwork Orange"" is one of the most inspirational and spirited ones I have ever heard; right up there with the turns to ""The Graduate"" (1967). Although the actual music is far from fitting each individual scene, the overall presence is not only worth listening to, but also worth the purchase price.

Here, a young Malcolm McDowell explores the character of a lifetime with vivid imagination and tremendous description. His character fits him very well as an actor. Even though the character is meant to be despised, I couldn't help but to be very convinced and interested in his sick, demented, psychotic mind. Most of this is because of the flawless point of view the film contains, one that both provokes empathy and involvement. It investigates the mind of a killer, rapist, and a confused, somewhat harmless, adolescent--all existing in the same character. This is no doubt the character, and the performance, that inspired a generation.

As well as being a movie of violent and sexual repulsion, Stanley Kubrick's direction to ""A Clockwork Orange"" also forces us to investigate deep down in ourselves and chew on the idea of us being in the character's shoes. There is a scene in this movie that forces two parents to make a decision of a lifetime. After receiving the treatments he volunteered for, Alex returns to his household only to discover that the only mom and dad he's even known have rented his old room out to some strange college kid, who is said to have been there for them during many hard times--like a real son. His parents must make a choice: to throw their only son, who has suffered for years in turn for making others suffer, out of the house for good, or allow him to return with open arms trusting that he is ""cured."" Well, dear reader, what would you do? Brought to you by Warner Bros.",1 "I had no idea that movies this bad were being made. The production quality--and I'm not being facetious--was comparable to a mid-80s porn movie. I've seen and enjoyed many B-movies, but this was absolutely atrocious. The story, acting, script, camera work, and sets, were among the worst I've ever suffered through. The worst of it, however, was the music. Holy crap! the music was so obnoxious, paying attention to the movie became impossible. This may very well be the worst movie ever made.

I'm curious to find out who is responsible for this film and how much was spent on production. This was not just a waste of time and money. It is an insult to the horror/sci-fi genre, and B-movies in general. To the people/group responsible for this movie: you should be ashamed.",0 "Our family (2 kids in high school) went to this film Christmas night. It was a perfect wrap up to a glorious family day. The story line was told by the camera as a story should be told; with reflective moments, beautiful long scenic shots and great close-ups on some of the best character faces one can find in a pub. All of the time taken for this was appreciated by our family. The CGI was beautifully woven into the film so that it did not take away from it, but rather created the water horse to fit beautifully with the surrounding images. He/she was charming and we all root for the dream that there is a Nessie! Mum (Grammy) is British and flew Spitfires in WWII. She told of regiments taking over estates and the events in this movie matches her stories. Two small critical comments: The male/female travelers who open and close the film were far too forced and it felt like they were given the roles as friends of a director/producer? It's too bad because the opening and closing of the film felt awkward and unconnected with the rest of the charming story. There is a sequence of footage of the young lad working that repeated itself that felt like it was just looking for extra shots and couldn't find them. Having done that as an amateur, I was surprised when the pros did this! Enjoy this film. Thank-you to all who worked on it!",1 "I hope that Primo, the German Shepherd who played Thor, fired his agent after this role. It's amazing how they can take such a great novel and make such a bad movie out of it. Not only was the dog the best actor, he had the best lines and best stunt double. If you like dogs, people, or just plain good movies, do not waste your time on this stinker. Even the beautiful scenery and Primo's best efforts can't save this one.",0 "For anyone who makes the mistake of sitting though this movie: I had just decided to become an actor and I knew very little about it. I was majoring in journalism in Junior college and took a theatre class to get a date with a girl I liked and got interested in acting. I drove a friend to the audition of Terror on Tour (originally called ""Clowns"") and the director (Don Edmunds) asked me to read. I told him I wasn't ready as an actor to do a film and didn't know anything about acting much less film acting. He cast me and talked me into doing it. I was patently awful. I over acted every word and indicated like crazy. Above that a year after initial filming when I knew a little more about acting they called me back to shoot two pick up scenes (easy to spot as my hair was much shorter--it went from '79 to '80 nuff said). I was told to yell my dialog as there would be loud rock music playing in the background. The other guy in the scene was producer Sandy Cobe who wasn't an actor and couldn't really handle yelling while imagining loud music. In the end they forgot to add the music so it seemed like I was over acting even more than in the rest of the film. When I saw the film I came very close to quitting trying to be an actor altogether. The only reason I didn't quit is that I figured if I could spot how awful I was maybe I had a chance to learn to do it right. The band members were a real band and had never acting before so you could forgive them their acting. Of the rest of the cast there was (in my opinion) one good actor. Jeff Morgan. In filming he actually seemed to be in the moment and connecting on an honest level when you were talking to him. When I saw the film I felt I could see it in his performance. I never heard from him again and don't know what he's doing now but I do think he escaped the horror of the acting in this horror film. Again I hope whoever has to see me in this film will understand my horror that it still exists.

Larry Thomas",0 "After waiting a year for this film, I finally saw it in Hollywood today on the big screen. It exceeded my expectations. This is one of the best horror/slasher films to come around in years. Relentless, gory, and an edge of your seat ride. This is not a ""B"" grade film. It has an obviously decent budget, a great cast, and brilliantly written and directed by Paul Etheredge-Ouzts. It is billed as the fist gay slasher film. But do no expect exploitive sex scenes. Although there is plenty of sexy male skin on hand, this is a real horror film, with lots of shocks and screams. Filmed on location during West Hollywood's annual gay Halloween parade, this gives the film a freaky feeling of even though you are surrounded by lots of people, you are still very much alone when a crazed psychopath is on the loose!! The cast, including, Dylan Fergus, Bryan Kirkwood, the adorable Hank Harris and Matt Phillips are all very good and each have very good good characters. I don't want to give anything away, instead I want to stress this is a very impressive horror film. It is a great entry in the horror genre, and a huge step in the gay film genre. This movie will no doubt gain a huge cult status, and become a horror classic. The ending is nail biting and fantastic. Hellbent is a fantastic modern horror film, not to be missed!",1 "Yes, I rated this a 7 out of a 10....I only gave it a 7 because I haven't seen it since I was 7 years old......don't know if it's the 10 I used to think it was hee hee I loved Roller Boogie hee hee...I must have watched that movie a million times when I was a kid.

When I was a kid I also didn't care about the plot...All I thought was beaches, skating, pretty girl, pretty boy...happy ending.

I'm afraid that if I see it now I'll be supremely disappointed by my childhood innocence like I was with Saturday Night Fever...whew...I had no idea what was going on there until I saw it when I got older..again I had tunnel vision as a kid. I could only think about the dancing.

If you want to see Linda Blair not controlled by the devil and have some campy fun...go for it!!!! Don't be a snob:)",1 "I've seen many sequels of the original Howling (can't keep track how many actually) but this had my mouth drop wide open right after the first few minutes of it. The concept is almost exactly the same as in the first installment but this one sticks quite firmly to the original book. But it's pretty much like watching the first movie remade by bunch of talentless amateurs (probably even retarded ones).

The acting is worse than i've ever seen before. And to stay awake through the whole movie you should not have seen the first because it kinda gives EVERYTHING away. Bad camera work, bad screenplay with cheesy lines with every possible clichés in it. And on top of all this: Extra low budget. Low budget doesn't mean the movie automatically sucks. It's not worth making a movie with very little money unless you're clever and creative. These guys were not.

Usually this kind of super-sucking low budget b-movies make you laugh and deserve some credit as ""Hilarious and good bad-b-movies"". But no, this one doesn't and i cannot recommend it to anyone, not even the howling fans.

One star for cool latex-gore effects in the end.",0 "I think it goes much to far to call this excellent film a documentary about the life of a Muslim sect or a critique of political Islam or even the role of the religious orders in Turkish economic life. Rather I would like to claim that it gives just an impression of the life Turkish religious orders, society and the mind of a devout religious man who previously led a uncritical life without real challenges and without deep thoughts about practical life and religion. Therefor he's unprepared for both of it.

I would guess that one could find his ""state of mind"" also with a range of uncritical believers of many religions who, although ardently believe stay shallow in their intellectual penetration of their believe and worldly life. They stay rather caught in conservative dogmas, which where made to control man and are far away from a healthy human experience.

Not everything shown in Film should be taken at face value. The depiction of the ritual life gives an impression of the ecstatic quality of such gatherings but is exaggerated in their frenetic appearance. There may have been reasons for this depiction but one should rather try not to confuse it with the an authentic account; this account one should rather get in contact with real orders.

The protagonist has high values which he fails to satisfy. This puts him in a moral dilemma which is very instructively set in contrast on one hand to worldly every day people and merchants with their cheating and accommodation with an imperfect world. On the other there is a religious order, which although is directed towards spirituality is of course also involved in worldly enterprises and has of course it financial interests. Nothing gets euphemised but the problems of both - profane and spiritual - get expounded in a way that a psychological profile of shallow but devote believer meets social criticism (not only hitting the Turkish Islamic milieu of its setting but also similar ones in other regions and religions).",1 "I had to confess that i love this movie. i have lost count of the number of times i have seen this movie in a week. Wow.... Kristen Bell as Gracie plays a superb role in this movie trying to look after her 1 half sister and 3 half brothers. Eventually she adopts them and becomes their mother. A lesson out there for the parents who are ill treating their children. A must see movie for everyone. I also like the soundtrack of the movie called : I Belong"" by Cherie.... when Gracie was outside racing with the other girls and met his black friend.

10 out 10 vote for this movie. Thank you Lifetime for this inspirational movie.",1 "You did it!!! You changed film. You did art, comedy, and pain. Thank you, thank you so much for starting something that everyone else who comes in 2nd needs. Thank you for putting yourself second, which puts you in 1st.

People will talk of this film for years to come and what relevance it has to the film experience and shared pain. When you allowed the guy in the wheel chair to have honor, and all of them to have honor in everything it was breathtaking.

The mom was sweet, the idea was inspired, and everything made sense. It's about damn time someone stepped up and made a film like this. It speaks to so many people you'd be amazed. I can count a billion 2nds and not many 1st's. Bravo!

Best in show

Best to go!",1 "Out of the grayness of film noir drama comes a pondering on the gray area of social engineering.

Dial 1119 is a film discussion of the distention between straight-ahead law enforcement and the brand-new authority of psychological intervention in criminal matters. The heart of the film is the series of conversations between the Homicide Captain and the forensic psychiatrist. Therein lies a clear blueprint of the issues: Is it better to identify and treat society's offenders, rather than simply punish? What should the treatment be; confinement, medicine or capital punishment? In view of the fact they prosecuted a man for murder and saw him escape the electric chair to kill again, are the police to be blamed for being skeptical of the medical model in dealing with crime? Are we to condemn the doctor's humanist courage as simple folly, or celebrate it as a noble march toward higher existence?

I found the relationship between police and doctor to be unique in cinema, can't remember when I've ever seen it so clearly and dramatically drawn. Also, the characterizing vignettes of the various hostages were deftly wrought. Overall, a remarkable film rendered nearly into the realm of science-fiction by the dominance of a 48 inch flat screen TV over the main set, presaging the looming hypnotic sway the contraption would wield on a developing social world.",1 Having not read the book and hearing how great it is I was looking forward to seeing this one. The movie started off a little confusing and Eric Bana seemed a little stiff in the lead role and i was worried this movie was going to be a big disappointment. Gladly after about 15 minutes the movie settled into a very nice love story with a great time jumping twist and Eric Bana got better and better as the story went along.

Some people found the time travelling too unbelievable in that what would happen if he was driving or how come the police were never looking for him? etc etc. You could spend all day picking that apart but i found it easy to just overlook and enjoy his time jumping journey. Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana have good chemistry together and with the good script they were giving did a very nice job.

As far as time travelling love stories go this one was great and my gf and myself really enjoyed it and look forward to reading the book. If your looking for something sweet and different to rent I recommend this one :),1 "I literally almost fell asleep watching this film.

The plot, such as it is, is that a conniving wife thinks she is about to be scared to death by her husband and father in law. Inexplicably, Bela Lugosi and Mini-Me show up (okay, it wasn't Mini-Me, but a close relative of the annoying midget variety)and act creepy while everyone else is barely acting at all.

There is this strange interspersing of scenes of the woman lying on a coroner's slab, adding absolutely nothing in the way of exposition.

The plot, and I am spoiling nothing here, is that the woman turned over her ex-husband to the Nazis during the war, and now he is looking for revenge by apparently peering into windows wearing a blue mask. He is then caught by the bumbling cop and the inept reporter wearing a dress (yes, absolutely no reason is given WHY he was wearing a dress, since he had not been seen any time previously in the movie AND it was pretty obvious he was a man in a dress.)",0 "Just the fact that it's Bette's last film is worth releasing it to DVD, maybe there is some extra's that the director has of Bette. I admit it's not the best movie but it is a little campy and fun to watch. And I respect Bette for acting up until she died. also Colleen Camp is awesome and did a lot of cool movies in the 80's...'Valley Girl' & 'Clue' anyways...I'd buy it if came out on DVD...of course I'm a Bette Davis fan and to all the the negative people making comment's ""She'll take a tumble on you, role you like you were dice until you come up Blue...She's Got Bette Davis Eyes"" ....well the movie is worth seeing for her alone and I to wish she was in it more but at least they kept her scenes and it's funny with some of the cracks like the Joan Crawford picture & when she's on the phone and there's a huge picture of Bette from the 1940's on the side of the wall. those are timely stuff knowing this was her last film.",1 "This was a rather pedestrian version of the Agatha Christie short story thriller (Philomel Cottage). Of course, the original short story confined itself to the time the couple spent on their honeymoon, although the subsequent adapted theater play expanded on the plot. Sylvia Sidney came off as a kind of Betty Davis type with a distracting edge to her delivery. John Hodiak's performance started off with subtlety but towards the end it deteriorated into melodrama. I agree with another reviewer that I couldn't help thinking that this would have gotten a much better treatment from Alfred Hitchcock. The plot development was implausible at times. Although the beginning was cogent and mood-setting, I was disappointed by the lack of subtlety in the ending, which differed from the Christie ending. The story should have been about the psychology of predator and prey, but that aspect was muted. I have not read the theater play, so I don't know how its ending compared to the wonderful Christie ending.",0 "Having won the PR war, there is now no means by which a viewer can allow himself to judge a Pixar product as wanting or in this case, horrid. A movie so underscripted (and over messaged) that if you wasted five words describing the plot you'd give everything away. Audiences still don't know when they're being narratively cheated, or when a slightly promising idea has gone off the rails, or become a bloated, maddening mess. I never ever imagined when I rented this that I would be swearing at the screen as the unbearable latter two thirds of this movie wore out their welcome.

So here we are (AGAIN) with the unpromising clichés of a robot who wants to feel love, a ships computer issuing a self-destruct countdown, a crowd that requires one person to save them.

Wall-e himself makes sad eyes over and over. The movie milks this in every scene - Put ""robot"" and ""love"" into the big Hollywood script writing machine and you always get something like this. The movie becomes bloated with surface activity whose conception calls for dragging out tired computer animation, and the familiar set of unnecessary/lookalike obstacles to be overcome. It devolves into the usual thought (and time) wasters. In the end, things have reached the same frantic, overproduced excess that execs have been pushing for 50 years. Wall-E is exactly as bloated as Hello Dolly was in 1969. (& I challenge you to sit through that forgotten dud.)

In the 1968 movie Oliver, at an emotional bottom, the title moppet sings a song called ""Where is love?"" Lionel Bart was criticized for writing a song with sentiments too developed for a child to voice. While a child may seek the love a missing parent, they don't seek love in general as a disembodied ideal. Likewise for Wall-e. Here, barely three minutes after Wall-E is introduced, he's dreary little headcase pining for love, which is a limp idea dramatically for a kids film, and forces half the problems that ensue. The other half come from the wearying agenda, and this is coming from someone who is relieved we are finally in the green era.

Vain, high-concept viewers have taken pride in their ignorance of a device here, which is old news; large stretches of silence are novel only to audiences who are unfamiliar with Jaques Tati, the 28 silent minutes that open 2001, enormous silent stretches of the ingenious Blow-Up (& countless other examples) and who can't fathom the silent era.

The movie asks two tiny things of an audience; to nod in agreement with its simpleton moral pronouncements, and to pass the time distracted by a bunch of surface activity. Right in the middle, between those two things, is where any good movies soul resides, what the movie ask you to cogitate over; ideas! Sorry no ideas here, just an abundance of messages: Towers of garbage taller than the skyscrapers we built (check, message delivered) An indictment of bignesss and Wal-mart (check, message delivered) Headed by a craven CEO (check, message delivered) A single remaining plant (check, messaged delivered) A space-ark filled with helpless fatties (check, message delivered) etc. etc. etc. etc. (message delivered).

A glimpse into the future has never been so hopelessly stuck in the narrative past, and never looked so much like Victorian corn. The movie just cannot rest until a parade of morals has been pounded home. There is little sense of wonder in it. It ain't surprising that it was directed by the guy who made Little Nemo.

The movie becomes exactly as dreary, tiring and preachy as the premise of a largely wordless movie about ecology sounds. It does not overcome its major decisions. Regardless of it's popularity now, no one will be watching this in ten years because no one will be able to trudge through it. It is grotesquely unsubtle… hideously preachy.

Wall-E is is as insufferable as a dinner guest who explains the correct moral stance on every topic that comes up. Message delivered.",0 "The Old Corral starts out a whole lot like the Bing Crosby Paramount classic, She Loves Me Not. If you'll remember chorus girl Miriam Hopkins witnesses a gangland murder and flees from the mob. Here it's Irene Manning who's a nightclub entertainer who sees John Bradford do the same thing and flees out west.

Well, those big city gangsters are way out of their element when they're tangling with Gene Autry. Of course not everyone in the west is as friendly as Autry. There's Cornelius Keefe and Lon Chaney, Jr. who recognize who Manning is before Autry does. They own the local saloon and under the guise of giving her a break, hire Manning to entertain, but in the mean time call Bradford hoping to curry favor with the gangland boss.

If that's not enough sheriff Gene has to contend with the Sons of the Pioneers and their lead singer, one Leonard Slye who play a brother singing group who take to being outlaws as a way to gain notoriety and a radio contract. Of course in two years that lead singer left the group and started putting out his own westerns for Republic and Herbert J. Yates under the name of Roy Rogers.

I agree with a previous reviewer that Manning's soprano and Autry's western twang don't exactly mesh. It might be why Gene mostly didn't go in for singing co-stars throughout his career, unlike his famous rival at Republic. Of course Gene didn't marry a co-star the way Roy did.

The scene where Manning is trying to make a go of saloon singing and falling on her derrière until Gene helps out is reminiscent of Jeanette MacDonald trying to sing for her supper in Rose Marie. Jeanette had a co-star though who was more suitable to her voice.

The Old Corral is kind of dopey, especially the bit about The Sons of the Pioneers. Still it's a great bit of history, an historic meeting between Gene Autry and Roy Rogers.",1 "I bought this film on DVD from the pound shop for, yes, one WHOLE English pound. I was drawn into making the purchase due to the pictures of naked women on the back and thought the film would be good for a laugh with my mates. I was right. ""Sexual Roulette"" makes the film sounds rather intriguing, but the version I bought was under the alternate title ""weekend in Vegas"" which is I feel rather dull in comparison, but for a pound I wasn't going to complain. The film itself contains some awful performances from the actors and actresses involved, the best among them is probably the Michael Douglas-esqe (well he looks a bit like him here) lead character of Jed played by Tim Abell, who goes from angry, to horny, to angry/horny all within a few moments. The plot is a bit ""indecent proposal"" type and has plenty of poorly filmed sex scenes, but the most annoying thing is that the whole film is just clogged up with pointless shots of Las Vegas, the same ones repeated over and over again!! it seems to me like they finished the film and it only ended up at around 40 minutes long so they just got some aerial shots of the strip to fill the gaps. There is some far fetched storyline about debt and some people get killed but this is just a low budget film which is good for a laugh at its expense. I recommend this film be watched whilst drunk. I think there a load of copies left at the pound shop....",1 "After many years from seeing this performance on TV, I purchased the DVD, and after viewing it I had forgotten how amazing and entertaining this concert was. It is by far the best concert that I have seen to date. What sets it above the rest is the way Bob Fosse directed it. Not only does Liza and company give an outstanding performance but Fosse actually brings you up close and personal with his choice of camera angels, cut a ways to the audience, back stage shots and those beautiful close ups of Liza, you feel like you are there on stage. On the technical side, the costumes, sets and lighting are minimal but pack a powerful image that complements the entire show, kudos to the technical staff and designers. The sound and orchestra are right in sync with the dancers and Fosses choreography. I recommend this DVD and give it a Zen, (oops) I mean a ten. Thank you.",1 Well this was just a great... movie. Sure it's only 20 some minutes long but it's not like anyone had to pay full admission price for this one. It's great. Just 100% Pokémon. None of those humans to get in the way... well no faces at least.,1 "Ever feel like your perversions are beyond human comprehension?? Rent this movie; you will be patting your own back and congratulating yourself on your high morals in no time. At the next family get together you will look around at your normal (newly realized of course) ancestry with admiration. For no social circle, other than those seen in paradise lost and my brothers keeper, is odder than those seen in crumb. So enjoy - and buck up young camper, you're not so odd after all.",0 "It's hard not to see Rain as the film that symbolizes the pre-code era, where Hollywood was not afraid to portray the more libertine side of society, and give an image that was not so morally right. And it's also hard not to see this film as a direct protest against the code that there was talk about during these years. The Hays Code sought to make films more caste. And the plot of this film makes too much a got metaphor for the whole situation.

Joan Crowford plays a prostitute that is accused for her behavior by Puritans in some lost Hawaiian island. Among them is Mr. Davidson, a powerful man who has an obsession with religion. In reality, Joan Crowford is playing herself and the image we all have of her. And in fact, the way she enters the screen dressed all too flamboyantly like a hooker is a penchant, as much as it is too cheesy for an audience that doesn't understand that at that time, that was the Hollywood idea of a real woman.

However you decide to view it, it's a hard watch. Not so much as the flow of the viewing itself (although it does tend to be slow), but for other flaws. In the plot, we are not given any character to side with. Supposedly, the main characters are Sadie (Joad Crawford) and Mr. Thompson (Walter Huston). However, they are also the extreme, and both obnoxious. Sadie is a flirty skank, and an actress, playing with other people's feelings. And Thompson, her enemy in the story, is just too mad for us to side with him. So, really, the only character we can side with, and can actually identify with is Tim O'Hara (William Gargan). That gives the audience a limited participation.

And even then, Handsome is too innocent. When he first sees Sadie, he is mesmerized, almost unable to speak. He is, in fact, the personification of the ordinary man seeing the Hollywood star Joan Crawford in the real world. He falls in love with her right away. We, as the audience, can't help feeling that she is playing him, using him because she knows that he will be helpful, and because she needs friends. Handsome falls in love with her completely and can't reason right from wrong. Yet, we can't blame his innocence. He represents the audience: Crawford is the star, she is the one that gets the best close-ups, hence, we have to love her. Mr. Davidson is the bad one.

The metaphor, as far as the Hays code connection lies, is in that Crawford represents cinema, and Huston represents the puritanism. The film never quite picks sides, nor do we. But they are obviously both horrible. It's as if the film were stating that Hollywood needs to pull the breaks a little, but still not give in entirely to the Puritan demands.

The film is taken from a Broadway production. Perhaps director Lewis Milestone wasn't aware that he wasn't making a stage production, because although the style resembles many of the time, here he even has the actors exiting what looks like a theatrical set, all the times. Supposedly, he is not all to blame, Maxwell Anderson, in charge of the adaptation, wrote it so that the film had to be just that. But it's frustrating to see that the camera is moved quite well in some sequences, and then the setting comes across as so unreal.

The mise-en-scene itself cannot be judged negatively. In he scenes in which Sadie and Mr. Davidson are together, the camera looks at him from below, and Sadie seems to be always placed lower than him. This shows the authority that he holds. In the scene when he starts reciting the Our Father, he is higher up on the stairs, and when Sadie kneels down at the bottom of the stairs and begins praying, it looks like she is praying at him.

Yet, the story itself is disappointing. The fact that we cannot side with any of the characters makes it so that we don't really care about what is going on, and if we do, we tend to change our minds quite quickly. In the end, we are almost completely let down, by the fact that the message seems to be that morality never wins. But after all, we don't know what morality is.

The acting is brilliant. Joan Crawford has an easy part; she's playing herself. William Huston is a revelation. He is quite extraordinary as well as eccentric, he seems to dominate every scene he is in. We almost come to admire his character, and side with him, although he is insane.

The final line is the one where Crawford says she is sorry for everyone in the world. Is that a sly comment on the cinema that was about to come? Or should we see it as an apology for such a mediocre film, only good as a vehicle for Crawford's on-screen persona?",0 "When a film is titled ""Dracula's Widow"", and we see the title character seducing and killing a guy within the first 5 minutes, what's the point of having nearly half the running time taken up by a police investigation that can only eventually lead to what we already know from the start?

Also, I thought that getting bitten by a vampire wasn't enough to make you a vampire, you also had to drink blood from the vampire that bit you. Ah, never mind, it seems that every movie in this genre is making up its own rules.

Sylvia Kristel is pretty bland in a role that a better actress could have done MUCH more with, wears an awful wig, and doesn't provide any nudity either. The special effects are mostly terrible - when Kristel is in full-beast mode, she looks more like a werewolf than a vampire! The lovely Rachel Jones, as the hero's girlfriend, is one of the film's few bright spots. (*1/2)",0 "When I was five, I first saw the documentary ""Bugs Bunny Superstar"" and my parents made me a tape of it; unfortunately, we accidentally taped over the end. Now that I've seen the whole thing again - and that I'm old enough to understand what it shows - I can accurately comment on it.

It starts with a disembodied voice (actually Orson Welles narrating) showing photographs of the places representing the greatest minds: the Great Wall of China, the Taj Mahal, the Pyramids, the Parthenon, the Coliseum, the Eiffel Tower, the White House (well, not currently), Termite Terrace...wait a minute, Termite Terrace? Yes, Termite Terrace. For the uninformed, it's the back-lot on the Warner Bros. studios where they created the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies cartoons. So begins a cinematic trip down Memory Lane.

The movie consists of an interview with animator Bob Clampett explaining how they created Bugs, Daffy, Porky, etc. When I was really young, even though I saw the caricatures of Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre and Edward G. Robinson - plus the scenes from ""The Jazz Singer"" and ""It Happened One Night"" - I couldn't interpret anything from them, but of course now I can. It was especially neat to hear about the typical days in Termite Terrace; it all sounded really fun! But of course, the best parts are the nine classic cartoons included in the movie to affirm what Clampett says. All released before 1948, they give one a true sense of old-time cinema (especially with Bugs Bunny at the Oscars). As it is, this documentary's 1975 release brings to mind the '50s nostalgia that had swept the country, as displayed by ""Happy Days"". While the stuff portrayed here is pre-'50s, it still makes one nostalgic for the old times. You're sure to have a real hare-raising time! There's also an interview with Friz Freleng, some footage of Mel Blanc, while Elmer, Sylvester, Tweety, and Foghorn also appear in the cartoons.

One more thing. When MGM released ""Bugs Bunny Superstar"" on video in 1988, they also released the video collections ""BUGS!"" (whose cover showed Bugs holding an Oscar), ""DAFFY!"" (showing Daffy wearing sunglasses), ""PORKY!"" (showing Porky driving a fancy car), and ""ELMER!"" (showing Elmer sitting in a director's chair). In keeping with the documentary, they all contained cartoons released before or during 1948 (e.g., ""Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid"", ""The Great Piggy Bank Robbery"", ""Baby Bottleneck"" and ""Good Night, Elmer""). I wonder why MGM released them onto video.",1 "Laurel and Hardy star as boarders in the Little Old Woman's shoe home in Toyland. Her daughter, Bo Peep, is pretty, sweet, angelic and very virginal--which is exactly why the evil Barnaby wants to force her to marry him. So it's up to Stan and Ollie to save the day.

For some odd reason, this Laurel and Hardy movie has been elevated to classic status. I have no idea why, as it's a rather bland and stupid kids movie that completely wastes the team's talents. Heck, even most of their 1940s feature-length films are better than this! The only interesting elements are the beautiful sets and unusual costumes as well as the part where Stan marries Barnaby (who says the idea of Gay marriage is new!). Since this movie was first made, it's been remade several times--and each time it is a total bore. Even as a child, I hated this movie (especially with all its god-awful music) and wanted the REAL Laurel and Hardy instead!

During the 1930s, Hal Roach Studios (affiliated with MGM) periodically put the team in some really weird movies and this one may not be the weirdest one (that honor goes to either BABES IN TOYLAND of FRA DIAVOLO--an OPERETTA with Laurel and Hardy comedy segments!)--but it certainly is one of the worst full-length film they made--and this includes most of their rather lame 1940s and 1950 film (the only ones that are worse than BABES are THE BIG NOISE and UTOPIA). I guess I can understand trying something new (since Laurel and Hardy made 15 billion movies and shorts) but the results were often sub-par and they were usually much better in shorts. If you do want to see one of their GOOD full-length films, try to watch Sons of the Desert, Bonny Scotland or Our Relations--not this overly saccharine and limp mess.

By the way, early in the film, there's a 1930s style Mickey Mouse in Toyland. Inside is apparently a monkey. Both the Mickey and song ""Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf"" were from Disney and RKO--apparently MGM Studios purchased rights or Disney (for once) wasn't in a litigious mood. Also, get a load of the Bogeymen. They look a lot like the dancing savages from the Marlene Dietrich film BLONDE VENUS!!",0 "I already knew that Meryl Streep was a phenomenal actress even before watching what many consider her greatest performance as Sophie. I have developed deep admiration for her brilliant portrayals of unforgettable characters like Karen Blixen, Francesca Johnson, and Joanna Kramer, to name some of my favorites. I am already a devoted fan, notwithstanding that the film I had so much wanted to watch kept eluding me. Until that day came when I finally watched her blew me away in what I dubbed as a magnificently explosive performance. Sophie's Choice has elevated my admiration to Streep to levels no other obsession of mine can ever reach.

There's no way this class of artistry will be outrank. Streep is peerless.",1 "There were no surprises in this completely unoriginal erotic thriller, but then again, who watches these films for the plot? That having been said, there is nothing even remotely suspenseful in this movie, so my enjoyment rested entirely on how entertained I was by the sex scenes. But even though Rochelle Swanson is an exceptionally voluptuous woman, not even her wonderful body was enough to keep me interested in the film.",0 "The Forbin Project is classic sci-fi movie, and yet is criminally neglected. Most people have never heard of it, and TV channels rarely broadcast it. I first saw it 1977 on Jamaican television. I think I have only ever seen it once on the BBC.

This the old story of Frankenstein's monster updated for the Cold War era. The Baron, is now a scientist,Dr Charles Forbin played by Eric Braeden. The creation is super computer designed to control the American defence system.Every conceivable problem has been thought of and programmed into Colossus.What could possibly go wrong? For a movie made in the 1970s, it predicts the rise of artificial intelligence and man's eventual enslavement to technology. The makers of The Matrix and The Terminator must have seen this film at some point as they both deal with the same issue.

I have managed to watch a widescreen version, and I must say that it still adds up,despite the dated technology.The film has no stars in it, which is good because you are solely focused on the story and nothing else.What is refreshing is that this is sci -fi that refuses to dumb down-hardly any violence,flashy effects and no sex.

Once you see it, you won't forget it.",1 """Bones"" was a scarefest that scared up the goods. Director Ernest R. Dickerson's last time he taggled a horror movie was ""Tales From The Crypt Presents: Demon Knight."" On ""Bones,"" he does a better job, but, what I was most impressive from this movie was Snoop Doggy Dogg as Jimmy Bones. He was creepy. There were alot of violence and gore in this movie. But, just the whole movie, from beginning to end, was very good. If you like Snoop Dogg, then you'll love ""Bones!""

A+ 13/13 ****** (out of ****** stars)",1 "A quirky paean to horror films of decades past, Little Erin Merryweather has a panache all its own, with an eerie yet elegant storyline punctuated by scares and shocks reminiscent of the classic thriller Halloween — and a back story that re-boots, of all things, Little Red Riding Hood.

But this modern-day fairy tale turns very grim and may not have a happy ending. Somewhere, lurking amidst the snowy woods of a small college town, a killer in red dispatches victims with three startling similarities: They're male, they're blond, and they have (take note) dirty hands. It's not a spoiler to say the killer is female and her motivation stems from a horrific childhood. Now she wants revenge. So beware her creepy doll of cracked porcelain, complete with a ghoulish pair of hollowed-out eyes. And just know: If there's a flash of red — trouble's ahead.

After the first murder, college student Peter Bloom (David Morwick) suspects a serial killer on the loose. His buddies on the school paper razz him. After all, they point out, Peter also believes in Bigfoot and claimed one of his professors was a werewolf. Still, like any good reporter, Peter snoops, until uncovering the scoop that may win him a byline but cost him his life.

Morwick — who also directed the film and wrote its screenplay — is charming and determined, brave enough to take on the killer in a spooky school library, yet vulnerable enough to shyly squirm and stammer during a coffee date. Vigdis Anholt somehow brings a sweet, sympathetic frailty to her role as a serial killer. True, she's a loon, but not a mindless one, and when she flirts with Morwick and looks into his handsome face, you just know there's a part of her that wants to date this guy, not decapitate him. Then she looks at his fingers — too bad, the poor boy apparently has newsprint or something on them -— and her rage kicks in.

Unlike nearly all of today's horror films — including virtually every minute of the Saw franchise — Merryweather's scares don't soak you in blood. For sure, the shocks are there; be prepared to jump half-a-dozen times during the climax. But as Hitchcock proved in Psycho, and Carpenter mastered in Halloween, Morwick's use of sound, like the slash of a knife slicing a body, are actually far more terrifying than displaying bloody leftovers.

Grossing out moviegoers is easy. Jolting them is hard. Giving them a reason to care about characters in trouble — even harder. Little Erin Merryweather takes that hardest of roads and succeeds. Much more than gore, its haunted resonance offers a lingering chill. Put it this way: If Jaws kept swimmers out of the water, then Little Erin Merryweather surely will keep your fingernails clean.",1 "As a film school graduate, I've seen my share of terrible films. Being a fan of James Franco's, I felt that The Ape would at least be interesting. Instead, I was tricked into watching a pretentious James Franco ego-trip. The only good part of the film was its music, which wasn't featured enough. Otherwise, this film was slowly paced, overly perverse, wordy, misdirected, miscast and wildly unclever. I hate bashing somebody's hard work, but if I were to sugar-coat my feelings, somebody might make the same mistake that I made by watching The Ape.

The next time James Franco has this much time on his hands, I suggest he take up treasure hunting, or anything else that doesn't involve writing or directing.",0 "SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!!

Best one yet of the Japanese series on the technical craftsmanship side of things. Well shot, well art directed, wonderfully told with generally minimal exposition and delightful visual storytelling. Great sound edit as well except for a couple of the over the top screams in the forest. Solid ending and really a great way to get everyone on the same page at last about who the hell Sadako really is and how she actually died. Sweet. Really enjoyed the Dutch roll camera tilt during the conversation between Sadako and her ""dad"". And who can forget the excellent reveal of the two dead ladies and their home made instant wall flowers? Sadako is an inspiration to disco floors world wide with her crazy possessed resurrected girl two-step approach. Really something special in that girl, wonderfully portrayed by the stunning Yukie Nakama. Bonus features on the DVD are loads of fun as well, really enjoyed the bonus Sadako material.",1 "BEING the second entry into the Fleischer Brothers Studios' line of SUPERMAN Cartoons, 'The Mechanical Monsters (Fleischer Studios/Paramount Pictures Corporation, 1941) was released for theatrical exhibition to the movie going public in November of 1941. This gave it the distinction of being on the theatre screens when the Sunday morning sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th.

CLEARLY this would mark an abrupt change of direction that the series would be taking as the Fleischer animation operation would join in with the rest of Hollywood in the War Effort. The story lines from hence forth would be as populated with Nazi Soldiers, Imperial Japanese Agents and 5th Column Saboteurs as the were with all of those Mad Scientists.

MUCH in the same manner as the other entries into the SUPERMAN Series, there is no wasting of time. The trouble with the giant, metal creatures are in progress of wreaking their brand of havoc on the Good Folks of Metropolis when the Cartoon Short opens. They are in the middle of an in-progress menace. Much of the necessary exposition is put into place by means of headlines in the Daily Planet. (A clever use of the visual medium; as the inclusion of any Title Cards would be considered strictly passé and a throwback to the days of the Silent Movies.) FOR all of the magnificent scientific marvels that were embodied in the invention of the giant metal robots, the Mad Scientist is concerned only in looting bank vaults, pillaging jewelry establishments and repelling attacks from Tommy Gun wielding Uniformed Coppers. Perhaps this is due to poor pay, working conditions and lack of employment opportunities for brilliant, albeit Mad Scientists that they are forced to supplement their meager incomes through such unlawful means.

FURTHERMORE no one ever has truly explained just what makes these eggheads so 'Mad', anyhow! ALL kidding aside, the short is fast moving, well plotted and rendered in such a manner as to be an animated equivalent of a museum quality painting from one of the Dutch Masters. (No, Schultz; I didn't mean the Cigars!) 'MECHANICAL MONSTERS' comes complete with all the accoutrements that are needed in a series entry. First of all, the above mentioned renegade scientist is there for starters; along with some spectacular method of exacting the plunder on an otherwise helpless Metropolis. The regular Daily Planet gang gets involved in the natural manner; coming to the danger with hopes of getting ""a Scoop!"" MISS LOIS LANE, in order to have a chance to ""Scoop the other Scoopers"" gets a little too close and is abducted unwittingly by the baddies; having slipped and fallen into the iron giant's convenient and cavernous trunk space. (What's an Editor to do? She seems to get caught up in similar fashion time and time again! SPEAKING of recurring patterns, Superman manages to save the day, saving Miss Lane and her headline story. All's well that ends well, especially in Metropolis; as the episode closes out with a wink from Clark Kent to the audience.

WE suppose that we could brand the Superman Cartoons as being formula and even clichéd, but that may not be fair, either; for after all, the Fleischer/Famous Studios' productions were essentially blazing new trails in the field of the animated movie. Whereas here to for, virtually all of the animated cartoon out put was done using highly caricatured human characters, anthropomorphic talking animal's characters or both. The idea of writing an action-adventure story featuring realistically rendered human characters in fantastic, albeit serious short subjects hadn't been done before, unless it would be highly obscure.* THE Fleischer SUPERMAN Series changed all of that by paving the way for so many of those adventure cartoons that we have enjoyed over the years on Saturday morn. Like most of the rest of this series, we rate it very high on the scale.

NOTE * We can think of Walt Disney's FANTASIA (Walt Disney Productions/RKO Radio PUctures/1940) as being an exception; several of the segments having been done in a realistic style. Are there any others? POODLE SWCHNITZ!!",1 "If ever I needed a movie dubbed, this one would be it. Normally, I prefer subtitles, but the visuals in here are so incredible that trying to read the subtitles distracts me from taking in all there is to see.

Man, there is a lot to see: brilliant, beautiful colors in scene-after-scene. They alone make this DVD worth owning. The story is decent, pretty interesting but nothing super. The humor is ""French,"" meaning different from what we normally laugh at in North America. The story also, to be honest, gets frustrating after awhile, as Amelie goes on too long with her charade. If you've watched it, you know what I mean.

However, this is so uniquely and beautifully filmed that I can put up with a so-so story. As the lead actress, Audrey Tautou, is cute and fun to watch and the addition of humor to the romance story helps. There is almost no profanity in here and a few very quick nude shots which must be the reason for the ""R"" rating, otherwise it would be an easy ""PG.""

In summary, a pleasant film that is a feast for the eyes.",1 "This is just one of the greatest animated movies of all time. No exaggeration. From the almost poetic opening sequence, accompanied by a great, great score till the very ending this movie will not disappoint. A dark story, darker than in Batman Returns, but also an excellent portrayal of Batman. The characters are nicely drawn (the female character is very attractive looking) and the voices are perfect. The origin of my favorite superhero has been overdone so many times and yet the filmmakers easily succeed to bring new insight and depth to the man that is the bat. I feel like I should write something more about it, there's definitely a lot of stuff I forgot since seeing it, but this was definitely an overlooked movie.

8/10",1 "Lindsay Lohan is a wonderful Lola. She really did the Drama Queen very well. Also Alison Pill did well as lola's best friend, Ella.I really like the character Ella, because she was a goody-tow-shoes who thought she was going to grow up and be like her parents, but she goes past that and faces her fears with Lola. ""Because of you I'm brave enough to be different."" is one of my favorite quotes by Ella.

Sam, the boy Lola likes besides Stu Wolf, should have been in there WAY more. The first time I saw Lola, Sam, and Ella all together as a trio i loved them. They're such a cute trio! Sam popped in and out of the movie only a few times.

I can connect to Lola in a few ways. One way is i think of music the same way as her. It was kind of scary at the part when she gets disapointed when she finds out Stu Wolf is a drunk and she can't talk about his music with him, something like that just recently happened to me. I found out some stuff like that about one of my favorite singers that I was disapointed about. But i still love their music.

Another way i connect with Lola is her daydreams. I kind of have the same daydreams as her. I loved how they did that in the movie, with the cardboard-like pieces and everything. I thought that was cool.

Carla, the mean girl of the school, was not like i thought she'd be like in the beginning, but as the movie went on she got meaner and meaner. I got so mad at her when she was telling everyone that Lola didn't go to the party and everyone believed her, because I know how Lola must have felt. If I had the chance to meet a star that a girl I hated wanted to meet so bad AND crashed his party, and then no one believed me, I'd feel really bad and annoyed.

The play at the end of the movie was ok. Some parts of it was cool, sometimes it was a little bit strange. Maybe it was because I didn't see My Fair Lady.

The scene at the end when she sings ""That Girl"" was really cool too. I really like that song, but the song that got to me the most was the very last song when she explained the end of the story with Sam and everything. I haven't gotten the soundtrack yet, but I want it really bad, mainly to hear this song. I was listening to the lyrics, and I instantly loved this song. It's sung by lindsay, and it's about changing the world. I always have new songs that describe myself, but this may be the newest song to add to my list. Hopefully i'll get the soundtrack soon.

The teacher was really goofy and one of the reasons this movie was so funny. i went to see this movie with some friends and i was sitting on the end with one of my best friends next to me, and we kept giggling. There are many parts in this movie that are really, really funny.

Another thing in this whole story that got to me and really made me think was the change Lola caused. she caused a change in her best friend, a change in the most popular girl in school that also wanted all the attention, and a wonderful change in her rock star crush, Stu Wolf. ""A wonderful person told me I was a drunk. And I didn't like it."" I think the quote by him was something like that. When i saw the whole scene with Lola and Ella when her friend told her how she had changed her life, i couldn't help thinking, ""I wish I could do something like that for someone."" I want to make a difference, just like Lola.

I think if you made a few changes here and there this could actually end up being my story. Except you'd need to change the title too. I think Confessions of a Teenage Dreamer would do the trick.In conclusion, this movie was good. I think the book might be a little better though. I can't wait to read it! I'd give it a 7/10.",1 "Joe Dante is one of my favourite directors and this is easily his best film. So many films claim to be magical but this is one of a few that genuinely is. It makes you feel good about the world and is one of the best films ever about the joys of childhood and the power of dreams. There are so many outstanding moments there isnt enough space to list them here. The direction, effects, acting, music and cinematography are all top of the line. Everyone goes on about how as soon as the kids get into space this completely falls apart, but sorry I disagree. I love the stuff with Wak and Neek and Dante favourite Picardo is great as usual. Like the kids themselves at first it seems strange and disappointing that the mysterious of the universe turn out to be a couple of TV junkies, but afterwards they/you realise what good time was had.

This totally proves that the Yanks have very little taste (proved yet again by the success of Spider-Man) with this getting very poor reviews and virtually no box-office (I cant believe the amount of people who have said a film must be good because its made a load of money - two words - Pearl Harbor!), but when it finally got a limited release here in the UK it got very good reviews indeed.

I was disappointed to read recently that Joe Dante, at a Sci-Fi Con, apologised for anyone having to endure this. Well up until now he has always defended it and said it was his most personal film, so shame on you Joe for caving in and I for one will quite happily endure this for many years to come.

Ive only ever since this on grainy VHS, so please, please Paramount give us a widescreen DVD some time soon!",1 "Very disappointing, it might have been good in 1981, and it might have inspired 5th Element, but that doesn't make up for the (disastrous) rest. The first part with the taxi driver is almost ok! The rest is very meaningless. I rented this because it was refereed to as one of the first adult-orientated cartoons. Í cannot speak for the others, but for myself I believe that ""adult"" is more than (boring) sex and (boring) violence and gore. The worst thing about this movie is the total lack of story. Good against evil has never been portrayed so.. shallow and uninteresting.

Normally I love cartoons, both anime and western, and therefore gave this one a long line before it broke...

PDD",0 "What impressed me most about this film was how you always know what Anna is feeling. This is partly because of the wonderfully expressive actress playing the part, and partly because it is easy to recall how we felt about things as children and recognize how we would react to the clearly drawn situations of the film. It is also remarkable because while most French movies let you know what characters think simply by having them talk endlessly, Anna keeps her words short and to the point and the adults around her never seem to explain things as much as they ought to.

It is interesting to see how people here respond to the film. One review described it as a movie about adults balancing child raising with world saving, which is certainly a part of the film but to me wouldn't seem to be the focus. Someone else saw the film as an example of how activists can be bad parents.

But really, this film is so focused on Anna that I tended to feel whatever she was feeling, and as her feelings and understand evolved during the film, mind did as well. The movie feels very balanced, showing everyone's strengths and weaknesses, kindnesses and cruelties, honor and stupidity, and it feels very authentic; I don't know if this is fiction, a memoir or somewhere in between, but it feels very realistic and believable.

This is a quiet, thoughtful movie and it took me a while to get into it, perhaps simply because I approach French movies with a certain amount of suspicion, which is why I gave it a 7 instead of an 8. I became more and more drawn in as I watched, and found the final scenes especially touching. It's a lovely little film.",1 "I watched ""The Appointment"" on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. It was not the worst Christian movie I have ever seen, but it could qualify for the Top Ten. (There are plenty of ""Jesus films"" that have bad actors, bad scripts, and bad special effects.) Anyway, ""The Appointment"" is a made-for-video about a woman who is told she has a limited amount of time to live. She is told this by a mysterious man who gives her a Bible. She says she gave those ""fairy-tales"" up a long time ago. If someone came into MY office and told me I only had a certain amount of time to live, I would call the police. Anyway, following this incident the lady gets paranoid and slowly realizes that maybe she SHOULD be saved. Unfortunately, she is a little too late.

The ending isn't happy, but it certainly did not make any impression on me. It can truthfully be described as cheesy and laughable. The acting was stiff and the script was terrible. I recommend you NOT use this as a witnessing tool. TRUST ME.",0 "FF8 is definitely one of the biggest classics in the series. The story starts off with a group of students in a military school: we have Squall, the main guy who is a loner and a bit moody; there's Zell who likes to use his fists for a lot of things & Selphie who is perky and always has a positiver attitude. We also meet Quistis (their smart and incredibly hot instructor), Rinoa (Squall's love interest) and Irvine (a ladies man) along the way. Good points: Story: The story is one of the best in the series and is mostly what i play the game for. there are a few clever plot twists that will make the story even more interesting.

Characters: All the characters are likable enough (Except Irvine maybe) and they all have good interaction with each other.

Setting: The places are very nice to visit, particularly the ones on the Esthar continent: Esthar City (a hi-tech metropolis), Tears Point (a place with statues and nice art) and Lunatic Pandora (find out for yourself) Summons: The summons (called Gfs) can be found in different circumstances: some have to be fought, some have to be drawn from enemies and some can only be obtained through special conditions and there are a number of secret ones as well.

Bad points: Battles: the system on this is a little slow paced and the drawing system just isn't that great Development: the junction system on this is a good idea (junction GFs to use magic, etc) but it makes the characters too powerful and therefore makes most boss fights easy. However, you don't have to use the junction system as much so it doesn't really affect the game too much.",1 "the story behind silkwood is possibly an interesting one, which i will investigate further after writing the review. for now i would say the script seems even more interesting than the story behind it, but regardless of the star cavalcade they somehow managed to ruin it.

meryl streep does her 'bad girl' thing here, the character you can also spot from 'marvin's daughters' and shows once again that her character definitions are well crafted and practiced but unimaginative. kurt russell has been given a character that's too interesting to be played by kurt russell, and who knows what cher is doing in this movie. the factory doesn't really seem evil, infact the whole setting of the movie appears almost as if you were watching a dramatized documentary about the subject. seems and feels like a tv-movie dispite the stars in the main roles.

i'm not even going start with the overblown ending scenes...give me a break. the ole' bucket became useful again.

in conclusion it all could've been made so much better, an interesting subject with interesting characters but a mediocre movie. but then, it all fits if you watch mike nichols' career going \ from virginia woolf to primary colors you can find silkwood exactly in the middle. still worth a watch if it happens to be on tv.

4/10",0 "One of the best comedies of the nineties. The ending is perhaps a little sickly but that apart, this is a top notch comedy with Beckinsale putting in a marvellous performance. Definitely worth watching.",1 "So last night, me and my roommate decide to watch it. We both liked the first one, so of course we are going to watch the second. Big mistake... Every so often I would see my roommates head just shaking, and he would then laugh or comment about what we just saw- never a good comment.

The Graphics were just bad, the crocs just looked so fake- the skin, movement, reactions, explosions. Even the air plane was fake. The acting was below par. At least in the first one they had real choppers and planes and such, and the croc looked a lot better in the first.

The only thing I saw hope in was the fact that Cloris Leachman was part of the film (always been great in her past roles), and she did a decent job in this role as well. She could have done a lot better than this film though . The basic story line wasn't too bad; but I have yet to see a great story line on crocs or gators.

There are also tech problems in the film. Just things that do not truly add up or that make sense. The killing of the crocs with a knife/blade, the eggs, the explosions, the eating of the people.

It feels like they just through this movie together. Not much effort put into it. They could have put a lot more effort into this film, to do it justice. Instead they let it flop... So I would say, spend your time watching something else.

Actually now that I think about it, this movie is very similar to Jaws, maybe thats why the story line works. But again they didn't do it justice.

It was a good laugh though, some funny moments, and just looking at what happens. You just want to laugh at its stupidity.",0 "The historical novel format in literature is a popular way to tell a fictional story against the background of real events that actually happened. This type of format can be very entertaining in the medium of film also provided that producers and directors are honest with the audience and do not deliberately mislead viewers into thinking they are watching something that resembles real history.

The problem of unintentional misrepresentation could have been easily solved in this film if there had been a simple disclaimer statement at the start of the movie to warn viewers they are watching fiction, not history. The Untouchables is a very entertaining and skillfully produced film that succeeds wonderfully in offering viewers an enjoyable movie and memorable characters such as the fictional police officer played by Sean Connery. But at the same time the film fails miserably to offer the necessary warning that it is only a work of fiction.

It is just plain wrong to imply that this film is even ""loosely based"" on real events or people. The screenplay by writer David Mamet is almost completely fictional. It is not based on the 1957 book with the same title authored by Elliot Ness and Oscar Fraley or the 1959 TV series starring the late Robert Stack as Ness which followed the book a little bit in its first season. This film has no more connection to the original book than the recent Steve Martin fictional ""Cheaper by the Dozen"" has to the original 1940s book by Ernestine Gilbreth. The title is the same and that is all.

Except for using the names of a few people who really lived, there is almost nothing in this film that remotely tracks real historical events that happened in Chicago between the formation of a special Treasury Department task force called ""The Untouchables"" in January 1930 and the federal trial of Alphonse Capone in October 1931. As long as viewers understand that it is fiction, most people will find the characters enjoyable and the action exciting.

Movie fans can enjoy this film at the level of entertainment alone and not worry about the bad history but for one problem where the first defect also intrudes on the acting. Most of the characters seem real enough and Sean Connery gives a fine performance. But unfortunately the characterization of Al Capone by Robert DeNiro is that of a cartoon character.

Here is where the historical dishonesty interferes with the entertainment value of the film because DeNiro makes a ruthless gangster seem almost appealing as a warm and fuzzy colorful character. Make no mistake, the real Al Capone was an amoral monster who ordered the murder of many people who got in his way and civilians were hurt also. He was not colorful or clever as DeNiro portrayed him.

The worst slander of the film and its artistic defect as well is a dramatic climax in which Elliot Ness murders Frank Nitti for revenge by tossing him off the roof of the Federal Court House in 1931. The real Frank Nitti died 12 years later in 1943 at the hands of fellow gangsters on Chicago's west side. There was no motive for revenge by Ness since there was no Sean Connery character in real life.

Writer David Mamet grew up in Cook County and presumably knows local history. So it is hard to see why he chose to so severely distort historical events to provide him with a dramatic crutch for his convoluted plot device. The real Elliot Ness was a fine law enforcement man who later became Chief of Police in Cleveland, Ohio and he never murdered anyone in cold blood.

Many entertaining movies take great liberties with history for the sake of dramatic impact. There is nothing wrong with that by itself just as long as producers are honest about what they are doing and the audience members do not walk away from the film thinking that they now know the true history of an era.",0 "Sure the original theatrical version was bad but that was not due to the makers, it was due to a financial company that backed the production. Here (in the directors cut) is the way that it was supposed to be made. It has great action, great production value plus the return of Sean Connery. It gives some explanation as to how the competition began and it shows how Connor used the ""prize"" from the first film. It's a lot better than any of the Highlander films and series that followed. If this had been the version that was originally released on the theatre's in 1991, then the series would still have been alive today.",1 "This is a sloppy mess of a comedy, with barely a plot to speak of, yet it contains some of the funniest bits Mr. Lewis has ever committed to film. It's one helluva lot better than the previous movie, ""Hardly Working"" which got a big theatrical release. It is the ""Test Market Audience Mentality"" that kept this excellent movie from getting a big-screen release in the U.S. ""Cracking Up"" keeps moving--if one gag fails, don't worry because there will be another, funnier one right on top of it. This overlooked gem has no less a fan than Martin Scorsese, who particularly loved the waxy floor opening credits sequence.",1 "Sam Jackson plays an FBI agent whose partner has just been murdered in a gun-buy bust gone awry. With Internal Affairs on his tail, he struggles to clear his own name by trying to find the source of the gun supply. Enter Eugene Levy, an Innocent out-of-town salesman who is in town for a convention, when he is spotted reading the newspaper that Jackson's character is supposed to be reading during the meet and is mistaken to be ""THE MAN"". Throw in a few sentimental family scenes, gut-ripping funny back and forth Dialogue between Levy and Jackson, the stereotypical foreign bad guys and a police boss out of save one of her own and you've basically got the entire film.",1 "Made right before the buzz-crushing ultra-conservative religious right backlash against the gloriously loose'n'libertine permissiveness of the 70's took hold, this wonderfully wild'n'raucous animated sci-fi/horror/fantasy anthology film gleefully wallows in excessive graphic violence, crass leering objectification of the amply proportioned female form (buxom ladies only, please), and a wickedly funny line in cheery low-brow humor. This movie sure ain't politically correct -- and that's exactly why it's such a hugely enjoyable blast from the funky early 80's past.

An evil glowing orb called the Loknar (the supremely sinister and velvet smooth voice of Percy Rodriguez) spreads its malign influence throughout the decades and galaxies. First tale, ""Harry Canyon"" - Cynical cabbie Harry (marvelously voiced to weary perfection by veteran character actor Richard Romanus of ""Mean Streets"") gets involved with a sexy young lass in a bleak and rundown futuristic New York. Second yarn, ""Den"" - A nerdy teenager (affably voiced by the late, great John Candy) winds up on another planet where he's transformed into a bald and brawny behemoth. Third romp, ""Captain Sternn"" - Sleazy scoundrel Captain Sternn stands on trail for his many heinous indiscretions. John Vernon scores strongly as the angry voice of the prosecuting attorney. Fourth opus, ""B-17"" - A very creepy and gruesome World War II zombie outing. Fifth vignette, ""So Beautiful and So Dangerous"" - A couple of wacky aliens and their goofy robot buddy abduct a sassy hot Jewish chick. Harold Ramis and Eugene Levy are hilarious as the Cheech and Chong-style stoner pilots of a giant smiley face spaceship. Candy once again is a delight as the voice of the charming and amorous robot. Sixth outing, ""Taarna"" - A lethal and lovely mute warrior woman mixes it up with a vicious horde of nasty marauders.

Boy, does this picture rate highly as the ideal guy flick: we've got a fantastic roaring rock soundtrack (Cheap Trick, Black Sabbath, Devo, Grand Funk Railroad, Nazareth, Blue Oyster Cult, Journey, Stevie Nicks and much more), plenty of sidesplitting sophomoric humor, stunningly voluptuous and often naked women, a handy helping of gore, a nice smattering of soft-core sex, a blithely breezy'n'carefree tone, and no pretense whatsoever to get in the way of the infectiously trashy fun. The strikingly stylized and varied animation is suitably vivid and garish throughout. Elmer Bernstein's lush majestic orchestral score likewise hits the spot. A real cool treat that's wholly deserving of its cult status.",1 "What is wrong with Hollywood? They pump up virtually unwatchable action flicks and bury real gems like Buying the Cow. This movie was intelligent, original, insightful (to a point) and funny. I feel sorry for everyone involved in this production -- because some distributor someone dropped the ball. If you liked Office Space, The Castle, Happy Texas, or Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion, watch this movie.",1 "This movie about what at the time was considered one of the most horrific murders ever because of the circumstances, was a waste of time. Helen Hunt was game in the role of Pam Smart, but everything else in this movie was so terrible. Chad Allen as her teen lover was an embarrassment, I couldn't see any reason why they would go head over heels for each other in real life by the way these two actors went pedestrianly about their way. A very big waste of time for anyone who watches this after reading this review.",0 "This is a niche film. If you can put yourself into the mindset of a 20-something slacker, who has no ambition whatsoever in life, this film may engender some sense of emotional investment in its characters and a sense of identifying with same. However, if this situation is impossible for you, then you will not only not see the humor herein, you will most likely bemoan the time wasted in its viewing.

This is a Jay and Silent Bob flick wherein the two buds are dumped by their gals, subsequently seeking major wound-licking in the mall. It plays like the Revenge of the Nerds, though not as intelligently, nor with the same amount of heart, but with a more modern spin.

If you've of a mind, this can be highly entertaining. If not, don't say you weren't warned.

It rates a 7.2/10 from...

the Fiend :.",0 "This movie presents itself as a sweet family comedy with futuristic premise. This drivel encompasses every cliché in the family comedy repertoire, the writers did not even bother to recycle the lines!

Despite Adam Sandler's best efforts to make it palatable, the overused jokes, the stereotyped characters that could have been easily replaced by cardboard cutouts, and the cheap humour do more then murder the movie, they bury it 60 feet under as well.

This movie, in my humble opinion, should be watched in the same manner the lead character views his life, with the finger firmly on the Fast Forward button. It is a shame to waste one's time on watching this, it could be better spent on shoveling manure, the end impression is the same.",0 "This is a nice light comedy. If you enjoy the first two Dundee movies, especially the first, you'll probably enjoy this as well. This movie isn't one of the all time greats, but good for a fun evening. A cute movie which deserves a good notch or so above the overall rating here. As another review stated, just don't analyze it as if it were a serious movie and simply enjoy the fun. Personally I prefer this one over the second movie which I thought came off too heavy, took itself too seriously.

",1 "Alan Ayckbourn's only major stage to screenplay (to date) is mucked-up with a lot of tricky camera work and opened up like a cancer patient, straying far off the path set by an excellent stager re: newcomer disrupting a provincial troupe staging John Gay opera on proverbial shoestring. Fine effort by Tony Hopkins as transplanted Welshman director but to no avail. Films centering on staging plays (NOISES OFF, of note) rarely hit the mark and this is no exception. I'll keep my memories of the Royal National Theatre production and try to forget this plodding mess. Bury it with flick BEYOND THERAPY, another stager gone wrong for a wonderful stage scribe.",0 "This is a very funny play that i thoroughly enjoyed watching. It's really funny but makes you think at the same time. Our school is doing this play and I can't wait! I am an understudy for Mrs Kirby, it should be really fun! Everyone should see this funny play!",1 "The short story told by the Native American, as a prologue to this movie's plot, is the best part of the film. It is hard to believe that the same creative minds responsible for the opening short story could screw the rest of the movie up so badly.",0 "I don't know if the story's true - it might be. Makes you think. At times makes you even feel that it is real - right in very front of you.

I found myself from all the hiding games. The boy's events were partly an adventure - playing hide and seek with the gestapo (panthers) all by himself with his assistant Snow (Friday). And partly a nightmare where the war grips everything away and leaves you no choice but to crawl into your hideout and cry. You really feel&fear for the kid when soldiers come to find the last of the Jews again and again and again...

I think the director made quite a decent job (at least above the average) by telling the story so visually. Not too much talking here - and it is mostly in English, which is odd. Although some scenes I would've done differently.

I didn't know the composer was Z.Preisner until read it here, but you sure will notice a meister at work. At least when the ending credits roll.",1 "This show is really about Adam West. His deadpan delivery and obliviousness to his own shortcomings (or maybe it's denial, tough to tell from just one episode) is really what fuels the comedy here. It's campy and hilarious, but it's mostly a specific type of humor and while there are some jokes that deviate from this basic strategy, the show is not a conventional sitcom (which relies heavily on one-liners). The show is about characterization, specifically that of Lookwell. If you see him interacting with someone for 30 seconds and don't find it funny, it's not for you. If you like West's portrayal as Mayor West on Family Guy, you'll probably find this pilot hilarious and I'd recommend trying to find it online.",1 "You know, I was looking at IMDb's database on romance and was pretty stricken to see that not only 'Vertigo' was rated a romance(!), but five of the top twenty were written around and before fifty decades ago. Ghost? Nope! Dirty Dancing? Ha! Try 5.3. Titanic? 9100 votes gave it a 1. Ever After? Female votes have scraped it up to a 7! Wedding Singer, Pretty Woman, GREASE of all movies. Modern romance has been beaten to a pulp, but even though the same conventions of romance movies exist in The Bodyguard, I'm not one of those people who hated it.

After missing out on Reagan's assassination attempt, bodyguard Frank Farmer is now working for-hire. When a singer hires him after she gets death threats, conflicts begin but feelings follow.

The Bodyguard plays out your basic romance and resists the urge to jerk any tears. I don't think the actors could pull it off though. There's a point in the movie, when they realize their romance, when their reactions don't make any sense, but afterward everything about the movie plays out like it should and it's well made! Although I believe people are rating the movie on what has happened to Whitney Houston in recent years, they should judge it for the performances themselves and that means it's not bad.",1 "One of the better movies I've seen. Just as a film, it is well made. Parallel plots with a lot of convergence. Lot of intelligent (cross) references at different places. The dig at Mira Nair's Namesake was brilliant (I found that movie more than a tad boring). Satayajit Ray's Apu was brought up time and again, and near the end there was a direct reference to it - acknowledging Ray's hero.

As the other comments say, there is much stereotyping. But most of the humor and characterization come from this. Some characters like Andy are too good to be true, but as in all stories, the protagonist is such.

The fact that I could relate to the movie, made it all the more enjoyable. It has nice songs too, which do not spoil the storyline too much, as songs are wont to.

The director, Anjan Dutt usually makes black comedies more close to Bengali intellectuality. He maintains the same genre, but in a more subtle way. The film conveys a stronger message and has a more positive and generic feel to it.

Raima Sen looks great but doesn't flex too much of her facial muscles. Peeya Rai Choudhuri is pretty believable as the American youngster. All in all an enjoyable see.",1 "These days, Asian horror films are among the best in the world, noted for their atmosphere and reflection of contemporary society. This is not one of those films! Instead, ""The Record"" is a mediocre slasher movie highly derivative of American movies like ""I Know What You Did Last Summer"" and ""Scream"". The plot is familiar - 5 teenagers accidently commit a terrible crime, but cover it up swearing to secrecy. One year later, they're being stalked by a knife-wielding maniac (with the decidely unscary disguise of a hospital sterile mask and an orange jumpsuit). It doesn't help that the teenagers are a generally unlikable group (this is one of those movies where the killer's motives seem pretty reasonable) and there are numerous stupid plot setups to keep the story going. The direction of the movie is unsubtle, more influenced by MTV than by current Asian horror films (like ""The Ring""). The last third of the movie isn't too bad though, delivering some decent suspense scenes, though there is probably one ""twist"" too many in the end. 4/10",0 "I just could not believe that Shannon Doherty or any young woman would carry on about William Devane. I know your lead to believe she had daddy issues, but I didn't get it. Maybe if she had a bunch or rats at her place like the movie 'Willard' I'd get it. The acting is decent enough though the love scenes were sort of gross. I liked William Devane in 'Marathon Man' & 'Testament', but come on now! Basically it's like like Fatal Attraction, or Play Misty For Me if you just make it young girl, older guy. The way she keeps trying and trying to win Devane's heart is all too much. I always liked Shannon from her Beverly Hills, 90210 days and felt the show sunk down when she left, I thought she'd make more of her career afterwords, but then again, who on that show did?",0 "I have just watched Miike Takashi' film Visitor Q, tonight, and i think that it is one of the most insane and disturbing films that i have ever seen, since Ichi The Killer another of Miike's films I almost found it too shocking to watch parts of it because of the film content. It is about a father, who is a former television reporter who is trying to make a documentary about violence and sex among youths in Japan. He has sex with his daughter who is a prostitute. There are some really disturbing sences in this film where his son beats up his mom, who is also a prostitute and also a heroin addict, and has to inject herself everyday.""Q"" a strange man comes and lives with the family but before he injures the father by hitting him in the head with a large stone, who he later becomes friends with. It is hard to explain how insane this film is. I would recommend this film only to people who are able to watch such disturbing images. But i thought that it was still a fantastic film. 7/10",1 "I was a bit anxious at first when I heard about this remake. I have never been a fan of remakes. I always worry that they will somehow ruin a perfectly good classic movie. And being an avid lover of ""Guess who is coming to dinner,"" I had even more to worry about. However, I believe that this ""new take"" on the movie was great and inventive. It was updated to give it a modern twist and wasn't an exact replica of the original. In fact I laughed hysterically through out the movie. Of course there may be some over-the-top antics, but it is in good fun and this definitely constitutes a meaningful feel-good movie. So I am recommend watching Guess Who highly.",1 "'Feardotcom' was filmed in Luxembourg (apparently standing in for New York, I think.) and hasn't been officially released yet. I saw it as one of the featured films during the Luxembourg International Film festival. (Cinenygma) - One of the executive producers, who introduced the film, said it wasn't 100% finished yet, and that even the title might change. However, since every second of the film was even more tortuous than the depravities depicted on the screen, I believe no amount of focus groups or editing could save this film. I'd say 'straight to video', but that would be a major waste of plastic and cardboard. I suppose if they market it as a parody, they might salvage the cost of, um, the catering during the film.

Stephen Dorff plays a hard-boiled detective who's haunted by that one case that was never solved. You know he's haunted because he walks around with a 3 day growth of beard. Which stays at the same length the whole film, even though the film covers quite a few days (it was hard tell, nothing was very coherent) And guess what! His old nemesis from the unsolved case is killing again! Oh boy! And since we now have new cases to solve, AND they're dying from what looks to be a virus, we need to bring in the woman scientist and nominal love interest (Natascha McElhone - who displayed quite amply in 'The Truman Show' that she can't act. She must work cheap, or maybe they needed someone to make Dorff look good.) We know she's a scientist because she wears glasses. And just for grins we get Jeffrey Coombs as Dorff's partner, whose main role appears to be running around spouting non-sequiturs. Speaking of which, there was a writer listed for the film but I'd bet a Ben Franklin that they were making up the dialog as they went along, and probably for a different film. It's too bad 'Deep Space 9' went off the air - it might have prevented Coombs from getting caught up in this travesty. And there's Stephen Rea as the mad scientist, looking vaguely like Geoffrey Rush mad scientist character in 'Mystery Men.' Now, I could have sworn Rea could act, so maybe they are two of them? Amazingly a director is also listed, but from what I can tell they pretty much turned on the camera, came back later, took the film to the editing room, forgot to turn on the lights and just started editing. That would explain a lot.

And what of the plot? Ha! There isn't one! Well, OK, maybe a little one. I think the deal was that the girl killed in the unsolved case somehow inhabited the internet and is killing people if they log on to the mad scientist's site, where HE tortures women until they beg him to kill them - and all for $9.95! (but just for grins they (the unfortunates who log into fear.com) only die after 48 hours, because, I think, that's how long it took her to be killed) But I think you'd need a broadband connection, because somehow when you login, this girl living in the internet puts a hex on you, which involves you falling off your chair and eventually trashing your apartment and nose bleeds, and um, dying from the fright of your worst fear (like being cast in this movie) and I really don't think that could happen with a dial up connection. Um, anyway, she's going to keep on killing people unless the mad scientist is caught. And her body is found too. I mean they threw that bit in there about finding the body, but then when it was found, it didn't count for anything! Now, doesn't that just bite. Damn fickle internet ghosts.

**SPOILER**

Actually this whole film was a spoiler, at least it smelled spoiled to me. Anyway - the final scene where Dorff and the McElhone rush into the mad scientist's lair (located in an abandoned steel mill or nuclear plant - the film couldn't make up it's mind what it was - it identified it as both during different scenes in the film) and stop him only seconds before he's going to kill his latest victim had me rolling in the aisle with laughter. It was just like watching an old horror film from the 30's or 40's. Maniacal laughter, bug-eyed expressions of madness, flashing lights, tilted camera angles. So they manage to save the girl, but then the mad scientist shoots Dorff, and then stabs McElhone then Dorff grabs a keyboard and logs into feardot.com which drives the mad scientist so mad - he dies from fear! Then Dorff dies, and McElhone, who was in love with Dorff (oh, did I leave that part out? - apparently they fell madly in love in some 30 second scene earlier in the film - some real in-depth character development going on here.) sort of cries over his body, but um, somehow she's no longer stabbed! Maybe it was her Multi-vitamin.

**END OF SPOILER**

So -um, in conclusion - I can't imagine any changes to this film possibly making it watchable. I'll be surprised if gets released at all (though the executive producer said Warner Bros had picked it up for US distribution, and Columbia-Tri-Star for the rest of the world. Let's hope they come to their senses.) You have been warned. Go watch 'Donnie Darko' instead!",0 "The storyline for ""The Alternative Factor"" is a great concept – the possibility of a negative parallel universe and a madman whose insane actions could lead to the destruction of EVERYTHING. But there are several aspects of this episode that really bother me, and IMHO, ""The Alternative Factor"" is the worst first-season episode.

I like the concept for this episode. I also like the dialogue between Kirk and Spock in the briefing room when they finally put all of the pieces of the puzzle together. But letting Lazarus roam freely about the ship is a flaw I can't excuse, and the final solution seems a bit drastic. I'm also not a fan of the special effects. For the most part, first-season episodes are pretty good, but this episode feels like it was put together in a big hurry. I'm giving ""The Alternative Factor"" a D grade and will find an alternative episode to watch when I can.",0 "An incredibly uninspired television anthology sequel that has little to do with the first fantastic film, except that the lead character in all three stories is played by one woman. It goes something like this: Lysette Anthony goes all gravedigger and gets chased by giant rat puppets. Lysette Anthony gets chased by a wretched child actor playing her resurrected son in a pseudo-Gothic setting. Lysette Anthony gets chased by the infamous zuni fetish doll from the first TV movie except the special effects are somehow worse two decades later. Even this last segment is uninteresting. Anthony is obviously no Karen Black, but she does a good job with the garbage she's given.",0 "Don't worry about comparisons with the original, supposedly weak story line, etc, etc - just suspend belief and enjoy it as a musical.

The key vocalists are absolutely first rate: Howard Keel, Kathryn Grayson and William Warfield were at the tops of their games here. The superb, effortless vocals from Keel and Grayson are lessons on how to sing - you'll never hear 'Make Believe' sung better than this.

William Warfield's version of 'Old Man River' is just magic. People usually talk about Paul Robson in the same breath as 'Old Man River' but none of Robson's renditions can match this performance. Warfield is a true bass (Robson was a bass-baritone) and delivers this song with magnificent power and resonance. Warfield is The Man.

Sit back and enjoy the music...",1 "Not worth waisting to much time on this, i just have to say it's one of the worst movies I've seen( and I've seen my share of bad movies from Manos to Master of Disguise), and you should stay away unless you want to see how bad sergiu got in his old age... Kinda sad he's so lame and doesn't even know it... Pretty much the worst thing that ever happened to romanian movies

I know pretty much all his stuff is awful, but he outdone himself this time. I mean It's not even so bad it's funny it's... well just bad

PS I usually don't like to insult people online but whoever gave this one a 10 is either a retard or sergiu got 10 accounts and voted himself.",0 "This is the worst movie in recorded history! It takes the cake as the stupidest movie ever. If you really want to see it, rent the mystery science theatre version and watch them make fun of it. Otherwise it's not worth your time. The music is just as bad with wierd blips here and there and sparratic, spaz drumming.",0 "Rewatch, 3/10.

It's a re-watch indeed, but I don't remember ANYTHING from when I first saw it a couple of years back on TV so I decided to re-watch it again.

It's not a big surprise why I didn't remember it, there's NOTHING worth remembering, there's not a original joke anywhere in this movie and the cast is lame.

FRENCH STEWART, the ""stupid"" alien in 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN has the lead and well he's good in 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN but definitely not in this one, he is not Lead-Material.

I don't wanna spend to much time writing about this movie, I'll put it like this: Love might stink, but not as much as this movie does.",0 "For once, someone had a small special effects budget, and got the most out of it, while still coming up with a compelling story. I never saw where the director was going with it, so the everything was very surprising. Good performances, good direction, good effects, and good script. Give it an 8, and a chance.",1 "I'm reviewing this movie for the 2nd. time. After many years, I caught this movie on Mexican cable and I'm glad that I liked it better than the first time I watched it. As a kid, I hated this movie because it trashed my favorite slasher characters, Freddy and Jason.

Anywways, this is a Mexican version of ""A Nightmare On Elm Street"" part 1 and II and has some elements from the ""Friday the 13th"" sequels. Also, some little influences by ""The Evil Dead"".

The story follows Michael and his friends, who after Michael's birthday party decide to play with the ouija board. Unfortunately to them, an evil spirit named Virgil possesses one of them and starts a killing spree taking revenge on everyone who played with the board. Virgil makes a late appearance in the movie but manages to dispatch his victims one by one... until only Alex and Michael are left.

Could Michael stop Virgil? How is he going to use the ""magic"" dagger against him? (In the style of ""Jason Goes To Hell""). Could it be that Virgil is really more dangerous than Freddy and Jason? Watch ""Don't Panic"" with low expectations and you might surprise yourself.

The movie is very cheesy, but not in a negative way. It's cheesy in an 80's manner! We get plenty of gore, some nasty death scenes, a ""cool"" score (I love the ""Don't Panic!"" song), and some creepy scenes. RYes, the ""Nightmare On Elm Street"" influenecs are present through all the movie. Especially from Part II: Freddy's Revenge. Michael's character is very similar to Jesse. He even has a friend who is killed in front of him and can't do anything but escape from some stupid cops. Also, Michael has this wimpy attitude but manages to confront Virgil and beware all of his friends.

The movie has this 80's feeling that we all love. This is the typical slasher flick from the 80's that spent more budget on the visuals. The f/x are cheesy but worked for me. The gore is great! (Check out a death scene similar from Dario Argento's ""Opera"").

The acting is way all over the top but still works for this kind of movie. Bishof delivers a good performance, Gaby Hassle delivers a cute, solid performance. She's way too pretty to be around all the gore. Virgil is a mix of looks; he has the looks of possessed Ash from ""Evil Dead II"", but the make-up of his face is almost the same as Freddy Krueger! Although he isn't as annoying as Freddy. He just keeps repeating ""Do You believe in Satan?!"". But it isn't as annoying as Krueger's one liners. His demise is very gory and great. Lots of blood through his mouth!

One of the cheesiest scenes in slasher history is when Michael goes to Alex's house, becomes mad, and starts shooting! Horrible acting in that scene by the way. I liked the ending which is very ""moving"" and has an extremely cheesy line that references one love scene: ""As long as love exists between you two the rose shall never wither."". The scene happens when Alex is in the graveyard...

This movie took the right influences and ripped them off in almost a cynical way but still this movie is cheese for the please. Watch it if you can find it, although it will be very hard , as far as I know, it's currently out of print. Or maybe you can find it with the title ""Dimensiones Ocultas"". ""Don't Panic"" is a pleasant surprise and deserves a chance. Probably one of Mèxico's best Horror/Fantasy movies. Yes, this is quality here but still is entertaining!",1 "This movie is dreadfully unfunny. There are teeny bits of hah-hah in it, but they are utterly lost in the Antarctic wasteland that is ""Farce of the Penguins"". It is like one of those SNL sketches that may have been humorous for the first 60 seconds or so, but are dragged on and on until the audience is ready to throw pointy objects at the performers just to make them STOP already! Maybe - just maybe - if I time traveled back to my younger days and watched this movie with some herbal enhancements I no longer approve, it might have struck me as pretty funny.

But I doubt it.",0 "3-D in 1983 was a big concept and another money making gimmick but it just doesn't stand the test of time. With todays studios turning out computer animated effects and creatures, this movie is just plain cheesey by millenium standards. Mostly it's just one of those movies you would watch on cable when reruns are in season-and the reruns suck would you watch it.",0 "Shinya Tsukamoto, the man behind the Tetsuo films, Snake of June and Tokyo Fist takes on Edogawa Rampo story and turns in one of the most perfect marriages of sound and image I've ever run across not to mention one of the creepiest films I've seen in a very very long time.

Yukio is a famous doctor who won fame treating the war wounded. He is much in demand by the wealthy and so has little time for the poor in a nearby slum where the plague has been running rampant. Yukio is also recently married to a young woman he met by the riverside and who is suffering from amnesia.Soon a dark figure is lurking about and after Yukio's father dies under mysterious and unnatural circumstances things begin to take a turn for the worse.

What can I say? This is a creepy little thriller that will haunt you and keep you feeling off balance. Every shot seems to have been perfectly designed for maximum beauty. The soundtrack is a wonderful mixture of sound and music calculated to give the sense of things being not right. The effect of the sound plus the image is a sense of dread and unease even when there is nothing out of the ordinary in the frame, few thrillers or horror films have ever been able to make you feel so off by doing so little.

Adding to it all is the plot which I'm told takes the Rampo story as a jumping off point and then spins it out with new complications. Give it big points for its ability to keep you guessing as to what is going on even if you know whats going on. Having read on the film I knew what was happening and yet I still had to entertain numerous other possibilities. This movie masterfully makes you wonder about what is real and what is not.

I really liked this movie great deal. I don't know if its fully on its own terms or simply that its not another Japanese or Asian horror film with a long hair female ghost lurking about, honestly I don't care because the film is just so damn good it wouldn't really matter anyway.

See this movie.",1 "Continuation of the events in the original ""Evil Dead"" movie. After recapping the events of the first movie (telling the story somewhat differently, even eliminating three of the characters), this movie has poor, tormented Ash (Bruce Campbell) constantly being harassed and tortured by sadistic demons - including, in the movie's most memorable sequence, his own possessed hand.

Absolutely hilarious; this effective mix of hardcore horror and slapstick comedy provides a lot of laughs, impressive effects, and the very game Campbell putting up with a lot as the film-makers set out to abuse his character as much as possible. ""Evil Dead 2"" manages to be even more entertaining than the first movie, a goofy and fun horror/comedy with a chaotic finale that I would recommend to any fan of this genre.

What is also funny is that the character of Ash is already showing signs of the super-obnoxious moron he would become in ""Army of Darkness"".

I loved ""Evil Dead 2"".

9/10",1 "I thought this movie was really awesome. It portrays the reality in a really hilarious way. There's great potential in the budding actors. All of them did a great job especially Kal Penn. Its a must-see for all the ""Desi"" people in America. You won't stop laughing for a single moment. You can even identify with some of the characters. Don't just sit there reading this.... go watch it!!!",1 "I get suspicious when movies push lessons about life, as if movie realities can substitute for, rather than amplify, actual experience.

In this, you're seeing the Genesis story of Jacob and Esau...this includes the parents who 'played favorites', the 'elder brother serving the younger', and the behind the scenes double cross (""Is that why he is called Jacob, because he has deceived me these two times?""). When Sives fails to suicide, his description of the nothingness is the revocation of Jacob's dream of the glorious ladder to Heaven. He wrestles an angel (the water rescue), and thence receives his blessing.

So that's *what* it is -- can one launch a dark comedy off this platform?

I think this was a shameful missed opportunity to stick to just that -- notions of comedy. It is crushed by the self-important tone of the drama, and the utterly unimaginative camera work.

Also, there was a chance to augment this with borrowings from Kipling -- who knew how to be darkly self-effacing -- but all we get are the collections of dead writers (the bookstore).",0 "After sitting through this pathetic excuse for a film , when the plane actually landed , I was fully expecting to hear the sound of clicking , as the passengers push a large safety bar up in front of them , as some young , teenage boy shouts ""please dad , can I go on it again?""

Now , I realise that it was based on an actual incident , which i'm sure was terrifying for the real people involved , but almost everything about this film was pure shambles. The only saving grace was the fly by shots of the plane with it's roof ripped off.

I'm sorry , but I actually found it more of a comedy than whatever it was supposed to be. The young boy passenger eating cookies gets a gold star (and another cookie) for being the only one to spot that enormous rip in the ceiling. The fearless stewardess who's been pinned to the floor for ages , takes time out to show everyone her tropical talent for windsurfing , as she stands upright in the middle of the isle whilst clinging to the chairs , at several hundred miles an hour. Then she suddenly remembers what she's there for , and continues to overact by throwing herself about like a mad woman. The overall acting is about as wooden as a lump of driftwood. Most of the passengers look catatonic , like they've been hit in the back with a dumb-dumb bullet.

The whole set looks like it was borrowed from the Wallyworld amusement park. The make-up is terrible. Just about everyone looks like they've either been barbecued or on the sunbed for too long. The budget must have been about $10 for this appalling flick , and about $9.50 of that was probably spent on hotdogs.

Even the famous cheesy 'Airplane' flashbacks are included , right down to the fighter plane scene with the instructor's words ringing in the pilot's ears. Almost at the end of the ride , two of the passengers decide to offer their piloting and medical services. Why didn't they offer them before? Maybe they fell asleep after watching a certain in-flight movie. At least the medic attempts to help , but why does the pilot then retract his offer of assistance? The unknown government official jumping on the plane at the last moment after it lands , and ordering everyone to leave was pure class. He then decides it was all a mistake and disappears into oblivion. Who was he , where did he go , does anyone care?

This film is about as enjoyable as the last in-flight meal I had.

Do yourself a favour. Upgrade to first class and watch a better film.",0 "dennis potter is still the best playwright of the television age and this is his best work.

set in the forrest of dean on a summers day during world war 2,we follow the a group of children at play.but the children's play has a tragic outcome.

potter set out to challenge our perception as all the children are played by adults.(colin welland, who plays willie,in an interview at the time said that the play challenged the actors as well).it could have foundered instead it draws you in until you only see children.children who are by turns nasty,nice,scared,brave,stupid, clever,bloodthirsty and imaginative.one of the best scenes remains when three of the children play mums and dads-adults playing children playing adults-pure genius.

the acting is first-class.none of them has ever done anything better.

an absolute must see",1 "OK, first of all, I consider myself to be a fan of B Movies, so I shant write this as if I actually intended to enjoy the film in the least. And Ill tell you right now, this movie didn't disappoint me; a small piece of my soul died while watching Dead Above Ground.

The movie itself takes place in a very rich suburb of California, and nearly everyone around has ties to the film making business. I noticed a sign somewhere that said it was called Bay City, but after a thirty seconds of Google, I couldn't find out if Bay City, CA was real or not. And frankly, I don't care. I will just assume it is in Orange County, because that makes me feel a little less disturbed when teenagers die.

Anyway, the movie starts with some director and his wife being murdered. This is totally irrelevant until the last few minutes of the movie, when weaker souls will have already walked out.

Flash-forward a few months and we meet our main characters: Jeffery, the incredibly angry goth-kid; Zara, the goth chick who adores Jeffery; Mr. Hadden the bumbling teacher/principal; Dillon, the poor jock kid; Kelly, the cheerleader; Monster, the incredibly annoying, incredibly white guy who is really nerdy and acts like a gangsta; some black kid; and a slew of other not noteworthy teenagers. Basically everyone listed follows their respective stereotypes to a T, and don't need to describe any of them further.

Anyway, they are all in a class where they make documentaries, and they watch the Goth-Kids. Surprise, surprise, his film is a fake snuff film, portraying someone else in the class (kelly?...) Everyone gets upset, there's yelling and fighting, and the goth kid says a barrage of random trash. Honestly, every time this kid opened his mouth, I wanted to vomit, just for an excuse to leave the room.

So they decide that hes probably insane, and he tries to fight people. For some reason, it cuts to a party scene at the professors house and Jeffery says something ridiculous, pushes a girl into the pool, then David fights with him for a while, i had a hernia, and then Jeffery drives off in a fury, David follows him, and Jeffery ends up dying.

Some people hold séances, and some ravens fly around, Jeff comes back from the grave and makes people die, and a detective shows up and shoves his fist up other peoples ...

Our detective is so oblivious to the world around him, that I think he would improve his record by choosing suspects out of a hat. For instance, when the coach dies (which is cool by the way because the coach is an ass clown), the killer tapes up a picture of Mr. Hadden. Guess who Detective Dimwit brings in the next day? yeah... the logical choice, Mr. Hadden. I always thought leaving pictures of yourself at the scene of the crime was a very good idea, like a calling card. I know I do it whenever I kill someone.

Anyway, there are some very good one-liners in this film, and they really make the movie. As per usual with most b flicks. Listen to Monsters talk about PMS and pretty much everything Jeffery says closely. The very best part of this movie was when I remembered that I had some juice in the fridge and I went up and got it. Apparently i missed something boring, and I had juice for a while. Tres Sweet.

Also noteworthy is that the actor who portrayed Dr. Boon, Lisa Ann Hadley, was also a character in Infested, which is a great bad flick about bug-spray and bad relationships. Watch it tonight.",0 "Michael Pitt can't act PLEASE make him stop trying! He is absolutely horrible - if his last name weren't Pitt he would have been blessedly out of a job years ago.

And what's up with his bizarre diction in this film? What kind of accent is he trying to imitate? He doesn't even look natural simply sitting and for the love of God someone get the boy some lip balm!

The book was fabulous - the film is a waste of celluloid and only encourages Pitt to continue seeking work as an actor as opposed to something useful, like a job as a waiter... which I probably wouldn't believe him capable of either!",0 "Every day from school, from 1991-1993, I would always run home from school to see the latest episode of Darkwing Duck. This action-adventure-comedy was the highlight of my youth. Back then, I loved the characters (especially Steelbeak and Darkwing himself), the majority of the story lines and the good IL' classic Disney feel that somehow lacks in today's Disney shows. The villains were always interesting, and the shows humor wasn't centered on bathroom humour, unlike a number of new animated shows.

Twelve years later, after finding some taped episodes, I am still in love with this wonderful show and glad to see there are lots of devoted fans out and about. I hope to see it returned to its former glory in some form or another.",1 "I have been looking forward to this movie. After all it sounded half decent and had Bruce Campbell in it. I didn't like Lucky McGees previous movie May that much. Fortunately the director improves with his second movie The Woods. The basic plot is that a girl is taken to a secluded private girl school deep in the forests where she soon starts to suspect something weird is going on in the school. The actors are good, the plot is good, dialogue quite sweet and Bruce Campbell gets to wield an axe. It's good to see him in another good movie besides the Evil Dead trilogy and Bubba Ho-Tep.. and I don't know what obsession Lucky McGee has with lesbians and bloody mayhem endings but it's fine with me.",1 "Mike Leigh, in my opinion, is the greatest director ever! He needs no animations, CGI, big named stars or million dollar budgets to produce films of pure, simple genius. All or Nothing is no exception and is proving that as he ages his films have gotten better and better.

All or Nothing reminds me of life on a council estate as I remember it when I was a kid. There used to be flats on our estate that, although not the same in appearance, where practically the same in their inhabitants: the drunk family, the quiet family (Phil's and Penny's family), the druggie families, the slightly odd kid, the angry violent boyfriend, the single mum with foul-mouth daughter. They were all there. Anyone who knows life on an estate like this would wonder how Mike Leigh can put together such an accurate snapshot into the lives of these families.

Mike's films are totally captivating. To some, it might appear like nothing really happens in them, but what I see in them is a reality that is like nothing else on film. Sometimes they're funny, sometimes so almost unwatchably painful but never, ever dull or predictable.

Once you're a Mike Leigh fan you're taken to a different level. I just can't take American movies seriously anymore.",1 "I'm a big fan of Disney movies. Aladdin is one of my favorites. When I watched Return Of Jafar I had several dislikes The First was How could Disney!!! Robin Williams Is the GENIE to change the character is just wrong. You wouldn't take a beloved character like pee wee Herman and change his voice to Billy Christal. Granted that Pee wee Herman is not a cartoon but its still its just wrong. Yes, Dan Castellaneta Does Excellent with Homer Simpsion in the Simpsions but hes no Robin William when it comes to the gene. I'ts just not the same. 2nd was that this movie is Probably one of the most poorly made Disney movie. When You watch certain parts the color is outside the lines. When Jaffar is the Big red ugly gene you can just see the color come off of him on certain parts. Another opinion of mine is that it seems like you just tried to get this movie done as quick as possible and you didn't care. I Always thought that maybe some guy in the studio might have said well this is a movie just for kids. Hurry up and get this done. They wont care. Well your wrong. We do care and kids are not that stupid. When a child watches a movie for the first time they get this glow and a twinkle in their eyes and they will remember it always. Everything from When and where they watched it, to how good it was, to who they watched it with and what other people thought. If they like the movie then they will tell their kids and it happens all over again. Disney is Family. Disney should take time and pride in their work. The only thing I liked about Return of Jafar is the plot and the music. I really with they could do a recall on this movie but keep in mind that this is just one girls opinion. So rent this movie and post a comment.",0 "Sure the plot in general is kind of like an Indiana Jones film but that is where the similarities end. Dolph does a good enough job acting, but the other actors are just plain awful. William Shriver who plays Mr. Chambers may be one of the worst actors I have ever seen, just plain awkward. The story is very simple and there is lots of down time between any semblance of action which is pretty obviously there just to waste time.

The action sequences were very poorly done and quite unoriginal. Luckily I did not pay for it or I would be very disappointed so this is not even worth your time for a rental. I really don't think anybody who isn't a die-hard Dolph fan would even have any chance of enjoying this movie. If this is the best movie parts Dolph can get, then even his straight to video career is going to be over very soon. The production value is much worse than any other straight to video movies starring himself or Wesley Snipes or Seagal or Van Damme and so is the entertainment value. Just stay away and watch one of the 50,000 movies that are better than this drivel.",0 "This film has a very open ending - just as in the true case upon which the film is based you don't know whether or not Madeleine killed her lover, as the jury renders a uniquely Scottish verdict of ""not proved"" which splits the difference between outright acquittal and conviction. Such a film would have been difficult to make in America at the time, as the U.S. production code of the period so demanded clear villains and heroes and swift and sure punishment of the villains.

There's a great use of lighting and shadow in this film, effectively differentiating the dark back-alley scenes where Madeleine meets her poor lover on the sly from those well-lighted ballroom and daytime scenes where she is courted by her family-approved suitor, William Minnoch. Ann Todd gives a very guarded performance here as Madeleine, and maybe that was necessary to add mystery to what and how she was thinking about her predicament.

I was particularly impressed by Ivan Desny as Madeleine's backstreet lover, Emile L'Anglier. He reminded me a great deal of Orson Welles in his physical features and even some in his acting style. Desny's performance is also subtle, but not so subtle that you can't see that his character is more in love with the idea of becoming a moneyed gentleman again than he ever could be with Madeleine herself.

This is one of David Lean's early films, and there is one scene in particular that reminded me of his last - ""A Passage to India"". That scene is when Madeleine is being conducted to court in a carriage accompanied by a police officer with the mob getting out of control outside. It's not just the alleged crime that has the mob stirred up, its Madeleine's rank and privilege as well. There is a similar scene in ""Passage to India"" as Judy Davis is conducted to court to testify. In that film it's her accusations of an Indian of the crime of attempted rape combined with her status as a member of the British aristocracy that has the crowds riled up. I wonder if Lean borrowed on the ideas from this film when making his last.

At any rate it's worth a look, just don't expect things to be wrapped up neatly as they almost always were in courtroom dramas in American films of the time.",1 "I hated this movie, but I dislike a lot of movies that others seem to love--like A Beautiful Mind or the Usual Suspects. So if you loved those shows, read no further. I'm only posting this for the benefit of people with similar tastes, so they can avoid this one. At least A Beautiful Mind and the Usual Suspects had some entertainment value. This show has none. Only weirdness, and in a very annoying way.

For me, a film has a duty to the viewer to be fair--to not resort to the cheapness of portraying a dream, delusion, or fantasy as reality. It's fine if the character doesn't know what's going on. It's even fine if the audience doesn't for a while, but I find it incredibly annoying to invest a couple of hours into a story only to find out in the end that it was all just a dream.

This movie is very cheap in that way. You might like it if you're fifteen years old, don't care if a story makes any sense, and just like weirdness, but I hated. I sensed early on that this was one of those annoying movies that offered no clarity, so I fast forwarded and watched the ending. Well, the ending made no sense and so at that point I gave up on the show and came to IMDb. After reading the posts here and the tremendous amount of confusion this movie caused, I have no interest in watching it all the way through. This is one movie that should have never been made.",0 "We all know what happens in cartoons when cats try to catch mice, but what happens when the mice want the cat to eat them? That's just what happens in ""Cheese Chasers"". Wise-guy rodents Hubie and Bertie have just eaten way too much cheese and feel that they can't eat any more of the stuff. With nothing left to live for, they try to get Claude the Cat to devour them, but he doesn't want to. Feeling that he can never eat another mouse again, he tries to get a bulldog to eat him, but that leads to pure confusion on the dog's part, to the point where all four characters end up doing something that no mouse, cat or dog would probably ever consider! I don't think that I've seen all the Hubie and Bertie cartoons, but this one is a really fun romp. With all sorts of gags, there isn't a dull moment in it. And you may just feel hungry for cheese after watching it (don't eat too much, mind you; you don't want to do what these characters did!).

Two thousand years. Yeah, I guess that life's like that.",1 "At first I thought, ""what did I get myself into?"". Twenty minutes into the movie and I started looking at my watch and wishing that I wasn't here. I didn't come all the way to Hong Kong to watch a crap Kungfu movie! Then all of a sudden… Ka-POW! Talk about being worth the wait. DragonBlade is a roller coaster ride with a long way up in the beginning. And as we all know, the further up that roller coaster goes... the bigger and more exciting that ride ends up. I just can't imagine anyone getting the total impact of the fights without watching it on the big screen… the fights are so in your face that it absolutely pulls you in. So worth seeing.",1 "Epic Movie (2007) is total crap, no beating around the bush here, it was so bad it actually angered me that i paid to view this turkey and i wanted a refund, i felt cheated, the only reason i didn't cause a fuss at the cinema was the fact that something very funny happened...... a singing chant started in the audience (of about 12 people), and it went something like this, why are we watching, why are we watching, why are we watchinggggg this piece of CRAP!!!! I didn't have a clue what was going on, the 'script' was idiotic, the actors were totally lame and annoying and the jokes were pathetic and UNFUNNY, how this ever made it to the silver screen i'll never know.

I advise anyone who's thinking of going to see this piece of JUNK, to stay well clear and save their money, thank you and GOODNIGHT! 0/10",0 "This movie was terrible. The dubbing was terrible but ignorable. The plot was OK, but I had to register an account here because people are saying that Sopkiw's character was the hero. He was not!

First off, sometime in the movie a car breaks down, but we're never told why. In a deleted scene we find out that it was because a chubby guy sat on the bonnet and blew the tyres. Yes, that's plural - ""tyres"". No, not just two. Four. A guy sits on a car - that he was sitting INSIDE in a previous scene - and blows all four tyres. WTF?

Next, they're in the jungle and there's cannibals around. A guy makes a fire so he can steam off some leeches from one of the women. Another woman yelps because she sat next to a snake. The guy has a go at her because she could give their position away - as the smoke from HIS fire billows everywhere!

So this guy gets half his leg eaten by piranhas. Our 'hero' jumps in the water and nurses the wound! Then some other guy kills the wounded guy because otherwise he'd die a slow and painful death. Our 'hero' didn't like this, he must have wanted the poor guy to suffer, so he starts a fight - and they decide to jump into the piranha water to have this fight...

Later, the two girls have been separated from the rest and kidnapped by cannibals. Our 'hero' catches up and spies from behind a rock. Meanwhile, a cannibal chief has started to cut open one of the girls' chests. Our 'hero' decides that now might be a good idea to do something, so, as we hear the poor girl screaming in the background, he starts to load his gun, taking all the time in the world!

Our 'hero' and the two girls then get taken captive by some evil miners. The 'hero' is tied up in a pig pen as the leader of the miners takes one of the girls into his cabin to rape her. As we hear he screams and the commotion from inside, 'hero' decides that now might be a good time to escape, and escape he does. And hides. That's right, he leaves her in there and doesn't appear until the next day. Nice move. You must really hate these women!

Now for the showdown between the 'hero' and the minor leader. Imagine two men standing ten feet apart, one holding a spear ('good' guy) and one holding a gun with one bullet left (bad guy). There is a rattlesnake next to the man with the gun. ""Make your choice"", our fearless 'hero' says. Well I don't know about you but if I was the bad guy with one bullet left, I'd step away from the snake and shoot the other guy. This doesn't happen, of course. He shoots the snake and the 'good' guy shoves the spear through his chest.

Finally, and let's overlook that the remaining girl has been put into a cage with 2-foot gaps that she could easily slip through, our 'hero' creates a diversion, sending all the miners out of the camp, bar the main bad guy, whom he kills. Now he can finally rescue the girl, whom he has already let be raped through-out the night, right? Wrong. He decides to spend his time lying dynamite at the entrance to the camp for when the miners return. And return they do, and when they see their leader dead on the ground and the girl still in the cage, they start shooting at her. Bullets ricochet off and split the wooden bars as our 'hero' is casually sitting back next to the detonator. Moments go by and I saw at least two bullets hit inches from her head. We flick back to our 'hero', who is casually sitting back in a chair smoking a cigarette, as we hear more bullets being fired right at the girl, then finally he decides to push the detonator painfully slowly to blow up the remaining bad guys.

At least he releases her from the cage. You'd expect her to be so pee'd off at him now, having let her be raped the entire night, and sat idly by as a dozen men shoot at her, but no, she says she loves him and they kiss!

Man, he must REALLY hate that woman.",0 "This movie starts off with the main characters talking and introducing the plot. Fair enough - so does any movie. However, this goes on for over an hour (during which they do nothing but talk), by the end of which you'll most likely be asleep. This is made worse by the absolutely awful English dub, making it almost unwatchable.

About halfway through the film, the scene changes dramatically to a hospital, which is cue for an hour-long gun-fight. Now, there's nothing wrong with a gunfight in a film, and some of the scenes are very stylish - but the sheer length of the thing means that you'll be struggling to stay awake near the end. Since all the characters are wearing similar clothes, no-one really knows who is on who's side and it ends up as a all-on-all deathmatch, with people randomly shooting each other and the civilians.

Worth watching the second half for a laugh, but don't try and take it seriously.",0 "

I saw this film at the cinema the same day as I saw Lost in Space (the new one, with Gary Oldman). By comparison, Lost in Space was high art full of deep metaphysical dilemmas. MK:A is terrible.

I loved the Mortal Kombat games, and was pleased to see that MK The Movie was better than Street Fighter II The Movie. Sure, it was a light-on film, but it had some moments and I spent most of my time laughing at the unintentionally bad bits. MK:A makes MK The Movie look sophisticated.

The first five minutes basically drops a piano on the head of the first movie - new bad guy, Johnny Cage dies, new heroes appear, minimal explanation. From then on you have a sub-standard martial arts film packed full of cheap costumes on cheap actors following a cliched script. I know there's not a lot of narrative you can squeeze out of a fighting computer game, but surely the writers could have tried a little harder to make something work. Having gone to the movie with a guy who didn't play the games, I had to explain what the hell was going on for the first half (like why is that guy fighting him?) and gave up after that.

That said, this movie contains the most unintentionally hilarious moment I have ever seen on film. Towards the end of the movie, Raiden moves from having flowing straight white hair to a peroxided flat-top. There's a brief mention of Raiden getting a haircut, and that's it. It makes absolutely no sense, and thinking about it still makes me laugh.

",0 "This show is about putting a person into a job that she does not have the basic requisite skills to perform properly. In particular, Lauren Jones, a former Miss New York, is assigned to a job as an anchorman at a struggling Texas television station. She has no training with television or production equipment, or with doing news broadcasts.

Such a concept may work in a scripted fiction show as there would typically be a reason why the person has to try to sustain the appearance of competence, and there would be humorous situations and dialog built in. However, it does not work with a reality show, as comments and situations as those that make the TV series ""The Office"" or the movie ""Anchorman"" amusing would (usually) never be made by real people in real jobs. The idiocy in Anchorwoman is incredibly predictable and not at all entertaining. We all deal with inept people at work, and it is frustrating, not funny. As an analog, how amusing would it be to watch someone technologically illiterate be put in the job of a network administrator where he had to call the boss to bail him out for even basic tasks?

This is absolutely the worst show I ever saw. The genre was listed as comedy and reality. Comedy is supposed to be funny and reality is supposed to be riveting; this show was neither. Very quickly I didn't find it entertaining (the initial allure of Lauren Jones' looks wore off rather fast), but since it was the premier episode I decided I would give it a chance and stick with the show for the entire half hour. Unfortunately, when 30 minutes was up, there were no final credits, and a quick info check on the TiVo revealed the show was actually a full hour. I rarely do this, but with Anchorwoman I decided I could not force myself to sit through another 30 minutes. I changed the channel and did not go back, and I never had any qualms about not finding out how the show ended.

Fox made a very wise decision to limit its damage and not air a second episode.",0 "The third installment in the cinematic series based on Tom Clancy's CIA analyst Jack Ryan, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER is a long but engrossing political action thriller that once again puts Harrison Ford, the thinking man's action film actor, in the role of Ryan. This time around, Ford investigates the murder of a close friend of the President (Donald Moffatt) by Colombian drug cartel hit men. When his mentor (James Earl Jones) falls ill due to pancreatic cancer, Ford is suddenly put in charge as deputy director of the CIA. He continues his investigation of the murders and ties them in with one particular drug cartel leader (Miguel Sandoval) with whom the murdered man had a little issue with ill-gotten money,.... But what Ford doesn't know is that, on orders from the revenge-minded Moffatt, his second deputy (Henry Czerny) and the president's national security adviser (Harris Yulin) have ordered a rogue officer named Clark (Willem Dafoe) in with a covert military team to put a huge dent in the cartel's activities. Dafoe and his team are successful at what they do, but the cartels retaliate with deadly results on Ford's friends in the FBI during a visit to Bogota. And when Ford finds out about the operation, he finds himself going down to Colombia a second time to help spirit Dafoe and the covert team out of harm's way. Ably directed, once more, by Phillip Noyce (DEAD CALM; PATRIOT GAMES), CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER gives Ford another chance to prove his mettle in the action genre. The suspense and CIA intrigue are all laid out exceptionally well by Noyce and his first-rate cadre of screenwriters, Donald Stewart, Steven Zaillian, and John Milius. Jones is at his usual best as the now-dying Admiral Greer, and Anne Archer returns as Ford's wife. But a performance really worth noting here is Czerny's as the unconsciously corrupt CIA deputy director Robert Ritter. About as uncouth and conniving a heavy as there has ever been in the movies, his performance is absolutely chilling and believable. It makes the whole notion of our government going beyond reasonable bounds even more credible than it already is. Some will object to the film not pandering to Clancy's right-wing political points of view or his gung-ho pro-military stance, but that isn't necessarily what this movie is about. It does not condemn covert military action, but it does question the wisdom of sending men into a war zone where the risks are extreme, the reasons for such actions are vague at best, and there is no clear exit strategy. Such points are made extremely well in this film's action format; and for those reasons, it gets the highest marks.",1 "I really enjoyed this movie and have recommended it to many people. The acting was excellent, the writing wonderful, with believable, interesting characters and plotting. All in all, a first class production. I thought the director did a superb job giving enough location shots to make you swoon while allowing the actors do what they do so well. Plus the intrigue of wondering about the likelihood of all the events that transpired was provocative. If you're over 30 and have a single, adventurous bone in your body, not to mention a romantic one, you'll love this movie!",1 "I saw this movie the other night. I can't even begin to express how much this movie sucked. The writing, the voice acting, even the claymation. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. It's like watching 24 hours of C-Span for the sake of comedy. It just doesn't work. It literally falls flat at about every spot possible.

Also, the movie's animation is very poor quality. I know that this is an movie made by one person, but to think that he could make 97 minutes worth of crap, maybe he could at least make 1 second worth of funny.

This show may take the cake for being the worst film of all time. Yikes. It really was that bad. If you're looking for a movie that will make you laugh, steer clear from this abomination. My advice: Don't even buy it, or look it up for that matter. Your brain will than you.",0 "I can't say for certain but I suspect that mister Burt I. Gordon is a bigot. That's right, even in this movie released in 1977 there was no characters or actors of any kind of minority. All pure white Americans. Joan Collins even speaks with an American accent or at least she tries. Plus the kind of effects used in this movie didn't work in the 1950s', so what made Burt think it would work in the 1970s'. When I was a kid there was a whole week of giant monster movies and my Grandmother said I could watch only one and unlucky me I picked EMPIRE OF THE ANTS. Burt I. Gordon will be forever in the list of history's worst directors, along with Ed Wood Jr., Jeff Leroy, Don Dohler and Nick Zedd You can tell the ants were in a glass case, the way they walked straight up. Plus, in one scene, the ant was walking on the sky. Card board post cards are not a special effect. This movie would offend ants if they could understand what they were watching and I give it the THANKSGIVING TURKEY.",0 "The first time I saw this movie, I was a kid and we'd gone to the drive-in. This movie was so deliciously scary that it's haunted me for years! I spent 10 years trying to remember the title and the last 5 trying to find it to rent it. The vignettes in this movie were all scary, and at the time, our local residents were trying to claim the frat brothers' vignette was based on the old Oregon Institute of Technology -- several buildings that were abandoned and haunted. ""Gravity Hill"", a place where your car could be pointing uphill and you'd put it in neutral and it would roll... UPHILL... existed near old OIT as well.

No big budget, no known actors, and yet it was one of the best scary movies I've ever seen. I want this movie in the worst way. Somehow, somewhere, there has to be a copy!",1 "Probably the best film I have seen so far this year. We recently screened it for our Film Festival Selection Committee and the response was near-unanimous - four stars. The previous commenter's accusations of ""terminal cuteness"" baffle me - this is the best good-old-fashioned solid three-act structure Hollywood movie I have seen in a long time - and it was made in France. The distributor claims that they cannot find an American distributor who will meet their terms - therefore, there are no plans for American release. If you can find it playing at your local Jewish Film Festival (about the only place you are likely to find it in the US - a shame, really, since it is not a film only for Jews)by all means buy your ticket and go.",1 "When I first watched this short, I actually was enjoying the new footage and when I saw the reused footage, I was quite dissapointed and when I saw reused footage from another episode, I was even more dissapointed and I think this short is only worth for the first 5-6 minutes and I understand that Curly was ill during this time and I think that Curly was more sick than usual in this short although Curly seemed more healthier in the next two shorts 'Uncivil Warbirds' and 'Three TroubleDoers' although his condition went even more downhill in the two shorts after that.",0 "This is probably the worst movie I've ever seen. Mostly it consists of voice-over and randomly assembled footage; the footage is typically a girl undressing and hanging around what is (I think) Los Angeles City College - the pretext involves a Salem witch who was burned at the stake and in the present day of the early 1970s convinces a descendant to embark on sexual adventures. I suppose this premise isn't inherently the worst thing on earth, but the execution is horrendous - it's amoral, boring, and irritating all at the same time, which is a pretty unique combination. It's a rare movie that can pull off this trifecta of awful. For all those people who say that modern mass-market movies made by Hollywood like (just for example) Saw 2 or The Village or Flyboys are 'the worst movie ever made', they need to see this to see how much lower than those bad movies cinema can actually reach; this is a true cinematic nadir.",0 "Before going to see Astro Boy I decided to read some of the comments that were posted here. I read reviews by some who liked the movie as well as by some who did not like the movie. With an average score of 6.4 I went to see the movie with relatively low expectations although I got the feeling that those who did not like the movie were mostly upset about the movie not being ""true"" to the original TV series and were having some issues with certain characters reminding them of other characters such as Pinocchio. Well, I did not see the original TV series so I did not care whether or not the movie and the TV series were similar enough. I also did not mind that some of the side kicks may have had some resemblance to characters from other movies. The bottom line is that my 5.5 year old and I loved Astro Boy!",1 "I caught this on cable and had absolutely no preconceptions or expectations, having never read a review or checking IMDb. I saw it had Tommy Lee Jones in the cast, and that made it a must-watch movie for me. At first, it seemed like a gripping crime drama, but quickly started showing its true colours. This is a movie about, not the U.S. Army, but the Hollywood Army; that is, the Army as Hollywood has seen it since the 60's. It takes the stereotypical, screwed-up Viet Nam vet, and puts him on steroids for the new century. Having spend 28 years in the Air Force, and having friends serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fun spots, I have some idea what I'm talking about. Here's what I learned about the ""new"" Hollywood Army (HA), as opposed to the real, U.S. Army (USA).

- When you retire from HA, if you were a military cop, they let you keep your badge. And active duty ID card. In the USA, they take the badge and give you a retiree card.

- Having spent a career as an HA cop, if you're chasing a Hispanic suspect, you will shout every racial epithet you can think of and then beat him senseless as soon as you catch him. The USA hasn't eliminated prejudice from the ranks, but has done a pretty darn good job of trying. Unless you lived through the barracks riots and de facto segregation of the 60's and 70's, and seen the difference now, you really can't believe how far we've come.

- In the HA, power corrupts, but Army power corrupts absolutely. The HA, realizing there's no easy way to take Nintendo-generation kids and turn them into effective soldiers, strips away their humanity and turns them into stone-cold emotionless killers. So much so any soldier can take a good friend, chop him into little pieces, burn the pieces, and then go out for a bite of fried chicken. The USA is a far cry from the Boy Scouts, but I guarantee that your average soldier has a far straighter moral compass than your man-on-the-street American. Yes, Abu Ghraib happened, but it was an anomaly, not business as usual.

- HA soldiers do drugs. Every last darn one of 'em. It's considered odd to expect that anyone doesn't. They try to avoid hard drugs, at least when outside of a war zone, but otherwise, jokin' and tokin' is de rigeur. In the USA, there are still drugs, but there is on-going program of random testing, and if you do drugs you *will* get caught.

- Returning HA soldiers are ticking time-bombs, just waiting to go off. It's not a question of ""if"", it's ""when"". In the USA, there is indeed post-traumatic stress and its consequences, but it's a problem that's treated, not ignored or swept under the rug.

I could go on, but that gives you the gist. On the plus side, Tommy Lee Jones gives a tremendous performance, and for the first time I realized just how good of an actress Charlize Theron truly is. Susan Sarandon is thankfully relegated to a minor role with minimal screen time. The overall message here, however, is despicable. It's an anti-Army, hate America kind of movie. It's amazing that so many reviewers here think this reflects reality. They obviously haven't been in the military, and are probably the kind of people who would cross the street rather than say ""good morning"" to somebody in uniform. Jihadists everywhere will love it; anyone with a shred of patriotism will find it to be total crap.",0 "Eddie Quillan was an odd choice to play the lead in this detective film because he was essentially a small smart-allecky little pip-squeak--not the brilliant or studly hero you'd expect to see in this type of film. Because of this, the film certainly IS unusual. The problem is that even with this novel portrayal, the film isn't all that interesting or well-done. At best it's a mediocre time-passer and not the equal of other series detective B-films from the period. For my time, I would much rather watch a Charlie Chan, Saint or Sherlock Holmes film--they seemed to have better production values and writing as well as a leading man that was more likable. Sorry,...I just didn't particularly care for this film.

Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as the Chinese Mandarin stamp that is worth a fortune--this was made up for the film.",0 "I have to say that I didn't expect much from this film when I rented it today, but I was really surprised by it.

Although the film's story is quite a cliché as is suggested by the back of the DVD case, in my opinion it's done surprisingly good. A pretty conclusive story, except perhaps for the start of it all, not too bad acting and a nice music score form into a decent mystery thriller. I liked how the heroine actually investigates quite a bit throughout the movie instead of just getting the conclusions laid out for her in front of her eyes. Additionally the film doesn't use too many flashy, cheap shock moments and successfully tries to depend more on the mystery itself. And, contrary to the cliché, the heroine doesn't behave exceptionally stupid all the time.

On the downside you won't have many surprises coming in the story if you've seen at least a few mystery thrillers. The ending actually managed to satisfy me, a feat rarely achieved by that genre of movies.

If you like mystery thrillers and always thought that those loud, noisy ""in your face"" shock moments are overused you should try this movie.",1 "OK, I live in Texas, grew up here. I have been to every part of it. No place in Texas will you find the kind of lame events that transpired in this stupid film. They do not dress like GQ models in West Texas. They do not talk the way those people did. They do not have towns that neat and cardboard. I literally became sick watching this film. It is like watching one of those old time films about Texas where the actors used these outrageous Southern accents and showed every

where in big ten gallon hats. Just too stupid. By the end, I did not care who left Dancer, as long as I was one of them. This just tries to pull at the heart strings in every scene. It just gets so old, it is like Jerry MacGuire out West. The director wanting you so badly to get emotional. But you are just illl. Yuck, hated this film! Hated it!",0 Don't bother renting this movie.

National Geographic and Paramount start out filming the cutest little polar bear since Knut.

They add silly narrative.

Then things take a turn for the worse.

They stick in some guff about global warming.

Why didn't bloody National Geographic fly in some steaks for the polar bears? Don't they sell enough of their magazines? Doesn't bloody Paramount have some spare change to helicopter in some goodies for the cute little bears? Why did they let'em die?,0 "This movie claims to be ""The Sequel To The Box Office Hit"", so the tagline goes. That's complete nonsense. This movie just is a random offshoot of the original ""American Psycho,"" which is an amazing movie. It tells the story of Rachel Newman, played by ""That 70's Show'""s Mila Kunis. Rachel is apparently the one who caught Patrick Bateman and killed him when she was a young girl, something that was never mentioned anywhere in the first film. And also, weren't the murders in the first film just a crazy dream the Patrick Bateman made up? I guess that's just my interpretation, but if it is correct, than this whole movie is just a dream. William Shatner is poorly cast as Rachel's adulterous professor and he just simply looks like he doesn't want to be there. If you're looking for a good laugh, look no further. But if you're looking for the sequel to the original ""American Psycho,"" than keep searching.",0 "Freakshow is set in a circus where Lon (Christopher Adamson) runs a freak show, scheming blonde tart Lucy (Rebekah Kochan) & her slimy boyfriend Lee (Mark Preston Miller) decide to rip him off. They devise a plan where Lucy seduces Lan, gets him to propose to her & then kill him off leaving her to inherit all of his money so she & Lee can live happily ever after, simple eh? What could go wrong? Well, Lucy gets cold feet & her murderous plan is discovered & the freaks want revenge...

Directed by Drew Bell & although uncredited & unacknowledged Freakshow is a remake of Tod Browning's controversial classic black and white horror flick Freaks (1932), not wishing to put to fine a point on it Freakshow is frankly crap. The script by Keith Leopard is pretty faithful to Browning's original but with several changes, the basic story of a 'normal' person trying to exploit the freaks by marrying into their number is still present & correct but it's the character's which are the main difference. In the original the Lan character was a midget called Hans & he is presented as a naive lovestruck child, someone to sympathise with & feel sorry for, here in Freakshow Lan is depicted as nothing more than a dirty old man who wants a nice young blonde girl to give him a blow job when he wants, motivation which just doesn't entice the same sort of feelings towards him. In the original the Lucy character was named Cleopatra & again in a way you could see that she was evil but wanted a good life of her own with her boyfriend, here Lucy is just a slut who is used by both Lan to get a blow job & by her boyfriend to help him steal Lan's money & she falls for it. In the original the freaks themselves were proper character's, here they are just a collection of amputees missing various limbs, dwarfs, retards, a strongman & a half-man half-woman thing who barely feature. The dialogue is poor, the character's turn the original story from a sometimes moving piece involving real people into a standard low budget horror where you don't care about anyone & to top it all off it's seriously slow & boring with virtually no exploitation or gore at all. There's one bit in this I don't get, Lucy refuses to drink out of a bowl that the freaks had just drank out of fearing drinking their spit, however it is also shown that Lucy has no problem having sex or giving a blow job to a man old enough to be her dad & literally covered in warts & boils!

Director Bell does nothing to make this watchable, the entire circus consists of three tents, one carousel & a ferris wheel which no-one ever visits! This film has the most number of slow, boring & utterly pointless fades to black at the end of a scene I've ever seen in a single film, it also has some utterly awful gramophone style 20's & 30's music constantly playing on the soundtrack to maybe try & evoke an atmosphere like the original 1932 version? The film is also shot in a sepia tone (again maybe to try & mimic the original black and white original) which gives everything a candle lit orange type hue, like yeah that's original isn't it? There's very, very little gore here, the filmmakers hired some of those masochist type guy's who hang themselves on hooks which piece their skin & can be found just about everywhere to do several hooks piecing the skin on their backs type scenes, there's a bit when someone cuts a girls scalp off, someone head is bashed in (off screen), someone is hit with a wrench (off screen), someone is stabbed with a knife, someone has part of their throat bitten out & the end sequence which doesn't last that long & is again full of annoying slow fade to black shots when Lucy has her lips sewn shut, the skin on her body sliced off as well as the skin on her face in a scene which is much less effective than a similar one in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986).

With a supposed budget of $1,000,000 one has to say Freakshow felt like it had a lower budget than that & I wouldn't be surprised if it was. It looks grubby & cheap with horrible music, annoying editing, poor special effects & a circus which consists of about three tents in a field. The acting sucks as well.

Freakshow is a terrible film to be sure, it's one of those films which promises much but delivers nothing. There's no gore for 80 minutes, the character's are awful & if you don't think that matters watch the original again & see the difference. It's throughly boring to sit through as well, one to avoid.",0 "This film is often overlooked among the great war films, but it fully holds up to the best and, at the same time, transcends the genre by offering much to those interested in classic detective themes. The cast is first-rate, and thanks to an excellent script and excellent direction, avoids the classic ""walk-on"" feel of many other films that have a profusion of well-known stars. Sharif is surprisingly good as the dedicated police officer, Courtney excellent as a sensitive yet firmly grounded young soldiers, and O'Toole is superb as the epitome of a ruthless SS officer. Pleasance offers a fine performance--to my mind among his very best--as a conscientious and basically decent officer. Based on an excellent novel by Hans Helmut Kirst, this film offers an excellent, gritty feel to Warsaw and Paris during the period of German occupation. It is thoroughly grounded in solid historical research, likely aided by Kirst's own wartime perspective. Well worth seeing!",1 I had not read the book that this was based on. There was even a sense that this would be a waste of time.

I realized I was very wrong. As others have mentioned in their comments: this is no Hollywood canon fodder intended for the spoon-fed masses.

Some interest in mathematics or science is not essential but more than likely contributes to ones viewing of the film.

I found the story very thoughtful and entertaining at the same time. The film is well executed and easy to watch.

(Two dimensional characters do not have facial Tiks - just my thoughts),1 "It's a little funny, the Yiddish makes it interesting, but a lot of silly comments and it sounds like bitter depressed person with a lot of issues wrote it up, very very bad ending, not a real ending to the movie.

It's very fake and not the real life in the Hasidic community, boys are smarter then this boy sounds, he knows how to take a train and get around the city and goes to clubs but cant buy himself a pair of jeans.

If you are not an orthodox Jew you will hate this movie, if you are an orthodox Jew you will find it a little funny and very stupid… The Yiddish speaking sounds very annoying it sound more like Russian Jews with bad Yiddish.

The education in the yeshivas from this movie sounds like these boys are told to study religion all day long I wonder how and why you see young Jewish boys who are very successful in business without any education…",0 "Great idea, even if it is Matrix-derivative.

But, guys, if you're going to place a ""carefully screened and selected soldier"", who is supposedly representative of the ""best"" the Army has to offer, into a VR game, please don't turn him into a big p****y right away. I thought he was going to scream and run away when guns started firing. He certainly never got out of basic training, as he has no idea of how to conduct himself, how to survive in a hostile environment, tactics, weaponry, or anything else even remotely military. The military would have been better off just pulling a wino off the streets and putting him in the game. At least the wino would have been smart enough to find a cardboard box and get out of the weather.

Very, very poorly executed. No evidence whatsoever of any effort in writing. Strictly a concept show.

Not worth your time to rent on DVD...really.",0 "This is a pretty damn good action movie! In the beginning i thought it would be another boring action movie, but i found it to be very entertaining. And on top of that, there is a lot of violence :-) Anyway, if you have the chance to rent this movie, do it, you won't regret it!",1 "The Longest Journey attempts to return to the roots of the adventure game genre and does manage to do a half-decent job. The game's story combines elements of science fiction and fantasy to create its own interesting universe but one still heavily reliant on a number of clichés. The main characters are alright but not stellar by any means.

The game uses 3D character models against pre-rendered backgrounds. The models are alright if low-poly and the backgrounds are rather stunning. However the combination of the two is not seamless or even very clean for that matter. Also some of the character animations are just lacking in any kind of depth. On the whole I hated the pre-rendered cut-scenes which in my view were just plain ugly.

Audio wise the game was very competent, the voice-cast is nice and memorable. The soundtrack was appropriate but not particularly great.

One of the most annoying aspects of this game are the insane amounts of dialogue that one has to bare. If this wasn't bad enough much of the dialogue doesn't really have to do with anything relevant so skipping a piece here and there undoubtedly will not hinder your gaming experience to a great degree. The main character also doesn't say anything relevant for much of the games. Running to a walkthrough is hardly uncommon with adventure-games but thanks to the utter lack of information in the game itself, this tends to happen with Longest Journey a lot more than it should.

Additionally the skip-feature is also annoying since it not only skips actions but dialogue as well and the feature should have been implemented a lot better.

In all, The Longest Journey is not a stand-out game in the genre. It's an okay adventure with a fairly good plot, but has enough irks to make me not want to even bother with the sequel.",0 "Henry Fonda plays a priest on the run from the government after brainwashing people into believing god exists, in fact he actually believe he is right. this has to be the worst John Ford movie ever. it had absolutely nothing going for it. boring crap all the way. the religious glorification made me sick to my stomach. i usually don't react that way too those kinds of movies. but this one was just barfing out loads of holiness and made the priest look like the messiah or some crap. avoid at all costs! especially if you like john Ford's movies, because this film was so beneath him that i suspect he was brain damaged by alcohol during the shoot. ignore the ghastly reviews that says this is a so called masterpiece. IT'S NOT!!!",0 "... Ozon lets us see his characters directly; and then through the mind of Charlotte Rampling's (as author) character. Two strands apply - the direct-to-Ozon's mind, and the indirect, via Rampling. And there the fun begins. We glimpse a gawky, immature, teeth-in-bands teenager (blonde) towards the end of the movie - Morton (the publisher's) daughter. But who has this blonde (Ludivine Sagnier) - who has she been? And how did she get to be in the house/novel/movie at all? Well now, let me see ... we learn at the beginning that Morton's daughter might well drop-in on the writer - as she is only borrowing Morton's house in the Luberon area of Provence. We 'accept' an idea of the incumbent blonde in all probability as that spoken of daughter. But she seems like a 15-year-old going on 35!!! She has an amazing amount of baggage for such a seemingly young girl. And she gets into such torrid, bizarre, and ghastly gargantuan fixes - all seem too improbable. The mix-and-match mode - as strand crosses strand, weaving a rich texture of reality versus illusion, fiction versus fact, and dream versus daylight - the enjoyment being in the management (in each viewer's mind) of the strands, understanding when the author's fiction is being played-out across the screen; and when we are back again inside the movie-director's mind (as opposed to one of his character's i.e the novelist). The local people encountered in the Luberon quickly become assimilated into Rampling's novel - their more outmodish acts being inventions of the novelist's mind (but being re-played inside an Ozon movie). And characters we might think are kith and kin of the 'real' people we encounter, are in fact nothing but kin to the fine imaginings of the typing hand. Ludivine Sagnier being the case in point - and she a cruel joke against Morton's dismissive inattentions towards our writerly heroine. The gawky, tooth-banded teenager has, in all likelihood, been in Provence all along - and in the projection of the novelist's mind - fashioned into a femme-fatale that makes the LuDIVINE we see on our screens, (and as the central protagonist of the Rampling novel, were it at hand to be read)!",1 "I saw this movie for the first time when I was a young teenager, and I actually liked it. I honestly couldn't tell that the acting was bad, the suspense was absent, the plot was non-existent. So, is it then safe to say that this movie probably was made by young teenagers, unaware of the different aspects that make a good sci-fi/horror movie work? I had the chance to re-watch it last night, so I did. Better had not done it, because it's another childhood memory shattered.

This movie indeed is a shameless ALIEN rip-off. There's a chest-burster-scene, there's a BIG gun attached to a soldier's body like in ALIENS, there are soldiers crawling through air-shafts with somebody looking at a monitor telling them the creature's closing in on them,...

It's a shame, really, because the 'other dimension'-concept had potential. The film-makers should have shown more of it. Like the soldiers scouting the landscape or them entering the dome you see in the distance. Actually, you don't see sh!t. Just some fuzzy transmitted images on a monitor. I guess they didn't have the budget to write all that in the screenplay, since they clearly used only three sets or so.

I'm still trying to figure out why I liked this movie back then. I think because there's some mild gore in it (chest- & face-bursting and an exploding dude at the end), but they cut away from it too quickly. So it must have been the creature, which looks reasonable (but still rubbery) and fairly dangerous when it shows its teeth, but it moves way too slow.

Anyway, I'm waisting too much words on this crappy movie. The important thing is: XTRO II: The Second Encounter is actually no sequel to XTRO (1983). The two movies have absolutely NOTHING in common. I even think the first XTRO is worth tracking down and watching it, 'cause it's a peculiar and unique little sci-fi/horror-gem. XTRO II is not. But if you want to see every possible ALIEN rip-off: Be my guest.",0 "I have never been so close to leave the movie theater, as i was when seeing Avatar. Sure, it's very beautiful to look at, but, if you've seen the trailer, then you've seen the movie! It's basically every movie clichés put together in one horrible and so unoriginal movie. it's a mix of the ""last samurai"" meets ""Pocahontas"" meets ""Atlantis""! it's by far the most horrible storyline since Ed Woods' ""plan 9 from outer space"".

Not once are you surprised by the turn of events in this movie, and there's so many bad movie clichés in it, and so many things that just doesn't make any sense at all (even in their universe). for example, the last fight scene with the giant robot and the Avatar. It really doesn't make any sense at all, that the robot is carrying a 8-foot-1 hunting knife, just in case he loses his gun (which could easily have been attach to the robot!), and that the robot tells the avatar, what he's about to do, instead of just doing it (A good example of a bad cliché).

If you want to see this movie, i recommend you either see the trailer ( as that is enough for you, to litterily, call every scene in the movie) or you go out and buy Atlantis and just Imagine it with smurfs instead of underwater people.",0 "The quality of the film was much better than many of these that I've seen. Here are some observations. For some reason, every character is named after a Greek or Roman god. Ulysses is a dork. How could he have fought those battles with Hercules. During the brain freeze that takes up about half the movie, Hercules seems to be having a good time. What exactly caused the brain freeze? Did I miss something. There are a ton of fights. Armies attacking one man and losing, of course. Hercules is tempted but has an excuse in that he doesn't know who he is. As usual, there is an evil queen. Are there any of these movies that don't have an evil queen. I never quite got the whole thing with the two brothers and their fathers and the big conflict, other than they wanted to keep what they had. I must admit, I just couldn't get into it. I've had enough Hercules for a while.",0 "It's interesting that both this film and ""Rear Window"" came out in the same year, since the base plot is identical: person witnessess murder through apartment window in opposing apartment and spends rest of movie trying to convince everone else what they saw. While the Hitchcock movie is more stylish and elaborate, this film definitely keeps your attention. Typical of movies of the 50's, the villain is disposed of in the climax, thereby eliminating any necessity of bringing them to justice. Stanwyck, as usual, gives her best ""woman in distress"", hysterical performance.",1 "My girlfriend rented this movie because our friends hosted official screenings while we were out of the country, and we were somewhat curious. Basically, it's horrible. Terrible acting, hilariously bad soap opera writing, and nails on the chalkboard pacing are the least of its problems. After wasting a small portion of my precious life watching this, with it's inserted ""spiritual"" moments bookended by standard Hollywood movie clichés, we watched the introduction and closing comments from the trio who created it.

They smugly proclaim this movie to be the next ""What the Bleep"", and tell how all kids should watch this. First of all, it's an insult to characterize this as the next ""WTB"", this is the most amateur hour, half baked and overcooked drama I've seen in ages. Second, kids don't really need to see more bad cop, angry adults, drug deal gone awry garbage, not even for illustration purposes. ""WTB"" had none of this stuff - Indigo has precious little to do with our day to day lives as people on our paths of self discovery. We don't need to feed ourselves or our children this negative imagery to contrast something ""positive"" - that's what Hollywood does day in and day out.

Second, the zero humility trio positively drool over ""Indigo"" children, and the director even infers that his child is an Indigo child, with her wise ""Whatever!"" comebacks. They don't realize that all they are doing is letting children be themselves, without jamming cultural mores down their throats, and POOF!, you've got an Indigo child. I was a pretty freaky kid myself, I think most of us are, some probably more than others - so what.

It's all a big spiritual pat on the back for the ""creators"" of this moneymaking venture, and watching them stroke their own egos for an introduction, is more fun than sitting through the ""film"" (it's shot on HD) itself. Their fatuous praise is voluminous enough to make up for the lack of it here on IMDb.

BTW, I've been in the film business as a boom operator for 12 years, have seen tons of good and bad acting and writing, and this film takes the cake. I was torn between laughing and screaming at the screen, especially when the creators talked about how wonderful their film is, instead of letting it stand on its own merits, which are all but absent. Their assumption that they could make a POS about spirituality and sell it with a slick underground marketing campaign was correct. Crap isn't just mainstream, it's spiritual too!

And Hollywood HAS made interesting spiritual films, like ""Contact"", ""I Heart Huckabees"", ""Donnie Darko"", ""The Sixth Sense"", ""Phenomenon"", ""Waking Life"", and ""Powder'. Even the lousy ""Revenge of the Sith"" has more spiritual common sense than this film.",0 "I was surprised to come upon this film ""Witness to Murder"" tonight on TV as I hadn't heard of it before - always nice to discover an old movie with excellent, familiar actors. I get the impression of it being a part of the transitional period for some actors from movies to early TV dramas, in live productions that carry such realism as this film does.

I tuned in late and missed the first few minutes of the movie where wily Albert Richter (George Sanders) is purported to have committed his evil deed; unfortunately Sanders has always been one of my favourite actors, one of the best ne'er-do-wells (as in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Samson and Delilah, and All About Eve), and I wasn't a little old lady in those days but a budding teenager. His suave demeanour always fascinated me and he carries this over from film to film. By the way, in this 1954 movie his few lines in German weren't very convincing but his villainous role is very well set forth.

It's obvious that Barbara Stanwyck as the frustrated witness, Cheryl, carries a huge emotional burden throughout, and does it well - a real pro! This is a moderately predictable melodrama when crime inspection was more simple somehow. The music is very prevalent in most scenes and seems to override everything at times especially near the climax but that's to be expected.

Good popcorn fare! Enjoy some reminiscing moments of 'film noire' in top form.",1 "I had to watch this film with a horror-obsessed friend for over one-and-half hours and I think I've seen some of the most nauseating scenes in this film recently. A possessed character's bare breasts turned into two hands and attacked her boyfriend -- I will remember that for a long time.

The film has no storyline, no good actor (although as far as I can tell, Ben Stiller's wife is in it), no horrifying atmosphere or even a decent screenplay. It only has some innovative (yes, indeed) demonic behavior scenes which fans of such movies like my friend might enjoy. I didn't see the prequel, so cannot compare.",0 "This fine film appeared recently as part of a Chilean film festival at The National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. It is a very moving portrayal of people caught up in struggles with a dictatorial society and harsh weather conditions. The romance between the two main characters serves as a fine example of how we all look for relevance in a world dominated by evil and natural forces.

The acting, the script, the cinematography and even the music are all superb. This is the type of film that you will rarely encounter from our Hollywood gristmill. Chilean filmmakers are obviously not afraid to confront their past and to deal with it by producing great artistic films. I have been going to this festival quite regularly and only hope that more people will get to see fine cinema from Chile. Highly Recommended.",1 "I'm a longtime fan of The Destroyer series. I started reading the books when they first came out and have collected most of them and re-read them often.

The movie ""The Adventure Begins"" was a worthy effort considering that Hollywood can't leave any successful characters as they are and has to try and make everything P.C. and squeaky clean but this piece is entirely another matter.

Roddy McDowall was an excellent choice for Chiun and did his usual excellent performance. Smith was also done very well. The rest of it makes me wonder if the writers ever even bothered to look at the covers, let alone read any of the series of books this is supposed to be based on. Granted someone did glance through ""The Day Remo Died"" for the story line.

This is another example of the kind of lifeless writing and lack of imagination that is permeating most of television programming today. It's no wonder that ""reality"" shows are so common. They take no writing skill.",0 "It's been close to 30 years since I watched this movie with Richard Lynch as the blonde vampire, and who played the part to perfection. For the younger people expecting blood, gore and action, this isn't the one to watch. Vampire is more of a 'reader's' film, where the imagination fills in today's 'action' in movies. An earlier film I saw him in is called The Premonition, where he portrayed a rather creepy carny; also a fascinating film. I've been looking for this movie, Vampire, for all these years and would love to see it released on DVD. I'd wondered for years whatever became of Lynch and am glad to see he remained active for some time. I was surprised to read in his mini-biography that he'd been burnt in a drug related fire. I always had the idea he'd been a burn victim at one time. Although I believe him to be an excellent actor, ultimately it was his voice and unconventional good looks that drew me in.",1 "This film is not without merits - but it certainly is no classic. It's aged badly, the characterisation is poor, and there are at least a dozen things about it that really grate, e.g.; the fact that the whole film is an excuse to use special effects; the fact that everyone blindly accepts the existence of ghosts and attributes any strange happenings to them without considering any other explanation; the cheesy horror clichés; the annoyingly sickly suburban family; the odd moral of the tale (treat those corpses with respect or else!); the American-dream-gone-wrong theme which doesn't quite work (given the fact that this is a 10 on the daft scale); and, last but not least, the fact that one of the paranormal investigators is scared half to death by the crawling meat scene; and yet ten minutes ago, he was happily documenting dozens of levitating objects flying around a bedroom.

That said, the special effects are quite good for the time, and the acting does it's best with such a daft story. At this point, you may be thinking; ""this guy just doesn't like the genre"". Not true; but in my opinion, effective, truly scary horror is created by the maxim ""less is more"" - not the more is more approach that Spielberg has employed successfully in other films, and less well here. A disappointment; go watch Ring instead for truly creepy television antics.

One last thing; it's appalling this got a PG in the US. One particularly disgusting scene involving peeling flesh is clearly unsuitable for kids, and I can imagine this giving young children nightmares, as hokey as it is. I suggest your kids should be at least twelve before you watch this with them.",0 """Tenka Hadou No Ken"" or ""Sword of World Conquest"" (SOWC) may easily be the best Inuyasha movie ever. My guess is that if you're curious about seeing the third Inuyasha film then you are already an Inuyasha fan, so I'll write this for all you ""otakus"" out there!

In SOWC, the ghost Soyosama, a former counsel of Inuyasha's father, releases the evil demonic sword Sounga from its sheath after containing it for 700 years. Somehow the sword has ended up in the Higurashi family temple in modern-day Tokyo and Inuyasha and Kagome everywhere throughout Japan. The Sounga is connected intimately with Inuyasha's past and we learn more about Inuyasha's family history and the existence of the three great swords, including the Sounga.

Not only is SOWC a genuine movie (and not just a long tiresome episode), it is more surprisingly a GOOD film! SOWC is well-scripted with excellent pacing, rich setting, and an exciting climax. You can tell that the Inuyasha movie production team finally took the time to learn how a film differs from an animated sitcom. For fans, it fills the gap in our understanding of Inuyasha's origins and the history between his demon father and human mother.

I highly recommend this film and hope the Inuyasha 4: Fire on the Mystical Island proves to be as good or even better. Even though it's a nonsequitur I must add that this female otaku thinks Inuyasha's older brother, Sesshyomaru, is a real babe.",1 "PHANTASM is nothing short of a true classic and one of my all time favorite horror movies. It is one of the earliest horror films I remember seeing and really jump-started my lifelong love and fascination for things that have since poisoned my once innocent little mind and turned me into the crazed fanatic I am today. The film follows a young boy who witnesses some strange goings-on at the nearby Morningside Cemetery. Him, his older brother, and their ice cream truck driving buddy all investigate, and end up getting mixed up in a life threatening nightmare involving some seriously bizarre stuff, such as evil dwarfs that roam around, hiding in the shadows, flying spheres that eject blades which pierce the skull and drain the victims brains. And who could forget that towering, sinister S.O.B. The Tall Man, played brilliantly by Angus Scrimm. Director Don Coscarelli's unforgettably strange independent masterpiece is an absolute must see for anyone who call themselves a horror fan. The movie has it all: gore, some nudity, explosions, a cheezy bug creature, and plenty more. If you haven't seen this movie than definitely do so, or if you have not seen it in a while, give it another go and enjoy!",1 "When writing or directing a children's film, far too often

people find it necessary to dumb down work in order to cater to

a young audience. Fortunately this is not the case with The

Secret Garden, a film in which the story it presents is well

crafted and intelligent, and appealing to both young and old

audiences. In many ways the production could have gone

dreadfully wrong. One can see where in the hands of a less

talented writer or director the story could have become

melodramatic, overly sentimental, or comical, yet The Secret

Garden is a beautifully executed picture that rings true as a

result of its naturalistic storytelling. Much of this is due to

the credit of its fine cast. Frequently, child actors are

employed to act ""cute"" onscreen, but there is not a young actor

in this movie who does not give a performance of great depth. In

fact, it can easily be argued that each one of these children

exhibit greater skill than many adults currently working in the

realm of cinema. But what is at the heart of The Secret Garden

is a beautiful lyrical story about love, childhood, growth, and

healing. There are moments in the film that are so genuinely

touching the viewer's heart almost stops. Such is the case of

the scene in which the bedridden Collin is escorted outside of

his house and his eyes open to see spread before him his

mother's beautiful garden. No line of dialogue is necessary, for

the happiness and peace that appears on Collin's face speak

volumes in regard to his character. The film's ending emotion is so rich and moving that it is

impossible for the filmgoer to sit untouched. This story is an

absolute delight, and should be a must for",1 "I'm surprised at seeing how highly regarded this version of Victor Hugo's classic novel is. True, it's very faithful to the book (even if unavoidably leaving some things out), but that's about its only virtue.

Victor Hugo didn't call his story ""Les Misérables"" for no reason. He wanted to point out and denounce misery and its causes and consequences. But nothing of that is in this film version. It seems a lot like a 1950s Hollywood romance movie, a MGM musical, or in the best of cases, something along the lines of The Trapp Family. Everybody looks too healthy, clean and well-fed, and more middle class than poor, and the darkest aspects of the plot have been eliminated (with the result of one of my favorite parts of the story, the fall of Fantine into the lowest levels of humiliation in order to get money for her daughter, being totally absent from the film). I expected the characters to start singing and dancing in any moment!

As for the cast, the only one I really liked was Silvia Monfort as Eponine, who gives the character a very welcome mundane feel. Jean Gabin lacks energy as Valjean, with results of making his more active scenes (specially the one when he liberates himself from the chains to save the life of a fellow prisoner, and the one where he frees himself again, this time from Thénardier and his other captors) seem false and almost laughable. Bernard Blier, with his inexpressive face, is a weak Javert, and the fact that this character is criminally underdeveloped doesn't help either. The rest of the cast is adequate enough, with the exception of Fantine, who is just plain awful, and seems right out of Mervyn LeRoy's ""Little Women"". Fantine's role has been reduced to just a cameo, and I have not decided if this is a good or bad thing, because the interpretation of the character couldn't be more wrong. There is also too much use of an unnecessary voiceover narration that hurts more than enhances the story.

Overall, it all lacks Hugo's main point, and, despite the almost textual faithfulness to the book, I'd have preferred that it had changed more of the plot but had staid truer to the central theme, than this, the other way around.

I can't rate this film higher than 4/10. For a masterful adaptation that truly does the book justice, check the brilliant Robert Hossein version starring Lino Ventura as Valjean.",0 "This movie is part of a tired franchise and not the one started by the Wayan brothers. It all started with Airplane nearly thirty years ago and moved into The Naked Gun etc. to Scary Movie 3. The actors and gags slowly churn some from brother to brother with the exception of Leslie Nielsen.

It basically spoofs four movies with others thrown in. The three main storyline movies were not very interesting to start and the comedy is not much of an improvement.

Tom Cruise is parodied in both The War of the Worlds and his Oprah appearance. This is interlaced with The Grudge, The Village, and the whole thing is bookended with Saw.",0 "William Wellman was really a helluva director. Anyone that can do a movie like this, and make ""The Ox-Bow Incident"" too, must have been born to direct.

Coming in at a breezy 75 minutes, ""Nothing Sacred"" is still very funny on several levels, for several different reasons. Plot does not matter as much as execution, and how you deliver a line matters more than the line itself.

Frederic March and Carole Lombard are perfect, and the supporting cast is just as good, especially the actor who played 'Oliver Stone', March's frustrated boss.

Wellman does unconventional things like make the actors faces be hidden by a tree branch, practically unheard of in that day and age. But the fact of the matter is, that sometimes people are not perfectly framed in life, so maybe they shouldn't be in the movies - at least not as a rule. The first time you get a good look at Lombard, she has shaving cream on her face from kissing a man who is shaving - also not the normal star-moment you might expect.

Just terrific. 9/10.",1 "The best thing about this film is that there is no humor in it, unlike some westerns like the searchers. The plot has Joel McCrea in charge since all the officers have been killed and the men don't trust McCrea since he has such a deep hatred of the Indians, who killed his wife and kid. This is a lot like The Lost Patrol when which not too many are going to make it out alive.",0 "Sanjay Gupta's Aatish is a straight, shameless lift from John Woo's ""Ying Huang Boon"" (A Better Tomorrow).

John Woo's Ying Huang Boon Sik/A Better Tomorrow(1986) was groundbreaking when first released because of the stylistic depiction of the action scenes. Its success spurred a new genre in Hong Kong cinema known as Heroic Bloodshed. These films were usually gangster movies which were characterized by outrageous gun battles, heavy action, and high melodrama. Hong Kong cinema in the mid 1980s to early 1990s was in the midst of a gangster film craze similar to Hollywood in the 1930s-1940s, France in the 1950s-1960s, Japan in the 1960s-1970s, and Italy in the 1970s-1980s. A Better Tomorrow(1986) is to Heroic Bloodshed what A Fistful of Dollars(1966) was to the Spaghetti Western.

A Better Tomorrow focuses on the age old themes of honor and loyalty. The characters of Ho and Mark are honorable gangsters in an era of double crosses and mistrust. Ho and Mark are at odds with the changing value system and this puts them as people who are outmoded in their principles. Honor and loyalty in A Better Tomorrow(1986) is greatly emphasized as the marks of a good hearted person. Mark Gor is very honorable and loyal in his personalty compared to Shing who is the opposite.

John Woo's main concern is to place high importance on the idea of brotherhood. According to John woo in this film, the tight bonding between men is something that was lost among youngsters at that time. Brotherhood in the film is complex and emotional. The relationship between Ho and Mark is so strong that there is nothing that can smash it. The scene where Mark tells of his ordeals at a nightclub as a first time gangster is nostalgic and touching.

Famous for the clothes Mark Gor wears as for anything else in the film. Began a trend in fashion around Hong Kong when many people started wearing the same kind of outfit as Mark Gor. Quentin Tarantino loved the look of Mark that for weeks he dressed like him to feel and look cool. In John Woo films there is always focus on the fashion of his characters. Mark Gor was the Rick Blaine of the 1980s.

A Better Tomorrow(1986) changed the look of action films with the famous use of pistols by Brother Mark in the restaurant. The first of many elaborate gun battles that dominates the films that follows A Better Tomorrow(1986). Although John Woo would film many wonderful action scenes in the next few years, there never would be a scene like this one which is full of energy and freshness. I enjoyed it when Mark Gor places guns inside flower pots as backup because the idea is cleaver and original. This scene is parodied in the climatic portion of Just Heroes(1987).

Ying Huang Boon Sik(1986) gave stardom to an actor known for his roles in Hong Kong television named Chow Yun Fat. Before the film's success, Chow Yun Fat was considered box office poison in Hong Kong. His charismatic and suave performance as the tragic Mark Gor broke that reputation. Chow Yun Fat is the best actor to come out of Asian cinema since Toshiro Mifune and Jo Shishido. He is the most flamboyant actor in the world who is better than any actor that was nominated for Best Actor at the Oscars.

The motif of sacrifice for redemption is part of Woo's religious beliefs. The heroes in his bloodshed films perform sacrifices to purify themselves within. The death of Mark Gor is a big sacrifice because it makes Ho and Kit Brothers again. What's sad about the death of Mark is its the only way for Ho and Mark to reconcile with each other. This motif also plays big in The Killer(1989) and Bullet in the Head(1990). The story is simple but compelling. Ti Lung made a big comeback with his role after years of mediocrity. He gives a performance that is deeply emotional and mature. Leslie Cheung also performs well as the headstrong but naive and stubborn Kit Sung. Waise Lee is excellent as the pompous and two faced Triad boss, Shing.

Gunfight at the end of A Better Tomorrow is less high body count and refined than in later John Woo films. Still exhilarating and fun to watch. The shootout is filmed in the spirit of Sam Peckinpah and Sergio Leone. When Chow Yun Fat comes out shooting like John Wayne, the film is at a high adrenaline level. One of the reasons why I love this movie.

Plot becomes more emotionally intense and less melodramatic with the energetic direction of John Woo. What makes the film work is the large dose of sentiments given by John Woo. He films the action and dramatic scenes with much passion and thoughtfulness. He is good at directing Chow Yun Fat and Ti Lung in giving great performances. A Better Tomorrow(1986) made John Woo an action guru after years doing comedies and being known as the king of comedy in Hong Kong cinema.

However, the copying was done in an excellent way. Aditya Panscholi in Chow-Yun-Fat's role does a wonderful job. His best performance in his not-so-good career as an actor. Sanjay Dutt, as usual, is awesome. No credit to the Director, Editor and Screenplay-writer as all they did was shameless copying. The superb acting performances by Dutt and Panscholi make the movie to a nice watch but the makers make it a pathetic downer by stealing everything scene-by-scene in to-to.",0 "***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I had already heard that this film was supposedly the most unfunny comedy ever to be filmed on German soil, but for some perverse reason I decided to see it anyway to find out if it could really be as bad as my friends said.

It is: the story is right out of a daytime-soap. Kay, a German girl who's given up on love goes back to her home town to help bury her soccer-coach and meets up with her three girlfriends from high school - two married, one not.

Soon after her arrival, she's told by her wacky mother that love is in the stars for her when Venus and Mars align - and before you can say ""Seen that before"" an American hunk named Cody appears (have you ever noticed that these guys are always named Cody or Ken? If they go by Ken, they are made out of plastic; Cody acts like he's made out of wood).

The rest is easily told: after some unfunny interludes, all girls fall in love and live happily ever after. Kay gets Cody, who turns out to be the heir to a fortune. The one who's married to an old-millionaire gets the hunky trash man - sorry, waste-removal-technician. The other married one simply gets laid with her husband and falls for him all over again. And the cute one who was after a gay guy suddenly decides for the shy cab-driver, who has helped her stalk Mr. Right-But-Not-Straight.

According to the credits, this film is directed by a Harry Mastrogeorge - who has directed it right into the remainder-bin at your local video-store. The acting is universally bad, with the possible exception of the guy playing the soccer-coach, but only because he's supposed be dead throughout the film - the other thespians don't have that excuse.

Some of the characters in this film are supposed to be American, some are German, but since the director did not choose to staple the character's passports to their foreheads and the screenplay only offers vague clues, international confusion rules. I guess the filmmakers were aiming for the US-market as well as the German.

Guess what guys: you missed the mark by a mile as well as a kilometer.

",0 "In my opinion, this movie and Care Bears Movie 2 are the best films I am ever going to watch. Care Bears were there all the way through my childhood. I am 16 and I am still watching these two cute movies. I can't help it. I think this movie could teach anyone a lesson, no matter what age.

Care Bears is a film about Morality teaching young kids to share, love and about friendship, unlike Pokemon which provokes the young population to fight and steal each others Pokemon cards.

This movie is full of beautiful and catchy songs, but I prefer the 2nd movies sound track. I will never get bored of this movie, and I will watch it till this old tape of mine screws up from old age (where I will be VERY upset). This movie will bring you songs which will never get out of your head, these songs have been in my head all my life and I have had a happy life so far.

You may think that Care Bears have no effect on your child, but I grew up with it. Now im a vegetarian, a volunteer for the RSPCA and a success at school. Im extremely bubbly and kind hearted and hate to hurt people. You decide.

Please, parents everywhere, show Care Bears to your children, not Pokemon.",1 "Phantasm puts the live action movies to shame. It depicts Batman as what he is supposed to be, the Darknight Detective. The live action movies leave out the detection and concentrate on the action. This is also one of the best animated movies I have ever seen. The quality of the artwork is amazing.",1 "Hollywood's remake machine still droning on, and eighties semi-classic Friday the 13th is the latest film to get the unwelcome treatment. I can't say I'm a massive fan of the Friday the 13th series; certainly it's one of the better slasher film examples, but that's not saying much in a niche so lacking in good films. However, compared to this remake; the original Friday the 13th is like Ferrari compared to Ford, it's Led Zeppelin to the Spice Girls; Mario Bava to Michael Bay. To say this update is poor would be a gross understatement. The plot is, of course, just your basic slasher fare. The scene is set at Camp Crystal Lake; where a bunch of kids have travelled to camp in the woods and steal some of the local weed that grows wild in the area. It's not long before there's a discussion about the legend of Jason Voorhees, and shortly thereafter all the kids are butchered. A while later, someone named Clay sets off on his motorbike to look for his sister (who was one of the kids from the start) and he meets some other kids who are there to be slaughtered.

The film is a remake of Friday the 13th, but effectively it's a mish-mash of ideas from the first few films of the series. The plot involving Jason's mother is briefly skipped over in the first few minutes as the producers knew they couldn't market a movie without Jason Voorhees in it. There's also a scenario where Jason finds a hockey mask and puts it on, which feels completely out of place. Obviously the producers knew Jason had to wear the mask so they could put it on the posters, but it would have been less silly if he was just wearing it from the start. None of the characters are interesting at all, and only one is memorable. I don't remember his name but he's the one doing a Tom Cruise impression. Director Marcus Nispel (who did quite well with the TCM remake) expertly captures the modern horror MTv music video style, and this basically glosses over any attempt the film makes to be shocking/scary. There's some gore but it doesn't make any impact. There's also some RIDICULOUS idea about Jason taking a prisoner, which was obviously put in the movie to dampen it and ensure that it got the 'R' rating, which helps the producers to make more money. Overall, this is an absolutely abysmal effort that does no justice to the original and was clearly made to cash in. Luckily, it didn't cost me anything to see (but I still want my money back!)",0 "This film is a great comedy, and full of not only entertaining humor, but also insight into the true nature of human... we're all horny beasts. Not only that, but it is a great date movie, especially if you and your mate are ""pollymorphously perverse.""",1 This movie was not scary. Instead of doing something truly creative with the idea of a killer clown they dropped the ball. The end of the movie was unbelievably lame. I was vaguely entertained by the gore but overall this movie's idea was the fault. The execution was very good and that's what stops it from being a one. The actors were very good in my opinion but the scenarios were completely unrealistic. I know that clowns coming back to life aren't real but i couldn't suspend disbelief. I really wanted to like this one but couldn't. I even bought this movie for 5 dollars and thought it was a waste of money. I'll never get that money back. Never. I think that's what the really scary thing is.,0 "I loved the epic documentary ""Saltmen of Tibet,"" so I am a fan of dusty low-plot movies about someplace I'll never go. But TULPAN was terrible! I can't believe I sat through the whole thing.

The assault on the senses, the constant noise of that bratty kid singing, that other kid shouting, the wind, the camel stampede or sheep stampede . . . what a beating you take just sitting there! The hideous scene of the children vying for the privilege of squeezing blackheads on their father's back? Honestly! Too bad we didn't get to watch somebody squatting behind a clump of dry grass.

The depressing anti-heroism of Asa, a fool and a liar. Thinks he loves/wants a particular woman because it turns out she's his last hope of getting a herd of sheep. Now THAT is a courtship.

The falseness of the animal scenes and story lines. If those ewes are malnourished, you sure can't tell from their energetic behavior. So don't ask me to believe that's why they're losing their lambs. If they're so malnourished, why are the lambs carried to full term and coming out more or less the right size? And how come, since much of the action revolves around moving the animals to pasture, we never once not once see a sheep or a cow or a camel EAT anything? And what's up with that healthy ewe delivering a healthy baby needing assistance from the idiot? Baloney.

One thing that came through so very clearly is the horror of being a woman on that steppe. Stuck with cooking, cleaning, children. Tulpan wants to go to college and her mother violently chases away the suitor, presumably to spare her the life she, the mom, has endured. Asa's sister and niece are in some kind of cahoots to torment Ondas. I have to believe the filmmaker understands what he is showing, so maybe this whole horrible experience was a kind of feminist critique of a dying way of life that can't breathe it's last soon enough.

So disappointing! The trailer was so wonderful! :(",0 "This is one of those movies that pretend to be layered and have deeper significance than all that appears.But knowing the other works of this director and how he only treads in lukewarm, shallow waters... it is nothing different from his other works.

His films have received a lot of good reception- only because they show new localities (Iran), in harmless, ""safe"" topics with not much substance or depth, and in dull, drab drawn out scenes. Perhaps it appeals to those who are bored to death of watching the regular commercial Hollywood films, those who can't stomach really strong films and those who wish to create non-existent depths in a very one dimensional film. Some comments mention cinematic genius in scenes, some looking for metaphysical meanings in the sound of a helicopter or the scenery--I guess you could look at it that way- or anything in that way. But please, there are no comparisons between cinematic greats like Tarkowsky, Bergman and others.

Kiarostami was and is one who takes the safe path always... never provokes, never motivates and all ""debates"" sparking from his films are merely because few can believe that there is nothing more to it than what they see and hear. A weak director with no signs of improvement, in my opinion.

And a film best described as a placebo... you think you get an effect, and perhaps that's good enough for the critics and the fans of this film. Wants to start a topic, gets up and falls flat on the face. My comments go against the ocean of praise here- but watch the film again, think over it- is there really substance there? and compare with other Iranian films. Much better fare in Iranian cinema is out there.",0 The movie was wholesome and had a great story line. Blondell was great in it. =) There was some great scenery. The acting was very good. The direction of the movie was excellent. I think if this movie had gotten more press it would have done well in the box office.,1 "Audiences will groan at the character of Mary Donnell. Bette Davis is normally looking out for number one--and she's definitely her good old self in the first half of the movie. The widow of a gangster, Donnell has become a super-competent legal secretary for a respected attorney in a big firm. She fends off unwanted press attention and generally handles herself quite well as a tough single girl in the big city.

She becomes the mistress of her married boss at the law firm (although the Hays Office undoubtedly required the removal of any breath of sexual content here, it should be pretty obvious to all what is going on). In the second half of the movie, which focusses on Jack Merrick (Henry Fonda), whom Donnell has always loved, she achieves peaks of self-sacrifice that will send you staggering to the bathroom to throw up.

This is the sort of film that gives soap opera a bad name.",0 "I was pleasantly surprised when I caught this film on the IFC today, well written, snappy and real dialog, as well as relevant.

Good performances by Joe Pantoliano, Barbara Barrie, Bronson Pinchot, Jennifer Tilly, and Boyd Gaines(very amusing) as successful Hollywood producer, visiting his old high school friends in New Jersey.

This film has reality and relevance. The usual story of the high school popular guy (Gaines) and his long suffering friend (Pantoliano) and their group of friends. Basically Pantoliano starts an internet column (""for losers"") and people begin to respond, telling tales of their lives, layoffs, and family issues.

A few very good cameos include Polly Draper (late 1980's ""30 Something"" TV fame), Barbara Barrie (""Breaking Away""), and Paulina Poriskova ( late 1980's swimsuit/Estee Lauder model) Overall, you will enjoy this film. It is sarcastic and real, and well worth seeing for any baby boomer's, as well as the rest of us. Highly recommended. 9/10.",1 "Bought my own copy. A film in the old style with many faults, but for someone who enjoys flying fliks, especially World War One aviation, it is great. Dialogue is terrible, the acting bad, plot predictable, but it has airplanes and derring-do in the air. All the ""Dawn Patrol"" cliches are there. Good fun and well worth seeing...if you like this sort of thing. I do.

cheers, Boom",1 "One truly exceptional movie that colorfully depicts situation in Soviet Russia in 1950's. Not only this movie shows all the stupidity of communist ideology (and any ideology in particular), it also in vivid manner shows how far would mother do to protect its child. Numerous personal dramas, love affairs of the two main characters and general tension that could be felt in the air, make this movie so exciting. Remarkable acting skills of the main characters made this film one of the most impressive I've ever seen. For Catherine Deneuve, Oleg Menshikov and Sandrine Bonnaire this were probably one of the best roles of their lives. Try to get this movie and don't make pop-corns - you'll need handkerchiefs instead!",1 "During its inauspicious four year run, the TV series ""Starsky & Hutch"" was never a huge hit; though it did land at an impressive number 15 in the Nielsen ratings its first year (1975-76), the numbers declined steadily thereafter. It was never a particularly good show and in the ensuing years it has never really had much of a cult following (except, maybe, among gay audiences who imagined more in the Starsky-Hutch relationship than was ever intended -- something immortalized in a Halloween episode of ""Will & Grace""). Indeed, much of the success of the show could be attributed to the fact that the proverbial pair of mismatched cops it featured drove a tricked out Ford Gran Torino -- an otherwise uncool make of car which somehow became cool because it was given a remarkably ugly red-and-white paint job. Yet, neither particularly admired for its quality nor beloved for its unintentionally humorous mediocrity, the show has lingered in our consciousness, even as many that were far better and more original have faded into oblivion. Even so, it is hard to imagine that there was ever a great demand for it to be turned into a big screen movie.

It does, however, deserve some credit; the show did strive for a bit of grittiness in the style of THE FRENCH CONNECTION. In an era when most TV cop shows were slick and glib and sometimes striving for a touch of glamor, ""Starsky & Hutch"" moved around in a world of pimps and prostitutes, drug pushers and lowlifes. It tried to maintain a sense of realism, or at least what could pass as realism on network television in the 1970s. Therefore, just as there is no real reason for a Starsky & Hutch movie to exist, it is a further puzzlement that the one quality that gave the TV show any distinction or purpose, it's rough-edged quality, is the one thing the movie version immediately jettisoned.

The film is less about the series than it is about all the untold number of gritty buddy-cop films that have come and gone along the way, from FREEBIE AND THE BEAN to LETHAL WEAPON and even SEVEN. The movie also takes shots at the disco-dazed trendiness of the seventies, a quality that was also never a big part of the series. Thus, the humor in STARSKY & HUTCH is so generic and so broad that it jumps past satire and instead goes directly into parody, ending up little more than an extended version of the type of skits that ""The Carol Burnett Show"" used to stage. Without the trademark Gran Torino, the characters played by Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson could just as easily have been named Smith and Jones -- or Hope and Crosby. Indeed, the two characters' personas were deemed so inconsequential that essentially Stiller and Wilson opted to simply play themselves -- or at least dust off their well-used screen images -- rather than to even attempt to find something unique about the characters played by Paul Michael Glaser and David Soul on TV.

It may be just as well. But if the original series was so bereft of any distinctive element on which to hang a full length feature, then it only increases the pointlessness of the movie as a whole. Like so many TV-to-movie translations, the film has no real interest in the source material beyond exploiting its pre-sold title and recycling a few trademark bits of trivia as jokes -- like dragging in Glaser and Soul for self-mocking cameos. Otherwise, there's nothing in STARSKY & HUTCH that hadn't already been mocked, and with much greater skill and wit, by Emilio Estevez and Samuel L. Jackson in NATIONAL LAMPOON'S LOADED WEAPON 1, a comedy that had the sense to know that merely repeating clichés is not the same as making fun of them.",0 "Eight people are killed on a San Francisco bus by a greasegun-toting maniac, and one of the victims happens to be a cop who was supposed to be somewhere else. The combination of mass murder and losing one of their own sends the SFPD scrambling for quick answers, so they send out Bruce Dern and the dead policeman's former partner (Walter Matthau) to piece it all together.

OK, that covers the first 10-15 minutes of film, and it's the only part of this 2 hour fiasco that makes any bit of sense.

From this point on, the film turns into a jumbled, boring mess, filled with endless red herrings involving deviant sex, pimps, hookers, drug addicts and weirdos in general. No matter how closely you follow things and everything appears to lead nowhere, somehow the two detectives pull clues (and not very good ones at that) seemingly out of the air. This cyclical nonsense keeps rolling almost to the end, when finally, the policemen kinda/sorta/maybe think they have their man. In following the tone of all that's come before, the suspect conveniently makes a quick succession of unbelievably stupid moves to bring this impossible-to-follow disaster to a shoehorned-in conclusion.

As if all that's not bad enough, we get to see what would normally be a solid cast looking pretty weak. Matthau seems as utterly bored as the rest of us, Dern's usual maniacal glee gets twisted into goofiness, and everybody else ends up stuck being colorless backdrop.

I normally enjoy just about any gritty 70's police flick, but ""The Laughing Policeman"" doesn't even come close to making the grade. Please- Don't waste your time.",0 "FROGS is an entertaining entry in the sub-genre of Nature Strikes Back environmental horror films popularized during the 1970s. It draws part of its inspiration from Alfred Hitchcock's ""The Birds""(1963)- though in Hitchcock's film the motive and reason for the bird attacks is not clearly defined, whereas in FROGS the viewer comes to understand why the local wildlife has it in for people. The film starts out slowly and quietly as ecologist and free-lance photographer Pickett Smith(SAM ELLIOTT), doing a photo spread on the despoliation of the environment for an ecology magazine, makes his way along a Florida waterway by canoe. The canoe overturns when it gets caught in the wake of a speedboat that passes too close. Smith is rescued by the occupants of the other craft, Clint Crockett(ADAM ROARKE) and his sister Karen(JOAN VAN ARK) and invited back to the family estate to clean up, dry out and meet the other family members. The choice of watercraft used by these two men serves to help define their character- Smith's boat is environmentally friendly whereas Clint's is loud, noisy, and polluting. Smith is taken back to the family estate which exists on a privately-owned, secluded island in Florida swamp country. Smith has arrived at an auspicious time- it's the annual family gathering to celebrate both the Fourth of July and Grandpa's birthday. Grandpa is family patriarch Jason Crockett, played by RAY MILLAND, who turns in an outstanding, tour de force performance as the wheelchair-bound, cantankerous millionaire industrialist who personifies the ugly rich at its worst. He has a mean streak in him as evidenced by his high-handed authoritarian manner and disdain for the natural environment. He believes that Man was put here as the Master of the Earth and all life forms must bow before him. When his handyman does not return from a poison-spraying mission in the swamp to kill the frogs whose incessant croaking is driving his family nuts, he asks Pickett Smith to look for him. Smith finds him alright- lying in a swampy pool, dead from venomous snakebite. It's here that the film's Dark Tone of Ominous Portent manifests- as one by one the various family members find themselves isolated and targeted by the denizens of the swamp. There is not a whole lot of gore in this film. To achieve its desired effect, it relies more on creating an unsettled mood and an atmosphere of quiet doom in a low-key understated manner. It's our stalwart hero Pickett Smith who speculates that maybe Nature is getting back at us for what we've done to the Earth. Crockett dismisses this as rubbish and stubbornly refuses to heed any warnings. These swamp creatures are going to show him the proper respect- or else. The title creatures of the film do not kill anybody, because they can't. They're depicted as the brains behind the operation, like generals getting their troops in position and waiting for the enemy to walk into an ambush. Long before the movie is over, we have a pretty good idea who is going to survive and who isn't. Though the Good People make it off the island intact, in spite of some close calls, for them the Horror may be just beginning. This movie is quite effective in an understated way. It benefits from beautiful location photography (it was filmed in Florida's Eden State Park), strong performances, good editing and the creation of a sense of claustrophobic horror. This is one of my favorite Nature Revenge movies and I give it an 8 out of 10.",1 "I would have to rank this movie as my top worst if not the worst movie of all time. I don't think it's worth wasting any amount of time in your life to watch this movie! It was one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen as there was no character development, very bad dialogue, very bad acting, and it moved very slowly with very bad filming... Definitely not hostel, or the hills have eyes, or house of 1000 corpses, or Texas chainsaw massacre, or any other horror flick involved. This is just a horr(ible) movie! Watch it if you have lots of time to waste and nothing better to do with your life! That's why it was banned from 43 countries, because the countries would have to pay you to see the movie!",0 "This movie is truly a classic. I know that some of the actor's skills are a bit suspect, but some of them, like Keira Knightly, had began to show some of their true talent in this film. Also, the script is incredibly witty in some places, and incredibly meaningful in the next. And finally, the idea behind the movie is excellent. 10/10 for me...a TV classic",1 "Tapas is a film, funny, sad, tender... There are different stories in a neighborhood of a big town. The story of the barman, the most pathetic and funny character, and his relationship with Mao, intelligent, patient, and almost perfect. The story of Cesar and Raquel, a young man and a middle age women, and at the same time her relationship by internet with another man. The story of Mariano and Conchi, the most sad situation. The story of Opo,the friend of Cesar, with tree basic things in his head, sex, drugs, and Bruce Lee. Good people doing bad things. The loneliness, the fear to the illness, the hope, the egoism, the meanness. Good dialogs and very good actors.",1 "Before any Westerner visits India for the first time, I strongly recommend them to view Outsourced prior to their arrival. The ""bread and butter"" of the movie is that there is so much one can learn by analyzing some of the customs and trends of Indian culture.

Outsourced is a very light-spirited venture about the life of an American sales manager who is prompted to make a business trip to India in order to train his replacements. All the characters are likable and the key situations that occur seem realistic. (Of course the majority of the cast is obviously Indian so it would make sense.) It was interesting to see the main character go through the transition from adjusting to vegetarianism, learning compassion through generosity, consciously eating with the right hand and other habits.

Being a good hearted film, the only thing outsourced lacks is some prolonged suspense. There is nothing too dramatic about the changes the main character had to go through other than his initial embrace to Indian life, a mild issue with an extra-marital affair, and the brief moment where he had to tell his trainees that they've been laid off. Everything seemed just a little too easy though I am aware it is in the culture of the supporting cast to positively adjust to change.

As said before, I would recommend this movie to any American or Western traveller to forewarn them of the culture shock that he/she would face. I've actually enjoyed this movie to my surprise.",1 "Dreamaniac was David DeCoteau's first film, and it shows. But it's still entertaining. A quick summary of the plot involves a young, aspiring rock musician, and budding satanist. He conjures up a succubus during a ritual. His girlfriend (Kim McKamy), her sister, and her sisters' sorority sisters decide to have a party at his house, and the succubus begins to brutally slaughter the party goers, one at a time. Ultimately, it's up to Kim to save the day.

Yes, the film is very cheesy and the performances are god awful, with the exception of the gorgeous Kim McKamy, who knows how to react well in horror films. It also looks to be SOV, and given a ""film look"". Still, for all it's shortcomings, it's still a fun movie to watch. Especially with friends on a rainy night, when you have nothing else to do. The actress who plays the succubus, is so over the top! You'll be grabbing your sides, as they ache with laughter, as you watch her kill people and attempt to look threatening. Ah, David DeCoteau sure knows how to please his fans! This is another film that I got off eBay. It's rare, and very obscure. However, if you can track down another copy of it off ebay, and you like cheesy, tongue in cheek slashers, then give it a look. My rating 6/10.",1 "What a B movie this turned out to be, maybe even C; no wonder it never made it to theaters, but with all these bad ""scary"" movies coming out, it would fit right in. The acting is just plain bad. Even Robert Englund wasn't too good, but maybe it was just the bad role he got to play. The script just lacked any depth whatsoever, no real character development, no real storyline, very little plot, and worst of all, where were all the bloody scenes? Sure there is blood and some gore, but a little more drama from the victims would have been nice. All in all, I found this movie to be quite bad. Robert Englund is a great actor, and unfortunately chose a bad scripted movie to take part in.",0 "The film is allegorical, and the themes are complex, but if I had to state the theme in a simple sentence it would be something like this: ""to keep society together we have to have people who are willing to do unselfish things instead of selfish things."" There is more to it, but it is more or less comes to that. This is a laudable effort at sending a positive message, and many people will give the film high marks just because of the attempt. However, it could have been done much more skillfully.

We don't really know what is going on through most of the film, and the whole idea does not become apparent until the end. Because of this the majority of the film is confusing, and drags. Even an art film has to maintain your interest and this one does so only in a very minimal way. While watching it on video, more than once I wanted to simply end off, but the people I was watching with felt they had invested enough in the film to want to see how and if it resolved. Even so, everyone was getting up a lot, looking for food in the fridge and checking their cell phones while the film was going.

The concept is also not fully developed. They are in a bad part of the country where civilization has broken down. They are waiting for a train (salvation). But where is this train going to take them exactly? Why did they suddenly end up in this situation? A good allegory would answer these questions within the structure of the allegory, yet in this film we have to ignore these and other questions in order for the film to work. Isabelle Huppert, as usual, does a terrific job. The other actors do well also but Isabelle stands out. The last 5 min of the film are the best and are probably worth suffering through the first 108, at least I thought so. But that is a matter of opinion and different people will have more or less patience with the film than I did. The consensus of the group I watched it with was it wasn't worth it. I gave the film 4 stars, mainly for making the effort.",0 "Since most of the political bellyaching about this movie seems to be coming from the self-righteous right, I'm going to ignore it and just talk about the film itself. What starts out as a well-acted exploration of family tensions - especially those between a relatively uneducated set of middle-class parents and their college-educated son - gives way to the clumsy, overwrought melodramatics of the second half of the film. The death of Robert Walker during filming doesn't really excuse or explain the awfulness of the last hour. There's an early scene between John and his mother in which he explains that his goals are the same as those of the Catholic Church in which they were both raised but that his methods are different. The fact that he is a Communist (McCarey and some of his apologists seem to suggest) means that those goals must be evil because the methods are evil. Just stop thinking for yourself; trust in God and the FBI. It's a dangerous message, and not all that far off from the one that the Communists drilled into their victims (for ""God and the FBI"" substitute ""the Party""). Oh, well . . . I guess I couldn't avoid the political bellyaching.

The sad thing is that the lead actors are all so good. McCarey was brilliant at getting excellent naturalistic performances from his actors, and Helen Hayes, Robert Walker, Van Heflin and Dean Jagger are all extremely convincing until the film collapses into right-wing agitprop at the halfway mark. Even Hayes couldn't do much (except overact) with her climactic scene in which her character tries to use a football analogy to get her son to see the light.",0 "I'm a little bit tired of horror and suspense films. I had to get to the cinema because I could not say no to my girlfriend. Now I do not regret the wonderful evening I spent. This film achieved what others did not- I could not release my girlfriend's hand all over the time, and when the story finished I discovered there was nothing unexplained. A great suspense film I recommend. Belén Rueda, is a completely credible character and the place where the story has been shot helps make it realistic or, at least, the viewer gets into the environment created. The rest of actors are good and Geraldine Chaplin's scene is one of the most creepy I've ever seen",1 Mad Bad was flat. The story wasn't interesting in any way. It never seemed to click. The silver lining to his poor movie was Vincent Riverside. He was awesome! He did his best to save this movie. You can't ask for any more than he gave. Vincent Riverside has a screen presence that is commanding. This was a copy cat of the Nic Cage movie with Jolie where he is a car thief. I was disappointed that the movie tried to be slick instead of have any story. It was a car commerical that tried to be a movie. Vincent Riverside reminded me of Christian Slater. This actor should be in a studio movie soon. He has too much talent to not rise above low budget movies.,0 """The 4 Musketeers"" is a terrible movie. Three painful hours of utter crap. Milady is a ninja and made a pact with the Devil, who gave her magic powers. These powers consist of Sci-Fi level special effects, and zooming in on her eyes a lot. Oh, and D'Artagnan has a magic white hawk, who follows him around and saves the day. I think that's what gave him the power to row across the English channel within the space of only a few hours. And have I mentioned the really bad dubbing from the original French? (There was no option to watch it in French with English subtitles). Anyway, what I really wanted to say was, Stay away from this movie... it's three hours of your life that you'll never get back.",0 "I have been neglecting my reviewing duties and so haven't gotten around to doing one for the finale until now. And wow, what a finale it was. *bows to the creative genius of Kripke and co.* The reintroducal of Ava and Andy was brilliant, and they worked brilliantly against the two new characters also. This is one of those brilliant but oh so sad eps. We got to see Ava and Andy again, but then had to say goodbye to them *sniff* I totally didn't see the whole evil Ava coming....and neither did Andy it would seem. Ava was a great special guest, which is why i was sad to see her go too, even with her new found evil character self. And if loosing Andy and Ava wasn't enough, we also had to say goodbye to Ash!? I loved his character and took it pretty hard. Excellent use of him brining in a big secret though, and then dying before revealing it. A definite way of keeping the mystery about the show. And the hands down saddest moment of supernatural so far.....Sammys death. We all know he was going to be brought back to life because you know, whats supernatural without dean AND Sam?! But it was still one of those heart wrenching moments which had me in tears (im a girl, its OK to cry at supernatural....saying that though i defy even a boy to not cry at that scene!). Especially that heart tearing 'SAM' from Dean. Got me right in the gut that one. oh before i go, i loved the whole dean having a vision thing, and his whole 'bring me some pie' routine in the beginning. It reflects the brilliance of the supernatural team when even during the most tense and saddening finale, they can still manage to inject some humour to keep things from becoming emo sad. (no offence meant) also round of applause for Jensen's comic timing which turns brilliant writing into fantastic delivery! awesome, that is the word i would use to sum up All hell breaks loose part 1! XsarahX make sure y'all watch it!",1 "As an American, it took me a bit to get used to the language of rural Ireland in the 1920's, but this film draws you into a world that seems not at all foreign after a while. Unlike the relentlessly depressing ""The Field"", this is a drama of real tragedies - the small, silly tragedies that we create and that are created for us- and also, of real hope. The original Irish title of this film ""How Harry Became a Tree"" is so much more fitting than the US ""Bitter Harvest"" (what were they thinking?), though fortunately the brilliant allegory of the tree is not lost with the title change. Performances are universally outstanding and poignant, the photography beautiful, the music haunting. See this film and see how the Irish continue to astonish with their mastery of language and vision.",1 "OK, before watching this show, it is important that you are aware that the next 30 minutes is going to be full or randomness, silliness, and general surrealism. For example, Vic's assistant Les, is scared of chives, but smiles in delight at spirit levels. A pair of talking carpets, who's catchphrases are ""You lying get"", that could get tiresome, but they manage to keep it fresh by adding surreal quotes in between. If I were compare this to anything, I would say it would be like the 'Trout Mask Replica' by Captain Beefheart of the Television. At first you'll be thinking ""What the hell is this?"", after a while, you'll love it. If you enjoy this, be sure to get 'The Smell of Reeves and Mortimer', it is funnier, and is more of a sketch show, but equally surreal.",1 "Look, I know F13 series was never high art. it was never really clever (except maybe part 6).. it was camp. but in general, it was fun.

This film alternated between three moods

1) nothing. I mean there is at least ONE HOUR where NOTHING HAPPENS! a bunch of moronic, profanity-laden kids TALK!!! No suspense. No horror. No humor.. NOTHING!!

2) Sex. Hey, part of the slasher genre is some sex scenes. But this felt more like soft-porn. There was one sex scene that felt like it went on for TWENTY MINUTES.. I didn't clock it, but it sure felt like it to me. These scenes went WAY beyond T&A or tease. I actually felt uncomfortable watching some of these.

3) Sadistic-torture porn. When Jason was around it felt more like a Saw movie, or maybe the remake of the Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Jason TORTURES his victims? Huh? Instead of a supernatural zombie he is more in line with a sadistic serial killer. a VERY different personality, and one that I felt was repugnant. In the original, Jason was alternately fun and scary. In this, he was just a sicko. Ugh.

This pretty much sums up the movie for me.

Oh, except one more thing. It looks like they used the lights over from AvP:Requiem. The scenes were TOO dark to see. And the Michael Bay 2-second scenes just made it worse! This wasn't some heavy cheap=CGI that had to be 'hidden' with low lit scenes and fast cutting!! I couldn't take it anymore.. And found myself fast forwarding to get through the picture.. Every time I played the movie it was one of the above 3 moods..

I never thought I would appreciate the 1980 original so much. That was truly a brilliant piece of film-making compared to this.

I have NO idea of who/why someone would like to see this. I am seeing some folks giving this high marks, so obviously it is filling a need. Just one that I don't understand.

Where was the fun?

If there are sequels to this reboot,then I will pass..",0 "Yesterday I bought this film on DVD, and I must say it a terrific family film.The acting is extraordinarily great, and the special effects are amazingly beautiful. The characters are very interesting. They will have you wanting to care for them. The water horse, itself, is extremely cute. There were times where characters would add some humor. However, what really drew me in was wondering what would happen next. The relationship between Angus and the water horse made me very curious.Over all it is a fantastic film for kids and adults alike. I give it two big thumbs up.So, if you have enough time go out and pick this movie up.I strongly encourage you to do so.Trust me, it is worth your time.",1 "In Mercenary For Justice Steven Seagal is turning away from his recent Direct-To-DVD releases and opening with a great 'war' scene one that comes close to ""Saving Private Ryan"". Steven also his hearing his fan base and decided to do his own fights scenes, also at the end he gets back to his 'movie' roots when he goes after the man who set him up in the beginning. The way does it reminds me of his movies ""Hard to Kill"" and ""Out For Justice"". Steven is making an honest effort to improve and the way he acts in his movies. If he continues he will reach the stardom he had in the early 1990's and maybe in the future he will go beyond in his stardom we just have to keep him informed so that he may continue to improve.",1 "When i rented the DVD, the story and pictures on the cover seemed fun, but when i got to the middle of the movie i almost fell asleep. The movie confuses it's watcher so much that it brings him to a point that he cannot understand who are the good guys and who are the bad. The hero doesn't knows who to trust, too much talking and hardly no action.. The movie has a few humoristic moments, some action here and there but no more..

You can surely skip it...",0 "With two screen giants such as George C. Scott and Marlon Brando (even in a cameo), this film is worth seeing. One line from the film that has stuck with me is from Scott to Brando, ""You're not in the oil business, you're in the oil shortage business."" How true.",1 "Often after a movie, I will sit to myself and think, ""Was there anything redeeming at all about that movie, or did I just lose 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back?"" In this case, it was the latter.

Despite commendable acting from the films actresses, Harvey Keitel looks embarrassingly like an amateur in a high school drama. Although the plot has potential, the movie has the maturity of a 7th grader making farting sounds under his armpit. If only the movie was animated, it would be a perfect Simpsons satire of the stereotypical bad movie.

Another major problem with the film is that it tries to mix humor with seriously sad problems. Imagine the success of a comedy based on 9/11 and you get the picture. Obvious attempts at humor completely fail in canned, painfully predictable sequences directed with the subtlety of a mack truck. Add to this the fact that the director clearly cannot differentiate between what to shoot and what not to shoot.

Other various problems were the irrelevant and distracting Neil Diamond soundtrack, the irritating, obstructed camera shots somehow meant to be creative I guess, and the token gay characters who have nothing to do with the plot. Although the movie supposedly took place in Australia, only one person actually had an Australian accent, the rest of them being vaguely British which is confusing during the entire story. The movie culminates in a transsexual, surrealistic fantasia which can only be described as the work of a deviant, hallucinating pervert.

If nothing else, this film realistically demonstrates why you would never want to go to India. And really the only way I can figure that it came about is that Kate Winslett must have owed a debt to the teenage son of some guy who got her career going. Unfortunately, someone gave him a camera.",0 "I have seen all of John Waters' films, but something in this one seemed to stick out. I noticed that in his other movies, the characters are rarely developed, and if they are, you never get a glimpse at their personal lives.

This film is different in that way... it begins as racy as all of his other films, with ""Lady Divine's Cavalcade of Perversion"" a circus for perverts, drug addicts, homosexuals, and weirdo's. Mr. David, Lady Divine's boyfriend, wants Lady Divine to let Bonnie into the cavalcade, but she quickly dismisses the idea.

From here on, the film switches to a bizarre, and long, view of the characters personal lives. This is done by, long monologues, long shots in which the camera does not change, and very long scenes. These long scenes aren't that badly written, but it is more that they are real, and not part of a movie. After the first 10-15 minutes characters seem to have disassociated themselves from the original plot of the film, and it becomes some sort of a deranged soap opera. But just when you think that this film is different from all other of John's films, a giant lobster appears out of nowhere (and for no reason), named ""Lobstora"", and it rapes Divine. Divine then goes insane and goes on a rampage, and is then put to death by the national guard.

Besides the fact that Divine is killed in the end, it seems to be a prequel to a young Divine's life that is later portrayed in ""PINK FLAMINGOS"". This because in ""PINK FLAMINGOS"", Divine, is supposedly in hiding from the FBI, for murder. This murder which happened in ""MULTIPLE MANIACS"" of basically all the characters.

All in all, this is most definitely a must see for John Waters fans, it will bring new meaning to his other films.",1 "80's action in pure form. This is in the die hard mold, but less structure or bad guys. I must say before hand that James Woods is my favorite actor. He is amazing. IN this film he delivers the best 1 liner I have ever heard in my entire life. Ever. It's ends the movie in a hurricane of laughter. Laughter in a good way. Laughing at 80's movies. This one may have been made in 90, but it still has the 'pure cop with chip on shoulder' guy. I would also recommend The Hard Way with Michael J Fox. That's also one of James Wood's best performances.

Back to Cop. Watch for the violence. Watch for the great 80's Dialogue. Watch for a plot that while have some serious issues, is still passable and forgivably based on the movies final line. That last line, which I will not discuss her MUST WATCH THIS. Is the best ending to ANY movie I have ever scene (ofcourse in the context of an 80's action/adventure/cop/type movie). Enjoy!",1 "i've been watching a lot of western-type indian movies recently, and ABCD has got to be the worst of them all. Although Bombay Boys was pretty stupid, and American Desi was just silly, they are much more polished than this movie. the number of inconsistencies in the movie are astounding. as the name name of the movie suggests, one would assume the characters are born in america. they're not. it is unclear at which point the children came to america, and it's even hard to tell from their accents. the choices of the main characters do not seem realistic, and their actions leave the audience with a bad taste in their mouths. if you choose to watch this film, take a pad and pen with you, so you can log all of the inconsistencies. it'll be fun.",0 "The good bits - the sense of period was reasonably well captured, and it began with some genuinely frightening scenes. The minor characters of the Barrymores and the convict were also very well done.

Unfortunately, it was all downhill from there, Richard Roxburgh was an uninspiring Holmes. The relationship with Watson was clearly misunderstood, and personally I found his rather surly characterisation irritating, Dr Watson is supposed to be conduit for Holmes' brilliance, so us mere mortals understand what is going on not to behave like a spoilt schoolboy made a mockery of.

The character of Stapleton was too big, and far too obvious. No offence to Richard E Grant, but his manic, nervy, edgy style was completely wrong from the beginning. You are expected to believe that another claimant to the Baskerville title and lands would have hidden in plain view in such a flamboyantly obvious manner, and not have aroused people's suspicions? It then got worse. The violent end for ""Miss"" Stapleton was unpleasant, not in the book, and totally unnecessary. The hound was dreadful, some of the worst CGI I have ever seen. The end of the story was changed for no apparent reason, and was not an improvement. The blood and gore, merely gratuitous; Holmes floundering in the bog, and Dr Watson's sharp shooting act finally killing Stapleton totally missed the point of the true ending.",0 This parody of the Nazi occupation of Poland has a few moments >of classic Mel Brooks good humor but is by far below the level >of his other works. If you are looking for a good laugh and a >bit of Hitler bashing rent 'History of the World Part I' or >'Blazing Saddles' instead,0 "This movie has three serious flaws. It never finds a focus, (ultimately, I cared very little about any of the characters), it has the always fateful flaw of dialog that gets lost in whispered tones or buried beneath the score or SFX, and finally ... WHY, in heaven's name is Anthony Hopkins using his not-so-convincing American accent to play a character that could have been played better by half-a-dozen American actors? And I'm a Hopkins fan! Sorry, it just doesn't work. Although it tries to be both a suspense and love story, it accomplishes neither. That's all the more frustrating when the end arrives with what I assume is an homage to Casablanca. The whole thing is poorly focused and generally weak, despite solid performances by Isabella and Scott.",0 "This movie was way too long. It has left me so cold and disinterested that I struggle to even trash the damned thing!

There are some amusing scenes (not funny, just amusing) but some, like the one where bald man (I forget his name) says he has cancer, that seem to go on for an eternity.

I used to be a stickler for uncut movies but lately I've come around to the position that maybe the distributer and producers were sometimes right to reign in the excesses of wannabe epics, especially ones where so little actually happens that you can probably describe the whole 104 minutes in a few sentences.

This isn't so much a zombie picture as a character study that just happens to have zombies in it and the characters are a bunch of idiotic whiners.

If you want to see a good Asian zombie flick, go check out one called Bio Zombie. It's actually funny (not just amusing), has a better buddy sub-plot, and has real action and suspense.",0 "Okay fine to be honest it is TERRIBLE. Cheap story that you would expect a grade 4 to write better. basically what happens is:

2 Women (Lesbians) go to a island to have a little vacation. they 1 night find a man knocking at the door and he falls in. They keep him for around 2 days, 1 of the women find him to be unsafe. but shes actually the one who works with him. She hired him to kill the other woman to take her money. But he didn't manage she came back to the house to try and rescue the other woman (the evil) because she thought she was being attacked. She beats him up. Then the bad woman kills the one that was supposed to die.

Okay that's basically what happened.

DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY OR TIME ON THIS.. NOT WORTH IT.",0 "This movie is very much in the tradition of Kubrick. It's quiet, it's dramatic, sophisticated and beautifully shot. The ending is ambiguous; open to interpretation. Cameron Bright is convincingly haunted as the possible re-incarnation of Anna's (Nicole Kidman) deceased husband. Birth reveals the ways in which love and the removal of that love can traumatize us. I did not realize who the director of this film was until after I finished it. I was pleased to see that Mr. Glazer has also directed Sexy Beast which is another excellent film and one of my personal favorites of the past 10 years or so. I strongly recommend this to anyone who enjoyed Sexy Beast or the work of Kubrick.",1 "Aside from JFK, the English civil war is my favourite period of history. So it was going to be a set of very bad reviews to keep me away.

Yes there are inaccuracies, Scott is a terrible actor and they overdo the modernist slant. However I really enjoyed this, Roth and Everett are always watchable.",1 "JUSTICE LEAGUE OF America (1+ outta 5 stars) Really dreadful live-action version of the DC comic... the popular humorous 90s version written by J. M. DeMatties and Keith Giffen. The movie might be entertaining for 9-year-olds but fans of the comics are going to be awfully disappointed in this misbegotten abortion. Almsot everything that could be done wrong, is! The actors are all terrible with the exception of Kimberly Oja as a newbie who gets initiated into the team after a freak accident gives her the power of... making things cold... oooooh! She kind of reminds me of Stephnie Weir from Mad TV. Miguel Ferrer and David Ogden Stiers (as J'Onn J'Onzz Martian Manhunter of all people!) are pretty much the only ""names"" in the cast and they are totally wasted. The characterizations of the familiar DC heroes (Flash, Green Lantern and The Atom) are embarrassing... but not nearly as much so as the dreadful costumes! Green Lantern's suit isn't even green, for crying out loud... it's some kinda pale blue! The dialogue is written in the same humorous style as the 90s incarnation of The Justice League... but the actual lines used are so incredibly LAME! (To tell the truth, the script is probably no worse than that of the recent ""Fantastic Four"" movie... which is the most backhanded of compliments, believe me.) And what is up with the female heroes chosen for this team? Fire? Ice? If they are DC Comics characters at all, they are very minor ones. (I sure don't remember ever seeing them in the comics.) I understand that rights issues probably kept them from using Wonder Woman... but surely they could have used some *actual* female JLA members? Black Canary? Zatanna? Well, the movie is bad enough to be amusing to those who like bad movies... but that's about it.",0 "It could have been so much better, if this lame courtroom comedy had a decent script and at least some inspired jokes. But as it is, lawyer Jeff Daniels and actor Michael Richards accidently switch roles and have to handle a difficult case and two female interests. The latter are charmingly played by tough, but pretty Jessica Steen and gorgeous and likeable Charlize Theron. And even the judge is played by comedian Austin Pendleton. But Jonathan Lynn, who was responsible for the hilarious courtroom comedy that was MY COUSIN VINNY doesn't succeed here. Still, it's not a total BOMB, and Rip Torn is a funny bad guy.",0 "Forget the lousy acting, that can be forgiven in this sort of film. Or even the terrible, unnatural dialog and illogical events (if my subtitles actually reflected what was said). Far worse is the blatant absence of a skillful or experienced director who maybe took a holiday with the editor while the film was being made? Watching the film, it feels completely out of date even though it was 'only' made 7 years ago. A computer virus as a portal to the afterlife? lol? A dial up internetconnection? Clucky ghost images photoshopped on pictures (""He! Look over there...is that..is that a face?"" -zoom in on face- -Oops, sound breaks off- 'chop' -next scene- ), scenes and sequences are poorly edited and as a result don't flow at all. You'll be watching a girl finding a corpse still hanging from the knot in one scene and then literally 10 seconds later seeing her again at some place apparently unaffected, smiling and going about.

Apart from the many problems I have with the movie in terms of production-value, it is also painfully long and repetitive and thus utterly boring.

I recommend 'Shutter' in stead, an oriental (Thai) horror movie done well.",0 "Ah, what is it about Centron productions that make them stink so much? This short basically tells young men that if they don't take industrial arts courses, they'll not have the tools to have a full and rewarding life. It has a LOT of bad acting, stupid plotlines and really doesn't do the job of convincing young men (note I say young men: seems that back when this was made, it wasn't all right for young women to do this.) to take industrial arts courses.",0 "In swinging 1960s England, ""Herman's Hermits"" - aka Peter ""Herman"" N-o-o-n-e*, Keith Hopwood, Derek Leckenby, Karl Green, and Barry Whitwam - get involved with dog-racing for profit. Stanley Holloway and Mona Washbourne (as Mr. and Mrs. Brown) lift the film's acting levels only slightly, unfortunately; they have a very fetching teen model daughter Judy (Sarah Caldwell), who catches Mr. N-o-o-n-e*'s eye. The other ""Mrs. Brown"" is his greyhound dog.

By far, the best part of the film is Herman's ""There's a Kind of Hush (All Over the World)"" night dream; it's a great song, and was a huge international hit for the group in early 1967. Title song ""Mrs. Brown You've Got a Lovely Daughter"" is also a winner; however, it is not given a full performance in this film - and, it's an even older track. Strong new material from the group (and session players Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones) might have helped this film. The ""My Old Man's A Dustman"" scene/song is amusing, but why wasn't a Hermits-sung performance if this song used? That might have provided the group with a film-supporting novelty hit; at least in the USA, which the Hermits seemed more able to do than Most...

* it is spelled N-o-o-n-e, but the correct spelling doesn't work.

*** Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter (8/3/68) Saul Swimmer ~ Peter N-o-o-n-e*, Keith Hopwood, Karl Green",1 "My memory of this movie (which I saw on video in the late 80s) was that it was a fantastic example of 80s/Michael Cimino controlled excess - or, that it rocked, along the lines of To Live and Die in L.A. (which, to my mind, is a preeminent movie from any era, but a particularly gorgeous 80s gem). How sad to have been initially excited to find YOTD on DVD at Target, buy it, wait for the perfect moment to watch it, and then...to realize my memory was more gauze-wrapped and imperfect than I'd ever want to admit. For YOTD was a serious, unqualified letdown.

Why? Pretty simple answer: obvious, wholesale editing, undoubtedly to trim a studio- ordered ""too long"" length, that's why. Certain characters remain on the periphery and are never fleshed out (the portly and thoroughly unattractive - in ever way - police partner of Mickey Rourke, for example), bizarre appendages that don't help the plot at all; scenes that stretch credulity over coals and are literally impossible to believe (the takeover of Ariane's apartment by Rourke and his two pals; what the hell led to this?); the obviously important marriage/breakup of Rourke's character, with his wife acting 100% unnatural and unbelievable almost the whole time (any scene involving Rourke and his wife are the dictionary definition of ""truncated'); and the lurching incoherence that simply owns the film at, oh, 45 minutes or so in. And what's utterly frustrating is this: every actor is in fine form; every scene is beautifully shot; and there's enough of a story and plot line present that it seems ludicrous to blame Oliver Stone's script - Oliver Stone, who'd direct Platoon a year later and who had the screenplay for Midnight Express already under his belt. No, there are assuredly yards and yards of film somewhere, slowly rotting puzzle pieces, that flesh YOTD out proper and render it the glorious epic Cimino wanted. But you can bet some studio exec got the bright idea people wouldn't want to sit for 3.5 or 4 hours, so...well, that's the oldest story in the world, isn't it? Or, at least, the oldest story in Hollywood.

In summation: YOTD is the saddest sort of film - a hobbling thing, a dysfunctional-but- gorgeous-at-times handicapped epic, blighted by cruel scissors, dead on arrival. And even though almost every character in this film is repugnant, it's even more repugnant to cut their legs off and ask them to walk. I hope the actors were angry about that. You just know Michael Cimino was.",0 "The worse thing about the show has already been duly noted by some of my fellow reviewers: the so-called judges.

There should be a rule, effective immediately (which means by next Wednesday), that each 'judge' cannot hit the other two 'judges' buzzers; they can hit only their own. This is a no-brainer, I mean it's obviously not fair to the contestants that the British guy (the most offensive of the three), say, can hit Brandy's buzzer if HE's decided the currently-performing act is not worthy of any further consideration. And Brandy did the same thing, when the Snow White contestant was stripping on this week's show - she found it offensive and she buzzed in and then proceeded to try desperately to hit Hasselhoff's and the British guy's buzzers, until she finally succeeded. She was still outnumbered, and Snow White's coming back, but that's not the point. This behavior is childish, rude and pathetic beyond comprehension and should not be tolerated.

That being said, the show is OK, I guess. It ain't IDOL, it's more like The Gong Show revisited (as another reviewer mentioned), with Regis thrown in for semi-credibility. Some of the contestants have been good, and one in particular has been fantastic: the 11-year-old Bianca Ryan (I think that's her name - we'll be hearing it again, undeniably), who belted out And I'm Telling You like nobody's business. I really liked how she changed the lyrics to make the song more appropriate for someone her age: instead of singing ""you're the best man I've ever known,"" she changed it to ""you're the best friend"", which I thought was very classy and smart, making her rendition more than just a young kid trying to sing about things she couldn't possibly know about. Brilliant performer, can't wait to see her again.

8/2/08: So now we're already in the third season, with Brandy having been replaced by Sharon Osbourne - a major improvement - and Jerry Springer replacing Regis (not so much). Bianca Ryan went on to win Season One, which was fantastic, and last year, the person who deserved to win also took it, ventriloquist Terry Fater. This year, the auditions have finally been completed, and there are a couple of stand-outs, both female singers. Should be worth tuning in for, unless Gordon Ramsay is on a drunken rampage on the other channel.

8/7/08: It was absolutely shameless and cruel last night, the way the judges handled the choosing of the 40 finalists, particularly Hasselhoff, with vocalist Queen Emily - taking advantage of her overly-emotional nature, putting her through the torture of ""we don't want to break hearts,"" blah blah blah, when we all knew damn well she was going through. And Sharon has sunk to the bottom of the heap as well, giving at least 3 contestants a sad speech about how she couldn't stand doing this, yadda yadda yadda, with all 3 going through, of course. In fact, with two of them, she was actually shaking her head NO before saying yes. Blatantly offensive, the whole affair.",0 "Boy did I get ripped off here! I get the feeling that when they were making this film they had planned to make a serious horror, and after watching it, they knew, to save face, they would have to promote it as a dark comedy.

Its not either! Its rubbish! I felt robbed that I had spent $15 Aussie Dollars to buy it, but then I thought about how the financial backers of this film would have felt when they saw it! The only redeeming feature was that it went for 78 minutes. I feel sorry for you guys who had to sit through 91 minutes of it! Mind you Romi Koch gets naked a fair bit, thats always a good thing....",0 "What great family fun, you must have crowded around the fire and watch this movie burn because that is the only thing this movie is good for. This movie was quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen, hands down. They had almost every cliché in this movie that I have ever heard, the only time I laughed was when my friend told me it was a real movie and not a spoof. They really stole lines and themes from any teen movie over the past ten years worth mentioning. If you want examples I will be happy to give them, but not now because I really don't feel like it, there are too many to mention without being asked for it. But seriously how on Earth can you call this a good movie, and Michael Medved must be out of work by now because there is no way any decent movie reviewer would recommend this movie to anyone. The fact that this movie is even mentioned in the same breath as Hoosiers and Remember the Titans should be considered blasphemy and taken outside and beaten with the ""bone"" that apparently keeps rolling throughout the 108 minutes of pure hell. These actors and writers are total hacks and suck at life, I hope none of them work again in the movie business another day in their life. Did anyone else notice that they lost by 30 points in the state championship game? That wasn't heartwarming, it was pathetic, they got crushed. If you are still reading this I will be impressed. I can't believe that no one else has ripped into this movie the way it should have been ripped into. I am going to go take a dump and get more entertainment in that ten minutes then I got in 108 minutes from that train wreck of a movie. -Disgruntled Movie Goer

P.S. By the way the movie was 3 bucks at coconuts, the movie ""Bronx Warriors: 2001"" that was made in the 80's with a payroll the price of a bike costs 5 bucks. Think about that, and I hope you all get a bad rash.",0 "Bela Lugosi was always an underrated actor; capable of different types of roles. This a good Lugosi ""who-done-it movie. Like Bela's ""Dracula"", this film lacks a musical score; however the acting is very good and Bela's performance will please his legions of fans. He doesn't wear a cape or tends to his usual ""mad scientist"" lab here. Instead, Mr. Lugosi dons a tuxedo for most of the movie! The plot deals with something that was only a dream for a lot of people during the thirties; television. It's interesting how much television was on the minds of many people in 1935. In fact, TV would have been a part of the American lifestyle much earlier had it not been for World War Two. ""Murder By Television"" shows a glimpse of what was to be as well as being a good murder mystery from the mid-thirties. Recommended viewing.",1 "I love the first film. The second - well, as we all know, we don't have John Belushi with us anymore, which is one strike right there. The filmmakers made the good choices of John Goodman and Joe Morton as backup singers. Had they stopped there, the film would have been much better.

Instead, a kid was thrown into the mix. An orphan, of course. Awwww. Elwood Blues is supposed to act as mentor for the kid (Buster), but forgets to return Buster to the orphanage, getting half the cops in the country and several mean orphanage workers on his tail.

Now, the whole point of the first Blues Brothers film is that these guys can't stay out of trouble. The character of Elwood, with or without Brother Jake, is going to get himself in it up to his eyeballs. The whole story about Elwood being chased for kidnapping is ludicrous. Elwood is going to get in trouble for one thing or another. It didn't have to be kidnapping.

Thus, we end up listening to a prepubescent kid squalling the lines of a damned good song, one that was belted out by three fine singers (Aykroyd, Goodman, and Morton), thus ruining the whole effect. It's no wonder that the Blues Brothers lost the Battle of the Bands - I'd have booed them offstage for bringing a kid into the mix.

There's an cloying, aren't-we-cute gushiness about Buster and his little Blues Brothers outfit that almost gags me. I loved the musical numbers and all the guest artists - and what an impressive group they are! - so I can't understand why the filmmakers would drag down the storyline by introducing a kid, and throwing in all the clichés associated with a small child interacting with adults. The kid is precocious. He's (supposedly, though I see no evidence of it) a good singer. He gives a pep talk at the crucial time. He's easy to bond with. It just doesn't work.

I will watch it for the music and for Elwood's highly inventive method of parallel parking, but I fast-forward through Buster's scenes.",0 "Well it's not Gone with the Wind, that's for sure! This movie features a woman with one change of underwear who apparently never leaves her apartment, and a bloke who looks better in a wedding dress than I ever did. Plus a mystic cab driver with nothing better to do than hang around waiting for them. And they don't eat in three days.

But leaving aside the practicalities, I enjoyed it immensely, although I'm not sure I can define why. My teen age kids bought me this DVD for Mother's Day - or to be more exact, I bought it and instructed my kids to give it to me. My motives are probably too murky to discuss here.

But having only seen David Wenham previously as Faramir in The Lord of the Rings, in drag as Audrey in Moulin Rouge and as the dubious Carl in Van Helsing ( a movie of quite excruciating badness), it was rather disconcerting to hear his real accent. I mean I knew in theory that Wenham was Australian, but hearing him sound quite so much like Richie Benaud, the cricket commentator whose dulcet tones take me straight back to childhood and my late father's obsession with the thud of leather on willow, was almost more than I could handle.

But I'm digressing. The movie. Lots of fun sex, which is always a good thing if well done, and this is pretty well done, especially towards the end of the movie as the couple really get into each other, lots of comments on men and women, (if a little clichéd), and a happy ending, and it never takes itself too seriously. It is a little heavy handed in places - I'm thinking here of the close ups of the women's mouths prior to the blow job in bath scene. Not subtle. Not a great work of art, but mildly erotic, entertaining and quite funny.

And when evaluating their various past relationships, the script never plunges into the kind of overwrought pathos that would be obligatory in Hollywood. When Cin discovers the photo in Josh's wallet, I was horribly afraid we'd get an explanation of the ""love of my life killed in a tragic auto wreck"" variety. Instead we get a quite refreshing ""she messed me about so I moved to London"" line. Real life, for all that it's mundane.

David Wenham does ""bemused everyman"" to perfection as Josh, and is obviously an actor of huge range. Susie Porter (who is gorgeous) is both vulnerable and tough where necessary as Cin. They look like real people, and seem just as dim-witted as the rest of us. I shall watch it again.",1 "The best part of this movie, is Milla's backside.

The movie starts with a premise that Samuel's character is out looking for a runaway girl. That disappears. Then, the antagonist gang takes him hostage, well, sort of. No real reason to do this, other than that they think they've been discovered. But, from there, it's all lost. Samuel L. Jackson is the protagonist, but he's tied to a chair for 2/3's of the movie!

Then there's the absurd robbery by an apparently blind man (in clear glasses, so you can see his eyes move and react), and his cohort, and evil little blonde-haired troll, who's NEVER accosted, not once, while walking directly into the power room of the bank. He's able to amazingly hack into the bank's computers, and shut the power off to the whole building. Somehow, I think that ALL transactions would be off, regardless of the circumstances at that point - but maybe that's just me. Then, there's the wimpy banker that just HAS to get his rocks off BEFORE they flee the country, and the little wa***r troll that's too stupid to realize that he shouldn't kill the only man who knows the all-important ""password"", and the account information is stored on a 3.5 inch disk, right (dated technology there, why not on a reel tape?). They whiz through banks at a breakneck pace, withdrawing large sums of money, without so much as a batting of the eye. I'm not even going to get into Samuel and Milla's musical interlude while she has him untied. Mr. officer, I think, might have had a trick up his sleeve to elude her and get out of the house at that point.

Bad movie, bad plot, bad characters, the kind of movie that's 97 minutes long and you'd swear you've been watching it for 4 hours. Terrible.",0 "The best thing about this film is Aaron Webber's portrayal of 13-year-old Emerson. I'd recommend keeping an eye on his career in the future.

I found it preposterous that a lad of 13 would desire his teacher. Could someone please explain to me what is appealing about this older man - as far as I can tell, nothing. If the teacher were younger and better looking and the student 16 instead of 13, this movie might be believable. It is hard to get into a movie that is implausible out of the starting gate.

Canadians take pride in their movies because they are often freer and more daring than films made in the U.S.A. But one can be simply sordid and pointless instead of courageous and honest. The film-maker should do something with this greater freedom - not proclaim it for its own sake.

For all its supposed bravery, this movie is surprisingly conventional with regard to its depiction of the human body: The female lead is shown fully and plainly nude, whereas the father and the son are ever so carefully posed to avoid equivalent frankness. How traditionally sexist.

In ""Whole New Thing,"" the viewer is presumably ""liberated"" from hackneyed, conservative American stereotypes. But let's take a closer look at the characters here: In place of sexually crimped, over-zealously religious parents trying to retard the sensuality of their teenage children we get a careworn, pot-smoking couple - a withdrawn, tepid man and his sad, adulterous wife; in place of a restless, dutiful youth shackled by legalistic restrictions on his behavior we get a kid who has no trouble lying about his intentions because he believes the lie will help him manipulate a much older man into having sex with him; and instead of an uninspired teacher limited by narrow, parochial thinking we get a guy who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to cruise for casual sex at a rest stop. Are any of these free-wheeling replacements an improvement over their safer, more traditionally drawn counterparts? Is the indignant radical's cry really, ""Liberate me so I can be sordid and miserable!""?

There are seeds of a high-quality, courageous film in ""Whole New Thing,"" but they are never watered or cultivated. For example, there is a passably good-looking kid who harasses Emerson verbally and physically at school. At one point, Emerson asks him, ""What is it you want?"" But what if the film-makers with their Canadian courage explored the psychology of the bullying? What if Emerson punched back with gusto, held his own in a fistfight and then asked the question: ""What is it you want?"" What if the bully desired Emerson? (This is certainly more plausible - not to mention more innocent and age appropriate - than Emerson desiring his teacher.) How would such a relationship develop? Would they try to date? Would they meet secretly? How would the relationship affect the other kids in the school? The film might even flash forward to a committed, long-term relationship when the boys are older. Surely this would have been more interesting and daring than the somber radicals we're presented with in this movie.",0 "Let's face it , Qayamat is BAD . A supreme disaster . Worse , a complete ripoff of The Rock with unnecessary-yet-mandatory love interests and a truckload of songs all sounding the same . Harry Baweja has never been a good director and with this and Teesri Aankh , I have ceased to have any faith in him . Scriptwriter Suparn Verma was a Rediff.com critic and after you watch Qayamat you'll surely understand that critics don't necessarily make good filmmakers , and make horrible screenwriters .

Plot : CBI Officer Akram Sheikh (Sunil Shetty) is after three dreaded Pakistani arms dealers - brothers Ali (Arbaaz Khan) and Abbas (Sanjay Kapoor) and their common moll Laila (Isha Koppikar) . After a botched arms deal , Ali-Abbas are left out in the cold with Akram closing in on them . They decide to steal a lethal virus from a top govt. lab where Gopal (Chunky Pandey) and Rahul (Ashish Chaudhary) are working . Then they take over the Elphinstone Jail and hold all terrorists as hostages . The location was used as a jail in the past , now it is a tourist spot . So convenient to lure unsuspecting visitors .

Only one man in history has escaped Elphinstone Jail , Rachit (Ajay Devgan) is his name . Akram Sheikh asks Rachit to lead him to the secret passage into the jail , that is located below sea level . Then we learn of Rachit's past , how his GF Sapna (Neha Dhupia) was killed and he was reduced to being a vegetable .

Rahul accompanies the commando squad since he knows how to diffuse the weapons . Thanks to the tipoff from a dishonest minister (Govind Namdeo) , the bad guys already know that the commandos are coming . They kill every commando on arrival , leaving Rachit and Rahul to complete the mission .

Honestly this has so many plot holes , I would run out of words . I am sick of this continual and stereotypical Pakistan-bashing . It's like, ""We don't have any villains left , why not pick up the Pakistanis?"" and the makers go ahead . And Sapna was killed in the first half , wasn't she? Then how come she was alive and kicking in the second Half???!! Basically Sapna wasn't needed , the screechy Sheetal (Riya Sen playing Rahul's GF) wasn't needed (In fact this entire movie wasn't needed :) ) . As far as the drool quotient goes , Neha Dhupia does an Ursula Andress in a baby pink bikini for a few seconds in the song ""Dil Chura Liya"" , otherwise she is fully clad all the time . Riya Sen has skimpier outfits and a seductive song ""Yaar Pyaar Ho Gaya"" with Ashish Chaudhary . Isha Koppikar doesn't offer much in that department , but ends up having comparatively more screen time .

The dialogues were cringe-inducing . Sample this, ""Sapna Ko Main Kabhi Haqeeqat Nahin Banne Doonga"" and ""Police Ki Maar Ki Baat Hi Nirali , Goonga Bhi Gaaye Qawwali"" :( . Performances were BAD : Ajay Devgan speaks very little (he knew this was going to be a waste) . Sunil Shetty , Arbaaz Khan , Sanjay Kapoor , Ashish Chaudhary are all horrible . The girls have nothing to do but flash their vital stats between alternately screeching and crying . This movie was talked about for its action scenes ; but they are very poorly copied from the likes of M:I , The Rock and others . And would Mr. Allan Amin tell me when will his obsession with slow-motion end? Songs are disappointing - Nadeem , Shravan and Sameer at their worst .

The only high point is the stylish camera-work by Sanjay F. Gupta . But how come this became a hit ?",0 "It is nice to see films like this are being made, and are getting to the public in some way or another. This film has won several awards and nominations from Film festivals around the world. The independent film is a story of two youths who meet up traveling west for very different reasons. Through their encounters with different walks of life on the highways and train trails of America they form a bond. This film is as true to life as we're willing to admit and makes the story one where anybody can relate and take something from. Paddy Conner who plays Albert is amazing and funny. He keeps the film, which can be very serious at times, light hearted and you'll find yourself chuckling through out the entire film. Maurice Compte, who plays Freddy gives a strong performance as a troubled teen, with the weight of the world on his shoulders. Every character in this film, no matter how brief of a role, has a depth that Hollywood films wish they could emulate. All in all this is a great film that you will love to watch and absorb. I recommend this film to everyone, no matter what your taste in film this has it all, humor, sadness, stunts, lovable characters, hated characters, and even a dog...can't go wrong with that combination can you? Look for it...it'll be worth it.",1 "I have loved this film for years. There are some unforgettably hysterical moments in this movie that will have your friends in stitches when you recount them. This move also shows us the vulnerability of people negotiating a relationship which is rarely seen on screen. It portrays people and a romance that is real. The actors and characters are not the fit-firm-20- somethings with perfect hair, clothes, and make-up. They are people who are average and flawed. The story line reflects the difficulty of finding a mate who is genuinely a good match. It also addresses the reality of life after divorce in our culture. The relationship between the main characters (and others) is honest and I really appreciate that. The movie accurately portrays some of the milestones of building a truly loving relationship. Trust, love, and commitment are developed when we are tested and choose one another again and again, through good times and bad. I continue to love this movie, I think I'll watch it tonight.",1 "I caught the pilot of ""Bram and Alice"" and saw potential in it, but not as a network TV show. Bram is the author of one successful book, being hounded by his publisher to produce a second. He passes his days avoiding the publisher's phone calls and spending his advance money seducing pretty young women writers who come to him seeking advice or an entrée into the writing business. Alice is a daughter Bram didn't know he had, from a years-ago indiscretion with her mother, a woman he hardly remembers. Alice wants to be a writer and journeys to meet Dad to establish herself both as his daughter and as a writer.

For anyone who remembers NBC's ""Buffalo Bill"" from the mid 1980s, the same principles apply here: unlikeable characters in key roles and abundant cynicism. Of course, the door is open for redemption and unexpected kindness to blossom, but the show would need to have lasted for more than a couple of episodes.

On one of the cable networks this show could possibly have survived, even thrived, because its thorny matters of plot and character could have been worked out. On network TV (in this case CBS) ""Bram and Alice"" withered on the vine.

I seem to recall that James Burroughs directed the premiere episode of ""Bram and Alice"", the only one I saw; Mr. Burroughs' guidance plus the excellent cast made it memorable. But, like the aforementioned ""Buffalo Bill"", ""Bram and Alice"" died prematurely. I can't guess where this show might have gone given a fair chance.",0 "Horrible. Like nature and living? This is not it. Don't watch it. It is like the most terrible thing nearly anyone has seen. Boy, I am never going to go on the website again. If it's rated U or something...that is stupid. 18 is the proper rating. If it's not rated at all, they should rate it because children would just think, ""ooh, I MUST see that because I LOVE nature."" Believe me, this has nothing to do with nature. This is all just one big joke about little, cute, cuddly creatures dying in many horrible ways. Awful nature. Very strong bloody violence. Cute little beasts. I hated every single one of them, so don't even THINK about wanting to watch it...unless, of course, you like blood & guts.",0 "I think that the new episodes really betray totally the ideas of Agatha Christie and most of all became less logical. The new authors seem only interested in putting homosexuality themes, morbidity, and similar. These don't own at all to Christie. I'm not a puritan, I don't care if I see a movie with these theme in, but why put them here? They have changed lots of lines, and worst of all changed significantly the plots. In this way then the plots don't work anymore, it lacks logic, it's hard to get the motivations of the characters.

In this episode Hunter puts a bomb, Scotland Yard confirms it to Poirot, but... nobody knows it??? Scotland Yard tells it only to Poirot, on request?? Don't you think it's rather absurd? And why did he put the bomb? Because his sister didn't want to share the money with him? It wouldn't be a little more logical to kill the husband and in case next his sister to inherit from her? And why put a scar on his face? The bomb's exploding anyway, just content yourself of the wounds that you get from the explosion... Sorry, I haven't read the book, but I think anyway that the story doesn't work, it's not only a matter of nostalgia or defense of clean Christie's style. It's only, simply, totally WRONG, it's not cinematic!",0 "This is a good film to watch on a long winter evening. Two primate behavior scientists arrive at a mountain top research station to find their predecessor frozen to death under strange circumstances. As they settle in, one of them dwells on the mystery of the frozen colleague, while the other goes right to work on the monkeys. Then they begin to slowly unravel somewhat like Jack Torrence in 'The Shining'. The whole film is held together nicely by Wallach and Culp, and the sense of austere isolation is pulled off beautifully.",1 "There are movies like ""Deja Vu"" and ""Heaven Can Wait""...movies with out of this world understanding coupled with great love stories. ""Time Traveler"" is nothing but foolish, misguided, nonsensical crap. It simply doesn't work! No matter how hard you try to make it so. The time traveler can time travel with no rhyme or reason as to why. He just does. He says he can't take clothes with him and always ends up naked...somewhere, anywhere he just pops up. Yet...when the horse's arse gets shot by a hunter...he has no problem coming back to the 'present' with a bullet and wound in his side which, thankfully kills him and ends this dribble of a movie. The viewer can't possibly gain any appreciation for any of the characters or their circumstances. It's NOT a love story like the previously mentioned, great examples of this sorta-kinda movie. You don't care about these to. It's so stupid in its content and presentation, you really don't care if his young daughter would time travel smack dab into the middle of the Taliban! That's exactly how bad the connection is with these characters. There simply is no empathy for them. Period. Pitt bought the screen rights to this garbage while he was with Anniston. Pitt produces it. No wonder Anniston isn't in the credits. She knew better. She probably sold her portion to Pitt because she wanted nothing to do with him or it. Even Angelina stays well clear of this crap. Then there's two of him or two of the daughter who also has the 'gift'. My question is: Why weren't there 3 or 4 of them all at the same time to really make it ridiculous. I'm a sucker for a good love story and a well thought out 'what if' kinda story. This is so not neither! If Pitt wants to buy the rights to a good movie with a no kidding, monumentally interesting and original story that also includes an amazing love story: Purchase the rights to ""Sariah's Secret!"" Contact 'Ladymoon' for details. Brad, you are better than this. (You should've sold YOUR half to Anniston and cut your losses!) UPDATE: Only 4 out of 10 agree? Are you kidding me? You ""6"" actually liked this ridiculous, nonsense? What are you all? 13-years old? Because the only age group who could possibly 'relate'.",0 "Bearing in mind the directors and cast involved, Four Rooms was a huge disappointment. Tim Roth gives a bizarre central performance which, rather than coming across as quirky, is simply irritating. Robert Rodriguez' slapstick section is best by a mile, followed by Tarantino's contribution, but the rest is extremely unfunny and rather tedious. One to avoid, unfortunately.",0 "Shady land developer, played by Joan Collins, lures prospective buyers to swamp land, unaware that the worthless real estate has already been ""bought"" by giant ants. The first half of the film is trite but tolerable. The second half makes absolutely no sense and is full of plot holes. Somehow, I just can't imagine the great H.G. Wells writing a novel that is so inane. Maybe the screenwriters made significant ""changes"" to the original story.

There are worse b-grade science fiction movies out there. In addition to ""Plan 9 From Outer Space"", my personal favorite is ""The Giant Claw"". These two films are more enjoyable to watch than ""Empire of the Ants"" because they are so awful they at least provide some laughs.",0 """The Night of the Generals"" is a murder mystery with Valkyrie, the plan to murder Hitler, as a SUBPLOT. It doesn't exactly work like a Swiss watch movement. The search for the killer, led by Major (later Lt. Col.) Grau (Omar Sharif), gets lost for a time and Valkyrie is inserted rather late in the film. But the acting is superb, especially by Peter O'Toole as General Tanz, an utterly ruthless killing machine, Tom Courtnay as Corporal Hartman, who is assigned to show Tanz the sights of Paris, Donald Pleasance and Charles Gray as two other German generals who are suspects, along with General Tanz, in the murder of a Polish prostitute in Warsaw, and Phillipe Noiret as a high ranking French policeman who helps Lt. Col. Grau with his search for the killer. Christopher Plummer appears briefly as Field Marshall Rommel, but he isn't given much to do.

For a star of his caliber, Sharif is strangely passive in his role. The same cannot be said of O'Toole who is in utter control for most of his time on the screen but turns psychotic when confronting a painting by Van Gogh that exemplifies the latter's madness and lets loose the madness of General Tanz.

This isn't a great film, but it manages barely to sustain the suspense of the murder investigation and when the suspense is in remission, General Tanz successfully soaks up the viewer's attention. Happily, Tom Cruise is nowhere to be seen. Valkyrie is launched and fails without him.",1 "This movie intrigued me right form the start because it's an american movie about Afghanistan. Also, the fact that it is about the mass media and war coverage was also pretty interesting. The movie's two main characters are Goldblum playing a sort of stereotypical ani-establishment type, and Lake Bell as his newbie photographer.

The good thing about this is that it does show how much personal preferences shape the stories that make it to the headlines. One character at one point justifies his stance with the words ""maybe I just love my country"", proving that he is not being impartial, and that we cannot truly expect impartiality from the media.

The movie goes back and forth between whether the US government is playing games or not and what a reporters duty is and whether or not reporters are impartial. In the end it is shown that the reports will give the story. But this isn't completely accurate given that many reporters are refraining from ""asking the tough question"" because they feel it would be unpatriotic to do so.

The movie left me feeling a little unsatisfied but overall it is in itself (i think) relatively unbiased, showing all types of reporters and also things that may or may not be motivating the US government.",0 "This is an absolutely beautiful cartoon! Most Fleischer shorts were quite visually striking, to be sure, but Betty Boop only had one color cartoon-this one. While in many ways it's good that black and white was used for most of her cartoons, the sweep of this cartoon cried out for color. The Fleischers were likely also hoping that Betty's popularity would boost interest in the Color Classics series that they were starting. Betty as Cinderella was certainly fitting-after all, Cinderella did ultimately become a princess when she married the prince and Betty Boop is cartoon royalty. Wonderful effort from the brothers Max and Dave. In print and available. Most highly recommended.",1 "I have not read the novel this movie is based on, but judging the movie by itself, when the credits rolled, I was thinking: ""Uh, so that was it??"" The plot is shallow, and the acting is so-so. Quite possibly this is partly due to the fact that many of the character's motivations either remain obscure or are difficult to believe. Hackman turns in a decent performance, as he usually does, he has a good scene with Dunaway, and a number of good lines with O'Donnell. On the whole, Dunaway's character is paper-thin, and not terribly useful to the story. O'Donnell does not have the range to pull off his part, which probably adds to the monotone of the story.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW But the weakest part is the story. As told in the movie, it is without any surprises whatsoever. Obviously, since it's a Grisham movie, we assume that nothing is quite the way it seems, but ultimately it is pretty much the way it seemed from the beginning, with a few additional details that had been swept under the rug by the powers that be, for obvious and totally unsurprising reasons. No drama, no suspense, no surprising plot twists, nothing. The grandson of the bad guy is digging around in some old files (including the sneaking-into-the-archive/library/storage scene, which in this movie passes without any tenseness whatsoever), connects a few dots that provide a little bit of background to the crime in question, but that's about it. There is a faint hint at larger-scale intrigue, but it is not elaborated, and remains entirely inconsequential to the viewer or the characters (well, except perhaps the guy on death row).

Watch it on a Sunday afternoon for Hackman, and perhaps Lela Rochon (as yet another useless character) as eye candy.",0 Just caught this on late night Lifetime channel. I know it's usually a women's channel but I have always found Markie Post to be very attractive & she was smoking in this film. Made for TV movie also featuring Candace Cameron who is repeatedly abducted and probed by space aliens is desperate for help. Markie Post is reliving nightmares as well and then it comes to her that she also was abducted and probed by these evil space aliens. They then realize a common thread regarding the abductions and join forces to stop them once and for all. Post manages to get abducted in Cameron's place and finds out exactly what these pesky aliens are up to and pleads with them to stop their research and things get quiet...for a short time...Must see movie.,1 "A great picture of the sleazy side of life in the thirties before the Hays commission took over. Barbara Stanwyck is fabulous as a tough streetwise girl turned nurse. Any rumors about her having some flaw in her figure should be finally put to rest by her slim form in camisole and pettipants. Joan Blondell makes an equal impact as her wise-cracking sidekick. And last but definitely not least, Clark Gable plays a tough but very very sexy chauffeur who menaces Stanwyck in a rather seductive way. Although he later went on to play this roguish character to perfection in films like Red Dust and Gone with the Wind, here it has a nasty quality that brings out a new side to his acting. Overall, a wonderful guilty pleasure!",1 "i found this movie incredibly entertaining! this is probably the best Adam Sandler film i've ever watched. but huge fans of Sandler would probably be disappointed because there is no gross or wild comedy in here. clean fun!

and 10 brownie points for the music. eighties music never looked so good! this is a very good movie with sweet comedic scenes. and yes, Adam Sandler singing his lungs out. i absolutely recommend watching it for a good time!",1 "Richard Boone and Michael Dunn play a pair of world weary private detectives in this superb television movie of the week from 1972. They are down to their last nickel and wondering where their next meal is coming from. There is a knock at the door and in strolls Barbara Bain. ""Would it be possible to hire you?"" She inquires. It seems her husband to be, Gianni Russo, is missing and Bain wants to find out why. A quick cash advance and Boone and partner are on the job. They head for the missing groom's room where not two steps inside Boone's head is on the receiving end of a pistol butt. Once Boone has recovered, they pay a return visit to Miss Bain. While a simple case of finding a man is OK, a pistol whipping is not what they signed up for. They quit! Bain doubles their fee and back on the job the two go. A little digging and they find that Gianni is mixed up with a mobbed up club owner, Victor Buono. Buono pulls out all stops as he gives a great Sydney Greenstreet imitation. Someone has bumped off a mob courier and helped himself to a suitcase with $400,000. And it seems that Bain's missing beau is the prime suspect. The mob is not amused and has a contract out on Gianni. Boone and Dunn find that double cross on top of double cross is the order of the day with this bunch. Buono is short of cash due to some large gambling losses. He hires Gianni to bump off the courier with the suitcase and return it to him. Gianni instead takes the suitcase and goes into hiding. Every time Boone gets close to finding Gianni he finds himself on the wrong of various fists, boots and gun barrels. Boone is not amused. When the boys do find Gianni it is after he has taken a 6 story fall. Witnesses describe a woman who sounds a lot like Bain leaving the area just after her now ex's failed flight. Now it all comes clear to Boone. Bain was in on the scam with Gianni. Buono crosses the mob, Gianni crosses Buono, then Bain crosses Gianni. The only problem for Bain is that the suitcase was empty. Buono, assuming that he was going to get the suitcase back had given the mob courier an empty suitcase. When Gianni returned, Buono intended to dispose of him and use the cash to pay his gambling debts. Buono's perfect plan goes all to hell because of a dame. Soon Bain is added to the body count and the mob tumbles to Buono's play. He is next on the list for the long sleep. Boone and Dunne return to their office to wait for the next fool to walk in.

This is one great film! The dialogue is superb with the back and forth between Boone and Dunn being utterly priceless.

Directed by Peter Hyams whose work includes, Outland, Time Cop, Sudden Death , Narrow Margin, (the remake) and the strange P.I. film Peeper.",1 """King of the Zombies"" is a prime example of Hollywood's blatant racial stereo typing of black actors and actresses in the 30's and 40s.

The story is a typical ""B"" movie plot. A secret service man or something like that (John Archer), his valet (Mantan Moreland) and a pilot (Dick Purcell) are searching for Admiral Wainwright (Guy Usler) who has disappeared over an isolated island in the Caribbean. Their plane loses radio contact and is forced to crash land on, you guessed it, that very same island. They then find a creepy mansion inhabited by Dr. Sangre (Henry Victor) and several zombie like creatures. Turns out the evil doctor is a Nazi spy trying to learn military secrets from the admiral. Joan Woodbury is the heroine of the piece. And we're not quite sure where the zombies (all black of course) come from. Are they hypnotized or the result of some voodoo magic? Who really cares?

The racial overtones are very obvious in this picture. When sleeping quarters are being assigned, Moreland is told that he cannot stay in the upstairs bedrooms but has to sleep in the servant's quarters off of the kitchen. The dialogue between Moreland (who steals the picture by the way) and the fetching Marguerite Whitten as the maid, Samantha are pure Hollywood. There's plenty of wide eyed ""feet do yo' stuff"" reactions as well as, the usual ""yassir massa"" types of speeches. It is appalling to see such fine talented people degraded like this. Moreland, to his credit, made the best of a bad situation and forged a lengthy career out of playing the banjo-eyed scared out of his wits friend of many ""B"" movie heroes.

It is also curious why Victor was cast as the chief villain in a Bela Lugosi type role when Lugosi himself was probably available at the time. Both he and Boris Karloff were making ""B"" movie quickies for Monogram at the time.

",0 "I happened to have just finished watching Raptor Island, and my god it was awful! Now I'm usually very glad to watch horrible B rated movies(Frankenfish was my favorite) but this was crap! CRAP! The acting was terrible. There was one part where one Navy Seal TRIPS OVER A LOG AFTER HE LOOKS BACK AND SEES IT only to be eaten by the raptors. Oh what they aren't raptors! They're mutated dinosaurs! Not only are they the fake st things i have ever seen, they get shot and ignore the bullets! Its like a video game. They shoot the ""Raptors"" an the bullets disappear to leave no wound. And when a ""Raptor attacks someone, in less than two seconds there's nothing but a blood stain! Way to go Sci Fi! Way to go!",0 "As a ""middle class"" French, i started to feel embarrassed to define this movie as one of the worst i've ever seen... But i held on and now i can scream it freely. The end is over pathetic and disgusting, the acting is bad, and worst, as it's still to play feminist no one will dare to say that girl, désirée, is as bad, violent and stupid as everyone around her. This is not a matter of self defence, it's just common sense. I hate those kind of guys, and even more the girls who desperately try to look like them. Avoid this film please. Whether you're French or not, rich or poor doesn't matter. Here we call this kind of movies ""navet"", a turnip. It means this is tripe.",0 "This is an awesome show. The idea of a soul being sold to the devil and then being forced to do the devils dirty deeds has been seen before but not like this.

3 things makes this show great.

1. Acting. This is a great bunch of actors, giving the show a feel of character. Bret Harrison is doing a great job of holding this show on his shoulders while Tyler Labine and Rick Gonzalez deliver an amazing comedic backup duo. Ray Wise is real convincing as the Devil always trying to convince Sam that what he is doing is a good thing whilst showing the audience that you should never forget that he is actually the Devil and the cruelest thing existing.

2. the Writers. I simply love the script in this show. They always find a way to make an everyday unpleasantness to something everyone can enjoy.

3. Special effects. The special effects in this show is actually only above average and yet you are never disappointed in what you see.

I can only recommend this great show. And i hope everyone who likes a little dry humor will give it a shot.",1 "I have an odd way of picking up movies. Usually by the cover and or summary on the box. For the most part I do well with this method. Well, today was not one of them days. The movie had nice action sequences but the acting was by far some of the worst I have ever seen. It was absolutely horrible. It is sad because the story was really decent and had possible potential. I wouldn't rate this movie a one out of ten just because the tunnel scenes were good and kept me in the movie. If you believe in Vietnam movies should show Americans winning every battle then this movie is definitely not for you. Although, I wont be re-watching this one in the near future. If war movies are your thing. I would recommend a movie called Tae-gu-ki. It is a great Korean war movie.",0 "This film made major concessions to political correctness in its portrayal of the Indians, who are depicted in a considerably more flattering light here than they are in Brian Moore's novel. This could also be considered the romanticizing ""Dances With Wolves"" effect. The novel drew some (unjust) criticism here in Canada for its uncompromising approach.

The actual history is fairly readily available. ""The Jesuits in North America in the 17th Century"" by the great American historian Francis Parkman is the standard 19th c. work on the proselytizing efforts of the French Récollet and Jesuit fathers.

Still, if you are not very familiar with the subject, this film is a strong, and quite gruesome, introduction. I'm not aware of a lot of films about the colonial period which are as tough. Not ""Last of the Mohicans"", or the adult westerns from the '50's, in my opinion. ""Little Big Man"", perhaps. Or possibly ""A Man Called Horse"", which I haven't seen. The priest in the story is a composite of actual missionaries, and the impact of this historical adventure thriller is heightened for me knowing that everything in this film happened, and often a whole lot worse.

The rights and wrongs, the pros and cons, of the cultural collision of Europeans with the autochthonous peoples are still too contentious, so I would rather not get into them. There is a lot here to brood about afterwards, and chances are good that you'll seek out a copy of the novel -- it's not very long, and a lot easier to read than James Fenimore Cooper. If you're American or Canadian, this is an important part of our shared past.

""Black Robe"" is one of the very best Canadian feature films, with a solid cast led by Lothaire Bluteau with August Schellenberg and Tantoo Cardinal in support. The presence of an Australian director, Bruce Beresford, perhaps kept the film from turning into a well-meaning but dry Canadian history lesson.",1 "A crooked doctor. A bootlegger hero. A heroine who socks people.

Child abuse! Drunkenness! Gun-pointing!

You can really tell this one is pre-Production Code.

(The shady physician's pronounced facial tic will remind many Canadians immediately of a certain discredited Olympic sports doctor.)

Barbara Stanwyck is good in an early role, and Joan Blondell, well, what a shameless scene-stealer.

Then there's those subjective camera shots from inside the careering ambulance! Whoa! It's just like ""Cinerama""! Grab onto something quick",1 "I am a great fan of Neve & what a disappointment. This is total junk filled with lot of nasty & unnecessary stuff. Although the film tries to explain the concept of lonely woman in search of true love the story, dialogs, music & the director has made it unable to watch. The story line is thin, not at all gripping, the dialogs are just filler & the music is just too bad to listen. Some scenes are filled just to kill time & are not worth watching. I was really fed up watching the first half itself not to mention about the second half. I wonder why Neve has acted in this movie. Total waste of time & money. Please avoid even if you accidentally bought it.",0 "Back in 1997 director Michael Haneke made Funny Games, a disturbing and thought-provoking thriller that toys with the viewer's place as a voyeur. In 2008, the re-make, also directed by Haneke, debuts with an all new cast and this time in English. The problem is that it is essentially a shot-for-shot, line-for-line, verbatim re-shoot. This makes watching this film pointless if you've seen the original, or unnecessary to watch the original if you're planning on seeing the 2008 version. And despite those pesky subtitles that often upset American audiences, the original's authenticity and casting is surprisingly superior. Anne (Naomi Watts) and George (Tim Roth) arrive at their vacation home ready to enjoy some golf and sailing with their son (Devon Gearhart) and neighbors. As Anne is unpacking groceries, she is confronted by two young men, dressed in golf attire, and wearing white gloves. Thinking nothing of their politeness and harmless asking for eggs, explaining that the neighbors ran out of cooking materials, Anne immediately helps them. But when the two boys begin obviously antagonizing her, she realizes that their family is about to be taken hostage for a terrifying night of anything but ""funny"" games. The same opening overhead shot of a car (this time an SUV) driving down a desolate highway while the family inside plays a game of guessing opera tunes, opens the film. The same opera pieces are used, the same title sequence and the same ear-piercing abstract death metal. The film is undoubtedly disturbing, unique and white-knuckle suspenseful, but if you've seen the original, there's nothing new. The breed of dog changed, along with the style of phone (from mobile to cellular), but the house's white gate looks almost completely identical, and the kitchen and all of its seemingly random decorations are all a perfect match. Georg and Anna have been altered to their American counterparts George and Anne, and some of the original translations have been reinterpreted (such as fatty to tubby and cheeky to rude). What makes this remake only slightly more successful than Gus Van Sant's famously horrendous turn with Hitchcock's Psycho is that Funny Games was never that well known. Taking what many believe to be one of the greatest films of all time (Psycho) and re-doing it scene for scene is so utterly pointless, it's a wonder the idea was ever even carried out. At least with Funny Games the reasons are more coherent. Making a German film more accessible for American audiences through the use of English speaking actors isn't entirely inane. Devoid of an omniscient soundtrack and played out to feel like real-time, the events of this one freakish night is quite a distressingly entertaining ordeal. Regardless of the superiorities that are evident in the original, this version isn't without its shock value and thought-provoking commentary on voyeurism and violence. But with its unexpectedly appalling conclusion, bizarre plot twists and the unexplainable interference with the ""fourth wall"" (a.k.a. having characters talk directly to the audience), Funny Games may very well be a film that could never have been truly accepted by American audiences in the first place. - The Massie Twins",0 "I can't say much about this movie, just that I love it, love it, love it, and I'm quite sure that's an understatement. Unfortunately, Kjell Aukrust, the creator of all the wonderful characters in this movie and many, many more, passed away christmas eve 2002, at the age of 82. May he rest in peace, content with the fact that he has made several generations of Norwegians, and others, laugh their hearts out. 10/10",1 "I watched this on TV. I was sucked in by the first third which set up a believable situation involving strong motivation for an uncivil act. A man is in need of quick cash, a woman needs to escape an abusive husband and a scheme is hatched for them to achieve both of their goals, not to mention continuing their trysts.

However, as the movie goes along it descends into bad acting, a convoluted and unbelievable plot, and an unsatisfying ending. Plot elements are introduced that may be necessary for making this into a feature-length film, but they do not correspond to any believable human behavior. Would you take the time to write documentation for a crime you were about to commit?

This has the feel of a low-budget made-for-TV effort.",0 "Like Der blaue Engel from 1930, Der Untertan is made after a famous novel by Heinrich Mann, the elder and politically more interested of the two German writer brothers. Here as there, the film is about the criticism for a social characteristic which is regarded as typical for the German background: the Philistine who is fixated on authority and blindly tumbles into war and downfall.

The film tells in episodes about the life story of Diederich Heßling (Werner Peters), youth and university days of the son of a factory owner and his gradual rise into better circles of the Prussian small town Netzig in the 80s of the 19th century; Germany is already an empire with Wilhelm II. being in power. During his studies and his time in the military service, Heßling learns how to be subject to superiors, to endure humiliation, to denounce and to enjoy the power over inferiors to the full. He takes over the father's factory, joins the conservative-nationalist party and a war club and marries a rich heiress. The height of his career is the opening of a warrior monument in Netzig; he appears as the official speaker and baths in the patriotic phrases of national authorities when a thunderstorm interrupts the ceremony and clears the whole place.

The alarming final shot of the monumental emperor, Wilhelm II., is a direct reference to the nation's dark future, WWI and WWII which both - from the perspective of the film - arose from the Prussian way of ruling and the servile attitude of the subjects, the German people. The incidental music to this last take is a repulsive potpourri of ""Die Wacht am Rhein"", an anti-French national song, the ""Horst-Wessel-Song"", a martyr anthem of the Nazis and the fanfares which introduced ""Die Wochenschau"", a weekly propagandistic newsreel that was shown in the cinemas of the Third Reich.

Without reservation, this film can be accepted as a work of art about a weighty epoch in German history, the Wilhelminian era. The characters precisely personify the important and guiding institutions like school, university, military and government. The film succeeds in picturing the fatal relation between philistinism and war enthusiasm, whereas the camera excellently describes the subject's point of view and position: Heßling looks bottom-up to the authority. Next to the acting brilliance of Werner Peters, it's those camera looks which outfits the film with an outstandingly analytical and aesthetic quality.",1 "More than a murder mystery. More than a psychological thriller. More than a horror movie.

With most viewers being either misled by the similarities to Agatha Christie's ""Ten Little Indians"", or just pompously broadcasting their knowledge that this movie was inspired by such, they seem to have missed the point that this was not a ""murder mystery"" per se, but rather, a finely-crafted journey through the mind of a multiple personality during the course of purging his violent personas.

I believe that premise (and its attendant ""twists"") were a TEENSY bit much for audiences to comprehend. Even taking into account the fact that film-makers construct films of this ilk to the whims of ""test-audiences"" and ""focus groups"", (read as lowest common denominators, i.e. swineherders), this particular case still elicits misunderstanding, even WITH the kindergarten paint-by-numbers explanation in the final minutes.

It seemed to be a Patrick-Duffy-shower-scene cop-out, but director James Mangold and writer Michael Cooney, were using sleight-of-hand to misdirect viewers through most of the film.

I envision those loose-lipped test-audiences (comprised of societal castes who have nothing better to do with their Tuesday afternoons) believing that the movie was taking place in real time, only to be chagrined when it is revealed that most of the action was occurring in a psychopath's disturbed mind. Instead of appreciating WHY this filmic device was used, they immediately wished they'd spent their Tuesday afternoon downing that Haagen-Daaz tub and watching McMillan & Wife explain every last G-rated detail to them like they were the last retards on earth.

Ten guests are flood-stranded at a Motel: among them, Rebecca deMornay, almost unrecognizable with her ample boob-job and burgundy hair, playing a character whom she is assuming the mantle of with each passing botox-ed day - a woman who ""used to be that actress""; Amanda Peet, whose stage direction was kept simple - ""Back that booty up some more, honey!""; John C. McGinley playing against type as an uber-dweeb, Jake Busey playing *exactly* his type – uber-psycho; Ray Liotta – always darkly mysterious… One by one, these refugee guests start dying all Agatha-Christie-like.

Intercut with this storyline is a somber eleventh-hour appeal by doctors and lawyers to an ill-tempered judge to stay an execution. We are intrigued as to how these two disparate tales are related, but we DO sense a connection in due course, because the dry, somber doctors are talking about a ""killer"" and in that wet parallel Motel story there're KILLIN'S GALORE.

By the end of the second act (after the film's most neck-hair-raising moment, when all the corpses at the Motel are found to be missing), it is revealed that the Motel scenes have been taking place within a psychopath's mind, and that each Motel character was merely one of the multiple personalities of the psychopath.

That's Twist No.1 – that all this rain-drenched piling in and out of rooms like the Spanish Inquisition with shocked pusses is merely a psychopath's IMAGINATION.

For a few moments we are led to believe the Shyamalan trap has been sprung – but there's a trump card – through Grand Misdirection on the film-maker's part, the doctors believe they successfully purge the psychopath's mind of his ""killer"" persona, but it is revealed in the last few seconds of film that the psychopath was too adroit in concealing his *real* ""killer"" persona in the form of the least likely hotel guest.

THAT was the true ""twist"" to the movie: discovering that the doctors' cure did not go deep enough; discovering that the psychopath was able to disguise his persona as a benign presence in full view of both the viewers and doctors.

The movie could have opted to wrap neatly with the first Twist, or could have taken any number of juvenile turns, blaming spirits from an Indian Burial Ground, or any of the lesser characters (who all sported damaging secrets), but the writers led us on a merrier, more interesting goose chase.

Thus, this deponent sayeth: Bravo to the road less traveled.

On the other hand, my ""feminine personality"" thought the movie brutalized women too overtly and my ""killer psychopath"" personality is going to make the film-makers pay for giving away my secrets...

(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)",1 "I really loved The Right Stuff. The story line seemed true to form and I felt like I was getting a glimpse into the 'real' world of life for astronauts and test pilots back in the 50s and 60s. When watching Apollo 13, which also stars Ed Harris, there was a real continuity in the movie that made the two movies complement each other nicely.

The Right Stuff also was a great vehicle for actors like Ed Harris, Fred Ward, Scott Glen,Sam Shepard and Dennis Quaid who have all gone on to do amazing work. The casting for this movie was superb. The main actors and supporting cast told a very interesting story with truth and poignancy that made it believable all the way through. I would and still do highly recommend this movie to anyone.

",1 "I found this movie amusing for its low budget effects and several flaws in its continuity. The most frequent flaw was the splicing of scenes in which it would appear to be day and then night and back and forth. Despite, or perhaps because of its flaws, I liked it. It does help if you like 1950's ""B"" sci-fi films and Shostakovich to start with.

In addition to the plot strongly resembling Robert Heinlein's ""Puppet Masters"", the music was also not original. I could find no evidence that there ever was a ""Tom Jonson"" who wrote any music for this film or anywhere, ever. Most of it was taken, uncredited, from Dmitri Shostakovich's symphonies 1, 5, & 10. I also recognized an excerpt from Sergei Prokofiev's music score for the Russian language film Alexander Nevsky. At the time Brain Eaters was distributed these composers were not as frequently performed in the US and their music would not have been familiar to almost all movie goers. Both composers were from the Soviet Union (Prokofiev died in 1953). They were perceived as Communist and there was a certain amount of prejudice and/or fear about performing it. During the cold war it would also have been difficult for Shostakovich to pursue legal action against the film company if he even knew his music had been used. I suspect this is exactly why this music was used.

I also would not be surprised if it turns out that the source of the performances were records purchased at a record store and the musicians were not compensated either. The credits do not list any orchestra(s)/conductor(s). The editing of the background music was also poorly done. There were several places where the music did not transition smoothly to the next scene or even within the same scene.",1 "I like ""Happy Gilmore"" and ""the Wedding Singer"" more than any other Sandler movies. Sure Sandler still plays a goof ball with a annoying voice but ""Happy Gilmore"" makes me laugh even though it doesn't force me to do so. The movies that made Sandler popular, ""the Water Boy"" and ""Big Daddy"" are some what similar to Jim Carrey's stupid disgusting comedies.",0 "I really liked the performances by the actors who portrayed Charles and Camilla, & also the actress they chose to portray Diana was very convincing in that role as well, so casting was very good. I don't know how accurate the film was, as I don't keep up with celebrity gossip and haven't read any of the biographies on Prince Charles or the Charles/Diana/Camilla situation, but I enjoyed this film. I look forward to seeing more films featuring actor Lawrence Fox. I recognized him as the actor who portrayed a German pilot in the BBC series ""Island at War."" He really humanizes Prince Charles in this film, I think overall it is a very flattering portrayal, although I don't really like how he and Camilla took advantage of Diana's innocence and youth, they really ruined her life. I gave the film 8 stars instead of 10, because I generally don't like these tell-all types of stories based on celebrity dirty laundry, but it was a good film with good acting; enjoyable overall.",1 "The action was episodic and there was no narrative thread to tie the episodes together and move the story forward. The plot plods along. With few exceptions (e.g., Graham Greene) the acting was uninspired, and pedestrian at best. The actors seemed to have something on their minds, other than the scene they were in. It is boring to observe a man driving a car through the semi- desert country of this movie's setting, whether he drives poorly or well. Such scenes are typical of the level of tension in the video. So there was nothing about this video to engage or draw the observer in, to make him or her care about the characters and the out comes. I am doubly disappointed because I rented this movie based on the reputations of the executive producer (Redford) and the writer of the novel on which it was based (Hillerman). I note that the jewel box reports that funding is provided by PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as Carlton International. I would hope that this video was as disappointing to them as it was to me and my wife, to the point that they will not fund any more disasters coming from the same source.",0 "this is a gem in my movie collection. everyone who watches it falls in love. do yourself a favor, resist the urge and watch ""i've been twelve forever"" (included on the discs) instead of watching the videos separately. he explains the inspiration/context (but not too much to spoil the presentations) behind each work and then you are able to watch each video. in the end, you will have watched an entirely engaging film about a very humble, gentle, and talented, young boy living inside a man. he is a real genius, and i think there would be many more like him if we took life less seriously and stopped making sense.

10 out of 10 because it could not be better!",1 "I have always loved Herman's Hermits, and I really liked this movie. I don't suppose that I would have liked it when it first came out because it would have been bunched in with all of the other `rock' musicals of it's time, trying to compete for the `young' in-crowd. Nevertheless, as I look at it now, I see it as a charming film from another era.

The plot itself is very interesting and different. It is not your typical `garage band goes to the big city and gets discovered' type of film. They are looking for fame and fortune by way of the champion Greyhound, Mrs. Brown. The rock band thing was just a side interest in this film, much different from other rock musicals of its time. Other `rock' star films of that era were used merely as a publicity showcase for the band to play their music. This film actually had a decent story with some music in it.

The cinematography was fabulous in this film. If for anything at all, you should watch it for this aspect alone. I enjoyed the whole film, but the ending was a bit vague. I was able to figure it out after a while, but it jumped from scene to scene without smooth transitions of ideas.",1 "I really do enjoy this remake. It doesn't require too much thinking, you can pretty much be a zombie and enjoy the flick (knuck knuck).... Considering all the other zombie flicks that are out there.. this one is pretty decent

The acting is a little campy... the special effects are sort of lame by todays standards.. it never explains why the zombies are there... they just are.. All and all, these components contribute to me enjoying this film.

I really do admire George A. Romero and Tom Savini for all their work they have put into Zombie movies... I, myself, am I huge Resident Evil fan but this is classic.

8/10 for zombie genre.",1 "The story is idealess.

The costumes are laughable.

The set and scenery are boring.

The fights are simple.

The main actress is good looking, the main actor is not. But both are acting bad, together with all the other actors as well.

The music is annoying.

The camera-work and editing are static. Special effects are rare and unconvincing.

There is no climax and the end is unspectacular.

All in all, there is nothing that makes this worth your time. Only for people who really wants to know about every movie of this genre.",0 "This is most definitely the worst of the series, given the fact that it has almost nothing to do with Amityville... As a matter-of-fact, I can't remember anything that reminded me of the real horror of Amityville throughout the entire movie,except for two small things: The very ending, of course.

The ending contains a possession, and a similar run of the very original story of the dangers of the actual home in Amityville. That's probably, really, the only part of the film REALLY worth seeing.

The second, is just personal to me, but I've always had my attention stolen from any news of anyone hanging dead. That is by far the scariest way to die to me- a hanging. Therefore, this immediately got my curiosity.

Other than that, though... ...worthless.",0 "While Tilda Swinton does another one of her typically marvelous performances, it is Amber Tamblyn who displays the surprisingly great acting chops in this film. I must admit that although I knew of her for her TV role in ""Joan of Arcadia"" and for the movie, ""The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants,"" let's just say that I don't think a 46 year old guy is typically in her target audience. After this role, however, I have no doubt that if she keeps her head on straight, she's the next great actress of her generation.

As other commenter's have noted, her scene in the public bathroom on the ski trip is at times uncomfortable because of how devastatingly powerful it is. Tamblyn's performance deserves a Supporting Actress Oscar nomination at the very least, but because this film has barely been seen (even seemingly by the frequent movie-going audience of IMDb!), I doubt it's even on most people's radar.",1 "It is the story of a Jew, that stepped by accident in a complicated situation. Kept into one of the many German concentration camps, he got to know that front line comes closer. A Russian advance would mean to be restored to freedom. But knowing this he has to see how his companions and friends commit suicide. So he has the chance to stop it, telling them of the news. It is alluring but unmoral, cause he has to lie. Nobody would believe him the true story, so he fakes up a radio.

Jurek Becker created one of the most sensitive and heartbreaking plots for Holocaust films. Marcel Reich-Ranicki praised him for inventing the ""principle radio"". But this hollywoody holocaustic thingy can't deal the complexity. Jacob is presented as just a funny Jew, that loves his people. It does not deal with the problem of Jewish identity, which is one of the central themes. It even naively adopts stereotypes Nazis used. This adaption sacrifices density for simplicity and compatibility.

This Movie is just an entertaining film, an audience preferring a more deep and dense plot should look the GDR production, for which Jurek Becker himself made the screenplay and earned the first and only Oscar nomination an East German film ever got.",0 "If I had a dollar for every time I walked out of a movie theater griping about how Hollywood has run out of ideas, I'd be a rich man. Lately I have been on a spiritual search if you will, to find some truly unique movies and Indie films seem to be the grail. Flatland was an impulse buy for me and I must say that this was the most unique movie experience I ever had. Nothing I'm aware of is more thought provoking for people who like discussing UFO's and Inter-dimensional travel. I can't think of a genre this film fits into. This is a thinking person's film and since I've seen it, I've been trying to explain to my cat what a solid is. I've also named her ""Pea Brain"". You can bet this film will get some serious looks from the big movie houses.",1 "J.T. debuted on CBS in 1969 and won a Peabody Award that year. I probably saw it in 1969, but I know for sure I saw it during the 1970s as it was rebroadcast several times, usually around Christmas.

Although a bit of a sentimental weeper, the acting and portrayal of life in a tough urban neighborhood are gritty and believable. I doubt that today's tastemakers would approve of anything so realistic being offered as fare for children.

It is too bad J.T. is no longer broadcast and is not readily available on VHS or DVD. To my mind, J.T. is as much of a Christmas classic as It's A Wonderful Life or A Christmas Story.",1 "Those who have something invested in keeping the boundaries of gender and sexuality rigid will be offended by this film, whether they be religious fundamentalist types or gay-rights advocates who argue from the constrictive either/or framing of their opponents. Fundamentalists (and I used to be one!) would, at the same time, find material to support their nurture-not-nature conclusions in Ned Kynaston's background (implicit victimization at the hands of an implicit pedophile), the bigoted comments of the king about effeminate boys, and most of all the actor's eventual orientation ""reversal"" at the hands of the ""right woman."" This, of course, would anger those who have chosen to engage them in the loaded ""is it a choice?"" battle which completely dismisses the B in LGBT. If you are coming from an angle in which no Kinsey scale exists, then the offense makes sense.

I think it's a mistaken angle, however. My only complaints about this movie were minor, and involved poor editing, unnecessary dialogue, and a couple of unlikely scenarios (e.g. the carriage ladies' hyperbolic reaction to Ned's petticoat surprise). Otherwise, I loved it - enough to watch it four times on DVD. For me, this story was about identity, authenticity, the malleability of gender and sexuality, and the difference between love and projection.

At the bustling outset of the film, Ned (pitch-perfect Billy Crudup, ravishing in any incarnation) is arrogant and narcissistic; his self-regard is balanced perilously upon a constructed self that relies on the applause of others. Alone with Maria, we get a glimmer of something else in him when he pauses contemplatively to quote his mentor - ""Never forget that you are a man in woman's form...or was it the other way 'round?"" This hint at an awareness (on his or the film's part) of the essential duality of human nature is echoed by Maria - ""You would make as fine a man as any woman.""

When Ned loses his role and his audience to Maria, he loses his very identity; in this way, she ""kills"" him. The theme of killing and dying is cleverly woven throughout the narrative, both onstage and off. (But more on that presently.)

Lost and literally beaten, Ned turns to his former lover, who spurns him with droll indifference. Ned is no longer the shallow Duke's glittering projection but a raw, needy, and very messy human being. Ned's disastrous last-ditch attempt to play Othello for the king in order to save his livelihood is the final humiliation. Maria watches his disintegration onstage, and grasps his utter vulnerability for the first time. It's a credit to Claire Danes' talent that she can speak volumes without uttering a word; in this scene and the inn scene her unexpressed love bleeds from every pore.

The almost-sex scene between the two at the inn is one of my favorite love scenes in any film. The gentle role-switching from ""man"" to ""woman"" (in alternate parlance, ""top"" to ""bottom"" or ""dominant"" to ""submissive"") leads to a passionate confusion in which, if you'll notice, Ned tells Maria (astride him) first that she is the ""woman"" - ""And now?"" she says, kissing and caressing him - ""The woman,"" he says - ""And now?"" she says, her passion intensifying - ""The man,"" he murmurs. Do the roles really matter? If only he had shut up about Desdemona! But there is still some ""dying"" left to do, and not in the Shakespearian sense. Call it evening the score.

For alas, Maria is a terrible actress: as affected as Ned was, and twice as false. In rehearsal with someone who evokes her own passion, however, her performance begins to come alive.

The harrowing climax of the film has the viewer wondering, along with the theatre audience, if the newfound Othello's murderous passion is real. And it is, which is why Ned is so good at it. In ""killing"" Maria onstage, he manages at once to work out his Othello-like ambivalence and rage toward a woman he also loves; to ""kill"" her affected stage persona; and to give birth to himself as an authentic actor in his own male body. It's damn near perfect.

""Finally got the death scene right."" Ned may not yet know who or even what he is, but he finds expression of his innermost being with a person who loves and accepts him for whomever he may turn out to be. We should all be so lucky.",1 "I've always held this movie up as the worst movie I ever saw. But it so totally vanished I was beginning to think I had imagined it or somehow merged two memories together. But no, there it is. ""The Visitor"". That weird poster that obviously drew us in and yet somehow had nothing to do with anything. I have this strong memory or someone walking down a fire escape with this dramatic music building and building and he hits the street and ...nothing. The scene ends. The movie and the soundtrack felt like they had been cobbled together from outtakes of other movies. When I saw the movie ""Bowfinger"" where Steve Martin tries to film a movie starring Eddie Murphy without Murphy knowing he was being filmed...THAT'S what this movie was like. I think the crew went around and filmed actors filming other movies.

Giving this movie one star is wasting a star. But yet I'd love to see it again just to relive how bad it was.",0 "This could have been done WAY better. This is the story: Two babies are switched at birth, one from an upper middleclass family and one from a lower class family, because of a jealous nurse. Twelve years later the mystery is discovered and the upper class family buys their kid back. This lame plot isn't worked out at all, and some minor storylines are just forgotten near the end. By the way, what the hell was the meaning of the very last scene ???? There are some serious things wrong with this movie.

Acting isn't very good either, but it isn't bad. Benoît Magimel, the kid who plays Maurice, did some nice things, and Jean-Brice Van Keer was good too. But then again, some other people didn't act at all: Daniel Gelin (the doctor), Patric Bouchitey (the priest), ...

Mostly I don't say anything about the music, but this time it really beats everything. HORRIBLE! TASTELESS! OFF-KEY! Unbelievable

Of course there are some good things about this movie, especially how the two families are brought into screen and how one family falls apart when someone from the other family comes to live with them. But in general, this is a huge stinker. 4/10",0 "The first episode actually seemed very promising and had a great potential. But unfortunately it developed into a series for people who love seeing a lot of laser weapons shooting and spaceships shooting it out.

A series that suffered much by episodes in between that did not pursuit the storyline and seemed not to fit in continuum. Sometimes you wondered why they did not use powerful objects from earlier episodes.

The main characters were:

Captain Dillon Hunt - Name should have been captain Perfect instead. So political correct it makes you want to puke. Strangely enough Mr. perfect have no troubles killing innocent prison guards while he time after time jeopardize the mission and his crew to protect female criminals. Always blaming others for their flaws and never admitting his own even when they nearly get everyone killed. If there is a female in the episode then he is always good for a kiss and more. When he starts kissing with woman number ten you start to see a pattern. It is fine with romance but always and with every woman he meets is plain stupid and annoying. In season 5 he even becomes even more righteous and use every opportunity to tell his crew how bad they handled themselves even if it is his error that put them in that mess. Worst thing is they chose such a bad actor to have the main role. I noticed several times it looked like he smiled when approaching his crew after they just had great personal loses.

Andromeda - The worlds most powerful warship. Still anyone can get unnoticed on board and make every kind of sabotage on the ship. And never does it intercept transmissions from enemies on board to the outside. Sometimes two small space-fighters can nearly destroy Andromeda and other times it can destroy an entire fleet alone. I often wondered how come no one build a more powerful one the 300 years it was gone.

Trance - First 3 seasons she should have been the mystery of the crew. It got fast boring and when you finally get the secret it is really not interesting.

Harper - Character with more potential than always just being the puny scientist. My personal favorite nerd.

Beka - In the last horrible season her role finally flowers and she is permitted to be more than Dillons puppet. She should have been written that way all the time.

Tyr - The only character that developed throughout the series. Unfortunately that was destroyed in the end by incompetent writers.

Nietzscheans - An unbelievable race that never really seems plausible. Unfortunately they have a very big role in the series.

So if you want a series with interesting characters and stories then look for something else. This is very far from good sci-fi. It seemed like the writers ended up not knowing if they were writing a superhero or sci-fi series, and it turned out bad both ways.

All in all I have a hard time understanding why many good sci-fi series die after one season or less and this lasted 5 seasons.",0 "After seeing the trailer for this, I was really excited to watch it. I got about 45 minutes into it when I realized that I had to go to work. I work at Blockbuster so I was telling everybody about this great movie coming out on Tuesday saying, ""I'm only 45 minutes in but so far, it's really great!"" Well, I finished it just now and I have to say, the ending wasn't all that great. I'm kind of upset because I really, REALLY liked the first hour but by the end, it was kind of mixed up and left me going, ""I REALLY hope this isn't the end of the movie"" and it was. Don't get me wrong, it's a ""think about it after the movie is over"" ending and I did but I really wish they would have ended it a bit better.

Great Story - Great Beginning - Great Middle - Okay End",0 "Wow. I've seen lots of bad movies and lots of bad sequels, but this one was just incredibly bad. I didn't even know it was possible to sink that low. And it wasn't even bad in a funny way, but simply bad in an extremely painful way. I don't even know why I watched it to the end.

The story is nothing but a series of clichés. The bad guys have stolen a killer virus and are intending to let it loose to make a fortune selling the antidote. Very predictable, eh? The characters couldn't be more two-dimensional if they were in a Nintendo game. Being a tomboy, I absolutely hate it when women in movies have no personality and are just added in as a love interest. Nyah, the chick in MI2, is a perfect example of this. She was the only female in the entire film and her sole purpose was to be sexy (as is subtly shown by several pointless cleavage shots). Sure, the movie wants you to think that she could kick ass if she wanted to by making her a professional thief, but isn't very convincing at that. In the end, while Tom Cruise is engaged in a very unrealistic battle sequence on a beach, she roams around aimlessly, considering the possibility of throwing herself off a cliff (which would have been a relief).

I was going to talk about the extremely pointless car chase sequence between the hero and the chick, in which they demolish their cars for no reason whatsoever, but I don't really know what to say about it.

The only good thing about this film is that it was so boring that I preferred doing the homework I'd been postponing for ages to watching the dumb motorcycle chases.",0 "Oh how bad! My friend found this on video and he has a knack for finding the worst movies of all time. This may not be the worst he has found (see ""Toxic Advenger"" or ""Night Patrol"") but this one is real close. Poor Andrew McCarthy - I think he was better off lugging around dead bodies or those plastic things in department stores. Acting was bad but the storyline was worse. Enough said.",0 "For The Boys is a film that's about two performers and their almost 50 year association of one kind or another through some tumultuous times in America. The filmed earned Bette Midler a nomination for Best Actress in what might be her best screen role. At least it's the favorite of mine.

Dixie Leonard where Midler gets to show all her talents is a young club singer who gets a break to accompany famous entertainer Eddie Sparks as played by James Caan on a USO tour in World War II. Midler's husband is an army photographer who's killed in action, but she still has his son who is played at various times in his life by Brandon Call and Christopher Rydell, director Mark Rydell's son. George Segal who is Caan's gag writer also is Midler's uncle and he acts as cupid in this show business marriage. All of Midler and Caan's lives are played out against the background of America in World War II, the Korean War, the McCarthy Era and Vietnam.

Caan's character of Eddie Sparks is said to be based on Bob Hope and God only knows what Hope must have thought of this film at the time it was out. By that point his stature as an American icon was secure. Hope was known to have liaisons with a few female performers, most discreetly however. The best known that kind of bubbled to the surface was with Marilyn Maxwell who Midler's character might have been based on. The character of Eddie Sparks however had three daughters and America's most well known father of girls was Eddie Cantor in most of this era. And Cantor's most well known extra-marital affair involved Joan Davis.

By the way actress Shannon Wilcox has a brief but really telling part as Caan's ice princess of a wife. Her few scenes tell you exactly why Caan's out roaming.

Caan got a lot of criticism for his part and I'm mystified as to why. Eddie Sparks is a complex part and Caan mastered all the subtleties even though he's not my idea of a song and dance man. He's the kind of man who will stop at nothing to climb the ladder of success, but he's also not a totally bad man. Knowing full well that George Segal's pungent political comments in front of gossip columnist Rosemary Murphy, another ice princess, will get him in trouble, he tries in one scene to tell him to just cool it. In that other classic, The Way We Were, Caan is adhering to Robert Redford's philosophy where in ten years time right wing producers will be hiring left wing writers and the blacklist will be forgotten, it's just something to be ridden out if one keeps a cool head. I don't think Caan was totally wrong there, he didn't want to lose his friend and a good writer.

What finally breaks Midler and Caan apart is the death of her son, like his father in combat in Vietnam. Caan and the boy bonded genuinely and the young man, probably more to honor his father chose a military career, graduating from the Citadel. Caan has a flip attitude towards education which is something the kid picks up on. But people who have a flip attitude towards education, albeit with a military bent, don't last at the Citadel.

Midler sees Caan as a warmonger who built his career on the publicity surrounding the entertainment of troops like Bob Hope. Caan argues quite rightly that he doesn't make policy, he doesn't send kids to war, he's a song and dance man.

A good mixture of songs from the various eras make up the score for For The Boys. One song, Bill-A-Dick by Hoagy Carmichael and Paul Francis Webster was an unpublished number at the time it was written and makes its debut here. It's sung by Midler along with Melissa Manchester and Pattie Darcy as an Andrews Sisters like trio. Remember Midler did revive the Andrews Sisters's Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy.

The film is an absolute gem, Midler is divine and don't listen to the criticisms that were given to James Caan.",1 "Tupac Shakur for some reason decided to extend his talent to a film set in the Ghettos of America but he and his friends would look more comfortable in Paris dressed in 80's euro-fashion that they seem to wear in this terrible waste of time movie.

Why oh why did you make this, an ego boost if ever there is one.

It saddens me to say this, because i love Tupac as much as the next bloke, but on his form in this film it's no bad thing that he now lies six feet under.

If this is tupac's legacy i feel sorry for him, well done Biggie for shooting him (allegedly) (though we all know its true). Though after watching this Frenchified supposedly American film it looks like Biggie did us all a great favour.",0 "Petrified Forest (1936)

To say that Leslie Howard is perfect is to explain why Petrified Forest is sometimes a great movie. It's a movie about performances in words more than deeds, and his, among the three famous leads, is the most leading. Howard's sense of ease, his struggle for meaning without getting pompous, and his understanding of the other people from the inside is truly the meat, and the potatoes, of the movie.

And the play, which he starred in the previous year. The movie remains a play, set mostly in one colorful (black and white) roadside restaurant and water stop on the edge of the desert. For an action picture, it sometimes talks too much, and it lacks what you would call action. But that's because it isn't an action picture, it's a literate exploration of the end of the frontier. This is exemplified by everyone, including Howard as a footloose and heartbroken loner aptly named Alan Squire, escaping the culture of civilization in Europe for the real thing, the old wild west. And he discovers that the wild west doesn't really exist any more, and that he's a man out of step with the times.

Except that for a brief moment, the past resurfaces, namely as a gangster, a true ""desperado"" in the form of Humphrey Bogart, representing the end of the romanticized outlaw. Like Howard's bookish romantic, Bogart's character, Duke Mantee (another great name), is out of step. And Duke knows it just as much as Alan, but his way of showing it is with grunts and violence. Still, the two men, opposites in some ways, are in the same dilemma, and they understand it, and acknowledge it in each other.

The witnesses for this meeting of minds and of poetry, both fine and rough, are all characters and caricatures of various kinds--the old timer who is both funny and blind to the truth of what's happening, the rich man who is so above it all he can't take the time to be afraid, and his wife, who sees the romance of Alan's position, and who see how her own life is a tragedy. The other star, of course, is Bette Davis, still fairly new to Hollywood (just five years in) but nevertheless well established with almost thirty movies made. She shines here in a role that only demands a kind of honest and starry attitude that she nails. She might not have the more moving innocence of, say, Olivia de Haviland, she provides a more likely spark and frontier spirit, repackaged for the 1930s.

The year of the movie's release was the depth of the Depression, with Roosevelt running for reelection and the American West known more for its hardship than any sense of hope. But it's now four years after the end of prohibition and the real gangsters of earlier Warner Brothers films (including Bogart as a thug, along with Davis, appearing briefly in the great pre-code 1932 film, Three on a Match) are mostly gone from real life. Likewise, the western villains like Dillinger (the model for Duke Mantee) and Ma Barker, and of course Bonnie and Clyde, were all dead by 1934 and 1935.

So the play, written in 1935 by multiple-Pulitzer winner Robert Sherwood, was a timely success before being adapted for film, with Leslie Howard producing for Warner Brothers. The result was almost bound for success, and though the movie is known now mostly as Bogart's breakthrough movie (his earlier films had him typecast as a second-string villain), it is really not Bogart who dominates it, but Howard. And of course, the writing, the play itself, which sounds sometimes dated to our ears. But imagine the themes of redemption, and love, and escape (in all senses) and you can hear something powerful for its time.",1 "The poor script is the culprit in this failed project, not only is it a mere replica of any other sci-fi catastrophic movie ever made, it's a bad one at that. Don't watch this movie unless you want to learn what to avoid in movie making.

Acting is OK though, thankfully the movie has some good actors but it doesn't come close to compensating for this hopeless flick. Had it not been for the acceptable acting I would have given it a 2 instead of a four.

Even most of the graphical wizardry, which today is a standard part of a lot of movies and no longer any great obstacle to create, is poor and it even seemed they re-used a lot of animated shots a couple of times. Either that or it's just repetitive, which is almost just as bad.",0 "With the recent box-office success achieved by the latest remake of 1974's `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' it's worth looking back at Tobe Hooper's original horror classic.

The movie tells a fairly simple tale at heart. A group of five teenagers driving through rural Texas happen upon a deranged, cannibalistic family. Psychological terror and chainsaws ensue.

Yet despite this simplicity, what is it about `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' that continues to succeed so with its audience? Outside of one memorial scene involving a meet hook; the movie is not particularly gory by today's standards. The film's characters and actual scares are not that remarkable.

The power of `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' lies in its atmosphere and in what H.P. Lovecraft called `the oldest and strongest kind of fear': the fear of the unknown. The later of these two staples of great horror is often cast aside in modern horror movies-especially in those churned out by the great Hollywood engine. Instead, every mystery must be explained away, every mask ultimately pulled from a monster's face, and not a moment of exposition is spared. It is interesting to note that the filmmakers behind the latest `Chainsaw' film chose to implement all three of these stylistic vices in their remake.

In the original, the feeling of dread and mounting paranoia creeps over the viewer in slow but steady waves. The first scene in the film depicts a desecrated grave with a voiceover of radio newscast, immediately followed by an opening credits sequence set against a backdrop of roaring solar flares. This, along with some idle astrological chatter on the part of one of the teenagers early on, leads to a feeling of cosmic disarray in the lonely Texas hills they traverse.

Questions about the villain's mask or the field of cars under camouflage netting are left for the viewer to answer on his or her own. At worst, in the loss of any acceptable answer, they are forced to ponder that terrible and limitless gulf of the imagination: the unknown.

In it's later stages, the film becomes a cacophonous world of throat-peeling screaming, blood-shot eyes, laughter, and grinding machinery. One is forced to recall the solar flares in the film's opening credits. In the climax of famous dinner scene, there is a feeling of cosmic forces pressing in on reality and warping it into some crude mockery of order, as if the world were but a TV or radio signal distorted into madness by flares on the surface of the sun.

In the 29 years since `The Texas chainsaw Massacre' hit theaters, there have been countless imitators and four additional films in the franchise, three of them remakes. Yet as loved and influential as the original classic has been, many who would seek to emulate its vision seem to overlook its true strengths.",1 "This is an enjoyable and surprisingly competent DTV follow up to cult hit Ginger Snaps. The first film was dark, entertaining and witty and had a good amount of tension and scares. The sequel is good fun but lacks the wit of the original and a certain amount of the hip-ness. The lack of Ginger herself is also evident. Katherine Isabelle is back but essentially in a cameo as the ghost of Ginger while once again the angst ridden sister Bridget is the centre of the story. Following the events of the first film, Bridget is on the run, moving from town to town and constantly taking monkshood (the drug that prevents werewolfism) to stop her turning into a werewolf following the final confrontation in the first film. When she is found overdosing on the stuff she falls into a coma and wakes up in a mental hospital but soon she is tracked down by another werewolf and with no monkshood to slow down her own transformation she must fight her impending hairiness. As she has found, Monkshood doesn't prevent Wolfiness, only slows the transformation. At the institute she meets the eccentric Ghost, who is fascinated with Bridget and soon learns of her problem. When a residents of the institute start turning up dead Ghost initially suspects Bridget but they soon discover that a mate is tracking Bridget to make hairy werewolf babies with her. As well as this Ghost may not be quite as she seems. This is well shot and has some tense moments and considering its small budget it is a remarkably accomplished and enjoyable piece of work. A good and more low key Ginger Snaps movie it is. ***",1 "I guess I can't complain too much, because for all intents and purposes, I got this movie for free. It came with a 'freaks' boxed set through Something Weird video, along with, among other movies, the classic 80's cheesefest BASKET CASE. At the time, purchasing BASKET CASE in this boxed set actually cost less than it did alone, so hey, a good deal is a good deal. And since I bought it, I gave SHE FREAK a day in court and watched it. Unfortunately, it isn't nearly as interesting as BASKET CASE. It's really only slightly more interesting than watching paint dry.

SHE FREAK is, near as I can tell, the 1960's remake of the classic freak film FREAKS, directed by Tod Browning. Unlike Browning's movie, however, SHE FREAK contains almost no freaks at all. The biggest problem with this movie is that a grand majority of it contains stock footage of carnivals being set up and taken down, shots of random people on rides, and other such mundane images of fair grounds and carnies.

What little story there is revolves around Jade Cochran (the late Claire Brennan), an average-to-homely woman who begins the movie as a coffee shop waitress with high aspirations. After getting fired from her job for not being appreciative enough (if you know what I mean), she finds work at the local carnival, becoming good friends with one of the strippers. She eventually meets and seduces Steve St. John (Bill McKinney) and marries him, although it's made very plain that she's a bit on the easy side, as prior to the marriage she has a little bedroom bam-bam with Blackie Fleming (Lee Raymond), a man egotistical enough to decorate the walls of trailer with his own name in spray paint.

Steve St. John, Jade's new husband, is in charge of the freak show, something that deeply disturbs Jade. See, Jade is a bit on the shallow side, thinking more about the material advantages of marrying a man with money and less about the human side of his work trying to make a life for people who might not otherwise have one. Since Steve isn't the most attentive of husbands, Jade's little fling with Blackie continues despite the marriage. Then, one night, the only freak in the movie--a little person named, appropriately, ""Shorty""--sees Jade getting it on with Blackie, and while he says nothing, he makes his dislike of Jade as clear as this script is capable of making it.

Things escalate (so to speak) from here, with Jade becoming increasingly open about her dislike of the unseen freaks. Unfortunately, as an actor, Claire Brennan was as talented as she was attractive, and when she expresses her disgust she does so with a smile that she holds back with painful difficulty. Soon, Steve St. John catches Blackie after one of Jade's indiscretions, the two of them have a fight, and Blackie stabs Steve to death in a very brief and tame fight scene. Jade then inherits the freak show, and runs it with a cold heart, in contrast to Steve, who considered the freaks close friends of his.

Anyway, eventually the freaks catch up to her and deform her in ways that are only possible in the movies, and she ends up becoming the bizarre and twisted creature shown in the SHE FREAK trailers and posters, and the movie ends. That's it. And believe me, this review is far more interesting than the actual movie itself, which should tell you something.",0 "This film holds the distinguished place of Worst Film Ever in my opinion! There are no redeeming features to this film, the acting, considering the cast, is poor, Anthony Hopkins and Matthew Broderick seem almost embarrassed that they have ended up in the film. The direction is terrible, and the script leaves much to be desired.

Alan Parker should be ashamed he ever made this abortion, I was hoping for great things from this film, considering the pedigree of all involved. HOW WRONG COULD I BE?

Is it any wonder that this piece of tripe has never been shown on TV? AVOID AT ALL COSTS!",0 "A married graduate student takes some time off to work on her thesis and play housewife to her doctor husband while living in a University apartment complex. One day, a plumber shows up unannounced claiming he needs to do routine maintenance but ends up making a terrible mess of her bathroom. Soon, she finds the plumber is always around, a bit snoopy, and may have ulterior motives. The Plumber is pretty good, especially considering it was apparently a TV movie, but it is a bit on the dull side. As seems to be a theme with Mr. Weir, this film explores the concept of The Other within the framework of a horror-thriller. I'd argue this is even more successful to me than Wave or Paris were, perhaps because it's main focus was on two individuals. It explores both sides and the ambiguity serves the narrative instead of causing confusion.",1 "When I was only six, my mother and father sent my older brother to

take me to watch the Olson and Johnson routine at a New York

City nightclub called THE CARNIVAL. I had been aware of the

antics of the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and

Costello, but now I could see first hand the live slapstick of

involved comedy.

The film ""Crazy House"" is a perfect example of keeping the wild art

of updated slapstick alive on film. It is an update of the pie

throwing of early silents and the progression from Charlie Chaplin

to Charlie Chase. This film even has small roles for all the lesser

known comics of that era. Their roles in this movie are much the

same as the bit inserts into ""It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World"".

For those a little bit younger than myself, this film would be called

the progenitor of ""Rowan & Martin's Laugh In"", a TV series that ran

from 1968-1973.

All I can say is, ""If you want to see the visualization of one liners as

presented in the 1940's try and get to see this film"". In the short

while, watch ""Laugh In"" reruns and prep yourself for a look back

into comedy history.

",1 "This is an old fashioned Woody Allen film (in other words it's funny). It's got a much more coherent plot than any of his era--with a much more conventional format. While I like the extreme silliness of these earlier starring films, I also see this as a welcome change and his most personally engaging film--it really has a lot of heart.

Woody plays a nerdy guy (what else?) who is obsessed with Humphrey Bogart films. He loves them so much that Bogie himself often stops by to give him advice! These moments are wonderful and the actor imitating Bogart is spot on! Well, for some odd reason, his wife doesn't like Woody and leaves (gee, he sounds like the perfect guy, huh?). His married friends, Diane Keaton and Tony Roberts come to give him support and try to set him up with various ladies (none of which comes even close to working out). However, over time, it becomes obvious to everyone except Woody and Diane that THEY would make a great couple. Even Bogie comes to tell Woody to make the moves on his friend's wife! Well, here is where the plot begins to look more and more like CASABLANCA--a natural considering Bogie's in this film, too! Well, I'll stop my review here because I DON'T want to spoil the picture. It's cute, coherent and well worth seeing.

PS--a great scene involves Bogie having a showdown with Woody's ex-wife. It's a riot, though in general this movie has more subtlety and less laugh out loud laughs than his previous films but it all works together so well, it's not a problem.",1 "Serial Mom is an absolute gem of a movie. Turner's acting is truly excellant, as is the whole casts. Although a little ridiculous at first, any flaws it has are made up for in the way Beverley carries out her murders, my favourite being the guy in the toilets gruesome demise.",1 "Enjoyed viewing this great film classic and the great acting of Kay Francis (Georgiana Summers),""Play Girl"",'41 who loved to fool around with George Brent(""Bob"" McNear),""The Great Lie"",'41 who was a married man. It seemed that everyone else in the picture played husband and wife with lots of infidelity and everyone telling little white lies about who is married to who and why we have to have different rooms to sleep in and why we have twin beds in our rooms. It seems that being divorced was a very evil thing and talking about their ""EX"" husbands was the in THING!. Genevieve Tobin (Betty Summers),""The Petrified Forest"",'36 and John Eldridge (Lawrence Thurston),""Superman"",'73 enjoyed stealing automobiles(coupe type) and even going into being a jewel thief. It was great viewing this film and seeing just what people were watching during the YEAR 1935. This film was probably considered X rated. The old gas stations, furniture and women's fashions, plus the modern auto's in the 1930's made this a great film classic with all these young actors starting out in their film careers.

",1 "In What Shall We Do with Our Old? we can see Griffith grasping towards a perfect expression of poignancy in his short features. Here, his approach is all about subtlety and simplicity.

The fact that the story can be conveyed through just a handful of intertitles allows for more realistic and emotional acting. In many early silent pictures (Griffith's included) half the performance was about revealing plot or character through ridiculous pantomime. Here, there is no need for that, and the acting is much more purely about conveying mood and tone, with the slow, sombre movements of the elderly couple. Later on, the bustle of the courtroom and the prison cell give a more frantic feel. By now a brilliant master of pace, Griffith slows things down again for the final scene.

Griffith's shot composition was also becoming increasingly refined. He arranges extras in lines that draw the audience's attention to particular points of action. It's also great how the even the set design matches the pace of each scene – the home is bare and Spartan, the workshop, courtroom and prison cell are full and layered.

Being a kind of social protest piece, What Shall We Do with Our Old is in a similar vein to 1909's A Corner in Wheat. However, while Griffith has clearly moved on in his direction and arrangement of actors, it lacks the dynamism of the earlier film. It's a shame, because having more fully rounded characters (as opposed to A Corner in Wheat's faceless crowds) it should have a greater impact. Having said that, with several scenes apparently lost it is difficult to judge what we are left with.",1 "I liked it a lot, in fact even more than the first movie. I loved the character of Ghost and all the comic book shots and her third person lines. Good ending. One thing they could have done was make the identity of the werewolf clearer. Also when the sister appeared it was kind of forced.. it didn't seem like she was a delusion",1 "We waited five years for this?! It's kind of annoying that people are running around claiming that if you didn't like this fourth (discounting the unfinished SLEEPAWAY CAMP IV: THE SURVIVOR) installment in the series you're not a real fan of ""Sleepaway Camp."" Wrong! I really like the first three. Sure, they're just stupid/cheesy 80s slasher flicks, but there's something really fun and entertaining about them. I liked both the more straight-forward, gritty slasher feel of the original film, as well as the comic splatter of the second and third films. Both Felissa Rose (as the shy, confused teen) and Pamela Springsteen (as the one-liner-spouting 'moral' killer she'd eventually transform into) were both great fun in the Angela role and helped make the first three films very enjoyable. RETURN, however, is anything but fun. Well, unless you're a not-so-bright 10-year-old who snickers any time someone uses the ""f"" word.

Also, series fans can't help but feel short-changed by the fact that Angela (who IS the series if you ask me) is on-screen for such a short amount of time. It's like going to watch a NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET movie where Freddy makes a 5-minute cameo at the very end. Even worse, the majority of Angela's scenes have her dressed in this incredibly lame and obvious cop disguise with a horrible-looking fake schnoz. Her voice is also electronically altered. It never really feels like Angela is a big part of the film. In fact, disguise or not, she's not a big part of the film at all. By the way, if you didn't know that was her in the policeman get-up, sorry but you're every bit as retarded as the characters who populate this film.

Jonathan Tiersten (as Angela's brother Ricky) and Paul De Angelo (as head counselor Ronnie) get to reprise their roles from the original here, as well. Joining them are guest stars Vincent Pastore (of ""The Sopranos"") and the late Isaac Hayes. Unfortunately, none of these people are given much - if anything - of interest to do in this film.

These kind of movies need some kind of reprieve from all the constant screeching, insulting and nastiness, or else they become shrill, dull and monotonous. This movie had absolutely no balance whatsoever because the one person we're supposed to feel sorry for (""Alan"") is such an obnoxious and hateful tool himself. In fact, every single character with a decent amount of screen time was an irritating moron. In the original, the action centered around Angela, who was shy, sweet and seemingly innocent. In the second and third, we had Molly and Marcia as heroines, and they were both nice gals. Even the Angela of the sequels - psycho as she may be - was polite and mannered. Of course, many of the supporting characters in these films were jerks who got what they had coming to them, but the earlier movies were somewhat grounded by having at least a couple of normal and somewhat sympathetic people in lead roles. In this one the action is all centered around a repulsive, loud-mouthed, vulgar, completely annoying slob who is every bit as much a bully as the people we're supposed to want to die. In fact, I wanted him to die more than anyone else in the film! Sadly, my wishes were never realized. Instead I was subjected to an hour and a half of headache-inducing screaming and overacting, with humorless profanities spilling from the mouths of uninteresting people who didn't die soon enough for my tastes.

I gave this movie 3 out of 10, and that's because a few of the murder scenes were somewhat creative. That's all this has going for it. I have no doubt that this will go down in history as one of the worst slasher sequels ever made. Now it's clear why it took five years to finally get this out on DVD.",0 "I grew up during the '60s, when Fields was in vogue as a rebel along the lines of Bogart or Brando. Nevertheless, I didn't find myself laughing nearly as much at his feature films ""The Bank Dick"", ""My Little Chickadee"", or ""You Can't Cheat an Honest Man"" as at those of Keaton or the Marx Brothers. It wasn't until the '90s that I happened across this short, which finally convinced me that Fields was a comic genius.

With its absurd juxtaposition of dulcimer, Mountie, Salvation Army girl, wayward son, snow, tambourine, dachshund, bonds, the Yukon, student quarrymen, and unfit nights, this short has more laughs in it than any of Fields's features.

I'd say more, but I have to go milk the elk.",1 "This Italian-Russian endeavor is a lost treasure and one of the great historical dramas. The movie is really a dream of General Nobile, a survivor and commanding officer of the Italia, a dirigible that met with disaster in a grand Artic exploration during the Mussolini era. It is about the psychology of guilt, accountability, and leadership. Beyond the human psychological profile of the film, it captures the harsh, expansive grandeur of nature better than almost any movie I've seen. The cinematography of the Artic is unlikely to be ever met again with the computer-generated film of today. The Russian ice-breaker ship which rescues the Italian crew survivors requires no special effects and remains a challenge for today's movie producers to emulate. Sean Connery, Claudia Cardinale, Peter Finch and the rest of the cast give very fine acting performances. Ennio Morricone composes one of his greatest scores. As great as a film composer he is, he still is not remembered for one of his most haunting compositions in this film. It is a shame this film was not recognized perhaps in part due to its Russian influence in a Hollywood-dominated market. It is a bit rough around the edges (meaning editing and directing could be smoother) but in terms of great film-making, it rarely gets better. When you watch it a couple times, you begin to appreciate the beauty and human drama of this film.",1 "I saw the film at the 65th Venice Film Festival yesterday. The red carpet was a huge attraction of course with Brad Pitt and George Clooney. I'm not surprised to tell you that the Coens will not disappoint any fans with Burn After Reading.

Two gym employees(Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand) find a computer disc containing Osbourne Cox's (John Malkovic) CIA informations and they try to get money from him.

Original story, awesome cast, great direction, many hilarious moments, marvelous acting and highly unpredictable actions are at the rendez-vous.

Though the movie is a bit short (95min.), Burn After Reading is a very enjoyable film that you won't soon forget. **** out of 5",1 My brother and I saw this movie late on Cinemax one night five or so years ago. Since then they haven't replayed it. Also no one we have ever talked to has ever heard of it. It is a B-movie but it is really good. It's one of the few movies I have seen that has ever scared me. I wasn't as much scared as I was one the edge of my seat. The Evil Dead's are the only other films that I have ever felt this way before. Well I just thought I would post this and if you have seen please respond because I would love to know me and brother are not alone.,1 "Currently over 58% of this films votes are ""1"", probably because it appeared on Mystery Science Theater 3000. While it was great material for the show, this movie isn't completely without merit. The core idea of the movie was interesting (although amateurishly handled), and Micheal Berry gives a decent performance as the protagonist (or maybe the worse actors in the film just made him seem better). Some of the scoring and directing here is effective, as well.

Overall, this film is a 4/10. But if you see it, see it on MST3K. Not only did it make for one of the best episodes (proof that the worst movies don't make the best episodes), but it makes some of the duller parts of the film seem lively.",1 "The worst thing of all is that even a layman wouldn't believe that a guy who wants to be a pool hustler would get a tattoo of an 8 ball on his wrist, for whatever reason. Just plain stupid.

This pretentious garbage has lines like ""and on the seventh day, God created pool"" and ""if I'm lying...I'm dying."" Numerous pool terms periodically flash across the screen meaning the screenwriter went into a pool players dictionary on the web and incorporated what he learned into the movie. They make no sense, do not move the movie along and are just dumb.

At no point do you for one second believe that Freddie Prinze is cool or a good pool player, two things we are supposed to buy in this film. The direction is just awful, some music video director who thinks it's cool to keep having white flashes quickly appear on the screen (like the film is briefly over exposed). Lots of jump cuts, quit edits and boring characters reciting dialog that doesn't ring true, makes this one waste of film. Hearing Prinze in that stupid accent say ""if you like dat...yo gonna love dis"" made me cringe.

My only real question about the production: What was Ving Rhames thinking?",0 "This is one of the worst movies ever. Each person's dvd/vcr player should ruin the copy before it is done as a service to those who are considering watching the movie. Why? It was boring. It never went anywhere. It was not scary. It was undramatic. I would have rated it a zero, but it was not an option. Actually, it deserves a half point for showing boobs and another half point because Natascha McElhone gets hotter as the movie goes on (BUT THIS IS NOT NEARLY A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO WASTE ANY TIME ON SEEING THIS MOVIE!!!). So, I rated it as 1 out of 10.

Seriously, it depresses me that scripts like these even get read all the way through. Who approves the making of a movie like this? I can't believe that any of the actors'/actresses' careers are that bad that they would agree to acting in something like this. In fact, anyone trying to further their career by taking a part in this movie may have set their career back considerably. Trust me, if I had anything good to say, if there were any redeeming qualities (besides for the boobs and Natascha, of course), I would gladly point them out. Take my word for it, the movie is not worth watching for more than one second and is not worth paying one cent for. This is more of a public service announcement than a review. I care too much about you and your spare time to misguide you into watching this. Have a nice day.",0 "I'm a GIANT fan of the original story by Clive Barker and I think the first two Hellraisers were the greatest horror films ever to be produced. But, ever since Hellraiser 3, untalented directors wear out the name and use the villain-icon Pinhead as a marketing instrument to tell lame and inferior horror stories. Hellseeker ranks as the sixth episode in the series and it is - along with Inferno - the weakest effort so far. The original charm has faded away completely and the tone and atmosphere doesn't come near the morbid and raw originals. The story of Hellseeker has got nothing to do anymore with the original characters Clive Barker created and they might as well could have given this movie a completely new surrounding. Heroine Ashley Laurence is dragged into this film for no particular reason. She doesn't show any resemblance with her original character and even Pinhead himself has gone through a complete metamorphosis. He once was a true symbol of all that represents evil but, after 6 episodes, he merely looks like a lame philosopher who prefers to plea instead of to kill. Hellraiser:Hellseeker is an extremely boring experience with only a few remarkable scenes. And those particular scenes are in fact just a shadow of the ones in the original Hellraisers. It's nothing more than a mediocre attempt to build up a mystery tale. The first hour of this film is a series of hallucinations and illogical dream-sequences. Director Rick Bota constantly tries to fool the audience with plot-twists but, actually, the audience doesn't give a damn! The last 15 minutes of Hellseeker are the only ones worth seeing. Both Kirsty's and Pinhead's screen time are entirely in those minutes and it's the only time the script actually makes a bit sense. If you manage yourself to struggle through the first hour, you'll see a more or less satisfying ending. If the rumors are true, there will be two more sequels coming out in 2004 . Knowing myself a bit, I'll most likely see them...but my expectations have never before been so low!",0 "Low-budget indeed! So many shots in this ""film"" were bereft of any visual detail or texture, its straight-to-video intentions were painfully apparent. Why did I start to watch this flick? Generally positive reviews found here and, more to the point, Videohound's four-bone rating (highest on the scale). This causes me to doubt the trustworthiness of anything the Videohound wrote. Did I finish watching this flick? No. Do yourself a favor; don't start.",0 "As with Max Von Sidow's ""Joubert"" in ""Three Days Of The Condor, Robert Duvall's John J. Anderson lives a life of opposites. He seeks meaning in a life where he takes other lives without meaning. He seeks passion where his work does not allow it. As Joubert is deeply committed to his grandchildren, Anderson is to his adopted families wherever he finds them and, if only temporarily, to the fabric of life that accompany them.

The movie leaves unresolved issues; what becomes of Manuela, her son, her friends and the fantasy-life of Tango they live in, all of whom Anderson has quickly come to love to the extent he can. What becomes of Miguel and Orlando who recruited him. It is part of the ambiguity of Anderson's life, stepping on and off the stage that he must continually leave these and similar accounts open, yet he adds meaning to the lives of others and they his as he passes through....and as he takes lives.

This is a movie in an older and more sophisticated style. What is left out is not omission but rather is left to the viewer to ponder. The movie is not satisfying and is not intended to be. It is, however, compelling and worth seeing.",1 "Funny how opinions can be different. I perfectly respect that many people found this movie a masterpiece, but I found it pretentious, dishonest, an external exhibition of ""misery"" full of stereotypes (and quite a conservative undertone). The fallen angel girl that goes through resurrection, the Madonna mother, bad (really really b a d) father, abusive and violent self-centered boyfriend, etc. All too calculated, staged for my taste - there are so many other films that I find more honest in their portray of poverty and misery (but with dignity). And then above all the fairy-tale end. It seemed so much like an imagined poverty by someone who has never experienced it.

The only thing that I really enjoyed of that film was the erotic electricity between two older characters that is a rare thing to see in a movie. In my opinion, that gives an extra start to this movie.",0 "O.K, so it's not Shakespeare, it's not meant to be! You just have to take it for what it's worth, go with it and have many laughs along the way! I think you actually forget that they are men, well, maybe not, but it's an enjoyable film, to say the least! Most of the scenes are funny and I think all of the actors do a great job in their roles! I do have to say that I bought the movie because Ron Mathews is a personal trainer at my gym and my friend and I are hot for him! Even though he's straight, I think he has a wandering eye for my beautiful friend, who is also a trainer! It's nice to know that, even if Ron is in reality all straight, that he is comfortable with himself doing a movie like this and kissing men! And, that one scene will give me enough to fantasize about in the gym, especially since he's always fully clothed! Anyway, you won't be disappointed here! In the sense of ""Too Wong Foo"" and ""Priscilla"", you'll enjoy this one!",1 "This is quite possibly the worst drug movie that i have had the displeasure to watch. This is the kind of dumb crap that sets the legalization movement back decades. Completely unrealistic! There is no substance to this at all. This not even close to anything that could be construed as a movie about pot. not even trippin' would be this fricken stupid. I would rather watch Miley Cyrus on the Disney channel. Posers and only posers would find this movie funny or entertaining. I cant believe that John Kranski was in this turd of a movie. What a waste of my time. If you disagree with my comments, i would appreciate it if you would respond to me and let me know your thoughts.",0 "Trinity is a curious movie for several reasons. On a practical level, it's curious because, although it was completed in 2001, it has yet to achieve a wide release either at the cinemas or on DVD. On the level of content, it is even more of a mystery.

The film has many of the elements of a stage play: closed, intimate setting; a few characters who we get to know in great depth; concentration on dialogue; and intense performances from each of its three central cast members (Tom McCamus, Stephen Moyer, and Lucy Akhurst). However, its look is nothing that could ever be achieved on stage. Despite the low budget and limited locations, Trinity still looks and feels like a work of art.

In some ways it reminded me of the archetypal low-budget success story Cube, with its atmospheric changes of lighting, claustrophobic rooms, and sense of mystery. Trinity, however, is a much more personal, internal film. There is no external challenge to be faced, no race to get out of the Cube or to survive. The challenges the characters face are their personal demons, and their reasons for being there in the first place.

Although personal demons are not generally the most cinematic or visually interesting subjects of film, each of the three actors convincingly portrays the many sides of their characters. Akhurst is full of tormented rage, and McCamus dangerously quiet. Moyer in some ways has the thankless role of the piece, attempting to insert a voice of reason and normalcy into the situation, until he too is revealed as more than was initially suspected.

Trinity offers no easy answers, and much of the film serves to continually question the characters and their motives, rather than to resolve any issues. However, it is very much a film that begs to be examined more closely, rather than given up out of frustration. Hopefully it will soon get a wider release, and be given the attention and critical respect it merits.",1 "A classic sadly almost ignored and forgotten probably because of it's small scale being a quite simple screen version of the popular stage play. Alec Guinness is the Cardinal arrested by the state during the Cold War, Jack Hawkins is the state inquisitor trying to break him. Ex comrades in arms, fighting in the Resistance against the Nazis; they now find themselves on opposing sides of Church and State. An intense battle of wills ensues, superb performances all round including Wilfred Lawson as the jailer. Highly recommended.",1 "Darren McGavin was the quintessential Mike Hammer. Others paled by comparison. He played him with toughness, irreverence and humor. Back in the 50's, when TV censorship was at its strictest, he went as far as you could go. He'd call women ""Chickie"" and had no qualms at roughing them up to get to the truth. I especially liked his scenes with Nita Talbot, who took everything he dished out. In another review, revtg001 claimed that Anthony Quinn played Mike Hammer. Although, Mr.Quinn appeared in a movie of a Mickey Spillane novel, ""The Long Wait"",the character he played was JOHNNY McBRIDE. In my opinion, the second best Mike Hammer was Ralph Meeker in ""Kiss Me Deadly"".",1 "...people really need to take another look at ""Natural Born Killers.""

The plot: Mickey and Mallory Knox (Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis in roles that are a little too convincing) are a husband/wife pair of serial killers whose vicious crime spree across the country has made them into media superstars.

This movie is a barrage of frightening and surreal images, and is damn near hypnotic to watch.

I can see where the controversy surrounding this film comes from but what I don't understand is where the hate is coming from.

1994's ""Natural Born Killers"" has to be one of the best movies of the 90s - its sole purpose on this planet is to showcase America's fascination with violence.

But lets try to understand the hate. This movie is here for one reason and I think that we can all agree on that reason. Oliver Stone is a competent and accomplished filmmaker and most of the hate seems to be directed towards him. Stone, who is working from a script that has since been virtually disowned by Quentin Tarantino, pretty much took over and shaped the screenplay to his own vision.

I can understand why fans of Tarantino have a right to be p*ssed off, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that they truly hate the finished product, and the same goes for Tarantino. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Tarantino fan myself, and I'm sure he didn't appreciate Stone re-writing his script, but he should be proud of what was done with it.

The message, if you can call it that, is that we are obsessed with violence, and Stone exposes our love for it and spits it back in our faces. To quote Marlon Brando - ""The horror, the horror."" I say to hell with the hypocritical people who find this movie offensive for they are the ones that this movie is truly aimed towards.

Yes, horrific images are displayed in this movie and terrible things happen to people all throughout, but it's giving us we want, and we hate it. The hate surrounding this film is extremely misguided. My high school paper recently did an article about sex and violence on television and one of the supposed outlets of that violence would be our fascination with the war in Iraq and the Jessica Lynch story.

It said that we are much, much more concerned with the sex (I personally don't think today's teenage girls are THAT impressionable, but who knows?), rather than the violence (which apparently seems to be causing a misguided sh!tstorm of controversy, too, and like the sex, I don't think that people are that impressionable), namely the kind that is seen in music videos and such. Though the article refused to go into specifics (but we know who the people being discussed are and I'm sure they do, too), it brings me back to ""Natural Born Killers,"" which I think people need to take another look at.

In this day and age, violence on television is becoming more and more commonplace, and this movie's relevance seems to make its viewing that much more important. Before we go and continue to bash the hell out of it again, people need to come back and take a look around themselves and watch ""Natural Born Killers.""",1 I can NOT understand why this Show was cancelled it was the greatest Show on TV at the time.

There had to be a good reason to cancel it.

I remember watching this Program when I was in Military Service in West Germany.

I did not like it when it was cut off.

There has to be some one out there that would know.

I've always liked Andy he can play any part they have.

Don knots would have been good in this show too.

I guess this one was for the Science types.

And Back then the science types were the called nerds.

Great Show,1 "Steven Spielberg is one of the few directors around today who can still manipulate an audience in one sense while dazzling and daring that same audience with storytelling and character skills fused with ingenious visual effects. Minority Report is a shining example of that, which also has the grace of having an intelligent concept to start with, which so many sci-fi films lack much less summer sci-fi films (look at MIB2 to see what I mean), and also better than average acting.

Cruise takes the lead role here as John Anderton, who leads, more or less, the agency of police that prevent all murders on the basis of predictions from three Pre-Cogs (one of them Samantha Morton who has the most important role of the three). The system is presumably perfect, until to the surprise of Anderton, he is seen to commit a murder and so starts his quest to try and find out if there is a flaw in thirty six hours. This could be the basis for average sci-fi fodder (Impostor, a film based on another Philip K. Dick story that came out earlier this year, is an point of that), yet Spielberg elevates a story and creates a unique atmosphere to coexist with his characters; by the time the film is HALF way through you'll be exhausted in entertainment.

Bottom line, this is the type of picture to see twice, first to get the feel and presence, and the second to clear up any misunderstandings in the plot (or maybe to avoid Scooby Doo and Windtalkers), since this is indeed one of the best pictures of the year and one of Spielberg's best recent pictures. Grade: A+ or A

",1 "The thought of dead people being brought back to life through scarecrows really doesn't scare me at all. I watched this film in it's original form in Japanese and basically worked not to fall asleep.

The movie is predictable, boring and the premise is just comical. At times, I was thinking ""why don't these people just carry some lighter fluid and a match."" Here's the premise-this village of people bring dead people back to life through these stupid scarecrows. Of course, there's a bad apple-some freaky child ala Samara in the The Ring who was brought back or something like that. That screws everything up. This lady is looking for her long lost brother who ended up in this village. She finds him, escapes and of course at the end stays in the village.

When the scarecrows are chasing people, it's hard not to laugh. In short, the movie just sucked....bad. Add Jackie Chan and a flame thrower and you have a movie. The only scary part is the tunnel that you have to cross through to get to the village. Watch that over and over about 200 times and you may have a full length movie.",0 "James Woods must've been desperate to pay the bills when he accepted the lead role in this seriously flawed suspense/action flick. For a man of such immense talent, this is a total waste.

Scripters and director James B. Harris have done their very best to destroy what was probably a good plot, based upon the novel ""Blood on the Moon"" by James Ellroy, about an obsessive serial killer whose love for a prudish, feminist poet type drives him to commit horrid crimes while an uptight detective hunts him in the name of all the disillusioned young women...................................well, maybe the plot wasn't so good to begin with, but certainly Harris and company have done a great job in smothering what value there may have been. Any remnants of a storyline are washed out as the focus is pure vengeance. But it's a little hard to care about the way the characters feel when you don't care for the characters themselves.

Charles Durning, Lesley Ann Warren and Raymond J. Barry also conspire to throw away their collective acting prowess along with Woods. Apart from all the short comings afore mentioned, there really can be nothing else to say about what is a definite failure.

Saturday, February 15, 1997 - Video",0 "SPOILERS BELOW

+ + Rose leaves her husband with no real explanation ever offered- and relocates to Kentucky! She meets the wonderfully sympathetic Sister Evangeline and the crotchety heart-of-gold spinster landowner along with some of the other pregnant women. The audience is geered to feel empathy for these mothers who are forced to relinquish custody of their babies- yet despite a few initial protests, Rose does nothing to challenge the dictatorial Mother Superior or change any of her dictums even after she herself becomes a mother! Oh, and for reasons never explained, she isolates herself from her daughter Cecilia ASAP as well her her bigamously wed 2nd husband Son. Cecilia grows into a remarkably well-adjusted teen without any evident boyfriends who cherishes her de facto mothers (Sister Evangeline and the late spinster landowner who left the house) and her de facto father Son but is understandably puzzled and bitter towards her own mother's cold behaviour. Beyond cooking together for the unwed mothers and teaching her how to drive, Rose sees to it they have as little interaction as possible and openly resents any queries into her past. Rose actually berates Cecilia for driving the seriously injured Son to the hospital when there was no other reliable means to safely reach the place as though Cecilia had taken a joyride! Eventually Rose's first husband finds the family shortly after Rose has taken off with only the tersest explanation but he seems perfectly willing to leave things be. At the end, after someone smashes her car back window, Rose has an epiphany and drives back home and while a long-dry spring gushes to life, Rose gushes about how she's now Cecilia's 'REAL mother!' while hugging her daughter and bigamous husband. Contrary to another reviewer, I don't think Cecilia had miraculously become totally accepting of Rose at that instant but just seemed willing to see if this New Rose was going to change! Usually Lifetime movies try to provide compelling motivations for the despicable behaviours of the leading characters but this one didn't even slightly bother! While Rose wasn't overtly cruel or sadistic, it's hard to remember a less sympathetic female character- and she owed everyone in her life major penance! I'd have preferred it if the movie had been focused on Sister Evangeline, the spinster or Son instead of Rose. Sada Thompson and Ellen Burstyn shined in their parts but even the great Dana Delaney couldn't make Rose believable or likable!",0 """Mask"" is so realistic, touching and true that there are no words to describe it. It's as if someone simply took a camera and filmed a slice of life. Yet incredibly, the film avoids the ""feel"" of a documentary. Also incredibly, the film somehow avoids making Rocky Dennis' deformity the central theme, and shows how someone with a severe and disfiguring disability can live very much of a normal life, given a good attitude and some positive hopes and dreams.

Acting performances are incredible all around, but for one exception: Laura Dern. How and why she's still acting is beyond me. Both Cher and Eric Stoltz turn in absolutely incredible performances, especially Cher. Generally I dislike her in movies, but this one was the exception.

If you haven't seen ""Mask"" and you enjoy movies about the good and the bad in everyday life (e.g. ""Ordinary People""), ""Mask"" comes highly recommended. 9/10.",1 "Sketch-like comedy with mod trappings has a group of griping American tourists (including Murray Hamilton, Norman Fell and Mildred Natwick) taking in the sights of Great Britian and Europe by bus, each displaying his or her own (irritating) idiosyncrasies. Crass picture filled with characters one would hope to avoid in this lifetime, although Suzanne Pleshette's beauty is a visual compensation. The jokes are obvious, but director Mel Stuart can't wring any fresh laughs out of them--although he does manage to shoehorn into this scenario everyone from John Cassavetes to pop singer Donovan! Wears thin quickly. Remade as a television movie in 1987. *1/2 from ****",0 "I'm a big fan of horror movies especially zombie or vampire movies. So I've seen a lot of horror movies and non-horror movies, too. Out of all the movies I have seen in my lifetime, this movie by far is the worse movie I have ever seen. It is so bad in every aspect you could ever imagine. How this movie even got into a blockbuster I will never know.

I've seen some really bad zombie or vampire movies in my time, but this movie ousted those movies by far. Don't get the wrong impression this is not a zombie or vampire movie. It's some dumb plot of a dumb band going to an abandoned art gallery to shoot a video or something!!??? Like come on why???? I mean sure horror movies does have some weird or stupid plot lines but come on this was just retarded.

The camera shots are so awful. Every time someone talked it zoomed into the person's face so the whole movie you see the camera on someones face as they talk no clever camera angles. The actors honestly could have shot the movie anywhere. All they had to do is look directly into a camera a read their lines and an editor just cut and splices their lines to make a conversation. The lighting of the movie is horrible. Like i said all you see the whole movie is the actors faces but majority of the time you only see half their face because the other half is just black or dark. If Jeff Thomas thought that was a cool thing to do he's just a retarded nerd. There are some scenes where its just all black and you really can't make out anything. Bad shots and lighting doesn't even compare to how bad the acting is. You could pick random people off the street and get better acting. These people in this film aren't just normal or bad actors. They're like super anti-acting sucking. Honestly, you couldn't even act to act as bad as these actors were. Their tones are monotone the whole movie and the script is so unnatural and awkardward (yeah it's misspelled this horrible movie must have killed my brain cells).

Although I do come on this site a lot to check things out I never ever registered for an account, but after watching this movie I made an account just so that I could post this comment. If I can get just one person to read my comment and save them from watching this movie, I can know that I truly made this world a better place. Honestly, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! SAVE YOURSELF!!! YOU WILL NEVER BE THE SAME!!! If there was a movie out there that could make people commit suicide, this would be the movie. I never actually said this before in my life and truly meant it but, Jeff Thomas should be shot if he makes another movie and there should be laws enacted to prevent this guy from making movies especially if he decides to be the main character. What's worse Jeff Thomas's movies or his acting????? By now you actually might want to see the movie just from curiosity of how really bad could it be, but DON'T!. Worse movie ever. Some things are better left unknown don't let curiosity overcome you. STAY AWAY.

This movie should be the worse rated movie on IMDb, but it seems like jeff thomas and his friends came on here made random accounts and posted up fake comments and ratings for this movie so people could be mislead to watch this horrible movie. There are comments who gave this movie ten stars!!!!! get the $%#@ out of here. Those are fake. Any comment with more then 2 stars is definitely a fake comment to trick people and boost it's ratings up so it wouldn't be the worst rated movie on IMDb.",0 "Excellent cast, superbly acted, very well written and directed. I particularly loved the performances of Derek Jacobi, Sian Phillips and Brian Blessed. An excellent production by the BBC, as usual. A comment about the DVD set. The sound on the DVD's is very unequalized. One minute you can barely hear the actors, the next you are being blown away by music and/or background noise. Other than this annoyance, the DVD translation is excellent. Also, look for some then lesser known actors and actresses who are stars now. I do not know how they pulled this off, but I am very glad that they did. Also, the DVD extras are interesting, including scenes from the unfinished version from the 1930's or 1940's.",1 "This film won't be to everyone's liking, but is certainly an all-time favorite of mine. Only a film like this can combine so many great elements into one entertaining movie.

Kathleen Turner is just purely brilliant as sweet mother Beverly Sutphin, who would look more at home in a show like Bewitched. However, we soon learn that she's not all that she seems. I love any movie that takes a classic element (in this case the innocent housewife) and completely turns it on its head.

And so the film leads us on a journey through Beverly Sutphin's life and motivations. The film grabs on, and doesn't let go, keeping the pace until the very last scene.

In bad taste? Well, yes. Sick humor? Quite often. Good? Oh yes. If you have a dark sense of humor, don't miss it for the world.",1 "Starts out sorta creepy. Kids dying. Don't really want to see that anywhere, even in a movie. Yet as a parent, it really hits home. My wife who normally falls asleep even in the best of action movies stayed awake thru the entire flick. Mostly because we were both hoping for justice. We got WAY less than that. Not only was the ending a ""What the hell?"", but we COULD NOT understand or comprehend was the last printed lines in the movie:

""A fireman was exhumed in 2006 and cleared of the murders. Nobody has been convicted of the crimes to date.""

What? There were no firemen in the movie! What happened to the psychiatrist gone bad? You can't expect people to pay money to rent your videos to give them cr@p like this. Never mind paying box office prices. And you wonder why bitemetorrent is as popular as it is.

You'll wind up getting a rep for pushing the ""artistic license"" window, and people will stay away. Far away. Especially producers.",0 "If you have fond memories of ""Here's Lucy"" from your childhood, the easiest way to retain them is never to re-watch this series. The plots are trite; the jokes are flat; and the overacting by both Lucille Ball and Gale Gordon is painful to watch.

At one time, Lucy had been the queen of television comedy, but that had been with the benefit of talented writers and a brilliant cast. Without those, Lucy is left to rely only on physical comedy, and that alone cannot carry a show, no matter the laughtrack volume.

I'm convinced that the only reason this series was a ratings success on CBS was that viewers had been watching some version of Lucy on Monday nights since the early '50s, and they were unaware that they could change the channel.",0 "I was not expected an extraordinary movie such as Beynelmilel. Recently, there has undeniably been an increase in Turkish movies. However it is clear that quantity can not bring quality into the scenes. I am grateful for seeing a master from Gulmez and Onder. The budget was small, contrary, story and drama was at the highest. We learn the life of Gevendes' - local musicians- in Adiyaman region. People were looking for a little bit freedom for their way of life. For the moment, it seems strange even listening music was prohibited by law makers. We should appreciate the freedom we have now. It is definitely that the freedom needs enlargement in Turkey. Comparing in the days we live I feel better.

The movie was made so plain and perfect. Directors did not exaggerate the scenes to increase humour. Humour factor was talently implemented into the body of the movie. As Gulendam, Ozgu Namal played very well. She was really beautiful and capable of playing difficult characters. As Abuzer, Cezmi Baskin was fantastic. His play is not comparable to the other Turkish players. He is far behind them. As Semra, Meral Okay capable of adding value to the movie. We can see her power easily. Most of the other players are not famous but they were playing their roles like they are an expert.

In my opinion Beynelmilel should have gone for Oscar instead of Dondurmam Gaymak. Definitely the directors make Beynelmilel in basic film rules and they seem to win success with the help of story, players, scenes, culture.",1 "Some films are often a collection of associated scenes that are loosely tied together to advance the plot. The film story can be followed, but one has to pay attention to sort out the relevant stuff.

In 1965, the story starts, two little boys explore a deserted town that is to be flooded. They find some strange goings-on at a church building, and -- spoiler-- one of them gets killed after freeing someone who's been bound. The other boy gets away.

Then, there's a jump of 40 years. The ""current"" story starts with a TV reporter and a photojournalist (working on spec) covering the 40th anniversary of the completion of the dam that caused waters to inundate the abandoned town.

The mayor of the town wants to use the 40th anniversary as a means to attract tourists, and sets a celebratory party for a few days after the action opens. So, as strange things start to happen, he wants them covered up with plausible cover stories.

Strange happenings are followed by stranger things. The daughter of the lady TV person seems to be a focus of what's happening, and we slowly understand that she's been targeted by Mordecai Salas, the strange person that the one young boy freed. Salas, we learn, was an acolyte of Aleister Crowly, a notorious black magician of the first half of the 20th Century. He apparently learned the secret of a form of immortality, but his great drive is to bring back the evil practices that the flooding of his town had suppressed.

The freelance photojournalist, Dan Quarry, eventually figures out what can stop Salas' program. He then takes action.

The film story could better have been tightened a bit. I don't recommend this for the casual viewer.",0 "I am not going to give a synopsis, many reviewers already did that very well.

I ran into this made-for-TV movie in the sellout-bin from the local videostore. I have to admit I am shallow enough to pick it up, just for the nice pic of Miss Banks on the front.

Like most reviewers I did not have any high hopes about the acting ability of a former super- model (I did not know, at that time, of her heartbreaking performance in ""Higher Learning"")

I was, however, pleasantly surprised. The chemistry between Lindsay Lohan and Tyra Banks is there. Tyra Banks has great comical&physical talent. Her lanky legs&arms are totally uncoordinated in the beginning, but the longer the doll is human, the better it gets. Small detail, but her initial clumsiness makes a ""living doll"" even somewhat believable.

Miss Lohan is, as usual, very professional and convincing as the shocked girl who got something more than she bargained for. The actor playing her dad? Well. He's somewhat annoying with his constant ""smooth lovable talking"". On the other hand, the ""loving Dad"" is something of a standard mainstay in Disney- movies I guess.... Tyra Banks does an admirable job as Eve, the vapid, ever-beautiful doll-girl-with a heart, and her part has some subtle in-jokes about modeling for the grown-ups(f.i. her obsession with food..)and after the initial annoyance with her overdone stupidity in real-life, she started to warm to me. She's utterly charming in the end. But she cannot sing! Sorry to say but there is one little scene that really made me cringe.

One thing is obvious. All actors had a great time filming this little for-TV movie, never mind a cohesive story.

Yeah..The Story.. Well.. The script is quite inconsistent here and there. (SPOILER ALERT:How come Eve cannot read a Menu OR a computer screen, yet apparently CAN read ingredients on packages when trying to make a cake..with hilarious results...and THEN again is not able to read ""The Book"" ???) but the flow of the story isn't bad. Even though it seems that the script- writers couldn't really decide were to go: More fairy-tale or more real-life. Magic books?? Come on! This isn't Harry Potter!

Little niggles like that do not take away anything from the enjoyment of this rather charming movie though. The target audience(family with kids from 8 to 13)will like it, and it has some nice messages about equality of boys&girls strewn in here and there.

All in all it is typical, even ""stereo-typical"" Disney run-of-the-mill produce with some cringe-worthy moments, but for the price, quite enjoyable. And the ending? Well, a bit different from what I expected in a Disney-Movie.",1 "Don't know what all the hype was about. All in all I cried about wasting my time watching this over-hyped film. Did absolutely nothing for me.

As for the big surprise, it certainly was not a secret to me. It was telegraphed way ahead of time, so that my reaction at the fateful moment was ""is that all there is?"". I actually kept watching the rest of the movie since I was expecting something bigger or more shocking.

Nothing at all special about this movie.",0 "... and it focus on the mainstream manipulation. The Manipulation Of Mass Media.

Society today isn't ready to see this kind of stuff, this kind of movie, this kind of reality. I have to say the movie surprised me, in the good way, of course. Instead, on one hand the movie sucked, but on the other hand it was like one of the most important movies of all times! From Oliver Stone, master of controversial films, there is a piece of cinema which some of us may call crap or others call it art!

Your choice.

The movie tells us about two psychotic lovers, who kill everyone in their way just to strength their love for each other. As the movie grows, their passion grows too. They were sent to prison, they were ready to be sent to a psychiatric asylum, but... the main theme of this film get ready to action: the media. The media get in the way of this two killers, trying to manipulate people to like them and to earn money by making them superstars.

A controversial movie which may be sadistic to everyone; or masterpiece to other ones.

Enjoy it if you can!",1 "I remember seeing this when it first out, in a theater, and thinking ... why? It was on cable a few nights ago and I watched it again.

You know those shows on TV about bad drivers running from the cops? The only reason to pay attention is that at any moment you're going to see something incredibly stupid. That's what this movie is like, only in slow motion.

If God were truly merciful, he would have destroyed all the copies of this movie before it made the theaters, and long before cable.

(tiny spoiler) ......

Did Kirk Douglas appear in it, it just to see Farrah with no clothes?

",0 "In the monster category, go past vampires, werewolves, zombies, giant reptiles and put a check mark next to ""incest freaks"" 'cause that's what you're dealing with in this lame movie. It's about 2 sisters who inherit a hotel in the backwoods somewhere where, unbeknownst to them, there are 2 murdering incest freaks running around in the same location. The movie never really explained the gratuitous brutality of these two. If you want to see a weak movie with some cruel scenes then this may be for you. The rest of you: ""Staaay the hell awaaay!!!"" Love, Boloxxxi.

P.S.

Props to the nice ass of the brunette sister(Tara Gerard). She deserved better.",0 This movie showed the life of one mans adversity in a sport that he loved but not always loved him back. I had the great pleasure of meeting Wendell Scott at a car show in the 80's. He was a very kind hearted man that loved to meet and greet people. I have this movie on tape so that I can show my son when he grows up. It is a great story that every man of any race should see.,1 "I don't expect much out of low budget horror flicks so I was pleasantly surprised by some of the elements of this obviously low budget movie. First, the two female leads held their own. Especially when you consider the dialogue they had to work with. Second, the mask was really cool. Third, I enjoyed the 3D haunted house sequences. Lastly, the chase scenes were done pretty well. Now for the bad news. The script was very predictable and too familiar. The writer clearly ripped off a lot of his material from movies that were big in that genre at the time. Aka - Scream. The sound was bad in certain scenes and the low budget was obvious throughout the movie as far as quality. Some of the other actors were down right horrible. I still don't quite understand the ending of this film. Overall, I wouldn't watch it again but it was fine entertainment for one night. Like I said, I didn't expect much so I wasn't disappointed. I've definitely seen a lot worse.",1 "Greg Collinson (Doug McClure) has devised an experimental diving craft and, along with British scientist Charles Aitken (Peter Gilmore), uses it to explore the depths. They end up in the underwater city of Atlantis, whose citizens intend to have Aitken join them, hoping to exploit his superior intellect. In addition to fighting off assorted monsters, McClure, Aitken, and their associates set off on a daring escape.

One could complain about the cheesiness of the whole affair, or the less than stellar special effects, but for me it still adds up to likable, undemanding fantasy escapism. It's quite colorful and interesting. Most importantly, I felt it was reasonably exciting, with decent direction by Kevin Connor and respectable pacing. The monsters may not be that high tech, but I'd still take these kinds of creations over CGI any day. It just adds to the true old-fashioned, Saturday matinée type appeal of the whole thing. Michael Vickers' rousing score is simply wonderful.

McClure is a stolid hero, and the supporting cast is fine. Special guest appearances are made by Cyd Charrisse and Daniel Massey as high-ranking Atlantians. Especially effective is under-rated character veteran Shane Rimmer as Captain Daniels, with Michael Gothard, gorgeous Lea Brodie, Robert Brown, and future 'Cheers' mailman John Ratzenberger all enjoyable in smaller roles.

The kind of picture that we unfortunately just don't see a lot of anymore, ""Warlords of Atlantis"" is not particularly memorable but is a definite pleasure to watch in any event.

7/10",1 "After reading the book The Winds of War and watching the first mini series in 1983, I waited for War and Remembrance to premier in 1989. I own the tape sets and re-watch them every one in a while! Herman Wouk's novel was GREAT and Dan Curtis was outstanding in both mini series. The ABC television network should re-run both mini series for sweeps week. I bet it would be a hit 2nd time around in the 21st century!",1 "Based on R1 DVD 109 mins - Renegade Version

Ten thousand imdb voters cannot be wrong, well I should have heeded my own advice.

Basically it's rubbish, badly edited, poorly constructed rubbish. Scenes are out of sequence, the Alps are in the middle of Nevada, no ones ever heard of a weather balloon - I could go on but I'd prefer to forget everything I know about this movie as quickly as possible.

3/10 - it could have been worse but not by much.",0 "This is one of those movies where the set pace of events are known to the audience, so that when it reaches it's conclusion we are aware that what we (the audience) might wish can happen for the two leads is not going to be possible.

It is 1911, and we are in London for the coronation week of King George V and his wife Queen Mary. If you have read THE GUNS OF AUGUST by Barbara Tuchman, this event was the last great occasion for the appearance of all the crowned heads of Europe prior to the destruction (in seven years) of three leading houses (Hohenzollern, Romanov, and Hapsburg) due to World War II. Despite the survival of several other monarchies in Scandanavia, the Benelux countries, and (in revival) in Spain, the three lost ones of 1918 are now joined by the lost ones of the Balkans. And it is the Balkans that is the spot that Laurence Olivier's Carpathia is located in.

In reality Carpathia is part of Hungary and Roumania. Part of it (Transylvania) is well known through the story of Dracula. But for the sake of this story, it is an independent kingdom like Roumania, Bulgaria, and Serbia at that time. Prince Charles, the Regent of Carpathia, is running the country until his son King Nicholas comes of age in 18 months. So sometime in 1913 Nicholas will start ruling in his own name, and he is pro-German. Charles is pro-English. This would be unimportant but Carpathia has the fourth best army in Europe, so if it shifts it's position it may cause an unbalanced international situation that may lead to a general war.

Charles (Laurence Olivier) and Nicholas (Jeremy Spenser) and Nicholas' grandmother the Queen Dowager (Sybil Thorndike) are attending it. Charles is being monitored by Foreign Office official Northbrook (Richard Wattis), who wants to make sure the Regent is happy on his visit. Charles attends a show, and decides that one of the minor actresses, Elsie Mariner (Marilyn Monroe) should be invited to the Carpathian Embassy for a late supper. Despite misgivings Northbrook arranges for Elsie to show up.

But Elsie (although welcomed by the amorous Charles) finds she has to watch as he spends time talking about a political problem at home - the capture of one of Nicholas' clique of pro-German friends who has been caught with some compromising documents that would hurt the King. Charles plans to squeeze the arrested man for all the information he can get about Nicholas' schemes, but admits to his telephone informant that he is more likely to have problems about the situation from President Taft and his meddlesome Americans than from anyone else. Elsie, who overhears this, is angered (she is an American). The result is a moment that most fans of Monroe don't recall. They remember that she sang Happy Birthday to President Kennedy once, but here she toasted President William Howard Taft with champagne.

Charles finds Elsie not like other women he has had one night stands with. First, he never gets to first base with her (she gets drunk and falls asleep, despite his varied attempts to get her into the right mood and position). Second, she does not leave as he hopes, but keeps getting stuck deeper and deeper into the embassy and the Royal Family's world (even attending the coronation at Westminster Abbey). She is there for the embassy ball, and she even has a second night where she is in control of the trysting. Charles married his late wife and did his duty for her and her country, but he finds he loves Elsie. But he is leaving at the start of the third day for Carpathia with his mother and son, and has another 18 months of duty before he is free. And Elsie has 18 months left to her play contract. They do say ""au revoir"" at the end, but will they get back together. For they can't until 1913, the start of the Second Balkan War, and one of the steps that brought World War I to fruition.

The film was based on a play, THE SLEEPING PRINCE by Terence Rattigan, one of the best dramatists of England in the 20th Century (THE WINSLOW BOY, THE BROWNING VERSION). A practitioner of what Shaw called ""the well-made play"", Rattigan made sure his plays were entertaining and intelligent, and his characters were realistic. But in the original play Elsie was not American, but English, and was played by Vivien Leigh. Olivier had thought of filming the play with Leigh, but her illness interfered. Monroe was available, and was big box-office. Olivier was to direct her, his first film direction assignment since RICHARD III. She gave so much difficulty to him, he did not direct another film until 1970 when he did Checkov's THE THREE SISTERS.

But the film has it's period charms and a literate script. It does capture the brittle social and diplomatic world of 1911 quite well. Olivier's Regent is not as great a part as Richard III or Hamlet or Othello, but he does have a grasp on the man's pride and sense of self-importance. Monroe does come across as intelligent regarding family matters (i.e. the Regent and his son, the King), as well as an understanding woman. Wattis shoulders the dignity of the foreign office ruffled by the crazy duties he has to shoulder that week. Sybil Thorndike, with her fears of anarchists, and belief that Elsie is a close friend of Sarah Bernhart, is in a peculiar portion of the universe. She carries off an eccentric royal type that is light years away from her aged, vicious crone in BRITTANIA MEWS. It was not a major film - certainly not in the same category as the three Olivier Shakespeare films, but it is a good minor one.",1 "When I first saw this I thought this was either going to be educational or exploitive. Turned out it wasn't really either. I assumed that a documentary about anyone's life would be any more informative than one made about anyone else's life. There are interesting points, like the medical and the fact these people are just as messed up as the rest of us. The youngest boy is normal sized, typical kid. The girl is normal sized and just wants to please her parents. There are the mixed twins, one small. The father is loud and controlling in every aspect except his kids, unless it reflects on him, such as the one's child inability to pass the driver's test. The Mom is just as dominating in her children's life. She is a vicariously living control freak. She flips on the smallest things, be good flips or bad ones A problem with is their lack of understanding of their eldest normal sized son. The Roloffs teach others how to cope with a small person. It's obvious they have no clue about racing a normal sized kid. Their eldest boy is a typical teen, he dislikes school, he's more interested in his friends than his family, and takes a lot of things with usual teen casualness. They try to make him feel like he's the one who is different. If he gets an opportunity the other twin's size prohibits and isn't ecstatic, he's a brat. They forget it isn't his fault they're small and he shouldn't be the one the worker tallees, he isn't Gulliver. What is up with that house? It's such a pig sty.",0 This is an interesting thriller that I thought would be terrible. Goldie Hawn is very good in this film and the direction is solid. The biggest weakness this movie has is that it's too long. Should have trimmed this one down about 20 minutes to make it a little more intense. Not too bad though.,1 "My friend is a reporter and she got a preview episode sent to her. This is one of the best new shows I've seen in a long time. How something was so off the wall and so real at the same time was baffling to me. The girls are way hot and the whole cast was great. I worked in a supermarket for a long time and this stuff really happens. Even though I thought some of it was kind of exaggerated (sp?) so much of it is true to life, and maybe I'm biased, but I thought it was pee in your pants funny. I hope network idiots don't cancel it, like so many good shows don't get a chance to be on for a long time, but whatever you do don't miss this gem.",1 "I am sorry, but it is a SIN that this film is not getting more recognition. It literally is one of the greatest movies about the art of dance EVER MADE. I mean, people, this is an awesome film about the ART of movement in its rawest most creative stage and there has never been a film like it.

Please don't miss it.

And also don't miss the Ab soundtrack CD.

The use of music in the film is truly exceptional and not overwhelming.

The documentary style is clever (even if it is a little hazy on detail and maybe stretches a few truths).

And finally, please bring some children to see this so they can see the ""other side"".

Secret political message of the film: why are we spending money in IRAQ when there is so much need here?",1 "I must admit I am a fan of Shelley Long. I believe she's a truly talented comedy actress. However, not even her greatest endeavours could help save this truly awful movie. Don't get me wrong, it has some strong points, but these are generally swamped by poor acting, poor script and poor direction. Long's incessant clumsiness was both unfunny and irrelevant. The script seemed to be a minefield of cliches and dull one-liners. The direction as a result appears dramatically effected by this, but surely could have improved some of the scenes. The plot also hovers between scientific miracle and occult fantasy, when perhaps one approach would have sufficed. Long's trickery of her friend near the end, although cleverly ""acted"", was lame and contrived. I'm so disappointed to write this. Please, please, please (to the producers) don't ever make a movie like this again. And finally....how much money did it lose?",0 "This movie was mostly shot in the ""RoadRunner"" cartoon style with the students from the Military Institute playing the part of ""Wile E. Coyote"". Most of the time when they tried to impede our (intrepid?) naive heroes, their traps back fire.

The counterparts of the military guys are the ""preppy"" guys whose gags always hit their marks(our heroes), but despite being bombed, kidnapped and beaten (literally) they dont seem to slow down our heroes.

The final revelation of our heroes that maybe others in the race are just as determined to win, or prevent them from winning, gives hilarious results from beginning to end.

Oh yeah, this is a great movie to ""drink along with"", while you laugh out loud.",1 "The 'good' greatly outnumbered the 'bad' in the first season of 'Star Trek,' in terms of episode quality. In fact, one could argue that the only out-and-out stinker in that opening set of shows is 'The Alternative Factor,' which is confusing to the point of being incomprehensible at times. The universe is in danger of 'winking out,' and if you find the explanation of this phenomenon a little weak, join the club. Maybe it's the 23rd century equivalent of 'freaking out.' Anyway, it's not a good thing, and the Enterprise tracks the source of the trouble to a man on a desolate planet and his small spacecraft there on the surface. The man, Lazarus, is not much help in explaining things either, babbling on and on, sometimes hysterically, about how he has to stop somebody and how Kirk and crew must help him. About a half-dozen times during the episode (seems like more) we are treated to a spinning visual effect that settles on a murky, foggy corridor of sorts where two figures are seen locked in a fierce struggle. Also, Lazarus has a bad habit of falling off cliffs. McCoy treats him for a head injury, and even though he is clearly unbalanced and dangerous, turns him loose to wander the ship and steal a couple of dilithium crystals. When Kirk finds out, naturally being a bit perturbed, he asks McCoy where Lazarus went. McCoy shrugs and says, ""Oh I don't know, Jim. It's a big ship."" Just totally blows Kirk off. Thank YOU, Dr. McCoy. Anyway, the episode meanders along, and between the spinning corridor scenes and Lazarus falling off a cliff here and there, we finally get to the heart of the matter. A parallel anti-matter universe threatens to collide with our own, destroying everything everywhere. Lazarus has a double in the other universe, a madman, and the only hope is to trap Lazarus and his mad double in the corridor for all eternity. Which they manage to do. But by the end of episode, you really don't care anymore.",0 "I love Sarah Michelle Gellar, she is capable of fantastic acting as made clear in the Buffy series. She has, unfortunately, been given no opportunities to show her considerable talent in film. While Cruel Intentions is a bad movie, Harvard Man is one of the worst - if not the worst - movie I have ever forced myself to sit through. The writing is practically non-existent. There are many scenes of back and forth dialogue with little purpose but to fill time. There are several simultaneous plots (gambling, drug addiction, sexual cheating, dealing with the mob), none of them interesting in their execution. There is no coherence - each plot thread seems forced in to fill time and is not interwoven with a big theme. One soon gets the feeling that the movie was started with little passion from the director, then finished in a hurry to meet a deadline. Harvard Man is transparently what it is: a quickly-made attempt to capitalize on Gellar's fame. To watch it is to wait for its end, amazed that such a thing actually made it as a major motion picture. I CAN'T believe the average rating here is close to 5. Anyone who says this movie is anything but awful is either mentally deficient or has an agenda. The only reason to watch this movie is to gawk at its atrociousness.",0 "Two loving parents feed their happy baby on the perch of their country home. It is often said that these early Lumiere shorts are primitive because they have not yet mastered basic film grammar, such as camera movement, editing or the close-up, films like these being a simple, static set-u;, the camera pointing at the scene from a middle distance. But as filmmakers like Godard, Ozu and Kitano, for instance, realised, that very grammar can be a violation of the integrity of the image, forcing us to concentrate of the structure in which the image is only a unit, rather than the image itself.

There is nothing primitive or simple about this particular image; as critics have noted, this film offers two levels of movement, one human, recognisable, communal (the family); the other (the trees blowing) part of a different order altogether, of nature, cycles, immemoriality. So while the family represents a similar idea of continuity as the trees, of the species being reproduced, it sis also offered in stark contraast to them, as each member of the trio will eventually die, for all the nourishment and fertility, while nature lives on, indifferent.

This frisson of mortality undercuts the film's essential conservatism, and differentiates it from the sinister surveillance of the earlier 'Sortie d'Usine'. This recognition that the powers of the camera-wielding Lumieres are in fact limited, that they are not as omniscient as they once thought they were, is perhaps dramatised in the figure of the father, one of the brothers, one of the first great director-stars, paving the way for Chaplin, Keaton and Welles. His crossing the line from director to star, from passive to active, from subject to object, represents a breach between the observer and observed, a breaking of that invisible line, a destruction of that contract Hollywood will try so desperately to enforce, between reality and fiction. The watcher is now the watched, distinctions and hierarchies have been abolished.

Ironically, immortality has been conversely guarenteed - while the man behind the camera is lost, fading into a mere eye, a role taken over by every viewer, the actor brother is trapped forever in this rigid, simple domestic scenario, feeding the ever-hungry, unthinking baby, a harbinger of the medium he invented.",1 "This is a movie close to my heart as this was one of the movies I used to watch when I used to go to my Grandma's house. This movie is absolutely perfect. What makes it so perfect is that so much is packed into one film, there is action, comedy,drama and so much more. The plot was not original but how it is packaged is extraordinary.

The story, for those who don't already know is about three brothers who get separated from their parents and how their lives intertwine. One is brought up by a Hindu, one by a Christian and the other by a Muslim. Years later they meet when they give blood to their real mother (they don't know that yet). Their Father(Kishenlal) is seeking vengeance on Robert, who he blames for separating his family. Coincidentally he is also bringing up Jenny, Robert's daughter who he stole from him. Cues heaps of fun for all ages.

The songs also deserves a special mention, all of them are perfect. My personal favourite was the title song. This was a huge hit when released and it my opinion remains of Manmohan Desai's best films. All the three heroes performed well, however on the downside there was not much scope on the heroines. Another downside was Jeevan,in my opinion he is not good as the main villain. Pran and Nirupa Roy were superb as the parents. Coincidentally 4 years later Manmohan Desai made Naseeb, another one of my favourite movies. Wonderfully done, well done Manmohan Desai.",1 "Laura Carson (Charlotte Austin) has just married big game hunter Dan Fuller (Lance Fuller.) On her wedding night she finds herself strangely attracted to Spanky, a gorilla gone bad that Dan keeps locked up in a basement cage. Before you can say ""Ed Wood wrote this,"" there are gun shots, nightmares, hypnotism, and Dan's unhappy discover that bride Laura may be the reincarnation of a gorilla queen! Can you dig it? Now and then a bad movie becomes unintentionally hilarious, but most of the time bad movies are simply bad. BRIDE AND THE BEAST actually teeters between the two, and this is largely due to the two leads: even in the face of producer-director Adrian Weiss' obvious lack of talent, Austin and Fuller prove unexpectedly competent, and they actually manage to hold the worst of the dialogue at bay. What this means, however, is that BRIDE never self-destructs in the ludicrous way of such films as PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE--and in consequence it isn't so much unintentionally hilarious as it is unintentionally amusing in a mild sort of way.

The film is full of absurdities. Dan Fuller's basement, where the ill-fated gorilla Spanky is caged, has a refrigerator, but illumination is provided by torch. Servant Taro (Johnny Roth, in what seems to be his only film role) is very obviously a white man in bad ""native"" make-up; he runs around saying ""Bwana"" a lot. There is a lot of canned wild animal footage, shots of Africa that look suspiciously like shots of South America, and men in bad gorilla costumes. And Ed Wood being Ed Wood, he just can't resist writing references to angora sweaters into the script.

The print is mediocre, but it is worth pointing out that it was probably never very good to begin with, and the DVD release comes with several bonuses of no interest. Fans of cult films, and especially die hard fans of Ed Wood, will enjoy it--and for their sake I give it three stars. But just about every one else should give it a miss.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer",0 "Just in case you didn't learn from the first 4000 holocaust films that the holocaust was really bad........Speilberg goes out on a limb and hits you over the head with the fact that the holocaust was really bad. He also did it in a very exploitative pandering manner...to the point of being grotesque. If you didn't learn from those 4001 holocaust films that the Nazis also exterminated gypsies, gays etc.... Well the Nazis wiped out a lot of other groups beside jews too. This sort of thing tows a very dangerous line...that it was more significant not that 6 million plus people were exterminated but that it was 6 million jews....according to the majority of these films and various holocaust memorials the gypsies and gays etc. do not count.

Where are the numerous memorials documenting the genocide that happened in this country? (native americans...also numbering in the millions) That would make a historically relevant film. You think perhaps if native americans had a very powerful militaristic state that is subservient to u.s. power there would be more native american genocide memorials? Probably. The fact that much of this comes from elite american jewish organizations reeks a bit of hypocrisy, since historically American jews haven't suffered at all at least compared to native and afro americans (and to even suggest to the contrary would be a joke). So how does this film function? One might conclude that it panders to American jews, exploiting guilt perhaps for their lack of sufficient suffering? If you are interested in actual holocaust history (one might be shocked that it has very little to do with american jews). I would suggest reading more serious, less pandering sources. 'the Seventh Million' by Tom Segev, an Israeli journalist, is very good...'the Holocaust Industry' by Norman Finkelstein is very good too. One might be shocked to find that the jews aren't one big group but a bunch of very diverse groups with radically varying histories etc.",0 "One of the most beautiful pictures ever lensed. Rhythmically elegant, unashamedly sensual. An erotic interlude in the lives of Anais Nin, Henry Miller and his wife June is fashioned into an exceptionally compelling screenplay, brought to exquisite life by a truly gifted filmmaker. Philip Kaufman's genius is without peer, and ""Henry and June"" ranks as the very best film of the 1990s.",1 "This is one of a host of films which in the 1970s revived the atomic mutant animal genre popular two decades earlier (exemplified by THEM! [1954] – which also dealt with giant ants and where the results had been infinitely better). By the way, these same insects – though in their normal size – were the subject of PHASE IV (1974) as well; again, that film is superior to the one under review. Unfortunately, the generally low-grade presentation here – accentuated by the open-matte framing on the DVD I watched – and a cast of future TV regulars (mostly playing stock characters) makes it no better than the typical small-screen product of the era! Joan Collins' presence as – what else? – a wealthy bitch, then, gives the film added camp value.

The ants themselves are fairly ludicrous creations (marred, to begin with, by being allowed too many hairy{?!} close-up shots), while the use of process photography in the scene where they convene in the sugar factory is very obvious – effectively destroying the intended illusion of the situation! The fact that the townsfolk are eventually revealed as 'slaves' of the giant ant community – after having dissed their existence when reported by the vacationers who fell foul of them on a proposed island resort – links the film with INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956) which, incidentally, was about to be remade (the second of four versions, so far!) around this same time.

Ultimately, H.G. Wells' ideas in this case seem scarier – and more persuasive – on paper than on film. At least, the thing is entertaining enough while it's on – and I'd still like to check out director Gordon's other Wells adaptation, THE FOOD OF THE GODS (1976), eventually...",0 "I saw this screened at the Dallas AFI International Film Fest. It was one of the big buzz movies at the fest and it was disappointing -- despite Christopher Plummber's awesome performance

This film suffers from an inappropriate dichotomy: a good-natured family feel married to an F-bomb familiar script. This makes the film come across as indecisive and, as it will probably prove later, unmarketable. Michael Schroeder, who is not necessarily a bad director, crafts a tale of young Cameron Kincade's aspiration to win a student film competition. Also established from the beginning is this crusty old character Flash (played brilliantly by Christopher Plummber) moseying his way through life, taunting old-time actors during classic film screenings. We later find out that Flash is upset because he has been left behind twofold: by Hollywood (he was a former gaffer) and by his family. Kincaid works out an agreement that if Flash helps him win the competition, he will buy him booze and cigars (tough supplies for a 17 year old to buy -- but I won't nitpick).

The shots are beautiful and the performances are tender, but the problem lies within the film's ""man in the chair"". Michael Schroeder can't decide what he wants to do with this film. The film's indecisiveness comes across in an obvious way: is it a family film? It seems that way because the protagonist is ""mischievious""/morally ambiguous (like a mild John Connor) but his crimes are not taken seriously. He is never punished nor has to appear in court (?!). Likewise, a very warm-hearted series of relationships bud between Kincaid and his elderly friends (showing that this kid is goodhearted -- even though he's a bada**). So now you see how it delves into family genre.

Foul language throws a monkey wrench into this because now the script tries to be realistic and 'non-fluffy'. Big mistake: if your film is fluffy, IT'S FLUFFY-- you can't disguise it. If Schroeder thinks a non-Hollywood ending (which is actually becoming Hollywood if you think about it --think the end of ""Little Miss Sunshine"" if you've seen it) can save this movie from fluff, he's way off. An example of teen issues being dealt with realistically can be found in ""L.I.E."" or any Larry Clark film. The kids are mischievous and there are CONSEQUENCES from that. Those films aren't fluffy, they are authentic observations of life. ""Man in the Chair"" is not authentic -- it's Cinema Paradiso light. It treats BIG ISSUES like grand theft auto as petty mischief which is simply NOT realistic. It's more like a character you'd see in a movie like ""Jack Frost"" -- the Michael Keaton one.

Is it social commentary on nursing home abuse? No. More of a public service announcement. Because it deals with elderly neglect, this film takes on a (1990s-ish) sense of importance. But this is negated because the issue isn't graphically explored within the context of the story or its characters (with the exception of one elderly character's apartment being infested). In fact, the issue is insulted by having characters literally list statistics off Google. High school English essays and PSAs do that, not R-rated films. It's not about nursing home abuse SO DON'T ADD IT INTO THE SCRIPT AND CALL IT SOCIAL CRITICISM. That is called taking the easy way out.

is it an R-rated comedy for adults? No. It's a feel-good film that does not have a realistic tone, realistic situations, or realistic characters. That makes them too two dimensional for an adult movie. Let's face it, these characters belong in ""Blank Check""!

There's too many elements being tampered with! What does this film want to be, You pick! The director didn't!

Also, an unfaithful cameo by ""Orson Welles"" (played by Jodi Ashworth who does a more faithful job sounding like Ben Stiller in ""Dodgeball"" than he does Welles) and an overall moral ambiguity weigh down this film's potential.

I'd give it a 3 out of ten for technical reasons and effort.",0 "I saw this listed in TV guide, and watched it because the description made me imagine it would be a simple, charming movie. I didn't realize it was a John Sayles movie until I saw his name on the credits and then I thought it might be something different; I don't associate Sayles with simple family movies. But in fact, this is pretty much the movie I was hoping for, full of Irish charm and blarney, beautiful filmed and full of magic and wonder. One hesitates to call it a children's movie or a family movie because those are generally awful, but it is very much the sort of movie that is perfect to take the family too (although it is unaccountably rated PG). But it's not *just* a kid's movie, it's a movie with magic for anyone, and I would put it in the same category as Alfonso Cuarón's A Little Princess, another movie that treats children not in the Disney aren't-they-cute way but as real thinking individuals. This is a lovely drama featuring a child rather than a kid's movie, but it works on either level.",1 "I have just seen this movie, on TV. Saturday, drinking tea, and using the remote control hoping for a miracle in channel 12 of Montevideo, Uruguay. And it appears!!... This is a very nice movie, you can laugh, think, cry and find references to events, characters, behaviors of many people at their time. And seeing on 2005, after how comics and cartoons have evolved it is a pleasure. It was a pity that I could not enjoy Billy Cristal's voice cause it was in Spanish. It contains many jokes, references to particular historical situations. It portraits quite well the life of athletes and how maybe they give all their life such in gymnastics. I really enjoy this "" before born"" joke about her.",1 "I am always amazed when I find yet another ultra-low budget film starring Bela Lugosi. While I do generally enjoy his films, they certainly were not 'high art' or very deep--and so many of them had downright crappy production values. Often it looked as if Bela would appear in ANY film provided the check cleared! You don't believe me, then think back to such horrid films as PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, BELA LUGOSI MEETS A BROOKLYN GORILLA, ZOMBIES ON Broadway, GHOSTS ON THE LOOSE (with the East Side Kids) and MURDER BY TELEVISION!!! However, often despite the terrible budgets and overall cheesiness of the films, they were still often fun to watch--or at least to laugh at due to their ineptness. Unfortunately, MURDER BY TELEVISION is that rare low-budget Lugosi film that actually is kind of boring and static. Despite being a murder mystery, the film is amazingly static and uninvolving. Plus, the roles played by Bela just seemed terribly written and bizarre--and not in a great way. The only major plus this film has that raises it to almost-mediocrity is the idea of television being a topic of a film as early as 1930. From a purely historical standpoint, it is an interesting film.",0 "I caught this movie really late at night on the Sci-Fi Channel - aka Insomniac Central - which seems to proudly own the rights to every bad movie ever made. If you think their daytime programming is awful, you should check out what they wait until after midnight to air.

Movies like this.

It was a 120-minute train wreck that I truly couldn't take my eyes off of. I have seriously been witness to one of the worst movies ever made, complete with a cast that, if they play their cards right, might one day graduate to bigger and better roles in amateur porn.

It's nothing you haven't seen before - typical giant bug of the day run amok due to irresponsible toxic waste dumping movie (complete with exclamation point) - only worse. It's an anachronism in a way - a throwback to those cheap giant bug creatures of the 50's. Only this one isn't played for camp.

It actually takes itself seriously.

There is, though, one reason to check this out during one of the 1,265 times that Sci-Fi will re-air it over the next 5 months: 'The Dance' scene must be witnessed to be believed.",0 "This should be worst depiction of a HP novel. I actually felt bored to sit through the movie. So many plot holes and so much disconnection!!! I am fine with change, I don't ask the movie to exactly replicate the book. But the essence should not still be missed. This movie should not be about the adolescence of the characters but the journey into LV's past. How can anyone pull off the next movie w/o actually setting up any key plots needed for it? How can Harry complete his mission in the next part if he never actually saw any clues in part6? People say that we should not be comparing the movie with the book. But how anyone explain the burrow being burnt down? What it its significance in the story? And how corny is Ginny tying Harry's shoe laces. I felt like, where am I? what am I doing here? Even by a teen flick standards, this is bad.

I am not sure whether Steve Kloves even read part 7 of the book properly, what with the mundane screenplay and pointless plots of this movie. I guess he is planning to slay part7 down too. And even worse there will be 2 parts to this nonsense.",0 "It's nice to see an indie film use an actual orchestra and choir rather than capitulate to the compromised sounds produced by computers and synthesizers. The film's score is not only brilliant in its composition, but equally impressive in its execution. From the opening credits to the chilling end of this film, the music proves to set an appropriate and fitting backdrop from scene to scene. Cristo, the composer, delivers us a score that juxtaposes beautiful sweeping lyrical melodies and hauntingly disturbing music. The inter-play between beauty and beast in the score reflects well both the killer's internal struggle between the forces of good and evil as well as the struggle that ensues between the disturbed killer and her innocent college-aged victims. The choir, magnificently harmonized and blended, is reminiscent of the 'Omen' in its 'hair-raising effectiveness,' but nevertheless maintains its own uniqueness in composition. The composer could be compared to venerable John Williams or perhaps a modern day Tchaikovsky for his orchestration. I don't know if the movie has been released yet, but I would highly recommend finding a release of the score on CD. I believe this film comes to us from Boston. If anyone has more information about the filmmakers, I would appreciate hearing back from you.",1 "Contains spoilers!

This was one hard to find DVD... but one the dedicated Gerry Butler fan can't really live without. I finally got my copy from New Zealand a few weeks ago and did a marathon viewing of all 16 episodes. From the bits and pieces I had seen before, I thought the series is rather shallow and very light hearted but I was surprised. There are some good, rather deep story lines dealing with the hassle of the daily, modern life as problems at your job, problems with your family and so on. Of course a good mix of good (and bad) romances are thrown in as well. I thought the acting was overall pretty good especially in some of the supporting roles like Lucy's parents.

Of course I need to dedicate a paragraph to Mr. Butler here since I assume a lot of his fans are wondering if they should get the DVD or not. He is in 13 out of the 16 episodes and has some good, but relatively short scenes in there. He plays the role of the scoundrel Gus really well and very believable. You just love to hate him. He looks absolutely gorgeous as Gus which works so well for a character like this whom shamelessly uses his good looks to get what he wants from the girls he's with. He truly is a jerk and as the show goes on the more you dislike him. I'm not sure though that I like the fact that Gus really doesn't seem to have any redeeming character traits. He's just bad, which is true to the book. His story line is kind of left open at the end (which is the same in the novel) and I as a viewer was somehow not satisfied with that. He just got away with anything without paying for it or redeeming himself somehow. But in that matter they stayed true to the book. Is it worth getting for any Gerry fan out there? I do think so.

Somebody wrote in an earlier review that Gerry didn't do his own singing. That is not true. He said himself in an interview that he did sing in the two episodes. And you can hear that it's him. It's his voice. Yes, he obviously sounds a bit different in ""Phantom..."" but in POTO he's a bit older, had a lot of voice training, and his voice had matured considerably, but it's still the same voice.",1 "I first saw this movie when it came out in theaters in 1978. I was 19, in the Marines, stationed in Hawaii, and liked... no, make that LOVED this movie so much, I saw it 12 out of the next 13 nights. I bought the double album that went with it (now if only Columbia would make it into a CD as well as a DVD of the movie - HINT, Columbia?)

Perhaps the thing about this movie that appealed to me the most was the fact that in most cases, you really can go home again. Whether it be a lost love to a time past in your life or family members from whom there have been past difficulties, the fact remains that doors always open in your life, and sometimes you have to just rely on faith and go through that door (or window) of opportunity and see what awaits. Having done that myself, I know firsthand of the exquisite joy that has brought to my life and that of others who I love more dearly than words can express.

Now that I'm in my forties, the storyline is nowhere near as far-fetched as some would think. Having a few friends and a family member lose their wives to death, and having to start over again in that department myself due to divorce, I can identify with Brooks' character a great deal. Perhaps this is why the movie has retained and even deepened its appeal so much to me over the years.

I was able to bid for a copy (and get a BRAND NEW copy) of this baby on ebay on VHS and seeing if I can get lucky in time for Christmas or New Year's. It's great for a 'chick flick' as well on date night in front of the fireplace.

If you get the chance to rent it, you'll have to look for it as a number of video stores may no longer have it in stock, it is WELL WORTH the time and effort to find this little jewel. You will indeed find yourself well-rewarded.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I give this classic a 10/10. ***",1 "I was 9 years old when this piece of crap was released at the theaters in Sweden. I loved the book and I still cannot believe that Astrid Lindgren sold the rights to these filmmakers (she later made the same mistake with the animated Pippi Longstocking). Several of her books had already been adapted to TV and cinema prior to this, with Swedish directors, screen-writers and actors. All of those adaptations are far superior to this one. This is just stupid and has lost all the subtle nuances, the moods and the atmosphere of the book. I remember realizing this at the age of 9, and that should give you an idea about how stupid this movie is. As for the music that everyone seems to love...IT IS PURE CRAP. Panflute player Dana Dragomir is one of the cheesiest musicians I know of, and the music is just a sweet, sugary mess. These are thoughts I also remember having in 1987. Horrible. Please, remake! Why not animated by Miyazaki, who is a big fan of Lindgren, and one of the few who seem to understand that less is always more. And please, everyone read the book instead of seeing the movie. This might be one of the worst adaptations of all time!",0 This is truly a must see documentary for the fans of Metallica. It explains the whole history behind the Black Album up until the decision of doing the S&M album. It explains the why and when of each song from The Black Album. A true classic!,1 "and you stomp it out, and it full of doggie droppings?

Well, that's pretty much what this movie is.

The plot is that the Russian Mob (or maybe it's the Romanian mob. Who cares) unleashes a shape-shifting creature in America to bump off (or maybe it's break out) an informant from prison. Essentially, we are to believe that six convicts when left alone with a young hottie guard aren't going to gang rape her or try to escape, but are going to listen to her stupid directions that proceed to get nearly all of them killed. Right, these are the nice convicts. (Rolls eyes) Don't even need to put locks on the cells because they won't try to escape.

The movie is largely an excuse to use gore makeup and act as a showcase for young FX artists (""Yeah, ignore the stupid plot, but look at that cool makeup I did for $1.99 and some bottle deposits."") None of the actors can really be called actors.

Oh, hey, and Sci-Fi Channel employees, stop posting here with good ratings, you're not fooling anyone. I stopped watching your channel a long time ago. I just occasionally encounter your stuff at the video store.",0 "Okay, let's face it, we've all seen this before. Every single scene. But Shah Rukh Khan adds such a refreshing and believable twist to the story that you'll be seeing it again for the first time. I was roaring with laughter the whole movie. No one knows what anyone else is doing in this movie, everything is a case of mistaken identity. But the humor is it's strength. I absolutely recommend, it's not intended to be taken seriously, just enjoyed. Fun songs, cute dances. Wow, I liked it! Am I biased because I'm a Shah Rukhaholic? You bet! You will find yourself singing ""Baadshah"" in the supermarket the next day, remembering a scene and chuckling to yourself out loud.",1 "It may be no coincidence that the title letters of this movie form the acronym SIC, and while it certainly isn't suitable for the mainstream prime time TV slot, serious students of bondage or porn will be disappointed if not downright bored by the film. That is, unless jabbing a girl in the buttocks with a needle, playing ""doctor"" or hide-and-seek, really turns you on.

The title would lead you to believe it is a heavy S&M number, but there is little in evidence apart from decorative dog collars and light chains as the ""victim"" is led (otherwise unconstrained) around. The two brothers who kidnap young girls and keep them prisoner are not the sort I'd like working around my local school, but they seem far removed from the likes of The Collector or Buffalo Bill (Silence of the Lambs) - too boofy if anything (tho capable of killing).

Any ""drama"" in SIC seems contrived or stilted. There is sex, a little of it forced, but generally quite tasteful and with little real conviction. Nudity likewise is limited and subdued.

Overall, the film falls well short of any potential hinted at in its title. It's neither an entertaining porn flick nor a serious insight into disturbed mental states, nor a horror flick. It gets a 2/10 from me.",0 "This little known gem from 1940 is impressive for a few reasons: first, it stands head and shoulders above most of the B movies of the era, largely due to a good script and a great performance from Boris Karloff. Also, while made in the midst of the Universal horror period, it demonstrates some of the best elements of that genre, however it also pre-figures the oncoming decade of sci-fi flicks of the 50s, but with a more intelligent, and mysterious, plot than most of the B sci-fi films that followed. It also incorporates some noir elements such as shadowy images, gun play, etc. The Man with Nine Lives is also known under the alternative title Behind the Door (which is actually more accurate).",1 "The first in a poliziottesco trilogy featuring Maurizio Merli as Commissioner Betti; the first and last entries were directed by Girolami under the alias of Franco Martinelli and the second by Umberto Lenzi.

As such, this one certainly set the template for the others: its plot involves a gang of crooks who commit four armed robberies throughout the course of the film (from a bus, a supermarket, a restaurant and a bank) - where the culprits, sloppily, contrive to always leave behind a victim - which sends the iconoclastic cop (obviously inspired by Clint Eastwood's Inspector ""Dirty"" Harry Callahan) on their trail. The action sequences - which also take in several beatings, a rape (committed in front of the girl's ageing father) and car chases - are certainly capably staged which, propelled by a pounding score from Guido and Maurizio De Angelis (better known as ""Oliver Onions""), give the film an unrelenting pace that ensures it never slips into boredom despite its being predictable at every turn!

The second half, however, is quite interesting: Merli quits the force after shooting a hood (John Steiner) in 'cold-blood' - apparently, it little matters to his superiors that the latter had done the same to undercover cop and Merli protégé Ray Lovelock, who remains paralyzed for life! - but is called into 'service' for a different kind of justice by a small band of former victims, led by lawyer Richard Conte, who have turned vigilante!!",1 "H.G. Lewis tried to top ""Blood Feast"" with this somewhat creative clunker about a magician who saws people in half-- literally. The goopy blood flows freely helping cover the dreadful performances and Lewis's usual incompetent direction. Only interesting as a curio from the era before ""Friday the 13th.""",0 "I watched it on DVD. I can't imagine this raw turkey ever being in a theater. The entire film should be in ""deleted scenes"" or the gag reel. I thought in the early scenes that I was being set up for a gag. Unfortunately the only gag was the reflex I experienced while watching. Poor George Kennedy. To have been in some great movies with some legendary characters, to end up in this film school exercise. I hope he was paid much more than the role demanded. Unfortunately, he should have paid the producer to leave his scenes on the cutting room floor. This may be a cult classic some day. Wait until it becomes funny to watch it. On second thought, find it, watch it, and be on the cutting edge when it becomes popular. Just don't pay for it.",0 "If you loved this film, and most people do, please help get the word out that this movie should be released for Region 1 DVD (US). I was able to find this on Region 2 DVD on Amazon.fr (Amazon France) but it was out of stock. What to do when the movie you love is unavailable?!?

I also recommend getting yourself a Charles Trenet cd who's song ""Boum!"" is used for the dancing tulips. I believe that he was a traitor during Nazi occupation, siding with the puppet French government...but he did remake his name before his death.

And yes, what a pity this director hasn't made more films. What gives? If you like this film, you might also like The Hairdresser's Husband which came out around the same time.",1 "You cannot find many movies of this genre that are worth seeing, usually because either the screenplay isn't that good or the actors performance is bad.luckily, in this movie everything works like a clock.Peter Ustinov gives us another great performance as he did in ""EVIL UNDER THE SUN"".The rest of the cast are not bad but some could have been a little bit better. The screenplay is very good but sometimes it loses control and the movie becomes a little bit boring, especially at the beginning, until the first death. To sum up, this is a movie that you see only once{knowing the plot ruins the whole movie that's why i'm not telling you it}, but is a thriller that everyone should see. I give it 10/10.",1 "Did you saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre, See No Evil, Wrong Turn, Hills have eyes, Wolf Creek, House of 1000 Corpses, 1001 maniacs? If yes - you wont see anything NEW. Again some teenagers going into trip and of course their car is broken... YES - it happens in the woods, in isolated place, and YES - they're haunted by some ugly freak... I rated it 4, but if I would never saw those movies that i mention in the beginning, i would give 6. I think that Texas Chainsaw producers should do something with that... almost all movies i watched past 2 years are similar. Aren't laws protect the story? I got tired of this... I guess within 3 months I will see another ""edited"" copy of same story.",0 "... of movies like Predator, Alien, Jurassic Park, Rambo, Indiana Jones, etc ...

... and of bad script, terrible lines, lame acting, rubber ducks and aliens from ""Alien"", bad actors, stupid situations, idiotic characters and other stuff in the same category.

oh and how the hell can you extract dna from goddamn BONES?? let's clone dinosaurs, shall we?

and what IS that thing anyway? is it an alien? ""ancient creature"" ? I bet those things lived around Caesar or Cleopatra. did they keep them as pets? 'cause I want one then !

so... Enjoy !",0 "First off, this is easily the most confusing and bizarre of all of David Lynch's films, even more so than Lost Highway. I think it's also the most bizarre film I have ever seen. The film is harrowing and creepy and Laura Dern is incredible in her performance. I never thought she was capable it. Fans of Lynch will love it, especially those who think Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway were his best. Average filmgoers will most likely be bored (it's 3 hours long) or think it is Artsy crap. Lost Highway is probably his most comparable film based on structure, technique, and bizarre elements, although it would not be entirely fair to use Lost Highway as a basis for judgment. One of the only things that keeps me from giving it a higher rating is that there are a couple scenes which seemed to drag on a little longer than necessary. Inland Empire at first is reminiscent of some of Lynch's older short films because of the way it is filmed. It is gritty, shaky, and even gives a documentary feel at first. While it is still not his best, it's among them and it's what Lynch fans have come to expect and love.",1 "The only good thing about having rented this film is the opportunity to b**ch about it on IMDb with fellow victims.

Where to begin? Maybe with the ""femme fatale"" theme, which seems to be a favorite of cheap, poorly written movies. Neve Campbell plays a heartless young woman who cares only about sex and power. Realistic? Only if you add some depth, history, and complex motivations, none of which exist in this movie.

The sex scenes, which I admit I was looking forward to, were nothing but people rubbing against each other or rubbing against couches and moaning for unclear reasons, while Beethoven and Bach blared in the background. (Wow ... this must be an Art Film.)

The gratuitous cameos by has-been minor celebrities ... the less-than-simple plot ... the lame attempts at humor ... Neve's charms and the interesting dialogue in one scene with Dominic Chianese are not enough to make up for the general turkeydom of this flick. I can only imagine that Roger Ebert raved about it because he likes Neve and wanted to give her flagging career a boost. Very sad.",0 "Let me start by saying this movie tries way too hard. What's with the long haired ghost and powder white boy at the start, who have nothing to do with the rest of the movie? I guess it's called pandering to the masses.

But seriously, the scares keep coming and coming, but there's one problem. None of them are the least bit scary. Some are unintentionally hilarious, but nothing scary. Considering the greater part of the movie is supposed to be frightening, this is a major flaw.

I don't particularly care about the characters either. Sure, they throw in some 5 minute subplots, but none are interesting. The plot is pretty basic as well. I mean, how original is a haunted theme park? There are some positives however. There are one or two death scenes, including a beheading, which are pretty cool. And they managed to find the official ugliest man in the world, who is fun to laugh at.

Still, this movie isn't good. Pass it up for other better Asian ghost flicks.

4/10",0 "Dreck heaped upon dreck and topped with yet more dreck.

The lady who plays Supergirl looks like her. But the screenplay is just total cutesy-wutesy cornball dumbness. And Supergirl just sort of ends up being more a naive dingaling instead of being a person from a very highly sophisticated culture. She's portrayed here as a dumb blond maybe slightly more intelligent than a box of rocks, but not by much. In the comics, Kara-El was no dummy, she was a happening gal who gives the baddies a very rough time. You may or may not be able to fool her once, but you'll never fool her twice. But here, Kara-El is so annoyingly dumb, dumb, dumb. She may have been inexperienced in earthly, human ways, but she wouldn't have been that damn stupid. I'm sure that the entire El family, if they were real and had seen this movie, would have sued the movie makers for libel and defamation of the El family.

Does anyone but me wonder how it is that Kara-El could automatically speak perfect contemporary American English although it's not likely she would have known a single word of English as she knew next to zilch about Earth as she was portrayed here?

Did the movie makers even bother doing any background research by actually reading the comics? Apparently very little if any. I'm a great fan of the stories of the various members of the El family, and this is definitely not the Kara-El i remember reading so many stories about.

On the plus side, the actresses playing the baddies were a hoot hamming it up being characters of unremitting egotistical sleazoidness. Without them, this movie would have been a total snoozefest.

Basically, i've found movies made of Kal-El and Kara-El to be of extreme disappointment. They've been overly cornball and so humanish. But Kal-El and Kara-El aren't human. They may be people, but they aren't human people. The movies keep portraying them as human, but they aren't at all, no matter what they may look like on the outside. And even if Kal-El grew up in human culture, Kara-El definitely did not. Kara-El was completely Kryptonian, born and bred.

The only actor i've seen who could pull off being a Kryptonian superhero was George Reeves. His Superman may have been human-reared, but still very much Kryptonian in his soul. And he had a sense of humor. Who says that aliens can't also have a good-natured sense of humor?

Final analysis: This was a chick flick with some of the worst failings that chick flicks tend to have. Like a lack of authenticity and believability. And getting from point A to point C without any defining and explaining point B in between. That effect can manifest without any cause.

If i were Kara-El, i would have put my super foot to super kicking some human movie maker butt for making me look like such an idiot.

And rather than just whine and complain, i call for a remake, but this time, let's do it right. Do a movie that if Kara-El were real, she would proudly say ""That's me, alright!"" (After she learned to speak English, of course.)",0 "I made the mistake of watching this and buying it. I have a lot of stuff to say to make this movie seem like junk and it is.

Marilyn was never forced to have sexual relations with any of her casting directors. The studio names were messed up, the modeling agency she was at was not named the same. It's full of nudity and Marilyn didn't do anything like that until Somethings Got To Give and the famous Playboy issue. She wasn't raped by a police man. All the none sense about the ""Whamo ammo"" girl trash is all false. The names are wrong, except for Norma Jean Baker, that seems to be the only thing Larry Buchanan could spell.

I hated this movie and if anyone wants to disagree with me and say its good then they're wrong and wasting their time.

I'd give it 1/2 out of 4 stars.",0 I saw this movie and it was not a successful one but i liked it because it was O.K. and fun also and it is fun just for who have seen Garcea before and know who is he so you should see this movie i am not a fan of romanian movies but this movie is O.K.,1 "The story line of ""Burglar"" starts off well. It shows Whoopi Goldberg, dressed as an elderly fat woman, ripping off a house. When it appears that she is caught, she becomes hysterical, leading the owner and his friend to think that she saw who did this.

She is next referred to a dentist, who wants her jewels back from her ex-husband. Trouble is that while Whoopi is in the house, the ex returns and is soon murdered.

It is at this point that the movie goes downhill rapidly. It is unclear how Whoopi tries to clear her name. In other words, you don't understand how she got the leads to pursue the real killer.

Lesley Ann Warren plays the dentist nicely. Unfortunately, her part disappears for most of this picture. Too bad that the writing didn't go away as well.

We do have somewhat of an exciting car chase with the resulting crackups, but this is too predictable. As always, beware of those crooked attorneys.",0 "This may rank as one of the low points in the history of British TV;12 ""celebrities"" are flown off to some exotic tropical Island to see if there is any mutual attraction with each other,hopefully leading to sexual attraction.The word ""celebrity"" once had rather more respectful meaning for most of the 20th Century;mainly with those who had achieved fame because they deserved it,through endless hard work and great ability at their chosen field.In the 21st Century,particularly in the UK,it is now mostly associated with tawdry,dislikable,intractably pointless excuses for human beings most interested in seeing their names in equally reprehensible tabloid newspapers or c_______ magazines.(You notice I've blanked that word beginning with ""c"" out.To me,it's becoming far more offensive than all other profane Anglo-Saxon expletives combined)

And so it was that ITV,one of Britain's main terrestrial TV stations,decided to inflict this unbelievably awful dross for two seasons.And even more disgracefully,at peak viewing times.The young males and females displayed were attractive in a slightly superficial manner,but all hopes of anything else you would want from a good TV programme (i.e. character-filled or funny personalities,great entertainment,interesting incident,etc.) was doomed from the nano-second it began.And any hopes of seeing any dirty deeds between the contestants produced instant disappointment;maybe everyone involved knew their lucrative pay cheques would've bounced like a ping-pong ball if they had indulged in the most basic of human behaviour.

If such happenings had taken place and been seen by the viewing public,some people may have at least had a sense of personal gratification;as it was,even in heavily edited form,we witnessed a mind-numbingly dreary waste of air space,with individuals who were mostly so self-absorbed,vacuous or brutally annoying that frustrated viewers like myself wished the title had been changed to C________ DROWNING,where you could phone in to nominate every day which seedy,resistible member of this motley crew could be thrown in the nearby Ocean and just left to flounder,thereby ensuring we would hopefully never have to watch people like this in shows like this again.

To describe the list of people who took part in these two series as ""Z"" list is not accurate;if any person one day finds a new letter (or letters) to come after ""Z"",then that will be clearly apt.Currently,there are 26 letters in the English alphabet;if we ever get to the 1,000th,then you'll have reached that trough as far as this programme is concerned.

Who were the worst offenders? With so much competition,it is so difficult,but Paul Danan,desperate enough to star in both series,is the nominal winner;so amazingly smug and irritating that even a prostitute he's just paid £1,000,000 would think twice about associating with him,but he's closely followed by Abi Titmuss (notorious for her lascivious public image,but curiously reticent here,maybe because of pound signs in her eyes),Alicia Douvall(grubby groupie),Calum Best(tenth-rate playboy and a poor imitation of his late father George,but minus the peerless footballing talent),and Sophie Anderton.Yes,the ex-cokey model blubbed,scowled,sneered and caterwauled all her way out of our hearts,though she may have been the reason why TV bosses concluded that even this awful spectacle went below the lowest common denominator.By the second series,even the ""C"" word was dropped as the producers were reduced to persuading the stepsons and stepdaughters of actors and footballers to non-entertain us all.As for who won,well who cares? I know that deep down nobody won in the end;the losers were the British viewing public,and the producers who most probably spent several million pounds on this amazingly pointless drivel,which could have been better used on genuinely talented actors,writers and directors,making worthwhile programmes.Now that it's cancelled,will TV bosses spend similar amounts on the former,or more ""reality"" shows? I'm afraid I'm dreading to think....

RATING:1 out of 10.",0 "LA MUJER DE MI HERMANO is a bad movie that manages, through stylish visuals, neat transitions, lush electronica used as mood music, and a deliberate plot pacing, to look better than it is. Story-wise, it would have been better off set anywhere between the Fifties, because technically it's akin to the much better FAR FROM HEAVEN in melodrama, or even when this type of movies came into vogue during the period going from the late Seventies into the early Nineties. How and why it's situated in the present, and even more so, that its story got through the datedness that bogs it down is a mystery, but then again, Latin America is still in a mire of its own ultra-conservative values -- men are supposed to be macho; women who take charge of their own life are seen as little more than ""zorras"" in heat, and everything happens in a very hush-hush way. So for a Latin American public, the premise of LA MUJER DE MI HERMANO may work perfectly; on the other hand, it falls into an ugly ""Splat!"" of epic proportions on this side of the Rio Grande.

Much of it has nothing to do with its denouement, which to a degree may even then be somewhat forgivable. Its failing, and Achilles heel, is based squarely in the trite language -- both on a visual and written level -- that tries to tell an intelligent story but has nothing to hold on to. For example, we're told that Ignacio and Zoe have been married for ten years, and that's okay. What is not, and where the story's implausibilities begin to show, is that in those ten years, they've fallen into a predictability where Ignacio can only have sex on Saturdays and prefers business traveling than being with Zoe. Ten years is a long, long time for Zoe not to notice the 500 pound elephant sitting placidly in her sleek, minimalistic and uber-contemporary living room. Maybe it's those twenty grapes she has a penchant for. Then again, Dorothy Parker wrote a story called ""Too Bad"", where a married couple of seven years suddenly separated. No one knew why, but once we went inside the marriage, we saw that these two had absolutely nothing in common, not even enough for small talk. We never find out their mechanics, but it's still a pretty funny story.

This, however, is a story that takes itself seriously. Adding to the fact that Ignacio and Zoe have strange marital arrangements is the presence of Ignacio's studly brother Gonzalo. Gonzalo and Ignacio are estranged as presented in exclamation points early on at a family lunch. Zoe, do-gooder that she is, contacts Gonzalo and tries to make amends. He sells her a painting, and Ignacio hits the ceiling. Fifteen minutes are spent mulling and arguing over this painting as if it had some symbolic meaning. No sooner than this happens that Zoe is confiding deep secrets to Gonzalo as if she'd known him all her life, and a phone conversation implausibly makes its way to Ignacio's ears, but all he can do is throw the darned painting into the pool and seethe. More unremarkable events take place: Zoe also confides in who we're led to believe is her best friend, Boris, a stereotypical nellie. Conversations between Zoe and Boris are built to make us understand more will come out of their friendship, but that doesn't happen. The same can be said when Zoe makes Gonzalo prove to her he hasn't had sex with other women, or when in a repeat scene, she makes Ignacio promise her he hasn't had sex with men. It's all tease and fake promise.

So with all this teasing going on, it's not a surprise as to why LA MUJER DE MI HERMANO looks good, but is quite bad. It begins with the misnomer of its title which would have Gonzalo the main narrator of the story, and ends by its sheer quaintness that never decides where it wants to take its characters and leaves them muddled in its telenovela roots. At least for a debut film from Ricardo de Montreuil, it's not a flat-out failure. It sells glossy images, attractive leads that would be at home in daytime soap, the presence of a veteran actress (Angelica Aragon), and that's all there is to it.",0 "Wow...just wow. This movie was just terrible. I walked out half way through the movie, as did a few other people in the theater. Very few parts were remotely funny, and most of them were from the freaking trailer! The best parts came from Darrel Hammond as Jack Swallows, and even those weren't amazing. Nothing saved this movie. I should have learned after to Date Movie that these were the two worst writers from Scary Movie, but I didn't. I mean, for all the people in there, kids especially(which I don't understand why) how many got the inside jokes in the movie about Harold and Kumar? I'm not that many of the people in that theater had seen that movie. I really would expect more from such actors as Crispin Glover. I mean, I remember seeing him for the first time in Back to the Future when I was little, and now this? I mean, Wilird wasn't great but it was better then this. And seriously, Kal Penn, who has a pretty decent name in Hollywood already did this? I think hes hilarious, but not in this. This in an Epic waste of time and money. I wasted ten bucks on this piece of trash! Don't do the same! Be warned, this is an Epic Disaster!",0 "Cary Grant and Irene Dunne were great together, and though ""My Favorite Wife"" is not as funny as ""The Awful Truth,"" it's still pretty good. Ellen, lost at sea and presumed dead, returns after 7 years to find her husband Nick has remarried. She goes to his honeymoon hotel, which is a setup for one of Grant's best bits - he sees her as the elevator is closing and his head follows the door until it closes. However, he can't seem to tell his bride Bianca (Gail Patrick). Then he finds out that Ellen wasn't alone on the island but spent the 7 years with one Stephen Burkett. In another funny scene, Ellen gets a sheepish, short, bald shoe salesman to pose as Burkett. Nick has tracked the real Burkett down, and Stephen looks a lot more like Randolph Scott than the shoe salesman. In fact, he's played by Randolph Scott.

Grant is his usual riot and extremely handsome. He spends a lot of time talking to himself as he acts out what he's going to say to Bianca. Also, as in ""Bringing Up Baby"" and ""I Was a Male War Bride,"" he gets to do something with women's clothing - this time standing in front a mirror and trying to figure out what to bring Ellen to wear. Dunne is very funny, posing as a southern friend when she meets Bianca, and also is quite touching when she first sees her children.

The only problem is that it all gets a little tired, particularly at the end with a prolonged scene having to do with Grant in the attic. As others have pointed out, the script has some holes, particularly the fact that a woman returning after 7 years gets no publicity. And poor Bianca comes off like a villain when she's a victim. Go figure. As amusing as ""My Favorite Wife"" is, it could have been better.

Nevertheless, with these stars, it's a delightful film, and some of the funniest scenes take place in the courtroom. The Judge, played by Granville Bates, is hilarious and a good example of ""no small parts."" He sure makes the most of his role.",1 "If the movie had finished 40 minutes earlier, I would give a rating of 9 for its stunning music & lyrics, original presentation and the brilliant performance of Anil Kapoor. Aishwarya also exhibited her decent (and evolving) acting talent as well as graceful dancing skills. Alas, all these attributes are ruthlessly ruined by the true-Indian-girl-goes-back-to-her-first-love stereotype. Should the storyline tilt audience's mood from one extreme of love to the other extreme of hate? What an arrogant, despicable cliche! The script writers are doomed for wasting great talents of veteran actors and the shinning beauty in the eyes of Aishwarya Rai.

Rating 2 of 10, 1 for the music and 1 for Anil Kapoor.

",0 """Cast in Gray"" is like the best of French cinema in lyricism and pacing. It addresses larger issues, however, than the usual French fare. The subjects of existential angst and ""faith"" or lack thereof are treated with a light touch in combination with masterful patience. The lush photography and the sound of the rain make the film a sensual pleasure without even considering the script. I might guess that there is something Eastern European and slightly dark in conception which is lightened by Michael Toth's sense of the magical. The script is spare. The acting is superb. The use of the dog is a brilliant and comic touch. This is a rare gem. I hope to see more of this filmmaker's work. It is just a beautiful film.",1 "I must admit I've always liked this one. There are many reasons, but the chief one is the cast, which is brilliant in all parts.

Playing a hero, especially a naïve goody-two-shoes one, is probably the most difficult job in show business (just ask anyone who's played Batman) but he solves it very well, and sometimes annoyingly so (when he remains faithful to the beautiful, but dull, Rowena (also well-payed by Anthony, who does the best she can with Rowena).

From a post modern, jaded opinion, the more interesting characters are the three villains; the egocentric Front de Beuf (Rhys Davies), the amoral Maurice the Bracy (Stuart Wilson) and the cunning Brian de Bois Guilbert (Sam Neill). Also, the wise Rebecca (Olivia Hussey), the bitter Isaac (James Mason) and the stubborn Cedric (Michael Hordern) are good, and even Wamba and Robin Hood. In fact, while the book/film is called ""Ivanhoe"", the interesting parts are the dynamics between Brian Guilbert and Rebecca, or between James Mason and John Rhys-Davies (classic!).

Summing up: The film portrays Medieval England as both civilized and savage, and the castles and costumes are plausible rather than costly. The film has an epic battle scene, as well as really good jousting, intelligent conversation and interesting character development. It's definitely worth watching.",1 "Talk about a simple storyline: a couple wants to have kids. That's basically it. Once they (Cary Grant and Irene Dunne) have finally have one, the baby dies before birth. Then, they adopt a baby who makes it to about age six or seven and then dies after a quick illness.

Near the end, when the couple is ready to divorce because they couldn't handle this tragedy, another baby is offered to them, they accept and live happily ever after. Some parts of this are stupid - certainly the divorce angle - but this soap opera works because of the actors. Grant is excellent in the male lead, adding some good, much-needed comedy in spots. Dunne is very believable in her role. Edgar Buchanan (""Applejack"") elevates this film with a very likable role. Beulah Bondi's ""Miss Oliver"" looks like the proverbial ""old battle-ax"" but proves to be a very caring person.

Another good feature of this film is that it was directed by George Stevens, one of the best of all time.

One thing I have yet to find: a good print of this movie. Whether VHS or DVD, it's always a lousy transfer. When is a decent DVD going to come out? Beware of anything retailing for $7.99 and below.",1 "I saw this for the first time as a kid in the 70s. It has always been one of my favorite movies in this genre. In re-watching it again last night, I once again marvel at the genius that was Jack Lemmon. Other recaps about the story's premise have already been given here, so I'll forgo that. This movie is hysterical...all the way down to the score. Jack Lemmon's tension and neurotic persona are brilliantly played out. Sandy Dennis was the perfect compliment to his ""fast-paced"" character. Her ability to stand by her man and be the obliging wife echoes both the time period of this movie, as well as her direct dichotomy to her husband's personality. They are simply perfect together. I know others have commented on her annoying voice, but to me, that made her part hilarious. There are so many funny scenes, and I find myself smiling throughout the entire movie. From the ""circling and stacking"", the buckling ankles, the Cuban ambassador fiasco, all the way to the end of the movie hijackers, this film is a true gem.",1 "Ah yes, the famous French sense of humour. It's starts with a speed boat going through a shed for no apparent reason at all and then double takes of that. Bebel acts like he is stepping in for the late Louis de Funes- hyperactive, nervous, over the top. The plot reads quite amusing- it's not. Again the whole film degenerates into a farce that has no plot whatsoever and whenever Lautner, normally a competent director, loses the plot completely he adds a car chase which does not make any sense whatsoever. A couple of jibes at Mitterand's government then even try to turn this turkey into a political satire. How funny- the socialist wears a red tie and talks like Lenin on acid. The only good thing about this film is the nubile Sophie Marceau who is frequently fairly naked.",0 "And I know that I'll be the only one... but this is from my favorite Comic Book writer (Stan Lee) and is an interesting show to watch... even after the Premiere! Fat Momma cracks me up, Cell Phone Girl scares me, and all the other heroes in training have something about them that makes you love them. The only problem I have with this is that some of the heroes are actors or actresses... so they have already been on TV... they should have gone with the American Idol approach and made it average people that you can find on the streets. In conclusion, I love this show and hopes it gets more a few more seasons. If you appreciate Stan Lee's work and have 6 free weeks, watch this show and you will be pleasantly surprised. I am disappointed that the third place finisher got eliminated though...",1 "This is a very very outright bold show. Mostly consists of toilet humor that seems to so very common today. The very first show I seen, had the characters burping/belching, and flatulence/farting as they were laughing about it all. If that is okay with you parents let the kids watch, if not.. I suggest something else. As far I as I am concerned this show belongs on Adult Swim on Cartoon Network. This show along with some others are not for children. But that is up to the parents to decide. I can think of so many other shows that could be better suited for children, no matter how you look at a television show, there will be some sort of negative that you will find. Be it violence, toilet humor, sexual innuendos.. etc.

The final say here, is you the parent.",0 "A team of secret agents – Raymond (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), Loic (Ludovic Schoendoerffer), Lisa (Monica Bellucci) and their leader Brisseau (Vincent Cassel) – is assigned by the French Agency in a mission called Janua to sink the general cargo vessel ""Anita Hans"" in Casablanca. The ship is transporting weapons for the rebels in the civil war of Angola that are using diamonds to pay the dealer Igor Lipovsky (Serge Avedikian). Brisseau and Lisa are advised by an American agent to abort their mission, but their superiors order them to ignore. When the mission is successfully accomplished, Lisa is framed and arrested in the airport with 150 g of heroine. When Raymond is killed, Brisseau realizes that they have been betrayed and he tries to release Lisa from the prison.

""Agents Secrets"" is a bitter and realistic original story of manipulation and betrayal, showing the dangerous, lonely and empty lives of secret agents, where the interest of a nation is above any principle of ethics, as Machiavelli observed and wrote in the Fifteenth Century. Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci have excellent lead performances, well supported by a great European cast, and the action scenes are really very impressive. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): ""Agentes Secretos"" (""Secret Agents"")",1 "DENNIS THE MENACE, in my opinion, is an excellent film adaptation of a classic TV show with smashing performances. Also, even though everyone gave an appealing performance, I liked Dennis' (Mason Gamble) the best. In addition, I thought that Mr. Wilson (Walter Matthau) was a very cantankerous guy. However, I thought that Margaret (Amy Sakasitz) was an absolute b****. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone involved in this film did a very good job. In conclusion, I highly recommend this excellent film adaptation of a classic TV show with appealing performances to any fan who hasn't seen it. You're in for a good time, so go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it.",1 "I went from cautiously liking this film in the first 40 minutes to despising it in the last hour or so. The schmaltzy sentimentality accumulates and creeps up on you, until towards the end you feel overdosed on insincerity to the point of nausea. The emotion portrayed is utterly hollow and manipulative in its dishonesty. By apparently trying to copy/compete with Hollywood at its most disingenuous, this film surpasses the worst of Hollywood hypocrisy.

There is plenty of style in the technical aspects of the film-making, but for all the ""realistic"" computer graphics recreating the city of Tokyo in 1958, no amount of vacuous slickness can give any honesty, reality or authenticity to the people and situations. The empty ""rebirth symbolism"" of the construction of the tower is an appropriate reflection of the empty film itself; is the film's soullessness symptomatic of the soullessness of the country's ""rebirth"" since the destruction of 60 years ago?",0 "This is a thoughtful adventure that I found to be part sci-fi, part thriller, part love story and an unusually riveting filmgoing experience. Unsurprisingly, it has few well-developed characters; but uncharacteristically for the genre, almost all the piece's characters, however brief their appearance may be, become memorable. There is a special effects disaster in the film, a rousing car chase and many other interesting technical achievements; but I suggest that in this unusual achievement, these adult devices help to move the story along rather than detracting from it as is more usual. ""Deja Vu"" I find to be unusual in its structure also. Boy Loses Girl, Boy Pursues Girl is not the typical scenario for many films--least of all for a sci-fi narrative; but that's what one encounters here. The fun in the film is I suggest mostly provided by just how the boy loses the girl and exactly how he pursues her to the end of this one. Tony Scott directed this action masterwork for producer Jerry Bruckheimer, from a script by Bill Marsilli and co-producer Terry Rossio. Production Designer Chris Seagers makes use of understated but consistent lighting of and New Orleans streets and backgrounds just enough to give the real flavor of the Crescent City, which I have visited and experienced more than once. Paul Cameron's cinematography, the controlled art direction supplied by Drew Boughton, and the award level and very complex set decoration by Rosemary Brandenburg all in my opinion add greatly to the film's unusual believability. The makeup task was enormous in this movie; and the costumes well-handled; but these elements mostly provide a background to the main storyline's progress. Among the exceedingly large cast, standouts include Val Kilmer, James Caviezel as a terrorist, and a number of good actors in small roles as FBI and ATF officials. It is difficult to do justice to the pace, intelligence and gradual unfolding of so interesting a story. Most reviewers cannot understand sci-fi, especially time-travel stories. So, the success of this modest but ""A"" production effort is worth noting as a milestone in cinematic history. Add in a strong folksy performance by Denzel Washington as the lead agent and attractive Paula Patton as his love interest; throw in good or better music by Harry Gregson- Williams, and you have a first-rate film that deserves even more attention that its many nominations would attest. Very highly recommended.",1 """The Old Fashioned Way"" is a valuable piece of Fieldsian history. Filmed in 1934, it portrays the ""Flim Flam"" side of Fields as he leads his little theatrical troupe past sheriff and the general public in order to perform melodramas, and other feats of vaudeville. Always on a shoestring, this time McGonigle (Fields) enlists a local (Cleopatra Pepperday) to assist him in the play to keep it afloat. Her funds are enough to keep it running another time. WC is at his best in this comedy, and it is especially valuable, because Fields gets to do his old vaudeville juggling act at the end of the movie. Those of us who were aware of Fields' prowess as a juggler gets this only movie to show just how good he was, and a few years before his drinking would start to take its toll on him. This movie has never been released by Universal as a video, which owns the rights to it. Perhaps they are saving the release for an in-house party, for except for the occasional television viewing, there is no other way to see it. Come on, Universal, let's start releasing all of your Fields movies out of your dark and dingy vault! We promise to buy all of them if you do!",1 "I'm a huge fan of z-grade horror flicks. I can definitely appreciate some pretty low budget trash. Ghost Lake, Aquanoids, Evil Cult, The Day The Darkened Arise--that's some quality bad cinema. Dark Fields falls into the category of sub-bad cinema. This movie is so bad (and in a totally unwatchable way) that I won't let any of my horror trash loving friends borrow it. Terrible story, acting, no memorable lines. Just plain bad. Seems like there wasn't any effort put into any portion of the movie.

The concert must be 500 miles away from how dark it gets during their pointless drive. Quite the major trip for them not to have bought tickets in advance or gotten their rides all figured out. Just one small example of the lack of thought put into the movie. It starts bad, and just gets worse from there on out.

Don't waste your time on this movie. Don't watch it thinking it could be so bad that it's fun to watch. It isn't. Stay back, back I say.",0 "Finally after trying for so long, i have watched this movie. It's either always rented out, or not available.

This is not a wonderful movie, but still very enjoyable. For the first time ever i have noticed how absolutely beautiful Kate Hudson really is. Wow, she is just so pretty ! She was absolutely hilarious. It's been a while since i laughed so much while watching a romantic comedy. There's really some things you can take away in this movie. It's fun, it's funny, it's enjoyable, and there's really some chemistry between Matt and Kate.

The bet part is so clichéd, and i didn't like Michelle all that much. I recommend seeing this movie, even just for the fun of it. I'd give it a 7/10.",1 "As amazing as the dance styles themselves are the lives of the dancers. Most of the dancers profiled in this incredible documentary name Jesus Christ as the reason for their dedication to krumping and the transformation of their own lives. But David LaChapelle (mostly a director of MTV videos) evidently didn't know how to let the dancers communicate this important motivation. The DVD extras contains footage of the dancers speaking to an audience after a preview of the film at the Tribeca Film Festival, and they make clear in their own words what LaChapelle would not let them say directly in his film. Rolling Stone is right to call this a 'visual miracle'; I only wish LaChappelle had let the dancers tell more of their own story.",1 "Duccio Tessari's ""L'Uomo Senza Memoria"" (aka. ""The Man Without Memory"" / ""Puzzle"") of 1974 is not (yet) a very well-known Giallo, but it sure is a great film worthy of more attention. For the great Giallo-genre, especially in the mid-70s, this film bares very few murders and little bloodshed, but that does in no way lessen its value as a terrific Thriller that no Giallo-buff, or even suspense-fan in general should miss. Especially to those who set the main value on the mystery aspect of a Giallo, this is an essential film. The title ""The Man Without Memory"" fits the film perfectly, of course, as the central character (superbly played by Luc Merenda) is a man who suffers from amnesia. Yet the aka. title ""Puzzle"" fits the film just as well, as this is indeed a highly compelling and intelligent puzzle, which is capable of stunning the viewer from the first minute.

Edward (Luc Merenda) has lost his memory. Without knowing why, he is being followed by people, who insist that he owes them something. He finds out that he has a wife in Italy, who turns out to be the beautiful Sara (Senta Berger). This is only the first step into his mysterious past, however... I do not want to give away too much about the plot, since this is an ingenious puzzle that all fellow Giallo-buffs should experience entirely for themselves. The film is excellent and stunning in its mystery and suspense, beautifully shot and accompanied by a great score. The performances are superb. Luc Merenda, star of Poliziotteschi such as ""The Violent Professionals"", was the perfect choice to play the lead here, and beautiful Senta Berger is sexy, lovable and great in the role of Sara. The cast furthermore includes the wonderful Anita Strindberg, who was part of many memorable Gialli, such as ""The Scorpion's Tail"", ""Lizard In A Woman's Skin"", ""Who Saw Her Die"", and, most notably in Sergio Martino's Poe-inspired masterpiece ""Your Vice Is A Locked Room And Only I Have The Key"", which is a strong contender for my personal all-time favorite Giallo. Strindberg only has a small role here, but she is doubtlessly great in it. The cast furthermore includes Umberto Orsini (""Violent City"") and Genre-regular Bruno Corazzari (""The Strange Vice Of Mrs Wardh"", ""Seven Blood-Stained Orchids"",...). ""The Man Without Memory"" is a very intelligent and enthralling film that deserves more attention, and that no Giallo-lover can afford to miss! Highly recommended!",1 "Although this film was intended to be a modern-day and comedic version of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, IMHO, Guess Who played much more like an episode of ""The Proud Family"" cartoon. Bernie Mac's character, Percy Jones, seemed especially like the over-protective, nobody's-going-to-date-my-daughter cartoon father that Penny Proud contends with every Saturday morning on ABC.

Unfortunately, Guess Who barely touched on the racial issues. The jokes about racial difference were old and predictable. The funniest portrayal of the racial difference was the music playing while the father and the fiancée were riding together in a car. And in true sit-com fashion, all the issues are ironed out for a nice happy comedy ending.

If you don't mind paying a few dollars for a matinée show, it's not a bad way to spend a couple hours entertaining the children. Otherwise, I'd say skip it.",0 "Indeed a copycat as already was written. Makeup is nice, casting great, acting reasonable to good, but the movie itself is very boring. I like the genre but the music isn't very good, there is no climax building up and the story stretches along slowly. One of the few movies I had to use the FF function to get to at least a little bit of things happening, besides the no good dialogs. Furthermore, metal or hard-rock (whatever it's called) music is louder then spoken words which made me have to use the volume button more often. Loud music is no warranty for a climax and in this case it causes rather more of an anti-climax and irritation.

I suggest you pass this movie or when you're really a genre-lover, wait until you get it almost for free. No exciting and sitting on the edge of the couch in this one.

Still I gave this movie a 3 because of cast, acting, makeup and stuff.",0 "I cannot wait to see the goofs start on this horrible, horrible movie... The biggest goof had to be paying the writers who came up with this drivel and called it a story. Aggghhhhh Judging from the speed of the swarm crossing Indiana and Illinois, those locusts had to be doing Mach 4 or so... fast little buggers! I was also impressed with the careful military handling of VX.. providing everyone with full face respirators who handled it. Sheesh people, VX is a nerve gas, and is SKIN ABSORBED too... the gas masks wouldn't have made a seconds worth of difference.

I also choked on my drink when a certain person died from being bitten a couple times.. sheesh, I survived bike accidents with more wounds than he had! I want my my time back!",0 "I wonder if this would be identifiable as a Hitchcock movie if it weren't identified as such. Maybe. It as a few innovative touches anyway although it's often a little primitive.

For one thing it's a theme -- a serial murderer in a comfortably bourgeois setting -- that Hitchcock would return to from time to time. ""Frenzy,"" for instance, and ""Shadow of a Doubt."" But this isn't really typical in that the later Hitchcock would have complicated the story, or juiced it up, by having the innocent eponymous ""lodger"" guilty of something or other -- maybe just having a closet full of ladies' garments. As it is, he's made Ivor Novello a bit odd looking, given him effete gestures, more makeup than the other men, suggesting that he's gay. Other characters refer to him as ""queer"" (in the old-fashioned sense of quirky) and say of him that ""he's not keen on the ladies."" (Ivor Novello was himself gay.)

There's also a scene in which a sexy young girl is happily taking a bath while the lodger tries to sneak into the bathroom. Shades of ""Psycho.""

And when the lodger is pacing back and forth in his upstairs room, the family look up at the ceiling at the jiggling chandelier and the ceiling becomes transparent so we can see the shoes of the suspect. Oh, it's not ""elegant,"" but it IS ""original."" Hitchcock was trying something new even then.

Then too, there is a scene in a kind of -- boutique? Is that the right word? A fancy dress shop where the heroin models. The prissy looking lodger is seated between two dolls in cloche hats -- I'm afraid I'm guessing again -- and one of them puts an unlit cigarette in her mouth, waiting for the smooth gentleman to light it for her, and maybe buy her that smashing dress too. But the lodger has noticed that -- well, to be frank -- the woman's bare KNEE is on display, the flapper! So, get this, staring straight ahead, he takes out his lighter, flicks it lit, and moves it to the side so she can reach it. Then he disengages himself, stands up, and walks off, to her irritation. It was not necessary to do the scene in that particular fashion but it's the kind of thing Hitchcock would dream up, a small but telling detail.

Hitchcock makes his cameo in the crowd of people trying to clobber the lodger, who is hung up on a fence by his handcuffs. (Christian symbolism? I doubt it.) Hitchcock's presence is clear enough in still shots but the print I saw was so old and scratchy half the scene was obscured.

Why didn't Hitchcock make an outright movie about Jack the Ripper instead of this one, with an innocent ""Avenger."" We never find out who or what the real murderer is avenging. Come to think of it, we never even see him. Maybe Hitch wasn't too fond of period pictures. The few that he made were anything but hits. Hitch making a movie set in 1885? What's next? Hitch remaking the shootout at the OK Corral? Hitch doing a biography of Moses? Nah. He had a pretty good sense of his talents and their limitations. When he misjudged them it was usually in the matter of technique, not subject.

Worth seeing. In fact, an interesting story.",1 """He's bad...he's black...he's beautiful...and Tough! And that's no jive."" I'm what you call a gifted film historian. Especially films of my era...the 70's. As shown, I can quote many films, the trailers, and the tag-lines. Another one from this was...""He'll steal your heart. He'sTough. Rated PG"". I saw this when it was released with a double feature of ""Together Brothers"". Another rare black film. ""Tough"" was funny &dramatic with lessons to be learned. Remember when Johnny Tough's father made him spend the night in Jail? Then that tragicending. It makes you wonder today,""did the check bounce?"". That's an old saying in Hollywood when a film suddenly ends with no explanation. they have to shut production down. I don't believe that was the case with ""Tough"". I miss the days when we had so many of our films to choose from that showcased a predominantly black cast. Who most times were ""sticking it to the man""!",1 "Part Hitchcock thriller, part Sirk melodrama and part Wilder cynical comedy, this far-fetched, and at times, absurd and overheated drama is destined to become one of my favorite Almodovar films. The film's plot is ridiculous, filled with unbelievable twists and silly coincidences (and a stupid happy conclusion to boot), but it is energetically directed by a filmmaker that never ceases to amaze me. It is as if Almodovar said, ""forget logic, and let's have some fun."" This attitude worked for Hitchcock, Argento, and De Palma, and it certainly works for Almodovar. Critics may complain about the film's lack of substance, but Almodovar's stylish direction is more than enough to make the production satisfying and interesting. I don't think it is as good as Almodovar's ""Talk to Her (2001)"" and ""Bad Education (2004)"" (my favorite Almodovar films, so far), but it is definitely one of the best Spanish films I've seen. It is wickedly funny, and very sensual movie, but not for viewers who demand realistic situations. Affonso Beato's cinematography is brilliant, and Alberto Iglesias' over the top music score reminds me of Miklos Rozsa in his prime. Give it a chance, you won't be disappointed.",1 "This is one of the rare bad sci-fi movies that I actually stopped watching before it was over! The best thing can say about this film is that for the first 20 minutes or so, I didn't realize that I was watching a made-for-TV movie. The initial scenes seemed hokey, but the acting, sets and story were engaging enough, including an attack on a ship and the introduction of Dr. Arronax and his daughter.

But the film sprung a leak as soon as we get to the Nautilus, and the results of a small fx budget start to really stand out: uniforms that looked like my mom sewed them for the class play, tons of stock footage of the same coral reef going by the porthole endlessly, a night scene where I could swear they used lightbulbs to simulate stars in the sky, and finally (when I gave up watching), an incredibly silly and fake-looking sea monster.

The effects were not the only disappointment - nobody in this disaster at sea could act either. Please, watch the Disney version with James Mason and Kirk Douglas instead. Still silly, but well done.",0 "I watched this film many times as a kid in the late 1970's on late night TV. Robert Quarry co-produced this venture after the unexpected and phenomenal success of the two ""Count Yorga"" features, but it did not hold up to expectation at the box-office. I highly recommend watching this period piece, if you can find it. It is extremely hard to find anywhere.",1 "Tequila Body Shots starts in Los Angeles where Johnny (Joseph Lawrence) tells his two best friends, Al (Josh Marchette) & Paul (Nathan Anderson), that he has been invited to a Halloween party in Mexico by someone named Hector (Rene L. Moreno). The three friends decide to go & set off but Al & Paul become very sick on the journey, Johnny seeks help & meets Doc (Henry Darrow) who manages to cure Al & Paul with a couple of tequila body shots. The friends give Doc a lift into town & before they part company Doc gives Johnny a bottle of tequila of his own which gives Johnny the power to read women's thoughts. As Johnny, Al & Paul party the day away they meet three girls, Tamlyn (Dru Mouser), Angela (Jennifer Lyons) & Linda (Senta Moses). Johnny & Tamlyn seem to like each other but the mysterious Hector just won't seem to go away, from threatening voices to eerie hallucinations there seems to be something sinister going on...

Written, co-produced & directed by Tony Shyu I have mixed feelings about Tequila Body Shots. The script is unique & has at least some originality about it but that's simply not enough when the whole concept & execution is so bad. For a start the film drags painfully in parts & most of it seems to be shots of annoying teenagers standing around drinking & cracking extremely unfunny jokes. The plot is bizarre, it contains magical tequila, hallucinations, ghosts, mind reading, reincarnation, possession, prophecies, a strange spirit world with the grim reaper, Nazi looking ghosts & a for good measure a few lame fart jokes. None of these elements come together that well & I'm not even sure what type of film Tequila Body Shots is supposed to be, is it a comedy? A horror? A buddy-buddy road film? An adventure film? It's a very hard film to categorise, it's something a bit different & the filmmakers must at least get some credit for trying something unusual but unfortunately that just didn't stop me from thinking that at the end of the day I had just wasted 90 plus odd minutes of my life watching total crap. The character's got on my nerves to start with but they sort of grew on me & I ended up quite liking them, also I couldn't but help think that if Doc knew what was going to happen why didn't he just stop Johnny & his friends going to the party in the first place & prevent the whole sorry situation?

Tequila Body Shots is, at this point in time, the one & only film that director Shyu has worked on. I have to give him some credit as it's certainly colourful & has a garish look to it although all the Mexican stereotypical clichés come out like innuendo about sheep, everyone seems to wear sombreros & that all Mexican jails are full of gays... The film jumps into some sort of spirit world towards the end & it's all filmed in a blueish tone & it looks awful, the grim reaper ends up rowing what looks like a wooden box! There are no scares, atmosphere & the jokes are really unfunny. Forget about any blood or gore as not one single drop of blood is spilt during it's duration.

Technically the film varies, some of it looks nice & colourful while at other times it's one of the cheapest, nastiest & most idiotic films ever. The acting ranges from OK to utterly awful especially Robert Patrick Benedict as Ted who is highly irritating whenever on screen.

Tequila Body Shots is an unusual film to be sure, I don't think I've ever seen another film like it but as I've already said that's not enough to save it from being really crap. A bit of a mess & not worth wasting your time on in my opinion.",0 "Sleazy, short-lived (thank God) and cartoon-like reality-show from the anal-retentive Hollywood obsessed E!: Entertainment Television station that was intended more or less to be an unscripted (yeah right) update on the ditsy, southern-tinged, child-like and obviously obese former Guess Jeans and Playboy Centerfold-cum-plus-size Lane Bryant model Anna-Nicole Smith as she attempts to piece her crumbling and severely unstable life back together after numerous career failures, long public court battles with a former son-in-law over the would-be inheritance (supposedly worth millions) that she was supposed to receive when her *shudders* 90 plus year old billionaire oilman husband died back in the mid-1990's. And be it inadvertent or not on the part of the producers is questionable as it also became an extremely off-center portrait of the very strained relationships she shares with her grown son, lawyer, homosexual personal assistant, varying private makeup artists and all sorts of other creepy annoying people that seem to float in and out of her life faster than you can say: ""Trim-Spa Baby""! In a strange, pathetic, surreal, cringe-worthy and I'm sure unintentionally laughable way it manages to be a triumph-over-the-odds/comeback story (of sorts) which ultimately invokes an unsettling combination of both sympathy and revulsion in whomever watches it. Altogether, it's pretty easy to compare watching the now-defunct ""Anna-Nicole Show"" to taking an unplanned detour through a nasty southern trailer park populated with toothless illiterate rednecks and crazy overweight derelicts in tube-tops! I know that's how I felt when I tuned in, and to be quite frank, I could only hope that no one ever makes the huge mistake of offering someone like her the opportunity to have their own reality show again! What were they smoking err...thinking I ask you?",0 "First of all, I'd like to say, my favorite type of movies are cheap horror flicks. I love them! The cheesier the better! But this one, this one was so stupid. I contribute it mainly to the ""killer"". The title says he has an Axe. He never uses the Axe but maybe once. And the hair? Its just a wig pulled over his face! They couldn't have come up with anything better, even cheesier? At least put a damn mask on the guy! This movie sucked. I liked the barn idea though, the unusually big barn with several parts. Acting was terrible, I like bad acting but this wasn't even interesting. It felt like a project movie for a class. But the main problem for this crap fest was the deaths.

The first death, cheesy, gory, I like it but how is he gonna die from his arm being ""grated"". He just lays down and dies after his hand gets cut off. Not even realistic.

The second death, guy gets stabbed. Kind of lame and slow, not even very ""serial killer'-esquire. Whatever, I'll take it.

But then, the rest of the movie is the two girls running from the killer wildly, but then entering rooms and leaving their backs to doors and spots where the killer was. Who would do that? I would be scared shitt-less looking around me. Nope, they couldn't even add a little realistic emotion. Then the rest of the movie is also the girls getting knocked out by little punches the killer gives them. It just turns into a boxing match, with the killer getting back up every time from things hitting him and knocking him out. Finally the girls shoots him with something. I don't really know what it was because I was fast forwarding, but the movie ends. No brutal Axe deaths or chainsaw stuff. Just a bunch of dumb plot and dumb boxing. No wonder it was free on demand.

Oh and the ""bloopers"" Not funny at all. Very basic ""oh noes i messed up a line!! Lol"" Boo. Overall this movie gets a 1 out of 10, and I'm not harsh critic.",0 "I just watched this movie on a local TV channel tonight. I had never heard of it, but it is now officially my favorite film. I absolutely loved the story, the scenery, the acting - and Zip, the dog was marvelous. The movie has something for everyone. They should make a sequel with the same actors, but I would prefer one without the voice-over narrative.

I don't recall seeing many movies with Tom Berenger in them, but this is one that I will never forget. I really could fall for that man.

My advice: beg, borrow, buy, rent or steal this movie. It's definitely worth which ever route you choose to get it. I'm certain to look for ""Last of the Dogmen"" to add to my extensive collection of videos and DVDs. I only hope that I can find a captioned version.

I am going to tell everyone I know about this wonderful film.",1 "A little of those Spanish spicy movies from late 70's, a little of ""Indecent Porposal"", a little of comedy (if there's someone who really laughs watching' this), a little of drama... A little of everything to get to nowhere. The plot releases what we're gonna get through: a door-to-door salesman is forced to film some porn movies with his wife so he can keep his job (yeeeeha!!). Anyway, though the movie has some good points (a nice setting, good actors such as Diego or Cámara), the final product is too weak, neither the dramatic part nor the comic one are that good.

Basically unnecessary.

PS: ""Torremolinos 73"" won the prize for the Best Movie at Malaga's Festival (that's a lot significant)... I can't even imagine the quality of its rivals.

*My rate: 3/10",0 "Okay, first of all, notice how all of the other reviewers who gave this movie a good rating are either: A) From Canada (where the movie was made) or B) Helped work on this movie or the second one ? Seriously, this movie was God-Awful Beyond Belief. Makes House of the Dead look like the greatest movie ever made !!! It is just the worst ! The acting: terrible. The editing: worst !! And here's what's also stupid. Zombie victims just give up so damn easily. If they get touched by a zombie, they just simply fall down and let them take them !! And let me talk about the boobs.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a man, so I like seeing boobs. But when it comes to bad horror movies, it is nothing more than a poor attempt at getting guys to pick this crap off the shelves and say ""Hey dude, let's get this one! Looks like it's gonna suck, but there is nudity !!"" My God !!

DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE !!! YOU WILL BECOME TWITCHY, EMOTIONALLY SCARRED, AND TEMPORARILY RETARDED !!",0 "I've been on the lookout for this film for over 25 years, since it was given the honor of inclusion on the first (and at the time, only) bad movie book, Harry Medved's The Fifty Worst etc. One man's meat can be another man's poison, but a combination of curiosity and masochism has driven me to seek out and view over 30 of the films on Medved's original list. The list doubtless includes films that some do not consider bad (two films on Medved's list are also in Roger Ebert's Great Movies) but I have not disagreed with any of Medved's selections after sitting through them. Individually and collectively they are painful to watch, actually make you either angry or nauseous or some other disagreeable sensation, with a moment here and there of entertainment (taken out of context) not nearly enough to balance the ghastly experience of the remaining bill of fare.

So has Medved's judgment continued to bat 1.000? You bet, the streak continues. This film is chock-a-block with jokes that are not funny, beauty that comes off as ugliness, hopeless misuse of Gershwin material, dancing that comes off as forced, dialog that could have been written by a robot, aesthetic pretension that could provide a textbook definition of inanity. The color photography might look better in black and white (what with the subtle gradations of green clashing all over the costumes and scenery). And yes, there are moments with Charlie McCarthy, and a coloratura Siempre Libre, both done well enough to point up the vivid contrast between truly entertaining and worse than nothing.

Sometimes a kind of negative serendipity is responsible for a bomb of a movie, but there is much premeditation here. George Gershwin was in the process of dying as he worked on this film. Sam Goldwyn, ever understanding, cut him from the payroll when he failed to show up for a couple of days. After George died and there was no original ballet music, Goldwyn passed up on the chance (offered by brother Ira) to film a ballet of American In Paris, instead having hack composer Vernon Duke compose his pale imitation of Ravel's La Valse which became the background for the Water Nymph ballet. So while watching the movie it may appear that Goldwyn had to make do with the likes of Phil Baker and the Ritz Brothers, but in fact he had other available resources which he foolishly chose to employ.

This film is an atrocity. I can only thank Turner Classic Movies for disagreeing long enough to put it on their schedule. And for the scorecard, I've seen one of the two movies that grace both the pages of Medved's 50 Worst and Ebert's Great Movies: ""Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia."" While I usually see Ebert's point, I must agree with Medved on that one. Some day I hope to see the other homologous entry, ""Last Year In Marienbad"". Turner Classic Movies, take note.",0 "Famed lame-film maker Ed Wood doesn't have anything on DORIS WISHMAN! This celluloid train wreck is apt proof too.

Girl returns home from the loony-bin and someone begins to butcher the people around her. Who is the killer.... and will we care?

Hilariously awful slasher is a doozy from beginning to end. All the characters are dubbed (by about two people), the editing is completely chaotic, the gore FX extremely cheap, and the plot is nearly incoherent. Word has it that half of Wishman's shot footage for the film was destroyed and she had to go back and re-edit and re-write the film with the remaining footage. The film is just sloppy enough for it to be true.

The only good thing about A Night to Dismember is its memorable title and an amusing DVD commentary by director Wishman and her camera man. The bickering conversations between those two are worth more than a few laughs! The movie itself though is so terrible it's amazing that it was ever released.

BOMB out of ****",0 I've always liked the Peanuts. The cold reality life is given new life in humorous animations. This is one of the best Charlie Brown shows I've seen. The one where he actually kicks the ball. Enjoyable and fun all the way through. Amazing.,1 "The first time I ever heard of this title I thought it was a joke; it was in reference to a movie poster for the film. Ever since, I've been on the lookout for the movie in any form, and today was my lucky day, in a manner of speaking. Not only did I find the DVD for just a buck, but the picture quality was excellent. That's where the superlatives end however, though as other reviewers have pointed out, this one merits viewing just because it's so goofy and entertaining.

The Martin and Lewis shtick gets stood on it's ear by Duke Mitchell and Sammy Petrillo, a couple of characters I've never heard of, yet they appear here using their own names. Bela Lugosi gets to use HIS own name in the title, but portrays Dr. Zabor, a mad scientist working on experiments in evolution on the Pacific Island of Cola Cola. But the best casting decision in more ways than one was the role of Charlita as Nona, reminiscent of the part played by Zulu as Kono in the Hawaii Five-O TV Series of the late 1960's. I mean, what's the point, why not let them use their own names too.

Lest I forget to mention it, the plot (if there is one) involves the jealous Dr. Zabor injecting Duke with his monkey serum, turning him into a man in a gorilla suit. Talk about typecasting - if you needed a man in a gorilla suit in the 1940's, you called Ray ""Crash"" Corrigan, a veteran of a fair share of ""B"" Westerns who somehow wound up in such monkey shines as ""The Ape"" (1940), Nabonga (1944) and ""The Monster and the Ape"" (1945). As an ape, Corrigan is no Andy Serkis but he's fun to watch.

I guess fun is the operative word for this film. There's nothing here to be taken seriously at all, and Bela Lugosi must have known that too because he spends a good deal of time smiling broadly in the movie. For once I didn't feel victimized by the film's ending when it's revealed that the island action was all a dream. But it could after all have actually happened, since Passaic, New Jersey isn't that far from the Bronx Zoo!",1 "The plot and characters are ridiculous and barely qualify AS ""plot"" and ""character"". The biggest problem is the fact that everything is dark, out-of-focus, and blurry. The fact that Fulci filled the whole movie with mist doesn't help. On the other hand, the whole thing is completely bizarre and filled with sex and violence. The inconsistencies are pretty entertaining, one of the main characters says he has no friends, yet he latches onto the new guy in a minute of screen time, and has a whole gaggle of women on the side. Though he does show his anti-social tendencies by randomly putting an arrow in some poor b*****d who's just minding his own business!Images of blood or gore flowing get more attention than the characters but what do you want from Fulci. Maybe it ruined his career, but it wasn't really much more stupid than Zombie. Worth a rental if you like gory Italian flicks or are desperate for sword and sorcery or something bizarre. How do you sleep through someone getting sucked into a pit 2 feet from your head and screaming for help?",1 "When RKO released ""Betrayal from the East,"" World War II was into its waning days. Nevertheless, the Japanese are portrayed as vicious, omniscient antagonists with the Nazis running a close second in this tale about pr-Pearl Harbor espionage. A couple of Americans in Tokyo have gotten hold of some volatile information about high-ranking Japanese military officials in the United States, but they are killed before they can get the information to U.S. military intelligence referred to here as G-2. One of the Americans—a leading newspaperman—dies from a mysterious fall while the other vanishes into the ocean on his voyage to San Francisco. It seems that the wily Japanese want information about the Panama Canal so that they can shut down the canal and prevent the U.S. from shipping men, munitions, and ships through this important point. That's when carnival barker Eddie (Lee Tracy of ""Bombshell"") finds himself lured into the story. The Japanese contact the wise-talking Eddie and he assures them that he was not only stationed in the Canal Zone during his six years in the Army but also that he knows a sergeant who can get him to the plans to the zone. The Japanese pay his expenses on the way south to the canal. Before they set out for Panama, they show him what they do to double agents. We see a gardener that the villains have captured and Eddie watches for a moment or two as they try to sweat information out of him then approach him—the gardener—with the glowering end of a steel rod. Later, Eddie learns that an attractive clothing designer that he met on the train trip to L.A. was another agent. Although he has made a deal with the Japanese, Eddie goes to G-2 and they reveal that they have been tailing him the entire time. Despite the threat of torture and execution, our intrepid hero decides to play along with the Japanese. Unfortunately, the scenarists have written Eddie as a dim-witted idiot who finds himself in over his head and makes virtually every mistake that can be made. Meanwhile, the Japanese villains are portrayed as experts and nothing is too devious for them. ""Betrayal from the East"" is the kind of Hollywood propaganda that the studios churned out to the chagrin of the U.S. Office of War Information (O.W.I.) during World War II that painted the Japanese as double-crossing, back-stabbing dastards. Along the way, the clothing designer Peggy Harrison (Nancy Kelly of ""Tarzan's Desert Mystery"") falls in love with Eddie and stages her own death to protect from the Japanese. Actually, the Japanese placed a camera in Eddie's apartment so they knew that Harrison was a U.S. spy. When Eddie reaches the Canal Zone, he meets with an Army sergeant (Regis Toomey) who is impersonating the Eddie's fictitious friend and they arrange to pass the Japanese false, out-of-date Canal Zone defense plans. Prolific scenarist Audrey Wisberg and director William A. Berke then pull a real boner by reinserting the Harrison character back into the story in the Canal Zone (much to Eddie's surprise and consternation as a woman with impeccable credentials who is a Nazi agent's girlfriend. The Japanese suspect the Harrison character from the get-go as untrustworthy and eventually the Nazis come around to their way of thinking. Peggy blows her cover when she warns Eddie about a plot to murder him by his Japanese employers. Yes, Eddie is so incredibly cretinous that he does things that a four-year old would never do when he tries to outwit the Japanese. Now, ""Betrayal from the East"" not only kills off both Peggy (she dies in a sauna bath) but also the chief Japanese villain (Chinese actor Richard Loo) kills Eddie just as G-2 breaks down the door. Journalist Drew Pearson appears in a prologue where he warns Americans that this kind of treachery must never happen again. Actually, if you want to see this story done with great credibility and more dramatic impact, watch the Warner Brothers 1942 release ""Across The Pacific"" with Humphrey Bogart where he strings along with Japanese saboteurs who want similar information about the Canal Zone.",0 I have enjoyed this movie ever since I first saw it in 1980. Just wish the laser disc or the video where still available. Also if you can find the paperback the last two chapters will clear things up for you or will confuse you even more.Check it out. If someone has any knowledge of where to obtain a laser disc or vhs video PLEASE post the place on the message board.,1 "I have so many friends who love this movie. I've heard numerous people claim it as one of their favorites. Am I crazy? Am I missing something?... No, I am not crazy. The Boondock Saints is not a movie. Its like a boy band. If it looks like a movie and it sounds like a movie then it must be a movie right? But its not. Its wrong. Its not even an ""unwatchably bad"" movie like PCU or Mystery Men or Dogma. Its noise. Just noise. It's a nothing. An empty void. To ""enjoy"" the experience of watching the Boondock Saints is Madness. Astronomically irrelevant like a monkey humping a football unfathomable Madness... and he's making another one.",0 This movie really sucks. The US anti-terror unit are using German Schmeisser submachine guns from the Second World War.

Absolutely ridiculous!!!

This is probably the worst Tom Berenger movie ever.,0 "In the middle of nowhere at a bar, the costumers including Barkeeper (Clu Gulagar) are enjoying the booze until a mysterious man breaks in and warns them of creatures coming to kill them. They don't believe in him until a bizarre creature kills one of the costumers as each person must try to stay alive and inside the bar as possible to ward off these flesh-eating beasts.

Exciting and gory-as-hell action-horror comedy is one of the better horror flicks of late. From executive producers Wes Craven, Chris Moore, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon this is an adrenaline pumping roller-coaster that harks back to the old school style monster movie days. Sure the movie may seem plot less even with no explanation of where the monsters come from until the sequels, but it's good quality entertainment for fans of the genre. The film co-stars Pulp Fiction's Dwayne Witaker, Judah Friedlander, Henry Rollins and Balthazar Getty (""Alias"") as they give all great performances. I love how the creatures are more traditional style then CGI which doesn't seem to be realistic, i do admire CGI unless it's well done. The gore is non-stop in a cartoony ""Dead Alive"" or ""Re-Animator"" kind of way as you see Eyeballs ripped out, heads blowing up and so much blood you need an umbrella.

I highly recommend this throwback to old school horror movies to any fan, it's great fun.

Also recommended: ""From Dusk Till Dawn"", ""CHUD"", ""Re-Animator"", ""Evil Dead 1 & 2"", ""The Toxic Avenger"", ""Basket Case"", ""It's Alive (1974)"", ""The Mist"", ""Pumpkinhead"", ""Demons 1 & 2"", ""Dawn of the Dead (1978 and 2004)"", ""Night of the Living Dead (1968 and 1990)"", ""Hatchet"", ""Slither"", ""Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead"", ""Diary of the Dead"", ""Street Trash"", ""Day of the Dead (1985)"", ""The Blob (1988)"", ""The Descent"", ""The Pit"", ""Bad Taste"", ""The Thing (1982)"", ""Grindhouse"", ""The Host"" and ""The Hills Have Eyes (1977 and 2006)"".",1 "Olvier Gruner stars as J269 a robot who becomes the target of a group of mercenaries sent to destroy him after he kills a man trying to rape Nora Rochester (Daphne Ashbrook), fearing bad press Goddard Marx orders the machine dead in this well made yet very routine rip off of Robocop and The Terminator. Automatic however does have good actionscenes.",0 "If you have the chance, catch this splendid Ivanhoe remake on the tube or on VHS (it is a crying shame that this doesn't come on DVD, Amazon). It punches several well deserved holes in the tedious, pompous and dire 1952 version with the two Taylors, each performing worse than the other. Come on, Robert Taylor as Ivanhoe?? The 1952 film is clearly a case of a movie being made at the wrong time in Hollywood history.

Anyone questioning the acting capabilities of Anthony Andrews clearly hasn't seen Brideshead Revisited. He is a great, believable, and may I add, gorgeous Ivanhoe.

The film boasts a great, thought provoking script (which granted does take some liberties with the source material although much of the lovely dialog from Scott's book has found its way into the film), great performances (especialy by Neill, Mason and Hussey and the incomparable George Innes as Wamba) as well as beautiful production values and photography.

And, as an added bonus, it is a virtual babe fest (Wilson, Neill and Andrews are all at their physical prime here)!",1 "This is the best movie ever! Don't miss out on it! Vivek Oberoi and Rani Mukherjee have done SUPERB EXCELLENT acting!! The story, its not really very special or unique but the way Vivek and Rani have acted, it seems even better. So if you haven't seen it yet, go see it right now. This isn't something to be missed!!!!!!!!!!!",1 "***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** This film struck me as a story of undying love, surrounded by lies and betrayal. The story revolves around three main characters. There is a naïve young woman named May who is part of an upper class family in New York. As well as her fiancé, Newland, who is a business man and also a part of an upper class family. And May's cousin, Ellen, a duchess who is temporarily in New York to escape her negligent husband. From the very moment that Newland sets eye on the duchess, you just know that he will fall in love with her, for she is far more sophisticated and mature than May. Newland soon finds himself having a passionate affair with his fiancé's cousin. He is torn between the innocent young girl he gave his heart to long ago and the worldly enchantress who represents everything he has ever longed for. I didn't enjoy this film very much until the very end. The unsuspected little twist was what made me look back at all the aspects of the film with understanding. It made me sympathize and even begin to like a character (May), whom I thought was too naïve, meek, and dimwitted throughout the entire film. She was actually a lot smarter than I thought and it was a shame that she had to die before her husband could realize it as well.",1 "A refreshing piece for Mexican filmaking, that's how I'd described this movie.

Nowadays, Mexican films try to imitate Hollywood patterns with unfortunate results. Therefore is surprising and exciting to watch a film that walks away from all commercial stereotypes and proposes a new way for filmaking.

Though I liked ""Japón"" better (Reygadas first feature)this film is in many ways different to his past movie. This one is set in the city and an important part of it is the chaos; this one has more dialogs but less narrative structure. In fact Reygadas is not trying to tell us a story at all. His films are more of a contemplative nature rather than a story with climax and an established ending.

Highly influenced by Abbas Kiarostami, Reygadas characters are not played by professional actors, they're played by common people that had nothing to do with the entertainment industry. And unfortunately, here, the results aren't that good as they were on his past film.

So, you've probably heard about the explicit sexual content. This, I think, is Reygadas biggest contribution: Never before a Mexican film has gone this far on the sex issue. He demonstrates that sex scenes are not supposed to be provocative, erotic or stimulating at all; they can be grotesque and raw because the important thing is that they look real and are not idealized.

However I think the movie has a few weak points: the acting is terrible ( it looks like that was made on purpose), the sound design is horrible and it looks like Reygadas takes 100 min to tell you nothing; but oh! what a beautiful way of telling nothing.",1 "MTV, in its seeming quest to find the absolute bottom of the barrel, has certainly outdone itself with this truly depressing series on the lifestyles of the rich and unimportant. Why in the world would the parents of these foul and obnoxious children ever want their complete failure at child rearing put on television? Whenever I have accidentally channel- surfed into one of these episodes, it's like seeing an awful car wreck. It catches your interest for a couple minutes and then you realize just how utterly tragic it is and you have to stop watching. These rude and ill-bred teenagers are completely clueless to the fact that arrogance, ostentatious parties and expensive cars won't make them any less ""tacky"". There is not one birthday girl, or boy, on this show that isn't overly indulged and undeserving ""trailer trash""...spoiled, stupid and totally without any real ""class"". They all seem to be sad, needy and very shallow. The really cool people with mega-wealth don't need to show it off. On second thought, could MTV be featuring these screwed-up and nasty kids as a public service so the rest of us can avoid them? Ya, right!",0 "I've always wanted to see this movie but never got round to it. Being a ""foreigner"" I never really got to grips with the whole Watergate thing. Now thanks to this movie I have and wish I hadn't: the whole thing is extremely boring. It does not make for exciting viewing. eg the final denouement is told to the viewer by a typewriter screen. Doesn't that demonstrate that the material is clearly non-cinematic? A very disappointing movie. I can only assume that people rate it highly because of the significance of Watergate rather than the actual movie. 4/10",0 "We used to have a video player in the navy and this was one of our favourites. Neat music, an easygoing dialogue and great surf scenes. Don't look to deep, and enjoy it for what it is.",1 "Back in the late eighties, before New Kids on the Block graced our ears, there was the boy band that started it all; BoyTown. Their stardom didn't last long, but paved way for every other boy band that follow. Since then, each member; Benny G, Tommy Boy, Bobby Mac, Carl and Corey split ways, with many stuck in ruts and jobs they loath. Benny G though has been stuck in the past, constantly thinking of his fame he once had. To relive these days, Benny wants to regroup the band to reclaim their title of the best boy band.

Australia has been expanding it's range of films being produced the past few years. Hard hitting dramas and stepping into the horror/thriller genre, yet a corner stone of the Australian film industry has been the under dog tale; the little guy taking on the big man. The Castle is a great example of this, but this constant retelling grew very thin. While time has past since a good under dog tale, does BoyTown turn the tide; no.

Mick Molloy struck a vein of freshness with Crackerjack; an under dog tale itself, yet mixed great comedy while nicely taking a stab at lawn bowls. Molloy slipped slightly with Bad Eggs, but slips even further here. That freshness he brought too Crackerjack has gone stale. Molloy, and his brother Richard, bring nothing new to the proceedings for a formulaic film; much too how they say boy bands are tired and repetitive.

BoyTown taps into the sexual innuendo created in mock-doc This is Spinal Tap. Dancing around singing about women's ""Special time of the month"" and ""Pussywhipped"" lack the laughs it aims. Spinal Tap had a knowing naivety, pelting out ""Big Bottom"", but McKean and Guest brought an innocence of 'we're just making music'. BoyTown miss the mirth and zeal, with songs that sound so meticulously made, just for a cheap laugh; manufactured to the last note.

The Molloy brothers don't delve deep into to bring some true great satire. The material was all there, boy bands are such easy targets, ripping out song after song of lost love and crooning over some woman, but drop the ball early on. Wayne Hope's play on the 'gay is he straight' member is boring for the get go, he should have injected more play and taken a cue from Bruce James's steward in Snakes on a Plane.

There is heart and a sweetness to BoyTown, but with every sentimental moment wrung to its extreme and nothing new brought, BoyTown will fade away like so many boy bands.",0 "The reason I chose to rate this movie so low is because I couldn't understand a word of it. I do NOT recommend this film to anyone unless he/she can speak fluent Spanish. And speak it well. If you can't, you won't get the jokes.....TRUST ME. I assume it was a funny show because I saw people in the audience laughing their heads off. Thankfully, I rented it for a dollar instead of buying it. I just couldn't enjoy it. They would tell part of the joke in English, and then the punchline in Spanish. However, the movie was set up good and it was cool watching one of them drive on stage in a low-rider. But all this movie did was feed me Mexican food that I couldn't pronounce. So I didn't eat it. I would take a Spanish class before partaking of this movie.",0 "This movie is everything that the first movie should have been.

I still would have preferred to not have Damodar back, but at least he didn't have blue lipstick this time. Overall, I like the intensity that Bruce Payne brings to his performances, but I still haven't seen a role where he balances that intensity with believability.

If you play D&D, you will find moments of every game you've ever played in this movie.

I really liked our hero, Sir Baric, and I liked the Barbarian, Lux, and the Rogue. I thought the wizardess was a little weak, as was the cleric.

My favorite scene though is one of the closing scenes, where you see the wizardess and the rogue cleaning up the temple of Obad-Hai after receiving major healing there - a really nice gamers' touch I thought.

My 6-year old's mouth was hanging open for pretty much the first 10 minutes of the movie, he lost interest once there was a lot of talking, or course, but he really liked the scene where they traverse the tiled floor backwards (a classic D&D staple).

I thought that the black dragon-lich looked wonderful, but I would have liked to have seen more about the human lich, and his motivations.

An extended DVD version is definitely in order, there were at least 40 minutes of commercials in a 150 minute segment, I would really love to see more of the interactions between the PCs, and more backstory on the Lich, and the council of mages.

Overall, one of the best D&D movies yet, although Serenity is pretty close (and it's sci-fi!)",1 "Buñuel's fascinating masterpiece is a landmark of the erotic genre. A subtle drama with hints of burlesque comedy, it plays with an upper-class middle-aged man with too much money and time in his hands, and his sexual obsession for the elusive Conchita. She decides to remain virgin throughout the whole movie, however she uses her sex to manipulate Mathieu who's too blind to understand she'll never be his to possess.

This is a frustrating movie to watch too - many times it seems Mathieu will be able to get Conchita to bet, only for her to change ideas in the last minute, however whetting Mathieu's attention through some glimpses of her naked body. I dare say she actually enjoys torturing poor Mathieu and his expectations. And I'm not sure we're meant to identify with his hang-ups, after all he seems just a bit too innocent to be tricked by Conchita so many times, however he's lust-driven.

It's not Buñuel's best movie, but the dialogue is outstanding - which European movies usually lack - and I really felt something for these characters, especially Mathieu, brilliantly played by Fernando Rey. This is a great place for Buñuel newbies, it's got his personal touch of the surreal, but it's still linear and coherent enough like a normal Hollywood movie to be enjoyed by the average movie-goer.

10 out of 10.",1 "Tony Todd co-produced and appears for a third time as candy-man in Day Of The Dead as the scary man with the bad handshake. The movie was directed by Turi Meyer, but maybe it's supposed to be Russ Meyer; because, there's an abundance of female body parts exposed for no other reason then to ...well...be exposed I guess (reviewer blushes). Baywatch bubble-head Donna D'Errico stars as the great great granddaughter of candy-man. She's the daughter of Kelly Rowan's character from Farewell To The Flesh if that helps. The movie replays the same plot over from the first candy-man movie, minus any real horror or suspense, while D'Errico prances about in very tight clothes, panties, and tank tops made for infants. Her acting is at about the blow-up doll level, literally, as she inadvertently finds herself in close company with the candy-man (reviewer winks). Tony Todd spews ""be my victim"" so many times that I thought Meyer should have given him a sandwich board to wear to announce it. Maybe the writers could have given Todd more dialog then. The three films contain an escalating quantity of gore, which reaches its zenith in this movie; because, well...zeniths have to be reached. There are several of those red herring ""boo"" scenes again too. You know, it's the kind of scene where something or someone jumps into the scene (to say ""boo"" to the audience) when the director says ""action"", punctuated by excruciatingly loud cue music. Dum, dum dum dum (to borrow from Dragnet). Then we have a Lt. Detective Kraft, who is hell bent on putting the handcuffs on poor Donna; because, it looks like she's a murderess! To whom? Not the audience. For the next candy-man movie, I think the producer should lock all directors, writers, and film crews that want to make horror sequels in a room with a ceiling mirror, play the Sammy Davis Jr. tune ""the candy man"", and have all those present sing along. The direction is absent, the gore is gratuitous, and the script is laughable. They couldn't even afford to have Donna D'Errico wear a bra. 0 of 4 stars.",0 "I remember seeing this way back when I was 9 years old. My mother and her sister were going to go watch When A Man Loves A Woman while my father, my sister, and I were going to watch The Flintstones. I remember struggling to stay awake through this film. The story was so boring I just didn't care for it. The sets looked hideously bad. Everything looked terrible. Some of the objects in Bedrock had bright colors. Why? So the little kids could gawk at it.

When this came out on video cassette, I never watched it again. Neither did my sister. I don't know why all these great actors got involved with this movie. Just cause you think that making a live-action movie based off of a cartoon doesn't mean it will make you a lot of money. I remember seeing a brief glimpse of The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas. I was shocked how they could make a sequel to one of the worst movie adaptations to a cartoon series ever!

Overall, it's garbage! Watch the cartoon instead.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. I hate this movie!",0 "Being a Czech myself, I feel kind of about this movie. On the one hand, it is very didactic, simple, sometimes pathetic, but at the same time: Be it so. It is necessary and it does the so-called ""job"":

1.look-at-yourselves-you-sometimes-dumb-and- blind-Brits-it's-never-black-and-white,

2.look-at-yourselves-you-damned-Czechs- you're-not-able-to-protect-your-citizens, and the Roma situation in your country is really BAD

3.or: cultural diversity is good, everyone has something to contribute with,

4.or: not everyone is a money-thirsty economical immigrant.

On the other hand, the family background and relations of these ""Czech"" refugees and their portrayal was something I had to cringe at. Truth is that I was wondering about Sirene's (Tasha's) accent all way long...and, with a great uncertainty, I concluded she must have been Slovak. (I didn't know she was English, so in a way her accent was persuasive, although it def. wasn't Czech) I assumed that her mother (Irina/Rula Lenska) must be Russian or Polish because these couple of words she uttered definitely weren't Czech, rather this Slavic universal mixture. The only Czech sentence she says is ""miluju te"" which means i love you, which is commonly used in English, but rarely amnong parents and children, rather for lovers. Another thing - Romanies tend to speak Romani language among each other, especially the older generation.

However, these are minor details I can overlook. But what the hell was this bunch of guys, both Sub-Carpatian Ukrainian and mafioso like looking, that came after them??? I can't think of a single place in the Czech Republic where gypsies would look anything like it, not mentioning the fact that after 40 yrs of communism there's zero left of their traditional life. I mean Romanies of course have their communities, but a vast majority of them dress like other Czechs. In Gypo even the caravans (altho for refugees) were there to suggest this traditional nomadic life. The way Tasha's mother dressed and decorated herself is rarely seen among the Czech gypsies.

If these refugees were from Slovakia or Romania, I would find it more credible.",0 "The game has a very simple structure; go around and receive ""tasks/quests"" from various persons (controlled by other players) and solve these tasks/quests by killing animals and monsters, thus getting rewarded by ""items"".

The ultimate goal of the game is to gather more and more powerful items and make you character more powerful. To gather all the best items probably takes years(!).

Diablo and Diablo II had both the same structure as World of Warcraft. I liked them both but not World of Warcraft.

There are many reasons why I don't like World of Warcraft:

1)World of Warcraft costs money per month

2)It is very evident that the game is constructed to be as slow as possible so that people never reach the ultimate end. For example every enemy can take 10, or 100, or even 1000 hits to kill (!). Sometimes you have to gather insane amounts of items to solve quests.

3)The action is very slow, and your character can't die (just turns into a ghost for a short time), so there is never any danger to speak of.

10 years into the future everybody will probably hate how much time they wasted playing this garbage.",0 "by far thee worst movie i have ever seen in my life! i would rather watch teletubbies over this movie! i am telling you this was a waste of time and money! -bad acting! -bad, cheesy music! -bad filming! it looks more like teenagers taped it for a project.. which they got an F on!

me & my mom were at the video store looking for a good, scary movie.. i came across this one and the cover made it look like a great one. so i thought what the heck.. it looks good so let's get it.. well we just watched it and we couldn't wait for it to be over with.. we gave it a chance and didn't stop watching.. but it was dumb! sorry to any of you who may like this movie.. for some odd reason.. but this is my opinion.. and a bunch of others too so if you like scary movies.. Don't LET THE CASE FOOL YOU!!! THIS IS NOT A GOOD HORROR MOVIE AT ALL!!",0 "Many of you are familiar with the feeling when after watching a film (or midway through it) you think that this was a complete waste of time and money. I almost got this feeling after watching this film. This film has very little in terms of a story line or a plot (which you can get from the IMDb summary, so let me not reiterate it). It does not take much effort to figure out what happens in the end.

The main themes of this film (e.g. romantic love, family loyalty, sacrifice) have been better explored in many other Hindi films. A substantial portion of this film comprises of various ceremonies (e.g. marriage) and associated songs. I found this mind-numbing. The songs are repetitive and in fact tunes from a previous Rajshri film (Maine Pyar Kiya) can be heard in at least one of these songs (I have to watch this film again to be more specific, but I would rather be corrected than suffer through it again). The actors do justice to their roles, which is not saying much, given these roles. Mainstream Hindi films in recent decades have neither been very realistic nor critical, but they (at least the good ones) while being entertaining, have embedded some understanding and critique of the larger social context. For example, films of Amitabh have tried to show the larger forces that produce crime and the virtues of religious tolerance. This film, while being somewhat of a fable of morality (about love, family ties etc.) is very far removed from social reality – everything (people, families etc.) is made of honey and sugar – nothing in common with the real India.

Some people have told me that this is a great film because it is family entertainment - no violence or sex. If this is true (and I think fans of Madhuri would disagree), I don't see why a film meant for intelligent families (adults and children) should be considered good for this reason. Then, why don't we watch only TV programs meant for children? I now come to the one redeeming feature. This film was a huge hit despite all the above problems. This made me think – what does this success reflect about our (Indian) society? I give this film 1 out of 10 for provoking my thoughts in this direction.",0 "This is an excellent film. The character development is delicately wrapped in the plot and very richly told. What unfolds is a very sensitive portrayal of the loneliness and hunger that drive a sometimes unfounded sense of optimism drowning in indulgence. Everything about this movie struck a positive chord within me. It's flawless, meaning, not one scene made me wince.

Steve B is a both a tremendous writer, actor and director.",1 "The Doorway to Hell is yet another step up the ladder for James Cagney as the Brothers Warner discover that the guy they signed for a one shot deal to repeat his stage role from Penny Arcade was in fact future star material. He was certainly unlike some of the classical emoting stars from the silent period, unlike anything that ever had been on screen before.

Lew Ayres is the lead in this film, Cagney's his chief henchman. Ayres is an ambitious guy who's determined to bring a little organization to the bootleg booze business in his city. And then as soon as he gets it going, he quits. He wants to spend time on the golf course and with his new wife. The wife, Dorothy Matthews, is bored with early retirement mainly because she's been two timing Ayres with Cagney and Cagney's not around.

The story is pretty silly in any number of ways. First the various mob heads resent Ayres taking over, then they resent when he leaves. Secondly, it's not made clear at all why Cagney isn't capable of running this thing by himself, he sure looks capable enough. And the plot where two of the gangsters have the brilliant idea to kidnap Ayres's little brother from military school to bring him back is frighteningly stupid.

Ayres, Cagney, Matthews and the rest muddle through this dumb mess. Ayres was already a star due to All Quiet on the Western Front. And Cagney you had no doubt was going to be a star if the right vehicle was found for him. Even if Cagney had been in Ayres's role, I'm not sure The Doorway To Hell would have been it.",0 "A modest but quite competently done spy-thriller set in 1939 France. The plot-line is strongly reminiscent of 1930s British drawing room detective thrillers - you expect Hercule Poirot to reveal himself at any moment. James Mason is an Austrian refugee from the Nazis who is accused of spying and then used as a decoy by the French authorities to flush out the real spy, who turns out to be Herbert Lom playing his usual sinister baddie. Mason and Lom turn in their usual workmanlike performances and give the whole thing credibility, winding up to a rousing finale in the best Hitchcock tradition.",1 "Got to be the funniest and fastest Avery cartoon there is, the best ""modern"" slant on the red riding hood story, with the wolf lusting after Red Hot at every opportunity. Note the reference to the wartime car tyre shortage with the line....""I can even get you a set of white wall tyres!"" I,ve seen the 'toon loads of times and it always never fails to make me laugh long and loud. Working as a projectionist in the cinema I have also shown the toon, and on examining the print it is really noticeable that many frames have been cut out when ""Red"" makes an appearance. Enjoy the toon!",1 "'The Unguarded Hour' takes its title from the existentialist premise (expounded in this film's dialogue) that every man's life contains an interval in which circumstances conspire to deprive him of all his defences, leaving him a pawn of fate. How true, how true.

I'm a great fan of the films of Sam Wood, a craftsman who remains sadly underrated. Even film historian William K Everson insisted on knocking Wood and calling him untalented. Contemporary reports indicate that Wood was a racist and an unpleasant man who founded some very dubious political causes, yet his films consistently show solid proficiency and some subtle symbolism. Regrettably, 'The Unguarded Hour' contains some howlingly unlikely plot twists, a few extra-long coincidences and some very implausible motivations, including one plot twist at the end that's fatally contrived.

SPOILERS COMING. Sir Alan Dearden is a promising young barrister, of whom great things are expected. He is currently prosecuting Samuel Metford, a meek little man charged with pushing his wife off the white cliffs of Dover. Oddly, the trial drags on for many days even though there are no witnesses. Metford's pathetic defence is that he warned his wife to keep away from the cliff's edge, and an unidentified woman passed by as he said this. But the woman can't be located, so Metford has no witness. Sir Alan confides all this to his beautiful wife Lady Helen.

The unknown woman is in fact Lady Helen. Sir Alan has been blackmailed by Lewis, a scoundrel who possesses letters written to the oddly named Diana Roggers ten years before he married Lady Helen. If those letters were to resurface now, the embarrassment would put paid to Sir Alan's career. When Lady Helen passed the Metfords, she was en route to paying Lewis £2,000 for the letters. Now she daren't come forward, lest the information come out. (Amazingly, she won't even tell her husband!) Matters get worse when extremely contrived circumstances make Sir Alan a suspect in a new murder. Lady Helen wants to clear him but she can't. Then, at the end, Sir Alan is cleared by the unlikeliest person in this film, the one who has the most to gain if Sir Alan is *not* cleared.

'The Unguarded Hour' is entertainingly told but is a complete load of cobblers. If Loretta Young weren't so beautiful, I would never have sat through this rubbish. The film boasts some excellent production values, and quite a few of those great supporting actors from Hollywood's golden age. Henry Daniell is especially hissable as the blackmailer. But this is implausible rubbish. I'll rate 'The Unguarded Hour' 3 points out of 10.",0 "On 28 February 1986, the Swedish prime minister, Olof Palme, was assassinated in Stockholm. The assassin has never been found. This movie tells the story of how the killing _might_ have happened, without pointing any fingers at who were pulling the threads. Swedish policeman Roger Nyman is promoted to the Special Branch/Secret police. He stumbles across the information that an international hitman is in Sweden. What is he up to? As Nyman uncovers the chilling truth, his investigation is ignored, if not directly hampered by his superiors.

The movie shows an interesting and vivid account of Sweden in the mid-eighties, and in a way accuses the Swedish general public of allowing an atmosphere to arise, in which the assassination became possible. But it also works as an exciting thriller, even if you have never heard the name Olof Palme before. A cross between ""The Day of the Jackal"" and Oliver Stone's ""JFK"" springs to mind. This movie deserves a larger audience than, as a Swedish film, it is probably going to get.",1 "The man has created some of the most remarkable American films of all time (obviously). These movies include RAGING BULL, TAXI DRIVER, MEAN STREETS, GOODFELLAS... The list goes on. However, there is so much to cherish about WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR, and it lingers in the memory long afterward, to such an extent that I wonder if it's my favorite of his work.

I realize that it's a rough-edged, ultra low budget movie. That in itself fails to hinder its impact. In fact, the evident workmanship on display serves to heighten its effectiveness, since the visible seams lend a sense of unease and unpredictability that accentuates the central character's uncertainty about his personal values, which is the key subject at hand.

Keitel's performance is exceptional. It's his first film, but his emotional range was already astounding. Others have mentioned that his mannerisms and speech patterns are reminiscent of Scorsese's own public image, and I couldn't agree more. It's a very personal movie from a man who, particularly in the early years of his career, openly explored his own morality.

Zina Bethune, as The Girl, is a bit stilted at times but still manages to deliver a fine performance. Her role is so well written that it would be almost impossible for her to have failed at creating an interesting character.

Scorsese's visual style here is kinetic, experimental and compelling. Much of it owes a great deal to the French New Wave films that were popular throughout the 60s, and it also pays homage to the films of John Cassavetes, SHADOWS in particular. A good deal of the acting appears to be semi-improvised, and it works beautifully.

WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR will prove to be a challenge for a lot of viewers. The narrative structure reminded me a lot of Fellini's I VITELLONI, with a series of character-building vignettes that appear to step away from the central plot (not unlike MEAN STREETS in that regard), and I'm sure that many fans of Scorsese's later work will be annoyed by this. A shame, because it's the type of storytelling that I sorely miss and that has been largely absent in cinema since the early 70s. His use of music here is also very interesting, and the songs he chose - most of it consisting of hits from Scorsese's youth - are inspired, to say the least.

If you're a fan of character driven dramas, I highly urge you to see this picture. Also, if you're an aspiring filmmaker, this is an absolute must-see. With any luck, the newly restored DVD (which looks amazing) will inspire some up-and-coming directors to kick their careers off with a similarly personal and interesting feature debut.",1 "Harriet Hilliard stars as a prospective band singer. On her way to an important audition, she meets Gene Raymond. When she gets her high heel caught between two train cars, Mr. Raymond is smitten; he tries to pry her high heel loose. They find themselves playing out their cat and mouse romance at the same hotel. Joe Penner and a host of comedians become involved with the couple.

Of particular interest; Ms. Hilliard (Harriet Nelson, of course) in a musical comedy performance more reminiscent of later ""Lucy"" than later ""Harriet""; her ""Let's Have Another Cigarette"" is an ironic highlight. Ann Miller brackets the film with a couple of tap dances, but has no film role; her finale is another highlight. And, Mr. Penner's infantile funnyman antics are a precursor to Jerry Lewis. The film's story is somewhat difficult to follow, weakening several situation comedy possibilities.

**** The Life of the Party (9/3/37) William A. Seiter ~ Harriet Hilliard, Gene Raymond, Joe Penner, Ann Miller",1 "A rich, posh young woman moves from a quaint part of London to a run-down area, where she dreams of living a social class existence and escaping the corrupt influence of money. That's it. That's the whole film. We watch a lady who had it easy giving it all up so that she can live in poverty, because allegedly poverty is better than being unhappily rich.

I find this film woefully unconvincing, and it's theory that there are lots of good points about being poor is hard to swallow. Most people I know aspire to get out of the gutter and to climb to a respectable status, but here that notion is reversed. The main character played by Suzy Kendall is downright annoying anyway, so it's awfully hard to care much about what happens to her during the course of the film.

After spending two hours of my life watching this film, I have no insights into its characters or its social and moral standpoint. The film was a waste of time. It is probably the worst film that director Peter Collinson has ever made, other than the horrid Open Season (1974).",0 "she does quite well in this made for TV film. She certainly provides the audience with the personality of a hate-worthy narcissist, who, once she cannot get her way, and rise to stardom on TV news, decides the way to solve her career problem is to have her husband executed.

Pamela Smart apparently was able to manipulate a student, Billy (well portrayed by a young Chad Allen). She worked as media director at a high school, but that was not good enough for her lofty aspirations, so she manipulated Billy and his friend to murder Greg Smart, promising them insurance money as pay-off. (There was no money). There is actually an amusing scene after her husband has been murdered, and Pamela Smart is worried about how she will look on the 6PM news.

Hank Stratton as Gregory Smart is a bit too innocent, but we do feel sorry for his fate. Seems an odd question, but did Pam Smart ever hear of divorce?.

Howard Hesseman is not in the film long enough, but offers a good performance, and the courtroom scenes are thankfully left to a minimum. Michael Learned and Ken as Greg's well-meaning parents.

Overall a decent docudrama which has probably been elevated to cult status by now, as Pamela Smart in real life is now petitioning for yet another appeal. 7/10.",1 "On the first viewing, this struck me as an overwrought film noir with the tragic overtones slathered on heavily. On second and further viewings, it struck me that seen as an extremely dark comedy, it's hilarious. The so-called comic relief becomes the entire point. Now every time the horns of ""Ring of Fire"" announce Powers Boothe striding in to the rescue, I'm ready to bust a gut. The supporting players become either Sean Penn's comic foils or high-strung straight men. Speaking of which, this movie really marked Jon Voight's transition from washed-up blonde leading man to a truly quirky and interesting character actor. My only complaint is that a theme from Ennio Morricone's score kept running through my head before I could remember this is the movie where I heard it.",1 "I totally disliked this film, because it just went ahead and threw the James Bond of lore out the window. The suave, sophisticated & witty super agent is gone. I'd rather not offend Mr Craig, but I must admit that he is the worst casted James Bond ever in the history of the series it's not his fault though because the filmmakers were the ones who chose him. I feel that if Mr Flemming or Mr. Broccoli were alive, they would not approve of the casting or even the spirit of this film. The film isn't terrible in a movie sense, but it doesn't fit as a James Bond film. James Bond has been well established in the cinema. Here James Bond has been reestablished as something else. You can either accept or reject it. I'm only 21, but even I will not accept this reinvention of Bond for a new audience or generation. I first discovered Bond as a child in awe of the magic of the films of old.I consumed them all, cheered for Bond and indulged in these adventures. Sadly that magic has faded, and boring realism and drama has taken the forefront in an attempt to reinvent Bond, though it may have been acceptable if the Bond was right and if the Bond spirit was still in tact. The attempt at believability was destroyed by an unbelievable James Bond, the original foundation is too great. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton & Brosnan were all good acceptable James Bonds. Even Niven in the original Casino Royale, bond spoof was acceptable. They were all debonair gents. Craig doesn't portray that and he doesn't look or act right. I'd argue that Craig would be a good Villain in a Bond film.",0 "I think the movie Cow Belles is very good! It is about two girls who lost their mother and now live with their father, and they learn the meaning of life by working at the fathers dairy farm! But while working there they go through some rough times..... but together as a family they get through it! I also think this is a really good movie because both Alyson and Amanda M. are very talented not only in acting but singing! I think they were the perfect girls for this movie! This movie is a wonderful, because it teaches you that just because you are rich doesn't mean you get everything you want. So that is why I love this movie so much!!! If you haven't already seen Cow Belles see it and if you have see it again!!!!",1 "This movie is in no way good. The music in the movie, although sometimes too much, was often used to good effect. Many of the scenes were shot in average to above average ways. The acting by some of the secondary characters was believable. And that's the best I can say about this movie.

The protagonist, Simon, wakes up from a car-crash induced coma in a hospital into which he was admitted two years earlier. The 'plot' quickly, if ungainly, unfolds. I would outline this but for two reasons: I don't want to 'spoil' the movie experience for those of you who are looking forward to the movie and I don't think that the plot is worth outlining. My biggest complaint about the movie is the plot - as there is little to no chartacter development, the storyline has to be that which holds our interest. While I will admit that the plot held my interest for a while, it was largely due to the poorly handled time travel logistics (which are ultimately explained/explained away).

Even the ending refused to yield a satisfying conclusion - yes, I can imagine what the ending was SUPPOSED to convey, but if it's left ENTIRELY up to my imagination (which it most certainly was) then why not just dream up scenarios myself?

In fact, you'd probably be more entertained if you just sat at home by yourself and thought about movie plots that you'd like. Stay away from this movie.",0 "This 1987 film is a wonderful combination of sci-fi, comedy, romance and thriller elements. It is briskly paced despite being almost two hours in length, and features superb performances from the leads; Dennis Quaid is excellent as usual, as is Meg Ryan in her best role. Yet the plaudits must go to Martin Short in a truly great performance he has never matched. He just needs the right role. The supporting cast are great as well; the delightful villainy of Vernon Wells who is unrecognisable as usual! Also Robert Picardo camping it up superbly as The Cowboy, one of his most memorable creations, plus the great pairing of Fiona Lewis and Kevin McCarthy, who memorably says to his dog before feeding it: 'Never beg, never beg!' The cinematography and special effects/makeup are all great as well, and Jerry Goldsmith's score is brilliant, perfectly complementing the tone of the film, alternately exciting/sprightly/romantic. Joe Dante binds it all together with magnificent verve, plus Dick Miller makes his trademark appearance! A great, timeless classic. Highly recommended.",1 "Ah the British and their desires to get naked. First with Full Monty and now with Calendar Girls. Calendar Girls is a movie that delivers what it says it's going to deliver. This is simply a movie about a women's group that wants to make a nude calendar and donate all the money to a charity. That's the premise and that's the movie. There's anything fancy, nothing shocking or out of the ordinary. It's a funny, simple flowing movie that does what you expect and that's not bad.

Two things I had an issue with and I emphasize here that these things are problems ""I"" had and may not be something that would concern you. The first is I watched this movie on DVD and found myself needing the subtitles and after I put them on I found myself enjoying the movie more. I can't really explain it, it was just easier to watch. The other issue I had was the situation regarding 'naked' calendar. (Slight spoiler) One scene in the movies had the woman comparing a naked calendar to the statue 'David'. That a naked calendar is art the same way 'David' is art. I'm not about to debate that, but it leaves me to the following question: Why if a naked calendar is art the same way 'David' is art, then how come no one was exposed in the calendar? 'David' is not hidden beyond fruit or buns or quilts or anything like that. The fact that the women were covered up or hidden left me kind of disappointed. I'm not saying I want to see 50+ year old women naked, not at all, please, but when the issue of nudity is fundamental to the whole story line, I think you need to deliver. When you have finished watching the movie, watch it again with your parents, you will enjoy them enjoying it.",1 "I can't believe this movie is so highly rated. All I can see is a badly written, badly acted mess. It tries to be heartfelt and bittersweet but it ends up just being creepy.

The main character is a miserable, angry woman who is being abused and slapped around by her evil, dim-witted husband. She plots her escape while having an affair with a married doctor. To make everything worse, she's pregnant but does not want the baby.

The writer/director wants to make a light, sweet comedy out of this grim stuff. It does not work at all. It's as if someone took the script of ""Medea"" and tried to make a rom-com.

Nathan Fillion is actually quite good. The rest is best forgotten.",0 "This Second part of Alex Jones' Science Fiction trilogy is just as boring and miss informative as the previous one. As a Science Fiction film (this film: 911: The Road to Tyranny (2002)), it is boring and no fun. As a documentary it is untrustworthy: because Alex Jones doesn't really have any sources for his wild claims. As a source he as always almost only uses him self. He says he uses old and reel clips from the media. The problem is that you can see that he has manipulated with them: Alex Jones uses clips from one context and clips into another: just as Joseph Goebbels did in Germany during the 30ties, as propaganda-minister. Secondly: every person who are right in the head knows that not all TV-reports are 100% accurate: all the first TV-reports from major events are always based on rumours, which always are exaggerated, and all his so-called ""evidence"" is based on this. But the so-called facts and all the theories are so laughable that it possible can't be a documentary: it must be Science Fiction (very bad Science Fiction) – it is as good as Ed Wood's ""Plan 9 from Outer space"". As a Science Fiction film it is tedious and boring. As a documentary it is based faked evidence, and can not be trusted. Don't watch it, you won't be learning anything.

Grade: 1 out 10.

It is simply just awful!",0 "This often startling account of a progressively S&M tinged love affair (and, yes, that is the right word for it) between an 18 year old schoolgirl and a married man twice her age remains currently banned in its native South Korea where it's considered pornographic. In a sense it is, considering how much of the film's running time is devoted to fairly explicit (at times clearly non-simulated) sexual encounters. What sets this film apart from other recent releases that have incorporated hardcore footage as part of their narrative (like the astonishing BAISE-MOI or Lars Von Trier's THE IDIOTS) is that here there is actual warmth and sensuality to the copulation sequences, even when the protagonists are beating the feces out of each other, making it much harder one presumes for moralists to condemn on grounds of lacking humanity or compassion. Not that they would allow themselves to be seduced by this deeply moving yet quietly disturbing film in the first place. I for one found it exquisitely erotic (and frequently sweetly funny with the lovers' DIY approach to S&M), even - or especially, perhaps - in its more extreme moments, all of which handled beautifully by the two non-professional leads. The pared-down visual style gives the movie an edge and intensity, as if you're watching real people in a documentary rather than a fiction film. The movie's English title is explained in the shattering last line. It would sound glib to call this a REALM OF THE SENSES for millennium's end but that's the comparison that comes to mind.",1 "I waste a lot of time reviewing cute but rubbishy science fiction and horror films on this site. I'm a bit out of practice with watching, and critiquing, actual drama! But of course, I still realize that the key to great drama is the characters - and they make this epic Italian miniseries-turned-movie work, and work beautifully at that.

""The Best of Youth"" focuses on various members of the Carati family and their friends, advancing from the 1960s to the near-present as it chronicles their lives in the context of social turmoil in Italy as a whole. For the most part, the story never drags, and every single character is compelling and sympathetic.

Many of the character have flaws, but they're not bad people - just complex. Many tragic things happen, but the film never wallows in misery, except on one wholly justified occasion. Moral conflicts are explored not in black-and-white, but in shades of grey. In other words, ""The Best of Youth"" is rich with the kind of warmth, complexity and subtle nuances that you tend to miss in most American dramas - even the ones that win Oscars.

I won't spoil the plot, really - I'll just say that both of the main characters, brothers Matteo and Nicola Carati, are charismatic and cool and well worth six hours of screen time. They're also very different, which keeps things interesting.

Are there any significant flaws here? Nah, not really. My interest waned a bit during some segments, particularly the historical ones that aren't explained that well. There's also a bit of cheesy makeup and blue screen, but that can be excused because this is really a TV production, as I understand it, not a big movie. Besides, I sort of love production flaws. They're fun, aren't they?

On a totally pointless note, I'd like to mention a strange plus of ""The Best of Youth"" - much of the cast is totally gorgeous. Guys and gals alike have reason to rejoice here...

One final random thought. While I'm glad that ""The Best of Youth"" was distributed and well-received in the U.S., I'm annoyed that it was publicized as being ""like the Godfather"" or ""like the works of Scorcese."" It's nothing like the Godfather, it's nothing like Scorcese. The marketers seemed to have believed, unfortunately, that U.S. audiences are only interested in Italian criminals, not normal Italian people. This sort of irritates me. (Note my surname and you'll figure out why!) But such concerns have nothing to do with the actual movie, which is pretty much flawless.",1 "This has to be the worst film Steve Martin has ever made. He is utterly unbelievable as both an Italian-American and a wiseguy that all other elements in the film which are not bad, just average, gets totally washed out to sea.

It's amazing that Martin's character is based on the same man as Ray Liotta would later immortalize in Martin Scorsese's most brilliant film. His co-star, Rick Moranis, plays just about the same character as in ""Honey, I shrunk the kids"" and its sequels, so that is not really interesting to watch either but I would rather see a whole movie with that character again and the rather lame love story between him and Joan Cusack than spend it watching Martin squint and squirm his way through every stereotypical mannerism we associate with Wise's.

To be fair, I have never really seen a non-Italian-American give a good performance playing an Italian-American, except Marlon Brando and maybe I am being a little cruel to Martin but he is no Brando. Parodies of Wise's got tired after Brando which essentially was some kind of parody on it's own.",0 "A man suffering from amnesia coming back from war to be confronted with a wife and child...Well we've seen this before and long ago...To be precise in 1938 ,when Curtis Bernardt -who continued his career in America afterward- directed his ""carrefour"" starring the excellent Charles Vanel and Jules Berry.Here the director -very academic- substituted the Middle Ages for WW1 and presto!an original screenplay! Actually ,and even the scenarists will never confess it it's ""carrefour"" remade as ""Martin Guerre"" remade as ""Sommersby"" .

Best part comes from Nathalie Baye,who portrays a woman who could belong to the Middle Ages as well as to our own era .Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu would have outstripped Depardieu, had the script given him the chance to shine.

Since I posted my comments,an user wrote that both ""carrefour"" and ""Martin Guerre"" came from an incident from the sixteenth century.Perhaps so ,but in my native France,nobody said a single word about that.""Carrefour"" was based on a John Kafka novel (not to be mistaken for THE Kafka),and as for ""Martin"", famous scenarist Carrière -who wrote for Luis Bunuel - and director Vigne took all the credits.Jean Tulard,the most erudite historian of the French cinema does not hint at the American novel of Janet Lewis in his ""dictionnaire des films"".I must add that in France ""MG"" is not looked upon as the great film it is in America.It's actually a return to the swashbuckler genre that was thriving in the 1955-1965 years in France,a bit more realist perhaps ,to gain the highbrows audience ,but not necessarily better.

The real writer was actually Jean de Coras ,conseiller au parlement de Toulouse,whom you can see in the film (Roger Planchon) and who reported the story.",0 "From the acting on impulse as some have said to the manipulating of the office of the president, to propel a sideways political agenda, to racial-profiling, finding, weeding out those who wish to kill Americans and dance and party all night afterward, I say, this was interesting.

Although, there were no good, Bush-isms. Like ""We need to 'thinkify' on the threat of terror in America, as well as terror on it. Or other Bush lead in, speech banter. This movie complete with CGI Special effects was an entertainment. Those who were running from place to spot scrambling to do damage to the United States, show the unrest in the world, that was there, before we were even a country. Let's face the music here, we have Americans that seem to care more about the terrorists welfare, than they do about other Americans. Let's get down to it, there are approx. (As reported by a media outlet)19% of Americans who trust Muslims, that they are a 'religion of peace'. Talk about an organized religion. They are organized against the U.S. and always have been. The other problem with some people who identify with so-called peaceful Muslim's is that the radical extremists will never be stopped by the so called--' peaceful' ones anyway. And they are not going to negotiate with a President and remain peaceful. It will end and they will resume seeking bloodshed, non-Muslim's, that's right.

The president aside from the footage of Bush himself was a little weak. Whereas one might say I had to remind myself this wasn't real, another was saying this was a special-effects soggy lunch. On a rainy day.

The players themselves, from the aides (the actors) where good but could have been better at seeming as if they were really in this life and not simply making a 'Phocumentary'. This will not be a seminal work to all who will see this presentation. But of those liberals who wish to assassinate the President, this will be a special effects extravaganza-festival for them. However this will remain to others, who have seen more than this movie and have a different understanding of this world in which we live in, an intellectual 'wheelchair' to the Liberal base that doesn't indeed look for the good in America but continues to find a 'Villain' in the U.S.

My question is, before 9/11, when there were still three thousand people in one piece, and Bin Laden was offered to President Clinton, on two different occasions, when William passed on taking him, because he said, ""We have no business, with Bin Laden."" Why did many 'assign' blame to a President who didn't pass on finding the killers and those with them and insisting on bringing them to justice? Why isn't it, instead of getting angry with the (those who have had a crime perpetrated against them) (The U.S.) Many terrorist attacks on the U.S. outside the U.S., on our military bases around the world, at our Embassies around the globe, on our airlines over Scottland, Libya etc etc, etc.

Is it correct, that some of the American masses seem to want to lay down and let the perpetrators have their 'way' with us? What is this guilt about? what do you call having guilt when some one commits a crime against you? The guilt of a Fool?! Just as long as we don't offend them. The ones who kill for no reason except for the god of their Kohran. Right? But, regularly they are just nice folks, a religion of peace. A Piece of what? The peaceful Muslims simply cannot stop the violent ones. All peaceful ones can do is talk. Which in the real long run accomplishes....nothing.

Why wasn't this movie made with Bill Clinton as the example instead? That would have been a lot more original and fascinating considering the truth of the details concerning the nuclear materials given to Kim Jong Ill, in 1998, to make an energy power plant. Sure. Just look at him now.

George W. Bush didn't start this. Even to those who say he 'Lied' that there were no weapons in Saddam's country. No nothing was shipped off to Syria or Iran or any other place, right? Right?! Remember, it took the U.S. with the U.N.s help, six-months to get into Iraq. A lot can happened in one day. It took the U.N. half a year, to make up it's mind. Look at the History, he (President Bush) is simply attempting to finish what had been started, long ago.

Look at the History and look into the facts. Soldiers have died in Iraq, yes there was no draft, men and women went voluntary and died in honor for their own country as our fore-fathers, stated ""That the tree of Liberty will be sprinkled with the blood of it's patriots from time to time."" More people have already been killed this year in drunk driving accidents than all those in Vietnam and Iraq put together. And next year more will be killed and on and on. I must say this in stark contrast, there is no honor in being killed by a drunk on the road. (although those who died most likely have 'honor'. Those who fought in Iraq have honor in fighting for our country, we should never forget. But this movie wanting to kill the President which is what it is really about due to the war in Iraq, should have more truth about this, rather than the empty glorification of the act perpetrated on JFK now transferring it to President Bush (*)",0 "This movie is brutal from start to finish. Obviously the writer/director don't necessarily believe in the old adage of ""anything worth doing is worth doing well"". The director has no knowledge of bear behavior or safety. Which you should have if your going to make a movie with a bear. First of all you cant just hide around a tree/corner from a bear, cause bear's have a keen sense of smell. Second, the amplified bear sounds and the shots of the bear at least initially were horrible. The night scenes...you cant hardly see anything, not to mention some of the other camera work. And the ending is brutal...well why would it be any different than the rest of the movie. I cant believe that this movie made it past the editing phase.",0 "While this is not a great Cagney flick and it has a few silly plot elements, it is a surprisingly good film. This film immediately followed Cagney's best film (WHITE HEAT) and is a slight letdown because of this.

Mostly I like the movie because the plot, for a Noir film, takes so many odd and difficult to predict turns--it certainly is NOT like most of the other gangster films you've seen. Cagney isn't quite the total nut case he was in WHITE HEAT, but plays a Narcissistic Antisocial criminal. He has zero regard for others and is naturally drawn to the criminal life. BUT, because of his intense narcissism (i.e., self love), he cannot imagine his complex schemes and double-dealing NOT succeeding. He certainly BELIEVES in himself! At first, this makes him a very successful hood (which feeds his ego) and so he takes another risk (feeding his ego) and another and another until he ultimately destroys himself due to his arrogance.

So, I like the plot and interesting character study. The negative I noticed in the film is that some of the supporting cast really didn't seem like very good actors (particularly his blonde girlfriend). Maybe that's because Cagney IS the entire show.",1 "this game is the worst of the command and conquer series

they have removed certain featuers of the game that makes it command and conquer.

there is no longer a toolbar, so in the result of that there is workers/buldozers.

it has nothing to do with the tiberian series or the red alert series. I think the gameplay is awful, the graphics isn't good either, it looks to much of an animation rather than a realistic game. take my advice if you are a command and conquer fan, don't get this game.

THe only good thing I could say about generals is that it is in 3D",0 "It's weird how the writer/director of such exciting blockbusters such as ID4 and The Patriot could create such a strange film. I'll try my hardest to recount the plot.

Two ultra-cheap filmmakers (art reflects life) have a great idea for a movie and rope in an unwilling but attractive starlet and make up a Muppet-like monster based on the photographs of a long-dead grandfather's butler. A rival studio producer wants to blow up the grandfather's house as the climax to his big budget movie so the butler's ghost comes back to possess the Muppet doll to lead them to hidden billions in the cellar.

It's not a bad film, by no means, it's quite cringe-worthy in places but inconsistently entertaining. There are no big name stars or SFX but that is made up for with bizarre plotting and storyline.

This film is more in the style of Roland Emmerich in his Making Contact/Moon 44 days. But if he had the budget he gets these days who knows what this film might have ended up as. I give it 6/10 for weirdness, plot and defying convention.",1 "What's up with David Janssen? I've seen any number of films he stars in and I've yet to see why or how the guy made so many films, especially late in his career. I know he made some good stuff early on like The Fugitive, but does anyone find the David Janssen that appeared in The Swiss Conspiracy appealing? Are we really supposed to believe the scenes of him in bed with Senta Berger? I'm not buying it for a second. He's got that greasy, unwashed look to him like he's on a three-day bender and has had one too many bottles of Scotch and just finished his third pack of cigarettes before noon. Actors like Clint Eastwood can scowl through a whole movie and look tough. Janssen just looks like he's got some sort of lower intestinal problem. And what's with that hair? Why in the world would anyone grow their sideburns long enough to comb them back over their ears? Did he really think that was a good look?

As for The Swiss Conspiracy, there's a reason you can buy it in the U.S. for $1 from every public domain company to come down the pike – it's not very good. It's amazing that you can take a cast that includes the aforementioned Janssen (regardless of my rant, I still like him), Senta Berger, John Saxon, John Ireland, Elke Sommer, Ray Milland, and Anton Diffring and make something this bad. Each of these actors appeared in any number of films that I enjoy. But not here. Part of the problem is that most of these actors are so underutilized that you wonder what made them want to do this film in the first place. Take John Saxon. His tough, Chicago hood character would have been great had he stuck around for more than 10 minutes. What a waste!",0 "I apologize if this critique is quite harsh, but I think American Adobo actually set back the progress that filipino influenced films could have had in the United States. This came out in California months after another Fil-Am film, The Debut arrived in Los Angeles. If it had any semblance of success in the US, it was likely because people were still hyped by the previous film, and did not realize that American Adobo was produced by Philippine filmmakers. As a result, the film came across as ""too long"", ""overly dramatic"", ""difficult to follow"", and ""unbelievable story lines for drama"". One must first look at Philippine culture to realize that in the Archipelago, there is a tendency to believe that ""more is better"". THis is manifested in the length of Philippine speeches, concerts, or recognition in any form. From the gay addition involving a son flying back to the Philippines to retrieve inadvertently sent photographs, to the eternally single ""old maid"" who married the fireman who saved her life after she trashed her apartment, the story lines are incomplete, dragging, and with the multiple plots make for a very confusing follow.

However, there are parts that Americans will find funny simply because they are Philippine farce, and as such make absolutely no sense. For example, a female character gets so frustrated at a Mah Jong game, that she goes on a ""roid rage"", which in turn results in everyone leaving the house.

FIlipinos who observe gay culture in their media would be delighted to see Christopher de Leon engage in an on screen kiss with another character in the movie.",0 "Prince Valiant is son of the exiled King of Scandia. Travelling to Camelot, he hopes to join the round table knights and reclaim his fathers throne. But in his way is the mysterious Black Knight, and love of course will create its own set of problems.

The first thing one needs to know is if certain members of the Valiant cast are playing it for laughs?, or, as I suspect, they are badly hamming for all they are worth. Robert Wagner, resplendent in Cromwellian wig and Sterling Hayden are particularly bad, with poor Janet Leigh looking shocked to be in the film at repeated intervals. It's hard to divert attention from such glaring overacting, which is a shame as there is decent adventure movie at its heart. It looks real nice courtesy of Lucien Ballard's photography, and director Henry Hathaway knows how to craft action sequences {the final sword fight between Valiant and Sir Brack is very special}. But there is a reason why the likes of Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power are revered in the genre, it's because they had the swagger to go with the swash. Neither Hayden {sounding like he's reading from auto cue}} or the hopelessly miscast Wagner come close to making a convincing fist of it. Not even James Mason on villain duties as Sir Brack can stop this from being a candidate for worst medieval picture ever made.

4/10 for its look and costumes.",0 "This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time - but also one of the most harrowing and thought provoking. There are images from the film that will stay with me for a very long time. Uncomfortable viewing at times, but rewarding and some excellent and Oscar worthy performances - although I doubt it will puncture the consciousness of the Oscar voting brigade. the cast is wonderful, and the performances all the more powerful for being understated. The cinematography is amazing at times - and there are certain images that will stick with you long after you leave the movie. But be warned - this is not a light movie, it moves you to despair, challenges you, and in my own experience gives you nightmares. having said all that I am glad I saw it and would recommend it to you all",1 "When I saw the ""Rize"" trailers at first I was afraid that this would be yet another movie depicting the African-American experience through slanted and distorted filters ignorance and the media would have ""White America"" and the rest of the world believe. After a few minutes though I found that I couldn't have been more wrong.

""Rize"" is a wonderful piece of cinematic gold. It shows us what movies can really accomplish. It shows that what makes a movie ""good"" isn't a ""Big budget"" rehash of the same mindless drivel Hollywood has shoved down our throats for the past years. But a movie with substance.

If you have read the other reviews and summaries for this movie me telling you about the ""plot"" or ""characters"" is a waste of space. Also If you have read the other reviews you will see that quite a few people believe that ""Rize"" is just ""You got Served"" with face paint. People who have written this make me believe that they must have been watching a ""spoof"" on TV or watching commercials, and coming to there own conclusions.

""You got Served"" is to the African-American Dance culture as ""From Justin to Kelly"" is to musicals. YGS was a the same type of group vs. rival group with ""mild"" drama of a betrayal of a former member that was depicted in ""Bring it On"" or ""Good Burger"" and countless other films for the 12-17 age demographic. It was a film mostly for fans to get a last few glimpses of the former music group B2k and leader of the former group immature (or IMX) together for the last time (sort of like ""Spice World""). In this since it served its purpose well.

Knowing this you can see that it would be a ""closed minded"" and ""ignorant"" person to even link these two movies together. And my advice to those who choose to do so is: To actually see the movies you choose to harshly critique. You may even find that ""One of these movies is not like the other"" As one is a documentary and the other a ""teen flick"". Also I have noticed in reviews previous to mine that the movie ""Be cool"" is mentioned due to its brief ""cameo-esque"" snippet of the dance style. ""Be Cool"" was mentioned to be the first discovery of the dance style. This is simply not true, as ONE of the first showings of this dance style can be credited to Missy Elliot in her music video ""I'm really Hot"".

Another method of discrediting this movie is by attacking the director for just being ""Christina's music video director"" or a ""photographer"". Though I can honestly say that I am nor have ever been a fan of Christina Aguilera's work...I certainly do not hold this against Mr. La'Chappelle because unlike most respected and honored directors who turn a blind eye to movies like this because they aren't ""Oscar worthy"" he stepped in, and in his own artistic and beautiful way shuns the myths and stereotypes that have plagued the African-American people. (Especially young people residing in urban areas and ghettos for no fault of there own are labeled as ""thugs"" and ""gangsta's"" are now being known as ""Artists"" and ""Visionaries"" due to them turning back to their roots in Africa).

I hope more movies will come out like this and liberate all races from their own stereotypes.",1 "i just cant imagine why anyone would release such a trash. i can only assume that the director wanted to make fun of the audience. i love steven s. and dennis hopper, but this time they have outdone themselves. especially the car-blackbox scene with hopper. unbelievable. for me one of the worst movies ever. congrats.",0 "This show ""died"" after the Woodcocks (played by Eddy Kaybe Thomas and Kat Foster) disappeared without a warning...

Not that it was amazing, just a good 20 minutes of a properly made low key sitcom. But after the Woodcocks were cut off, the show just tried to take other directions and if of course failed miserably (who would have thought replacing half the cast could have an impact!?) What is weird is that while the show has obviously turned in to a train wreck, it is still on even though you can tell no one cares anymore... Their daughter has been replaced twice, even going from a brune girl to a blonde girl between 2 episodes, but if you can't tell that it's a sign even the producers don't care anymore then keep watching by all means!",0 "Italian 'sequel' to the 1978 sleeper hit Patrick isn't so much a sequel as it is a very lurid remake.

Road-side prank leaves young man in a coma. Now, his doctor father has lured a band of suspects to his isolated house so that the comatose victim's telekinetic powers can reek some bloody revenge upon them.

To say that this film is trashy is simply an understatement. Patrick vive ancora drives both sleaze and gore to extremes that are rarely seen in the genre. In fact the story and the cast take a back-seat to some of this ballsy action! Our cast is obviously not afraid to show some skin. The telepathic murders are gruesome indeed - who could ever forget that scene with the fire poker, talk about your phallic imagery!! Need I say more?

For those seeking an intelligent and brooding lost thriller, watch the original Patrick (1978), but those that enjoy sleazy B horror must see this film to believe it! Adults only, and I mean those that are exploitation fans!

** out of ****",1 "This movie is about as serious as 'Dude Where's My Car?' or 'Dumb and Dumber', if you didn't like those then you won't like this. On the other hand, if you have an open mind and like 'stupid comedy' films then you are in for a treat.

The acting in this movie is pretty good for the most part, Jamie Kennedy is extremly talented at being a homie g and he never lets up. I also liked some of the familiar faces I saw, like Anthony Anderson who plays an actor in this film and Kal Penn(the arab guy from National Lampoon's Van Wilder) as another homie g... they really helped make this movie worth watching.

All in all, I'd say this was pretty damned good for a lower budget film. A must rent movie, unless you're a boring old sourpuss.

I'll give it 8/10",1 "Strange, even as short 'Axe' was (running time barely just past an hour) the movie seemed so long. Some scenes were drawn so far out and even the opening and closing credits were all but on ""pause."" Then, as if the director/actor realized this, he jumps some scenes hilariously from one character/object to another at light speed. And speaking of jerking cameras, to prove there was little to zero budget, every time an action or horror scene was to happen, the camera would blink away. Case in point, one of the most hilarious scenes was a man jumping out of a window 10 or so stories (get this, to avoid death) and you not only can't see him jumping, you simply hear glass and a character looking behind drawn shades. Clearly, this was just another typical 70s horror, no budget revenge/bad guys getting what they deserve flick, a la 'Last House on the Left.' The title escapes me, because the heroine uses an axe (again off screen) but also uses many other devices. I suppose it was just to draw the same 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' audience. Three men who kill another man while watching, I guess, was his partner plunge to his death, try and secure safety in a farm house occupied by a paralyzed grandfather and his granddaughter. They apparently pose a deep threat to the twosome, yet no attempts at escape entail. When one tries to rape her, she goes savage and offs him. It doesn't stop there. Blah, blah, nothing new, even back then. Slightly creepy in closing, but again, this hour-long movie seems like three hours. Not even recommended for revenge/torture/rape victim rights group movie lovers.",0 "The CW has really stepped up on there line-up of shows this season and this is an example. Sure, a kid who plays bounty hunter to the escapees from Hell, it doesn't sound funny. Its sounds like a... well, something deep and dark. And that's what you would expect, but don't. The show takes you out of the land of religion and plops you in sunny suburbia, with a guy who just can't get things right, and then finds out he has to work for the devil. That would suck. That's the appeal of an average college dropout battling hell with his friends at his side. That's where the real fun comes in: Sam has great friends. He has his bud Bert ""Sock"" Wysocki who is loyal and just goes with his friend's new gig. There's Ben, who is more of the brains of the outfit. And, of course, there's the girl, in this case, Andi. She works at the same Home Depot-like store with the guys and is going part-time to college. Oh, and she has no clue that Sam is in love with her. That's all pretty typical of a twenty-something TV comedy. But the fact that they throw in the Devil and his needs takes it from ""Friends"" to ""Buffy"" – real life is hell. But it can be funny too. This fall, don't miss ""Reaper"" on the CW.",1 "This has to be one of the most hilarious films I have ever watched. It consists of two stories - Billy the Ninja has to battle some gangsters, while Gordon the Ninja has to defeat some other ninja who wants to kill every other ninja to prove he's the best. There is a lot of ""ninja"" in this film. Highlights included the fantastic Ninja headbands (all ninjas need a headband that announces their ninja status), the ninja shell suits, the urban cameo ninja and the screamingly funny dialogue - ""Bully, what are you going to do about work? I don't think your ninja skills will help you find a job."" Ah yes, a common problem for young ninjas. I think this film would be best viewed while drunk.",1 "In a non-specific city somewhere in the U.S.(New York? Chicago?),a sullen,carrot-eating loner named Smith(Clive Owen,clearly relishing his chance to be as unkempt and gnarled as possible,among other things in the movie)witnesses a pregnant woman being chased by a violent man for reasons unrevealed. Against his better judgment,he jumps into the fray and becomes embroiled in what ultimately turns into a war of wits(and guns,of course)with a frothy,flop-sweating--but scarily intuitive and intelligent--crime boss named Hertz(Paul Giamatti,spitting and hissing his lines with dangerous intensity). Along for the ride are the baby Smith delivered and the gorgeous,Italian prostitute(Monica Bellucci,smokingly hot)who is something close to a girlfriend and the only person he can trust.

While the plot seems forced,and the tempo and pacing of the film knows only one speed(well,okay,maybe two),the film is so rife with eye-catching and dazzling stunts,acrobatics and gun-play,and tied together with dialog that seems to be lifted and dried off from old James Bond movies(perhaps a nod to Owen's flirtation with becoming the next 007)that it is perversely enjoyable for its own excesses. Director and writer Michael Davis keeps it lean and very mean as he uses eyes for dimension to let the viewer in on the ping-ponging action,not using much more dialog than necessary and keeping a sly running joke having to do with the sort of happily violent relationship between Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd. The expression ""This'll put hair/fuzz on your peaches""comes to mind when I think of this film,and it will appeal to a basically select(read:guys,mostly)audience,but that audience should be pleased with a movie like Shoot'em up. You'll get more shots than just ammo with this 90 minute-plus ride.",1 "In this movie Bobby (Jack Nicholson) is a definition loner. Loner is defined as one who avoids the company of other people and this is definitely Bobby. To begin with Bobby has no love for anything or anybody. He ignores his family, hates his job, and most of all he doesn't care about his girlfriend at all. He expects everyone to give him love back but he gives none out. Catherine points this out to him when he asks her to show him some love.

The start of Bobby being a loner is his family. He left them for no apparent reason and started jumping around from place to place. He had a promising career as a piano player because he was good at it and it was his family heritage. He just threw this away along to work on an oil rig which he hates also and ends up quitting. He didn't tell them where he was going or what he was doing so they had no idea what he was up to until the day he went and saw his sister. The only reason he went back to see his family is because his father was dieing and he felt that he was obligated to do so. I don't think that he actually wanted to be there he just felt he should be.

The next biggest thing in his life besides his family is his girlfriend who he shows absolutely no respect to. He is constantly cheating on her and bad mouthing her right to her face. She wants the relationship to get more serious by having kids and he wants nothing to do with that because he doesn't want to be tied down. The only reason that they are still together is because she is to stupid and naïve to break up with him. Every time she wants to do it he says something a little sweet and she instantly forgives him and lets him walk all over her again. To be honest this is the perfect girl for Bobby because he can do what ever he wants and she will let him.

You can also tell Bobby is a loner because every time something big happens he goes off by himself and gets drunk. For example when things go bad at his house he leaves and goes and gets drunk in a bar. When Bobby and Elton go to work drunk one morning and the boss doesn't let them work they leave and start drinking more. While stuck in traffic Bobby gets out of the car and gets in the back on a truck with a piano and starts playing, then the truck leaves and Elton loses him. This is a great symbol to show that Bobby is a loner because the only person he likes in his life is Elton and he is taken away from him by the truck. Then days later Elton is really taken from him when he is arrested so Bobby is totally alone.

We find out at the end of the movie that Bobby is a loner because he is afraid that things will get bad if he stays in one spot for too long. With this mentality that Bobby has it is no wonder he is a loner and why he will always be a loner. He doesn't want to get attached and he expects that people will do everything for him.",0 "It's the wee hours on Sunday night / Monday morning, and channel-surfing brought up this movie. It didn't seem too bad, and in fact, I was really enjoying it. I was curious about who played Rick, and naturally went to IMDb, and I found out that I should hate this movie, if I can trust most of the other reviewers. Phooey on them --- I LIKED IT!! It kept my attention, stuff was always happening, heck, I had fun! That's what I watch movies for -- fun. I don't know about direction, plot holes and all that other jive -- save that for English class and Miss Pruneface. I mean, what more do you want from a movie: vertigo, Tim Lister AND Tony Todd, a drum magazine in a 9mm pistol, jeez, this movie had it ALL!",1 "Streets of Laredo is just as compelling as the original the only difference is that James Garner now holds the reins as Captain Woodrow Call,One of the most legendary Texas Rangers ever. Times have changed and so has Call's West. Things are changing as the 20 century looms closer and the wild west becomes Civilied. Woodrow Call is now a feared Bounty hunter and one of the greatest bounty hunters of his age. Call is now older but no wiser in the ways of the world and when he's hired to track down a Mexican Bandit named Joey Garza. Call Drags his ever loyal Corperal Pea-Eye Parker to help him track down the killer despite Pea-Eye now being married and having a family of his own. Streets of Laredo is a study of loyalties and betrayals to old ideas. Garner is simpling outstanding as Call. he is rivaled by George Carlin in a dramatic role a first for Carlin This movie shows us how the tale Ends but to me it still leaves a lot out maybe to lead to another story in the Lonesome Dove universe about the Final Years of Woodrow Call. Superb acting and a strong script make this a highly recommended movie which is official Canon unlike the sequel Return to Lonesome Dove which wasn't. Streets of Laredo can stand along side Lonesome Dove as one of the very best wild west stories ever told.",1 "After being brought back from the dead by a parasitic creature, detective Shade is back on the street killing…and eating...bad guys. His partner, John Dark, realizes the situation is out-of-hand and tries to stop Shade before he fully transforms into a monster. This well-made by intensely boring British horror offering features good direction from Andrew Goth, who displays a strong visual style and a good eye for interesting camera angles. The entire cast gave very good performances, especially the golf-playing police chief (name of actor escapes me right now). The make-up effects were quite good, and if you like your horror movies gory…well, let's just say this is a VERY bloody flick and horror fans will not be disappointed in this department. Unfortunately, this is where the list of positive aspects ends. The plot is a big confusing mess, the violence is often mean-spirited, the narrative made no sense and the film is very poorly paced. Not unwatchably bad, but unfortunately dumb and dull. Oh, and did those CG shots of the worm-thing that comes out of Shade's hand look like crap or what?

3.5/10.",0 I waited hoping this would be a great show. Rarely in my life have less than thirty minutes been so lost to me as they have been tonight. I'm giving this two stars out of respect to Christina Applegate. She was great on Broadway. She made me laugh on Married With Children. She made me laugh on Jesse. I'm hoping it's not her. This show is NOT funny. Not for a second. Not a single laugh giggle chuckle titter. Nothing. I sat amazed. The writers didn't have one funny line. It's not really boring. The cast is attractive but most play basically people I would never know or like under any circumstances. I'm guessing that I'll be the very small minority on my next statement since everyone but me loves this show but the only show I can compare it to is How I Met Your Mother. Again I can sit through that one without even a mild ha ha. I know it's me but while I can't stop laughing at Two and a Half Men or Big Bang Theory these shows just left me not wanting to watch again. I know I will in hopes I'll find a laugh but after tonight I have my doubts. Sitting through six How I Mets was rough going for me but I'll sit through five more Samanthas in hopes I get to actually hear a funny line. I will check back on the reviewers for this show to see what lines they post that they found funny here. Give me a line quote. Please.,0 "Since I used to know some of the people involved with this film, I decided not to review it professionally. After finally seeing it, I can hardly resist the urge to comment on it as a private moviegoer/renter - especially in the light of the dubious raves being published here. Yes, ""Venus and Mars"" is THAT bad! Not only that it's a bad film, it's also a waste of money, time and talent: Lynn Redgrave was delightfully funny - let's make this peculiar -in ""Gods and Monsters"". Ryan Hurst was great in ""Remember the Titans"". I just love ""Dark Angel"" - and not just because the spunky charm and great looks of Jessica Alba, but also because of Michael Weatherly, whose brilliant, low-key performance single-handedly provides a counter-balance to the series' outrageously futuristic plot. Why all these great actors (and some others in the cast) didn't chose to act, would even puzzle Melville's Bartleby. Let Variety proclaim that the announced Actors Strike was narrowly avoided - I'd say that it did happen indeed: and it happened during the shooting of this film. But then again, why should they have put any effort into this cheesy train wreck of a romantic comedy: the plot is somewhat appealing in its naiveté - four girlfriends return to their German hometown to mourn the death of their soccer-coach - but it's the kind of 'nice' idea that needs great dialogue, perfect execution, charming ambiance and romantic spirit to come to fruition. Needless to say, all of this is lacking in ""Venus and Mars"". The dialogues don't just border on the ridiculous - it's fair to say that it's miles south of the border, let alone the equator. The pacing is uneven. Continuity in the case of this film only means that the celluloid does not tear. And when all girls find their perfect guy in the end (no spoiler, that's what we expect from a romantic comedy), the audience does not swoon, but is bound to groan loudly. There is the name of a director in the credits - but somehow I doubt he exists. If he does, I would not even let him direct cart-traffic on a golf-course, because of the legal ramifications, let alone the bloodshed. He might have said ""action"" and ""cut"" during the filming, but so does a parrot. As for the leading lady Daniela Lunkewitz, I do have to surmise that she is no Meg Ryan - or Jeri Ryan, for that matter. ""Venus and Mars"" is the kind of romantic-comedy nobody needs - and I'll have to take my hat off to the investors and the unsuspecting patrons who bought a ticket. Charity is rare these days - but I'd like to suggest that there are causes out there far more worthy of your 8 bucks or the few millions that were pumped into this little endeavor.",0 "Remarkable how The Lot, with each episode, just keeps sinking to lower and new found levels of incredibility. I put it on a par with ""Plan 9 From Outer Space,"" director Ed Woods' best. This is one of the worst and most thoughtless presentations I've ever seen on TV and it comes from the NYUK channel, American Movie Classics (AMC). This probably explains, as far as I'm concerned, AMC's sudden decline in popularity and aimless descent into le potee. Also gone from AMC is their last remaining air of dignity, Bob Dorian, who always displayed himself as a knowledgeable and truly authoritative presenter. Thus leaving us with Wee Baby Burke and his sluggish monotoned delivery to tell us all about the picture we are about to see. I wouldn't doubt that most of the movies on AMC was filmed before he fell to earth. If you want to see a really good TV show about the struggle to ""make it"" in the movies, look for ""Tales from the Hollywood Hills: A Table at Ciro's."" This one hour show was combined and intercut with another and retitled ""Power, Passion and Murder"" and still shows up on TV occasionally. As for ""The Lot,"" stay close to the flush handle.",0 "if you loved the ""wogs"" series of the late 80's then you will probably think this is funny as well.

Racial stereotypes set in day to day life, if you want to watch something in that sort of vein go watch ""Kingswood Country"" or for a USA production, ""Married with children"" or ""SOAP"".

If the producers were trying to turn away potential immigrants then they have a hit production, this would turn me away if I was foreign born and saw this as what Australian's were like.

It's as funny as Barry Humphries' Dame Edna character, and has as much to do with Australian life as Dame Edna does.

do yourself a favor, if you find it funny, go see a psychiatrist?",0 "I found this a very enjoyable early crime drama. Students of the genre will want to compare this to ""Little Caesar"" and/or ""The Front Page"". Transitions within scenes and from one scene to another flow better in ""The Racket"" than in many other silent films.

I agree with earlier comments about the new scoring. There is too much brass and too much forte.

The film itself is about 83 minutes long, much longer than we thought during the 76 years that it was out of circulation. The restoration job on the film is one of the best that I have seen, especially for a film as old as this one is. I hope it is released soon on DVD.",1 "I think this movie is a disservice to Alan Turing. He was the undisputed leader of the team that took the initial Polish work to break the Enigma Code, broke subsequent variations (such as for the naval Enigma machines) and automated the whole thing by creating one of the world's first computers called BOMBE. His work thus directly brought World War II to an early end and saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the process. He was also the founder of modern day computers and artificial intelligence (just Google 'Turing Test'). Why create a fictional story? In telling the story truthfully, they would have to touch on the fact that Alan Turing was gay. In 1952 he was arrested for being gay, was chemically castrated, and had all security clearance stripped. He committed suicide in 1954. Was it so unpalatable to tell the truth that the main character in this story was gay (as were thousands of soldiers who fought in WWII)? I think that story is more compelling. Are we so sanitized that he had to be replaced with a team of straight matinée idols? Alan Turing was one of the most important figures of the 20th century, and one of the most slighted. I wish someone would make a decent movie telling his story. You can sign a petition asking the British Government to apologize for the prosecution and castration of this war hero here: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/",0 "This movie gets a 5 out of 10 not because it deserves five points, in fact, I don't think the quality is such that it deserves one point. But it is just so god damn bad that I love it enough to boost up the points.

To begin with, Richard Gesswein is the worst leading man ever to grace the silver screen. They had to get someone to pull a voice-over for his role, Coldyron (Yeah, that's a tough name), as well as his leading lady, Dr. Steele's part. Dr. Steele, by the way, is a bodybuilder woman with a skunk on her head.

The opening scene reveals the end of the movie immediately telling you that you are wasting an hour and a half. These three guys (the director, writer and star) came up with enough money to take RoboCop, The Terminator, and Judge Dredd (which was merely in comic book form at the time) into one completely awful masterpiece.

When we go back to the beginning of the story, the clock strikes 5:00 and Coldyron wakes up. Just as a quick note to the viewers, the filmmakers then had the clock read 4:50, as if to say, ""Please, it's not too late for you, turn off the TV and RUN!"" Of course, I didn't follow the directions, I just laughed. Shortly thereafter he fills up a cup of coffee with far too much sugar and you're thinking, ""Wow, he sure likes sugar."" (This is a joke that you will soon be hoping the filmmakers didn't find to be funny). He grabs carrots from the fridge and heads outside, to his horse. You think the carrots are for the horse, right? But he gives the horse the coffee! THAT'S why there was so much sugar! Then HE eats the carrots himself! AHA! SO FUNNY!! This is about how great the entire movie is.

Absolutely nothing makes sense in this movie. Gesswein says that ROTOR will be ready in 25 years, then says he needs at least 4. Shortly thereafter a Native American character named Shoeboogie puts his headphones in the wrong place and sparks ROTOR. It just makes no sense at all.

I won't go into too many more details, but the worst part of the entire movie must be the fact that ROTOR can take off his sunglasses AND SEE INTO THE PAST! Apparently a function called SENSOR RECALL was built into his system, but it is so insanely dumb that the screenwriter didn't even bother trying to come up with some sort of half-assed explanation. None of the technical jargon even sounds like it makes sense, but he didn't even try going into sensor recall.

You have to see SENSOR RECALL in action to truly appreciate it's sheer madness.

At the conclusion of the movie, Coldyron utilizes a technique Shoeboogie spoke of earlier to kill ROTOR, as if to tie everything together in some sort of nice neat way. One of the problems is that Shoeboogie never spoke to Coldyron. Another is that a few pieces of string defeat this unstoppable supercop.

Another is that I am trying to make sense of a movie in which the comic relief is delivered by a Robot who can think on his own, but the supercop won't be ready for another 25 years.

ROTOR is the worst movie ever made. If you can find something worse, please bring it to me, because I need it.

Please see ROTOR. It is so bad, you will hate me for making you watch it.

And then you will make all of your friends watch it...and you will love me once more.

""Look at these cheekbones: I'm either an Indian or a sissy. And, heh heh, I sure ain't no sissy."" (or something like that...) -Shoeboogie",1 "*****CONTAINS SPOILERS******* There's no way for me to discuss this movie without revealing plot points because the way the script squanders its cast and an interesting storyline is what disappoints me most.

I'd never heard of the film, but any film with Peter Falk, Tyne Daly, Timothy Hutton, etc. should be interesting, right? Well, the pity of the movie is that they DO start out with an interesting premise. They have actors who radiate intelligence and charm and, because of their past works, carry a lot of goodwill--especially with audiences who are old enough to want to watch this film because Peter Falk is in it and not because they want to see Freddie Prinze, Jr.'s early work.

Peter Falk and Tyne Daly make a charming, believable married couple.Tyne Daly's speech about some tough times early in their marriage is particularly moving. You feel for the Lauren Holly character. You wish the Timothy Hutton character would get a clue. There's a chance for a slice of life movie about a bookie who's as ethical as such a profession will allow him to be and what happens when the vultures want to muscle in--a particularly annoying plot point by the way, since Falk's character has said he's retiring in a year and we believe him.

As soon as the Freddie Prinze, Jr. character takes center stage, the movie goes wrong. It's not Prinze's fault. He's playing a cruel, stupid, violent, perverse gangster wannabe whose story arc sends the movie in a different, starker, more hopeless direction. It's as if I started out watching a movie directed by Gary Marshall and ended up with a movie directed by Quentin Tarrantino. ""The Lemon Drop Kid"" plus the most bleak episodes of ""The Sopranos"" = this movie. The cast and set-up deserved a less nihilistic ending. It's an ending calculated for maximum ""bum-out."" It made me sorry that I watched it until the end.

The actors are always worth watching. The script should have served them better.",0 "I hadn't heard very good things, so I didn't go into it with high expectations, and still it managed to disappoint, big time.

Where was the over-dramatic ""after-school special"" music?

Where were Jerri's funky pets?

Why did they change Derrick, using an actor that isn't butt-ugly?

And why, for the love of God, wasn't it funny? Almost every joke felt forced, and half of them were simply recycled from the show.

God...DAMN IT!

I would much rather they just bring the show back. Probably not gonna happen, now that Colbert is such a big star that he's coining words that dictionaries take seriously. Come to think of it, whoever first said that ""Strangers"" would make a good movie was speaking nothing but truthiness.",0 "The organizing department behind the After Dark Horrorfest clearly didn't base their movie choices on plot originality; otherwise ""Lake Dead"" never would have made the final selection. This is a remotely entertaining little effort, but quite possibly also the most clichéd horror movie I ever watched and it's derivative of at least a dozen genre classics, including ""The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"" (original and remake), ""Friday the 13th"" ,""Psycho"" and ""The Hills have Eyes (original and remake as well). Every prototypic twist you expect to happen in a backwoods horror slasher really does happen here, and at the exact moment you predicted it too, and every stereotypical character you anticipate to make an appearance also really does make an appearance at one point or another. Personally I have a high level of tolerance for the use of dreadful clichés, but if you're exclusively looking for horror movies with innovating and daringly creative formulas feel free to skip this one, because it features absolutely nothing you haven't seen a hundred times before. The plot primarily revolves on two attractive blond sisters, Brielle and Kelly Lake. Their last name is either a lack of scripting inspiration or a truly lame pun, because they actually inherit a lake and complementary lakeside motel somewhere in the middle of hillbilly nowhere. The girls gather a group of horny friends and decide to go camping in the area they inherited. Needless to say the testament was only a trick to lure the girls back to their family's roots, where they're required to continue an uncannily bizarre family tradition. There's a revival of backwoods/inbred redneck horror movies going on lately, but somehow these newer films can't accomplish the raw and nihilistic atmosphere of their 70's colleagues. ""Lake Dead"" tries hard, but the film never evokes the slightest frights and not even the explicit gore has a shocking impact. The bloody make-up effects are nifty, but there's too little variation in the characters' deaths and the film definitely also needed a couple of authentically perverted gimmicks. Incestuous sub plots and maniacal old ladies don't upset anyone anymore nowadays, so ""Lake Dead"" is actually rather soft by today's standards. The film stars an impressive number of sexy chicks (Kelsey Crane, Tara Gerard, Malea Richardson…), but I sincerely doubt long and fruitful careers are awaiting any of them. Oh, and now that our list of little complaints is quite long already, I don't think the titular lake actually qualifies as a lake. It's more like an over-sized pond, if you ask me.",0 "Pretty dull thriller. The director chooses an ""arty"" approach with lots of slow-motion sequences, ""poetic"" music and minimal dialogue, and it doesn't work. The characters have no personality, the script is virtually non-existent and the suspense is deflated by the fact that the ""evil"" car's driver (or the evil car itself) has plenty of opportunities to get away from the heroine who chases him, but keeps returning to do battle with her as if he has some scores to settle (we never find out what they might be). While you're watching this movie, don't be surprised if your mind starts going elsewhere, like into thinking what's for dinner or the next day's chores. (*1/2)",0 "Night of the Big Heat may not rank among the best sci-fi efforts by critics, but for this fan, it really does deliver the goods. Locals on the Island of Fera find themselves in the midst of a searing heat wave while the rest of the mainland of the UK is in the middle of a normal cold snap in November. As bodies begin to pile up, found burnt to a crisp, a scientist struggles to convince the locals that they may be the victims of an invasion from space.

A great cast that includes, Patrick Allen, Jane Merrow, Sarah Lawson and in guest roles, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Directed by the great, Terence Fisher, this is another triumph in Fisher's library of films and to this viewer, ranks right up there with his Hammer horror films as well as the underrated, Island of Terror.

Certainly not as bad as some would have you believe and probably not as good as I think it is, it is definitely worth a look for fans of 60s British sci-fi films.",1 "New mobile Report Gundam Wing: Endless WaltZ is the movie sequel to the perfect Anime. I would recommend this movie to anyone!!! I love it! It's so great! I can't believe how perfect it is!!! Wow!!! Mothers reading this to see if it's a good idea for their kids: This movie is really good. If your kids are sensitive to blood, Dekim Barton gets shot and a bit of blood is visible. But that shouldn't matter because this movie is GREAT!!! Oh yeah, and Quatre will um, teach them to be nice and stuff.",1 "Sinbad sets out to save a buddy of his, a prince, from a spell that has transformed him into a baboon. Meanwhile he woos Jane Seymour who plays the prince's sister. This Sinbad film suffers from a really dumb story and one of the campiest villains to appear on film. This is not the strongest example of Ray Harryhausen's stop motion effects. However, the duel with demons at the film's opening and the battle between the Trog and a sabertooth tiger make this worth a look. Don't be fooled by the film's G rating. With it's violence, scary monsters, and a scene featuring quite a bit of skin from Jane Seymour and Taryn Power, let's just say the MPAA was generous.",0 "Saw a trailer for this on another video, and decided to rent when it came out. Boy, was I disappointed! The story is extremely boring, the acting (aside from Christopher Walken) is bad, and I couldn't care less about the characters, aside from really wanting to see Nora's husband get thrashed. Christopher Walken's role is such a throw-away, what a tease!",0 "Moody film noir from director Raoul Walsh has young boy left orphaned by a bloodthirsty band of killers, who dog the boy's trail even after he grows up into Robert Mitchum (seems to me that's the point where they might have given up stalking him). Mitchum smolders, as usual, though his character here is just a thumbnail sketch, and the melodrama inherent in this scenario is far beneath him. Judith Anderson fares a bit better playing the boy's elderly but wise guardian (a clichéd part, but invested with a salty kick by the actress). Lackluster film co-starring Teresa Wright and Dean Jagger just doesn't hold much interest, despite good cinematography by James Wong Howe and an atmospheric score by Max Steiner, top talents all around. *1/2 from ****",0 "I was surprised at how clever and darkly humorous this film actually was. It's wonderfully cast, beautifully acted, and totally different from most movies out there. A group of ederly people find that they will go to any extreme to keep their apartment building from being torn down. Led by a their motivated, stop at nothing, leader Maddie they take out any obstacle that gets in their way. It has a surprise ending that I was shocked to see. A really great movie. If you want a strange, witty, twisted and funny movie definitly rent this. Unless you can find a resonably priced used copy, then you should definitly buy it!",1 "I respect this movie because it deals with the problem of landmines in Africa (Angola. It starts out slow but ends with lots of action and has a couple of surprises in it. Dolph and his costar (Claire Stansfield) look really good. There are a couple of problems with the film. One is that Dolph's voice sounds like he had laryngitis during the filming. The other is that the landmine they are in search of is supposed to be very sophisticated technology but is really kind of pathetic. Whether or not you like Dolph or his acting, this movie is relevant and politically correct.",1 "Madhuri Dixit has done it again. She mesmerizes with her powerhouse performance, dancing and on-screen presence. The story is absolutely unique and well paced. It keeps one glued to the screen. Dances have been choreographed excellently living up to the reputation of Madhuri's dancing. The musical climax scene leaves you spellbound is an absolute joy to watch. A completely clean and entertaining movie. Go watch it and enjoy. Me and my family loved this movie. All the supporting actors have also performed very well. There are no unnecessary songs and action in the movie. Full credit to Madhuri to have maintained her so well even after having 2 kids. KUDOS to AAJA NACHLE. 10/10.",1 "interesting movie. Both actors who play the leads are very leasing to the eye and Mike Dytri (Luke) verges on being beautiful. IF you like nice bodies shown off to their best this is the movie for you. The shower scene is erotic but not vulgar and has some great shots - nothing below the belt so-to-speak but very nice all the same. A bit weird in places but considering the time it was made it fits. I enjoyed most of it. I would watch it again. I would own it. I would recommend it. It could be classified as a ""buddy movie"" a male version of ""thelma and Louise""--in a way. I think most people would enjoy it--it has a gay plot but not that gay.",1 "The story concerns Laura, who has returned with her husband Carlos and adopted child Simon to the large manor where she was raised in an orphanage as a child. Laura is determined to fix up the abandoned house and open it as a refuge for ill children. But from the moment she returns, the past begins to haunt her. It isn't long before she begins to see the children who she used to play with as a seven-year-old. And when Simon goes missing one afternoon, she's convinced that they have taken him hostage.

THE ORPHANAGE is a refreshing horror movie. This is due to the fact that the film doesn't rely on scary CGI images nor cheap scare tactics. On top of that, little, little (little) blood is spilled in this chilling ghost story. On the contrary, the film relies on its characters, the atmosphere, the setting, and (let's not forget) a satisfying plot.

What makes the film work is of the performance by the lead, Belén Rueda, who does such a great job playing the whole ""what's real/what isn't"" act. I believe this is Juan Antonio Bayona's directorial debut and he does a fantastic job. I'm looking forward to see more of his movies in the future. Also, I would like to add that the score was great as well as the beautiful cinematography.

By the end, when the truth is revealed, it's satisfying but it has been done before in other films. It's a different ghost story and I have to stress the ""different."" It doesn't have the usual ""Boo!"" scares or ghosts in creepy make-up. The film allows the characters to develop so we care for them and a creepy atmosphere in a great setting. THE ORPHANAGE is a refreshing horror movie that is pretty unconventional.",1 "Thought not as high on the ""sleaze-scale"" as notorious CATIII ""classics"" THE UNTOLD STORY, RED TO KILL, or THE EBOLA SYNDROME - ESCAPE FROM BROTHEL sure tries hard to wallow in it's rating, and does a damn good job...

Two parallel story lines collide when a guy living on the Chinese mainland is called over to Hong Kong to pull a job with a few buddies to rob a jewelry store for the store-owner's boss to get the insurance money. His girlfriend lives in HK, but turns out she doesn't work at the factory that she claims to, and is actually a prostitute. The jewelry store job goes wrong when one of the robbers shoots an interfering tourist - and are then double-crossed by the jewelry store owner. Our hapless mainlander is the only one to survive the set-up, and goes looking to his girlfriend for help. He finds her, and realizes that her career-path is not quite what she had led him to believe. Of course he's upset, but he has bigger koi to fry - like getting out of HK alive - so the couple enlist the help of her ex-husband to smuggle the fugitive back to China. This also turns out to be a set-up - and the ending is not happy for the two luckless lovers...

ESCAPE FROM BROTHEL, and most CATIII films in general, are not to most ""casual"" or ""mainstream"" film viewers tastes. Tons of sexy full-frontal and soft-core sex, some good violent scenes (including a kung-fu battle with a nekkid chick that is off-the-hook...) and an extremely downbeat ending don't make this one the feel good film of the summer - unless you're like me and live for this sort of trash. Again - it's not the best of the genre - but it's definitely one of the better ones. Essential for CATIII fans...8.5/10",1 "This is a great mystery with superior acting. At the beginning of the film we see Ted Crawford - beautifully played by Anthony Hopkins - who is obviously a brilliant man. His hobby is designing part Rube Goldberg, part perpetual motion devices that use steel balls that travel intricate routes. We also get a quick insight into his huge ego. He's not a lovable guy.

We also find that his wife who is exhausted by trying to kowtow to Ted's massive ego is in the midst of an affair. She has kept her identity a secret to her lover, but discovers that her affair is no secret to her husband just before he shoots her in the head. This all takes place in the Crawford's home, and Ted remains there until the SWAT team and negotiator arrives. At that point he readily confesses to the crime and later signs a confession.

We next meet Willy Beachum, played by Ryan Gosling, who is with the district attorney's office. However, Willy will not be around for long as he has just accepted a position with a prestigious law firm. Circumstances arise - engineered by Ted - causing the judge to assign the murder case to Willy. Needless-to-say, the case is not the slam dunk that Willy perceives it to be, and thus we have a battle of wits between Ted and Willy whose ego is just about as huge as Ted's though he is a slight bit less obnoxious - although not by much.

Obviously, it would be inadvisable of me to disclose the mystery that interferes with the quick resolution of the case and the other elements of the plan so masterfully concocted by Ted. I read one review by a man who said he had figured out the ultimate mystery before the climax of the film. He's a much smarter man than I.

Apart from the mystery, the enjoyment of this film comes from the superior acting of the two main characters. Anthony Hopkins certainly has a way of excellently portraying brilliant homicidal men, and he gives us a delicious one in this film. I would have not thought that Ryan Gosling could do as well as he did in his part. His performance is a pleasant surprise - for me, at least.

Finally the DVD offers us a look at two alternate endings. I usually don't think the alternate endings change the film much, but the decision to change to the final ending makes this film so much better by strengthening the one big mystery of the film.

If you're into mysteries and great acting, give Fracture a spin.",1 "Iv'e seen The Trouble with Harry described as everything from a masterpiece to Hitchcock's worst film. I think the reaction depends on how you go into the movie. If you're expecting a nail-biting suspense thriller like most of Hitchcock's other movies, you'll probably come away disappointed. But if you're more open to the idea of Hitchcock's little experiment in comedy, you just might discover a wonderfully entertaining film.

The Trouble with Harry is that Harry's dead – and some of the local townsfolk aren't sure if they're to blame for Harry's death or not. They quite naturally (or at least it seems so very natural in the movie) decide the best course of action is to bury Harry and go on as if nothing ever happened. However, no sooner do they have Harry six-feet under than one or another has a change of heart and out come the shovels and up comes Harry. But wait a minute – they can't let Harry be found. Back into the hole for Harry! Bury – Unbury – Bury – Unbury – it goes on and on.

If you've read any of the other comments I've written about movies, you'll soon discover that I'm a fan of what I call the One Word Review. For The Trouble with Harry, that word is delightful. Everything about the movie is delightful. The gorgeous fall Vermont foliage, the witty and well written script, the new-found relationships, Jerry Mathers as Arnie Rogers, Miss Gravely's blueberry muffins, Hitchcock's direction, the joke about the double bed, Bernard Hermann's absolutely perfect score, the body in the bathtub, and a very young Shirley MacLaine, John Forsythe, Mildred Natwick, and Edmund Gwenn – everything is all so . . . well, delightful.

Finally, one thing I want to specifically mention is the dialogue found in The Trouble with Harry. The more I think about certain lines, the funnier they seem to get. A few of my favorites include:

• She's a well preserved woman…yes, very well preserved, and preserves have to be opened someday!

• He looked exactly the same when he was alive, only he was vertical.

• Couldn't have had more people here if I'd sold tickets.

• I've never been to a home-made funeral before.

I'm glad people that people don't really talk like the characters in The Trouble with Harry. If they did, I would never get anything done because I would be laughing too much.",1 "I believe this to be the worse movie I've seen in a long time! I can't speak for others out there who enjoy low budget movies but I do NOT. If you don't crack up when someone says something totally pointless or if you just don't like worthless humor then you'd do best in staying away from this movie. In this movie you'll see situations when they ""want"" you to laugh. But you simply won't. You'll only end up getting annoyed. I Rate this move 1 of 10. Awful is the word!

Don't waste your time, money or anything at all on this piece of ""film"". It is not worth it. You'll only get disappointed and angry that you wasted those 2hours on this.

Why would you want to waste anything on this movie when there are so many other, MUCH better, movies out there?",0 "The English video cover makes this look like some 'Alien' clone, but instead it turns out to one of those irritating man-tampers-with-nature half-baked horror films.

A group of inner-city delinquents are taken out to the woods on a survival holiday. They find themselves attacked by blood-thirsty ticks which have grown to the size of large spiders as a result of steroids used on the local marijuana crop. Needless to say the film is derivative garbage, with no attempt to haul itself onto the lowest rung of the ladder.

The cast seem to have a degree of ability but the script and storyline give them absolutely nothing to work with, and things stumble along to the inevitable conclusion as most of them escape BUT what is clinging to the underside of their van ??

This may have worked better with some 'Tremors'-like humour - the horror elements are too weak because of the one-dimensional characters; this is a film where you really do not care about anyone and the whole experience is like watching a cartoon. As such it is watchable to a degree, but leaves not the slightest lasting impression.

If the horror genre continues churning out this kind of formulaic drivel for the empty-headed teenager heaven help us. I was rooting for the Ticks all the way.",0 "Toxic Zombies is a rather cheesy film made in a rural area of Pennsylvania, and this is a good place to grow pot? Well, maybe, I don't think of that area of the country as a hotbed of that sort of activity. At any rate, the Feds zone in on a bunch of harvesters ready to pick their crop and get out of town fast, especially after they killed a couple other Feds. But, a lunatic government agent (are there any other kind?) decides to spray the area with an unproven toxin to kill the pot & oh, and if it makes the pot growers sick, who will care? Of course, after the initial dusting, the harvesters are puking blood & not feeling too well, but not long afterward they begin to change into...wait for it....zombies.

Now, these are not your usual George Romero zombies, they don't pounce on a victim and rip out entrails and gnaw lustily on shin-bones, they just take a bite, and then let blood run out of their mouths as they wander off to do something else. Maybe they're just stoned. Anyway, I did kind of like the close-up shot of one victim with red lines painted on their body and perhaps plastic (or dead) flies lined up, with the buzzing sound dubbed in, now THAT was class.

This isn't God-awful terrible, but it's just not a very exciting film. The idea isn't bad, the locations aren't bad, but the actors are wooden & the whole execution of the thing leaves plenty to be desired. I do like cheesy movies but they need more life in them than THIS. 4 out of 10.",0 "Seven Mummies starts out on a lonely desert road where a police transport vehicle has crashed, the five convicts can't believe their luck & after killing one guard & taking the other (Carina Vincent) hostage they set off across the inhospitable desert terrain towards the border. En-route they find a gold medallion buried in the ground & an old Indian guy (Danny Trejo) claims that there is a town nearby which is stuffed with gold & they can use the medallion to find it, the escaped convicts need no invitation & before long their at the town which looks like something out of a John Wayne western. They quickly discover that the local population are in fact Vampire like zombies lead by Drake (Billy Drago)...

Directed by Nick Quested who also has a role in the film as Deputy Carry I thought Seven Mummies was yet another below average, nothing special, utterly forgettable & stupid low budget shot on digital horror film that steal most of it's ideas from better films such as From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) amongst others. To be honest I've had it with these poorly made, badly thought out, cheap, rubbishy & boring films. I love the horror genre & I'll watch anything associated with it but there comes a point where you have to say enough is enough, right? There is only so much I can forgive, I mean the script by Thadd Turner is boring, makes no sense, has poor character's, weak dialogue & a crap ending. The best thing I can say about Seven Mummies is that it's watchable if you've got nothing better to do & it's reasonably well made, other than that though I'm finding it very difficult to say anything positive about it. In case your wondering there are no Mummies in Seven Mummies, or at least of the typical Egyptian wrapped in bandages mummy, there are a few kung-fu fighting zombie Priests who look more like Monks at the end but there isn't a bandage in sight I'm afraid.

Director Quested does an OK job, the film looks alright although it's not scary, it has zero atmosphere or tension & it lacks any significant gore or violence either. There's a decapitation, a couple of stabbings, someone has their eyes poked out (although why this would make you cough up blood from your mouth I don't know), someone is slashed across the breasts & not much else to get excited about.

I have to admit that I was amazed to learn that Seven Mummies had a supposed budget of about $5,000,000, where on earth did all the money go? That's a lot of money & it certainly doesn't end up on screen. Martin Kove makes a cameo appearance but gets killed off, Billy Drago deserves better than this & a special mention goes to the babe who gets slashed by Drago as I have no idea what her character name was but she was hot & why did they have to kill her off?

Seven Mummies is a pretty poor low budget horror film that offers little, if anything, in terms of entertainment. Maybe I'm being a touch harsh on it as I've seen far worse but I'm fed up of wasting my time with crap like this, having said that I'll still be stupid enough to be the first in the queue when the next low budget piece of crap gets released. It doesn't even have any real proper mummies in it, honestly...",0 Wonderful visual experience albeit light on plot. Surreal and sometimes disturbing. Somewhere in the bizarre world that Fellini created lies a kernal of truth. I imagine this film contains elements closer to real Roman life then Spartacus ever did(I know it's greek but whatever).,1 "All the people reviewing this movie don't get the fact that the point of the movie was to make you feel stupid for watching a movie like this. The preview makes it out to be a great thriller/horror movie but, ironically enough anytime in this movie there is any violence they just pan away and the one time you do they just take the whole scene back almost out of spite or just to annoy you. The whole point of the one OC preppy guy talking to the audience was almost to point out the director knew what you wanted to happen and more or less did the opposite. The end of the movie when they are all on the boat and they are talking about fiction and non fiction seemed to me like the director was explaining that in reality the way the movie was played out is the way it would happen in real life and not how most standard horror movies play out. This movie is like the strangers but worse the main characters do nothing to save themselves (nothing smart anyways) so you almost do even feel sorry for them and you don't care and sit there afterwords wondering why you watched this POS but in this movie i think that was the point, the director wanted you to feel stupid for watching it.

REGARDLESS I HATE IT SILL.

P.S. if you want to get a better idea of what this movie was really trying to say then read some of ther loved it posts there's some good points.",0 "The TV movie version of Washington Irving's classic American story diverges from the book in many ways, however this is a great movie. Jeff Goldblum is great as Ichabod Crane, with his tall, skinny frame storking throughout the movie (although for some reason he's constantly licking his lips). Fritz VanderHoff, his patron and introduction to Sleepy Hollow's supernatural side, is amazing comic relief and really gets into the historic side of his handyman character. Paul Sand is also quite good as Fred Dutcher, Dick Butkus' sidekick. I grew up with this movie and still love it, from the period clothing and locations to the close ups of Palmer in the barn. Every time that I watch it I come away with something new. The picture quality is lacking, as it is a reproduction of a 1980 TV movie, so its just itching for a DVD release. This is truly an American classic and Jeff Goldblum; et.al. should be petitioning for it's re-release on television, if not a theatrical release.",1 "I have a theory about ""Chattanooga Choo Choo"".

This was a made-for-TV movie (look at the cast!) and somehow the cans made their way to movie theaters instead of the network and inadvertently got shown at your local theater. That's the only explanation I can offer for why such a stupid movie got released.

Eden's first major release in a decade is certainly nothing Major Nelson would approve of. With speeding trains, laxative, purple clothes, glue in peepholes, stuttering cheerleaders and Joe Namath, there is plenty of goofiness but nothing special. When George Kennedy in his underwear doesn't make you laugh, you know there's something seriously wrong.

This ""Choo Choo"" is just a time-filler between an episode of ""Taxi"" and your local news.

Three stars. No go, Joe.",0 "Move over, Quentin T., there's a new sheriff in town. With Shoot 'Em Up, director/writer Michael Davis takes the over-the-top violent action film genre and blows a blood soaked, mile-wide hole in it good an' proper, and that's just in the first 5 minutes, give or take a few.

This film is violent, sure, but as I always say, it's how a movie is done that makes the difference. Shoot 'Em Up proceeds from one dazzlingly outrageous scene to another with unflagging confidence, tons of panache, brilliantly warped humor and blazing originality, sweeping you, the lucky viewer, giddy and gleefully along.

The casting is genius as well, beginning with Clive Owen, who's dead-on here, with his ever-present carrot in hand, rescuing the (adorable) baby, getting the girl, killing the bad guys (who just keep coming like deranged vampire replicants), even solving The Mystery from the most obscure of clues, all while complaining about everything he hates, which ranges from ""people who don't use their turn signals"" to ""a pussy with a gun in his hand.""

And speaking of the great Paul Giamatti, he's in monumentally fine form here as Hertz, the self-described brilliant leader of the gunmen. Squallid and seedy beyond all comprehension, you just know he's having a blast (pun intended) with this part. After proving in his last few outings that he can carry a film and play anything, he gets to bask hardily in full venal mode, sneering, scowling and torturing his way into our hearts as only Giamatti can. There's a running bit in the film where his wife keeps calling him on his cell phone, usually while he's in the midst of gunning people down, and this has a really hilarious payoff toward the end - one of the funniest parts of the movie, in my estimation.

The film is shot in stark, sharp tones, making it look like a comic book come to life more than any film I've ever seen, while still using real actors. And there are sequences here that you have NOT witnessed before, speaking of that originality I mentioned earlier. The one which stood out most to me is the one where Clive Owen and Monica Bellucci (also perfect) are making love and the baddies bust in. In most films, this would pre-empt the love-making. In Shoot 'Em Up, they continue the act, which actually culminates while the bullets are flying. Worked for me.",1 "Time Chasers is probably one of the better movies on MST3K, though the competition isn't too tough. There was actually a pretty complex plot, but it had been done before in Back to the Future. The so-called hero wasn't very likeable (couldn't even drive a car), and the bad guys screwed around, making them not very threatening. It didn't have much for special effects and it could have really used them. The MST3K was great, and it was fun to watch the movie because it was filmed in Rutland, Vermont. I give it a 4/10.",0 "Goldie Hawn and Chevy Chase have great chemistry. I can't decide which of their two films I like best. Foul Play had me rolling on the floor. Seems Like Old Times left me wanting more... It's a shame they only made two films together. Oh well, at least we have Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.",1 "I was lucky enough to watch it during an event of a company I work for. I really enjoyed this movie, because of it's editing, wonderful actors and full packed action.

The movie tells the same story from 8 different persepectives, most of them from a character view, makes the puzzle clear till the end. Some puzzle parts can be guessed but this makes the movie so fun to watch.

Matthew fox acting could be better, but the others are convincing. Cheers to Ayelet Zorer, an Israeli actress who surprises again with her beauty and acting.

If you like thriller, action and car chases all in same movie then this movie is for you.",1 "The thing that annoyed me about this film was the shaky camera movements, it was tolerable at first but became a nuisance after a while, the storyline is very confusing, it even at times felt like there was no storyline, because the characters were never really developed enough for me to care about any of them, they actually bugged the living hell out of me, it also never really built up any suspense, at least not for me, because given the fact that I didn't care for any of the characters the film just bored me, plainly put.

I'll admit that I'm not really a fan of the zombie genre, but I have watched a few of them, and a lot of them are ten times better than this film, so for a non fan of the genre I would actually go for Romero's dead films before I'd consider seeing this again.

3 out of 10.",0 "This is yet another entry in the DVD called ""The Animation Show, Volume 3"" that features a too-mean edge, an unfunny and unpleasant short film with an extremely heavy-handed agenda.

Five practical lessons for self-defense are explained by a narrator after we see mild-mannered ""George"" brutally attacked in an alley. George is an innocent, almost naive man who rarely makes it to the city, we learn, so was unaware that is such a dangerous play. How to help a nice man like George? Teach him how to protect himself! The five practical lessons are ""Diplomacy,"" ""Make A Plan,"" ""God Is On Your Side,"" ""Technology"" and ""Preemptive Self Defense.""

Unfortunately, a fair portion of this animated short are left wing cheap shots by an obvious atheist who tells us - and graphically shows it - that ""wrong + wrong + wrong + wrong + God = right."" He also makes fun of people who think that God will always protect them if they are good people, intentionally misquotes Scripture, saying ""Well, something like that"" regarding a verse, totally twisting it, and gives us a few other of these kind remarks.

It's also sad to see how mean-spirited some of these ""creative"" filmmakers are, but the real agenda of this film - the bottom line - came in the last minute - it's another George Bush-bashing cartoon, as ""George"" is pictured as a cowboy with an itchy trigger finger now, just killing everyone in sight and enjoying it. The implication is more than obvious. Wow! Michael Moore and other left-wing extremists would love this little film!",0 "Sitting through this movie is completely worthless because everything that appears to be funny is in the trailer. I went expecting to see Dana Carvey go crazy with all kinds of disguises, but he is in costume for only the last 20 minutes or so, and basically every single one of the disguises is in the trailer. Don't waste your time, watch something else.

Elements of the plot that attempt to keep the movie going for the first hour are immature and crude. It isn't suitable for young kids and adults have nothing to laugh at. Nothing is clever or creative. The movie is a sad jumble of wasted film. Unfortunate the Carvey submitted himself to such a production.",0 "This is the most idiot and meaningless zombie movie I've ever seen. Pet Sematary I is a horror classic, but this is an A-bomb.

The characters' depth is non-existent, the movie is boring, the kid is boring, the bully is ridiculous and the sheriff was a zombie before he was dead. You begin to hope for some postal worker to assault and destroy that town. But no, probably even the postal workers of that town are boring.

The violence is gratuitous, not funny, and the final credits sequence with the faces of the people who died almost made me puke. That was the final blow: I lied catatonic over the couch, in true disbelief -- DUHHH...",0 "PRC earned its reputation for bad movies, but ""Border Feud"" is from ""The New PRC"" and actually is pretty good.

Director Ray Taylor was usually capable and, except for some script supervising or directing errors, this runs pretty smoothly.

Al ""Fuzzy"" St. John would have been funnier -- seriously, he seldom makes a move that isn't at least a little funny -- if he hadn't been quite so intrusive, which is not his fault but that of the script or director.

Most of the characters are played by competent to even talented actors, even though most of them never became stars.

Except Al ""Lash"" La Rue, as it is spelled in the credits on this movie.

He seldom gets the compliments I think he deserved. Really, he is more than competent although, as another commenter said, there should have been more whip work.

La Rue and St. John were both very good cowboys, and ""Lash"" seems to have done most of his own stunt work.

The score wasn't always appropriate but it was always nice music and composer Albert Glasser should have been given screen credit.

To those of us for whom there is hardly such a thing as a bad western, ""Border Feud,"" despite a misleading and pointless title, is a good one.

My copy is on a disk from ""The Treasure Box Collection,"" and, except for being a few generations too old, is in pretty good shape.

There is also another Lash La Rue film, ""Ghost Town Renegades,"" on the back side of the disk, although he is ""LaRue"" in that film's credits.",1 "The Garage is the only title that describes the film. I watched it like I was watching my son's in there early adult life. Wondering which path to take. Making their life decisions. To go or to stay. Young people have to make their own friends and life. This film told that story of family,friends, and life decisions (without any profanity), really refreshing. Carl Thibault hit the jackpot with this film and I congratulate him. I understand that Carl is planning another film in the near future. I hope he keeps to the standards that he used in making The Garage. I will look forward to seeing this feature film in more festivals, or perhaps on TV and DVD , so that more people will get to enjoy a time to be remembered. Congratulations to Carl Thibault, the new writer to watch for.",1 "Movie was good but exotic dancers like Carolyn Calres, Jennifer Adams and Angela Rust were great. I was looking to get more information about them, after all they stole my heart. The full cast review don't have there names any place to find more information about them, please let me know.

Martial arts champion Hector Echavarria stars as a thief who wants to go straight. When his cohorts convince him to pull one last job, he finds himself in the dangerous realm of the powerful and wealthy Action/Adventure

Marcos DeSantos is a Robin Hood-type thief whose plans on retiring from the life of crime are halted when his partners Cole and Bianca convince him to return for one last score. When the object of the routine heist turns out to be the priceless Sacred Seal of Mongolia, DeSantos must overpower its protector, the Mongolian President's mammoth bodyguard, Kong Li. But the success of the heist is short lived when, in a stunning act of betrayal, Cole turns his gun on DeSantos, shooting him twice in the chest. Marcos DeSantos miraculously survives the gunshots. He is kept alive with the help of the Mongolian President and his cunning assistant, Sharka, who believe DeSantos is their only hope of recovering the Sacred Seal from Cole and Bianca. Joining forces with Kong Li, DeSantos goes in search of the friends who betrayed him and the Seal that eludes him.",1 "As others have noted, Chabrol is masterful in setting a tone of uneasy suspense. As the movie progresses, we gradually shift to the edge of our seat, figuratively at least. But is something else going on here as well?

******SPOILERS******

Roger Ebert's review prompted me to have another look at Helene as she appears at the hospital at the very end. He's right, there is something in her look there that is very different from concern or sadness; I'd say it is the look of triumph.

Helene, you will recall, once had a lover, but he left her a decade ago. She claims not to have formed any attachments since. If true, it appears she has never fully recovered from being discarded. Just as Popaul has been traumatized by his time in the army, she appears to have been permanently scarred by this event in her past.

Yet she clearly shows interest in Popaul...inviting him up to her flat to cook a leg of lamb he has brought her, asking him to go mushroom-hunting, giving him a birthday gift. So what gives?

As I read it, Helene's game is to attract men, get them to make an emotional investment, then dump them before she can be dumped--whether out of fear of being abandoned again herself, or as twisted revenge on men in general, or for some other reason. This would explain the triumph and satisfaction on her face at the hospital: Popaul has just given her the most abject confession of love, and even obsession, conceivable. She has (once again?) emerged victorious, unscathed. She has claimed a victim--perhaps another in a series. As such, she is no less a predator than he is, and for parallel reasons.

Perhaps all this is too cynical. Perhaps I'm reading too much into her behavior. But look closely at her expression as they wheel Popaul away on the gurney, and you'll have to admit that she is no cliched innocent victim (or near-victim). Something else is at work here.",1 "The film begins with a voice-over, explaining some kind of alien threat to Earth and a deal made between some earthlings and aliens regarding experiments on humans, and a few very short scenes that look like they were lifted from another film, all of which lasts for 3 or 4 minutes. This is about as sci-fi as this piece of crap gets; the rest of the movie we see an endless series of low-budget, poorly acted fight sequences. The fights are created by camera juggling, as it's clear most of the actors have no martial arts ability, which means the fights really stink. There's a story about an android working with Brit soldiers to find secret documents, but this is one awful movie. If you can sit through this you're already brain-dead.",0 "...which makes me wonder about myself! This film is horrible...no question about it. The only question is does it belong on IMDb's Bottom 100 list?. Well, I'd say no...but its inclusion doesn't bother me as it is a terrible film with very little to recommend it and it is so incredibly irritating. One one hand, the stunts took considerable talent but on the other hand this is mindless trash through and through.

For the most part, the biggest problem was NOT its star Dennis Rodman. He wasn't particularly good, but he wasn't terrible. Yes, he had practically the personality of sawdust, but in this film that's a relatively good thing! That's because at least he wasn't an irritant--like his co-stars. Dane Cook, on the other hand, was about as welcome as cancer in this film. This annoying troll managed to be more obnoxious and unfunny than folks like Chris Tucker or Uncle Joey from ""Full House""--now THAT'S bad! Nearly every second Cook was in the film I hated him and wanted his character to die. He was loud, he was unfunny and he made goofy sounds and acted like a dinosaur at one point for no reason whatsoever. The only good thing about this is that his obnoxiousness overshadowed the few times that the normally funny John Pinette was also obnoxious and unfunny. I have never seen a cast of sidekicks less funny or welcome than these trolls! In addition to totally unfunny comic relief, the film suffers from the notion that the only way to hide the fact that Rodman is no actor is to throw over the top stunt after over the top stunt into the film--sort of like 4 or 5 James Bond movies' worth all shoved into one film. Believe it or not, the stunts here are even more ridiculous than those in ""Mission: Impossible""--another movie designed for brain-dead audiences who hate plots and only want non-stop action.

Normally, I would try to explain the plot and tell you more about the film but I'd rather not and just scream loudly ""THIS FILM IS HORRIBLE--AVOID IT LIKE EBOLA!!!!"". Dumb, poorly written and childish--there isn't anything (other than a likable villain) to recommend this steaming pile of .....movie. Yuck!",0 "I just downloaded the Aquaman pilot from iTunes and I cannot believe that it never got picked up for the CW fall schedule. This show easily beats One Tree Hill, Supernatural, and 7th Heaven. The acting was superb, the plot was amazing, and it got me hooked. By the end I was furious that there were no more episodes to watch, because it is just that compelling. There's so much that could be explored in later episodes... the actual extent of his powers, if he is able to find his mom, is Lt. Torres from Atlantis, and how A.C. is able to save both the world and the sea. I hope that Miles Millar and Al Gough keep pushing for this show to air. Maybe the CW will pick it up next season, or mid season next year if enough of a following develops. I've read nothing but good things about this show; everyone that's seen it seems to love it and I think that should send a message to the network to pick it up.",1 "Hav Plenty is a clever romantic comedy that is appealing because of its unique cast. Seldom do American audiences get the opportunity to view intelligent comedy starring African Americans.

Hav Plenty demonstrates that the Black community is not limited.

Hav Plenty was a pleasure to watch. I own the DVD... It's a cute and witty film that confirms what I have known all along. Black people are diverse. They have class and sophistication. They are attractive, intelligent and extremely talented.",1 "Reading the several reviews herein, I perceive no middle ground. Reviewers either hated this film or loved it. Haters decry poor acting, poor story-line, pointless deaths and wanton frustration, and, most damning, imitating Out of Africa. The comparisons are just too many to ignore. Lovers, on the other hand, wax romantically about feeling like ""being in Africa,"" the poignant love story, the tragic deaths and the courage of a woman under the strain of living against the sage advice of her dear old mum.

Well, sports fans, I worked in East Africa for over 20 years and there is damn little to find romantic about it. Beautiful? Yes, Afica is that. Wild? Yes, beyond your wildest dreams. Frustrating. Same answer. I've never met an old Afican hand who did not at once love and hate that continent. [I could go on for hours on that subject, but back to the film:]

I fall in with the critics in that I found this film to be most unsatisfying. There are many fine treatments of the subject of women dealing with the frustrations and challenges of living in a land where if anything can go wrong, count on its occurring twice. Isak Denisen's and Elsbeth Huxley's books are greatly superior to Kuki's story. For my part, I found any ethnic connection being carried over into the story very unconvincing in both the book and this film, both of which come off as second rate. Look, Denisen and Huxley could write. We can leave it there. Out of Africa and The Flame Trees of Thika are classics...I dreamed of Africa is a whining wannabe tragedy, as a book and a badly acted film. Everybody's performance was weak and unconvincing in light of earlier treatments of the same subject.

Romantics will still gush and choke up at this story. Critics will still hold noses and give Bronx cheers. As for me, count me among the latter.",0 "I just recently rented this title and it was great.

The story line contained issues from alcoholism, marriage issues to the normal every day issues in the life of our great firefighters and the crazy things we do with our friends.

I know we've all done a few of those here and there.

DJ Perry was awesome even considering this was his 1st starring role. A few times he was running in this movie I was waiting for him to fall flat on his face. He definitely kept it real. I would of been running my butt off if I was being chased by that hideous creature.

All I can say is great writing, directing and acting.

Go out and watch it!",1 "If anyone has seen Days of Heaven, there's no need to suffer through Under Heaven. The tension and credibility have been drained out of this Wings of the Dove remake. An interesting cast has had all their life and spontaneity removed. Heavy-handed movie-making at its worst because there's talent wasted here.",0 "I came here and read the reviews before I watched this on TV last night. After reading the bad reviews here I thought ""it can't be that bad surely, it is at least watchable for novelty value... I like nordic films so from that perspective sure I can get something out of it..."". I wish I hadn't wasted my time. It is 100 mins of really badly scripted, utterly irrational nonsense about someone who the script writers can't decide how her emotions and actions should resemble each other, in a continuous manner with regards to the plot, and therefore ends up looking ridiculous and being forgettable. (Forgettable other than the fact I will continue to rue wasting 2 hrs of my life).

There is just no point to this movie. And no I don't ""not get it"", but what's it about? A woman loves her husband? not overly deep. Human relationships? The weakest movie on this topic I have seen for quite a while. A history movie? The era and the plague don't come in to it at all other than excuses to make the ridiculous script lines excusable on the basis of something like ""it's set centuries ago, people talked crazily back then"". A middle-ages Odyssee? Stick with the ancient Greek one.

I am just glad I can't speak Swedish (and had to read subtitles), when you listen to the talking you can just tell it would be even more embarrassing to listen to it proper than it would be reading the subtitles.",0 "Man, don't even get me started...

I wanted to make the title ""Don't buy this DVD"" but I noticed there's no such thing as a link to either a DVD or a VHS at Amazon or anywhere, so until that lil'icon there turns from grey to full color, you're pretty much safe.

Should I start with the acting? Actually, I can't even say it's bad acting, cause there's no acting at all... Naw. This film doesn't even deserve a comment. It gives me a headache to even ponder what makes it so bad. The plot is so poor (if you've got at least half a brain), the acting so miserable and the cracks so stupid, it makes you think the writer (or writers) and director have spent the last few years in the loony bin and have a very different perception about what's funny or acceptable in a movie. And, before you ask, no: It's not the kind of it's-so-dumb-it's-kinda-funny-flick. It's bad, period. Real bad.

The only reason you would choose to see this, I figure, is if your sister was dating Steven Seagal and you wanted to somehow prove to yourself there are even worse filmmakers.",0 "I'll make it short because most comments here will already tell you how great this show is in detail much better than I could and in adding a lenghty review I would only repeat much of the other reviews. Freaks and Geeks is a wonderful show with real characters the viewers can identify with and it tells school life as it was with all the humiliations, pain, angst, joy, discoveries, secrets...it's a very honest and low key show with a slow narrative but the stories and characters really grab you by the heart. The casting was incredible and the chemistry between the actors is something else. Especially the geek trio is awesome. Sams unanswered crush he has on cheerleader Cindy is something all Geeks of the world can relate to, as we all know nice guys finish last :-) I was fed up with all the models and pretty boys who follow these stupid, superficial, oversexed and manipulative dating&love story lines a long time ago already and only recently saw these episodes of Freaks and Geeks. And it was like a fresh breath of air! I didn't watch it from the beginning unfortunately and zapped in to ""We've got spirit"". Then came the scene when Todd thanked the team and the high school and then he thanked God, and I knew I was in for something special. Only I didn't know right then and there just how great of a show freaks and Geeks truly is! The fact that NBC stopped this series after one season only is a true testament to the sad state of television these days.",1 "My best friend and I have agreed that this is the worst movie we have ever seen. 17 years later and I still shudder at the memory of having seen this in the theater. Stupid doesn't even begin to describe this movie. Two hours of my youth I will never regain. I suppose, though, everyone must have a benchmark 'worst movie ever' to compare all the other movies you watch to. I have seen some other bad movies in recent years, but nothing comes close to this crap.",0 "The people who dislike the Polkaroo (and/or the show in general) haven't a clue what they are talking about. I watched this show all the time as a child, and my unbelievable memory is even today still capable of pulling up a memory of seeing the Polkaroo on stage when I was only 1 or 2 years old. I was being extremely annoying that day, wanting to be moved CONSTANTLY, either because of restlessness or because the Polkaroo was constantly escaping my limited field of vision. But I digress. Even though I am having trouble finding reruns of it on TV, and I must resort to watching YouTube clips permanently downloaded on my computer, they are enough to drown me in childhood memories and also memories of that silly Polkaroo. I am 18 going on 19 in February 2010, and also I am autistic, but this show was the GREATEST kids' show EVER MADE. LONG LIVE POLKA DOT DOOR AND THE ""POLKAROO!""",1 "RUMOR has it that Irving Thalberg, the 'Boy Wonder' Honcho of MGM, really dug the Marx Brothers. Even while they were over at Paramount, where the 4 Brothers made their first 5 films; the young Studio Head planned on how to make the very best bit of madcap Marxian Cinematic Lunacy.

Following the poor showing of their politically oriented spoof, DUCK SOUP (Paramount, 1933), the Marx Boys found themselves persona non gratis at that Adolph Zukor/Jesse Lasky/Famous Players Lot. It was at this time that Mr. Thalberg got his wish when he brought the Boys to MGM. They came over but as the 3 Marx Brothers, sans youngest brother, Herbert (alias Zeppo).

NEXT; they set out to make that ultimate Marx Brothers romp, A NIGHT AT THE OPERA (MGM, 1935). The improved method was achieved by the use of testing out the material to be filmed and timing the laughs; as the one knock on the previous Paramount product was that one laugh would drown out the set up for the next.

THE new method worked. The team with Chico, Harpo and Groucho received a new lease on life. They would be at Metro for about as long as had been their stay over at Paramount. Every thing was just honky dory for the team.

AND then, the frail and chronically ill Mr. Thalberg died the following year of 1936. Their dealings with MGM were then all negotiated through new Studio Head and founding partner, Louis B. Mayer. Whereas Thalberg had been artistically inclined, cinematically motivated and was among the Brothers biggest fans; the gruff Mr. Mayer was strictly for the bottom line, practical, pragmatic and (allegedly) hated the Marx Brothers. Groucho, Chico and Harpo continued to work at the Studio; but there seemed to be a steady decline after the second MGM picture, 1937's A DAY AT THE RACES.

BY the time the Marxian Laugh Express had arrived at THE BIG STORE, the team had done a total of 10 movies: 5 at Paramount, 4 at MGM and their solo shot with a previously written play with ROOM SERVICE (RKO Radio Pictures, 1938). Their act was well enough known now to make a Marx Outing by formula. So, they did do that thing! THE BIG STORE starts out with setting up a sort of precursing of that which would come later: like, Chico's being a poor, but honest and lovable piano teacher; in cahoots with one young Singer/Song Writer/Good Guy, Tommy Rogers (Tony Martin); who just happens to be inheriting half interest in a big, major downtown type Department Store.

THE Present Manager of the store, one crooked and ill-tempered Mr. Grover just happens to be planning a nefarious plot to get control of the store by any means possible. Do you get the drift? THE Picture mixes in a great deal of musical numbers, big ensemble songs and songs for Mr. Martin, his female lead, Virginia Grey (as Joan Sutton); as well as some others, such as Virginia O'Brien and a group called Six Hits and a Miss.

NOT to be thought of as being strictly a 'crepe hanger' we must say that even this is not the best Marx Brothers outing; it does contain a lot of excellent bits and should not be boycotted by any means. Some excellent comic interaction is done between Chico & Harpo with one Italian immigrant, Giuseppe (Henry Armetta). We also are witness to a parade of on screen ethnicities; done up in the typical stereotypes of the day. Italians, Blacks, Swedes, American Indians and Chinese family groupings are part of the innocently meant and harmlessly received by the audiences of the day.

OTHER critical cast members included in THE BIG STORE'S Directory are William Tannen, Russell Hicks, Anna Demetrio, Paul Stanton, Bradley Page, Edgar Dearing and Al Hill.

AND lest we forget the most important Lady to any Marx Film; for what would Groucho do if a movie of the Brothers did not include Miss Margaret Dumont; for the Grouch's horrid dalliances?

PROMOTIONAL spots for this movie were done in a most unorthodox manner. There was a very serious sounding promo/trailer/preview of coming attractions which began with a very somber announcement from veteran character actor, Henry O'Neill, which stated that the Marx Brothers were retiring from the movies and this new picture, THE BIG STORE would be their farewell to the cinema, the Boys' swan song!

APPARRENTLY there was some truth contained in this trailer as this marked the abrupt jettisoning of the Marxes from MGM and the Big Hollywood Studio system. From 1941 to the first post World War II year of 1946, Groucho, Chico and Harpo each operated as solo performers; doing personal appearances, guesting in Radio and even making some movie guest shots. Groucho, especially, did well on the Old Time Radio and later on the new medium of Television. Chico organized his own Big Band and went that route to keeping busy.

IN the above mentioned year of 1946, the Threesome was lured once again to go in front of the cameras with A NIGHT IN CASABLANCA (Loma Productions/United Artists, 1946); which was a post War Comedy and spoof of Warner Brothers' Humphrey Bogart/Ingrid Bergman Blockbuster, CASABLANCA (1942); followed by LOVE HAPPY (Artists Alliance/United Artists, 1949). By this juncture, the old Marx Brothers routine had become a pale imitation of a caricature of its old self..

AS a Film or more particularly as a Marx Brothers starring vehicle, we must give THE BIG STORE ** ½.

POODLE SCHNITZ!!",1 "Set in Eastern Europe, this movie about a group of young people trapped in a demonic, bloodthirsty train is an utter disappointment. The effects are very bad, even though there is some gore, and the story is stupid. The train runs amok and relentlessly takes on any obstacles there are - it runs on and off the tracks, plows through fields and woods (without derailing!), runs through lakes and swamps (without sinking!!) and crashes through trucks parked across the tracks (without exploding !!!). One by one the innocent youngsters aboard the train die a horrible death, from being decapitated, speared by splintered signal poles, or torn in halves by iron chains connecting the railway cars. At the end the seemingly unstoppable train is being stopped by a bomb made of black powder from two dozen shotgun shells! I mean...come on, folks! How stupid can a horror movie get? Well, if you want to find out, watch this one. Or I'd rather you don't. Cause it's not worth your while. It's a waste of time. There are better things to do with your time - and if you must, then watch any other Horror movie but this one... Jasper P. Morgan",0 "A truly charming film, with wonderful actors, which captures the very essence of rural Ireland and its windswept islands offshore. Few movies can be shown to children these days; however, this is one that can. Jeni Courtney as ""Fiona"" is terrific, and a remarkable young actress.

Having spent time on the unspoiled coast and in the quaint villages of County Donegal, this film brings them to life for all to see and enjoy. It is a magic movie and I recommend it to anyone—unless magic and ""fairies"" have gone out of your life, in which case this film and ""Finding Neverland"" (with brilliant acting by Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet) might bring them back.",1 "There has never been - nor will there ever again be - a film quite like Candy. This vulgar, scattershot, psychedelic sex satire is an utter failure, but boy what a fascinating failure!! It offers the chance to see a roster of talented stars working on such obfuscated material that their only get-out clause is to overact to epidemic levels. It also offers a chance to experience the sexual permissiveness and hallucinatory extravagance of 1960s society, in a film made just as the cinema was breaking away from the Production Code into a new and exciting era of relaxed censorship and franker morality.

The film has no plot to speak of, but is more a series of highly exaggerated vignettes. Naive high-school beauty Candy Christian (Ewa Aulin) begins her odyssey of sexual misadventures at a poetry seminar given by the reviled but popular poet McPhisto (Richard Burton). Upon taking the drunken poet back to her house to dry his trousers - soaked with booze - the family's Mexican gardener Emmanuel (Ringo Starr) mistakenly believes that Candy is coming on to him, so he makes love to her on a pool table in the basement. Candy's father (John Astin) walks in on them and is so distraught that he arranges for his daughter to take a break in New York with her uncle (Astin again). Candy ends up on an Air Force jet where she is once again seduced, this time by a mad air force officer (Walter Matthau); later she is taken advantage of by a brilliant surgeon (James Coburn) who performs a dangerous operation on her injured father. During a post-operation party, Candy's father wanders off and the girl attempts to find him on the streets of New York. Here she gets into yet more sexual situations, first being raped by a weird hunchback thief (Charles Aznavour) and later rather indecently frisked by a horny cop (Joey Forman). Candy finally seeks refuge in the back of a truck, but it turns out to be the travelling home of sex-addicted guru Grindl (Marlon Brando)... and, yes, you've guessed it, he too takes advantage of the over-sexed yet ever-innocent girl.

It is hard to be sure if there is any point to all this, though the lack of a meaningful narrative suggests that the film is trying to convey some kind of subtextual meaning. Perhaps the film is attempting to say that men are devious and conniving creatures who will try every dirty trick in the book to get into the pants of an attractive young girl? Or maybe it is saying that pretty young blondes who wear impossibly short skirts are capable of driving men of every age and occupation to experience their deepest desires? The original book was apparently a satire on pornographic clichés (I haven't read it, but I've read ABOUT it), but the film seems to be more concerned with titillation than out-and-out porn. Of the actors involved, Burton registers best as the self-indulgent poet. Matthau is quite funny too as the absurd air force officer. The biggest wastes are Coburn and Brando, the latter giving perhaps his laziest ever performance as the sex guru (though you can understand his agreeing to be in this.... a salary of $50,000 to rip off Aulin's clothes and romp around with her seems a pretty fair incentive!) Candy is a total mess of a movie, but you should still watch it if only to say you've had the dubious pleasure of experiencing its unique brand of vulgarity, chaos and extravagance.",1 "What drugs were they on when they made this disaster?

XANADU is one of the worst films ever made. I shouldn't even be calling it a film because there's not much of anything resembling a story, acting, quality, whatever, to be seen in a single frame of this embarrassing disaster. OK, the animated sequence was cool. But that's about it.

And calling it a musical is also a put-down on the whole musical genre. XANADU is more of a series of incongruous elements and ideas the director and producers thought up (most likely while on drugs) and were haphazardly stitched together with no idea of what constitutes good storytelling in a musical format.

The whole ""film"" is totally wonky.

Case in point: the fact that Olivia Newton John rarely sings on screen, even though this is a musical and we hear songs sung by Olivia and yet Olivia is probably seen performing her songs just a couple of times on screen.

Imagine hiring Julie Andrews for a musical, for something like THE SOUND OF MUSIC, and have her sing most of the songs but never show her perform her songs on screen.

XANADU starts with the muses appearing from the painting, all dancing and smiling to ""I'm Alive"", sung by...ELO?!?! Wait a minute. Wouldn't it have made more sense if Olivia had sung ""I'm Alive"" as she comes to life and dances about? I mean, this is a musical, right? And Olivia can sing, right? But no, we watch a silent ONJ try to dance with the other clunky muses while we hear the ELO song. This annoying ""technique"" or ""style"" (don't know what to call it) is repeated a couple of times during the ""film"", including the whole ""All over the world"" moment: we watch Olivia grinning and silent while ELO sings.

Then there's the whole 1940s - glam rock melding scene, when we actually hear Olivia's voice on the soundtrack during the 1940s scenes but then, whoa, Olivia is nowhere to be seen. Instead, we have these 3 unknown women who stand-in and lipsync to Olivia's voice. Why? That's Olivia's voice I hear, so why not use her on screen?

The whole ""Suddenly"" moment, when Olivia and Michael rollerskate inside the ""magical"" studio. We basically watch these lifeless people rollerskate in some really cheesy setting while Suddenly, sung by Olivia and Cliff Richards, is heard on the soundtrack. Why? Why not have the couple perform the song to themselves? Just watching two people rollerskate to a song is like being on a porch and watch two people rollerskate in the street while Suddenly plays on the radio. How uninvolving is that?

And the whole ending, when Olivia sings on screen (which makes you go ""wow, it's a musical now"") but it's just a medley of pointless tunes sandwiched in between a truncated version of the song Xanadu. Huh?

But the stupidest aspect of this ""musical"" is that Magic, the best song of the whole disastrous project, doesn't even figure prominently in the film.

I could go on and on about how bad this ""film"" is (bad fx, annoying transitions, ultra kitschy fashions, even for that time, etc) but I think I've made my point of how truly embarrassing the whole thingamajig is by having a popular singer like ONJ in a musical and rarely have her sing on screen.

So, in closing, should everyone avoid watching XANADU? Not if you're into train wrecks. It's a must see for those who love watching train wrecks, and boy, this one of the biggest train wrecks ever made. It's sorta ""so good because it's so bad"" because of its bad fashion sense and the overall look of it but the actors are so boring and lifeless that XANADU doesn't fall into the quotable campy ""bad"" films. XANADU's true camp appeal resides mainly on its wonky technical aspects (songs, script, continuity, logic, etc) and is a treasure throve of badness that will keep on giving for all eternity.",0 "I know I'm probably gonna get a lot of negative votes on this comment, but this was honestly one of the least enjoyable stand-up routines I've ever seen...and I've seen many! So on to my personal reason why I was barely able to watch this till the end:

Ellen to me is like a person in a wheelchair who everybody feels sorry for. Because she got treated badly after she ""came out"" there's now almost this unwritten obligation and sense of right to applaud to everything she says and does. It's pathetic! I condemn the spiteful reactions towards her coming out & everything, but empathy stops at a certain point. What's happened in Ellen's case is that now her loving and devoted fans are mostly people who've been hurt themselves. So they gobble her every word as if it came from high above...Ellen is to her fans what the AMWAY director is to his devoted fanatical ant workers.

The most she made me was smile on a couple of occasions, but the crowd seemed to want to eat her up. Everything was to-die hysterical to them and I couldn't fathom it. Her material wasn't really bad, but her delivery and timing were painful to watch. She was waaaaay too predictable and what's even worse, she went for the cheapest laughs: ""God...is a She"" (and the mostly female crowd bursts into applause)

Somewhere towards the end she even steals stuff from other comedians, but by that time I had already begun writing this woeful comment. Why I bothered to watch this till the end I honestly don't know. Maybe it was the empathy in me, trying to want to approve of this woman's comedic skills. She has none!",0 "This is an excellent film, and highly recommended. Its script is absolutely wonderful, showing the protagonist having a dark and ugly side, yet possessing the ability to express his sensitivity, as a classical pianist, through music, as he prepares for an audition with an agent. The juxtaposition of the two opposing sides of the protagonist lends the film an unexpected power and impact. It is a violent film, yet a humorous one at the same time, with great acting. De battre mon coeur is a remake of Fingers, which unfortunately I have not seen (yet). I can only hope that the French film will be released in The Netherlands as well, so I can see it again.",1 "Since a very young age, I have been an avid fan of Sonic games. From the Megadrive, up to the Playstation 2 games, I have played a wide range of the games. However, I have seen a dramatic decline in these games, as can be seen with some of the recent games. 2001, in my opinion, is the last time a great sonic game has been seen in the form of Sonic Adventure 2.

This game, along with it's older brother, made up a significant part of my childhood, due to it's impressive graphical display, talented voice acting and innovative story. The characters were original, the replay value was high and the stages, while keeping a sense of the old game's traditions, were imaginative, especially the ""City Escape"" level. However, the aspect that gave me the most amusement had to be the Chao Gardens. I cannot understand why, but the idea, in my opinion, was genius, and was the part that I have missed most about this game. And that is what sets this apart from most other games, and is it's most memorable quality: when the Dreamcast, which I had this game on, ""died"" and my console fell into disrepair, I found something I have found with only one other game since: I began to mourn for the loss of the game, and began to miss it terribly. I can only hope that the game will be re-released on a more recent console.

I'm finding it hard to find anything bad to say about this game, so I'll leave that to anyone who didn't like this game. All I shall say is this: Sonic Adventure 2. You are, and shall remain to be missed",1 "Reading the comments here is rather funny. They seem to be commenting on whether they love or hate Sean Hannity's views or whether or not they think that Fox News is run by a bunch of neocon hacks trying to take over the world. I don't think this is the place that should be discussed. So, I think I'll go out on a limb and actually comment on the show itself.

This show is alright, most of the time. It gets old quick sometimes though, as there's Sean and Alan and then the respective conservative and liberal guests all going off at once yelling at each other like a bunch of third graders. That's really annoying and not very conducive to an intelligent discussion.

On the right side, Sean Hannity tends to nitpick about whether or not guests literally answer his question in a ""yes or no"" when he could be talking about the actual issues. He comes across as a blow-hard sometimes and usually will unfailingly stand by the ""mainstream"" Republican side of an issue.

On the left side, Alan Colmes tends to go off topic with his questions. Particularly when conservatives are alleging Democrats are wrong on an issue, Alan seems to go off and talk about how some Republican also supports whatever the issue is.

All in all though, the debate can be quite interesting sometimes as they often have relevant guests discussing relevant issues, but all too often they end up in shouting matches that aren't exactly conducive to an intelligent discussion. Sort of like the comments here, a bunch of irrational ideologues missing the point and barking their respective at each other.",0 "It's interesting to see this movie for only two reasons: 1) the fun of spotting scenes directly ripped off in later movies like Friday the 13th Part 2; 2) the ending, which comes out of left field and manages to be both shocking and funny. However, merely being ""the first"" slasher movie does not make you the best. Maybe if there was a shred of character development this wouldn't be such a yawner. Oh, and if you are going to see this movie, PLEASE get a subtitled copy...the dubbing is so bad you literally can't hear half the dialogue.",0 The opening scenes gave hope... but those hopes were soon diminished. The explosion at the gas station made you believe that this would be packed with the action expected to carry such a lame script. It also appeared that there were multiple crews working on the set because there was a clear difference in the film quality between scenes. Some were very clear and framed well while others were 'over cranked' and too soft. Shooting night for day is so obvious and such a bad idea that it distracted from the scene many times. A.J. Buckley is the only reason to sit through this disaster. He was awesome! Sorbos stunt double for the horse riding scene was so obviously shorter and fatter with a terrible wig on that it made me laugh. The final scene was nice...lot's of really good explosions and good action but that wasn't enough to make you not regret wasting a coupon on this rental.,0 "This is the movie that made the Starz Networks what they are: the place where bad movies come home to roost. I can't believe I wasted an hour of my life watching this film, rather than learning how dairy products are made and marketed. Avoid at all costs and rent ""Caddyshack"".",0 "This was one of the best series ever, everyone remembers hardball. it's a shame it only ran for one series.

The chemistry between John Ashton & Richard Tyson was amazing, it has to be one of the most underrated TV shows that people enjoyed that never got a second series or even more.

The comedy between these two was brilliant. it's a shame they can't remake the series as it would not be the same without John Ashton & Richard Tyson, to me they made hardball and it would be impossible to replace them.

Columbia Pictures Television would make a fortune if they released this as a box set. i'm almost certain it would be a hit.",1 "I know I am not the audience for this mess, but even my toddler was bored by it. The story takes so long being slow and simple, it literally bored me into a stupor. The songs are instantly forgettable, the TV cast looks ill at ease, and the whole thing is shot on a soundstage with a budget that might cover my lunch this afternoon. I give this a 3, and hope your child is not turned off from Elmo by this.",0 "This is definitely a series pilot. It doesn't say it is, but it leaves far too many loose ends to quit with the tidy return of Joe Miller's daughter. 1) We have the Prophet of the Objects walking out of the hospital--and that is it, nothing more from him. What was the point if he just ""realizes his destiny"" so to speak 2) We have Joe becoming the ""living object"" through a conservancy of objects rule told to him by Eddie, whom we know absolutely nothing about, except that he lost his life as he knew it as a result of witnessing the EVENT. 3) We have the key being thrown into the motel room at the end of the final episode, and the door opening to show the dirt floor of the dilapidated motel room; but the final scene is of the door opening to show the key where Joe threw it. This poses a problem with the ""rules"" they set up for objects returned to the room, unless that is where the key would have been originally. 4) When the ""Taken"" mini-series ended,for example, each of the story lines neatly concluded and the questions for each character were resolved. It would have been a likely series, but it resolved tidily after 10 episodes. Not like The Lost Room...

My theory for a continuation of the series is that all of the objects need to be returned to the room. And the different groups, Collectors, The Order, and The Legion each have a different agenda for the objects. It would be logical for the Legion to realize that the objects need to be restored to complete this fissure in reality. Once they are returned, the power of all will be negated, or rather reconciled. I think that once that happens, the EVENT will be revealed; possibly, each object bore witness to the EVENT, and each was imprinted with a fragment of ""power"" associated with that witness, some more imprinted than others unless they come within a certain distance to other objects. Notice how many things weren't in the room when Joe would use the Key, as compared to what appeared in the room through the photograph. What objects were destroyed so that the photos could become objects? Also there are several objects which were never removed from the room, but would become Objects once done. It is the unanswered questions about what governs this ""world"" that make it a suitable series candidate.",1 "To simply tag ""Ganja & Hess"" with a label of blaxploitation would be a serious understatement, as this is probably THE most ambitious 'black' film of entire 70's decade. The substance of the film covers horror, but you really wouldn't say so, as there's no explicit violence or bloodshed on screen, and the whole production relies on its dark and moody atmosphere. It's a really weird and ultra-slow film, definitely not suitable viewing in case you are looking for barbaric 70's horror. I can't say I liked it very much because, honestly, it's a super-pretentious film that goes on for far too long without actually handling about anything. I appreciate smart dialogs and subtle atmosphere as much as the next guy, but a synopsis claiming to revolve on blood addiction and passionate murder eventually must show something, right? Duane Jones (""Night of the Living Dead"") gives a marvelously languid performance as a doctor who suffers from an insatiable desire for human blood, brought onto him after being stabbed with an ancient cursed dagger. Shortly after, when his assistant (played by Bill Gunn, the director) commits suicide, Dr. Hess comes into contact with his widow Ganja and sweeps her along in his strange and depressing 'vampire' universe. The acting performances and filming locations form a potent mix, but the pace of the film is truly soporific. Bill Gunn artsy attempts to disguise the lack of budget with various ingenious camera angles and sound effects, but he still can't hide the fact there's no suspense or involvement in the screenplay. Perhaps the heavily cut version ""Blood Couple"" is more endurable. I can only imagine some of the dialog is cut in that version, as there's no gore or sleaze to censor. It's an interesting film considering its historical background, but it doesn't hold any entertainment value.",0 "Storytelling is an indictment of repressive suburbia, but it is also an indictment of the postmodern, ironic, and politically correct intellectuals, and how both parts of society control and restrict people from being truly who they are. It is also about, well, storytelling and how easily stories and plots are manipulated for effect.

The first half hour, ""Fiction,"" is devoted to a story of a college student, Vi, who is tired of ""dating the undergraduates"" and ends up a violent and racially charged sex scene with her African American creative writing professor. Solondz pushes the limit on all of the society's buttons in ""Fiction,"" from the handicapped to race relations to sexual politics, and it is almost like he was simply out to shock the audience. The short film comes across as even trite and cliched, although now I realize that I'm quoting a scene from it almost directly, so perhaps this is Solondz's point. Still, if you ever seen any other of Solondz's movies, you can see the whole point of this section coming from a mile away (the dangers of political correctness, the prudishness and hypocrisy of the American middle class, even those claiming to be liberal or progressive, etc.) And I just couldn't believe that Vi would only say ""Don't be racist, don't be racist"" in the bathroom scene. I think ""I gotta get the hell outta here"" would be much more logical.

However, the brilliant last hour, ""Nonfiction,"" more than makes up for the first half. It tells the story of a listless and intelligent teenager who lives with an angry and sad family in suburban New Jersey, and also about the documentary that is being made about them. Truly, I wish this were the whole movie, it is that good. Yes, there's plenty of postmodern film-within-the-film winking, but that quickly falls apart as we reach the heartbreaking and disturbing ending, when the movie suddenly becomes painfully real. What is also funny about ""Nonfiction,"" which is supposed to be ""real,"" is that it contains completely fictional and even forced plot points: someone is injured and slips into a coma, someone else is hypnotized and told what to do, and even the final, terrible act seems more to come out of a bad TV movie than real life. (I also especially enjoyed the not-so-subtle digs at American Beauty and American Movie.)

Do we want our lives to be more like an episode of ""Friends,"" wrapped up neat and tidy, with minor quibbles that are resolved in a half hour (or, during sweeps, maybe a ""two-part special"")? Is political correctness just a big cover up for uncomfortable yet still very real desires and thoughts? Which is worse: being told what to do, or being told what to think? Are the two the same thing? Storytelling does address these questions, and I think if ""Nonfiction"" were stretched to feature-length, it would answer them brilliantly. But, because of the ho-hum first hour (yes, ho-hum, even with ""that scene"" and all), all the pieces don't quite fall together. To change the lyrics of a certain Scottish band, ""It could've been a brilliant movie.""

Storytelling is worth seeing for the great acting (in both ""Fiction"" and ""Nonfiction"") and the excellent second section, but you can clip your toenails or stare out the window for the most part during the first half hour. I was expecting more of a cynical irony-fest as in Happiness, but I was truly touched by ""Nonfiction,"" and it will stay with me for quite awhile.",1 "On one sight,we have masterpieces like Poltergeist,Salem's lot and The Texas chainsaw massacre(1974).On the other sight we have craps like Lifeforce,Funhouse and the remake of Invaders from Mars.With this thing,I wanna say that when there's an opportunity to see a Tobe Hooper's film,it's very possible that we can see a masterpiece or a crap.Toolbox murders(2004)is not a masterpiece and it's not a bad film...it's a good horror film which kept me very fun.A very little quantity of people will remember the original film,The Toolbox murders,made in 1978,which,by my point of view,is a very mediocre and clichéd film.This remake is a lot better than the original movie(surprise!)because it's funner and more ingenious.In Toolbox murders(2004),the tired formula of the masked killer has a thanked twist which explains the motives of the killer and the nature of its surroundings.Angela Bettis showed she's a brilliant actress on a masterpiece called May.She does a good work in Toolbox murders(2004),but her talent is beyond her role on this movie.This film has some fails(the edition is a little weak and the script feels forced on some occasions)but it kept me very fun and it never bored me.",1 "I have just watched this adaptation of the Miss Marple book ""Nemesis"" and am rather lost as to why this telemovie should be called the same.

The only characters in common with the book are Miss Marple (played all wrong by McEwan - again), Raymond West and Jason Rafiel. All of the other characters did not appear in the book. Again, as this series has done so may times in the past, the murderer has been changed and the entire plot of the novel reworked so that even those murdered during the course of the book are changed. The bus driver is portrayed as a sort of maniacal jailer with a mountain climbing fixation.

If you want a proper interpretation of the novel, go for the Joan Hickson version - this one is just plain odd.",0 Who actually created this piece of crap this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my life it is such a waste of time and money. I hate it how they create low budget sequels featuring D-Lister actors and a storyline so similar to the 1st one.

I found this movie in the bargain bin sitting right next to Wild Things 2 and Death To The Supermodels for $2.99 what a fool i was to actually think that this could be good instead i watched in disgust as poor acting stereotypes ripped of the storyline and script from the 1st one.

Whoever thought that this straight-to-video production was actually even a half decent film you must be on crackd or something because I think what pretty much most of the people who've seen this film thinks WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!,0 "Superb debut performance by Diana Ross as Billie Holiday is absolutely the only reason to see this dreary biopic. Plays fast and loose with the facts, as anybody who has actually read Holiday's autobiography knows. Shockingly mediocre supporting cast, including an extremely hammy Richard Pryor, helps make this film a real snore between Ross/Holiday's musical numbers and heroin addiction scenes. If you want the real Billie, try PBS' American Masters documentary of a few years back. Ross does not exactly sing like Holiday, only getting a few of her famous vocal nuances in, but they are some of her most passionate performances caught on film. She also doesn't exactly resemble Holiday, who was rather plump early on, but she just so commands the screen...amazing how few films she has ultimately made, though the specter of Dorothy Dandridge looms large.",0 "SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:

I knew I'd love Hysterical Blindness and recently had a chance to see it. I liked it even more then expected. A brilliant movie and a job well done from the whole cast.

Pretty much everyone knows the plot but....I will say watching this movie, I was struck with how much was gotten so right. I love character studies and love independent films because their often not afraid to take chances as are many, more mainstream movies. They are often more accurate As well.

Everyone in this movie exists-somewhere in this world. Movies that capture the humanness of everyday people and environments, deserve kudos because it is not often when that happens. Hysterical Blindness could function as a very long advertisement to someone about the negatives of the bar scene and the movie is almost emotionally brutal in the way it picks up the quiet weariness some of these people feel. The writing is just superb and I really wish This had been a big screen release and am sure a few Oscars would have been picked up along the way.

All the performers were outstanding. Uma Thurman was BETTER then in the kill bill movies (yes, it's true) and Gena Rowlands and Juliette Lewis were outstanding. Oh how I adored the gentle dreamer Nick! (played brilliantly by Ben Gazzara). Thurman's playing down of her looks still did not disguise the fact that she is a beautiful woman but that did not, for me, lessen the believability one bit. As many know, the fact that one is extremely Goodlooking does not mean they cannot experience emotional pain in relationships. I found not one false note in this movie and I found Hysterical Blindness to be just incredible.

This is probably one of the most honest movies about suburban single life I've ever seen and it actually makes the movie ""Singles"" look like a light Rom com. I'm always struck by movies that are like a little( or big) slice of life. In that regard, Hysterical Blindness is at the top of the heap. my rating is 9 of 10.",1 "This film seems to have more takes in the title than it did during filming. Give and Take and Take has obviously been a labour of love to make. It's just a shame that it's more of a labour to watch. Performances, Plot and characterisation are laughable. It's just a shame the jokes aren't. Avoid.",0 "this has got to be the worst film i have ever seen! some say its a horror, I've seen more scarier things in my bin, than in this film. there was no suspense, no horror no plot! i had no sympathy for any of the characters,it was bad acting, directing, and writing! so the idea that this could really happen, was plausible, apart from that, there's nothing.

the reviews in the UK said 'the twist is so good you don't see it coming' the fact that they point out there is a twist means that there is no twist, you see it coming a mile away! thats not a twist! please please please save your money, rent it if you want but do not go and pay to see this movie, you will regret it! 2.5 hours of my life i will never get back!",0 "We love movies of all kinds. This movie was filmed in Finland by a Finnish director who appears to be trying to imitate spy movies from James Bond to Mission Impossible...and they did a very poor job of imitating.

Sadly, some really good American actors worked on this film. It was apparently made as a serious movie, but even Netflix lists this as a spy 'farce'.

If you like the Scary Movie or Airplane type movies, you might like this one OK - no way you could like it that much.

We really like Bill Pullman, but this movie would made you doubt his movie making decisions.

The music is awful (retro) and the speaking volume level is way too low compared to the music volume.

I'd say, get a different movie.",0 "I saw this movie last night on Lifetime movies and it is getting ready to come on again in a hour or so. The movie kind of reminded me of my crush I had on a coach, although I was in college and nothing like that happened. I can honestly feel the frustrations on the ""feelings"" she had and even his. Although it was all together wrong. I am married to an older man, but I was already in my late 20s when it started. One thing if this guy was ""in love"" with her, he should of divorced his wife and waited until she was of age. However he was just sick minded and wanted a young piece and needed help. He should of backed away when she said she wanted it over. He, being an adult and a teacher should of been the mature one and not let this crush get to him. Crushes happen all the time with students towards their teachers. I had crushes on teachers in Jr. High (and then later to a coach but like I said, in college), but thank God none of them took advantage of me like that. Teachers and coaches and other adults should expect this, and know where the line is drawn. Great movie and the actors did a great job!",1 "In The Woods appeared at the East Lansing Film Festival and to much surprise many seemed to enjoy it. The film concerns two hunters, who find and then are terrorized by, an evil entity. The film's cinematographer makes great use of contrast staging the first half of the film in a rural forest setting and the second half in an urban landscape.

The film stars DJ Perry and Stuart MacDonald in a mostly amateurish production that never rises above it's similarities to two other films.

The film's director, Lynn Drizick, borrows heavily from The Blair Witch Project and Backdraft. He even places mention of B.W. on the film's poster.

Perry stands out as the man forced to do battle with ominous demonic forces from hell including a specific devil dog. He offers up a comedic/action-hero performance not seen since Bruce Campbell in the Evil Dead trilogy.",1 "WARNING: My comments should be regarded as - a sad old sod's musings on a movie remembered fondly from his youth! I'm not going to dissect the movie scene by scene. I won't compare Forsyth's earlier works with his best known or ""finest"" moments. I'm not even going to discuss any particular aspect of the film! Not the setting, the story, the dialogue, not even the individual performances! I'm simply going to say that I remember watching this movie (with my family) on TV back in the early eighties and laughing so hard it actually hurt! I have no idea if it has aged well or not because I haven't seen it in over 20 years but I will say this in it's favour/defence, ""That Sinking Feeling"" gave Glasgow a voice and a character that's rarely been heard before nor since! Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Glaswegian so I have no personal axe to grind in that respect, I just feel that the human face of Glasgow (or Scotland for that matter) hasn't been depicted quite so sympathetically as in this movie. It seems to me that, when contemporary filmmakers try to present an ""honest"" depiction of the Glaswegian he tends to go for the ""gritty realism"" of the drunk or the druggie or the wife beating hard-man! That Sinking Feeling took a different tack and demonstrated the dry Scottish humour we all recognise (even more-so, we natives of Scotland) and perhaps that's why we seem to remember it so fondly. Anyway, if you can find a copy, watch it! Just don't expect any cool CG effects or Seinfeldesque banter, just good clean working class urban banality and the comedic observations you'd expect from a good clean working class director feeling his way!

Incidentally, sometime back in 1992/3 I met the redheaded actor (shamefully I can't recall his name right now) from ""That Sinking Feeling"" working in Stirling castle, conducting tours and the like! Not only does he star in one of my favourite productions, he is also an all round, really nice guy!

Bonus!",1 "I'm not going to talk about the plot or the script, no no...that things are really good in this movie but the acting...oh, the actors are incredible. Federico Luppi as always, perfect, Eusebio Poncela, really great, Cecilia Roth, better than in All about my mother (won a spanish award goya by this movie) and the boy, Juan Diego Botto, one actor i don't like too much, is perfect too. The dialogues are terrible, and the actors perfect, what you can expect is a movie where you going to believe every word of the script. Really good. I rated 9/10.",1 "Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the theatre, there's Jack Hammer.

A movie about a Jack, whose drug addiction leads to homelessness, weakness, and murder.

He lives as a security guard in a abandoned machine shop after losing his cushy day job to drugs, when his best friend OD's and dies on the street in a bad part of town.

He had it all, nice car, a yellow Viper, I wouldn't have gone with yellow, but okay - the great job, but he lacked self esteem, his ego being a little too big for his britches syndrome if you will. He had no real direction. So far it seems a pretty realistic approach, but soon the movie flails like a fish out of water - to become a cliché, and unredeemable display of stupidity so profound, I am ashamed for the actor who had to play Jack.

I'm just gonna get real nitpicky here a second and say - JackHammer was one of the worse movies I have ever seen in my entire life.",0 "So I was going through The Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film many many years ago and one movie jumped off the page and into my head. It was called ""Blue Sunshine,"" and the description was quite simple, something like ""Tainted LSD causes people to go bald and become blood-thirsty maniacs."" Naturally I was drooling...

It took me over ten years to track the movie down and I must say- it was worth the wait. ""Blue Sunshine"" is both the title and the type of LSD with supposedly scary side-effects. The movie begins with a very clever sequence in which we tilt down from the full blue moon to three seemingly-unrelated sequences... in time they'll come together. Its clear from the very beginning that director Jeff Lieberman has every frame planned, and this holds true throughout: the movie is built like a brick house- simply, logically, building tension, with no wasted scenes or dialogue.

The cinematography is great as well: Lieberman lights the whole frame, and you notice little details and textures that add to the mood. This lighting style also helps the movie stay young- aside from the fashion and cars you'd have no idea it was filmed in '76. But the best part of the movie are the scares- in major and minor keys... a man losing every hair on his head in one shot... a psychotic murderer forcing a woman's body BACK into a roaring fire as she tries to crawl out... a babysitter going insane while the children she's watching chant ""We want Doctah Peppah! We want Doctah Peppah!"" The disco finale is classic, and makes a sly statement about disco music and 70's culture as a Blue Sunshine user goes bats in a shopping mall nightclub. The movie ends rather quickly, and while some people complain about this, I prefer a clean break over a drawn-out exposition-filled ""wrap-up."" ""Blue Sunshine"" is not for everyone... if you don't like psychotronic movies (exploitation films, horror movies, sci-fi, etc) you won't be interested. But if you're looking for a good nightmare seek this movie out! GRADE: A",1 "I couldn't resist feeling this is director's self-loving creation. And I'm here to admire his talents... Quite boring and unabsorbing movie. I was expecting much, much more given IMDb score... Subject of the movie also added to the expectations. Unfortunately, that's about it. Big disappointment. I left few times (in my mind). In reality I was hoping something would develop. Any minute now. Very slow.... But nada. Reminds me of European school. Directors forget about viewers and get tangled in their own world... Aftermovie I've checked demographics of voting= chick flick. Should have checked it before wasting my time... Sorry.",0 "This short from The Hire-series looks totally different than the other ones. It is more real, like news footage. The Driver, of course again played by Clive Owen, has to save a war photographer (Stellan Skarsgard) who is shot. No funny moments this time, but action and suspense. Very well done.",1 "I saw this movie almost immediately after watching Veronika Decides to Die, another film just released based on a book (by Paolo Coelho). Marginally I liked time traveller wife more, but its marginal. I started to read the book a couple of years ago and couldn't finish it; going to revisit and try and finish it.

This is a nice 'time' love story and enjoy it for what it is. it has lots of twists and I have thought about the killing and the 'deer' business quite a bit. Yes a lot to pack into this movie but I cant really fault it, except I find characters such as the geneticist Hendrick suddenly introduced and we have to guess from that point.

Perhaps this is a hard film to establish continuity but overall they succeeded. Was the film really two hours? Didn't seem like it on DVD. Quite a few things I still have not grasped from the movie, hence the need to finish the book.

I never expect the two to be the same and never should they be.",1 "After all these years and now having teen-age daughters myself, I haven't forgotten the impact that a first major crush can have on your life. As a teenager I related to everything Jessie felt, and now looking back on my own years, they were some of the most memorable! I can't wait for my own girls to see it with me!",1 "I rented the unrated version because of - I admit it - the sex scene. What a letdown! As I watched, I kept thinking: ""aren't they supposed to be in love?"" because they sure didn't act like it. There was no romance, no nothing. Like two wild animals. It left me cold.

The costumes were as yummy as the sets were fake. The leads were badly underwritten. Banderas nails Luis's little-boy innocence, Jolie nails Bonnie's ice-cold cunning, but I didn't care about either of them, nor did I believe that he would willingly ruin himself for her. That he winds up taking Billy's place was beyond belief!

And I have a silly question: how did Billy find out Luis was actually loaded if poor Ms. Russell thought he was just a humble clerk at a coffee company?",0 "Fantastic blood and bullets thriller starring Andy Lau and Takashi Sorimachi as Tok and O , two hitmen at the top of their game. O is the number 1 killer, he does his job and gets away clean. Tok is a showman, taking risks but always making them pay. To be number 1 he knows he has to defeat O, and begins to stalk his prey. Along the way, both hitmen fall for Chin (Kelly Lin), a young Taiwanese woman, and attract the attention of Lee (Simon Yam), a cop determined to bring them both down.

So far, so familiar, but Johnny To delivers a film that ascends over its premise to become a classic of the genre. The action sets are expertly done, and everyone looks totally cool - especially Lau. Slo-mo and visual effects are used but not overused, and there was clearly a decent budget getting thrown around (the list of sponsors in the credits attests to that). There's more depth here than in an average film of its ilk, but there's also a delightful sense of glee in the action pieces that make you think that those involved thankfully weren't taking it completely seriously.

If you're a fan of ‘heroic bloodshed' action and for whatever reason haven't seen this yet, do yourself a favour.",1 "This film is magic at its best pure and simple. As such it's not for everyone. People who don't like silliness or weirdness will probably find it dull or worse. But anyone who believes in magic, who wants to see wonders unfold before their eyes and who can be silly for the duration of the film will find it an absolute treat.

The Wizard, Mike Jittlov, whisks us into his fantasy world almost immediately and it's a roller-coaster of cheesy but fun jokes and truly astounding and heart-felt FX that speak to the child in each of us.

The sheer kinetic ENERGY of this thing makes you feel like you could fly (or run on air anyway)! Rumors are that Sam Raimi/Bruce Campbell actually asked Mike Jittlov to visit them to preview a little film they'd thrown together called ""Evil Dead"" because they wanted someone who they respected to give the thumbs up to their movie before it debuted! Dreamers rejoice in the chaotic joy that is ""The Wizard of Speed and Time!""",1 "Peck's third best movie. The supporting actors did flesh out the tension and struggle. The story line can be easily followed. The decisions made during the movie are predictable, but the realization that it is life and death struggle overwhelms the predictability.

",1 "Tremendous Faith shown by a woman who was not sure of how she felt about Jesus until the communist tried to beat it out of her. She had God's divine protection when a firing squad was ordered to shoot her. True story of God's Love in Action Everyone who is not sure that God is real needs to read the book or watch the movie. You will be moved to tears to see that God is still Alive and well and watching over His own. Inspirational, courageous, suspenseful. A great film I give it a 10+",1 "This film is supposedly based on the true account of a prisoner who escaped from Devil's Island in French Guiana. However, the book by Henri Charriere about his experiences apparently has a LOT of inconsistencies and outright fabrications (a polite way of saying he was a liar). So, provided you understand that this isn't quite a true story, this is still an exceptional film. Much of this is due to incredible acting, direction, scripting and makeup.

Henri Charriere, played by Steve McQueen, is going to Devil's Island for killing a pimp--supposedly in self-defense. On the boat, he meets a swindler played by Dustin Hoffman and they become friends.

Most of the film documents how harsh and awful life is in the prison came--either in the work camps or when living in solitary confinement. All take their toll and kill off many of the prisoners, by Charriere is resilient. Despite all these privations, he never loses his resolve to escape, though Hoffman eventually does and accepts his life on the island after one failed escape attempt. In the end, Charriere does escape, though in real-life, this apparently did NOT occur.

While there is a lot more to the movie and what I have mentioned (after all it's a very long and involved film), the full impact of the story is not what you read but seeing the awfulness of the prison. So, be prepared for a movie that at times is very difficult to watch but is constructed it's an amazing film.",1 "This film (which was shot on video, by the way) is rather low quality. Someone should tell the director spend some money and buy a tripod. As far as I know, EVERY shot was hand held. Some at high magnification. Lots of moving back and forth. So, apart from that dread feeling when you realise within 90 seconds that your money has been wasted, and that do I or don't I walk out of the cinema, what has the film got to offer? Not much. A storyline that could be written by a teenager. The script that well, sucks. Probably penned in a day, maybe an afternoon. The acting, well some of it was OK. But some of it was useless.

When I first realised the quality of this film, I wondered whether it was a form of self-parody. Sort of like a straight-A student intentionally flunking an entry-level exam. And this may be the case, I don't know. But if it isn't, would the director be embarrassed by his creation? probably.

If you've got 90 minutes to kill, and nothing better is on television, give it a go. But please don't actually spend money on this film. It makes me sad that I could have fed a 3rd world person for a week for the money that it cost me to go.",0 "As mentioned before this movie probably is the first one of its kind to be made in Austria by Austrians artists only. Austria's good times in the movie industry have long been gone and modern Austrian filmmakers concentrate mainly on producing artistic stuff that relies heavily on the actors (mostly due to funding problems). So this film is quite different from what is coming from Austria nowadays but it's not so different from what is coming from Hollywood. That's a new approach and that's OK. In my opinion the movie is better than the average Scary Movie flick. The story is quite straightforward, the ending is adept though not too surprising. The gory scenes come at the times you expect them to come. Sometimes you know what is going to happen before but that's what we call suspense and if it was good enough for Hitchcock it's good enough for everyone. And it works here too! The movie doesn't stay on a high level of tension all the time. It speeds up then slows down then speeds up again several times. Nice flow. The director does a really good job and I especially appreciated the cinematography. Some really nice pictures, good camera positioning. The cutting was good too and makes the movie look more expensive and professional than it was.

The young actors are mostly unknown but mostly talented and add to the overall positive impression the film made on me.

I enjoyed watching the film although it's not a perfect piece of work (therefore my score of 7/10) but judge for yourself. Let's hope there will be more to see from the people who made this movie. I think there is still a lot of potential to explore.",1 "Under the heading ""Louisiana"" I checked this documentary called Louisiana Story by Robert J. Flaherty out of curiosity from my local East Baton Rouge Parish Library. Beautiful views of the state swamps as well as fascinating scenes of the oil rig that inhabits them dominates the film which depicts the adventures of a Cajun boy on a boat fishing and hunting alligators with his pet raccoon. His father occasionally comes along for the ride and they both have friendly relations with the workers of the oil well. There are some scenes of the mother as well. Great Pulitzer Prize-winning music scored by Virgil Thomson is beautifully performed by The Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra as conducted by Eugene Ormandy. Wonderful cinematography by Richard Leacock. Worth checking out as a depiction of late '40s Louisiana as well as the final film of Mr. Flaherty before his death in 1951. Update-4/29/07: The Cajun boy that starred in this film, J.C. Boudreaux, is now 73 and lives with his wife of 55 years, Regina, in a FEMA trailer in the town of Sweet Lake which is south of Lake Charles. They moved there after Hurricane Rita destroyed their home in Cameron. They had seven children who have provided them numerous grand-and great-grandchildren. Boudreaux still loves fishing. I found this out reading this morning's The (Baton Rouge) Advocate.",1 "George Romero himself (the man whose take on zombies has helped redefine the fright film for the past four decades) put it best: ""It's not about the ZOMBIES, man!"" Filmmakers who don't grasp whereof he spoke make movies like DEAD HEIST- movies that usually boast some impressive, though often no-budget fx (or even- as in this case- some great zombie ""crowd"" scenes), but very little in the way of character or story upon which to, say, hang a review. The internet, at present, boasts a veritable plethora of such shorts. In fact, there are five ""winners"" (picked by Romero himself) included among the DIARY OF THE DEAD extras. Like GANGS OF THE DEAD, DEAD HEIST has its moments (including some decent actors trying to make the most of bad writing, as well as some sometimes surprisingly competent direction), but the one thing both movies have in common is a lack of character(s). Let this be a lesson to those of you who would follow in Romero's footsteps: It ain't about the ZOMBIES, man!",0 "It's not all that often that toadies get what's coming to them. Too often, when their political toadying days wind down, they join important New York law firms or become Washington ""consultants,"" toadying in only a slightly different milieu, and able now to directly afford their bespoke suits and strip steak dinners at The Capital Grille.

But then we have Diederich Hessling. The place is Germany and the time is before the turn of the century. Diederich (Werner Peters) is a superior toady in this superior East German satire from 1951. Hessling is an unlikable, pudgy little man, with a small, soft mouth. He is a perfect bourgeois, inwardly anxious and outwardly pompous. He was a fearful child, frightened of his father's cane and his mother's stories. Tattling on others at school was his satisfaction. He was attracted, while at university, to the shy Agnes, but when warned off by her family's boarder one evening, he hurriedly left her home. He joined with pride the Neo Teutons to drink beer with careful rituals and fearfully gained a dueling scar. As a cadet in the Kaiser's army he realized, we are told, that ""the whole military set-up was aimed to reduce one's dignity to a minimum. This impressed him. Despite his misery he was filled with respect."" Alas, his flat foot hurt, he said, and soon he was released with dramatic tales to tell. Then he must manage his family's factory when his father dies, lording it over the workers and nuzzling the town's leaders. He also manages to seduce the loving Agnes, who, having acquiesced is now of course unworthy of a man of his stature. His self-importance is as prominent as his newly up-turned moustache, identical to the Kaiser's.

And now this pompous little man, Diederich Hessling, respected factory owner, leads us into a satire which is not all that amusing, with workers abused, Jewish blood gossiped about and patriotic Germanic delusions flowering with pride. We have self-satisfied town councilors, careful church leaders and elderly military men, toadies all in Diederich's stultifying middle class. His factory, which appears to make huge piles of rags from huge piles of rags, prospers. Dietrich has found a place for his self-importance and for his inner fearfulness. The Kaiser becomes his grail and patriotic nationalism strengthens his easily-led tattling proclivities. He is so proud of Germany, German power and his German Kaiser, that at his wedding to a plump and wealthy woman he introduces his guests to the latest German innovation from his factory, toilet paper. But good things, even toilet paper, never last. The obsequious Diederich Hessling finds himself over his head in a game of anxious brown nosing more complex than simply tattling on schoolmates. We may not know what Dietrich's fate is, but the movie gives us, with heavy Teutonic irony, a vivid look at what Germany's will be.

The Kaiser's Lackey is sharp, good fun as long as it focuses on the fears and behavior we can find so amusingly contemptible in Diederich. But then the film moves into a more heavy- handed satire of complacent bourgeois German nationalism and society. The Kaiser's Lackey is amusing, but eventually moves into tedious irony. Still, if for nothing more than the satire of a smug society and a weak protagonist, as well as for Werner Peter's skilled toadying throughout, the movie is worth the time spent.

The director, Wolfgang Staudte, had an unlikely career in films. He started out in the movie business under the Nazi's, eager as a young man to protect his film deferment to escape being sent to the front. He directed the first German movie after WWII, The Murderers Are Among Us, in 1946 with Ernst Borcert and Hildegard Kneff. It is probably the best movie he ever made, filmed amidst the miles of rubble in Berlin. It remains a powerful statement of guilt, redemption and hope. He directed films in East Germany, then West Germany, then a unified Germany. Staudte's life itself might make a good film.",0 The film is good till the first half and then the director looses control over the film. He forgets that he is making a comedy and not a run around and keep on increasing character movie. The plot is different but gets down to the same thing like lots of other movies in the past. The director has not even taken care of the characters. There are a Parsi son and father who keep on speaking Gujrati. Wasn't this very obvious or was this pun intended?. There is an inspector who has been working for the last ten years and suddenly changes into a after-money guy. There is a dacoit who appears out of no-where and becomes a contender for the money. The director could have lost him after using him for the comedy factor. On the whole a movie you can watch once but might get bored in the second half.,0 "I watched this mini-series because I had seen Paul Gross in Due South and Slings and Arrows. I don't have to be a ""spoiler"" to say that this was a truly inane mini-series. The issue of Canada withholding water from the USA was an interesting one that was quickly and completely drowned. There was good acting but only in scenes meant to show off good acting rather than to move the plot in any understandable direction (watch the interminable ""mother of the prime minister"" scenes). Dissecting this misconceived film is hardly worthwhile. Canada has a fine talent in Mr. Gross, but that talent doesn't extent to script writing. H20 does not hold water.",0 "This is a drama about beliefs and how these can change based on necessity and fear.

At the beginning of the movie the Jew husband (the always excellent William Fichtner) doesn't believe in miracles, but after his son gets better from a ""miracle man"", he changes his mind and begs that same miracle man --who has also slept with his wife in the meantime-- to come and help his son. The necessity of his son win the battle with cancer is more important than his own prejudices and fears.

The movie starts a bit slowly, then it gets a bit of a more interesting pace, but overall it's not a movie that will have you see it again any time soon. Performances are good, photography is not too bad, but the pace is slow.",0 I liked this movie because it deals with the great questions of life. Why do we have to suffer? How much pain and suffering can a man take before he kills himself? And why does the rightous man have to suffer? And also because it shows a lot of friendship and brotherhood amongst the POW's. One of the best films I've ever seen.,1 "IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH you feel the anguish, the anger and the pain of what this dreadful war in Iraq has done to American families and our soldiers. ELAH is a powerful film from the brilliant Director Paul Haggis that drives home on the screen in a magnificent performance from Tommy Lee Jones the fear a father may have in the loss of his son and how this war is being played out in the small towns of America where a family wonders if a man, or woman, might return home safe, or in a body bag. Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon with a solid cast bring home the horror of Iraq in a film that is today's war in the Middle East. I can only hope that at Kudo time this well directed and written film will find itself on the list of nominated films. Bravo Paul Haggis for giving us another film to root for as we did with CRASH.",1 "Four years were necessary by this film's creative team to raise funding adequate for screening the work, with its setting in Montreal, and its essence as a narrative wayward albeit its production characteristics may well offset its storyline weaknesses for some who will view it by video tape. Winner of a record-setting 13 Genie Awards (Canada's ""Oscar"" equivalent), the film was the directorial début for Jean-Claude Lauzon, who received a standing ovation at Cannes in 1987 after the picture's showing there, the audience obviously of the belief that there were more than enough artistically positive elements within it to counterbalance its patchwork plot. Lauzon directed but two films prior to his death caused by piloting his airplane into the side of a mountain. He once stated of himself ""I always need to be in motion"", and this trait, in conjunction with a career background in advertising, probably accounts in part for his maintenance of a frenetic pace for this violence weighted affair. As action begins, Marcel (Gilles Maheu) is being stripped of any dignity that he may have possessed by being forcibly sodomized within his prison cell, and soon after we watch him exit from the prison after completing a two year sentence for some type of narcotics violation. Marcel returns to his apartment that he somehow has managed to retain during his absence and is immediately after visited by a pair of dishonest police detectives who demand $200,000 in cash that he ""owes"" to them and which he apparently has secreted in too cunning a manner for them to uncover. One of the detectives, George (Lorne Brass) is a homosexual steeped in sadism and it is Marcel's determined efforts to keep the hidden money from the duo while fiercely struggling physically against them that comprise about half of a plot line which also focuses upon the young man's endeavour to repair a severed relationship with his dying father (Roger Le Bel). While Marcel's behaviour upon occasion seems to be vacant of sensate purpose, a viewer will be thankful that his girl friend's appearances in the film are brief, and that the bizarre climactic scenes involving father and son are not lengthier. Some of the film's setups must be deemed as intentionally, in addition to symbolically, grotesque, and there are too many instances when both logic and continuity go begging. Endeavours by a viewer to hearken back to any sort of justification for such episodes will be futile. The earnestly diligent cast members work at creating their roles, with Brass being especially effective as an unprincipled policeman. Dialogue is largely Québécois with a sprinkling of English. Subtitles in the latter tongue are for the most part accurate. Although difficulty for viewers to ken a meandering narrative will be a bit of an impediment, the film is not dull. Well past the film's initial release date, the many awards given it for performances by its crew members are completely understandable, as production quality is never less than excellent. However, the general acclaim from Canada and at Cannes might lead one to presume that its competition may have been, at best, somewhat weak.",0 "STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Dolph Lundgren plays a captain called John Foster in this DVD sci-fi film, who's also one of a select group of people in 2209 Los Angeles who is 'genetically unique' and has an immune system that can fend off the effects of a deadly bacteria which has come off some meteorites that have crashed on earth and caused death and disease amongst the people. He has a spaceship that can travel back in time and stop the meteors from crash landing but on his way some mutinous members of his crew attempt to take over and control history for themselves. In the struggle, Dolph winds up in the past in Antarctica where the ship that will cause the disaster is located. But as he liaises with the captain of the ship and the crew members, forces are at work that are out to get him.

Even by Dolph's standards, Retrograde is seriously bargain basement so it's best enjoyed on a strictly trashy, campy fun level. This is a film so ultra low budget and cheap looking it makes Fortress 2 look like Independence Day, with sets and props so unconvincing you feel as though you could better them with items from your own back yard. With the budget constraints showing on screen, it's not surprising that the cast aren't exactly top quality either, with a truly horrendous no name supporting cast delivering some truly laughable, awful performances. Even Dolph isn't exactly putting his heart into it, and with so little encouragement around him, who could blame him? With all this going on, it would help if there was an exciting, fast paced story to get into with Dolph doing everything he can to liven the action scenes up, but this fails even in this department, with a slow, meandering story with a pace that seriously drags in parts.

Retrograde gets everything right by doing everything wrong. It's a film that's best enjoyed on a trashy 'so bad it's good' level. Go in expecting a film of The Punisher or Universal Soldier quality and you're going to come away miffed. **",0 "This is a fantastic movie, driven primarily by Lancaster's embodiment of the character of Valdez - a town constable who kills an innocent man in self-defense, only to then become the subject of constant abuse by the slain's pursuer. Valdez's vengeful reactions to this abuse, the episodic pacing, and the great supporting actors make this a real cinematic treat. Lancaster's treatment of voice and body language show he is an actor of extreme talent. Of further interest is the landscape of Spain, which makes up the film's authentic exteriors.",1 "Another gem from Kim-Ki-Duk, very complex movie in terms of concept and screenplay. Even hard to digest, what is right, what is wrong...lines are blurred.

You'd like to hate the character of Han-Ki very much but you'll be forced to like him. Evoked a mixture of emotions in me...its brutal in its sense, sensual in its sense...a totally different grammar for emotions...

Once again, Kim-Ki-Duk beautifully used silence in the movie and the main character (as usual??) is silent for major part of the movie. This is not everyone's cup-of-tea, so beware if you are thinking of watching it...you may find it bad",1 "It's difficult to make an 85 movie drag on, but somehow, Gregg Araki manages to do so with his amateurish direction. The plot is inspired, the cast is competent, but Araki ruins it with draggy direction and corny dialogue. Even talented and charismatic Mike Dytri can't save this clunker. By the time it got to the end, which I had heard so much about, I was ready to just turn it off and return the tape. It's very hard to care about the characters, likeable though they are, when every line of dialogue is punctuated by unnecessary pregnant pauses (a sure sign of incompetent direction). The film had great potential, but it came out as just a bunch of scenes slapped together with a really bad soundtrack (not the music: the volume kept jumping up and down alternating soft to loud from scene to scene).",0 "Sheridan Le Fanu wrote a Gothic little vampire tale called Carmilla in the 19th century that has astoundingly been the subject and backdrop of a surprising amount of films. The story is quite good yet in no way is the material enough to cover the breadth and scope of more than one film - which is one of the major problems with this Hammer entry. Lust for a Vampire is the second in a trilogy of Hammer films known throughout filmdom as the ""Karnstein Trilogy."" The first film is The Vampire Lovers which is a wonderful adaptation of Le Fanu's work. Then we have this film - which is what it is - still clinging ever so strongly to the vastly resource-depleted story of Carmilla, and lastly there is Twins of Evil which is nothing more than a Carmilla film in name only because of places and general themes and film trends. So the story here by Tudor Gates is very lacking. This time around we have a girl's school - and the girls are of course all around 18(Many looking like they are in their early/mid 20s)and drop-dead gorgeous with well-coiffed hair, elegant dresses, and that ""I just had my picture taken for the centerfold in Playboy"" look. Nothing wrong with that but we are asked to believe it opened up in the heart of Eastern Europe RIGHT BY the castle of a family known throughout the countryside as evil vampires(and still coming to life every so often as we are told through the opening sequence of the film). Now I know it is only a film, and, yes, maybe I am over analyzing here - but this Hammer entry lacks the ingenuity, creative spark, and acting/directorial talents associated with Hammer. It is a product of its time - the early 70s - and Hammer had resorted to ""tricks"" if you will far more heavily then they ever had done so before. We see lots of bosoms here - lots.(Okay I CAN live with this.) Violence is at minimum for even a Hammer film, but what we also get which is a trend at this time are films where there is no recognizable star power. No Peter Cushing here(although I do understand he was slated to be in it but personal problems forced him to cancel). No Christopher Lee. No Andre Morel even or Andrew Keir. I would have even taken Michael Ripper, but what we get is Ralph Bates, a serviceable actor at best, in a throwaway role and not much else in terms of acting talent. The male lead Michael Johnson has a bit of charisma but is far more annoying as a thespian - I wanted him to get it very early on. The young beautiful girls are just that. Carmilla/Mircalla is played by Danish beauty Yutte Stensgaard. She is lovely to be sure, but she has little to do other than the ""normal"" things lesbian vampires do in films like this. Pippa Steel is also awesome eye candy. But the worst casting and most laughable of all is that of Mike Raven as some vampire in the wings so to speak who looks, acts, and sounds like Christopher Lee. Almost his whole repertoire of words is ""heart attack."" Pretty soon you start laughing just at the sight of him for just how ridiculous and unprofessional these scenes are - and in very bad taste as to the mood of the rest of the film. While I will agree that Lust for a Vampire is entertaining overall to a degree - it is also heavily flawed and unworthy of the great Hammer tradition, Jimmy Sangster the director, and many of the Hammer legions of production workers who have worked and created much superior work.",0 "I saw 'The Blackwater Lightship' originally on the Hallmark Playhouse on television..complete with numerous commercials! I loved the film so I bought the DVD from Hallmark...minus commercials...what a treat...the film doesn't play like usual TV movies...with a 'hanger' right before the commercial to hold your interest and get one to return to the film after the commercial.

This film plays smoothly as one piece....not fragmented and spotty like most TV films.

The cast is magnificent....the sublime Angela Lansbury playing the Irish granny...Diane Wiest as the daughter of GRanny, and with several actors who were unfamiliar to me.

However two actors I am familiar with are Sam Robards (have to see more of his work) and Brian F. O' Bryan (I know I didn't get this name correctly, but he is currently collecting all the awards on Broadway this season for his superb work in 'Doubt') They are exceptional as two gay friends of Wiest's son who is dying of Aids.

With an Irish seaside setting (the Blackwater Lightship) and superb character transformations...this is a film I recommend unhesitatingly.",1 "Before I review this film I just want to tell you, I'm not of of those people. Those people that go to movies like this just to write about how stupid they were, I enjoy some silly light hearted movies, I love a good Sandler comedy but this was just plain bad.

I kind of knew Zohan would be bad inside but I still wanted to see it, I loved Little Nicky even though critics trashed that. So I thought Zohan might be quite misunderstood as well. Boy! I was wrong. You Don't Mess With the Zohan was a shoddy and obnoxious attempt at a comedy movie. It is utterly silly and tries to get you with shock factor but ends up being just plain weird.

It gets a four because while it mostly reeks of bad, it still has some good jokes in it, the beginning to film promises a very odd and refreshing new comedy and the first 5 minutes will tickle your spine. But then it just gets odder and odder - to a point where it's almost unwatchable and through this try hard weirdness it still produces some lovable Sandler comedy. And while rear, the occasional joke is very laughable.

The plot seems promising, but totally fails on content. It wanders to far from the plot and ends up to be so silly it's offensive, it's tries to throw random jokes out like Family Guy. It fails miserably and in result is a very messy, unco-ordinated film. Plus it's completely stereotypes Middle Eastern people. It's like the writers didn't get the memo that everyone is now supposed to be equal. And for overseas people watching, it completely reverses America's efforts to appear more open minded and equal.

In summary, Zohan is while occasionally funny, 99% of the time a very messy, silly, outrageous (not in a good way) film. Go see it if you like to laugh at other races and enjoy very brainless toilet humor.",0 "No one can deny that Ann Harding was something to look at, and that is about all this film has to offer. Her co-star is a very young mustachioed Laurence Olivier working very hard to make something of an unconvincingly written character -specifically, a high-strung novelist who resents churning out hack material for quick money to pay the bills while living in a small apartment with his wife (Harding) and a baby daughter. Eventually he can take no more, divorces his wife and goes off to write what he pleases in peace, leaving his wife to marry a long-time admirer (Irving Pichel) who provides her with money and status even though she is not in love with him. Years later the estranged couple meets again in Lucerne. By now he is a successful and famous novelist and impulsively decides to wrest back the woman he had deserted. Throughout the proceedings they bicker and make up with tiring frequency. The movie is mostly talk in the Noel Coward style but without the Coward sparkle. The fights and reconciliations, including the reuniting of a divorced couple at a classy resort, are very reminiscent of Coward's ""Private Lives"" which had been filmed with disastrous results the year before. As in ""Lives,"" the couple even plays and sings a song from time to time, in this case ""What'll I Do?"" In short, this is good if you like watching Harding, a great screen beauty, and examining the meticulous craftsmanship of Olivier. Otherwise it's a leaden and witless talkathon.",0 "The Beatles were not only a group that challenged the recording industry, and of course, the world of entertainment. They acted also as avant-gardè multi-media artists.

Not only they helped improving the pop music marketing with their innovative LP packages and stuff but also created new kind of media that would become a mania in the XXI century: the reality show. Yes, almost 100% of the scenes shown on Let It Be are cine realitè - the bare truth captured by the lens of cameras directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg.

In fact, although the band was working on the edge of their break-up, almost 90% of the scenes are cheerful and enjoyable. The main bulk of the footage shows Paul McCartney trying to find ways of enhance the Beatles performing and figuring out what to do in the future. Although John Lennon seems to be distracted by his future wife presence, Yoko Ono, he also looks to be happy playing and having fun - even dancing around to the sound of I Me Mine, sung by George.

By the way, George Harrison the most ""unhappy"" character also appears on the film having a ball singing rock and roll tunes. The lowest point (or highest, depending on the way you look at it) seems to be a row he had with Paul, but it only consumes about 5 minutes of the whole picture.

At last but not the least, Ringo Starr is shown for the first time ever playing a song - Octopus's Garden - that would later take part of Abbey Road - the LP that marked the end of the Fab Four as a group, but the begining of the Beatles as an universal legend.",1 "I was appalled that Sofia Coppola won an Oscar for her drab screenplay. First of all, the characters were unsympathetic and out of touch with the world. An actor receiving 2 million for a few days work and a directionless Yale student tagging with her photographer boyfriend. I doubt many of us here have the privilege to be bored in the most expensive hotel in Japan.

The stylized ennui of the whole pic was so pretentious. Scarletts panty shots and staring at the window didn't elevate or convey any emotion at all. I really had to force myself awake at times when the whole film veered into an extended travelogue or a home movie. I kept on waiting for the nonexistent plot to arrive.

Finally, the 'crocodile dundee' style racism showing the Japanese as one dimensional morons or subservient. The prostitute scene was a cheap play for laughs. Much like, most of the Japanese scenes which were the 'look at the wacky Japanese' variety with the help of Bill's snide comments. If Sofia wanted to portray loneliness and isolation, she could have easily done it without the racist undertone.",0 "This film is truly an insight to the mind of R.Kelly. The only thing I will give it is the singing ability of the cast; other than that...nothing. While watching this ""artful"" piece of ..., I was distressed to think that people could actually relate to this plot. Not only did the script completely lack any true depth, but also R.Kelly's performance as the singing narrator was accidentally comedic relief, as the whole film was, though not intended to be. When I realized that this was a serious movie and not intended to be as bad as it was, I analyzed a little more in depth the ""intricate relationships, complex characters and general truths of life"" as R.Kelly explains in the director commentary remix, or lack there of. This movie is entertaining for a few minutes, but for those of you who enjoy this movie and feel it tells about your own life; I am sorry, you are a deprived, uncultured, individual who lacks the ability for much thought at all. If you don't believe my statements take a look at the director commentary. As you will see, the mastermind behind this project avidly discusses what is written on the back of the DVD box which, though already unintelligent blather about cliffhangers, sounds dumber coming out of R.Kelly's mouth. If you disagree with me, or...you are R.Kelly, please attempt to deviate this post.",0 "This movie is absolutely stupid and wonderful at the same time. It's an Airplane-type movie. It does all the silly jokes, visual and verbal.

The star, Gary Kroeger, slips into a fair John Wayne impersonation throughout the movie. Marc Singer as the German Von Kraut, is fantastic, and does a terrific accent.

If you enjoy this type of movie, find it, watch it, and enjoy. It's great.",1 "I actually haven't seen this a thousand times, yet it feels like I have. It's just so predictable and boring that it seemed pointless to even watch the end. This is why I stopped watching with about 15 minutes left on the movie. What's the point? I just didn't care.

The only redeeming value this movie posesses is the fashion style of the two leading ladies. They have some really awesome clothes! I bet their clothes would be worth a lot of money today.

I gave this movie 3/10 because of the clothes. Sounds lame, but these clothes were really that good!

Another reason I gave the movie more than 1 star was the audio. They do a decent job making scary sounds that actually freaked me out a little bit. There's a part where something is squeaking and it's dark and no one knows what it is. The sound itself was harmless, but if you let your imagination run away, it was actually scary!

I also liked the sex scene between the sex-crazed lady and the hot young guy. He was pretty hot! I liked his tight pants. The scene was good because it wasn't all hair flipping, long kisses, and loss of innocence. It was actually kind of sly and rough. They did a good job making a sex scene that didn't make me wanna hit fast forward.

That's it. Boring movie. Who cares what the ending was? You already know.",0 "I bought this movie brand new for $5.00 in the bargain bin .It appeared to be a nice funny family movie.The cover named some top actors.It has some really cute dogs in it; but that's about all it has going for it.I'm usually a big fan of animal movies.Based on the humor i.e. the very tired male genitalia jokes , the farting & pooping (some body get this guy some of the pink liquid) , and all around cheesy lines; the only people who would enjoy this movie would be a group of sixth grade boys.The movie isn't a knock- off of Snow Dogs .I thought Snow Dogs was a really good movie.It's much worse.I would recommend renting this movie only if your video store has Rent one,Get one free specials.Maybe use it as your free rental ... hmm on second thought maybe not.",0 "The Shakespearean references and underlying philosophical ""being and becoming"" themes involving machine and human nature, elevate this above average Sci-Fi film to the ""next level"". Not as classic a film as the existential ""Blade Runner"" but worthwhile nevertheless.",1 "The movie is playing as I type this. How I netflixed this I have no idea, I think it was the National Lampoon tag. This is the worst move I've seen...ever. This is worse than Demolition Man, worse than Sleepless in Seattle, worse than The Replacements. I can't believe how bad this movie is. I thought the beginning was a lead in, and she was going to have a penis or something, but I'm slowly realizing that this movie is serious.

The acting has got to be some sort of b-league intro to acting class rejects. I can't believe Michael Douglas's son is this bad. I might get really hammered to see if I find this more amusing, but I doubt it. Maybe they're going for the college stoner crowd. But are you kidding me?!?

I hate myself for having sat through it this long.

Charlie",0 """Galactic Odyssey"" - the American title of Starquest II - was a horrible movie. The plot was amazingly bad, and the writing was some of the worst that I've ever seen. The overall premise - a group of humans, kidnapped to start a breeding program on another planet - seems fairly standard. That's when everything starts to break down.

First, the movie is interspersed with a lot of war footage from different places on the planet. None of it has anything to do with the people in the movie. There's a long montage at the beginning of various science fiction stories; none of it has anything to do with the plot of the movie.

Second, the effects and sets are bad. I mean, ""Manos, Hands of Fate"" bad. The airlock that closes off to prevent the ship from decompressing? You can see the lights on the other side of the door because the door doesn't close all of the way. The ""robot"" pilot that gets blown out of the broken bridge window because of decompression? He takes a nice stroll over when he's ""caught"" by the decompression. Just horrible. The ""alien"" hands on the actors seemed to have been bought from the props department of another movie - another cheap, badly made movie.

Third, the soft-core porn sex throughout this movie was a little bit of overkill. Kate Rodger, Gretchen Palmer and Jolie Jackunas are all hot, no doubt; but, did they really have to have sex every ten minutes throughout the movie? The women that I know would not respond to a ""kidnapped at the last second before earth was destroyed"" situation by doing it as much as they did. From an entertainment standpoint, this made the movie watchable; from a plot standpoint, it was ludicrous.

Fourth, the plot. Were the humans kidnapped because earth was destroyed, or because it was going to be destroyed? Were they breeding to be ""harvested,"" or breeding to save the human race? Nothing was remotely clear; worse, nothing was remotely consistent. THe story changed as the movie went on.

Eh. There's better porn on the internet. Watch Mystery Science Theater instead.",0 "My Rating: *** out of ****.

I disagree with the reviewer saying that The Black Album is not a classic. I certainly think it is. It contains some of the best songwriting Metallica has ever done. Enter Sandman, Sad But True, The Unforgiven, Wherever I May Roam, Nothing Else Matters, and Of Wolf and Man. I also believe Holier Than Thou, Don't Tread on Me, The God That Failed, My Friend of Misery and The Struggle Within are underrated. The weakest song on the album is probably Through The Never but its still a great song. So yeah I completely disagree with you about The Black Album not being a classic.

What I do agree with you on is that its not the only Metallica album that deserves a DVD like this. I also agree with you that its not their best. Master of Puppets and ...And Justice For All are definitely superior. The songwriting is undeniably great on The Black Album but yeah it is superior on those two albums(Master of Puppets and One are my two favorite songs).

A case could be made that the Black Album is probably the most important album in Metallica's career. It is their most financially successful album and it gave them a ton of new fans. After The Black Album things were very much different for Metallica. They took a different step in their music and made the Load/Reload albums, probably the most criticized of all their albums (well maybe thats actually St. Anger but its close). For better or worse, The Black Album was a major turning point in their careers.

The DVD is definitely worth watching. I thought it gave a lot of interesting information about the songs. I enjoyed watching these guys talk about the album, I really just enjoy watching these guys. They are awesome. Lars Ulrich maybe a bit of a dick but he is hilarious. James Hetfield gives a lot of interesting background on some of the songs and he seems like a really cool guy. Kirk Hammett can certainly jam on the guitar. I liked that Jason Newstead got to talk about My Friend of Misery and to show off how talented he really is.

Overall, the DVD is worth watching and the album, in my opinion, is a must-have. The DVD maybe a little limited but it is interesting. I am really looking forward to the Some Kind of Monster documentary.",1 "I really think it's funny when someone writes ""I serious it Retarded of a cartoon.""

Wha? This person cannot even write a simple sentence, yet they feel they can bash a show that is obviously superior to their own banal excuse for intellect - and I don't even know what that means.

Apparently they are not ""Responsible"" or ""Dependable"" or ""Reliable"" or ""Not an Idiot"". And what about CN being 90% cartoons? Umm. CN = Cartoon Network. Hmmm.

Maybe I have misjudged this person and really they are a comedic genius that deserves to be revered as sublime.

The Monkey Show Rules whether or not you are smart enough to know it.",1 "I am a high school German teacher and my kids absolutely love watching this movie! They always ask to watch it over and over when I can't be there and they have to have a sub.

I have learned some A.S.L. and can say that there are similarities but A.S.L. and German Sign Language are definitely different! I can appreciate the struggles Lara goes through and she does a good job, for her, at trying to balance in all 3 worlds. Deaf, Hearing and Music. It's only when outside factors cause tension that spill over into one or more of her worlds that she has trouble coping! There is that one sad moment in the film that gets me every time, something I can relate to but, overall, the entire film is captivating and leaves you wanting to know what happens with Lara, her career and her relationship with her family and Tom afterward! I'll never tire of this film!",1 "There is not a single redeeming feature for this misguided effort. I don't even want to give it the credit of calling it a movie.

The story centres around a plot that would have been turned down by the makers of Knight Rider, and that's saying a lot.

The acting is appalling, although perhaps some of them could be forgiven as English is apparently not a language they understand. It looks as if they have just learned their lines phonetically without actually understanding how bad the dialogue they are partaking in is.

The special effects are definitely not special and only barely qualify as effects.

My only saving grace is that it wasn't me who chose this at the video store. Apparently the girl who chose it was impressed by the cover. I haven't yet seen the cover, but looking at it for 90 minutes would be infinitely preferable to having to sit through this loathsome tosh.

I only hope that the people rating it 10 out of 10 here are either being ironic or are multiple votes from Judge Reinhold trying desperately to keep this off its deserved place at the bottom of the IMDB charts.

Please, for the sake of your own sanity, do not ever give into the temptation to watch this movie. It makes Porky's 3 look like a masterpiece. Yes, it is that bad.",0 "[ * possible spoilers * ]I had seen bits & pieces of this high camp classic over the years but finally had a chance to see it from beginning to end on American Movie Classics, and I am dumbstruck. It's a real challenge to describe how truly ridiculous the thing is.

Perhaps the best place to start is with the two leads. I somehow can envision Olivier and Peck getting together after having seen the script, and then, before the start of shooting, making a wager as to who can come up with the worst accent. It's a tossup; Peck's attempt at a German accent was not outdone in hilarity for almost twenty years, when Brad Pitt in ""Seven Years in Tibet"" seemed to use it a model and outdid himself. Olivier's Jewish accent puts one in mind of a tipsy Harold MacMillan doing an impersonation of David Ben-Gurion (you Gen-Xers will just have to look those names up in your Funk & Wagnalls, or more likely, Encarta).

As far as their acting itself, words fail. Peck's Mengele is so cartoonish - as are all the Nazis here - as to seem to belong in ""Hogan's Heroes"". Portrayals so stereotyped drain away all terror and move things to the level of comedy. Olivier's Lieberman does not help matters; what is supposed to be a portrait of a dedicated Nazi hunter is so shot through with fleeting attempts at Borsch-belt humor as to come off as a poor impersonation of Myron Cohen (..back to Encarta, kids).

The high - or low - point, and the scene which almost makes one believe that humor was the real goal, is the famous party scene, with the ballroom draped in swastikas. Mengele, interrupting Mundt's ""second honeymoon"" dance with his stunningly ugly hag wife, throttling him to the ground on top of the hors d'oeuvres, and Frau Mundt's asking for a doctor only to have Mengele growl 'I AM a doctor, you stupid bitch', puts one in mind of some of the more classic moments from the Three Stooges. Could Mel Brooks have had a hand in this production? Talk about shades of ""Springtime for Hitler"" (""Maytime for Mengele"" ???) !

It is true that what was in 1978 a ridiculously far-fetched plot device, human cloning, has become with the passage of time a frightening possibility. None the less, the idea of a hundred teenaged Xeroxes of Der Fuehrer set to ""go off"" around the Globe is still a concept that seems to have come out of an episode of ""Get Smart"", as does the whacky script.

How so many big names - Peck & Olivier, James Mason, Denholm Elliot, Uta Hagen, and Lilli Palmer - allowed themselves to be bamboozled into the making of this stinker must remain a mystery. Maybe they were paid VERY well. It must be noted that the elegant Lilli Palmer retains her classic beauty even despite the passing of time (she died 8 years after this flick; thank goodness she was able to to redeem herself by making a few more movies).

Having said all these nasty things, it must be conceded that the production values here are extremely high; the movie looks great. Everything is beautifully shot, setting off the on-location scenes wonderfully. But to have all this technical skill employed in the service of such silliness is like the mountain laboring and bringing forth a mouse, as they say.

The movie is worth watching, I suppose, but only if viewed as camp.",0 "I find this movie to be really funny on many, many levels. Sure, I think it's a bit much at times, but there are so many great moments in this movie! Also, it reminds me of my college days as both a punk and a theatre major who partied way too much with way too many weird people like Gnome. I guess it's all this truth that I see within this movie that draws me to it, and I frankly enjoy the inner-dialogs. It's evidence of the naive yet self-centered people we were at the time.

If you're looking for a good movie that doesn't demand too much of your own psyche to understand it, then give this movie a watch - besides, Donal Logue's performance is NOT to be missed! He has the best part in the entire movie.

Does anyone know if they filmed this in Vancouver?",1 "I was telling my kids about this movie yesterday and decided to look for it on the net tonight. I have not seen it since it first aired and I was an 8 year old living a life similar to that boy in the movie. I really love this movie. I can still feel the salty tears running down my face after seeing this as a kid. I would love to find a copy of this movie to show my kids. I did a search for Carousel Films, but I could not find this movie on the companies that came up. Does anyone know where one can find a copy of this movie? This is such a lost treasure of a film. I was so glad to see others comments on how they were touched by this movie and it stayed with them all these years. So if anyone knows how to find a copy please post. Thanks!",1 "I was really impressed. Obviously the pilot had a lot of loot dumped into it, and I imagine that subsequent episodes would have to be scaled back a bit, but ultimately I really enjoyed it.

I am a Smallville fan and I felt like they really nailed the 'Smallville' feel with Aquaman. There is real potential for a great show here. I honestly hope the people at the top reconsider and green light the series.

Miller/Gough have developed a fantastic formula for this type of show. There is a quality to the shows that they work on that is simply missing in other productions.",1 "I am an avid fan of both Anthony Hopkins and Matthew Broderick. Why they chose to do this film is beyond me. While both turn out stellar performances they are wasted in a disjoint story which bounces between multiple subplots -- and it isn't clear which plot is the 'main' plot -- and dubious flashbacks. While sex is an integral component to some of the subplots, its depiction is gratuitous.

The story wanders aimlessly and in the end comes crashing down in flames leaving this viewer burned out and wasted.",0 "I was simply enchanted by seeing this movie. From the beginning till the end, it captivated me. And I must note that Belgian (not French: Belgian, it is quite not the same!) cinema is the best one: remember ""Man Bites Dog"" (French Title: ""C'est arrivé près de chez vous"", means ""it occurred just near your home"")! The authors, worthy heirs of Jacques Tati (""Les Vacances de M. Hulot""/""M. Hulot's Holidays"", ""Mon Oncle""/""My uncle"", ...) , give us a movie full of poetry and refined humor. It is pure fantasy, all you got to do is to let you go to it! Go and see this movie, quickly, and if it does not play in a theatre near you, come and visit Paris or Bruxelles... You'll be able to see it!",1 "Screenwriter Chris Columbus did a good job of explaining the character of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional hero. Why did he become a professional private detective? He was a great student and loved to solve mysteries even while in school. Why did he never get married? Because he lost great first love, killed by his arch-enemy. Why did he always wear that ridiculous cloak and hat? They were trophies taken from his arch-enemy, Professor Moriarty.

Well, this is certainly more exciting and fun than that other ride-on movie on the great detective, The Seven Percent Solution - a dour and put down treatment of Holmes. This one is more to my taste - with a handsome and crafty villain, a murderous secret organization with bloody rites, a pretty love interest and a climactic fencing duel. As with all prequels written by another author,however, some of the details of the new story do not always fit seamlessly with the old. In Conan Doyle's original, Dr. Watson makes it clear that he was meeting Holmes in London for the first time after retiring from service as a surgeon in the Indian Army (Imperial British military during the Raj). But in this movie, it is alleged that they were boyhood chums in grammar school.",1 "giuseppe colizzi was a fine underrated director dead too early that invented the characters of Spencer-Hill. Differently from E.B.Clucher, Hill is more Eastwood-way then Trinità but the substance is the same. Colizzi was a well competent director, more american then italian, with strong sense of spectacule and correct with the particulars. In Italy is very underrated, I don't know why. ""Ace high"" is, probably, his best western. It's also hard to see his movies in tv. You can only see every summertime ""Arrivano Joe e Margherito"", but this is not his best. I hope one day critics rediscover the art of this modest, hard worker artigian of the screen.",1 "Max & Dave Fleischer & co. were among the very best of the creators of novel and surprising applications of animation from the late teens through the entire decade of the 1930's. For ""Poor Cinderella"", they must have noted Disney's stunning ""Flowers And Trees"", produced in 1931 and released the following year. The latter is generally credited as being the first full color process American cartoon, as opposed to two strip color which emphasized either blues or greens at the expense of certain shades that were lost to the lesser and less costly techniques of the day. For budgetary reasons, the ever inventive Fleischer Bros. developed their own ""Cinecolor"" approach, which was a variant on the two-strip color format. Although it apparently never quite caught on, they had applied for a patent while releasing their astoundingly beautiful and hysterically surreal and laugh-laden Boop masterpiece in 1934, the only Betty Boop color cartoon.

Combining their proprietary Rotoscope technique along with other dimension enhancing toolkit tricks, few cartoon shorts have ever matched this effort for sheer entertainment value. They did try saving money on the color, as mentioned, but the whole production was obviously a very expensive endeavor, when all its components are considered in sum. The results offer a lasting tribute to the art and magic of 1930's animation.

As a Depression-era vehicle, good jobs were scarce but the Fleischer team's uproarious talent sported young and brash animators who were willing to push the envelope of sensibilities and censors alike, much to our delight. Even the closing sequence is incredibly absurd, and gems like this will forever prevail.

Betty had already helped launch the Popeye series a year earlier, so by 1934 the Fleischers had their distinctly urban stamp firmly planted under two cartoon banners aimed as much, if not more, at adults as the kids. If that weren't true, they wouldn't have always had to play ""duck and cover"" with the ever-present Hays commission, censor gavel at the ready. Thanks to the Fleischer folks and all involved parties, for the guts, the creative ambition, the sheer genius, and the uncompromising quality of whichever production standards were chosen to collectively coalesce into a cartoon gem for the ages. This is a must see.",1 "Don't know how these good reviews came about. Must have been related to the actors. This is beyond atrocious. Let me count the ways: 1. cringingly over-acted by supposed 'high school' students who look about twenty-five years old. They even ride a little yellow bus to school. Totally absurd. My 5 year old niece has performed ""I'm a Little Teapot"" with more skill. Hell, she's like Brando next to these people. 2. the killer, once revealed, chases the unsuspected 'teens' through a warehouse whilst slowly meandering around taking her old sweet time to do her 'deeds'. Of course the 'teens' can't get away from her despite her slow knife-wielding saunter through the hallways-- she's like Michael Myers with a D cup. (Although that is an insult to Michael Myers.) 3. the 'teens', whilst running from this hideous frightening killer (who wears a snarl like she's posing for her 'high school' picture on a bad hair day), look like they studied acting with cartoon characters right down to the double takes, the ""I want to get away, someones chasing me, but I think I'll stand here and wait for her to come down the hall"", and rounding the corners as if wearing clown shoes. I could go on, but suffice it to say, in a few final words: avoid like the plague. Although even the plague would be preferable.",0 "Once again, Hollywood has managed to lower the benchmark for a bad movie even further. This was such a bad movie that I felt myself constantly looking at my watch. I didn't even have to pay for it - but I still felt as though I had wasted 2 hours of my life.

The plot was terrible, and was so over the place that sometimes it just wasn't clear what was happening. The character development was non-existent. It was not clear why the characters did what they did and why they had become what they were.

**** Little spoiler ahead****

And when Leo went ""wild"", I was totally confused. Why? How? He just sudden;y turned into a savage and started running around the forest making traps and eating bugs. Plus the flash backs to the guy who gave him the map - were they dreams? Drug induced? Or did he have some tropical fever??????

The whole thing was so unrealistic that is was just pathetic. Leo can act, but it seems that all the budget was spent on him, and that they just pulled some backpackers off the street of Bangcok and said ""Do you wanna be in a movie?"". The only redeeming thing about this film was that the cinematograpgy was pretty good.

****Spolier ahead!*****

Another thing that bothered me was the shark scene. I'm sorry, but a whole lagoon would NOT fill up with blood if a shark attacked 2 or 3 people. Plus the shark itself was HORRIBLE! I haven't seen such a bad shark for ages!! The whole theatre laughed!!! It looked like a piece of painted foam. They should have borrowed the ""Jaws"" set from Universal or something.

This movie was so bad that it is not ever worth seeing. It was like MTV meets ""Lord of the Flies"" meets ""Apocolypse Now"" - taking the worst elements of each. You'd be better off using 2 hours of your life in any other way.",0 "I honestly can't believe I sat though this laughable exercise in film-making. I honestly can't think of one thing to commend it. The closest is Ann Sheridan's first stage scene and that's saying a lot considering it lasted all of a couple of minutes. The whole time I was hoping that with such accomplished thespians as Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Ann Sheridan, Bruce Cabot, Victor Jory, Alan Hale (need I go on?), directed by Michael Curtiz no less, something, anything, would elevate this film. I guess I should have known better because with the opening sequence this one began to stink to high heaven. But I kept hoping...

OK, so what's wrong with it? Well it's an encyclopedia of clichés. I suspect the writers scoured every script out there, gathered all the worn-out clichés, and used every one of them in this film. Another way to look at it: if you want to know the worst clichés in moviedom don't look any farther than ""Dodge City"". They're all here a-plenty. What about character development you say? Well, what about it? This movie is made up of a series of one-dimensional characters with little or no depth whose motivations don't go much beyond those of five-year olds.

I could go on and on, find fault with just about every aspect of this film but you get the idea. This one was conceived and produced by five-year olds for five-year olds. Actually I can think of some five-year olds who would think it stupid so enough said.",0 "I remember seeing ""J.T."" when it was originally shown on CBS Saturday, December 13, 1969 (I was then 7 years old); I kept hearing about the show when promos were run during my favorite CBS Saturday morning shows, so I decided to see what all the hype was about. What a nice story it was! (Back in those days it seemed CBS made the best high-quality holiday specials, and ""J.T."" was no exception.)

I also remember later that same day my father (may he rest in peace) took us to a Christmas tree lot in Port Huron, Michigan, where we cut a live tree and took it home to where we lived in Warren. Thus, another nice childhood memory was encoded in this.

In the spring (!) of 1977, I attended Lansing Catholic Central High School in Lansing, Michigan, and had a treat in seeing ""J.T."" during Religion class (they obtained a 16mm film of the show from Carousel Films, Inc. in New York City; back then, VCRs were still in their infancy).

CBS reran ""J.T."" in December 1980 and after that hadn't rerun it again until Thanksgiving Day, 1987; at that time, my family had their first VCR, and I was very lucky to have videotaped the show. Unfortunately, some parts of the tape had ""dropouts"" on it. Then, four years later, CBS reran ""J.T."" for the very last time, on Christmas Day, 1991. I figured that would have been the final rerun, so I was smart to have re-taped the show, and on a better quality videocassette. So I had that tape of ""J.T."" for the next decade until I discovered in late 2001 that Carousel Film and Video (as they now call themselves) still owned the video rights to ""J.T."" They told me the tape sold for $59.99; as with another writer, Carousel told me ""J.T."" was mostly available for educational use, but sold it to me after I explained to them I couldn't locate a commercially produced copy of the tape and that it would be for my own personal use. It was a very wise investment - the copy of ""J.T."" Carousel sent me was unedited (there were two scenes CBS chopped out in order to fit the time slot when they last ran it involving Helen Martin, Pearl on ""227,"" as a neighbor in the building where J.T. lived who complained about him playing the radio loudly), was hi-fi encoded, and best of all, had NO commercial interruptions!

And who would have thought back in 1969 that Kevin Hooks would not only go on to become a major actor but a director as well (Hooks recently directed ""Fled"" and ""Black Dog""), and that Ja'net Du Bois, Theresa Merritt, and Holland Taylor would go on to major stardom? (Ja'net DuBois went on to play Willona Woods on ""Good Times,"" Theresa Merritt starred with Clifton Davis in ""That's My Mama"" and starred on Broadway in ""Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"" shortly before she passed away in late 2001, and Holland Taylor recently appeared in several TV movies.) And thanks to the other writer who clarified this - I wondered if that was the same Jane Wagner (who wrote the script for ""J.T."") who became Lily Tomlin's writing partner. Turns out she was.

So I would encourage anyone who wishes to get ""J.T."" contact Carousel Film and Video in New York; it's certainly worth the steep price if you want to see this special again in its original, uncut form. Besides, who knows if and when CBS will ever rerun ""J.T."" again?

And Carousel Film and Video, if anyone on your staff is reading this I hope you'll PLEASE see about putting ""J.T."" on DVD very soon. A great special like this deserves to be digitally remastered for a new generation!",1 "I had some expectations that this film would be at least tolerable. However, shortly into the film, which I only paid $4 to see, the disappointments began to appear on the screen. I enjoy Kal Penn, and was hoping that he'd be able to continue his humorous Taj character from the first film. In this movie, there may have been a couple humorous parts that I chuckled at, but the minimal laughter that I expressed was usually directed at the complete absurdity of the plot. The plot was very, very similar to the first film. The few differences that I noticed were that it was in a different location, and the prime players of the film were altered. I would further explain the similarities, but do not wish to ruin it for anyone who still has the desire to view this film for some reason. The jokes seemed forced, the plot was unoriginal, as stated prior, and the movie overall had no purpose in being released to the theaters. The film, also, has little reason to ever be released to DVD; however, inevitably when it is, a price of more than $1.05 is too expensive. The one somewhat positive aspect of the film was that there were attractive females throughout, but I still was very upset that I paid to see this film.",0 "Well, it's prettily photographed ... but that's about all I can think of to say for it. It's based on one of those derivative novels - this time Stevenson's classic novella ""Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde"" as seen by his parlourmaid(!) the eponymous Mary Reilly. Possibly she is superwoman in disguise because she seems to run an enormous Edinburgh house more or less single-handed (the other household staff, all four of them, don't appear do anything very useful about the place). This includes cleaning, washing-up, gardening (converting the stone-flagged yard of an Edinburgh town house?!) while running all over Edinburgh on errands for Dr Jekyll for whom she nurses an ill-concealed passion. The dialogue is dreadful; banality separated by long meaningless pauses to spin this tosh out to what seems an interminable length. My sister and I watched it on DVD ... she said ""can't you fast forward it?"" I replied ""I *am* fast forwarding it!"" If you have the misfortune to come across this, do something more interesting like stare at the wallpaper.",0 "John Badham (""Stakeout"", ""Bird on a Wire"", ""The Hard Way"", Short Circuit"", ""Blue Thunder"" and ""War Games""), yes John Badham, directed this semi-cult film about disco king Tony Manero (John Travolta), a hardware man by day, at night (especially Saturday night) a guru on the dance floor who can boogie down like no other.

Travolta sure can dance, and his smooth moves will either bring back fond memories, or leave you laughing in the aisles. So too the fashions, with the silky shirts, bell bottoms and platforms all looking hilariously ridiculous. There are, however, few other positives, except perhaps the Bee Gees' groovy soundtrack, with such hits as ""Stayin' Alive"" and ""More Than a Woman"".

Backdrop to this 70's hype is a drama involving Tony's gang, family traumas and his pursuit of a beautiful and sophisticated dancer named Stephanie (Karen Lynn Gorney). All this remains in the background as John Badham does not allow Norman Wexler's script to develop in any way, and some very interesting characters, who appear to be real people, are not allowed to come to life. A real shame, as ""Saturday Night Fever"" could have been a strong melodrama, with some potentially solid performances just crying out to be given equal time.

Badham decided that disco fever would carry the movie alone, and at the time, it was a most shrewd decision. Sixteen years on, the same is not true, and most audiences will find ""Saturday Night Fever"" a bit silly, drab and even somewhat crass.

Saturday, September 17, 1994 - Valhalla Cinema",0 "This is an excellent Jackie Chan film that gets too little credit and too much criticism. This movie is just plain FUN--Chan as twin brothers separated at birth who reunite many years later in Hong Kong, just in time to get crossed up in a nasty mess with vicious gangsters...how can you not love this? In addition to using the wonderful plot premise of twins (and two Jackie Chans is definitely better than one), there's some great action choreography in this movie, including some nice big explosions, and what has to be one of the best uses ever conceived of for a Mitsubishi factory.

The ""psychic link"" between the twin Chans is used to great effect as well, in everything from the hilarious conducting scene, to the subtly painful groin shot during the auto factory fight.

And the ending? Is simply brilliant.

I definitely recommend this understated, oft-overlooked gem to all Chan fans.",1 "I recently have had the fortunate (unfortunate?) opportunity of watching the full, uncut version of ""Bring It On"" on my dorm's free movie channel. For some reason, I must have blocked out any evidence of this movie's existence from my mind as soon as I heard of it four years ago. I say this because as I cannot remember this major movie's release at all.

It might as well have stayed that way, because this is a horrible movie. One might look at a trailer for a cheerleader movie and go, ""What a boring concept. This is probably going to be a boring, flat movie."" Well, that person would be completely correct.

To sum up the plot of ""Bring It On,"" I would have to say there isn't much of one. The primary story revolves around a cheer competition, and apparently the cheer team's old leader stole all of their routines from an inner city school. This means they have to come up with a new routine from scratch with the competition right around the corner, or suffer humiliation.

As gripping as that sounds, it's pretty hard to feel compassion for the protagonists. There isn't anything riding on the idea that ""they must win,"" and the characters seem cliché at best. Kirsten Dunst plays the new head cheerleader with a strong sense of justice, Eliza Dushku is the new recruit ""bad girl,"" and the rest have typical valley girl accents and attitudes. The friction between Eliza and the rest of the girls seems to disappear quickly into the movie for no reason, and after that, the whole team is pretty uniformly uninteresting.

The worst part of the movie would have to be the ""rival"" cheer team that they had stolen all their dance routines from. I am shamed at the women who played those roles, because they've set back minorities 30 years at least. The wise-talking, street-fighting, finger-snapping group of African Americans and other minorities are a walking satire of hip-hop culture.

The biggest surprise of the movie is when I found out that it's a comedy. The reason that's a surprise is because it's not funny. There are a few cute moments, but I wouldn't say there were any guffaw-worthy scenes. A few jokes I concede that I enjoyed. ""Those aren't spirit fingers. THESE are spirit fingers.""

There is a bright side to this movie, though shallow it very much is. In every single scene, they somehow manage to get Kirsten Dunst in very telling and alluring outfits. They somehow manage to accentuate her breasts in every part of the movie without having to show cleavage most of the time. That being said, the highlight of the movie for me was the carwash scene where Eliza and Kirsten both were covered in soap-lather while wearing small bikinis. Honestly, moments like that were the only thing that kept me awake through the movie.",0 "Have previously enjoyed Wesley Snipes in several action flicks and I had expected a lot more, even from a score of 5.8 IMDb, the movie fails to entertain and even though the story is thin and unoriginal, the acting is most unfortunately thinner and goes to mimic a ""worst case scenario"" of playing ""strong"" feelings accompanied by some bad acting... Don't waist your time this movie ísnt entertaining, if you wanna cry it might suffice though, even though your tears will be wept due to seeing Wesley Snipes in the tragic action film wannabe comedy...

I give this 2/10 it really was awful, if you wanna see a decent movie go see shooter or rent it, its all the good things this movie isn't.",0 "Kenneth Branagh's poor attempt at making a film of Mary Shelley's 19th century novel 'Frankenstein' fails to give across the message that Shelley's world famous creation manages to do. The adaptation mostly follows the line of the book with the enthusiastic Professor Frankenstein who is determined to create life after his mother dies giving birth his younger brother. Despite the fact the film is based on the book it lacks the ability to ""truly curdle the blood"".

Isn't the film supposed to be a horror? Although the makeup done by Daniel Parker, Paul Engelen and Carol Hemming was pretty frightening, the film never really gave me that spine-shiver that is expected from a horror. It lacks that sense of darkness and suspense. When expecting an ending that was similar to the book's, it is very surprising to find that Branagh has changed it. The gory scene of the monster ripping Elizabeth's heart out is then followed by a laughable failure of the zombie-like Elizabeth running through the house in flames. Despite the effect's this is unrealistic and whole house is a blaze in less then a minute! There are many great actors in the film such as the multi-talented Kenneth Branagh who both directs and stars in the film, Robert De-Niro who plays the distraught creature, Tom Hulce who plays Henry Clerval (Frankenstein's closest friend) and Helena Bonham Carter who plays Elizabeth, but this still doesn't bring the film to life. Branagh's attempt of the science-obsessed professor Victor Frankenstein is first seen in the cold blizzards of the Arctic wearing a frosted fur coat. He is taken aboard by Captain Robert Walton (Aidan Quinn) and begins to narrate his life, first as a youngster and then how he came to make his hideous creation. His Frankenstein is dramatic and over-acted but doesn't bring out the enthusiasm of Victor Frankenstein described in the novel. Hugely contrasted to Branagh's attempt of Frankenstein is Robert De Niro's superb performance of the creature. His performance conveys the feelings that the creature is described to have such as hate for Victor Frankenstein and lots of sadness. The way he portrays the creature really allows the audience to feel sympathy for Frankenstein's creation.

The music seems to play throughout the whole film and is as annoying as Kenneth Branagh's loud and over the top acting. Patrick Doyle's music doesn't give the film any suspense, instead it leaves the audience trying to concentrate on the rest of the adaptation. Also it is hard trying to concentrate when the film is constantly switching from scene to scene, and it's jumpy camera is making you dizzy.

The book's sophisticated language appears very simplified as many of the words and some of the language from the book is not used, but this allows the audience to understand more of the story. However maybe if Branagh had tried less to change it and had used more of the original dialogue and narrative, the film could be more interesting and therefore hold the interest of the viewing audience longer.

In the scene after Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) has brought the creature to life. Frankenstein is lying in his bed, he awakes from a bad dream and the monster appears in a flash of lighting. Everybody knows this cliché from any traditional horror movie! Branagh should have paid more attention to the detail in the book and possibly produced a film much more true to it's title and not the farce that was created.

Despite the fact that there are many unimpressive sections of the film there is undoubtedly some parts which will entertain the audience, such as the making of the monster. When Frankenstein is stitching and bringing the monster together there is a sense of realism and anticipation. This bit was enjoyable but unfortunately this short interlude of excitement lasted no more then 5 minutes and soon returned to it's dull but laughable self.",0 "Blood Dolls starts as eccentric billionaire computer developer businessman Virgil Travis (Jack Maturin) discovers he has lost a billion dollars after losing a legal battle leaving him financially ruined, obviously not best pleased about losing a billion dollars he sets out to kill his competitors who made it happen as well as the corrupt judge. In his spare time Virgil has also created horrible little killer dolls to do his bidding, first George Warbeck (Nicholas Worth) & Mercy Shaw (Jodie Coady) are taken care off then Virgil turns his attentions to Harrison Yulin (Warren Draper) & his scheming wife Moira (Debra Mayer) who just happens to be a dominatrix... Has Virgil met his match at last?

Written, produced & directed by Charles Band & made under his Full Moon company this is yet another killer toy flick one maybe cynically would suggest is more interested in starting a new line of collectible toys than entertaining. Band has experience in the killer toy genre, Dolls (1987) & Puppet Master (1989) & it's sequels, unfortunately Blood Dolls is terrible in pretty much every way. The story is absolutely none existent, seriously there is no story to speak of or worth mentioning at all. It's just a few random scenes cobbled together more than a coherent film. There are some really bizarre things in Blood Dolls, for instance a four girl rock band who Virgil keeps locked in a cage & has them perform songs at regular intervals for no apparent reason. The fact that Virgil has an extremely small head, there's absolutely no reason for it & it looks stupid but it's here anyway. The fact that Virgil's servants consist of a guy in clown make-up & a dwarf add another unusual spin on proceedings without ever making any sense in their own right. Then there's the fact that Moira is a dominatrix, the film comes alive when she goes into mistress mode & abuses her husband & her scenes are the only reason I'm giving Blood Dolls 3 stars instead of 1. Unfortunately her dominatrix scenes are few & far between & once her husband is killed off she becomes 'normal' as it were & the film then dies a slow painful death. There's also a pointless double ending like in Clue (1985) where one thing happens & then an alternative it could have also happened like this ending is shown which just makes the whole film even more pointless.

Director Band was obviously working on a low budget, the doll effects are poor & they have little movement. There's hardly any blood or gore, someone gets bashed over the head with a lifting weight, someone gets a scalpel in the eye, a guy is killed when wires dig into his flesh & a drill burrows into someones chest with lots of blood splatter. Otherwise this is virtually bloodless. There's nothing here scary, there's no atmosphere or tension & the story sucks. Apart from a few fun scenes with Moira as a dominatrix Blood Dolls has nothing going for it & is utterly forgettable. Even the dolls themselves are bland & look cheap, none of them stand out as being 'cool' or particularly threatening.

Technically the film is basic, it appears to be shot in the same few rooms & the special effects consist of nothing more than a few plastic dolls moving their arms & heads. Every so often the rock group perform a song, they can't sing & all I can say is thank god for the mute button! The acting is OK, dominatrix Debra Mayer steals every scene shes in.

Blood Dolls is a cheap, poor, plot less attempt at starting another killer toy franchise by Charles Band, do yourself a big favour & watch Puppet Master, Dolls or Child's Play (1988) again instead. Apart from Mayer's dominatrix scenes this is pretty damned bad & as far as I'm concerned has nothing going for it.",0 "Disjointed horror film that was made from a heist film that was cut apart and had new scenes added. It has something to do about a zombified people going around killing. The original film was a crime caper film about a jewel heist. Watching the film for the first time in years, and for the first time without commercials I found it to be an absolute disaster area of a film. Its awful. Its films like this that make me hate Al Adamson films because they are such patchwork messes with new and old footage mingling freely. After listening to the commentary on the DVD I have to temper my criticism of the film since its clear that the scenes from the original heist film were actually really good. Had that film been released (it couldn't get released because it had no stars) I'm pretty certain that it would have had a nice reputation and Adamson might have gone on not to be a hack. The trouble was that Adamson was willing to sell his film short and shoot and reshoot and cut apart the heist film. Producer Sam Sherman who does the commentary takes the blame for ruining the film with the re-cuts and rewrites. The film as it stands now seems to be about four films blended together, which is about right since the heist, the cops, the zombie and what ever else all seem to be in different films made at different times. Sherman in his commentary said the film plays better with commercials and he ain't kidding. Watching this on TV you can blame the station for hacking it up, however seeing it sans commercials you realize what a nightmare it is. Awful",0 "***SPOILERS*** Owing much to Edgar Allan Poe (as do several of his ""budget"" pictures), Val Lewton's production of ISLE OF THE DEAD has it all: the fear of premature burial, the fear of contagion, the fear of the undead; the fear of madness... Center stage (which is exactly where he belonged all along) is Boris Karloff. Not for the final time does he steal the show in a Lewton production. Hardened by the horrors of war (including the plague that follows close on its heels), his character is driven to the brink of... Well, see for yourself. Suffice it to say that the ""Lewton unit"" strikes gold again. As absorbing (and as unique) as its predecessors, ISLE OF THE DEAD belongs among the first rank of fright films.",1 "I watched this movie today for about 15-th time. I'm never bored with it. A few hours ago I felt lonely and depressed.I decided to watch it without the scenes that evoke sadness.And even though I watched it so many times before I found it restorative and heart lifting. There are many good films.Also there are probably many better than this one;cause it's not flawless. But if you believe that a movie can change your life, I have no doubts that this one can influence you as no other. If you have not watched it yet, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? Go to the video rentals and buy it.Yes, don't rent it but buy it.It's a movie that you will watch many times.Perhaps it will even save you..As it had saved me..",1 "This is a good thriller with some very shocking scenes. It boasts several interesting characters which I found pretty believable. James Woods is Lloyd Hopkins a police detective who tries to catch a serial killer whose prey are young, „innocent"" women. Hopkins has a kind of a fixation on this type of female (not unlike the Russel Crowe character in L.A. confidential). He thinks they have to be „cured"" of this innocence at the earliest possible age and accordingly tells his own little daughter the gruesomest possible bedtime stories (a great scene with a great little child actress). Hopkins' wife says he is a disturbed person, and one has to agree with her.

In the course of the investigation Hopkins finds out that the owner of a feminist bookstore, Kathleen McCarthy, played by Lesley Ann Warren, is in some way linked to the serial killer. Hopkins, of course, hates feminists but somehow, for the sake of the investigation, he gets into a relationship with McCarthy. This leads to a hilarious „foreplay"" conversation with an ending that makes you rock with laughter. But real tragedy is never far away and even if the feminist character is a rather blunt caricature, her actions and her reasoning are an essential and convincing part of the story.

A further interesting point for me was the reference to „born-agains"". They are not involved in the crime of this movie but seem to dominate the higher echelons in the police hierarchy. Hopkins' partner warns him about them and tells him that he is at the top of their „to retire"" list because of his shaky family life. Hopkin's superior is a known born again (I go to church on Sunday and to prayer meetings three times a week, but for the rest of the time I put God out of my mind, he says something like that). It is a very good and sensible performance by Raymond J. Barry as it does not, like in the case of the feminist, revert to stereotype. That captain seems to be strict but correct, acknowledging the talents of Hopkins and criticizing his failings in a fair if tight lipped way. He puts Hopkins on suspension which leads to a violent ending many reviewers seem to appreciate.

The production values and the pacing of this movie are above average, it delivers action and leaves time for introspection on different levels. I wish Al Pacino had had a look at this movie before he starred in Insomnia.",1 "This film is about the minutiae of office work as experienced by four female office workers.

It is a film without a single redeeming feature. It was so bad and so boring, that it was fascinating. For all those that believe office work and office life is largely pointless and the ultimate in tedium and boredom, this film will confirm it.

Why was it made, and how did its makers ever raise the funds?",0 "Pure garbage. After watching this garbage I couldn't wait to see how much bashing it got on this site. I was wrong...most people actually praise this movie...why?

The plot is so random and small (alien mother and her offspring invade a farm house) that it constantly has characters talking about nothing just to fill time. I mean what was the scene with the uncle and nephew about? why was the uncle such a loser? they didn't even show him get killed. What was the point of adding that blond fat bimbo into the plot ten minutes before the movie ended? She didn't even look attractive. The effects are so bad, there not fun gory, just groan gory. The acting is irritating, I wanted everyone to die in this movie quickly.

The editing and direction in this movie are non existent..as for example whenever it wants it will show random shots of hands moving things and random shots of characters faces for no reason. Wait, I did see a quick sense of style which was one quick zoom in shot of wall socket..wow that's exciting as it gets.

The only cool deaths in this movie are the farm wife getting her face much-ed on and head chomping that will make u burst with laughter. Didn't see that one coming, I'll give it credit for that.

The score is so low key and generic that I really can't remember much about it...not very effective...even for a ludicrous b-movie like this. The dialog is so moronic and the actors are all un attractive.

I'm a huge fan of really bad movies (HellGate, Texas Chiansaw massacre the next generation, Troll 2, and Slumber Party massacre 2 have all made it to my collection and i love watching them) but this movie is too boring..maybe if it was a 15 min short it wouldn't be so bad...not a movie that trys to stretch itself for an hour and 20 mins...the ending was a crap fest also. Nice effects on that one.

zero stars out of ****",0 "My first concern was ""The children! My god, what about the children?!"". But as Drew Carey says ""F*ck the children!"".

And well we might by the time this documentary is done. From a liberal, secular humanist point-of-view, this movie keeps interest high by small amounts of conservative ranting interspersed with large amounts of liberal ranting (of course much more thoughtful, factual and balanced), animation and news clips too true yet too bizarre.

If there's a star here, it's Ice-T, with a strong assist by Pat Boone.

I'm not sure where you'll ever get to see it, but it's a must-see on this cultural journey most of us travel, willing or not.",1 "Highly under-rated British comedy with many memorable characterisations, not a bad script, and a wonderful feel-good factor.

John Alderton is pretty much faultless as Hedges - this is fine comic acting.

Especially enjoyable if you grew up in the 1970s. Standout sequence for me is when Hedges (and we) think 5c have gone to bed for the night and he heads off to the pub with Price... only to bump into his pupils there. Nicely done.

Other amusing sequences also, and I can sum up the film using an expression of Dennis's (one of the characters)... ""Yeah! Double NEAT!!""",1 "Much of the problem with Art School Confidential lies with the character of Jerome. Clowes writes graphic novels, and the main character he's written here is simply a cartoon figure with no depth to speak of. He falls much too fast from his ambition of becoming the world's greatest artist to someone willing to compromise his talent for the sake of coming in first in a college competition. Granted, he is pliable, aping whoever he happens to be with at the moment—it's Bardo one moment, star alumnus Marvin Bushmiller (Adam Scott) the next— and adopting the bitter, nihilistic rantings of failed artist Jimmy (Jim Broadbent) as if those beliefs were his own. This might all be interesting if Jerome was, say, the type of troubled, seeking boy that Minghella played in Bee Season. Sadly he is not, and though Minghella is a fine actor, there's not a lot he can do with what is essentially a stick figure.

That's not to say that Art School Confidential is completely worthless. Malkovich (who also produced) is very funny, and so is Broadbent, but mostly this feels like the type of comedy Jerome's roommate Vince might someday make: overly broad, obvious, and very self- conscious. It wants to be cool, it wants to be hip, but like Jerome in his quest to be the next Picasso, it's merely clueless.",0 "Based on an autobiographical novel by Erling Jepsen, this drama/black comedy of a dysfunctional family takes place in southern Denmark close to the German border in the early 70'es. Jesper Asholt plays the family patriarch, a whining grocer, who has a hard time coping with changing times and family patterns. As a result, he constantly threatens his wife and kids that he'll commit suicide. While his wife escapes reality with sedatives, his young son Allan is determined to keep his father from killing himself. As his dad is only truly happy when he gets to deliver tearful speeches at local funerals, Allan sees no other option than to make sure there are plenty of funerals for his father to attend... If you think you know where this is going, watch this movie anyway, as it's got plenty of surprises and twists, changing from black comedy to heartbreaking drama, with some shattering, almost unbearably intense, albeit discreet, scenes of child abuse. Made with care, a genuine feel for time and place and destined to become a modern classic. Truly unforgettable, and an impressive feature debut for director Peter S. Fog.",1 "One of the 2 films i manage to catch during the German film fest w my friend is The Edukators, incidentally both films has this actor Daniel Bruhl in it. The Edukators started off w 3 young adults who are very involved in protesting for their rights and opposing capitalism in their country, trying their own ways to influence the country into listening to their voices. Other than protesting on the streets, the 2 guys have another way of showing their capability in influencing the society. By breaking into rich houses and re-arranging the furnitures without taking anything and leaving a note saying 'The Days of Plenty Are Over'. One of the couple are lovers to start off with and slowly the plot reveals that the other guy acted by Daniel likes the girl too and started to involve her into their nite activities which ended in a very awkward manner: The owner came back! During this part of the film, i was getting a little bit irritated already due to the girl's clumsiness and inability to heed instructions. Then i slowly realise that actually this is the point the plot starts to become really really interesting and will end w a simply great twist. Dun really wanna reveal too much of the ending but highly recommended to watch this film for reasons like the great Germany hillside sceneries (beautiful!), cute actors (ok, towards the end of the film, i switched from liking Daniel to really liking Stipe Erceg (the chiselled-chin guy)), funny funny one-liners, and of course a fantastic ending. Overall a great German film not to be missed!",1 "... it's difficult to conceive of a way in which this film doesn't fail, be it the writing, the acting, the direction, the lead girl's lisp and eyebrows or the music. My God, especially the music.

Strangely banned in the UK until 2002, I picked this up in a bargain bin for £1 after thinking it looked dreadful and fancied a night of junk viewing. I wasn't disappointed, the only remaining mystery being why it was banned in the first place. Far from being shocking or distressing, it's merely flaccid and irrelevant.

In many ways Curfew is like a ""Funny Games"" with all the wit, talent and inspiration taken out. However, the exploitative elements lack any real meaning and are showcased in a generic, derivative plot. This very 80s movie really is the bottom of the heap and completely devoid of any merit, other than the fact that it ends.",0 "We're back in the Great Valley again, and this time the haven is disrupted when the water that feeds it stops flowing. Instead of trying to discover the cause, all the dinosaurs stand about arguing and watch as their beloved valley gradually dries up and eventually catches fire. No wonder this lot died out. Eventually another quest plot kicks in and an avalanche of parental advice and anti-bullying sentiment ensues, the soppy moralising about sharing and working together more than living up to the film's nauseating title. It's all very well intentioned, I guess, but the cutesy-poo tone and irritating characters ensure there's nothing to engage any adults nagged into watching it.",0 "Have you ever seen an Asian horror movie with BLACK HAIR????? I haven't this was the first =D=D=D=D=D.

OK I lied... almost all have the element of long hair doing this and that.

If you're a little teen liking seeing horror movies for the first time in your little life then OK, I do get it.

On the positive side the cinematography is good. This is not a micro-budget -dv movie...

I didn't get scared even once. I thought horror movies were supposed to make feel nausea and scare so that sh*t in your pants.

Not this one... luckily I didn't pay for this one as my friend rented this one \o/.

Next time is my turn.

I think that these horror movies have turned quite a bit more non-scary when I stopped smoking hashish and weed prior to the experience few years ago. For some strange reason I remember what's going on =D.

It's not bad, but it's not great... or maybe I'm a tired man who don't feel nothing no more.

And I do hate christians and religion =D.

I know what is wrong with these movies... the pattern to scare you is always the same. Silence broken by fast movement of some unnatural effect accommodated with lots of bass... the sounds are also so convergent in all these movies. It is like as if these movies don't take risks of any kind and take the people watching for granted...

I mean I'd like to see some really disturbing stuff... I think that I could make a really disturbing movie. Something in the vain of modern Exorcist crossed with old Italo-horror. Also taking utter violence, and making bodies look real... I mean bodies hardly ever look real in movies.

I DEMAND ULTRAVIOLENCE AND UNLIMITEDHORROR NOT SOME TEEN CRAP!!!! =D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D WHERE'S THE BLACK METAL FEELING?",0 "Well what can I say about this film, its an utterly gripping mob movie without having to indulge in the grandeur of a scorsese/de niro mob movie. This Flannery gang are white knuckeld hoodlums who would shoot before they even spare a thought, even their own flesh & blood.

The true revelation in this film is Gary Oldman-what an actor! I don't know if I've ever seen such a realistically sociopathic performance from another actor in any other film- its chilling you just don't know what he'll do next but one thing you do know is that someone is going to get seriously hurt. Sean penn is excellent as undercover cop noonan and Ed Harris is another revelation as the colder than ice boss.

If you like mob movies, crime thrillers, heck just watch this movie. Your in for one hell of a ride.",1 "This movie screened at the 5th Melbourne Underground Film Fest and I gotta admit! I got sucked in by the title! But the movie held up as well. Entertaining, engaging characters and convincing cast. Sexy women too!Sometimes all the crazy antics were hard to keep track of and sometimes the camera was a little too hand held,..but the film held together through its sheer energy. The film has that much visual color it is almost overwhelming, the camera never stops moving and the characters never stop scheming. My prediction is keep an eye out for this director.""Bitch"" is pulsing with ambition and confidence. This director is going to pull off something even bigger in the future..",1 "After hearing rave reviews of Loving Annabelle, I rented the film without realizing the plot involved a teacher and an under-aged teenage girl. I thought the story was between a teacher and a college student, in other words between two consenting adults. True, this film is fiction. Yes, these situations happen. It is not enjoyable watching an adult take sexual advantage over a child. I watched the film hoping for redemptive quality; instead, I stopped the film when they kissed passionately because it was evident that the plot progressed beyond the point of no return. That was not a scene between two consenting adults, rather between a teenage girl and an adult woman. Am I the only one who was deeply disturbed by the lack of responsibility of the teacher in the film?

Like most young teenage lesbians, I had huge crushes on teachers, camp counselors and Girl Scout leaders. To their credit, they never crossed that boundary between teacher and student. Over the past 20 years, working as teachers at various camps, I have experienced crushes from blossoming baby dykes. As the adult in the situation, I have tremendous obligation as a teacher, role model and a sister to these young women, not to take advantage of the situation. Yes, egos are stroked with adoration, but it's never appropriate to reciprocate the feelings. Mentors are looked up to and entrusted with inmost secrets, feelings and thoughts. It is not an opportunity to exploit, but to lead and guide. It is never acceptable simply because the student makes the first move.

If the teacher in the film were instead a man, would perceptions and opinions of the film be different? I draw the line with entertainment that includes adult and under-aged sex even when it's packaged as a lesbian love story. In this world of perceived animosity toward gays and lesbians as pedophiles and promiscuous, films such as this perpetuate the myth that gays and lesbians cannot control their passions, and as such do a great disservice to us all.

Two thumbs down for me.",0 "How any Chuck Norris movie can be called ""good"" is beyond me. First and foremost, Chuck is a poor actor then and now. This movie doesn't have just a bad part, it is a bad part. And I will say, Chuck's later movies were actually better. Maybe because the scripts were better??? 'Cause his acting certainly wasn't. (Sorry, Chuck. You just don't have ""it"".) I recommend skipping this one unless you are a die-hard fan. (Does Chuck have any??) At least some must exist since this movie got a score above 2. Come on, be realistic, people. One or two ""catch phrases"" does not a movie make. One or two martial arts favorites also doesn't qualify to make this movie worth seeing. --Again, unless you are a die-hard fan.-- I found this movie trivial and unentertaining. I realize we're not looking for Oscar quality in an early martial arts film (especially an American one from the 1980s), but bad is bad and this movie is BAD.",0 "If you're the sort of person who enjoys being depressed, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith is the film for you. A short summary of the film is as follows. Young half aboriginal/half white boy is raised by a white Christian family. As he goes off to find a job, he discovers that every white person in the world is actually a racist. He tries to get over this fact by trying to lose his 'black soul', and become more like a white man. He is constantly cheated and laughed at by his white employers. Of course there is only one thing a decent person can possibly do when faced with this. He goes and chops up a couple of women and young girls with an axe. Sound fun so far? Well it gets better anyway, but I won't give away the whole plot in case you actually want to watch the movie. Of course one might say, but isn't the message important? Well, no. It is true that Aborigines were generally considered inferior at the time, and that there was some racism going on. But this film ruthlessly exaggerates it to prove a point, which appears to be that white society is a corrupter of black people. Leaving aside the negative storyline and the political point-scoring, however, the acting is fairly decent, and score is alright too. Apart from that, don't bother watching this.",0 Battle Cry - from beer to eternity- this Raoul Walsh directed ode to the marines is a long slog-148 minutes- and most of it is spent following the marines on liberty and their love lives.Some of it works- Aldo Ray is surprisingly effective as big lumberjack who falls for the New Zealand gal - but for the most part this overwrought melodrama follows lesser lights like Tab Hunter.Based on a script by Leon M. Uris and featuring a score by Max Steiner this movie is over-sentimental and a middling soap opera.James Whitmore does a good job as Mac the Sargent and Raymond Massey is fine in his cameo as a general-but for the most part this is a less glamorous and more plodding retake on the From Here to Eternity vibe.The DVD has a trailer and text retrospective on Walsh's directorial career.Avoid this like a landmine. C-,0 "Okay, so people might think I'm crazy for voting this 10 out of 10. The usual response and comment everywhere I look seems to be a negative one. But I was sitting here the other night, we just moved into a new house. I love the new environment, and I was ready for the new year. I was up late, as always, and this movie came on TBS. I had just watched Clueless with Alicia in, and I thought if I could stay awake long enough, I would watch this. I love Walken and Silverstone, but had never seen Toro in much. So I started watching it. I thought at first it was funny, hilarious, and enthralling. The way the girl tied herself up and put herself in the trunk, and was extorting her dad for money. I first thought she really wanted the money. Then I figured out it didn't matter, she wanted attention. It was a cry for help. Then I see sexy del Toro steal the car and freak out when he opened the trunk and saw her in there. The scene where Uncle Ray (Walken) saw she framed her fire news article...was hilarious and brilliant. And the scene at Knotty Pines where she said ""you don't have to be drunk to kiss me""...and he said ""I'm not drunk""...absolutely brilliant. Not too much love scene, then the scene the next morning by the lake was touching. I loved it whenever he's talking to her dad, and he says, ""Are you telling me I've only known this girl two days and already I care more about her than you do?"" Wonderful. And the scene at the end of the movie...I TOTALLY knew he was in the trunk. And they're sitting there in the trunk and he says ""what a view""..she says ""What makes it a view?"" he says ""You"" and then Dave Matthews starts playing ""Crash Into Me""...perfect song, then he goes to kiss her and he does that ""come on, come on, come on, come on, come on"" thing...and they close the trunk. Perfect ending. Okay, so I loved the movie. I think that's clear. But if any person watched this and hated it, they need to go back and watch it again without thinking too hard about it. You won't hate it then!",1 "This slimy creature-feature starts '80s teen hit C. Thomas Howell. Scientists have created genetically altered giant ants in a bizarre experiment which backfires terribly as the creatures go on a kill-crazy rampage. It turns into a world where giant insects run rampant. Survivors barricade themselves in a skyscraper in an attempt to avoid the roaming menace, but even that's no guarantee of safety. Its a little bloody, not gory enough for my taste though. A thoroughly entertaining B-movie; GLASS TRAP was directed by cult horror director Fred Olen Ray who also directed ""HOLLYWOOD CHAINSAW HOOKERS"" Another one of my favorites.",1 "I really wish I could give this movie lower than one star. It is an insulting follow-up to one of the best modern films noir ever made. I was initially intrigued when I saw the title, and I expected an ample follow-up to Bridget Gregory's antics. I was sorely disappointed to see none of the original cast in the credits, but persevered nonetheless; maybe it still had merit, I hoped. My disappointment spiraled downward to mild anger that anyone would waste time making such an offensively inferior ""sequel"" as this one. It really was soft-core porn; I fully expected the two women with larger roles to contrive some way to get it on. Ugh.

I wonder if the actors in this one can salvage their careers?",0 "Maybe I liked it better because I haven't seen a stage production or most of the 1936 movie. (I just saw the ""Ol' Man River"" and ""Can' Help Lovin' Dat Man"" sequences from that movie.) But still, this version really wasn't so bad taken just by itself. Even if Ava Gardner is sexier than anyone intended Julie to be, she is still great and truly heartbreaking in the later sequences. Her renditions of ""Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man"" and ""Bill,"" with th help of Annette Warren's dubbed-in vocals, manage to be sultry and yet very tender, too. (Indeed on the soundtrack, Ava herself shows us she didn't have a bad voice in outtakes of her singing those songs.) True, the romance between Katharine Grayson and Howard Keel isn't very interesting, and except for ""Make Believe,"" you'll have to yawn through most of their numbers since you can't understand either one of them. But that's more than made up for by fine performances of the Kern-Hammestein score, (except those which are noted). ""Ol' Man River"" is still extremely powerful and moving, even if the man singing it has a non-existent role in the proceedings, even if he isn't Paul Robeson, and even if it's missing parts. Marge and Gower Champion are in fine form in their numbers, and you can't help but smile during ""Life Upon the Wicked Stage,"" when Marge wears skirts hiked higher than Aly McBeal's... in the 50s! And then there's ""Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man,"" ""Bill,"" and ""Make Believe."" Perhaps in comparison to its predeccesors it' horrible, but maybe it isn't so bad if you jus take it for itself.",1 "I have used IMDb for years to look up movies. I have never been compelled to write about one. But I must warn anyone thinking about watching this movie. Please for God's sake, find another movie. I cannot begin to describe how boring this movie is. I rented it because the actors in it are normally first rate, well they were terrible and the directing was ridiculous. It's still on here at my house, it is near the end, and I could care less about how it ends. I just wasted 2 hours of my life, it feels like a day and a half, or a half a day depending on what scene I am watching. Shoot me now. The premise is that an FBI agent is protecting a young boy from the mafia family that his father worked for. The boys family was killed by the mafia and the FBI agent was semi-responsible because he was protecting the boys family before the father testified against the mafia. However, one of the FBI agents friends leaks the info to the mafia family, thus the family is killed but they missed the boy. This premise could have made for a riveting and action packed movie, it is neither, it is packed with meaningless dialog, scenes that are unnecessary and forgetful characters.",0 "A previous reviewer compared The Fantastic Journey to shows like Stargate SG-1 and Sliders. He listed 8 similarities between the shows. He should have listed a 9th. Which show, you ask? What about Lost? You have a doctor, (Fred in TFJ, Jack in Lost), a psychic, (Liana in TFJ, Desmond in Lost,) a man of faith, (Varian in TFJ, and Locke, in Lost,) see the similarities? If you don't, I do. In TFJ, you have a scientific expedition lost in the Bermuda Triangle. In Lost, you have 48 survivors from a plane crash on an island somewhere in the South Pacific. In TFJ, our little group of travelers is trying to get back to their times. In Lost, that's not so clear. Jack wants to go home in the first three seasons. Locke doesn't. When you consider the similarities between the two shows, you can't help but recognize the fact that this '70s show was an influence on Lost. J.J. Abrams and Co., say that the game Myst, was one of the influences. Did I leave someone out? I did? Well, my bad. You also have another man of science, in Jonathan Willaway. Did I leave anyone else out? I don't think so. If I did, too late to change it now.",1 "An unsentimental look at the consequences of the AIDS outbreak on a bunch of friends and lovers in 1980s Paris.

It was unusual to see folk come down with the disease while it was still classified as a 'mystery' and while docs were desperately searching for cures, reasons, symptoms etc.

Some of the news reportage shown resembled news clips from a zombie movie.

There were lots of good bits to the film, some interesting characters and lives, it was well acted and the story swept along without resorting to melodrama.

A pity the unfulfilling ending came on too sudden.",1 "Fourth film in the MGM Tarzan sequence is a great step up from the last film, Tarzan Escapes (what a dog that one is).

Here the film has Tarzan and Jane having a baby boy brought to them by Cheetah. The baby, who they name Boy, was orphaned when the plane he was flying with his parents crashed in the jungle. The crying baby was rescued by some chimps not long before the plane is discovered by unfriendly tribesmen. (we later learn the parents fates). Five years later an expedition comes into the jungle looking for the plane and some sign of the people on board. It seems a vast fortune hangs in the balance of the location of anyone on board the plane. Will Boy return to civilization or stay with Tarzan and Jane? Good film is a nice step forward in the MGM Tarzan saga.The plot moves along at a good clip, has some great thrills and keeps the stock footage to a minimum. To be honest I can't really say that any bit of the story really stands out but at the same time I enjoyed the film the entire time it was on.

If there are any draw backs to the film it would come in two places, first the basic structure of some one coming into the jungle to find some one, Boy here, Jane in the previous two films, was cliché almost from the get go. the fact that the studio got three films in a row from the plot line shows the films have more to them then the well worn plot lines. The second problem with the film is the long sequences where Tarzan and Boy frolic. Its good in that it establish father/son bonding and their relationship, but it kind of goes on and one too long. Worse its all variations on the Tarzan Jane frolics from the last two films.

Ultimately the pluses out weigh the minuses so this is a great little adventure film. Definitely worth your time.

(Addendum and possible spoiler: I can't believe that MGM was going to kill off Jane. I'm curious has to how the final sequence was suppose to be played since the scene as it stands now is a bit silly with Jane suddenly better.)",1 "Although I loathe a lot of what Hollywood does in films these days, I am willing to put up with much of it as long as the film pays off in the end. While there is much to admire in The Departed, the ending is one of the worst I have ever seen, below the standards even of Training Day and John Q. I was quite mesmerized up to the point where Costigan discovers the truth about Sullivan. In spite of Scorsese's compulsion/obsession with every filthy aspect of human nature, I was very much enjoying the performances and the story. Then, it seems he or the screenwriter had a brainfart. In light of that fact, all of the excess of the film caused it to implode. In the ensuing vacuum, I could find no redeeming quality of the film at all. What does the story tell us? It wasn't true to itself at all. No one gained a thing. No redemption. No resolution.

I am not an expert on films in any way. But it seems to me that when a story is developed on the strength of a collection of main characters, the story had better wind up focusing on the relationship between them. One by one, the supporting cast is eliminated. Then one of the three main characters is killed off. That leaves the two lead roles, and as far as I'm concerned, at this point it has to come down to the two of them. Whether it's a showdown or a meltdown, this film had to close with Costigan and Sullivan forcing the outcome. Instead, they are both eliminated with as little drama as if they were innocent bystanders. The fact that these events left as many questions as answers tells me that the director really didn't know what he wanted the story to say.

The acting was superb, the story captivating, the suspense almost unbearable - what more could you want from a good movie? Well, as far as I'm concerned, without a good ending, all of the above amounts to little more than the hype that usually precedes a film, but in this case makes up the bulk of the film. Enough with the blood and guts, Mr. Scorsese, enough with the profanity and vulgarity - lets see if you can make a film that succeeds on its own merits.

And in the meanwhile, I would appreciate it if you could convince the studio to refund my money.",0 "I pretty much agree with glazedham's review. I will add the following...one of the things that I found most annoying is the fact that Arquette is frequently seen holding a camera while another camera is filming her holding the camera. I don't know why, but this was unbelievably aggravating to me. All in all, I was left with the impression that many of these ""artists"" have just taken way too many drugs. If their lives are so difficult, I recommend that they get off the stage and go to a part of the world where they can witness real suffering. Hopefully they will take Arquette and her hand-held camera with them. Maybe she will eventually use footage from the hand-held camera as it seems to have served absolutely no purpose in this film.",0 Okay what do you expect. This isn't the best comedy ever made but it has its moments. The twin sister that can't get along with her sibling story has been seen before in several movies. But face it there are not that many `new' stories out there. Mary-Kate Olsen & Ashley Olsen have been in the business for just about all their lives. This is their first major movie as just about adults (nearly 18). They do a good job in this movie but sometimes it seems they try a little too hard. Eugene Levy is really funny as semi-cop. If you go into to this movie knowing you are going to a Mary-Kate Olsen & Ashley Olsen movie you will have a great time. The girls are really fun to watch and the look like they are having a good time making the film. So go and have a few laughs and watch Ashley trying to hold her skirt down throughout the movie.,1 "If you love independent film and aren't humor-impaired, pop WWHTKB into your DVD player and settle in for a wild ride.

From the bitchy bickering between roommates Stanley (John Yost) and Quentin (Greg Johnstone), and the emasculating meanness of Bitch (Kristin Pfeifer), to the oddly familiar depiction of a dead-end, minimum wages job (in this case a movie theatre), WWHTKB is humorous on the surface, and perceptive on a deeper level. Haven't we all found fault with a friend's significant other? Haven't most of us had male friends whose relationship dynamics were more akin to ""catty"" than ""manly""? Who hasn't known women who, like Bitch, think of themselves as feminists when, in fact, they're really just bitchy? Haven't most of us endured the sheer torture of minimum wage existence and those ""This can't really be my life"" moments of being caught up in petty workplace drama? And who among us hasn't had a co-worker like ""Todd"" (WWHTKB direct JP Nickel in a cameo appearance), the little mousy guy who keeps to himself and doesn't say much, but whose darting eyes and maniacal glance hint he might well be on his way to 15 minutes of fame as stalker or serial murderer?

These are only a few of the reasons my husband and I loved WWHTKB, and why we'll watch it again and again. We received the DVD as a gift from a friend who had seen the film at the Barebones Film Festival in Muskogee, Oklahoma. As an American living in Europe, I'm always glad to get an independent film as a gift, but this one is so funny that I'm threatening to use it as a training tool for my young Swiss goddaughters: ""See girls? This is what American guys are _really_ like . . .""

If you've not yet seen WWHTKB, rent or buy it and decide for yourself. Or, better yet, if you're in California, see it at the Gaffers' Film Festival. WWHTKB will screen at 11:30 p.m., Saturday, June 12, 2004, at the festival's host hotel: Sacramento Marriott Rancho Cordova, 11211 Point East Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA, 95742.",1 "I read the reviews and was a little hesitant to go see this movie. Not very good reviews. But after seeing the movie, I can't understand why the critics didn't like it. Guess they want Robin Williams to stay in his mold as a comedian. I've seen him in his recent serious roles, and I think he is an excellent drama actor. I think he has come a long way since Mork and Mindy. This movie was very good. It is a movie about the holocaust in Poland. It takes place in the ghetto and tells of a used to be restaurant owner who here's some propaganda on the radio (in the gestapos office) and ends up telling lies to boost his fellow mans moral. I don't want to go into detail to much cuz it would spoil the movie for you. Also, he meets a little girl who escaped from a train to the camps and befriends Jakob who takes her in and takes care of her. They have a very cute relationship. All in all I thought this movie was very well done and portrayed the holocaust in a very realistic way. The cast was very good..........you must go see this movie!!!!",1 "This movie does not even try to capture to mood of the drive-in. It is just a place where people go to get killed. With a character actor like flowers, you would expect some attempt at characterizations, but his own talents are not reflected in the script. It is really hard to believe that people thought the ""Plan 9 from outer space"" was worse than this. That movie is a masterpiece compare to this one.",0 "I guess I can't describe it in a better or shorter clearer way: Boring and Stupid. Acting? what acting? why are all the actors laughing while Reading their lines??? they just never stopped laughing or smiling even when it was the most ""dramatic"" moment! The ""plot"" was one of the most predictable plots in the history of TV. and not only is Sam a total $lut, but ugly as hell too!! what happened to that ""actress""?? I remember she was hot in American Pie. here she is so damn ugly!!!! puffy face full of bags, or whatever these are. and the happy ending?? no one to tell the poor viewers that these 2 are doomed??? very soon he will wonder why he took her back (because she was hot in American Pie?? or because he used to drool over her topless pics when he was younger, on the internet??) He will soon start wondering if she ever slept with that Luke, but hiding it from him. He will soon start seeing how shallow and self centered she is. and he will hate how everyone just knows him as the husband who married the woman who kissed the other guy. (is there anyone who didn't know about her thing with Luke??) then he will start seeing other girls attractive and charming (and caring)! then he will start flirting, and maybe kissing them, making Sam taste her own poison. then will she accept his apology? or act like an ugly B!tch and go out again and kiss or flirt with the first sleazy a$$hole she meets??? so.. the actors can't act. the plot is so weak and predictable. you hate the Bride for being s|utty and selfish. the Groom for being an idiot. the 3rd person for being an arrogant dumb a$$hole.

sorry for all the swearing. but this ""film"" suxxxx. Big time.",0 "I could not get past the scam where they were comping rooms for points accrued through ""coin purchases."" No casino has ever rated players that way. Also, what was Sydney's great professional gambling technique? Every time we saw him playing he was making high-risk and not very smart bets that failed to pay off.",0 "But I hate the new ones. They're getting worse and worse every time and I wish they'll take this show off the air. Not only did it show a homosexuality theme once or twice (i.e: When Patrick and Spongebob raised the clam) but it showed something I'll never forget...pantie raiding. What children's cartoon goes around and raids underwear drawers? WHO, I ASK?! No one except Spongebob. It was a terrible scene and I stopped watching the show right then.

And then, there was the episode where Spongebob and whats-his-face were cursing and it wasn't revealed. I wouldn't care if it was. It's sending the wrong message to kids and that's why I am forced to rate Spongebob THE worst show for kids on television.

Bring on the hate mail!",0 "Great performances, funny plot. Ghost Dog A Detective Tail (DOG GONE) is a very fun movie. Cute and fun!

Jack Wagner (""The Bold and the Beautiful"") and Daphne Zuniga (""American Dreams"") Star.

**** / 5 Story: Kyle's a police officer, and his partner is his dog, Hunter. Hunter gets killed in the line of duty, and his spirit comes back in the body of a criminal named Howie. Howie, with the spirit of Hunter in him, helps Kyle and his friend, a police vet, Amanda, in solving a dastardly plot.

I love this movie because it's so cute to see Howie with Amanda & Kyle. Great performances of Daphne Zuniga and Zack Ward (Howie).

Dorien Wilson (""The Parkers""), Cory Parravano, Pete Antico, David Leisure and Todd Bridges also stars!",1 "Generally speaking, I am a huge fan of the great ""Masters Of Horror"" series, but one has to say that the individual episodes differ immensely in quality. While some episodes, such as Dario Argento's ""Pelts"" or Takashi Miike's ""Imprint"" are utterly brilliant, some other episodes are pure entertainment, and some episodes, such as Mick Garris' ""Chocolate"" or Tobe Hooper's ""Dance Of The Dead"" were, as far as I am considered quite disappointing. ""The V-Word"" directed by Ernest K. Dickerson (I wonder what qualifies him as a 'Master Of Horror' anyway), however, is by far the worst episode of this otherwise great Horror anthology. Not only is the story ridiculous and the suspense almost nonexistent, even worse, this quite poor attempt of an MoH episode was so obviously made to advertise a Video game, which the main protagonists not only play all the time, but about which everybody talks about throughout the episode. The performances are also quite poor, the only true reason not to skip this episode is the great Michael Ironside, who at least gives this thing a little bit of eeriness.

I won't bother to describe the plot, since it it so thin that even a short description would mean writing a spoiler. ""The V-Word"" is watchable for Michael Ironside, but otherwise it's a waste of time. Watch ANY other MoH-episode before giving this a try.",0 "I don't see how CBS pays Letterman $30 million a year. This guy's jokes are so boring and redundant. Every show has the stupid Will-It-Float, George Bush making a speech scene, and the Rupert deli owner interview. And I always wondered who writes the Top Ten list - they are so damn lame. I also heard that the audience is told beforehand to laugh, whether the jokes are funny or not. That's ridiculous!

I know that most celebrities are leftest but Letterman makes it is so damn apparent. I'm no fan of George W, but his constant bashing of him is so obvious. On every show, Letterman shows the ""great"" speeches made by JFK and FDR and then all of a sudden shows Bush stumbling or saying something stupid during his speech. And him ""inviting"" Bill O'Reilly for an interview and making a mockery of him in front of a national audience. Absolutely classless.

Ten years ago, I remembered watching a couple episodes of the Late Show thinking this guy's jokes were getting old. Today, I'm even more shocked that he's still on.",0 "I am a firm believer in watching an entire movie before you render an opinion. I almost had to break my own rule while watching this atrocity. I don't know what the point of this movie was, other than to make sure Williamson had one more rogue cop, one man army, thumb your nose at whitey, movie under his belt. Final summation: avoid this like the plague!",0 "this is another brilliant movie from the ""Golden Shi* Collection"". Same boring story told over and over again. the action of the film is rather dull and boring, it does not come with something new and, what pis*ed me off the most, puts Romania in a bad light. We are not a country of blood thirsty animals, we are poor but not as it is shown in the movie, we are not savages! What we are is a country full of history, with beautiful landscapes, and a lot of stupid people who would sell their own country for some American currency. anyway, i derailed, that is an 1 for this movie! :)oh, by the way i read in the guidelines that i have to write about the title: i hate it!",0 "Taken as an historical perspective of Nastassja Kinski, this is a relatively young Nastassja who totally dominates the screen. As the movie proceeds, it becomes more and more apparent that Nastassja has something called screen presence, meaning that whenever she is on screen there is the promise of something electric occurring that is extraordinary. Today, this movie may appear to be wooden and dated, especially with the performance or lack of performance of Rudolph Nureyev who is absolutely obliterated by Nastassja. The movie on its own cannot be taken seriously, but it maybe viewed as a celebration of Nastassja Kinski.",1 "A bio-pic of the controversial 1960's comedian and social commentator Lenny Bruce - told in interview-cum-flashback style.

Presuming you know anything about LB at all, what do you want to believe? That he was a comedic genius who was a forerunner to today's ""alternative comedians"" or a foul mouthed drug addict whose only working tool was to shock and titillate a virgin audience? Here it hardly matters whether you like the man himself or would have laughed at his material if present at his better shows. No one much was laughing much near the end - as this film clearly testifies.

Curiously, this is a film that is neither a love-in nor a condemnation. More a cold eyed and professional look at a life lived - by self choice - on the edge.

(I am sure that fellow ""edge livers"" will give this movie an extra star just for topic alone.)

This film has three pieces of good fortune: The star talent of Dustin Hoffman, the confident direction of Bob Fosse and the cool b&w cinematography of Bruce Surtees. However the pacing is slow and given that we know the pathetic final reel (indeed it is used as the first reel and we work backwards!) it is a slow journey to nowhere all that special.

Lenny loved sleaze. Strippers, dope, stag films, parties that you can't remember much about the next day. All well recorded here. So unlike other comedians who climb the ladder from dive to Broadway we feel sorry for him in success because it took him away from what he loved best. And, as many have found out before and since, if you lash out at society, society will hit back - and you find that society has a lot more weapons than a microphone.

The legal cases give this film a second act, but as I have suggested before, there isn't a third. Bad dope (or a mistake with it) took his life and others took on the baton of what he was trying to do - and to be frank, did it a whole lot better. How ironic that the ""black Lenny Bruce"" Richard Prior followed his self-destructive model so closely. But Prior could act as well (when given a chance - see him in Blue Collar) and was a wonderful visual comedian. Bruce was, meanwhile, all voice.

Nothing dates quicker than comedy and people that once made the world laugh (such as Chaplin) are now viewed as being anything but funny. The stage act (sometimes viewed in cold detachment from the gods) won't make you laugh, it might make you nod and smile occasionally, but no more.

In reality I feel nothing for LB, he was a minor player in the world of showbiz who made his own choices and took his own risks. The talents and legacy of Fosse and Hoffman will ring on forever - which makes him the third banana in his own life story!",0 "I saw this film at Frightfest in London and it was by far and away the worst film that I saw over the weekend. Everyone that I spoke to at the festival agreed that it was a stinker so I'm not sure who posted on here giving it 10/10 and saying it was awesome?! Can you spell PR agent? On the plus side the effects were good, the direction wasn't bad and the acting was generally sufficient (given what they had to work with).

On the down side was everything else. The plot was clichéd, hokey, difficult to follow and incredibly boring! The dialogue was amateurish at times and generally cringe worthy throughout. Worst of all (and this is clearly the cardinal sin of a horror film) it wasn't remotely scary. Even the occasional BOO! would have been appreciated... but no.

The director is young and seemed like an affable young chap who I'm sure will progress in the industry. He will look back on this with embarrassment (if it ever gets released, fingers crossed not). He did seem like he'd had budget and studio constraints as evidenced by the fact that when I asked him the likely rating of the film in the Q&A after the screening he replied, ""y'know... PG-13... gotta keep it marketable"".

That summed up the extreme rubbishness of this film. Billed as a supernatural thriller it's preternaturally dull. If you want to see a half decent film of this type check out something like ""Skeleton Key""... and if anyone thought that was bad (which I didn't, but I know it has its critics) then woo... really don't go and see 'The Marsh'!",0 "The straight to video sequel is pretty good in the story department, it is just some of the script that could have been a bit better. Simba (Matthew Broderick, again) is now The Lion King and has wife Nala and a new daughter Kiara to be Queen, she is voiced by Scream's Neve Campbell when she is older. Basically while exploring the kingdom with Timon (Nathan Lane, again) and Pumbaa (Ernie Sabella, again) she meets Kovu, a lion from the bad part of the kingdom. Unfortunately they fall in love, this is bad for both Simba and the villain who has taken over from Scar, Zira (Suzanne Pleshette). Also starring James Earl Jones as Mufasa, again. The people missing are Rowan Atkinson as Zazu and Whoopi Goldberg as the female hyena. Adequate!",0 "20th Century Fox's 1941 production BLOOD & SAND is a remake of the 1922 silent classic that established Rudolph Valentino as the greatest star of early cinema. Beautifully photographed in vivid 3 strip Technicolor by Ernest Palmer and Ray Renahan the elaborate newer version had the obvious heir-apparent to the silent screen star in dashing Tyrone Power. Written for the screen by Jo Swerling from the novel by Vicente Blasco Ibanez it was directed with a certain amount of flair, it has to be said, by Rouben Mamoulian who just the previous year had had his greatest success with Tyrone Power when he directed him in the classic ""Mark Of Zorro""

BLOOD & SAND recounts the story of a young, ambitious and quite naive bullfighter Juan Gallardo (Power) who falls under the spell of a beauteous and attractive socialite (Rita Hayworth) wrecking his relationship with Carmen (Linda Darnell) the girl who has always loved him since childhood. The picture culminates with Juan discovering too late that he is only a toy for the manipulative socialite. And finally in the end when he is gored by a bull in the ring it is the forgiving Carmen, his only true love, that comes to his side to comfort him as he lays dying.

BLOOD & SAND was a very popular picture of the War years and remains a great favourite with Power devotees. However I have to confess to never being very fond of it. There is little doubt Ty Power is good as the aspiring Matador and Hayworth chews up every bit of scenery in sight as the alluring Donna Sol. But with the exception of Anthony Quinn and that memorable dance sequence he does with Hayworth I found the rest of the cast - particularly the young actor Rex Downing who played Juan as a boy - unconvincing and altogether uninspiring. In fact the whole picture for me was curiously uninvolving! Also Juan being gored by the bull towards the end is very badly done! You don't really see what happens to him. Was he gored in the back or the front? It is very difficult to decipher. And he appears very clean and unmarked in his ensuing death scene.

Nevertheless the great Alfred Newman saves the day with his terrific score. Besides his music capturing all the heat, dust and passion of the bullring the composer also incorporates into his score the sumptuous traditional Spanish guitar melody ""Romance D'Amour"". An engaging and totally ravishing piece that was used to greater effect in ""Forbidden Games"" in 1952 when it was played by guitar genius Narciso Yepes.

BLOOD & SAND can at least be enjoyed for its awesome colour Cinematography, Newman's great music, the star power and presence of Tyrone Power and the flowing beauty of Rita Hayworth.",0 "My wife and I had our first Sundance Cinema experience this week with a showing of Die Grosse Stille. The theater (brand new) is equipped with unbelievably comfortable chairs (not seats) that support the body with wonderful and relaxing ease. The film was, undoubtedly, our finest cinema experience ever. The almost three hour running time seem to slip by totally unnoticed as we were immersed in the lives of the Carthusian monks. Unfortunately for movie attendees in Madison (WI), this film played only one week and was gone. At our showing there were 12 persons in the theater; all were completely quiet and no outside sounds were heard. The best atmosphere to view this film. It was simply superb...all aspects of the monastery life were there for us to share. We will eagerly look forward to the DVD (US version) when it comes out later this year. Definitely not a movie for everyone but for those in the right frame of mind, a must see!!",1 """Lifeform"" would have been a solid 30- or 60-minute episode of ""Twilight Zone"" or ""Outer Limits."" It takes the ""Alien"" theme and throws a few twists in it, such as, do we really know what the alien wants? or is the alien trying to kill us or is it scared and trying to protect itself FROM us? The problem is, it's a full-length feature movie. Thus, we have to sit around and twiddle out thumbs while the director comes up with scene after scene of boring filler. When they're not taking 15 minutes to explain something that should only take 30 seconds, they're giving a young Ryan Phillippe plenty of meaningless face time. The military grunts come across as Keystone Kops quality. If that's our finest, this country is in really sad shape. There are also too few scenes with the alien. A potentially good movie became way too pedestrian. I'm giving this a 3 out of 10.",0 """He Was a Quiet Man"" is perhaps the most original and unpredictable movie I've ever seen. If you're looking for something ""normal"", you should probably look elsewhere.

A story of an extremely lonely, put-upon, disturbed man who desperately wants to be Somebody. Christian Slater plays this man absolutely brilliantly. In watching his performance, I kept thinking ""Where is Christian Slater?"" ... Well, he's not even in the neighborhood. Well done, guy!

The direction is absolutely amazing: colorful, imaginative, darkly funny, and surreal. Cubicles, and hummingbirds, and talking fish, oh my!

While the film is not particularly emotionally satisfying (to say the least), on the cerebral and aesthetic level, it delivers big time.

""He Was a Quiet Man"" answers the musical question: ""Now maniacs will think twice before going crazy.""

Yessiree.",1 "Beautiful southwestern scenery is the only redeeming virtue of this by-the-numbers revenge film. The ecological, pro-Native American theme seems more exploitive veneer than imaginative twist, and the direction lacks suspense or even much of a climax. Acting is dull and unconvincing, though William Atherton is on board to lend his trademarked sneer to the chief villain. There is little more to the plot than ""heroine framed for parents murder; heroine kills the real murderers."" None of the characters are developed at all, even to the limited extent of an action film. That's too bad, because I was prepared to like this movie, and yes, the scenery was nice.",0 "Lets see it starts out with this whole ""Troy-ish"" Battle directly lifted out n copied or even remade to an extent..

then we go into the actual movie.. the essence of the movie was totally lost in my sense, The director lost me at least because of the length of the movie.. maybe he wanted to convey something great through his research but frankly what he did was nothing more than inflict pain... that was something i was hoping to forget by watching the movie...

Hrithik Roshan continues to amaze me till date with his varied acting talents n Mrs Aishwarya Rai.. lets just say that i don't very much care for what she does... 99% of it is crap anyway ....

But this is my opinion go watch the movie and make up your own",0 "This could've (and should've) been a devious black comedic romp through the stiff-collared 1800s. If only the editor of the trailer could have a whack at the whole feature.

Jessica Lange is fine in a restrained performance of cousin Bette, a matronly woman who has been in love with her cousin's husband. When her cousin dies, she attempts to take her place and accepts the man's proposal. It's not a marriage proposal, as she believed, but a proposal that she be the children's governess.

This builds the seamy hatefulness in her heart and she begins to manipulate and turn family and community members against each other. All to make someone love her.

The supporting cast offers a mixed bag of performances. Bob Hoskins is winning as the lecherous, but rich old man who seeks the young daughter of Bette's cousin. Elizabeth Shue sometimes seems like she's just wandered off the set of Showgirls. The moody young artist is about as easy to care about as anyone from MTV's the Real World.

The final shot (of Elizabeth Shue in a habit, turning around to expose her butt), although hilarious, just doesn't work. It's just slapped right on the end of the film. Had the narrative structure throughout the script drawn parallels between the show and the show with the show, it might have worked. Introducing this idea only in the final shot simply makes the filmmaking self-conscious, and shows off the uneven creativity of the film itself.",0 "You know, I've never been a big fan of rap culture, but I thought that the film in question, ""Stop Snitchin', Stop Lying"", while it does have some incredibly stupid and/or unintentionally hilarious parts, actually was enjoyable enough for me to watch all the way through. Basically, the film chronicles rapper The Game ( I will call him Mr. Watkins from now on, because that's his real name) as he goes on his ""world tour"" (now that I think about it, I don't think he went anywhere except for Norway and the U.S., but what do I know), and tries to find 50 Cent, so he can try to get him to explain why he ratted out a member of the group (I think that's what it was). Along the way, Mr. Watkins explains his life story to the audience, gets arrested in North Carolina, meets a veritable group of fans from all over the U.S., and tries to dispel the rumors of his breakup with 50 Cent and the ""G-Unit"" (to which Mr. Watkins now effectively calls the ""G-UNOT""). Needless to say, it does get a little dry at times, and there are parts which are funny like you wouldn't believe (Atkins making an impassioned plea to 50 Cent to help him release Irv Gotti, the supposed ""re-enactment"" of 50 Cent confessing to a police officer, the guy being driven around yelling at some woman who is supposedly a man) and the video quality is very shoddy. However, the one thing I took away from this experience is that Mr. Watkins genuinely loves his fans. And, bless his soul, he seems to do a lot for them. We see in this film that Watkins personally reads fan mail and signs copies of every album sent to him (before sending them back), and that he's not above meeting new faces and friends on the street. I don't think I've ever seen one rap artist do that, and, to be honest, when Mr. Watkins said he was doing all this for the fans, I believed him. He may get a bad rap because of his narcissistic and childish demeanor, and he may be a very rich person, but he loves his work and the people who respect his work, and personally, I think that's the only thing that matters.

Bottom Line: If you're a fan of The Game or of rap music in general, give this one a look. It's a heck of a lot better than that ""Get Rich Or Die Trying"" film.",1 "The acting was awesome by that brendan fletcher guy. James Earl Jones was unbelivabe and the story line was great. Movie fans, movie critics and just plain ordinary people, this is a must see. Others feel free to comment on my comment. thanks for reading.",1 "Saw this at the Dead by Dawn film festival in Edinburgh and it was the best short film screened there this year in my opinion.

Essentially this is a one man show with Scott Graham alone with an evil mirror for much of the running time. While this doesn't sound particularly exciting, this growing feeling of paranoia and the increasing madness of the lone character propel the story.

Keep an eye on the video monitors that have been set up for the experiment, it's a small but very creepy touch.

Oculus is part 3 of a 9 part story. If Mike Flanagan can keep up this level of invention then I look forward to further entries.",1 "What can be said about THE NIGHTMARE NEVER ENDS? Well, it's NOT a quality film. Everything about it is bad: acting, dialogue, script, cast, cinematography, etc, are all way below average. It's a truly wretched film of cataclysmic proportions. For instance, take the dialogue: Cameron Mitchell says at one point, ""I see swastikas swimming in my oatmeal!' which had me rolling on the floor. It's my new all time favorite line of dialogue. In another scene, a vigilante sorts named Papini wants the Nazi war criminal killed. He's been stalking a doctor (played by Faith Clift) and wants her to kill the criminal. One day, Papini storms in her office without her permission and asks her why she didn't kill him when she had the chance. So how does she answer? ""I'm a doctor, I cannot kill."" That's it. No anger or anything. It's priceless. Faith Clift is the worst actress of all time.

With that being said, the film is totally unforgettable, not just because it's so wonderfully bad but because there are some truly effective moments in it. Yes, even with its staggeringly inept quality there are several moments that elicit real horror or shock. More so than any horror film made these days. The state of horror films today is truly sad when a disaster like this is more effective than 90% of all horrors films made today.

The effective moments come out of nowhere: when someone takes his shoe off...didn't expect that! A nightmare inducing scene; the nightmare sequences are so bizarre and weirdly shot that they're oddly effective; the discotheque is...eh, weird. It makes me more uncomfortable than anything else in the film; the actor who plays the Nazi war criminal is just weird; and last but not least the ending which has to be seen to be believed. My jaw was on the floor.

Needless to say even with those effective moments the film is still crap. Well worth watching if you're a fan of obscure horror flicks or ""so bad it's good"" movies. Everyone else should abstain.",1 "I'm a Peruvian person who has been living abroad for two years, and this movie came to me just a while ago. I would have to say that for someone who has not lived in Peru, it would be hard to understand the situations the character goes through, but for people like me who have lived all their life in Peru, and understand what the character is going through, it becomes an amazing experience. Pietro Sibille's interpretation of an ex-military who tries to live a normal life is simply amazing, counting that he had never had a lead before, and bringing realism to the movie. The director took the essence of real life situations and put them on the big screen, making the movie worth watching, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in independent cinema / foreign movies.",1 "I saw this movie first about 40 years ago when I was 5 or 6 and all I could think of was how much fun it would be to head off to Sherwood Forest to be a Merry Man -being a girl and living in America put that right out of the realm of possibility ! But I have loved the film and Errol Flynn ever since. Just traded in my VHS for the 2 disc DVD and all I can say is WOW -- The color is so rich and bright, the extras are outstanding which includes trailers, cartoons, and an excellent documentary on the history of the Technicolor process. The plot and Errol Flynn are still simply the best. I wonder if Monster.com has any listings for Merry Men jobs -- now with equal opportunity I could apply.

",1 "I cannot overly praise this great motion picture. When I saw it on television, I was amazed at its quality and verve, and eagerly awaited it on video. I was not disappointed.

This is a fantastic motion picture on many levels. The scoring was perfect, and the painstaking, accurate attention to detail in period weapons, uniforms, and accoutrement was obvious.

Though the actual facts of the engagements depicted were a bit different than is portrayed in the film (due to time constraints and for the sake of lucidity), the movie has a genuine 'feel' for Teddy Roosevelt, his famous outfit, and the times they lived in.

Sam Elliott, as Captain Bucky O'Neil, was a standout and should have won an award for his performance. He's always a pleasure to watch on screen, but he infuses his part here with genuine toughness, a wonderful dry humour, and great humanity.

Then again, the entire cast was wonderful, particularly Chris Noth, Brad Johnson, Tom Berenger, Dale Dye, and especially scene-stealer Gary Busey. Watch for the actor who played ""Indian Bob""; he has one of the funniest (and most human) lines in the film.

This is the only movie I've ever seen that I wanted to be in, in some capacity. It's that good.",1 "When I watch Kung Fu films I usually like to take off my thinking cap and drown myself in action and cheesy plots. Very rarely do I encounter a Kung Fu film where I find myself confused when the ending comes, and this is exactly where I found myself at the end of Ten Tigers of Kwangtung. This film has one of the greatest Shaw Brothers casts of all time. Ti Lung, Fu Sheng and the Venoms are the lead actors and are all in top form. In case you haven't see it is about a group of fighters teaming up to protect a Ching loyalist. The group of fighters will eventually come to be known as the Ten Tigers and safely guide this Ming rebel to the South to meet with his troops. There are a lot of plot twists and betrayls in between all of this. There are a lot of flashbacks in this film. It starts off in the present time with Ming loyalists trying to kill off the disciples of the Ten Tigers and flashes back to why they want to kill them. The flashbacks show in detail how the Tigers were formed and the film does it's best to develop each character. The knock on this film is that there are too many characters, flashbacks and plot twists. These are the reasons why this film is great IMO and maybe even the greatest. There aren't many Kung Fu films that you have to watch a few times to really understand and the fighting is top notch. If you haven't seen it be sure to watch it and if you have seen it watch again, more than once",1 "Great cast (except for one huge exception) and some nice shots of a beautiful landscape, but otherwise this movie is enormously flawed.

Why am I going out of my way to write a critique? Am I just mean? Perhaps, but I have some thoughts that I think are worth sharing, or at least I have a bone to pick because I feel I am owed some time back.

This story is unbelievably boring. It is like watching concrete grow or like watching bolts turn. Hardly anything of interest happens. The only compelling aspect is the family's predicament, but sadly that isn't the focus, and it doesn't satisfactorily change.

Any time something seemingly central is about to happen, something else unrelated and peripheral happens instead.

There is no cause and effect. When the main character finds his dad among a group of men sharing a hooker, he does nothing, which is weird. That would be the perfect time for the main character to rethink his loyalty to his dad, which would help him decide to agree to leave town right away. The central conflict is that the main character's best friend wants to leave town as soon as possible, and the main character doesn't quite yet. His excuse is that he wants to help out his dad. Once he finds out that his dad isn't the man he thought he was, he should change his mind.

Also, the main character's best friend says he needs to get out of town because he can no longer withstand his father's abuse. It would be so much more powerful if he is ultimately beaten to incapacitation by his father, rather than being hit by a car. His father is the looming danger. Having his father beat him to death would make the rising stakes culminate, and it would make the main character's plea ""Just one more week..."" so much more meaningful.

There are peripheral and loose ends that never tie in. This movie needs to be much tighter.

Compounding the torture of the boring story, the plot flaws and the dangling ends is the unbelievably awful performance by the actress Tania Ramonde. Her performance might be the worst on-screen performance I have seen in years, if not ever.

I don't blame her; I blame the director.

How could the director think that her oddly wandering eyes and contrived ""sensuality"" (I put it in quotes because I do not find her to be sexy at all) are pleasing to either the story or to an audience's eyes? I had to hide my eyes. I really did.

Also, her character just appears out of nowhere. Why is she walking around this strange and desolate town all alone so late at night? Why is she dressed like she lives in modern day Beverly Hills? And if this town is so small, how come she and the main character do not know each other before this night when she just walks up out of the darkness?

This brings me to another point about the setting: Where are the stores and the cars and the people? Was this project so low budget that they couldn't afford any props or extras? It's like a ghost town, except without the ghosts.

In summary, I care about the plight of the family, and I think that most of the acting is quite admirable. I just think that the story is clichéd, boring and long-winded and the acting by the ingénue is...I won't be rude and say it again because I don't want to burst her bubble. Like I said, I blame the director.

All in all, I give this movie a 3.",0 "I don't want to spoil the plot, but we find out very early that the plot involves ""objects"" and the objects are very much non-breakable. There are other aspects of the objects, including vaults, being sought, and consequences for using them. As I viewed the series, what kept coming to mind was the ""cursed objects"" of the TV series ""Friday the 13th"".

That being said, NBC & Sci Fi may have another winner on their hands. Just like Battlestar Galactica. Most of the shows, which indicate Sci Fi original are really terminated series being re-run. It is nice to see real Sci Fi shows being written from scratch and moving Sci Fi channel to a real channel and not a re-run channel.

I am eagerly waiting to see how the series will spin off considering the events of the last 5 minutes of the show.",1 "I picked this DVD off the shelf and flipped it around, looking for the tipoff that this was, indeed, a British flick, since it is called ""For Queen and Country"". Not surprisingly, no mention of UK was on the jacket (perhaps that hurts sales), only megastar Denzel's face. Knowing Denzel takes good roles, I rented it.

But i stopped the DVD halfway through. Although it seemed intelligent, it was boring and not believable. And everyone had a British accent, of course.

It's about a black UK paratrooper, fresh from the Falkland war, back in his old crime-ridden London neighborhood. Denzel speaks like a Brit, but his stone face reveals little emotion, and so the viewer has little reason to even like him, other than he was a soldier, I guess. He exudes very little human qualities--the character is paper thin. But we're supposed to think he's a good guy. But the first thing he does is to cover for this hoodlum, and then I was wondering why I should even continue watching it. A good writer knows how to build a sympathetic character. Just because he's Denzel Washington--doesn't cut it. I didn't really care for this guy, and he was not even intriguing.

There is no war footage. The Falkland War is filmed as a bunch of soldiers looking out the hatch of some craft (ship?) while it's pitch black outside and you hear some explosions. That's it. Probably not even a ship--just a studio prop they were in.

Denzel hooks up with this woman, who happens to be the mother of a kid who burgled his apartment. No matter! They are attracted to each other and never mention the incident again. Huh? That's not believable.

His war buddy with the crutch is stereotyped--feeling emasculated, lashing out at everyone, including his wife. Nice guy.

Also, it's not believable that Denzel comes home, and his old crime buddies are very interested in having him around. Denzel treats them like they have a disease, but they still knock on his door. You would think they would not trust a guy who's so obviously cleaned up his act. Not these guys. Makes no sense.

The film was dry, boring, unconvincing, slow and obviously low budget. And yes,it has annoying British vernacular which can be incomprehensible to other English-speakers. Avoid by all means.",0 "Okay so this is not Oscar material, but it is a sweet film just the same. I count this as one of my favorite movies, although let me state I have about 1,000 favorites! Coming from an Italian family I feel like I know these characters so well- Matt Dillon is adorable and very believable as Gus, the guy who needs to stop paying alimony to his ex-wife Lee so he can go into a business opportunity with his friends. Gus realizes the only thing to do is find Lee a new husband...a Mr. Wonderful! This of course leads to some very funny situations- The supporting cast is also great with Vincent Dinofrio (Law & Order-Criminal Intent)in one of his early roles. A terrific romantic comedy!",1 "I did not enjoy ""Girl Shy"" quite as much as Harold Lloyd's most famous feature length film, ""Safety Last!"", but I still had a good time with it.

Lloyd plays a hapless tailor's assistant who stutters terribly whenever around women (watching Lloyd stutter in silence, by the way, is hilarious). To make up for in fantasy what he lacks in reality, he writes a book about the conquest of his many (fictional) women, and travels to the big city with the dream of having it published to tremendous success. The publisher takes it as a big joke and thinks it will be a hit as a piece of comedy. Lloyd is, of course, crushed that no one will take him seriously, but the joke's on everyone else when he manages in true Lloyd style to win the girl of his dreams.

I'm only a very recent Harold Lloyd convert, but now that I've seen a few of his films, I have to say that I like his brand of silent humour much more than Charlie Chaplin's. Lloyd's physical stunts are stunning, and ""Girl Shy"" builds to a tremendously fun and exciting climax as Lloyd rushes to claim the girl before she's wed to another, braving every manner of transportation imaginable in ever-increasing outrageous set pieces. But Lloyd's acting impresses too -- he's not just a silly clown with a knack for physical comedy. Lloyd does as much with his face as he does with his rubber limbs.

Another Harold Lloyd winner.

Grade: A",1 "I wouldn't call it awful, but nothing at all shines in this movie, and it is encumbered with some seriously unbelievable basic plot development. It starts out well, but once the main hit is done, it devolves into a long subplot around a young girl which is not compelling, and some action scenes which are theatre of the absurd unrealistic. For example there is a prolonged shootout at the airport in which the lighting is all stroboscopic. No explanation for that. How credible is it that a airport storage area is going to have lights that flash on and off confusingly, and just enough to let Snipes do his incredible escape schtick? This is one of far too few action scenes punctuated by pointlessly drawn out set ups that just fails to draw one into suspending belief.

In addition, the whole premise seems to be that the United States CIA team can shoot the place up but get away with it by saying ""national security"" to the Brits. This gimmick relies on a stereotype that is to far afield from reality to be satisfying.

There are a lot better action movies out there. Better formulated, better executed. This one is entertaining at times but there is just not enough meat on the bone and after a while it becomes downright boring -- something that should never happen in a good action movie.",0 "I personally, thought the ""The Howling IV"" was better than the original ""Howling"", which it is obviously a remake of. The special effects were better and more graphic, and it was more erotic. There was more of a story line and it was less confusing. Not bad.",1 "This was one of the most predictable films I have ever seen. It was obvious from the start that everything would turn out as it did. You could tell the lead character was not going to get far with baseball for whatever reason, but he was going to do well at something. Gosselaar was poor and tried to build his role up beyond it's limits and Kirstie Alley should have fired her agent! I would expect better than this.",0 "The premise of the movie was okay (and I did enjoy fast-forwarding to see how they worked the Dickens parallels in) but the main character (Connor Mead, played by Matthew McConaughey) might as well have been on the Lucy Show for how many terrible, awful, irredeemable things he did. It made the entire movie SO annoying.

I also didn't enjoy how vapid most of the female characters were, or the idea that anybody and everybody would fall into bed with such a sleazebucket. He just wasn't attractive, to be honest. Daniel Sunjata's character was 100 times more interesting.

Jennifer Garner, Breckin Meyers and Michael Douglas were all fine, but not enough to salvage an otherwise really unpleasant movie.",0 I just saw the movie for the second time yesterday and I liked it even more than I did the first time. I don't know that much about the real Linda McCartney although I am a Beatles fan but that didn't make the story any less beautiful. The movie covers over 30 years of her life with Paul from how they met in the 60's to her struggle with cancer in the 90's. The story itself is beautiful. The simple fact (or at least presented as a fact in the movie) that they never spent one night apart except for the short period of time that Paul spent in jail makes it an incredible lovestory. The movie does have some major flaws including the whole character of Paul McCartney but Elizabeth Mitchell does such a beautiful job as Linda McCartney that she saves the whole movie and definitely makes it worth watching.,1 "Lee Rogers has a unique, sharp style -- both in shooting/laying out a scene, and story-telling. I know he has done several Aussie commercials, but Iwould love to see him do more features. Any in the making? I recommend this film highly for people new to Lee's work. I suppose what attracted me to this film initially was the star, Kate Ceberano, who I know as an incredible singing sensation from Oz. Who knew she could act as well? Maybe it was her director-husband who coaxed that out of her, but the result is still a star-turn for both her AND her husband. I know she has done more music videos, but I would also like to see her in more feature work. Maybe the two of them can work again together soon? I for one will be there in line to watch their work.",1 "To put it simply: a lack of respect. GAME OF DEATH: THE ROBERT CLOUSE VERSION ranks (in two senses of the word) right alongside Ed Wood's PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. Clouse and Wood weren't the first graverobbers on the scene, to be sure, but they both came away from the boneyard with unclean hands. Like Burke and Hare, they was just lookin' to pocket some loose change. Which they did. Nor were they alone. Years after the fact, DRAGON: THE BRUCE LEE STORY (based, we're told, on Clouse's own book) would come along and reopen the old wound(s). Like most Bruce Lee fans, I suffered through the seemingly endless exploitation cycle that began the moment he died. It wasn't easy, because not a single one of the purported bioflix came anywhere near the Truth. DRAGON likewise created its own distorted ""reality,"" with yet another wannabe look-alike choreographed through yet more over-the-top, badly done fight scenes that did nothing more than add yet another layer of tarnish to the memory of a man who deserves better. GAME OF DEATH is an insult to the intelligence. Now that we have BRUCE LEE: A WARRIOR'S JOURNEY, there's no need to even go back and revisit this one.",0 "One word should be all I need for this review: rubbish. This has to be the most pointless, unfunny, plot less, awful films I have ever seen in my life. It wasn't exciting, the jokes were groan-worthy (although after a while I even gave up groaning), the plot was.. well there didn't seem to be one, being more a selection of scenes thrown together with no reason behind them. I've never seen the original series (didn't even know that there was one), but the TV spots made it look like good fun. How wrong they were... All in all I think the comment from the wife summed it up: ""That's an hour and a half of my life that I'll never get back""... enough said!",0 "Hey, you know your stupid friend that's always running around with the video camera? You know, the guy who thinks he's hilarious but in reality is just an unfunny jackass that nobody has the heart to tell how much his movies suck? Well guess what? Because you couldn't man up and tell him to abandon his moronic dream of being a filmmaker, I had to sit through 'Cheerleader Autopsy.' I know, you thought the trashy cheerleaders would make for a fun sex-romp comedy, but remember that part where they died in the beginning and you didn't see a single breast for the next hour? That was your fault.

You could've stopped this. It didn't have to be this way. But you had to be the nice guy, didn't you? People like you are responsible for all the world's tragedies. I bet Hitler had a friend just like you--somebody who could've said, ""Hey Adolf, give this painter thing another chance, don't go into politics"" but didn't. Yeah, you belong in the same circle of Hell as THAT guy.

No, I don't know if God will forgive you.

Please stop crying. There really isn't any way you'd know what would be loosed upon the world by your inaction. But there is a way you can make up for it. 'Cheerleader Autopsy 2' is in preproduction. There's still time to grab whoever is responsible for this horror (the intellectual kind, not the genre), rip the camera from his hands and plead with him PLEAD! for him to go back to shooting wedding videos instead.

You have your mission. Now you must go. Me? Oh, don't worry, I won't leave you ... I'll be around ... lest we forget.",0 "I thought ""Ichi The Killer"" and ""Oldboy"" were interestingly weird films, so I rented ""Three...Extremes"" on the basis of what I knew about Miike and Park. I figured that if Fruit Chan was notorious enough to be included in an anthology with those two directors, his contribution would more than hold its own.

Well...the results were worth seeing once. ""Dumplings"" was both the most revolting and the most socially savvy of the stories; ""Box"" displayed the deepest emotions in a tale of loneliness and despair disguised as a ghost story; and ""Cut"" was the most overtly gruesome and had the most gimmicky and contrived plot.

Since I am unfamiliar with Chan's work, I can't say whether he stretched himself or tried anything new, but I do think that the acting and direction here were the most subtle and complex in the trilogy. Park's stuff seemed very much of a piece with his previous tales of violence and Hitchcockian entrapment that drive the protagonist to despair. But Miike surprised me, since ""Box"" was entirely different in tone and structure from his famous film ""Ichi"", and I wasn't expecting anything like this from him. ""Box"" is more of a waking dream such as Lynch would do in ""Lost Highway"" or ""Mulholland Drive"" and I thought some of the dialog and photography were most impressive. Good for you, Miike, you're even smarter than I thought!

As anthology films go, this was pretty good, although nothing that anyone will remember in a decade. Worth getting or at least renting if you are a fan of any of the directors,or if you want to see something relatively fresh from cultures whose clichés and conventions haven't worn out their welcome in the Occident.At least not yet.

Note about the DVD edition I saw: The 2nd disc in the package offers a ""feature length"" version of the Chan story ""Dumplings"". The additional footage is very well integrated into the original and this long version gives the ""Aunt Mei"" character and the philandering husband more screen time and adds an extra sex scene. But it doesn't change the real thrust of the original story enough to make it a ""must see"" unless you really dug Aunt Mei. If the only DVD you can find is a bare bones edition without the feature length version, don't worry that you've missed anything vital.",1 "I watched this movie at my friend's house and I quite frankly found it more than a little boring. I mean, it wasn't BAD, it started out well but then it just bored me to wherever. And another thing, Mary-Kate's character, Roxy. Eh.. she was so gung-ho about the Simple Plan video-shooting-concert-watchamacallit. Simple Plan and Metallica are very different genres. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Simple Plan. Its just that it seemed that her character wasn't current-like-mainstream, at least at the beginning it did, and that would've been a lot more interesting, maybe for some people, if it'd been a less-mainstream band and such. I mean, it HAD to be Simple Plan, didn't it?

Overall, the movie could've been a lot better than it was.",0 """Young Sherlock Holmes"" has the potential to be an interesting film but unfortunately seems to be marred in contrived cliches. I did not find any of the characters to be particularly interesting, nor did I appreciate its stereotypical and racist demonizing of middle Eastern culture - as if Egyptian women really behave or look like that! At times, I thought I was watching a series of bad Monty Python sketches.

All in all, the acting was reasonably good (except for the scenery chewing villains) and the costumes were great, but I had a hard time staying awake while watching this film. The ending was particularly inane...obviously designed to lead into a sequel, which thankfully never came about. Strictly a movie for little kids or for people who like watching dated special effects.",0 "Recap: The fight against the Arachnids are not going too well, despite the efforts of popular Sky Marshal Anoke. The war effort must be better, more recruits must apply. So an aggressive commercial campaign is launched, spearheaded by a singing Anoke, at the same time as dissidents are executed as a statement to the public. On the frontlines where Colonel John Rico is commanding that doesn't matter much. The Arachnids are still far more numerous than the humans, and is ever testing their defenses. But when the Sky Marshal crashes on a apparently deserted planet in the middle of the Arachnid zone matters look grim indeed. And they get worse when Rico get tried for insubordination and no one seems interested in rescuing the Sky Marshal. Rico's friends must now first save Rico, and then mount a covert rescue operation deep into enemy territory.

Comments: This is definitely a sequel too far. Haven't seen the second installment in the series, but the first one, the original based on Heinlein's novel, is really good. Even then I didn't expect too much at all out of this. And I still managed to get disappointed.

Even if Casper van Dien (how desperate must he have been?) returns from the original cast, and manages to bring about the same that he did in the original, his support is too weak. I think only Jolene Blalock, a veteran from a Star Trek series, manages to escape with her dignity. But it isn't by much, and certainly not thanks to her character or the story. Supposed to contain a big twist it is predictable as rain and the characters are mostly thin. The dialog is almost stupid and delivered in a completely unbelievable manner. Sometimes the acting is disturbingly poor.

What really kills a movie like this, if it hasn't got a strong story to lean on, is the bad effects. They don't come close to the effects in the original, and it further weakens the plot. When an entire platoon, armed with automatic rifles and grenades don't hit a even one of hundreds of monsters that charge at them, due to that the effects doesn't cut it, it is time to stop. It is time to pull the plug. Why do a movie at all if you don't try to do it good.

The sole chance it got is to be so bad it turns comic. It fails even at that, cause it actually tries to pass as a serious movie. The only redeeming parts are the somewhat funny news reels that intersect the story.

Even though I do like the genre, and did like the original, I really disliked this. Can't recommend it at all.

3/10",0 "Now isn't my summary awfully confusing?! How can a somewhat dull film STILL be worth seeing? Well, believe it or not, the problem is that the plot isn't all that compelling but the characters are so well-crafted that the film is still outstanding!! Sure, some of them seem an awful lot like stereotypical clichés--especially John Qualen's performance as a Norwegian, by Yimminy!! In fact, he says ""by yimminy"" about 60 times during the film--somewhat typical for a Qualen performance in a Ford film, actually!! But apart from this, there are a lot of great characters such as the Yank (Ward Bond), Drisk (Thomas Mitchell) and Smitty (Ian Hunter). The one person in the film I really DID have trouble categorizing is Ole Olsen (John Wayne). It seems Ole is a Swede and I really had trouble seeing Wayne as a Swede!!! Probably this is because since this film he's become so type-cast. I really don't think his accent was that bad--I just kept waiting for John to shoot an Indian or walk with the usual John Wayne walk, but it wasn't to be.",1 "Five lads from Manchester, England have inherited a greyhound who proves to have prowess on the dog-track; to raise the money for the racing entrance fee, they decide to form a music group. Inoffensive piffle, brightly-made against '60s London backdrops (with curious but not entirely misplaced fashion lay-out interludes and musical montages). Herman's Hermits are not an exciting nor formidable pop band--buttoned-down and squeaky-clean, they barely have personalities--but their acting is better here than in 1966's ""Hold On!"" and the hit ""There's a Kind of Hush (All Over the World)"" is prettily performed. The older folks in the cast, including Stanley Holloway, are given room to shine, and the script has some heart and appeal. ** from ****",1 "This is a well written piece by Peter Morgan, author of Stephen Frears' and Helen Mirren's The Queen currently making the rounds of the theatres. Director Nick Hamm is certainly not without a CV either. One unfortunate aspect of it all is the absolutely terrible title given the film in the US - truly there is no excuse and it belies the mentality in that country.

As a romantic comedy - of a sort - it beats anything that ghost town Hollywood be capable of; there are elements here which won't be obvious to you on first viewing and that's to your advantage.

Joey Fiennes: he talks like Shakespeare! There's a least one scene where you expect him to blurt out 'oh I am fortune's fool'.

This is refreshing and highly original and well worth a view. Ourselves we saw it on the telly, so we'll have to hunt it down as a rental or a purchase to benefit fully by it.

The charisma between Fiennes and Potter is palpable. As many say, Potter seems the blonde Roberts, but she's very much a match in talent as well. The conceit of this film - a girl who has her back to the wall and nowhere to go and simply gets on a plane to go somewhere, anywhere - has very much the feel of other movies in the genre such as French Kiss. It's a cathartic setup that works well and frankly Joey Fiennes has something his brother will never have.

Definitely worth the view and possibly the purchase.",1 "First saw Candy on release at the local cinema, was blown away by most of the music on the soundtrack,went and got the L.P as soon as it was available! The opening music really set the standard, found the film OK. The L.P got lost in 1975 when I got married and moved but I have just bought the new D.V.D which is really great to see again, after all the years. I think the movie is better for seeing again some truly fantastic ""one liner jokes"" and way out sets! I am now searching for the L.P again to go with the D.V.D. I am not holding much hope of the music being issued on a D.V.D as I understand the master recordings have not been kept.Still at least the D.V.D is a good standby until I can find an old copy of the L.P.",1 "To me, there are two types of poor film. The first type are those that you fall asleep watching. Yet this is not one of those. This film is of the type that is supposed to be a horror and yet it makes you laugh and cringe at how bad it is. But here is the weird thing with poor horror's. You sit there, usually until the end laughing at how bad the ""scary"" bits are. And this film is the undisputed king of ""tacky horror"" - a genre that is supposed to be horror and yet turns out to be a comedy. Would I recommend this film? Not to a person who loves to be scared by a film. Not to those who would turn off a film because its so poor (and this film is by no means an exception) But to people who thought that The Exorcist was more of a comedy than a horror and who watch it because of this reason - this IS the ultimate movie for you.

Terrible in one sense - Sensational in another!!!",1 "Where? Where does racism come from? How can one race feel superior to another? Are we born with it? No. Do we become it on our own? Maybe? Or is it perhaps that we are taught it? There is a small scene in Mississippi Burning that is just as powerful as any Gene Hackman speech or any violent montage to gospel music that is in this film. There is a rally at a park with the head of the KKK ( without his hood ) telling thousands of people that have gathered that he loves being white. He loves the fact that Mississippi is segregated. And in the crowd the camera pans across and shows three year old kids smiling and cheering as gleefully and loudly as their parent's are. It is haunting.

This film is bit like JFK in a way. It is not an absolute recreation of the events that took place in 1964, but it is a film that tells a true story and then adds a bit of fiction to make it more interesting for a mass audience. For example, the case was not cracked by Mr. Anderson fooling around with Pell's wife. But that is besides the point, the point being that this film is mesmerizing. Everything from its direction, cinematography, acting, writing and music, it is the best film of 1988. And having Rain Man take most of the major awards is really quite sad. Because Mississippi Burning is much more ambitious, important and well done. Rain Man is a very good film and I will even go as far as to say that Hoffman is the only one that deserved to win best actor just as much as Hackman did. But 1988 was a bad year for the rest of the Oscars. Anyway...

I have been edgy before. Boyz and the Hood did that to me, but this film makes me angry. It makes me want to jump back into 1964 and try to do something to stop this. The film is that strong at showing us how terrible and pointless racism is. And in order to make this film work, there has to be strong elements in all areas. But for me, what really made me feel the things that I did is the actors that played their roles.

Hackman is brilliant. He gives the performance of a lifetime and it is his anger that gives him his edge. He sees things differently than Mr. Ward does and that sometimes makes them bump heads with each other. But they ultimately have the same goal in mind. Just different ways of achieving that goal. Dafoe is great as well, but it is the supporting cast that really makes this film. From Dourif to R. Lee Ermey to Stephen Tobolwolski, these characters are richly portrayed by the actors that play them. There is however one actor in particular that I wanted to touch on and that is Michael Rooker. He plays Frank, the nastiest, meanest, no conscience, negro hating person that I think I have ever seen on film. I don't know where his anger comes from, but he is the kind of character that you can imagine had a violent father that drank too much and always told stories about how bad the black man was. When Rooker is on screen you listen. You pay attention to what he is saying and doing. And my hatred of him was one of my favourite parts of the film.

Mississippi Burning shows us how strange people are when it comes to racism. The characters in this film don't know why they hate the way they do, they just know that they do. And they are powerless to stop themselves. What happened to the three civil rights workers was a disgrace and a tragedy. But not just because three boys were murdered, but because no one knows why they were murdered,besides racism that is. Why did they have to die? Because they were a different colour of skin? Because they were Jewish? It really doesn't make any sense.

Mississippi Burning is one of the best films I have ever seen. It is important and it is entertaining. If you haven't seen it, do so just for the scene with Mr. Anderson and Deputy Pell at the barber shop. That is worth the price of the rental alone. But for a really important film that has something to say, this is one of the best.",1 "The special effects again are superb but this is Finding Nemo in reverse i.e the parents get taken away and Pi (Nemo) is left behind, if you haven't seen Finding Nemo you will like it.

It becomes very clear at the beginning of the film what the plot is and takes a long time to reach the end!

There's is nothing new or nail biting in this one and there is no humour at all, which is very disappointing.

All in all very disappointing as a follow up movie to Shark Tale which there really are no similarities with it should have been called Finding Nemo 2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!",0 "I wasn't much of a Cary Grant fan until I saw this film for the first time about 10 years ago, and I also discovered the embodiment of grace and charm that is Irene Dunne as well. Cary Grant is at his most charming and gives a very amusing and, at times, very very touching performance as a new dad. When he gives his heart-rending speech to the child custody judge and begs to keep his adopted baby girl, it brings a lump to my throat every time I see it. Irene Dunne was a classy lady in anything she did, and can be as quietly funny as she can be dramatic, as she demonstrated in this film. She was a great ""straight-man,"" too, to Cary Grant's more animated role. I truly love this film.",1 "I had never seen this film before until I saw it on TCM TV the other day. It is really an extraordinarly drama of the life of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes portrayed by Louis Calhoun and his wife played by Ann Harding, and directed by John Sturges. Judge Lewis Brandeis is played by Eduard Franz. Holmes always wanted a son and he called all 30 of his secretaries ""his sons"". One of the sons I recognized but just couldn't think of his name, so I looked it up; sure enough he was played by child actor Jimmy Lydon whom I always loved in films. Lydon played the part of Secretary Clinton. This truly is a well acted and enjoyable biography. Highly recommended!",1 "So what if Chow Yun Fat fires a hundred rounds apiece from his pistols without reloading? Who cares whether shotgun rounds explode when they impact? Hard Boiled isn't about the reality, it's about the action--which is so over-the-top that reality takes a back seat. HB is like Tequila's toothpick: It's all about the Cool.",1 "Many reviews here focus on whether you can suspend disbelief on Sean Penn's performance as a retarded/autistic man. Before going into that, I'll go out on a limb here and say that the mental defects were incidental to the plot, the real issue was how much love Sam (Penn's characte) has for his daughter, Lucy (played by Dakota Fanning). These performances are masterful, Penn really departs from his trouble maker persona in so many of his earlier movies and shows depth that I really didn't expect from him. This is a breakthrough movie for him, and shows a range far exceeding my expectations Dakota Fanning gives a remarkable performance (I want to see her in other roles). I'm not very familiar with the behaviors of mildly autistic/retarded people, but I did find the Sam character believable. I think part of the issue is the same phenomena as Forrest Gump, that is the genius of the actor comes through, so you have a ""brilliant idiot"" As the father of a young daughter, I could relate. Michelle Pfeiffer's character was O.K. but not really central to the plot (her acting was O.K. I guess, but not great). My wife found the intrusive nature of the way the social workers were portrayed compelling. Other review have compared this movie to Rain Man and Kramer vs. Kramer. I thought this movie was more powerful than Rain Man (which was also good) but I have not seek Kramer vs. Kramer so I cannot make that comparison.

I gave the story a 9/10, but if your not a parent or don't like emotional movies you might give it a lower rating.",1 "I am a huge fan of both dark movies and independent films. When I went to go see Adam Resurrected at the AFI Dallas film festival, I was confident I would love it. Although people had warned me not to go see the film, I simply assumed they couldn't appreciate good film or ""art."" Boy, was I wrong- I should have taken their advice.

Adam Resurrected is a complete joke. The performances are over-the-top and ridiculous, and the plot is- well- about a man in a mental institution who thinks he is a dog, who happens to mentor a young boy who ALSO thinks he's a dog .

The man had been forced to act like a dog to survive the Holocaust and is now haunted by his ""dog"" past.

This is not a joke.

Watching Jeff Goldblum walk around on all fours eating dog bones and trying to interpret it as ""art"" is utterly ridiculous. Watching him change the life of a young boy/dog was even more ridiculous. And of course, the movie is trying to be a ""One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"", for all of the crazy mental patients seem to idolize Goldblum. The mental patients give unbelievably over-the-top performances, and the sex scenes involving Goldblum and the nurse (I will never forget his line when she gets on all fours for him and barks- ""Less like a shnauzer, more like a wolf!"") are truly horrendous.

This movie is pretentious and trying to be profound, yet it is actually a complete joke. It is incredibly disrespectful to any Holocaust survivors to portray a man forced to bark like a dog for a Nazi general as one of the hardships the Jews faced.

DON'T SEE THIS FILM.",0 "This could have been a good film. it had all the ingredients, but is ultimately ruined by two thousand times overused clichés which seem to have become fashionable again nowadays (see, for instance 'Brokeback Mountain' or the French 'Le clan'):the first one: the old homosexual teacher, OF COURSE, had to die at the end (the fact that is is a motorcycle accident and not a bashing doesn't matter, finally...); the fact that everyone mourns him at the end does not matter, the moral is safe, he finally 'paid for his sins'. The second one: the fact that the repressed (or maybe just hesitant) gay temporary teacher Mr Irwin, OF COURSE, succumbs to the offer of Dakin, the most disgusting jerk in the film, degrading himself just in order to satisfy some desire he could satisfy with any given (and probably much more honest) prostitute. because here, this is no matter of feeling, Dakin's 'offer' is not, as he so kindly expresses it, a favour he gives Irwin in order to thank him for his admittance at Oxford, it is an attempt made by an immoral being in order to confirm to himself that he can control and manipulate others by exploiting their secrets. I am really extremely disappointed that the British too seem to have succumbed to that crappy Hollywood-type moral and ending. Deleting these two scenes from the film would have been far more appropriate.AND MUCH MORE ORIGINAL.",0 "I usually give all movies a fair chance, but in this case, I'll make an exception. The movie was filmed in a classic way which was not very impressive. The acting was extremely sub-par, and the lines given to the actors were not much to work with. Most of the scenes in this movie were extremely cheesy and predictable. It seemed to me like the actors were brought out of a closet that they have been stuck in since the 80's Some of the themes of the movie were not approached like they should have been. A boy who seem to have a mental condition is made fun of throughout the whole movie, and hardly anybody did anything to try and help him with his problems. I have not seen the other Sleepaway Camp movies, but was thoroughly unimpressed by this one.",0 "I have just returned from seeing The Water Horse with four of my children aged 16 to 4. We all thoroughly enjoyed it. I have to say the beginning was a little slow as Angus found the egg, but once all the characters were introduced, and Crusoe had hatched, the plot revved along. The pompous Army Captain was fun to watch! The WWII surrounds were wonderful, all the casting was excellent- no wrong notes by any of the cast. The boy playing Angus was really enjoyable to watch. It was a ""children's movie"" but as a forty-something adult I was swept along into the adventure and enjoyed it very much. I loved how the plot was multi-layered and plenty of tension as Crusoe comes under threat from some trigger-happy army soldiers. I have to point out that Lake Whakatipu in NZ's South Island was used for a lot of the Loch Ness scenes so should get credit from those who loved the scenery! Bravo to WETA Workshop for the realism and believability of the water horse- just gorgeous! He/she has plenty of screen time too. This is a great movie for all ages. It is sure-footed and very enjoyable!! For Kiwis watching it's fun spotting familiar faces in the supporting cast.",1 "i am not sure with what intention the movie is made.. It resembles to cannibal apocalypse (another ridiculous movie)in the sense of its treatment and cheap thrills. On the other hand it shows up naked women without any reason in it's frames.

the acting, plot, cinematography, screenplay is obviously, missing and you hope that the pathetic background score should have been missing instead. It is that bad. On the acting front, their are just a couple of seconds when you would see some acting on the screen and that is by the warden. when the leading lady prisoner undresses and approaches her, its the look in her eyes which makes you think that a good actress have been wasted.

The effort is so bad that that it get stck up in ur brain as if a chewing gum stuck in hair!!! quite frankly, if u want to show women's bodies and make money, then do just that n do it in a way which makes the experience worth enjoying.. or if u want to show the prison life, show it with some empathy and sincerity.",0 "1-Ichi origin is from the Japanese comic. A great prequel to the story of ""Ichi the killer"". It is a stand alone so even if you have not seen ""Ichi the killer"", you won't have a problem understanding this one. The fight scenes are great with lots of violence and blood. A short summary of the movie: It is about a Japanese high school student wanting the title of being the best fighter. Ichi is the best fighter because he can fight with quick speed. A great plus is that the actor who played Ichi is the same actor of the movie ""Ichi the Killer"". This movie is not quite as violence and graphic as ""Ichi the Killer"" but the story and the fight scene are great.

",1 "To tell the truth, I nearly did not bother with this one; to tell the truth it's all the same anyway; I gave up on Perdita Durango, haven´t bothered much with other titles by this very singular Basque director, but have at last sat through an entire film.

Using satire to the nth degree, even going to the extremes of including a take-off of `the Exorcist', `El Día de La Bestía' is a mixture of horror, comedy and spoof, and most definitely a cock in the snout at anyone remotely religious. Rolling along at an intrepid pace, the film is an insight into what a feverish mind and overheated imagination can cook up. I mean, the story is impossible, but that is the magic of cinema...........isn't it?

Anyway, everyone is rather round the bend, off his rocker or stark, staring bonkers as we British youngsters used to say near half a century ago. Whilst unravelling Amharic scrawls the Right Reverend Father Ángel Beriartúa discovers that the antichrist will be born on Christmas Day in Madrid. From there to a blood-letting search of the most bizarre in which all kinds of weird goings-on are coming off, normally at hell-bent speed, which is probably where everyone should end up anyway, the film is a debauch into trivial skylarks, heavily dosed up with all the gruesome products of horror and perversity liberally mixed into a comical cocktail of doubtful parentage.

What I cannot fathom is how they managed to get Maria Grazia Cucinotta to fall down those stairs so spectacularly, without any parts of her anatomy plopping out of that dress...............

If you like this kind of nonsensical black humour, I suggest you give `Airbag' (1997) (qv) by the also Basque director Juanma Bajo Ulloa a try.",1 "I know - it's so sorry to comment a series after it's of the air for like 10 years, but I have decided last week I will give it a try for two or three episodes, and I didn't make it... I made it through two and a half, and tried not to throw everything in my reach into the screen. They should pass out insulin with this over sweetened piece of crap... I'm feeling sorry for the American people that are judged in the rest of the world on the basis of shows like this one... On the other hand - I'm sure there are trailer parks over there, where this one was a blockbuster. The only positive thing that I have heard about this show, is that Jessica Biel is in it - didn't see anything interesting in the episodes I was watching, and probably it will stay that way, because I don't think it's worth it...",0 "What a film! It was hyped up during it's release, so when I saw it, I understood why! It's set in Swansea, (Only 8 miles from where I live!), so I could really connect with the surroundings and the larger than life characters. Mind you, the storyline was something I wouldn't have associated with the city...yeah right!

Rhys Ifans' and Dougray Scott's break out roles, this one oozes great performance's. Some people knock the acting 'cos it seems 'hammed up', but the Welsh are like that. We do tend to go OTT sometimes, we are larger than life people! And as the script shows, we are very nationalistic.

Great direction, and with nearly every recognisable Welsh actor in it, this is a dark, funny, and entertaining film. The script is fresh, and the plot is good. And as the caption on the sleeve states, the film DOES ""raise an index finger to Hollywood"".

Rating? nothing short of perfect 10! Go and see it NOW! I promise you, you will not be dissapointed!",1 """Miracles"" debuted on January 27, 2003 on the ABC Television Network. After constant pre-emptions and special episodes of ""The Practice"", ""Miracles"" was cancelled after only six episodes. The Save Miracles Team, even after a year has passed, is still doing what it can to save the show. For more information, please visit MiraclesHQ or feel free to contact me personally.",0 "This early short subject, beloved to some of us; really shows one of the great qualities that would set his (best) comedy apart: he was strange. Not exactly verbal comedy, nor really slapstick, W.C. seemed to create his own oddball universe much like, but never quite, ours.

I loved this short from the first time I saw it as a kid, and I think it's one of a kindness really makes it his best (though others are quite funny.) Mack Sennett wanted something more in the way of conventional slapstick; Feilds had to fight for this; which is in part a spoof of sentimental wilderness poetry about Alaska.

Nobody liked it at the time. Fields himself said, ""maybe it's not good. But I like it."" Thank Godness he stuck by his guns and went on to create his own one of a kind comedy world.",1 "The majority of the people I know who have seen It all say the same things. ""I saw this movie when I was a kid and I'm still scared,"" or ""It's the best movie ever!"" After finally seeing it myself, I have to disagree. It is by far the worst book-to-movie adaptation I've ever seen.

Why, oh why did they have to turn Eddie into a Mama's boy? In the book he's married. MARRIED. The ""I've never been with a woman and now I'm going to die a virgin"" line at the end of the movie didn't make sense. Eddie is a great character. Why did the movie have to ruin him?

So many important things were cut. What happened to the house on Neibolt Street, the underground clubhouse, various characters that were left out, Eddie's leper, or Bill dealing with Georgie's death, just to name a few? And I just HAVE to mention the ending. The spider was so fake it wasn't even funny (okay, kind of). It wasn't dramatic enough either. Nobody looked the least bit scared. It was just, ""Oh golly, let's go down in the sewers and kill It once and for all."" It wasn't turned into a climatic moment like in the books. The characters acted as if what they were down in the sewers was as natural as walking to the corner store and buying a loaf of bread. Wouldn't most people be terrified, thinking, ""Oh my God, I'm going to die!""

This movie was terrible, don't waste your time on it. Read the book, and then wait for the remake. I'm hoping it will be a lot better than this piece of garbage.",0 "I haven't seen this particular short, but I couldn't help but notice how everyone mentions the MST3000 episode this appeared in. Apparently it never occurred to anyone that you guys weren't it's intended audience and that it was taken entirely out of context? I have no doubt it's cheesy as all heck, and probably somewhat offensive, but it's an ultra low budget educational film under absolutely no pretense of being high art. Harvey and Centron made thousands of them, it was a living for them. If you REALLY want to criticize a Herk Harvey film, why not write about his Carnival of Souls, the only movie of his he specifically filmed for wide release, and one of the all time classic atmospheric horror movies? MST3000 was a very very funny show, precisely because it would take a movie out of context, in some cases edit the movie extensively, and then exploit any incongruities and flaws that turned up in the process. That isn't a bad thing since they were witty enough for it to almost always work, but unfortunately a large number of the fans come away from the show NOT remembering the lack of context, NOT noticing the tremendous edits, and worst of all, NOT coming away with the LOVE for these movies that it's pretty obvious most of the people working on the show shared. Which results in a handful of people posting sneering critiques of the one industrial/education film that happened to end up on MST3000, ignoring the THOUSANDS of similar films and their original purpose, not realizing that they're the ones that are out of context here, not this short.

IMDb doesn't allow the posting of URLs in reviews, but if you go to the Internet Archive's Prelinger Archive, they have a whole selection of Harvey's industrial/educational shorts, as well as Carnival of Souls, available for download (since they are all in the public domain).",1 "We start the movie off with a midget pimp in a top hat and coattails digging a hole while laughing maniacally....that was about the only good thing about the whole movie for I watched this sober and nearly fell asleep.

On an island dominated by Mexican voodoo practitioners, the local police is stumped to a recent rash of rituals and bodies showing up.

I'd love to go into detail but the idea is making my head very dizzy. Its titled Snake People but its really a weird zombie movie more than anything. It really makes no sense at all, better off watching it high or something

The highlight of the movie is the midget, haha always are funny

3 out of 10",0 "TCM broadcast this film in a grouping of Valentino films but the film really belongs to Mae Murray. I should add that Mae Murray seemed to be imitating Mary Pickford when she was in her comedy cups, down to gestures, mannerisms, facial expressions, it was uncanny. I kept visualizing Mary Pickford as I watched Mae, it was that strong.

The film is about a girl who is desperate for a well paying job and she tries out at a nightclub as a dancer. The proprietor is looking for someone ""with a past"", and Mae's character is a properly brought up young girl with no past at all. So she lies, pretending to be a notorious ex-lover of a duke, so that she will seem exotic enough to be hired. Her tryout test is a scream, I was laughing my head off. Eventually the real duke shows up and even though he knows she is not the same woman he had a fling with he still wants Mae. Valentino's character is jealous and a pursuit for the girl begins.

I really enjoyed the picture, and think you will too. Just don't expect the film to focus on Valentino, and you'll be OK with it. If it's true it will be included on the future Beyond the Rocks DVD it will find a whole new audience, which can only be beneficial to Mae Murray, since not a lot of her silent film work seems to be available to the public.",1 "I found this movie to be very entertaining and well done, with good performances across the board. I agree with previous reviewers that the late Chris Reeve's performances in other movies, and at times this one, could be seen as wooden. That being said, I think he played his role extremely well, because it was able to work with Morgan Freeman's outbursts and explosions. Because of the problems encountered by his fabricated story, Reeve's performance was handled well being outside of his environment as much as he was. He was unsure and understated, and being a reporter, being unemotional was in his well being. On the other end, Morgan Freeman was fantastic! Seeing him in a role like this makes you want to see him take on a role where he can be the loose cannon.

This movie can show what happens when you ""create"" a story and you do it TOO well. More people should see it and comment on it.",1 "This ninety-minute TV movie, which served as the pilot for what would turn out to be a vastly inferior series, is first-rate Rod Serling: a little preachy, very unsettling, and preoccupied with the themes of human desperation and ugliness. The first segment, 'The Cemetery', is terrific; Roddy McDowall and Ossie Davis play off one another wonderfully, and it's a pleasure to see Roddy's nasty little character get his comeuppance. 'Eyes' is not as good; Steven Spielberg's direction is a little conspicuous and the entire thing basically consists of Joan Crawford just ranting for half an hour. Serling returns to form, though, with 'Escape Route', the story of a Nazi war criminal (Richard Kiley) running from his brutal past. This one would have worked beautifully on ""The Twilight Zone"" :) Serling turned out the occasional gem on the series (Emmy-nominated 'They're Tearing Down Tim Riley's Bar'; 'The Waiting Room'; and 'Cool Air', based on a story by H.P. Lovecraft), but the ""Night Gallery"" pilot film was really his last hurrah on network television. The paintings by Jaroslav Gebr are great, too, as is the theme music (this theme was done by William Goldenberg, and is much creepier than the one used for the series). Recommended.",1 "It's an apt title and solo-focus for Food to be a Jan Svankmajer short; he's obsessed with it, in case you couldn't tell from his other movies (it's used sometimes to ridiculous amounts in Little Otik), and in both playful and gleefully deranged ways. In this short we see his knack at mixing live-action and stop-motion as two gentlemen at a table have plates of food and eat them up... then they eat the forks, then the plates, then the table, then the chairs, not to mention their clothes, and we see how their mouths suddenly flip over to stop-motion for just that bit of mastication and then back to the real human forms. There's also the great bit with the man as a kind of cash-register of food as people sit down and at the flick of a button on his jacket get plastic forks and other things to munch down on their lot of good. Sometimes its disgusting, and at the end when actual body parts get in the mix of things (including, not too undeservedly, a penis and testicles, which actually are the dividing line that isn't crossed) it's downright crude, but it's downright raunchy and crazy and quintessentially Svankmajer. The icing on the cake, of course, is the Blue Danube used as the two naked men munch on their table.",1 "When I heard about the movie Fool 'N' Final, I thought it would be a complete comedy, but it turned out to be the complete opposite.

PROBLEMS

1. way too many characters (and it really bothered me the way they put Sameera Reddy in the movie just for eye candy. my mom could have done her role, and she doesn't even speak Hindi)

2. too many plots, and a lot of pointless scenes

3. NOT FUNNY!

The cast of this movie, you could say, are all pretty good actors. I really wish they hadn't wasted their time with this movie AND DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME EITHER!",0 "Fracture is the story of Ted Crawford (Hopkins), a rich engineer who shoots his wife after discovering she is having an affair. When the police arrive, he confesses and hands in his weapon, and the case is passed on to hotshot DDA Willy Beachum (Gosling), who sees this, his final public service trial before he moves onwards and upwards, to be a slam-dunk case; but alas, thanks to Crawford's mind games, things are not what they seem and the case undergoes a series of twists and turns as Crawford and Beachum engage in a tense battle of wits.

The most obviously noticeable thing about Fracture is the how well-polished it all is. The whole thing looks so...expensive. The cars are expensive. The phones are expensive...even the cutlery during the Thanksgiving dinner scene looks expensive. Beachum seems to wear a new suit in every scene, and even the outdoor location shots look glossy; South California looks like it has been lacquered up especially for the camera lens.

It's all very smooth, well edited, cleverly shot, and well-paced, but without these two actors, this movie would have been nothing more than a glossy second-rate courtroom ""thriller"". Hopkins and Gosling take it to the next level with great lead performances. Hopkins clearly enjoys playing this sort of manipulative role, controlling events, making sly remarks, and winking in that very obviously shifty way, and he gets to drive flashy cars and live in a big house while he does it, which I imagine only increases the amount of fun he has. Similarly, the cockiness arrogance of DDA Beachum allows Gosling to strut around, make wisecracks, and generally be a smug git. While the Hopkins-Gosling clashes make the movie, they are ably supported by David Straitharn, Rosamund Pike, and Billy Burke, who all inject a bit more life and background into the film.

While the ride is comfortable for the most part, Fracture slips a gear towards the end; the shift from murder mystery to moral crusade feels a little bumpy, but nonetheless, strong performances and great artistic direction make Fracture a stylish, clever and enjoyable thriller that's definitely worth a look.",1 "For a made for TV movie I thought that it was a great popcorn movie - don't expect anything to be very accurate and don't expect any award winners in this bunch but I do recommend this for a TV type version somewhat like ""The Replacements"". Look for cameos from real NFL players & officials.",1 "And you will too if you see this, since the bear is probably the best actor, followed by the bear cub (and he was dead).

A bunch of dimwitted ""Darwin Award"" winners decide to take themselves out of the gene pool and get in a car, and (by montage sequence) travel several hundred miles down to some trashy looking enclosed private property. Smashing their way through barriers the ""fun"" begins. How they knew this place existed, why they thought it would be cool to go there, or why this movie was ever made are just some of the questions never answered. They mow down a bear cub and destroy their radiator, all the while howling and screaming along with their screeching tires.

Mercifully, the mommy bear comes along to exact revenge, and none too soon. She can't off these idiots fast enough, even though the footage of the bear is obviously some unused documentary footage from Animal Planet. Like all low budget movies, you'll know who's next to get it from the spliced in stock footage. The cabin scene is the only scene that was remotely well done, but then it's back to stupid behavior by the next victim who leaves the safety of the cabin when he hears the bear growling.

Moronic.",0 "A tour de force by Bratt, ""Pinero"" tells the story of NYC dwelling drug addict, poet, jail bird, playwright, thief, and actor Miguel Pinero in a busy cacophony of sight and sound which trades kinetics and verve for content, clarity, and humanity. In short, the flick plays out like just another screwed up junkie artist bio which doesn't crawl into the Pinero head to flush out the questionable humanity of the enigmatic protagonist. A film with limited appeal, low entertainment value, and poor coherence. (D+)",0 "This is one helluv a title, isn't it? Why would anyone want to see a movie with a seemingly death-impending title? I remember hearing about WILBUR on cable IFC's (Independent Film Channel) ""At the Angelika"" film previews. It's a film in English by writer-director Lone Scherfig from Denmark. I rather enjoy her previous film ""Italian for Beginners"" (2000) in Danish, Italian and English. (Might want to check out her mini-bio on IMDb - quite interesting to learn about a filmmaker's background.)

""WILBUR wants to kill himself"" is a small quiet film that actually has much human pathos. The three 'and a half' main leads: Harbour, the older brother who's closely protective of Wilbur, is sensitively played by Adrian Rawlins; Wilbur, the younger brother, is lively played (sounds like an oxymoron considering what the title suggests his role is) by Jamie Sives; Alice, the young woman who came into their lives, is subtly played by Shirley Henderson, and the critical 'half' being her little daughter Mary, aptly played by Lisa McKinlay - the portrayals and interplay were flawless. Didn't realize Rawlins is so talented - he was ""Dr. Richardson"" in Lars Von Trier's ""Breaking the Waves"" (1996) with the tour de force pair of Emily Watson and Stellan Skarsgard. (Noticed from the ending credit roll that Lars Von Trier was one of the two script consultants on this film.)

The music by Joachim Holbek complements the daringly subdued theme and tone of this unusually titled film. Well, let's not be hung up on the title. Kudos to Scherfig for being so venturesome with the story and her script. Isn't life just so - uncertain, risky, not as one might expect all the time? Cheers to the full cast and crew for their willing participation and creative energy on this filmic journey. The film's a tear-jerker - wouldn't you know it - with dashes of bemused humor (little details and vignettes like at the Chinese restaurant, at the hospital ward, or by the river, and of course, in the bookstore and in the bedroom) - it's basically about where one's heart is. The plot creeps up on you - gradually the viewer is drawn into this three and a half-some world we see on screen, caring for the characters, worrying with them, sighing with them, smiling with them, and pulling for the best possible outcomes. We want them to somehow succeed - succeed in what? Now isn't day to day living about coping with whatever comes and listening to one's heart? Grand and unattainable philosophy? Not at all. It's also being attentive to the dear persons around us, in our lives, and give a little - don't wait. Wilbur just might learn to let go of himself, think less of himself, and surrender to loving life. That just might be what the title implied, perhaps? It may not be for everyone - see for yourself. ""WILBUR wants to kill himself"" deservedly worth your while.

About the talented Shirley Henderson from Scotland: I've enjoyed her performance as Shirley, the wife & mother and love interest, opposite Robert Carlyle and Rhys Ifans in w-d Shane Meadows' ""Once Upon a Time in the Midlands"" (2002) - almost a similar menage a trois situation but less assertive than her role in ""WILBUR."" She's also in director John Crowley's ""Intermission"" (2003, script by Mark O'Rowe) - taken on, among the stellar cast, the rather offbeat yet still demure role of Sally (the script itself is plucky and unyielding alright - then again, it's probably quite 'normal' in the setting described) - another amusingly enjoyable film from Ireland if you're so gamed.",1 "Edward Burns likes Woody Allen. Edward Burns is a very clever writer. Woody Allen is a very clever writer. Both Edward Burns & Woody Allen are from New York. Woody Allen does not appear in ""Sidewalks of New York."" I expected Woody Allen to walk on the set at any time during ""Sidewalks of New York,"" but Woody Allen does not appear in ""Sidewalks of New York."" Edward Burns stars in ""Sidewalks of New York."" Imitation is the perfect form of flattery. Flatter yourself, Edward Burns; you have touched graces with a master (on the sidewalks of New York). Good Job!",1 "*SPOILERS*

First of all, let me warn you. I've always detested Tarantino, so I didnt'go see this film free of prejudice.

That said, I can't think of a worse film I've seen lately, except ""The Matrix Reloaded"". The reason is that Tarantino shows too much violence, and that he doesn't show anything else. ""But that's the point!"" some will say. The point of what? Ok, lets' make a film and let's show a rape and say that that's the point. Does that mean that the film is good?

Tarantino has always been overrated (I disliked ""Pulp Fiction"" as well). The reason is that he manages to feel unconventional and artsy, so many will feel smart by saying that he's a genius, that his films are masterpieces and all that crap. The plain truth is that he's either a sadistic voyeur or a cunning man who's found a way to make pots of money by exploiting people's naivety. Or both.

Although I don't like gore or black humour, I sometimes appreciate it (eg some films with Vincent Price). The point is trivial, but worth making: black humour has to be, well, humorous. The problem with Tarantino is that he's nothing. A vacuum.

Some reviewers have said that if you don't understand what this film is about, you just won't get it; that it's a mockery and so on. The problem is that if one treats himself to shallow, uninspired, unoriginal, uninventive films, who are shot chiefly for the purpose of using some glitzy special effects and for solvin someone's money problems for the rest of his life, you may find such a film creative or inspired, instead of just the trick it is.

Tarantino is in quotations. He quotes all the time. But a film full of quotations and references is a trick that is worth doing once or twice. After that, it can't hide any more the outright lack of creativity that hides behind the references.

If you watch a gory b-movie (or any b-movie, for that matter), you may like it, even love it, but you'd never go so far as to claim it's a work of ""art"". Tarantino is ""hip"" (for the time being), so it's fashionable to call this lame director a genius.

But time will tell.

Remember David Lynch.",0 "This is a very boring 50s B-zombie movie about an ex-Nazi scientist, secretly in America, experimenting with atomic energy on humans. Using recently deceased cadavers stolen from the morgue, he uses radioactivity to bring them back to life and control their movements in order to seek out revenge on enemies. The police and eventually the government are on the case, picking up traces of radio-active chemicals left behind by the zombified killers. CREATURE WITH THE ATOM BRAIN is basically nothing new and is very dull and ridiculous throughout. The zombies got the stitches across the forehead, which is very B-movie-like and dumb looking. Laughable, but otherwise don't bother...",0 "This is a story of a man's search for forgiveness. A young man gives up his plans for the future in order to raise his orphaned nieces and nephew. Mary-Louise Parker is wonderful(as usual). She is the reason to watch this movie. Blythe Danner and Edward Herrman are also two of my favorite actors. I ran across this one evening and decided to watch based on the cast. I was hooked right away but I felt there was too much missing from the story. I had to read the book. I read the book the following weekend and found that the movie was actually quite faithful to the book just lacking the detail that you only get from a book. All in all, I would recommend this movie (and also the book).",1 "Luis Buñuel's ""The Phantom of Liberty"" is definitely a thought-provoking film. His surrealist approach to film questions society's rules and customs. Though the scenes are quite bizarre, they still manage to feel ""right."" The way in which they question the social order of things is like a visual manifestation and elaboration of questions I have asked myself. The contradictions Buñuel proudly exhibits are fabulous. People have been brought up to think a certain way and expect certain things, and Buñuel's humorous defiance of our expectations makes one think about where our expectations come from, and how legitimate they really are. And yet, everything is done with a lot of fun. ""The Phantom of Liberty"" is like a philosophical discussion about life and individuality and independence of thought made into a movie. I really liked it because it truly made me think about why I am the way I am. It's a good movie to see. I definitely recommend it.",1 "My father-in-law bought this on DVD for our young boys to watch, (aged 4 & 2, as I write). I believe this DVD version was released under the title ""Cartoon Classic"" and it probably cost $1! The first time I saw the film, I saw the ""trippy"" opening titles and a little of the film some way through, (where Hans gives his father the red leather that ends up being the princess' shoes) and found Uncle Olie a little freaky. On a second viewing, (all the way through, this time), the Uncle Olie character is not so freaky, and the whole film is very nicely done, though the sound quality is a little off and the opening titles are still very trippy.",1 "I say that a mark of a good movie is that you don't have to be familiar with the book, play, etc that served as the basis or inspiration. So, having said that, and, subsequently, not having seen nor read Marlowe's play ""Dr Faustus"", I can honestly say the first 10 minutes of Burton's film adaptation bored me so senseless that I didn't even bother sticking around for the always-compelling Ms Taylor to make her entrance...and couldn't have cared less.

It was that bad.

And since it was solely Burton and his monologues, along with Burton's campy directorial choices which ate up those tortuous 10 minutes...I would deem this film as Burton's, and only Burton's, rotten egg.",0 "Having stumbled upon a used copy of this piece years back, I bought it out of curiosity.

For a production done back in 1987, it's very good. The character designs are decent, but it's surprising to know that the monster designs were outsourced to acclaimed artist and animator Yoshitaka Amano (Vampire Hunter D, Final Fantasy series). However, beyond this, you'll note a lot of hard work went into the visual presentation of it- there are countless scenes where multiple layers are used to create depth, people walk towards the camera and stay in perspective, first-person povs are employed, and so on.

As for the story itself- it's a fun little jaunt through deep space- in the vein of ""Alien"" as we watch the crew of the Saldes try and figure out just what happened while they were in cryogenic suspension. It turns out a piece of organic matter got on board the ship and has caused a virus to spread through the ship. Things get bad as some of the crew start showing up dead and panic over possible infection sets in. The virus soon prompts the ships computer to begin taking measures to stop the virus- which endangers the remaining crew members, much like ""2001"". As more and more members of the crew turn up dead and the computer gets more out of hand, the survivors must fight to stay alive and try and find a way to escape to the planet just below them.

This film is pretty gory, and a lot of the monsters are reminiscent of the creatures from the 1982 version of ""The Thing"". There are a lot of cool moments in it- like when the crew fights with homemade flamethrowers or when someone one of the things attacks (lots of gore). My main gripe is that it's only about 70 minutes long, so things happen pretty fast in this story.

If you ever see a used copy, buy it- it's worth the money.",1 "What's there? Cinemascope, technicolor, transparencies, and two dance scenes with Cyd Charisse's wonderful legs.

What else? Lame characters, cheap sentimentalism, lazy plot.

Ridiculously outdated and totally dull.",0 "That is some damn terrible writing and dialogue. Don't get me wrong, the film looked great and I could even tolerate the mediocre acting. Hell, they even had a bit of fun following some of the Zombie Rules with a couple of the character's story arcs...BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE...take your time and write a decent story and believable dialogue. How plausible is it that one of the male characters would have extensive knowledge of the title character's history and that he would then, conveniently, release this information as needed? And why would one female character ask (FOURTEEN TIMES), ""Why won't you tell me what's wrong with you?"" to this same over informed male character after he has been bitten by a zombie, meanwhile, he is screaming in pain!!

And STOPPING MAKING BOSS ZOMBIES...I blame video games.",0 "Dennis the Menace was one of the best movies I have ever seen. The actors were brilliant, there was not one part that no one would not laugh about it. Out of ten I give this movie a ten plus. The actor Mr Wilson (Walter Matthau) was the best of them all. Knowing that a 72 year old man could be that great in the making of this movie. it is a terrible shame that he passed away in 2000. I will miss him terribly. He had made heaps of movies that were fantastic and really funny to watch.

Joan Plowright was great playing Mrs Wilson. She really knows how to act.",1 "I decided to add my voice because this film is highly rated and I have never found myself at such odds with the majority of the IMDb audience.

Spoiler at end.

I read enough to see that I have nothing to add concerning its technical achievement, obviously well done.

I am an avid science fiction fan (books and film) so I agree with those who find this story weak. I went because I wanted to know why this film was so highly rated across all the demographic areas although I had my doubts based on the preview.

Apparently many do not agree with me but I would like to caution others that if you look forward to thought provoking ideas and having your preconceived notions challenged you will be disappointed. Even younger audiences may become bored after 1/2 hour although the visual stimulation may be sufficient.

My background includes special effects in film and computer program development so I naturally appreciate the films technical prowess. But I also know well almost all the science fiction films made to date including those with serious as well as comic presentations and WALL-E does not rate well for me when compared to them.

WALL_E missed being sufficiently provocative or amusing so I found it bland. The film, however, was much better portraying the emotional connections between the two main characters which is quite an achievement considering WALL-E was a garbage disposal unit who apparently developed over a long period of time a more than human heart (think of your feelings for roaches).

Spoiler follows: The ideas of planet ruin via garbage and humans becoming fat, technologically catered to, isolated in space, and thus unmotivated beings after 700 years is interesting but each of these is not original and I, at this time, cannot clearly describe why the film failed to engage me. Perhaps with such a future there should be more angst.",0 "This is a most unsettling and haunting film which vividly depicts the banality of evil. American filmgoers who are too lazy to settle in to the ambiance and mood of foreign films will probably not be patient enough for it, though. I went to see it not knowing at all what to expect, and really got a jolt. One factor that made it so powerful was the everyday reality of it all. These are seemingly normal people you'd see on the street anywhere. I thought it was a masterful depiction of what would probably actually happen when someone you loved just disappeared out of the blue, and the turmoil of emotions that would be unleashed. If you are at all susceptible, the ending will absolutely chill you to the bone, and is the perfect topper to a great film. Please do yourself a favor, and DON'T make the mistake of seeing the American remake instead of the original!",1 "Without doubt, Tenko is one of the BBC's most successful and popular drama series. Never repeated on BBC television, and only the first season available on video (and long since deleted), Tenko still holds strong and popular places in the memories of its audience. I managed to record the whole run on its recent digital television rerun, and became hooked, sometimes watching six episodes in one sitting.

Forcing a group of women to survive in a prison camp, Tenko explores the very human dramas, emotions and personality clashes that arise from this unbearable situation. We spend three-and-a-half years in the company of this group. They have little food, no clean water and no medication or sanitation. Forced into slave labour, sleeping on bare boards, the stresses and strains of their predicament are entirely believable, and make for edge of the seat viewing. Perfectly written (the series was created by a woman who survived a Japanese prison camp) and perfectly acted; blessed with truly amazing make-up (some of the women really do look starving, emaciated, covered in blisters and sunburn); some of the cast have only one dress to wear for the entire series. The human tragedy and awful, grinding horror of prison camp life is unforgettable.

The first series deals with the Japanese invasion of Singapore, disrupting lives of the ex-pats living in the British colony. Forced to evacuate, the survivors fall into Japanese hands, and we follow some of the women into prison. Mentioning ""the survivors"" is a very relevant point. Tenko is not afraid to show that life in this condition can result in awful, lingering death. Characters whom we grow to know and love, to understand and empathise with, are struck down with beriberi, cholera, malaria. The aching sadness and genuine humanity of Tenko is truly remarkable. Gradually revealing more about the characters, their past lives, and their hopes for the future, piles on the emotion, making it absolutely unmissable. There were some scenes I found I was watching while holding my breath, not wishing to disrupt the heart-and-soul being displayed onscreen.

Season two moves the women to a new camp, offloading several en route and picking up some new faces. The new camp, although better equipped, has a very different regime, and introduces us to Miss Hasan, the malicious and spiteful right-hand woman to the Commandant. The second half of season two deals with a prisoner receiving a gunshot wound: operating on her in a hut full of flies, with just a pair of sugar-tongs to remove the bullet, is absolutely gripping.

Season three deals with the war drawing to a close, and the survivors' return to Singapore. Their struggles to return to ""normal"" and realisation that they may have had more freedom in prison, away from the strictures of post-war austerity, are perfectly played.

No-one involved in Tenko has a happy ending. There's a definite feeling that, as the survivors climb about the ship to return to the UK, they have lost everything, and are fragile and broken. The horrors they've witnessed and cruelty they faced daily, will be with them forever more. Those who escaped Japanese capture will never understand.

Tenko is a real masterwork. One of the most intense and powerful pieces of television I have ever seen. Careful touches throughout the series never fail to amaze: Commandant Yamuchi occasionally allowing his humanity and honour to shine (witness the scene in season one where he stands beside a newly dug grave, lost in thought); old-fashioned bigot Sylvia Ashburton gradually letting her prejudices slip as she realises everyone is the same, underneath; season two's black marketeer Verna Johnson losing sight of her pole position in the camp as the war takes a turn for the worse; Dorothy Bennett's uncomfortably close relationship with some of the guards; Lillian's love for her young son gradually driving her mad; Sister Ulrica being forced to make decisions she would not make in the ""real"" world; Doctor Mason's horror at the death and disease she cannot solve ... Tenko is a special thing. Not to be missed, under any circumstances.",1 "This film has possibly got the worst special effects i have ever seen. The laser scenes are the funniest, also watch as THE TERMINATION MAN throws the worlds tiniest bomb which is also completely invisible. The story is about a super human 50 year old who can run miles in seconds but has no other decent powers and his fight against 'russian terrorists'.

The final fight scene which comprising the worst fight choreography ever seen in a crappy straight to video film is also a highpoint of this brilliant movie.

This is a film which makes blair witch's budget seem massive and is the well deserved worst film of all time",0 """Bibleman quotes chapter and verse to help real kids deal with real problems."" How true these words ring, since I can't even count the number of times supervillains used mad science to make me doubt my faith in God when I was a kid. That quote actually exemplifies perfectly the problem I see with most of Bibleman's audience: they're just looking at the surface of this program.

Samuraiguy hit the nail on the head. This show is absolutely ludicrous in how it tries to entice kids into forming a bond with God. Most of the people touting this show's merits see a superhero fighting in the name of Our Lord (and I'm a Christian myself, so I'm not bagging on this because I'm against Bibleman's religion) and not how stupid and hypocritical the series is. In two shows, Lead Us Not Into Temptation and A Light in the Darkness, Bibleman tells us we need to work together and have fellowship with other Christians so we can resist temptation and other forms of evil better. Then in Jesus Our Savior, he totally throws those lessons out the window and goes out to fight his most powerful enemy yet ALL ALONE. And he had both of his sidekicks by that point and gave no reason whatsoever for leaving them behind besides it being in the script. Now that I think about it Bibleman did something similar in the Fear episode, where he doesn't tell his sidekick and supposed best friend about problems he's having. Just in general, he'll lecture the victimized kid du jour on how God loves them and forgives their sins no matter what, but as soon as a villain shows up he goes off on them about how people like them always get their just desserts.

I find the problem with many of the lessons the show tries to teach is basically what I said at the top; the villain will use his diabolical invention to make Bibleman feel pride or doubt or anger or distrust toward his teammates, but Bibleman never overcomes these negative feelings through prayer, faith or fellowship. He finds out that one of his enemies was behind it and the problem of his misbehavior and all of its consequences goes away, and that's why I find this whole program so laughable. Bibleman is supposed to be just a human at heart and so vulnerable to the same temptations as the rest of us, but unlike the rest of us he never has to resolve any problems that arise because of being angry or proud or dishonest. In the real world, these result in diminished trust between people or distancing of loved ones, and those are ""real problems"" ""real kids"" have to deal with as a result of the temptations Bibleman tries to teach us about. If Bibleman and his posse are supposed to be role models who go through the same temptations to sin as the kids they try to reach, they should be put in situations where their misbehavior is their fault, not the Prince of Pride's or Wacky Protester's, and have to face up to what they did, not just go, ""Holy inane plot devices, Bibleman! El Furioso is behind you being an asshole the last few days! You're totally blameless!"" The villains are supposed to embody the concepts of fear, wrath, pride, or thinking for yourself, but that approach costs the show all of its impact because a person was behind the Bible Team's sins, and they never have to answer for what they do because they were just being manipulated. And come on, what kind of role model hides in the bushes and spies on young boys? Watch Conquering the Wrath of Rage if you don't believe me.

And lastly, if you want to tell people how to live, you should pick one tone and stick with it. Bibleman takes every opportunity to make its villains look goofy and non-threatening, and altogether doesn't take itself very seriously with numerous self-referencing jokes, yet constantly turns around and tries to tell its viewers how to live in God's way and other serious issues. It was probably done to make the show kid-friendly. Instead it suggests that the creators don't know what they're doing.

In the end, Bibleman is little more than the Captain Planet of Christianity: he presents a worthwhile message, and many people who see it buy into it, but delivers it in an extremely unbalanced manner far fewer acknowledge because it's a superhero teaching what are ostensibly positive beliefs to kids. I know I've just made myself look like a complete lunatic, but better than that someone who wants a video to raise their kids.",0 "I watched this film on DVD and absolutely loved it--nearly as much as other European crime classics such as RAFIFI, BOB LE FLAMBEUR and GRAND SLAM. The acting was amazingly realistic--particularly from Jean-Louis Trintignant in the lead. The direction is generally excellent and the writers showed that they could make an intelligent and well-constructed film that is timeless. And the film just screams quality is nearly every respect.

Despite how much I loved the film, the editing was very odd, in that the scene transitions from the present (1970) to 1965 and this transition is not at all smooth. You figure it all out very quickly but you are left with the distinct impression that you missed something. As I had the DVD, I went back and reviewed this transition where the two male crooks are eating at the home of the lady Jean-Louis Trintignant met at the theater in 1970 (after his prison escape). Suddenly, his old girlfriend is seen driving up to a house in the country and it's ""pre-crime""--and long before he goes to prison. It appears to be a mistake and I can't see why the director would have chosen this otherwise.

So one final comment about the film. The movie succeeds in hooking you because the plot is pretty entertaining and complex and I strongly recommend it. Oddly, however, the DVD box says it's a comedy. I wouldn't agree--it's not at all funny, though it has some ironic twists (that you're bound to like) and has a somewhat light mood at times.",1 "Do you remember the times before television when people listened to radio? Of course you don't, you're too young! To be quite honest with you, I don't either.I'm even younger than you are. Woody Allen's Radio Days (1987) is a nostalgic look at those times.Mr Allen isn't seen in this movie, only heard.Seth Green plays in a way the young Woody Allen.Only that his name isn't Woody but Joe.This Jewish boy lives his life in New York under World War II.And listens to radio.The acting work is superb in this movie.Young Seth Green is excellent.Then there are names like Mike Starr (Burglar), Julie Kavner (Mother), Wallace Shawn (Masked Avenger), Dianne Wiest (Bea), Mia Farrow (Sally White), Larry David (Communist Neighbor), Danny Aiello (Rocco), Jeff Daniels (Biff Baxter), Mercedes Ruehl (Ad men), Diane Keaton (New Year's Singer) and William H. Macy (Radio actor).The movie is wonderfully written, by Mr. Allen naturally.This is a walk down the memory lane.A look at the past, at the 1940's, at the radio days.This is funny and sad movie filled with nostalgia, with memories of Woody Allen.At the end when there is the New Year's Eve, Woody says these words as the narrator; ""with the passing of each New Year's Eve, those voices do seem to grow dimmer and dimmer.""",1 "Javed Jaffry is great in this movie . A genuine classic comedy character up there with Sholay's Soorma Bhopali or Padosan's Masterji. Unfortunately , he can't live the movie enough to make me give it anything more than 1 point . For Javed's 15 minutes of screen-presence , I had to go thru' Preity Zinta's 2 hours.

How dumb can a Hindi movie be , when 3 people are sitting on a table and two are talking in Hindi , when the third one butts in and says 'English , Please' ?!! And why in the name of God , does this movie have to be based in Australia ? Is it to prove the Australia doesn't make good contraceptives ? ( By the way , the movie is about a contraceptive gone wrong ) The first half had some light watchable and listenable moments , but the second half was Ufff .... TOO MUCH SHREIKING for my pleasure . Abhishekh Bacchan enters supposed as a likable bumbling doctor. But he doesn't look like any doctor . He just looks like Abhishekh Bacchan with bad makeup and horrible overacting , possibly as a result of some contract gone wrong with the producer.

Overall , a bad movie . Worth watching on pirated DVD's just for Javed JAffry.",0 "Poor Rula Lenska & Ron Moody how far they have fallen, to accept and perform in this clichéd dirge! Script, script, script I hear the gate keepers, the producers, the film council shouting, if the foremost essential key to a successful film, but know one obviously took the time read this one and kill this abomination at birth, in fact it would seem that unbelievably know one read it before taking part in this rubbish. Evidently everyone involved fees were high because the stench this one will leave behind will follow everyone who took part in this travesty of a drama to their graves. Take my advise and watch instead some early afternoon Australian soap reruns from the eighties, like 'Cellblock H' the performances are comparable the plausibility of the drama and dialogue vastly superior.",0 "Oh where to begin! This movie was so ridiculous I'm almost ashamed to admit that I paid $5.99 to see it. This movie set an all time record for showing the lead characters boobs the quickest (approx. 2 minutes) and they're not even that great. The scene at the bar where the suave dude picks her up is incredibly lame. It's quite clear throughout this movie that nobody in it has ever acted before....except for possibly bit roles in Anal Paprika 3: Menage-a-Death (it's a real movie). The little girl might be the best actor in the whole movie....and considering every time she spoke you couldn't tell what the hell she was saying that doesn't bode well for the rest of the 'cast'. One area that was surprisingly decent was some of the makeup on the zombies...it wasn't great...we're not talking George Romero here...but it was good considering the quality of the rest of the movie. The end of the movie made absolutely no sense....it made my head hurt and my girlfriend still has a confused look on her face the next morning ;) I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for examples of no talent....otherwise...curl up on the toilet with a nice magazine and you'll probably be more entertained.

Best Actor: Little Girl - can't comprehend what she's saying...but somehow that's a good thing.

Tatum Adair's boobs - they have more scenes than several zombies....and no lines...so that's good.

Green Ball - no matter how many times the little girl bounces this ball it always comes through...look for it in the sequel!

Worst Actor: Mother - no acting ability....terrible...just terrible.

Dad - bad...but at least acted paralyzed fairly well.

Sheriff - not sure what movie he was supposed to be in...but most of what he says doesn't relate to this movie. Seemed very robotic, monotone.....""Bueller.....Bueller.....Bueller""

If the goal of this movie was to make you laugh...then in a way it's very successful....but I don't think it was the goal. It was just lame....sad....pathetic.....worst movie in history.",0 "The shark looked totally fake, especially right before it crashed into the glass window under water. The film, characters, and dialogue were boring and uninteresting. But no matter how bad it got, I still liked the Under Water kindom idea and when the shark was swimming around it and scaring all the people. A particularly funny(that's right funny) part was when the shark trapped a group of people and they were all moaning and crying. Jaws was good. Jaws 2 was somewhere between horrible, painful movie and OK movie, but closer to horrible, painful movie, this was OK, as for Jaws 4 let's not even go there.",0 Metro's answer to the gangster movies made by Warner's is exciting film fare.The film marks the beginning of the Powell-Loy partnership which made legend in their next pairing.Gable's portrayal of a sympathetic gangster is just as good as any of Cagney's at Warner's.Great comic turn by Nat Pendleton as Gable's not too bright henchmen.,1 "So after the initial disappointment of the first Final Fantasy movie, which seemed to bare next to no resemblance to the Final Fantasy series, Final Fantasy: Advent Children has released itself to a warm reception and, now, a dedicated fanbase. And the reason for the films success is understandable as it has lush graphics, fast moving fight sequences and some cool as hell characters. However, if you haven't played FF7 then it is likely that you will not enjoy this film as it's storyline carries on from the game without previous explanation and your likely to get lost from the plot even if you have played the game. Secondly, there is no character development, without previous knowledge from the game your opinions on the characters are limited to 'cool' and 'not cool'. Of course, for FF7 fans the film is almost guaranteed to entertain, at least for nostalgic reasons, and it's cool seeing all the characters you grew to love from the game rendered in some pretty amazing computer animation. One last complaint, the film, at least in my opinion, attempted to cram too much into less than two hours and therefore the last half hour or so seems horribly rushed. If you played and enjoyed FF7 than it is a worthwhile watch, though nothing too special. If you have not played FF7 then it is best that you play it first before watching this film.",1 "Julia Stiles is an immensely talented actress, but a very poor dancer. An inherent flaw then, before we even begin. She doesn't look or move like a dancer, and appears seriously out of place in a hip-hop club. Director Thomas Carter has a string of successful TV shows to his name, and sadly this supposed 'movie' screams 'TV' from every angle. It just doesn't have any depth, and boasts a seriously dodgy 'TV drama-style' score. It skirts right around some interesting and important social & economic issues, preferring instead to attempt to create an illusion of hip-hop, street-gang cool - which it fails miserably to succeed with. Far too wishy-washy, almost apologetic in handling potentially gritty situations. When actors of the calibre of Stiles, Thomas, Lawson, Kinney etc etc are wasted in this manner, it is nothing short of a travesty.",0 One of my favorite aspects of this film is how you are fully drawn into 'Hell'. In short it some what reminds me of a mad max crossed with the movie Legend on an HBO budget. However all those elements come together for a very entertaining and interesting far fetched story line. I hope this one gets put out on DVD! Gave it a 10!,1 "As a successful director of kid's films, Don Coscarelli felt like moving into horror. But he was out of ideas so he shut himself in a mountain cabin for a few weeks and dreamt up Phantasm. God only knows what he was smoking or drinking in order to conjure up a story like this. I've been watching it for over six years, trying to get my head around it. But like the most complex of David Lynch films, there are still some parts of the puzzle that are too warped to fit.

Mike and Jody Pearson are two brothers living in small town California. Their parents have recently died, leaving twenty-something Jody in charge of 13-year-old Mike. But Jody is restless and cannot stay cooped up in such a small town for long. Mike dreads that Jody will dump him with an aunt or uncle and disappear beyond the horizon.

But that's the least of his worries for the moment. Jody's friend has mysteriously committed suicide and after his funeral Mike, hiding in the bushes, sees the undertaker, a sinister Tall Man, heave the coffin out of the ground all by himself and dump it back in the Hearse.

Knowing something ain't quite right about all this, Mike investigates the funeral home and is attacked by hooded dwarfs, flying killer chrome spheres (inspired by one of Coscarelli's nightmares) and is chased by the Tall Man. He gets away but loses a shoe and hacks off some of the Tall Man's fingers for proof.

It's not an ordinary finger, it oozes some kind of yellow puss (embalming fluid perhaps) and still pokes around on it's own. Convinced of supernatural interference, the brothers team up with their Ice Cream vendor pal Reggie to kick the Tall Man's head in. It ain't that easy I'm afraid and the film turns from weirdo horror into positively strange sci-fi as the trio discover more and more inexplicable activity going on at Morningside Cemetery.

The film doesn't have many faults. But it is quite frustrating seeing the characters do no more than go to the cemetery and go home, then go to the cemetery and go home for, more or less, the entire running time. Don Coscarelli shot about 3 hours worth of footage and only ended up using half that. There are loads of fun scenes left out that, while not essential to the film's plot, could have kept things more balanced.

The total 70s feel is a major plus though. Man, I wish I were a kid back then. The big hair, the flares, the cool cars, the loose women and the funky music are all part of this film. The hip 70s score is also incredibly funky and spooky at the same time. Once you start humming it there's no stop.

It's also very different from the typical 70s horror formula. There are no masked killers, no women being chased through the woods and no slasher fodder characters. Mike, Jody and Reggie are bold and decisive and choose to fight instead of running and hiding. The setting of rural California is also a refreshing change from medieval castles, hick villages or haunted houses.

Angus Scrimm, who plays the Tall Man, is no doubt the film's best asset. He hardly says a word but he OWNS every scene he's in. His physical presence and menace makes him a damn cool horror villain and he ought to be as iconic as Freddy or Jason.

No matter what way you look at it, Phantasm never makes complete sense. You can turn it upside down, inside out and back-to-front and you might be able to work most of it out, but there will always be one thing that sticks out. Don Coscarelli claimed he wanted it to be open-ended and ambiguous as a way of not having to make any sequels.

That tactic didn't work.",1 "It's been a long time since I've seen such a well enacted and so realistic TV Series.

It seems that the ""narcotraficantes"", some of whom I would call ""NACOtraficantes"" are just as real as the ones who vandalize and terrify Mexican life in the border as of today.

It is somehow awkward the mix of English and Spanish and I just wonder if this is the kind of language spoken in the US-Mexican border. I've been to Laredo/Nuevo Laredo once and indeed it seems to be like this.

It is also true that today the blood bath seems to be many times worse than when the movie was filmed.

It's a shame that the series has been shut down.

A friend of mine lent me the three DVDs and I couldn't stop until I saw all the episodes.",1 "Funny teen movie, but mostly based on extremely silly clichés, on jokes about sex, or on extremely absurd situations that make it no better than any ""scary movie"" (In case you're wondering, it's not a compliment, to me). At times EuroTrip can be annoying, and offensive to different European people too... BUT I have to say that cameos raise the overall value: Vinnie Jones is simply a genius, as always, and Rade Sebredja (or however it's supposed to be written, hope you will excuse me) shines briefly and brightly. Matt Damon is also very funny. Ah, and the girls that appear are really cute, and often quite naked! Overall, I give it a 3 out of 10, but if you've got a couple of hours to disconnect your brain and don't care about how pointless a movie can get, you might as well enjoy the show!",0 "Very well written story which portrays life as it actually is as compared to TV renditions of it. Reyner has done an outstanding job on this effort. Produced by an entire cast of plebecites, the outcome was polished and powerful.",1 "I can't explain why I like this game so much, having owned it for over 7 years I've played through it at least that many times. No other video game before it (or after it) has compelled me to play so much. It appealed to me mostly because of it's dramatic story (which playing now, I realize has suffered from a poor translation,)and its imaginative environments. The music in the game is also top notch, some of the scores are very haunting well others...aren't. Essentialy the plot follow that of a young boy who pulls a sword from a stone and is then thrust into an adventure to save the world from ultimate destruction, their are of course plot twist (for instance the identity of his mother is quite shocking.) I don't want to say much more on the game, if you see it in a store you probably should buy it... it's really that simple!",1 "This restoration of the original 1926 production almost seems like an anachronism. We feel somewhat creepy watching a silent film in color. Although color entered the realm of silent film around 1923, over 95% of the silent films in color are lost. This is a rare treat (even though we only see browns, reds and blues and even though the water is sometimes red, sometimes blue) and along with the original score re-recorded and 19 minutes of outtakes following the 90 minute feature, it is somewhat of an event. The content is the usual formulaic action film, a real swashbuckler in the Errol Flynn sense of the word. Fairbanks, Billie Dove and Donald Crisp all perform well. Not a great film by any means but lovely to look at in this early color process' infancy. (For great two-strip Technicolor see Michael Curtiz' back to back horror films of the early thirties - DOCTOR X and MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM.",1 "I just watched this movie and I don't know where to start. This is just a very bad movie. This has nothing to do with the fact that the movie departed from the books; it's a very bad movie, period. I don't blame the actors; I think they did the best they could with what they had. I would sum up this movie as an awful lot (or a lot of awful) effects and camera stunts being used to hide the fact that there is no story.

The camera switches from close-up to dangling high overhead repeatedly. It jumps around in battle scenes, apparently to make up for a lack of action. The special effects are cliché, more distracting than dramatic, and the battles turn into yet another CGI super-hero cartoon scene. But this is really just obscuring the fact that there is no story. The history is contrived; the family is pathetic; the Old Ones are rather useless; it's fortunate for Will that the enemy is inclined more to drama than to action. Once again we see the woman-as-temptress, tool-of-the-devil theme. The final battle is mostly against a lot of black dust. Will is driven by self-pity and only gets interested in the battle when he finds he has real power -- and then he becomes a rather self-righteous little jerk. None of these characters are likable or interesting (except possibly to 13-year-old boys).

Which brings me to the review by the Truly Moving Pictures judge. I notice that the reviewer did not use a real name, and the website does not list judges (that I could find). The fact that this organization gave this film any kind of award can only indicate some kind of financial interest, since there is clearly no merit whatsoever evident in this film. I would agree that you can see the budget in the film, but I would add that you can also see that it was wasted. I was highly gratified that on opening weekend, there were perhaps twenty or thirty people in the entire theater. Hopefully there won't be any attempt at a sequel and perhaps someday someone will do justice to Susan Cooper's books.",0 "Just saw this again. It's been one of my five or six favorite films since I was a teenager, but I hadn't seen it in years.

Wow. It really holds up. And looking at it through the eyes of someone who's been acting for thirty-odd years rather than the eyes of a teenager really makes a difference. There's some really fine work in this movie. I've never quite believed Burgess Meredith did (or could do) a day of hard labor like bucking barley in his life, and it's very tempting to think of what someone else might have done with the part. (Lewis Milestone tried to borrow first James Cagney and then Humphrey Bogart for the part. Neither would have been terribly convincing as guys who grew up in the San Joaquin Valley, and I have a hard time thinking of Bogart in the role. Cagney would have been very interesting, even if not quite right.)

This time through, I paid close attention to the acting work of people I'd never given much thought to in that regard, as far as this movie goes. Charles Bickford is really good, and Betty Field is superb. The movie was nominated for four Oscars, including Best Picture (of 1939!!), but none of the actors was nominated. Of course it was a tough year, one of the toughest ever. But in another year, I suspect Lon Chaney Jr. would have been nominated for the performance of his career. His performance has been so imitated over the years that it might not seem so special nowadays, but I tried to find something to critique about it and I simply can't. He's believable and heartbreaking without seeming, to my eyes, the least bit forced. But the standouts are Leigh Whipper and particularly Roman Bohnen, who play Crooks and Candy, respectively. Whipper had played Crooks on Broadway and his experience with the role shows. Crooks's forthrightness about the burdens of being the only black man in a white community are a little startling for 1939, as is his disdain for the whites who enter his ""sanctuary"" uninvited. Bohnen is just remarkable, one of the most heart-wrenchingly touching performances I've ever seen. (Not surprisingly, he gave another such performance as Dana Andrews's father in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES.)

Aaron Copland's music and scoring were both nominated for Oscars. Copland only composed six feature film scores (the others: OUR TOWN, THE NORTH STAR, THE RED PONY, THE HEIRESS, and SOMETHING WILD). OF MICE AND MEN was his first. Every score of his I've heard is a masterpiece, and it's hard to say which is ""best."" Suffice it to say that his first is a contender, and one of the best film scores ever written.

Although based on Steinbeck's novel, the film owes much to the play Steinbeck also wrote. Lewis Milestone manages to avoid any sense of being stage-bound, though his wide-open-spaces shots are quite limited. I was really impressed by his staging. There's one really nice shot of Meredith and Bickford talking in a barn. As Meredith leaves, the camera pulls back, keeping both actors in frame, until the entire interior of the barn is revealed and shown to be huge, much larger than it had felt. It's a simple shot made by a clear master.

I'm not a great fan of Gary Sinise's remake, particularly as to how the ending was handled. The one great advantage Sinise had was color. There are shots in the 1939 version where I could imagine the color and where I felt robbed by its absence. It's not a black-and-white film that particularly exults in its black-and-whiteness. Had it had a larger budget, perhaps it could have been made in color, which would have served it very well. But all in all, I'm thrilled that this favorite of mine for decades holds up and actually exceeds my fond memories.",1 "The movie is totally pathetic. The plot is just ridiculous, with very poor selection of ""funny"" scenes, including some totally displaced ""sexy scenes"". America is not the greatest place to live, and americans are not the smartest nation on this globe, and this movie is just another proof. I regret having spent $5.69 Canadian to watch another stupid movie about american ""heroes"". I am completely astonished at how stupid movies have become from our southern neighbours. I really feel compelled to start watching any movie but american.",0 "It looks like this movie has had quite mixed reviews, but personally

I love it! It's outrageous, irreverent and absolutely hilarious. The

special effects are amazing and the gags just keep coming.

There are so many witty lines that it's hard to remember them all.

One of my favourites is when Bruce Willis and Goldie Hawn plan

to murder Meryl Streep (who plays Willis' wife). They concoct an

elaborate plot to push her car off Mulholland Drive, but Willis ends

up pushing her down the stairs instead. After the deed is done he

phones Goldie Hawn and breathlessly exclaims, ""Helen? I did it!

She's dead, she started shouting at me and I couldn't take it any

more and I pushed her down the stairs and she's dead!"" There is

a long pause on the other end of the phone, then Hawn slowly

asks , "". . . which part of the plan didn't you understand?"".

Meanwhile, Streep is not dead, but is slowly standing up at the foot

of the stairs with her head on backwards!

Isabella Rosselini is good as the mysterious Lisle von Rhuman

and, at times, looks and sounds uncannily like her mother, Ingrid

Bergman. The film is not everyone's cup of tea, I know, but it's a scream!",1 "I love Westerns. I have watched dozens of them and I continue to watch every one that comes on that I haven't seen. (Thanks to the IMDb 'My Movies' I can set them up and get alerted to them coming on, a very nice feature.) This has to be the all-time worst Western I have ever seen.

The townspeople in this movie are the direct ancestors of the families in the home security system ads, where they put a night stand up against the bedroom door and are talking to the security guy on the phone. ""Is everything all right?"" ""No, there is a man coming up the stairs who wants to kill us all."" ""Don't worry, I'm calling the police right away."" Whew! Close one! And how preferable it is to have the police arrive in ten minutes, with a killer ten seconds away, than to have any means of actually defending oneself. Right? It is THAT level of self-imposed helplessness that afflicts the people of the town in this movie. They stand by, afraid to do anything for fear that it might be wrong. And you can bet, if they DO do anything, it WILL be wrong, so best not to ever defend yourself or try and stop a bad guy. Just cower and hope he won't make it hurt too much for too long.

As another reviewer said, in the old West, any idiot who tried to do what 'the bad man' did in this movie would find himself dead in side of five minutes, because back then, people stood up for and defended their family and property and town. They did not stand by in horror, clutching a copy of Consumer Reports and watching as the women were raped and the town was burned. The person who wrote this trash movie has no clue what this country used to be about. The 'bad man' would have been the 'dead man' in no time, and a person as wimpy as the mayor played here by Fonda would have been disgraced and yanked out of office pronto.

This whole movie is written from the viewpoint that bad people will eventually stop being bad if we let them tire themselves out beating us up, so we should not do anything about them. It is not realistic, it is not dramatic, it is not riveting, it is not honest. It is a complete frantic fantasy from the viewpoint of a clueless, modern-day political liberal, plain and simple.

I can almost forgive Henry Fonda for appearing in this cow plop of a movie because his role in 'Once Upon A Time In The West' was so powerful. Here, he is nothing but a complete power failure.

Someone commented that Fonda's character was much more realistic than the type played by say Clint Eastwood. I totally disagree. Perhaps there is nobody as-such we can point to from history who was exactly what Eastwood portrayed, but look at the famous sheriffs and marshals and gunfights and bad guys who are well-recorded in history. Where are the pacifist hand-wringers? History did not note them, because they were nothing that anyone would want to remember. They died as ineffectual cowards, and their only legacy was the shame of being too afraid to stand up for themselves against the power of bad.

The 'bad man', riding through town, doing crazy things and cackling and laughing the whole time, is one of the most bizarre and totally unrealistic characters I have ever seen in a movie, let alone one around whom the story is supposed to revolve. Can this be a serious attempt at a Western movie? It is a sad, pathetic joke of a movie, designed to push a pacifist viewpoint from the perspective of someone who knows more about tofu than about the old West.

I hate this movie. Have I made that fact clear? This movie is GARBAGE. Thank you and good night.",0 "holy crap.i thought this was a great movie.it is a made for TV movie,but it is better than most TV movies,and even comparable to some theatrical releases.the premise is not new,family moves into a new community after a break-in at their old house, to start a new life.things seem great in the new community,but then things start happening.i won't say anymore except that there is a psycho stalking the family.and let me tell you,this psycho is really nuts.but what really elevates this movie is the acting.which i thought was fantastic.there's also lots of tension ans suspense to keep you unnerved.this is a very entertaining movie,deserving of a higher rating than it currently has.i've seen a few TV movies of the genre and this is one of the better 1's.my vote for 'Love Thy neighbour': 9/10",1 "The name De Mille evokes big sets, big costumes and bigger action and Crusades was his follow up to his earlier take on Christian oration from the scandalous - in a good way - Sign of the cross. Henry Wilcoxson, his Marc Anthony of Cleopatra and the always beautiful Loretta Young team up in this extravagant epic. King Richard the Lionheart is not a Christian and is not faithful to the ways of the sign of the cross but to escape a forced marriage he signs up for the Crusades to free the holy city of Jerusalem. Of course, there is scheming behind his back to seize his throne while he is gone. Along the way he trades for a wife, Loretta and haggles and argues with his other European leaders. Now, it has often not be said for it is almost as if De Mille build big sets and big stories to tell little moments for all his excess, his movies are ridiculously dialogue driven, even by the standards of the other expensive blockbuster-type movies made back then. De Mille loved dialogue scenes and focusing on character. Very strange. And this movie is really a politics and character movie as the future of Europe is argued and royal pompous exposed. The action sequences are obvious studio sets but well shot. The final moments have good heart that is not forced but earned. Thus, is this a good movie. It is hard to say because for every good scene there is a juvenile scene obviously put in to satiate the masses. Good direction though, very good direction. That said, Crusades lost money when first released, if you only look at its Domestic boxoffice rentals but was the biggest grossing movie of its year.",1 "You pretty much know you're getting an heroic picture about Americans in battle when watching a war movie from 1943, so that helps set the stage up-front. The characters are idealized and thin, though certainly not as much as they could have been, and the pacing and narration don't quite hang together.

This picture is best seen as a collection of stories, some of which are so disturbingly human that they must be true. Veronica Lake does an outstanding job in her role, which consists of little dialogue but tremendous meaning. Claudette Colbert is perfect in her role, as are many of the other actors.

The two main male lead characters were almost painful to watch, with rotten dialogue and not much acting ability to pull it off.

The overall messages of the film are a real eye-opener compared to the propaganda we hear today (2008) regarding America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Themes of compassion, tolerance, and ""sentimental virtues"" make one realize just how far we've fallen in the last 60 years. As others have commented, it was surprising and at times shocking to see how far the filmmakers went to expose the horrors of war and the many ways people respond to it.

It was wonderful to see women of the same rank as men, and being portrayed as competent leaders and essential contributors. Courage and ingenuity shine through in memorable vignettes, reminding us that everyone near a war zone is affected by that war -- whether officially military or not.

My only wish is that the overall picture held together better as a whole. It's definitely essential viewing for its historical value, but isn't a classic film on its own.",1 "Great action movie with cool car/bike/truck chases. Gary plays a cop whose family is wiped out by a drug boss. After he recuperates he sets out for revenge and some great martial arts sequences ensue. Gary seems to be going from strength to strength. Definitely check this out. As Joe Bob Briggs would say, gun fu, car fu, kung fu galore.",1 "Victor says to Clara in Bulgarian 'As Imam Odin Golyam Kur' and says her this means let's move the stuff. In Bulgarian that means 'I have a big penis'. Bulgarian is not common language that any people who know few languages would understand what he is saying.So 99% of the people who watch it don't know Bulgarian.That means they don't have to understand details. Like most of the Spanish movies I have watched, it has sexuality on it. The problems that people might get in their lives spontaneously. It's interesting that the accidental shot fired by Elena changed her life and the life of 5 other people. Overall it's a nice movie to see.",1 "Steven Spielberg's ""Close Encounters of the Third Kind"" (1977) is a genuinely silly, unfortunately outdated story. Its epic scope made it one of the highest-grossing films of 1977, nominated for two Academy Awards ® (it lost Best Visual Effects to George Lucas' ""Star Wars""). Now, 27 years later, it just seems goofy and sickeningly sweet.

Spielberg adds a schmaltzy layer to most of his films that set his projects apart from the work of other directors. Arguably the most famous filmmaker since Hitchcock (in terms of public recognition), Spielberg is responsible for some of the greatest films ever made. Most critics consider ""E.T."" and ""Close Encounters of the Third Kind"" – both films that deal with extra-terrestrial life – to be some of his finest. For me, they are both rather disappointing. And unbearably sugar coated.

So, what is the primary problem with ""Close Encounters""? Is it a bad movie? No, not really. But it's not a particularly memorable one, either. Apart from a few so-called ""classic"" sequences (the boy opening the door, the mashed potatoes, the alien arrival), the movie fails to spark much interest. Most of it – to be completely blunt – is quite stupid. Spielberg admits on the Special Edition DVD that he finds ""Close Encounters"" a bit too optimistic and unrealistic. When Spielberg made this movie, he believed in extra-terrestrial life, and was a young man with no children. In retrospect, Spielberg claims that the movie is a perfect snapshot of his youth, but as an adult, he would never make the movie the same way he did in '77.

One of the largest flaws is the fact that Roy Neary (played by Richard Dreyfuss fresh off the success of Spielberg's 1975 smash hit ""JAWS"") abandons his own family (wife and children) to embark on a crazy search for extra-terrestrial life. In a matter of thirty minutes of screen time he has packed up, traveled to Wyoming, broken past blocked off roads, found a new romantic interest, and by the end...well...let's just say that the conclusion is rather shameful on Spielberg's behalf. It is quite evident that he had no firm grasp of moral obligation in '77, and Roy's climactic decision is wholly unbelievable.

Then again, most of the film is like that, too.

Neary is an electrician who experiences a ""close encounter"" one night when a UFO seems to attack his car, and then flies off into the distance. Roy soon struggles with confusing mental images that have mysteriously implanted into his brain.

Hounded by the smart Dr. Lacombe (French director Francois Truffaut in his acting debut), Roy soon realizes that the extra-terrestrials plan to land on earth – and he wants to be there, to see it all.

Roy's evolution is too fast – in a matter of what seem to be few days he has turned into a complete loon, and because of Spielberg's lack of character arc, the sudden change is startling and – worst of all – cold. We lose all sense of empathy for Roy, primarily because we do not experience his pain – we see him suffering, sure, and moping around like a ""cry baby,"" as his son names him. But this happens so fast that we are left wanting more.

The movie's conclusion – which lasts over forty minutes long – is the most exciting part, but the abrupt change of pace (from being a slow-moving charming family film about ""close encounters"" to an oddball chase movie about the government covering up a dangerous conspiracy and hunting down escaped witnesses) hinders the lasting impact. Spielberg is constantly trying to find a groove for his movie, and never really finds one to stay the course.

Then, there's the long-awaited alien introduction (which lasts over twenty minutes long). Most people flocked to the theaters in order to see this sequence – the special effects showcase of the year. This is proven by the fact that Spielberg purposely draws out the scene for such a lengthy period of time. Then, audiences savored the F/X because they were the best since Stanley Kubrick's ""2001: A Space Odyssey"" (even the trailer advertisements claimed this was so, in order to entice viewers). Now, they're outdated, by almost all standards of special effects. Watching them for twenty minutes becomes tiring.

And of course, the annoying musical conversation between man and alien comes next – something else that only makes the film more grating so many years later. ""It's so '70s!"" someone once said. I agree. (Many great masterpieces were made during the 1970s, but most people forget how many downright cheesy, forgettable movies were made, too.)

""Close Encounters of the Third Kind"" simply does not hold up after 27 years, which is quite unfortunate. The F/X are shoddy, the ideas are insane, the movie is long and boring, and the direction and acting are about the only two things that approach greatness. Spielberg shows talent behind the camera here, but it is vastly inferior to ""JAWS."" Even John Williams' score fails to leave the same impact as ""JAWS,"" ""Jurassic Park,"" etc.

Produced during a slew of ""happy alien"" movies (followed by another slew of ""mean alien"" movies during the '80s after Ridley Scott's ""Alien"" in 1979), ""Close Encounters"" is at times amusing, annoying, fast, long, and silly, all at once. The nation needed hope during the '70s, and they turned to the skies. Spielberg answered their calls, with a movie that set records, but is now nothing but a forgettable tale.

Many will disagree with me when I say that ""Close Encounters of the Third Kind"" is an overrated, disappointing motion picture with few redeeming qualities. The harsh feedback should be interesting.

2.5/5",0 "I wasn't expecting much from this film, but I ended up loving it quite a bit. It's a great kid's adventure, lots of mystery and action, good character development, and plenty of cool settings.

Bill Murray and Tim Robbins do a fine job in their roles, but they are mostly supporting cast. It's the two kids who are the real heart of the story. I also love how the filmmakers created an entirely plausible distant future where beauty still thrived despite crumbling infrastructure. Above all, this is a movie about hope for the future.

If you are looking for a good adventure similar to THE GOONIES, check this out. Great for kids, and great for folks of all ages who enjoy light adventure.",1 And this was supposed to be a blockbuster??? This wasn't even up to par with a half baked 60 minute television crime drama. I had heard that this movie was poor. I'd heard that there were no good performances in the movie. I'd heard that the plot was rushed and that I'd regret wasting spending the time it took to watch it. All of these statements were so incredibly understated and did not remotely allow for how terrible this movie really was. I can't believe that Al Pacino found any reasons to actually make this film. I can't believe a studio funded it. I can't believe that it has a 6 for a rating overall. This is one of the worst developed plots; the most rushed story lines; so many short cuts and just an utter waste of talent and time. HORRIBLE!!! I want my 88 minutes back!!!,0 "This was one of the last of the cut and splice ninja movies to be made by our old friends Joseph Lai and Godfrey Ho.

Alas-genre regular Richard Harrison is no where to be seen having by this time presumably escaped his contract with the aforementioned cinematic crooks (in fact Harrison reportedly felt so sullied by his experiences with Lai and Ho and their deceitful film making techniques that he more or less retired from the industry)

In his honoured place however steps forward Pierre Kirby (who also appeared in the demented classic that is 'Zombie vs Ninja', aka 'Zombie Rival-The Super Ninja Master') who actually does many of his own stunts and martial arts.

The ninja segments in this are as usual, quite hilarious, with the protagonists milling around proudly in their brightly coloured attire and sporting headbands with the word 'ninja' emblazoned in big letters upon them. The acting/dialogue as expected, is also a hoot - is there really anyone out there who can keep a straight face as the characters in these films interact with one another?!

Added to this, the original film into which the ninja segments have been edited is also actually very good in it's own right and involves a skilled swordsman called eagle in a tale of violent retribution.

All in all this is tremendous (and somewhat insane) fun!",1 "While not the best movie ever made, I found the sequel to ""Hollow Man"" to be very entertaining. It kept my interest going except through one part (a chase scene) which seemed too long to me. (This is based on the original book ""The Invisible Man"" by H.G. Wells. You can read the entire book starting here: http://www.bartleby.com/1003/1.html .)

Solid acting was the trait throughout the whole caste which helped to keep the almost thin plot going and believable. Christian Slater as Michael Griffin, Peter Facinelli as Det. Frank Turner, and Laura Regan as Dr. Maggie Dalton all played their parts very well. 8/10

Also some very clever ... things happened ... which gave the movie a ""notch up."" :)

-LD

_____________________________________________

my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33",1 "This is an all time fav, own it, watch it all the time. During a recent replay of the DVD, something occurred to me that has somewhat diminished my view of the female character, Lu (Julie Warner). Early on in the movie, Ben Stone stumbles out of his cabin after dreaming of a beautiful woman bathing in water, and lo - there's a nude Lu surfacing and making 'first contact' with him. After getting to know the town's characters, the viewer learns that 'nobody can poop without everybody knowing what color it is,' or something to that effect. Lu would've known of Ben Stone's arrival in Grady, of where he was staying, and may have planned and had an eye out for when he made his way out of that cabin. It's hard to believe she could've stayed underwater ALL that time, and then surfaced at just the right moment (unless she had an oxygen tank under the surface!) In a later scene when Ben 'walks, runs' to her home late at night, the viewer learns there must be some distance between the two homes. Did Lu swim over to Ben's that morning, or drive specifically to the area just to emerge, nude, in his presence? That sorta spoils it for me now, but Doc Hollywood is still a good, clean and romantic view of a small-town romance.",1 "Yes, perhaps there is some interesting psychological commentary in the movie, but overall it is bizarre, unrewarding, and with no sense of closure. Further, it is not scary in the least. I thought it was supposed to be a horror movie, but it is more like a sterile view of something that could be scary just because of the subject matter, but doesn't come off that way.

I had a pretty hard time watching the whole thing just because it was so boring. I was constantly asking myself if the time I was spending rotting my brain with this movie was better used, say, eating a PB&J sandwich...",0 "***SPOILERS*** Very complex and confusing film about the Nazi Genesis Project during WWII in the mass production of synthetic fuel to run its war machine. It was that fuel, made from liquefied coal, that had Germany hold off defeat while inflicting millions of allied casualties for some two years after it's supply of oil, mostly from the Romanian Ploesti Oil Field, was obliterated by allied daylight bombings in 1943.

Seeing in the spring of 1945 that the war was lost, for Germany, German General Helmut, Richard Lynch, makes a desperate dash with a truck full of Nazi secret documents towards the Swiss border only to get intercepted by a US Army patrol. It's then that Gen. Helmut makes a secret deal with US Army Major Tom Neeley, Robin Clark,to trade the documents for his safety out of the country and possible being tried as a Nazi war criminal. It's now 35 years later and Neeley now a retired L.A police chief is found murdered in his home with it made to look like it was some kind of mob hit. In fact it was but the mob wasn't the Mafia but those running the world's oil cartels.

With Neeley's good friend in the LAPD Let. Barney Caine, George C. Scott, put on the case it becomes evident to him that those who ordered Neeley murdered originated, by a check on Neeley's recent travels, from Germany. That becomes even more clear to Let. Caine when within days Neeley's estranged wife Kay, Beatrice Straight, is also fund murdered in her Jacuzzi with the same murder weapon that murdered her husband! The film follows the same formula in that as soon as we're, or Let. Caine, introduced to a major character in it he, or she, ends up being murdered! Let. Caine traveling to, at that time in 1980, West Germany on official business starts to put all the loose ends in Neeley's murder together and uncovers his involvement with the Nazi Genesis Project! If the secret of the Genesis Project were made public it would put the world's oil cartels out of business!

Hard to follow and very boring at times, with the action in the film about as long as a one minute TV commercial, the best part in it is the confrontation between Let. Caine and Titan Oil CEO Adam Steiffel, Marlon Brando, at the conclusion of the movie. It's that scene that explains to the audience what exactly is going on in the film.***SPOILER ALERT*** Steiffel who's the man behind all the murders in the movie comes across so likable, due to Brando's comedic mannerisms of him, that you find it hard to dislike him. In fact you look at Scott, as Let. Caine, to be more of a villain that he does in is verbally abusing the what seems like the helpless balding fat-man that Steiffel is. In the end it's Steiffel who ends up getting the last laugh by checkmating Let. Caine, despite all his efforts, in his trying to get the Genisis formula out to the public. Which shows that big bucks not morality or the public interest is the way to get things done in this world. There's also in the movie the husky voiced and very athletic looking Marthe Keller as Lisa Spangler in a role that she seemed to play in every film she was in back then; The mystery woman. Lisa was so mysterious that even when the movie was finally over you didn't quite know on just who's-Let. Caine or Adam Steiffel-she was on?

P.S The film ""The Formula"" has the distinction of not only having two Academy Award winners, Geroge C. Scott & Marlon Brando, for best actor in it but also the very two who turned the coveted Oscar down for, in Brando's case, political and, in George C, Scott's case, personal or professional reasons.",0 "The character of English writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes is probably one of the most popular invented detective. He is very calm and has very cool attitude when he's trying to solve a murder. This movie will help you to like even more this brilliant detective. It's mostly because of the actor Rupert Everett who is very good in this roll. Also I have to say something about script. It's not the best that it can be, but it's good, because you cannot understand who is the murder till' the end. This movie takes place in London, where someone is killing young ladies from rich families. This case is been given to the best detective on the world,Sherlock Holmes. He has help from his friend Dr.Watson and from Watson's fiancée Mrs.Vandeleur. This movie is good because of the actors and script. Again I have to mention Rupert Everett who proved that he is very good actor. Also Ian Hart played well as Watson. Please look this movie with patience and watch a good performance from a fine actor.",1 "Just saw this movie at NYU with interview with director following the screening. He was as engaging and genuine as the film itself. This young man is a gifted director, mentored by Martin Scorcese, and what makes the film even more compelling is its basis in the true story of his own family's struggle to keep their lobster business ""afloat."" After the screening both the director and the director's father shared their emotions and anecdotes, and the audience could tell how much it meant to them to tell their story in this film. Aiello and Curtin signed on to do the film knowing that it would pay some $75 a day, so you know that the script was special and spoke to them on a deep, human level. I highly recommend this film and I hope everyone who can will go see it!",1 "For all the crap that Final Fantasy VIII got by not being a 'fantasy' game, it truly is a unique and outstanding game that is undeniably unforgettable in the best selling video game Final Fantasy series.

First, for a video game done in 1999, Final Fantasy VIII's FMV (Full Motion Videos) graphics were awesome! From the intro I was already swept up on my feet, hanging on to every last detail of the garden, brilliant fight scene, and glimpses of Sorceress Edea to the last and final ending FMV, which was completely worth the hours of gameplay. What's impressive was that for the intro, you're treated to an amazing training battle between Squall and Seifer, where both of them slice up each other's face...graphic but an awesome and def memorable fight scene.

Second, the score is awesome! Again, the intro with 'Liberi Fatali' to 'Eyes on Me' to 'Man with the Machine Gun' to 'Fithos Lusec Wecos Vinosec' to 'the Oath', really the orchestration and score is moving and beautifully done! Worth buying the soundtrack!

Third, need I mention the terrific FMV graphics again? Yes, there is a drawback to the game, the ingame graphics for FFVIII are terrible compared to FFIX and FFX, but you overlook these and you begin to appreciate the intricate plot lines and character developments. One of the most beautiful locations you go to is Esthar city, it's really breathtaking. Another FMV is the awesome Dollet clip, terrific graphics of machines and Squall's escape: it's one of my favorite scenes next to the dance clip!

Finally, the story and its characters. You have your main character, Squall Leonhart, as the taciturn and reluctant hero and lone wolf who is, in my opinion, one of the best looking RPG characters there ever was, who's specialty is the kick butt Gunblade. The detail is amazing! Then you have your supporting characers, like Rinoa Heartilly (Squall's love interest), Zell Dincht, Irvine Kinneas, Quistis Trepe, Selphie Tilmitt, Laguna Loire (Squall's dad), and Seifer Almasy (Squall's rival and nemesis).

FFVIII is a classic love story. The hero is aloof, yet underneath that tough guy act is a vulnerable 17 yr old, who tries not to care about anyone and the heroine turns his world upside down! After series of rescues and all, the ending FMV (one of the most memorable RPG endings of all time) will definitely sweep you off your feet and conclude this classic love story.

The FFVIII story is set in a futuristic world full with sophisticated technology where an evil sorceress corrupts the world's largest military power through manipulation and deception, enslaving mankind to do her bidding. And it's up to a small, loose-knit group of SeeD graduates led by Squall and he must become the leader he never wanted to be, and defeat this sorceress.

Yes, again, it didn't have your 'fantasy' elements like dragons and magic, save Sorceress Edea, but in a way, FFVIII is a 'fanasty'. First of all, it's set in the future, that's already your step to 'fantasy'. Next, the futuristic weapons and machines were wonderfully done, believe me, you'll come to appreciate the dollet scene, where Squall's on the sub and the wind is blowing in his face: terrific! The thing was that Final Fantasy fans were disappointed in FFVIII because it was no longer set in the 'past' like the previous FF games, but I think it's a nice change and definitely an awesome change, because it set the groundworks to FFX. The battle costumes to Squall's signature fur jacket outfit and Gunblade to Rinoa's blue costume with angel wings on the back...I loved it! Fans and new players should appreciate the captivating the story line, (great looking) characters, beautiful FMV, and moving soundtrack of Final Fantasy VIII. It was also a breath of relief for me, because the charactes were finally tall (at least compared to the other FF characters and just down right kicked butt)

So, despite the complaints of FFVIII being to futuristic and the not so great inplay graphics; the music, FMVs, plot, and characters will make up for it and blow you away!

10/10 GREATEST GAME I've ever seen, next to Final Fantasy X and VII, although I think FFXI will be just as awesome! Buy the game and play it out, it's worth the time and the money! Final Fantasy VIII ****/**** Stands alone as an awesome RPG game and in the FF series.

What's amazing was that after the game's release was a sudden fad when people went crazy over the Rinoa angel wings, Squall's Lion symbols, and the beautiful song: Eyes on Me.",1 "I am sorry to admit that I didn't think this was good at all. I'm not the target demographic, admittedly, but if not for being with my mother, I'd have walked out of this movie. Despite an intriguing premise, the movie never really goes anywhere. There are myriad plot holes and the acting is also some of the worst I've seen in a long time. The climax was dull and unsatisfying, and likely to offend most if not all non-Christians. Religious films can be done well, but they are definitely hit (The Exorcist, The Believers, King of Kings, Ben Hur) or miss (Exorcist II and III, Stigmata). Revelation is, unfortunately, in the latter category. DON'T SEE IT.",0 "Saw the film last night at the Nashville Film Festival. The documentary follows Cale and his band on a two week trip to Tulsa and back where Cale talks about his life and his approach to his music. It was great to watch in a lot of ways .. the music was great and, as a longtime admirer of the music, I heard a lot of songs in the film that I would like to own if I could figure out their names, the scenery was kind of cool and made me wonder if the German director (who had never met Cale before he made the film) had also never been through the American southwest.

For me, the most poignant parts of the film were with JJ Cale in downtown Tulsa with an acoustic guitar playing his songs -- seeing a musician transforming from a quiet, soft-spoken man into the musical genius that he is in such a mundane setting can be magic.

The film also made me think about the way we age. Cale, who tells that he is 65, obviously looks different than he did years ago and the film's photography seemed to let you catch that young musician's face from the photos it showed in the aging face of the man as he is now.

It's a great film about a man who could be anyone you know with everyday thoughts, a dry wit and a gentle and humble approach to life.",1 "Did any of the actors put any thought while reading the script. Or they just had nothing better to do with there time. I thought How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days sure had its perks. This movie started out good, a good Hollywood setting, about the adventures and misadventures of romance in L.A. But as the film went on it just really got bad, and annoying to sit through. My thoughts on this is, who wrote this stupidity anyone dares to call it self a movie script. The characters seriously become very unsympathetic. Poppy Montgomery and Tori Spellings characters make this film very unwatchable. Not that they are bad actress's, they just deserve better then this.",0 "The Informers is a story of various upper class individuals and their disconnect with themselves and others. Featuring a large ensemble of characters and the usual cynical tone of writer Bret Easton Ellis, it takes a lot of time to know the character well enough to even care, and character development is probably not as great as it could have been.

If you a big fan of the author's body of work (his novels or their adaptations) you may as a completist make an extra effort to enjoy this but aside from two or three memorable moments, such as the conclusion, things are rather flat.

Director Gregor Jordan's filmography is getting progressively worse since the amazing Two Hands, which was made back when he had little money to work with, away from big Hollywood influences. Here, he fails to provide any structure. Only the pacing and tone remain consistent.

There is a sense that the screenplay adaptation (by Ellis himself) butchered his novel and a sense that the producers further butchered the screenplay. Actors parts (Brandon Routh) were completely cut and this movie must have been an editing nightmare. Overall, it was probably too late to scrap that one but I strongly suspect the only reason it got made in the end is because of many people who are fans of the writer and his work.

The problem is, outside of American Psycho, none of his novels has translated very well to the big screen. Probably time to appreciate his writing in novel form and forget about films.",0 "As I read reviews of this movie I just can't keep feeling like most of you just don't get it. I'm reading comments here on IMDb like ""white boys trying to act like they are black (c'mon that is terrible)"" or ""can someone say Wigger..."". You are missing the point. This movie is simply one big satire of young white teenagers who grow up in decent or rich environment (or Iowa) idolizing the ghetto life that they see on MTV and trying to mimic it. As a product of a large city public school system in the mid nineties I saw these kinds of kids every day. It's pretty depressing actually. Low self-esteem kids with terrible identity disorders trying so desperately to find themselves. Or not? Maybe most of them just don't know how to act. Whatever it is I'd have to say that this movie was on point with every aspect of this kind of lifestyle. For someone like me, who went to school with kids like this, Whiteboyz is a hilarious movie! Flip dog is just so incredibly lost in his gangster world, working out scenarios with Khalid before his talks to him, rapping in front of the mirror, etc. Khalid even tries to explain this to Flip and Flip is so lost he just doesn't understand what he is telling him. Khalid was probably the most normal kid in the movie. He respected his Mom, he has aspirations to go to college, and wasn't all about getting in trouble. What was the most revealing about what this movie was trying to do was the scene where James comes out of his ""gangster"" act and starts ranting racial slurs. Did James have multiple personalities? No. How could you miss the point after seeing that? There are plenty of people I'd like to show this movie to but sadly they won't get it. It's definitely one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It was acted out perfectly and just down right hilarious. Unfortunately, most of the people just don't get it. Recommended as a wake up call to all you gangster white boys out there that grew up in a stable home. Cheers!",1 "In the same way that actors refer to Macbeth as ""The Scottish Play"" to avoid the taboo of mentioning the title, I like to refer to this as ""The Iranian Film"". It's a movie of such unparalleled tedium that to pronounce its name may drive people to enter a monastic order in search of stimulus. It is not merely like watching paint dry. It is like watching beige paint attempting to dry in a humidor in a Barratt Home.

Astonishingly, A Taste of Cherry (as it translates) won the Palm D'Or at Cannes. It was a decision motivated by politics and pseudery that exemplifies the worst Cannes jury decisions. (""Zut alors. Zis film, it was made in Iran."" ""Mon dieu, what's it like?"" ""Well, it's quite boring, but it could be the start of a Middle Eastern renaissance."")

This, sadly, is where the astonishment ends. Critics have fawned over it for its simplicity, but the 95 minutes is a vacuum of Proustian proportions and was, for me, substantially less stimulating than watching the back of the head of the man sat in front of me at the cinema. No one can argue that this film is not boring. It's possible to contend that boredom was Abbas Kiarostami's intention. But the crux of the matter is this: it didn't need to be dull. Tedium is not a vital context for the story, and as such is an insult to the audience.

The plot - a parable depicting a man's quest to find someone who will bury him after he commits suicide - moves with glacial speed. Each candidate explains at length the metaphysical problems with being complicit in such an act, but the monologues are no more sophisticated (and a great deal less articulate) than a pub conversation with a clutch of philosophy students. The Iranian setting gives some insight into Islamic culture, but the whole enterprise is undermined by the way it is filmed.

At the beginning of most of the shots, you see the main character's jeep trundling from one side of the screen to the other. ""Nothing interesting is happening now,"" you think to yourself as the protagonist explains yet again what he wants his passenger to do, ""but perhaps we will reach a dramatic moment at the end of the shot."" The jeep duly reaches the end of the frame, only for the film to cut to a near-identical shot of the same jeep crossing the same drab and dusty landscape with the same uneventful monologue.

Even if you strip away the boredom, there is precious little underneath unless you engage in the most polo-necked type of film criticism. I have read one review that claimed that the protagonist's stone-faced performance was ""showing by concealing"". Another suggested that the failure to explain the character's motivation for killing himself made him an ""everyman"". There is, I suggest, an element of the emperor's new clothes about this.

A Taste of Cherry deals with metaphysics, but that does not make it profound. Viewers who can sit through it are open minded, but that does not make them intellectual. Don't go and see this on the say-so of an impressionable pseud. Don't go and see it at all.",0 "A long haired guy watches as a zombie eats away on a living person. Does he run? No, instead of using logic, he simply drops his pants and proceeds to hump the zombie. She turns around and bites off his manhood or what appears to be a sausage.

The actors decide to stay in a house surrounded by zombies all the while they have a car outside...

The blood looks like red paint and the stuff coming out of their mouths looks like motor oil.

The acting was the worst I've ever seen and believe me I've rented some real horrible grade B movies.

It was a good attempt at a movie but was simply horrible... what was the purpose of dry humping a corpse anyway?",0 "A romantic movie, with the O'Connell's usual humor. If you liked Tomcats, you'll LOVE this movie. Amazing twists and turns with an overall awesome romantic storyline of what love and everything about love really is about. Ryan Reynolds (Van Wilder) was, as usual, a great comedy actor, and we got to see his oh so nice butt, again in this movie! Kept me in a laughing riot, as well as a romantic 'aawww' feeling. All in all, I would definitely recommend this movie.",1 "This movie was really terrible.I would only give it 2/10 but that's because The Crow 2 was even worse.The Crow's make-up job made him look like an extra in a Marilyn Manson music video.How anybody could find him intimidating is beyond me.

Kirsten Dunst acts well(and is hot)but what why she agreed to do this mess is beyond me.The movie is WAY to long and is edited very badly.The LOUD rock music over every action(if you can call them that)scene becomes annoying really fast.

Please,i beg you don't watch this.Not even on t.v.Ever.Don't encourage them.Don't make the same mistake i did-and i saw it in a theatre for free!",0 "Even allowing for it's age, this film is basically a clunker.

The plot is ridiculous, the script is dreadful, the acting dire and the special effects are laughable.

Anyone who knows anything about computers will cringe at lines like ""the new RISC architecture will change everything."" ""yeah, RISC is cool."" or ""it has a 28 point 8 bps modem"" (even when 28.8 modems were state of the art, who called them 28 point 8 BPS modems?)

If you are teenage boy and a fleeting glimpse of Angelina Jolie's nipples is the most exciting thing you can think of, watch this movie. Otherwise look elsewhere for your evening's entertainment.",0 "I am born and raised in Bucharest, Romania, where this film was made, so most of the locations were very familiar to me and I enjoyed seeing them on screen. Otherwise, I see too little reasons to pay for a ticket to see this film, and even as an action rental it is average minus. Wesley Smith deserves better scripts, this one is complicated and fuzzy, and the rest of the actors did not help at all in making it less confusing. There are no real characters, just stereotypes, and almost everything that is planned to be a surprise is quite easy to predict in advance. Car chases repeat themselves in lack of something else, and the effects are the ones we were used in such films 20-30 years ago. Even for a low budget film, this one is too routine to be interesting.",0 "No...seriously...this is just plain boring. I have a fondness for watching Vinnie Jones in just about anything which seems to be both a blessing and a curse. He was great in Snatch, hilarious in Eurotrip, and awesome in Midnight Meat Train (despite having only one line in the whole movie...that's how cool he is). He may just be one of the most distinctly British actors in the history of cinema...when the dude's on screen you can't help but think ""holy crap, that guy is British"". But the blandness of Legend of The Bog is just plain inexcusable, Jones or not.

This movie doesn't really seem to know where it wants to go from the start. Is it a zombie movie? Kind of, but not really. There's people rising from the dead, but they're not zombies in the typical sense. There's pretty much nothing in the way of explanation. You're just meant to accept that 2,000 year old bog bodies are rising from their graves (or lack thereof) looking surprisingly alive and free from decomposition. Period. To be perfectly honest, this movie reminded me (often painfully) of that old episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 where they showed ""Eegah"". It's so similar in parts that it seriously makes me question the future of just about anyone appearing this movie. As I watched this movie I was fighting sleep from about 30 minutes in and briefly succumbed right near the end, nodding off momentarily. That's how boring it is...in a HORROR MOVIE, during the CLIMAX, when everything's supposed to go all to hell and be the most entertaining, I briefly nodded off. I didn't miss anything important, though at that point I wouldn't have cared if I had. Oh...and no violence? Seriously? All of the kills are done off screen which is just a huge party foul for a horror movie. Whatever...I think even writing this is giving this film more than it deserves. Skip it and watch something...anything...else.",0 "You might like Fliegauf's ""Dealer"" maybe if you haven't seen his earlier films. They are all clones, of which ""Dealer"" is at least the 4th of a kind, the others being ""Is there life before death?"", ""Talking Heads"" and ""Rengeteg"". His films use the same schema: extremely long close-ups of monologues. You can call this a ""personal style"", but it is also a trade-off for creativity and experimenting.

The reason why ""Dealer"" has been so successful in Hungary and elsewhere is probably because the issue of drugs is overpoliticised and it has been de facto taboo. In the last decade or so there have been very few Hungarian films on this topic, all of them were depicting drugs (undifferentiatedly) as the ultimate evil. ""Dealer"" certainly has a different approach, because it makes you mostly laugh at, and/or - to a lesser extent - feel sorry for drug users, whereas the other movies were intended mostly to make you hate drugs (and/or - to a lesser extent - also feel sorry for drug users). So this movie suits for both pro-drug and anti-drug people, because of not making any clear statements about the issue. It is yet to be seen whether Fliegauf or any other Hungarian director could make an intelligent and socially significant impact on the issue of drugs in Hungary.",0 "Clint Eastwood returns to his most famous non-western role of Inspector Harry Callaghan in the third of the San Francisco based crime thrillers. This time he is up against a group of terrorists who have robbed a military warehouse and are threatening use their newly acquired arsenal if the city doesn't give them two million dollars.

Of course this being a Dirty Harry film we see him dealing with a shop full of armed thieves in a way that leaves the shop in ruins and Harry transferred to Personnel, a department he does not hold in high regard. Luckily this transfer doesn't last too long, after the arms robbery he is back in Homicide with a new partner, the recently promoted Inspector Kate Moore, played by Tyne Daly before she found fame in ""Cagney and Lacey"". At first Harry isn't too pleased with having to break in a new partner but inevitably grows to value her contribution.

The terrorists unfortunately seem a little too insane, they claim to be doing it ""for the people"" but happily kill anybody who crosses their path... at least the chief bad guy gets a spectacular ending which I won't spoil here. Almost as important as the case against the terrorists is the city politics where the mayor and chief of police wish to talk up Harry and Kate's role just to further their equal opportunities policies even though they had no role in the arrest they are getting the credit for.

Despite the film having some weaknesses I'd still recommend it to anybody who enjoyed the other Dirty Harry films or just like cop films in general.",1 "Charlie Sheen stars as a scientist who discovers that there really is ""life out there."" The only problem is that it's not out there—it's here, and they're covering up his discovery in hopes of remaining incognito.

This movie plays like a cheap sci-fi movie of the 30's. The only difference is that there are better special effects in the 90's. It wasn't a bad film, but I find that it WAS worth waiting 13 years to see it. I have seen some thrillers before and I didn't find myself holding my breath, sitting on the edge of my seat, or anything like that. I'm a fan of Charlie Sheen and I think Teri Polo is cute, but that's about as far as this movie goes.

3 out of 10 stars (and that's a gift).",0 "I really like this movie, but it sure brings me close to tears since the movie sucks you in as well as it being so heart-wrenching. Claudette Colbert and Louise Beavers star as single parents struggling to raise their daughters. Beavers is an excellent cook and Colbert has the great idea of opening a restaurant--so with Beavers' cooking and Colbert's energy and know-how, they become quite successful. Years pass, and you see how their rising fortunes have changed their lives as well as the daughters. Colbert's is pretty decent, but Beavers' daughter is ashamed of her black mom--especially since this daughter is so light-skinned that she can, and does, pass for white. Beavers eventually discovers this AND is shunned by the daughter--pretending in front of her friends that her mother is the hired help! And, the shock is overwhelming and brings the movie to its conclusion.

Both leads do an excellent job. The movie also must be applauded for being an early forum concerning race relations. It might seem a little bit tame today, but in its day it was a powerful film and took some big risks. Plus, for once, Ms. Beavers did not play a maid but was able to show she could be a darn good actress. A nice job by all.",1 "Nero Wolfe has consistently defied a good translation to the screen, perhaps because so much of the attraction in Rex Stout's novels is the wit of the language. But this is the best job so far. Best casting is Timothy Hutton as Archie Goodwin, who succeeds in combining the smart alec and hardboiled just like the character in the book. Chaykin makes a good effort as Wolfe; he isn't really BIG enough, so that his high-pitched tirades don't really do justice to Wolfe's bellowing. Wolfe's office is just as you could imagine it, down to the red leather chair. The orchid room, by contrast, is disappointing--need more flowers, more jungle. Not sure why Golden Spiders was chosen as plot--there are perhaps too many characters and the suspects aren't developed enough. Hopefully, this will be the first in a series of films.",1 "Back in 94 when Kevin Smith made Clerks, he had a brilliant plan. To make a series of movies that we're connected, not as per usual with a concurrent story, but with stories that took place with people who either live in, or have lived in or around Red Bank, NJ. Clerks is the one that starts it off, and there's not really much to it: A series of dumb or annoying customers, the rudest store clerk EVER (who has the coolest no consequences approach to life) and of course poor Dante, who wasn't even supposed to be there that day. It's not for everyone, but for those that like their comedy as dark and rowdy as possible, it's a sure winner and the story of how they made the movie (Jeff Anderson had for instance never acted before!) doesn't make it less impressive, and knowing the stuff they had to do (like the shudders being closed because they could only film at night, and it was supposed to be day) only makes it more funny. 9/10.",1 "****SPOILERS**** Dark and creepy film based on the Cornell Wollrich novel ""Black Alibi"" about a leopard on the loose in the desert and towns of New Mexico. With deep and disturbing psychological overtones that strikes more fear in the hearts of those in the movie and audience then the big cat itself.

Publicity agent Jerry Manning, Dennis O'Keefe, trying to spice up his client Kiki Walker, Jean Brooks, nightclub act gets her a black leopard from a local carnival to upstage her rival at the club Spanish dancer Clo Clo, Margo. On the first night of Kiki's act with the big cat the leopard gets startled by an angry Clo Clo who put her hand-clickers almost in it's face. The noise made the cat break away from Kiki as it disappears into the night.

With the local police as well as the towns people looking for the escaped black leopard it later crosses the path of young Teresa Guadalupe who's outside going to the store to get corn meal for her mother to make dinner. Terrified with fear at the sight of the almost demonic-looking black cat Teresa drops the bag of corn meal that she has and runs for her life with the leopard hot on her tail.

Getting to her house her mother doesn't let poor Teresa in because she didn't have the corn meal and thought that her story about her being chased by a big cat was just an excuse for her to let her in the house. A moment later there's a terrifying scream and then all is eerily quiet. Realizing that something is terribly wrong Teresa's mother runs to open the door she sees a stream of blood oozing under it, the cat killed little Teresa.

Terrifying movie that plays with ones nerves like a violinist pays with the strings of his violin. With sounds and shadows instead of special effects and really packs a wallop by doing it. There's three scenes in the movie where someone is killed including the one with Teresa and everyone of them brings the tension to such a hight where your nerves are at the point of breaking down. You just can't wait for the nerve racking scene to finally end where at the same time the director of the movie, Jacques Tourneur, keeps you totally in the dark to what's happening off screen.

Tourneur direction shows how the mind can be easily tricked and manipulated by an imaginative film maker with nothing more then lights sound & shadows. And thus brings far more shocks and jolts to his audience back in 1943 then what the best state-of-the-art special effects can do in a movie today.

Even though ""Leopard Man"" touched upon a lot of psychological aspects of the human, as well as animal, mind it pre-dates the movie ""Spellbound"" which many consider the first major Hollywood film about the subject by two years.

The films dark and eerie ending in the darkening New Mexican desert amid a black hooded precession to commemorate the 17th century slaughter of the towns original inhabitants, by the Spanish Conquistadors, was one of the most creepiest sights I've ever seen in a movie.",1 "*May Contain Spoilers*

I found ""How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days"" to be entertaining, funny, and cute. I saw it in the theater with my sister and friends and we all liked it. I found the plot to be original and the acting was good. The characters were also realistic.

""How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days"" is a twisted tale about Andie Anderson, who writes ""How To"" articles and Benjamin Berry, and advertiser. Andie Anderson is writing an article entitled ""How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days"" and Benjamin Berry made a bet with his workers/friends that he can keep a relationship with a girl for more than ten days. Andie and Benjamin meet and fall in love and then the action happens.

I suggest that everyone should see this movie because it really is funny. I give this movie 9/10 stars.",1 "Farley Granger is a young man on the ""Edge of Doom,"" in this 1950 film also starring Dana Andrews, Mala Powers and Paul Stewart. When a young priest wants to change parishes, Father Roth (Dana Andrews) tells the story of Martin Lynn (Granger), saying that what happened with Martin showed him that, as a priest, he was in the right place. Martin Lynn is a young man who is having trouble making ends meet as a delivery man for a florist; he has a chronically ill mother, and he wants to be able to move her to Arizona. However, after working with the florist for four years, he still can't get a raise. When his mother dies, he wants a high-priced funeral for her. He goes to the church rectory, as his mother was deeply religious and, despite living in near poverty, always gave what she could to the parish church. In an ensuing argument with an old, tired and tough priest (Harold Vermilyea), Martin hits him over the head, and the priest dies. Later, he's picked up, not for the murder, but for the robbery of a movie theater actually done by his neighbor (Paul Stewart). Though released, the detective in charge (Robert Keith) is still suspicious of him.

""Edge of Doom"" is a grim noir that never lets up; Martin Lynn can't get a break, not from his boss, the funeral director or the church. His girlfriend (Mala Powers) at first feels there is no place for her in his life because of his mother. After the mother dies and Paul commits murder, he breaks up with her. His only support is Father Roth, whom he doesn't like - he resents the church for not burying his father on hallowed ground when he committed suicide and for taking his mother's money. It's not often in a film that one sees a priest killed - and with a cross yet.

The acting is good if not great. Farley Granger is sympathetic as Martin. He was often cast in this type of role. Dana Andrews does an okay job as the priest, but is a little too precious. The way to play a priest is the way Spencer Tracy did - as a man first. Andrews tries to put on a priestly air but it seems forced.

Apparently this film was not well received upon release and was withdrawn to add the very beginning, where Andrews begins to tell the story, and the very end, which comes back to the present time with Andrews and the priest. It doesn't really help the film's relentless, depressing tone. Don't watch this one if you need a smile or a feel-good movie.",0 "If the first D&D movie had been half as good as this one, well, I might actually watch it again.

A little about me - I'm married to a long time gamer - he's got the white box set for D&D and has been playing for as long as he can remember. I know a bit about D&D just from being married to him, but I'm not a player.

The first movie was horrible. It was poorly paced, it was not well written, Irons was just awful and Birch was so amazingly whiny that I was rooting for her death. That's just as a movie goer. My husband was just speechless - for about 5 minutes. After that I got the whole rant, but the thing I remember most was how incredibly annoyed he was that throwing a rock would fool a Beholder. Heh.

This movie was great. It was fun, there was adventure, there were traps, there were dragons, there was a lich (even I know what a lich is). The characters were engaging and the actors were good enough that I believed them in their roles (something else the first movie was lacking). I liked the older cast, too. That was a nice change. I just couldn't have believed that untried adventurers would be sent on such an important mission. So as a non D&D fanatic, I enjoyed this movie.

My husband was thrilled enough that he did not nit pick it to death, a bad habit he has during most movies. He was very happy to have D&D well represented in the movie, was pleased with the over all effects and the fact that the cleric didn't use edged weapons, that the elven wizard couldn't cast everything just because she was a wizard...and more things that I can't remember off hand.

This movie was good fun and kept my attention - something that is quite difficult sometimes. The pacing was great, which helped a lot. The characters were likable and believable and the story was good. I'd recommend this one without reservation, where as I'd never EVER recommend the first movie.",1 "perhaps they already thought Katt. But no everyone up in idiotsville thought this one would fly

(spoiler? not sure but just a warning so I can let my mind wander without worrying about it)

I watched this when it first came out and recorded it for the heck of it later. This is tv gone bizerk. I'd heard about it before it was filmed. Kitt had a sex change. It was beyond that. It's more like First Knight. Take the basic storyline, move it to another show/movie and wallah, idiotsville. Heck the car looks like **** (enter 4 letter word that rhymes with our favourite little voice). Who'd want it? Hell the car in Knight Rider 2000 looked better than this junk heap. And somehow this crystal is supposed to be a human of sorts? You've got to be kidding. Sure it would have been passible for Knight Rider 2000 to be made into a series, but 2010 can be burned into a molten rock. Wasn't this the idiot who's got an amazing heart valve? I'll be the first to knock him out. Being an original Knight Rider fan this was both upsetting and morose. I believe this came out of the Action Pack crap. (the same thing that brought us Hercules..) you can take that to the bank, if it's along side Hercules imagine....... 3/10",0 "Cowboy Bebop is the best anime ever. I'm 21, don't tend to be fanboyish, and have seen plenty of others. And it's the best anime ever.

What other anime features a mix of the best choreographed/energetic/ kick-ass fighting scenes - hand-to-hand, hong-kong gun fights and air-space battle?

An unbelievable mix of comic, tragic, violent and fairy tale style episodes...

An incredible sound track - Yoko Kanno is a genius that can do memorable and emotional jazz, blues, classical, fantasy-style, j-pop and even heavy metal. I wouldn't even consider buying the soundtrack to any other anime.

It quite literally oozes ""cool"" - characters (Spike is probably the coolest - not awsomest, but stylishly coolest) music, action and narrative.

Hell, it's the only show that has both a ""cute animal"" character and a ""cute annoying kid"" character that I don't wish a horrible death upon. And if that doesn't convince you, then nothing will.

",1 "Believe is actually a film that more or less is ""straight to video"" or ""tv movie"" type. But in a strange way, it is a pretty good family friendly film. But all through out the movie I went on rolling my eyes waiting for them to kiss. Pretty dumb, but it's so obvious that the ""young lovers"" will soon have an enchanting moment.

Ah yes, definitely a film for all. Nothing scary, or anything like that :D",1 "From the creators of APEX & just as bad... This film has an 18 certificate god knows why? The acting is very cardboard, the story predictable & boring, even the FX & design are poor, I've seen better on 'Thunderbirds'. Not even Meg Foster could stop this space ship from sinking, avoid at all cost, go see Starship Troopers instead.",0 This is the best Adam Sandler movie I have ever seen.

I am no longer a teenager so I generally avoid Sandler's movies like the plague. Beside a couple of Penis-envy jokes this movie is actually a joy to watch in mixed company.

Well worth your time.

If this is some of Jack Nicholson rubbing of on Sandler I look forward to Sandler's next movie.

Nicholson is completely over the top with his role.

Rating 8/10 for a comedy. 10/10 for a Sandler comedy.,1 "Plan 9 From Outer Space wasn't made as a work of art. It wasn't even made to be good. It was made for one reason and one reason only. To make money. And, being as bad ( and laughable ) as it was, it has become a cult classic as a result. I mention that by way of comparison. ""Reefer Madness"" falls into the same category, even though the production of it was somewhat better, with an added bonus for the folks involved with the making of it ...It was also meant to be used as a ""teaching"" tool. Teaching in this instance being synonymous with propaganda. Calling this flick ""highly exaggerated"" or ""over the top"" is putting it mildly. Which is exactly why, given the very pronounced change in society's view of marijuana, it is so much fun and rightly deserves the title ""Cult Classic"". Well done? Hardly. Fun? Oh yes. So ... I think everyone ought to see this at least once just for the fun of it. Parents, tell your children.",1 "Our story begins in Switzerland at the Alpen Hotel, where the staff was eagerly awaiting the arrival of world renown singer and operetta composer Victor Albert. Edward, adviser to Albert, personally oversaw preparations. Also arriving in town that day were Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, two inept mousetrap salesmen. It was Stan's idea to come to Switzerland to sell mousetraps because it's where cheese comes from. Well, they get into a slap fight with their first customers, then decide to try selling mousetraps to the local cheese factory. They give a demonstration and the proprietor is pleased. He buys their whole business for 5,000 Bovarian Francs. Stan and Ollie decide to live it up at the Alpen Hotel café. They are obnoxiously rude to the chef because he has no apple pie. When Ollie attempted to pay with the 5,000 Bovarian Francs, he learns they are no good. Anywhere. Bovaria doesn't even exist. So now the boys were forced to work for the bitter chef. They were put to work washing dishes and for every dish they broke, they had to work an extra day. From the looks of things, they were going to be here a very, very long time.

Victor Albert arrives at the hotel and composes a lovely new song about crickets. That's when his wife and fellow world renown singer, Anna Albert, arrived. The critics seemed to favor her over Victor, so there was friction between them; Stan and Ollie were put to work plucking chickens, and as soon as Stan noticed a St. Bernard with a barrel of rum around his neck, he became so desperate for a drink that he threw the feathers into the air to improvise snow and pretended to be in pain. He succeeded, and got drunk; After breaking more dishes and adding more days to their already endless sentence, Stan and Ollie are instructed by Victor Albert to move his piano. He was unable to concentrate on his operetta at the hotel and wanted to relocate to a tree house in the Alps. Now we all know what happened the last time Stan and Ollie tried moving a piano, and there is a brief reenactment; After moving the piano into the mountains, they now had to brave a rope bridge over a seemingly bottomless gorge. Stan was still drunk. As they made their way across the rickety bridge, Stan claimed to have seen a gorilla. It wasn't a dizzy spell. It was real! As if that weren't bad enough, the rope bridge gave out. Stan and Ollie managed to jump back onto the ledge and were safe, the gorilla disappeared and the piano fell deep into the Alps, crashed onto the rocky surface and died a swift, tragic death.

Anna seemed to take a shine to Ollie. Stan gave him advice on falling in love and told Ollie to serenade her. So with a tuba outside Anna's window that night, Ollie does just that. The next day, the boys go to see Anna as per her invitation, but first have to elude the angry chef. They succeed and make it to Anna's, only to find she and her husband, Victor, were still very much in love. So, Stan and Ollie prepare to depart, broken hearted. That's when a bandaged gorilla on crutches appears for a showdown...

Swiss Miss, another brilliant musical/comedy with Laurel and Hardy. Right along the lines of Pardon Us (1931), Babes in Toyland (1934), The Bohemian Girl (1936). Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, the world's funniest comedy duo, outdid themselves again as always. Also in the cast: Walter Woolf King as Victor Albert, Della Lind as Anna Albert, Eric Blore as Edward, Adia Kuznetzoff as the surly chef, and Charles Judels is the Cheese Factory Proprietor. Judels also voiced the horrid Stromboli and that crook Coachman in Disney's Pinocchio. Sadly Laurel, Hardy, King, Lind, Blore and Judels have all passed away. During the scene with the dancers, watch for Stan Laurel's daughter Lois! So anyway, if you are a Laurel and Hardy fan like I am, then I recommend Swiss Miss! It's not a movie about cocoa so don't let the title throw you. See it today, if you can possibly find it. Wonderful music. Wonderful songs. Not a strong plot, but the songs and terrific comedy certainly make up for it.

-",1 "Watchable for the group of familiar 40s character actors, but after a reasonable crash sequence, this movie quickly loses its bearings. It's hard not to see some similarities to GILLIGAN'S ISLAND and LOST, but the awkward mix of on-the-nose comedy and drama never quite works. Lots of story lines, none of which really come together. The sequence at sea in the second half is the last momentarily interesting section, but it's quickly jettisoned like so much flotsam. Ending is particularly sudden and illogical.

SPOILERS AHOY If the ship was unable to reach landfall the first time, how come everyone assumes they will easily be rescued on the second attempt? It seems more likely that everyone (including the soon-to-be-married main couple) will die given the arduous passage of the first unsuccessful attempt. Or, perhaps I missed something obvious because my attention drifted away long before the sudden and seemingly tacked-on denouement? Either way, if you choose to partake of this doomed flight, you have no one but yourself to blame.",0 "I'm usually not so passionate when rating movies, especially family films, but please don't mind me when I say that *BLEEP* all those filmmakers who shoved this atrocity up my face.

Let me give you some glimpses of what's inside this 'family film': a guy repeatedly gets hit in the head by bricks; a guy gets electrocuted by an electric generator on high intensity; a guy's footwear wears off as he walks on a staircase with nails stuck upright on it, to the point that his bare feet have nails embedded in them.

The entire movie tries to make you laugh with the mere notion that all these ridiculous acts of violence are meticulously planned out and perpetrated by some sadistic, spoiled 10-year-old yuppie accidentally left behind by his family when on vacation in NYC.

While most of the adult cast gives a mediocre to decent performance, the only acting criteria for Culkin apparently is to look as cute as possible; which is ironic, since most of the time I felt like chokeslamming him off a skyscraper. Couple that with thin character development, especially the two main villains who have an intelligence lower than that of a special-needs 4th-grader.

Obvious inconsistencies and illogicalities aside (such as the ""10-year-old pro carpenter""), I was infuriated by the fact that the Home Alone series tries to pass itself as 'family film', when what it shows is blatant violence in the name of cuteness. The fact that this movie is rated below PG-13 is even more ridiculous. Even after Home Alone 2's sadistic effort, there are very few laughs -- in fact, many young kids will be frightened by what they see, while only the nuttiest of adults will laugh.

Please stay away from this movie and discourage filmmakers from trying to make such perverted 'family films' ever again. RATING: 1/10.",0 "A few funny moments stretched paper thin. Nothing original here, except maybe the level of obnoxiousness. This movie has virtually no plot, instead relying on Chris Tucker to carry the unfunny movie. If you enjoy excessive bathroom humor, and can stand Chris Tucker for more than 10 minutes, then by all means, enjoy. Ugh.",0 "A tv movie with Richard Crenna,playing a hard nosed cop who,supposedly,gets raped by two men and goes through all the drama of the after effects of the rape.

Feminist wet dream of putting a tough masculine straight man in the position of a woman when handling the emotional and psycological problems brought upon them by a rape.

You know a man can go through the same thing a woman can go through when they are met by any kind of violent crime,being shot,getting carjacked,being robbed at gun point,getting mugged,it is always hard on the victim no matter who it is.

The Rape Of Richard Beck wants people to see men get their just deserts by having a man get raped and having this man seen as a representation of the rough masculine type who would be seen as the last person expected to suffer through a crime like this.

Rape is seen as the female victim's violent crime and for a man to suffer through rape's humilation is the type of show liberal feminist Hollywood want to see in and want to present to the general public at large.

Rape is hard on its'victims.Including the relatives and family members and friends of the victims,most of whom are men.The Rape Of Richard Beck is a typical example of pure tainted Hollywood liberal rot sending a terrible message to a gullible public.",0 "this really shouldn't work. it's shot on video which is always a bad thing, the acting is bad - especially when the actors try speaking English. the sex scenes are laughable - the type where characters bonk away without removing their underwear apparently.

the gore is badly done too - it makes blood feast look professional! people having their insides pulled out by the villain just seem to be standing there and allowing him to do it!

despite this, it's good fun - the gore (despite it's low quality) is yucky and even funny and there's lots to see in the film - it's made with enthusiasm.

worth a watch with pre knowledge of how bad it all is.",1 I have expected more suspense but what I saw here was boring. Only the first 10 minutes and the last twenty minutes were interesting. The remaining two third played on a real comedy level and has nothing to do with a thriller. Okay I have to admit that the FBI cop was very funny until the end but the story itself was very poor. I am sure that they could have done more about but as I mentioned you have to wait till the last twenty minutes that something happens. Only Lola was very hot in this movie and the nice setting place. Sometimes I had the impression that AFTER THE SUNSET should be a wannabe James Bond movie but it failed completely. Therefore the picture was very fine and clear but all that is not enough to get an average rating. The votes on IMDb are too high with actually 6.0. My wife didn't like it at all and so our vote is 3/10.,0 "A few weeks ago they started to show reruns of the flying doctors here on TV and I couldn't be happier about that. Every Saturday-evening I'm hooked again. I used to watch this show as a young teenager every week and now I'm watching it every week as a young adult and I'm still loving it.

It's very exciting and has some great acting. It's a kind of show where you really start to care about the major characters. The pacing sometimes is a bit slow, but I don't mind at all. This way you can really get sucked into the story and start to know and care about the people involved. Something which doesn't happen in most shows nowadays. I really hope that the reruns are going to last a long time, because The flying doctors is really a one-of-a-kind great show.",1 "Astonishingly horrid, hackneyed drivel. I couldn't believe that the actors and filmmakers--who are ostensibly a part of an artistic community of sorts--would portray ""bohemians"" in such a cheesy way.

And what the hell was with the cutesy dance scenes with car-commercial music in the background? Did someone tell the director this would look cool? I puked. Every ""romantic"" scene was equally unbearable (except for the sex scenes which were tasteless and disturbing).

We all know people who think they are sophisticated, intelligent, and avant garde, but are actually vomitous, narcissistic poseurs. They will love this ""art film."" You should avoid it like the plague.

",0 "The only reason this pseudo-scientific effort has nothing but positive reviews and almost 7 points (so far...) is that no one seems to bother to (re)view this low-brow attempt at Science Fiction.

It's typical Roddenberry - he rehashes a mishmash of seemingly scientific ideas by bringing it all down to the level of an illiterate audience or an audience of kids. Alright, there may be a huge market for brainfree entertainment but it just doesn't deserve the rating it is getting here. It would if this was a forum for Trekkies, people believing in Ufos etc.

But this is a site where Monty Python movies get (only) around 8 stars but mentioning them would be like comparing apples (Python) and trash (this). The only question this mess leaves unanswered is: why even review it? I guess some things have to be done in defense of better movies.

I'd just like to point out Foxworth's portrayal of a ""robot"": It's dreadful.",0 "If you like religious comedy, then here is the movie for you. This couple is getting married after being together for six entire months. Wow. I was with my husband for 5 and a half years before we got married. I think that the couple in this movie should have just stayed apart or fart. There were some really lame fart jokes in this movie and the baby robots were super ugly. I wish everyone who wants to get married after six months should go through this guys program and then not get married. Maybe Frank can pencil you in after two years. I didn't get all the religious jokes either. I am not religious person and that poor child who was in training needed to get out of the church and go to the playground with children his own age. Who on earth practices carrying the bride across the threshold? There were so many things wrong with this movie. It made me want to hurl my lunch. Don't see this movie if you want to get married because it will ruin your marriage.",0 "I watched this movie yesterday and after it was over I couldn't believe I wasted any of my time watching it! I rarely think that there are no redeeming qualities to a movie, but this one just had none. There seemed to be NO REASON for it to have even been made. I like most of the actors in it, but this was a complete waste of film. I know this sounds harsh, and I didn't hate it, it just seemed like it didn't need to have been made. The characters were pathetic and seemed to have no clear reasons for what they did. The only scene I thought was halfway effective or interesting was when they were all in the car and Dobbs was driving and Claudia was forced to talk about her sexual past and her relationship w/ Dobbs. It was nice to see a younger and slimmer Chris Penn, tho, and I always like Bridgette Fonda and D.B. Sweeney. Other than that, I could never recommend this movie. There's just no point in watching it.",0 "I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers.",0 "This is another of those wonderful ""sleepers"" that I always enjoy discovering. I like movies with interesting characters, that put you in another world, that present a mystery to solve and this does all three. The characters are disfunctional, interesting and ultimately lovable. It's a cute story, delivered in that understated British comedy style.",1 "As a former high school wrestler, a movie centered around a wrestling team would normally be good viewing....not in this case. This movie made me mad in ways other crappy movies didn't. Its a shame because i wanted to like this movie too.

The plot is (at the beginning anyway) a high school wrestler killed a kid during a match and is forced to relocate as part of therapy. He moves with his mother to a nowhere town where the popular kids are on the wrestling team (wish I went to this school) Strange things begin to happen and a group of weirdos dressed in black slaughter all the freaks and geeks around school. The plot thickens and the wrestler has to decide who to fight for, the freaks or the jocks.

This movie was a big let-down. I know it was a crappy B-movie but at least since it had some wrestling in it they should have at least had some action. I mean I was hoping at the end of the movie the main character would wrestle the captain of the wrestling team/murder squad for the right to live or something. Instead we get an axe to the back and a Sixth Sense ripoff ending.

Grrr....I could have written a better script 4 out of 10",0 "Okay, first off to really appreciate this episode you need to be a huge 'Supernatural' fan, or more specifically a Sam Winchester fan as nearly the entire episode centers around him. This is actually my favorite Supernatural episode of season 2, and it has to be because of the wonderful performances put forward by the actors and actresses, not only Jared and Jensen's, but those of Katherine Isabelle as Ava, Gabriel Tigerman as Andy and Fredric Lehne as Yellow-eyes. I remember i was busy the night that it aired and had to tape it. I got home at about midnight that night, but insisted that i watch it before i was able to sleep. I ended up watching this amazing episode on this crappy tape with bad reception about 6 times. Each time i watched it i became enthralled with a different aspects of the ending.

-Spoilers-

Comments like 'No goodbyes for Dean' and 'Sam dies in his brother's arms' are just small, seemingly insignificant comments that mean so much. For Supernatural fans having Sam die in such a sudden, almost unexpected way was effectively executed and felt almost as if someone close to them had passed (i knew some people who, the next day, wore black arm bands in respect). The performances, from Jensen especially, are amazing. As an audience we are pulled into this situation. These are brothers. One is dying. What would you say if you knew this could be the last time that you spoke to the person you love the most? The relationship between the brothers has become so deep that it is a real shock to the system when anything this horrible happens to one, or really both of them.

I urge you to watch this, or if you already have, to watch it again more closely. The way in which Dean lovingly strokes Sam's lifeless face, Dean's anguish as his brother slips away and Sam's empty eyes would make even the most cynical person believe that this episode is a true masterpiece.

The only quarrel i had was the fact that i knew the ending before it happened, thanks to an all too detailed description in TV week the week before. Thanks for nothing you guys.",1 "One could see these people , especially as the main problem in the movie revealed itself, exposed down to their raw inner selves. I could relate so much to different aspects of each of the characters--either myself, my significant other(s), and people I have known through out my life. It was almost taken, in bits and pieces, out of my own life and my own values, thoughts, beliefs, etc., mixed into a different order and made into a movie. I expect others feel the same when watching it. I almost felt nakedly exposed during certain parts. It was great.

It was riveting as it unfolded, tho not without a few light hearted moments, and not with out a subtle humour to it. The person of my family who likes action movies wasn't especially interested, but my 16 yr. old daughter ,who appreciates the interplay of relationships and people (as I do) even if going thru a breakdown, found it as fascinating as I did.

Well worth watching, even more than once. Sort of an insightful primer on friendships, relationships, and marriage---not spelled out, but played out thru the dialog. Perhaps should be required watching for couples, and friends. Congrats to the author of this fine piece, as well as to the actors who brought it to life for us.",1 "OK, so let me get this straight: Magical Mystery Tour, which I've yet to see but have heard is quite bad and pretentious and dated, is allowed to be on DVD, but *this* is banned by the 1/2 Beatles? Why? Because at one point Paul and George have a little argument over a song? As the British would say, bullocks! What they show in the film of arguments and sulking is what happens in ANY band, and in fact is usually much worse - I was almost surprised there wasn't more of the taped back-and-forth exchanged in the film, given what's been said how bad it got amongst the fab four during their final year in recording, particularly on Let it Be aka Get Back (the most chilling thing overall is the presence Yoko, who keeps popping up looking like she could duke it out with Bergman's Seventh Seal Death dude and probably win).

While I watched it on a reasonable if as a given muddy and slightly scratchy transfer online on bootleg, it was pretty much the film intact as it played almost 40 years ago. What makes it a must-see is not the direction, which is at best competent and at worst the weakest thing going for it - sadly, Al Maysles was already taken by the Stones, as his eye would have been perfect - but the Beatles and the music. I'd argue after watching this and listening to Let it Be... Naked that the majority of the songs are as great as the main tracks on Abbey Road. Indeed a few of the songs in the movie here, Maxwell Silver Hammer, Octopus Garden, wound up on that album, and are practically interchangeable from the rest of the output.

We see the Beatles do what they do best, be Beatles, play and work out the kinks in classic songs, and also the camaraderie that shows what underneath the image given by the other goofier movies that they were simply incredibly talented musicians. This is evidenced by the scenes where they don't actually play or rehearse their own songs but goof around, play rhythm and blues tunes and even at one point a mariachi number sung by Paul! There's not a lot of time spent with them just talking or shooting the s**t - at most we get some reminiscing between Paul and John about the Maharishi or some noodling around here and there between takes. It's not even entirely accurate to say it's documentary, as it's more like an all encompassing, authentic home movie with some extra cash to spare on cameras and editing.

It all leads up to that rooftop concert that is still one of those big bad-ass moments in rock and roll history (if, again, not filmed with the best lenses or cameramen, it was perhaps a given that they had to shoot it on the fly). The energy and fun comes through all the way, and contrary to the film's reputation Let it Be shows the Beatles as having fun and doing what they do best even in what was their darkest, near-end period. Maybe there's a longer cut out there that shows more of the arguments, more bickering back and forth and maybe some of Yoko leering on like a supernatural delusion. For me, at least, I'd rather not see it: what remains, and what should for God sakes be shown to a wider and more receptive Beatles audience, is very good stuff. 8.5/10",1 "This film is the worst rip-off I've seen. The poor acting and poor special effects stand to mark the lack of money for this film! It was torture to watch, my eyes started to bleed and my my head started to hurt!

DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!",0 "How long can a woman grieve the husband who died prematurely? In fact, that question is posed by the writers of this intriguing film, but they never answer it, as they have left it to us, the viewing fans of ""Birth"", to reach our own conclusions. Our answer would be that Anna will love Sean forever!

Jonathan Glazer, an amazing new talent, has followed his previous film, ""Sexy Beast"" with this new movie written for the screen by an impressive team, namely, Jean-Claude Carriere and Milo Addica, helped by the director himself.

Much has been discussed in this site about the film, which makes a valid point into making us believe a young boy, who might, or not, be the real Sean, is the real thing, or just an opportunist, who happened to be at the right place, at the right time. Anna, the woman who suffered the great loss in her life fights the boy when he appears, then, as everything points into the right direction, or what she wants to believe, and she gets answers that have been inside her head all the time, she accepts as natural a situation that by all accounts if far from normal.

Nicole Kidman, with dark short hair, gives a subtle performance as Anna. Ms. Kidman's contribution to the film is amazing; she goes from denial to a complete state of acceptance. There are moments when we, as the viewer, feel the pain Anna is feeling. Her sequence at the concert when we watch her face, as all the emotions are seen in her face, is one of her best moments in a film. Also the last sequence when we watch her at the beach, after she has married Joseph and is seen wandering in the water crying is another clue we get from her.

Cameron Bright, the young actor, makes Sean comes to life, no pun intended. This young actor has an innate talent for getting inside the skin of the characters he is portraying. There is not a false move from the way this actor tackles to convey the idea he is Sean, and that's all there is to it!

Anne Heche, as Clara, holds the key to solving the mystery of the situation the arrival of young Sean has created. The family is in turmoil. This well to do family, who is at odds, first believing, then seeing what it has gone to Anna. We don't see what Clara's role is in the story until the end. Her character has been made to seem ambiguous throughout the movie.

Danny Huston, who we admired in his recent role in ""The Constant Gardener"", who plays Joseph, the man that has made Anna agree into marrying him. Joseph cannot deal with the changes Anna is going through, so he bolts from her life, as one expects him to do. It's bad enough to have been competing with the ghost of a dead former husband, but it's too much to have a ten year old rival.

Laruen Bacall, Arliss Howard, Peter Stormore, and the others in the cast give good performances under Mr. Glazer's direction.

The moody musical score by Alexandre Desplat is elegant, somber, and mysterious and sets a perfect mood for the film. The elegant cinematography by Harris Savides, with its dark tones and cloudy skies serves the film well. Ultimately, this film clearly shows us a director, Jonathan Glazer, who never bores the viewer in the always chooses the stories he wants to present for our pleasure.",1 "This was the first movie I ever taped when I got my first VCR back in the 1980's. I saw it was going to be on at 3:00 a.m., so I decided to try the programming to see it it worked. It did. I was so excited. The movie is so much fun. It has Wallace Beery as a borderline madman scientist leading an expedition to a far off island to find dinosaurs. There is a subplot of a reporter who is trying to talk him into letting him go along. There are scenes where Professor Challenger (Beery) chases and assaults this man because he hates reporters. Of course, we all know the story. They do bring back a dinosaur and it gets loose (ala King Kong) and leaves a path of destruction. The special effects are like Claymation, but one could only wonder how exciting and impressive these things were in their time. As a period piece, I urge people to see this. There are full length prints of it, not just the one some have commented on, which only shows the dinosaur scenes. If you have an open mind, you will have a lot of fun.",1 "I have no idea whether this was an indie movie (or even what the definition would be), but it was pretty pathetic. The plot was horribly slow, acting was horrible... I'd call it a bad B movie, but I think it was trying to be artsy. Only the fact that I'd forced my g/f to rent it (thinking it would be a great B) kept me watching the whole thing. If a plot won't go anywhere, at least make it intellectually stimulating (like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead). Truly one of the worst movies I've seen.",0 "I used to love this movie when it came out when I was like 7 or 8. But now I look back on this and all of the no limit stuff that I liked and I wanted to...starve myself for 5 days as punishment. Now that I look back on this movie I simply think of it as okay whereas when I was 7 or 8 I thought this was the junk. I'm glad I have come to my senses but I do think that this movie is worth renting for those who haven't done so yet. I have 3 lines to burn now so I'm gonna use them bad mouthing other no limit movies. Hot boys. Horrible friggin' movie I didn't like that movie when I 1st saw it and i now haaaate it. Actually in general, i hate all of these stupid shoot em' up movies with rappers in them. DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! Not the rappers, the movies.",0 "The Lodger is Arthur Hitchcock's third feature-length directorial effort, and a landmark film for him. It is Hitchcock's first thriller, and establishes his tradition of placing himself in one scene for a brief cameo.

The story centers on the Buntings, a middle class London family who have a room for rent while the city is being terrorized every Tuesday by a mysterious Jack-the-Ripper-like serial killer who calls himself ""The Avenger"".

A mysterious, rather Gothic young man (the great Ivor Lovello) rents the room and his odd behavior almost immediately sends up red flags for the suspicious Mrs Bunting (Marie Ault). Things begin to come to a head when Young Daisy Bunting's developing friendship with the new lodger begins to attract the jealous attention of her young police detective lover (Malcolm Keen) and when Mrs Ault notices his mysterious night-time sojourn on a bloody murderous Tuesday.

I generally enjoy well-made silent films and consider them a species quite apart from films with sound. Yet even if I were to lump The Lodger in with its louder cousins and proceed to rate it purely on its relative entertainment value, this little gem of a film would still be rated as high as 8.

In a talented director's hands the lack of sound is no handicap, and as silent film directors go, Hithcock was very good. I am convinced that his early, formative history in the silent version of the medium is one of the reasons why his later films were so visually dramatic and exhaustingly and meticulously photographed.

Silent film acting is also very different from acting in a 'talkie'. not having a voice forces performers to act-out the feeling of each scene with a standard body language. Certain tilts of the head and eye-movements become words for 'please forgive me', 'I like you','leave me alone' and even 'Go away and never come back'. Silent movie actors often learned this vocabulary so well - making several films per year just to keep themselves fed and lodged - that the transition to sound and its much more visually subtle body language became very difficult.

The silent performances in the Lodger are very excellent. Lovello is phenomenally ambiguous and creepy, though somehow sympathetic as well - absolutely perfect for this role. His female counterpart is his equal, though she presents herself much more subtly. Daisy Bunting was played by a mystery woman named June whose infrequent appearance in films is hard to explain given her good looks and obvious talent. A young Malcolm Keen, who would make other films with Hitchcock later in his career, does yeoman's supporting work as the not-so-sympathetic police inspector.

Recommended for film history buffs and thriller fans with open minds and good attention spans.",1 "Wyatt Earp, has to truly be one of the finest portrayal of a great western hero. I live in the Southwest and here you are closer to the things that took place not that long ago.

Wyatt Earp brings to the screen, an insight to each of us just a small understanding of what took place not all that long ago. The west was the last frontier of man, a place where man lived and died by the gun, where law was ruled by the Colt 45.

The Gunfight at the OK Corral is one of the last great events that took place in the Old West. The movie brings not only the story of the life and times of Wyatt Earp, but also in showing you the events that led up to the beginning of the end of the Wild West.

Any Wild West history buff will enjoy watching and understanding how the puzzle of the Old West fits into becoming a building block of our great nation.

This movie will remain as one of my best loved movies.",1 "The Great Ameican Snuff Film starts as two sick freaks named Roy (Ryan Hutman) & William Allen Grone (Mike Marsh) kidnap two young girls named Sarah & Maddy (Melinda Lorenz & Holi Tavernier), they take them to the junkyard deep in the desert which Roy owns miles from anywhere of note. There Roy & William intend to make a snuff film on super 8 film with Sarah & Maddy as the unlucky stars...

Going straight-to-video after sitting on a shelf unreleased for a number of years where it should have stayed, written, produced & directed by Sean Tretta The Great American Snuff Film is crap, I'd call it pathetic filth but it's not even that good. The script was apparently based on the real life case of William Grone & the 2 and a half minutes of footage that was found when police raided his house, this footage is supposedly presented at the end with a warning that 'veiwer discretion is advised' but this so-called real footage is probably the most fake & unbelievable scene in the whole film. Plot wise it is as bare-bones as they come, you can basically work out the entire film just from the title. There'sonly about seven people in the entire film none of which are particularly likable. The Great American Snuff Film seems to be a ultra serious attempt to get into the mind of a sick f*ck like Grone as it almost relies totally on his constant tedious & clichéd monologues for it's narrative even though not much happens anyway. The whole film goes to plan exactly as one would expect & when there's a clichéd flashback that suggests Grone's current state is down to childhood abused you realise there really is nothing here that you haven't seen before & that The Great American Snuff Film really isn't going anywhere new or revolutionary.

Director Tretta manages to evoke a certain sadistic & nasty tone throughout the film simply because of the subject matter rather than what actually ended up on screen. Now I don't mind torture, gore & violence in the films that I watch, in fact I actively encourage it, I cannot & will not enjoy the constant sadistic torture, both psychical & mental, of women by retarded men for entertainment. While I know it's just a film I really cannot understand anyone who genuinely enjoys watching this crap as the torture & degradation of these two girls is the only thing this film seems interested in. I wouldn't call it scary or creepy & surprisingly there's very little gore considering the subject matter, in fact I can't think of any apart from some blood splatter.

Technially The Great American Snuff Film is pretty poor, the colour seems very bright during daytime shots which give it a distracting & unrealistic look & then there's the awful music which plays constantly during the first half of the film & to make things worse sometimes it's louder than the dialogue spoken by the actors which is not a good combination. There's also the baffling instances of being able to hear the wind blow against the mike & since certain scenes were probably shot over a certain period of time the wind from one shot to the next in the same scene has different levels of this noisy blowing wind. The acting isn't too bad especially by the girls.

The Great American Snuff Film is the sort of film I hate, it provided zero entertainment & I found it abhorrent from start to finish. Total crap as far as I'm concerned & it's as simple & straight forward as that.",0 """Traitor"" works well for what it is trying to do, but is not breaking a lot of new ground in any one area. If you're looking for a thought provoking suspenseful thriller that covers some political controversy, well, it suits this need perfectly fine.

OK, so you can tell I am not super hyped about ""Traitor"", but I don't want to overemphasize that. In the areas where it excels, it does so marvelously. The cinematography, with the super low-depth of field close-ups and interesting bokeh, really helped create a unique mood for the movie. The pacing was decent and the acting all top notch. The musical score didn't interfere with the experience, and helped heighten the perspective of the film.

The movie does a fairly decent job of humanizing the U.S. agencies as well as the terrorists and their motivations. I see a lot of people feel the views of U.S. policy as presented in this movie as being controversial, I more feel they are pointedly obvious and find it sad people find this ""alternative"" perspective unusual or shocking. But, I guess if you can approach the film objectively, it does offer a very sympathetic and humanizing perspective to all of the characters, regardless of their malicious intentions.

Overall, I recommend the movie, but also feel there are a lot of other films in the theater now that should be seen first. I guess it depends on what sort of experience you're looking for.",1 "I've never read JAWS by Peter Benchley but have of course seen the movie andJAWS is considered to be one of the few films that improves greatly onthe book . Much of this I'm told is to do with a large number of subplots being jettisoned in the adaptation , leaving only the main plot of a man eating shark and of the protagonists mission to kill it . One can't help thinking the producers of this movie should have done something similar

The major problem is that much of the running time is taken up with a bunch of bad guys wanting to get their hands on a very expensive Greek opal . In many ways the story resembles another Benchley story THE DEEP which might not be a problem as such but when you've got a film called KRAKEN:TENTACLES OF THE DEEP then a prospective audience is expecting a giant squid to be the focus of the story rather than humans . The producers seem aware of this shoehorning a squid attack just to remind the audience there's a squid central to the plot when in fact it's the producers themselves who obviously need reminding

As it's produced by Nu Image Films the production values are rather poor with the squid being a rather obvious CGI creation . Like nearly every film featuring a giant squid it makes a roaring sound ( Squids are mute ) and can grab people off the decks of ships ( Considered impossible by leading scientists ) and of course when someone gets devoured underwater there's a big bubble of blood rising to the surface . Not only that but biologists are all in their early twenties , have blonde hair and walk around in bikini tops thereby exposing their admirable mammary glands . One can't help thinking Nu Image Films and The Sci-Fi channel are in cahoots to get more guys to sign up to university science classes . I doubt however if anyone who worked on this film would be able to spell the word science",0 "I have to confess that I had never until today heard of this comedy trio called ""The Ritz Brothers."" They seem to have been a sort of toned down version of ""The Three Stooges,"" and - not being much of a ""Stooges"" fan - I actually appreciated their more toned down style of comedy. Here, they play a trio of inept detectives trying to protect a wealthy businessman (Lionel Atwill) who's been threatened by a mass murderer known as ""The Gorilla."" There is, in fact a ""real"" gorilla on the loose (played by Art Miles - the makeup, while not great, wasn't as bad as some that I've seen), who can't be the murderer (because first, gorillas can't write notes and, second, he hasn't been on the loose long enough to have committed the murders) but still he provides plenty of comic relief in his scenes with the Ritz Brothers. It's a good mystery. We're kept guessing from the beginning about who's actually committing the murders, and there's no way of really knowing. Bela Lugosi is featured as the butler, Peters, and he plays the role perfectly straight (in a sense perfectly cast, because I can't picture Lugosi doing comedy) and that straight performance adds both to the comedy and the mystery (Peters comes across as mysterious throughout.) Overall, it's not a classic, but it's quite enjoyable. It will offer some laughs and keep you guessing all at the same time. 7/10",1 "A film about the fight against the traps of past, the search of gestures sense and about the truth like puzzle. A story about the dreams, guilty and death. A strange travel in the days of a past who may be yours with the nuances of other person. The interpretation of Ryan Philippe is impressive. Powerful and subtle, it create the forms of fear and hope, touch of reality and rebirth of events. The subject is old and the science to build a new image of theme is impressive. Ambiguous and clear in same time, game and dramatic discover of yourself, bones of recollections and dreams in the cells of lost life, love as ridiculous fragments of lost pictures, a wife, a brother, a car accident, some words. And the rooms of a hospital, the details of ambiguous sin, the details and the faces in a huge mirror.

The life as possibility. The rules of a sin. And the sleep in far year.",1 "I certainly was surprised to see Michael T. Weiss in this dirty dog of a movie! SPOILERS: I guess this must have been the low-point of his life. Weiss plays the husband of a visibly older woman who is a writer that just had a nervous breakdown. That mental health issue is pretty much useless as a plot twist in this movie, since it is pretty obvious from the get-go that the townies are hiding something. The fact that there are no children, dogs, cats, or other pets in the entire town might be a hint that something is not normal. The cranky & suspicious attitude of the townies might be another hint. One dumb plot-hole is that Weiss bought (not rented) this home in the woods, and yet neither he nor his wife had ever seen it. No doubt if they had visited the town before buying the house, this dumb movie would not have been necessary. Amazingly, there is one town tramp who is constantly dropping hints at Weiss. After a few days of Weiss hearing his wife complain about howling noises, Weiss visits the town slattern and she immediately drops her skirt and seduces Weiss. Of course, the next night when Weiss visits the townie in order to commit adultery, she bites him. Later Weiss turns into a big pile of goo and then reconstitutes himself as a Werewolf. The scene is similar something from DEAD ALIVE, including a loose eyeball dropping out of the skull. The Town Doctor rips open his visibly latex jaw and becomes the head Wolfie and a few other guys transform, and the rubber masks being pushed into place are less than amazing special effects. Meanwhile, as Marie and her Husband had drifted apart, a former Nun who is looking for information about the death of her Nun friend meets Marie, and they hit it off. The two women figure out that the town is full of Werewolves, and that the key to killing them all is by ringing the bell in the Tower of Drago (imported from Drago, Transylvania stone-by-stone). Thanks to a handy candle, Marie torches the Tower with all the Wolfies inside, and her friend too. Everyone dies except Marie. This movie is dreadfully monotonous and even the various (mild) sex scenes have absolutely nothing in the way of chemistry or titillation. Someone pointed out that the most charming character in this movie was Marie's dog, and it is true. The dog seemed to be the only one having fun, and sadly, the dog was eaten early into the movie.",0 "I remember seeing the previews for this and really looking forward to seeing it. I thought it was going to be an honest look at the way a family changes when something like this happens to a parent, my family went through something similar when I was growing up, so to see someone like Harrison Ford take on this topic was something I really wanted to see. After I saw it, I was so disgusted. When something like this happens, the spouse and children have to adjust to a new life, and it isn't easy, and there's always a part of you that misses the kind of life you had envisioned. But in this awful movie, the wife is just pleased as punch that she gets to spend the rest of her life with a mentally challenged man, because he was kind of a jerk before he was shot, so you see, he and everybody else is better off because he was shot in the head and made retarded, the wife gets faithful husband, and the kids get the little brother they always wanted.

They could have made an honest and interesting movie about what some families have to face.If the movie had been about what families really face in a situation like this, it might have worked. As it is, I am offended by this movie to the Nth degree.",0 "Few films have captured so accurately the true nature of gambling as has Owning Mahowny. First there was Air Bud. Then there was Air Bud 2. And now this, the final installment in the triumvirate of films about dashed dreams and unfortunate morals. Not that these films were all about gambling per se, but that they evoked it in spirit. For just like the act of gambling itself, or indeed, not unlike the Air Bud movies, Owning Mahowny seems enticing at first, that is, when you and your friends are just planning to see it, joking that you might strike big, that this might be the one movie that comes out of nowhere to surprise you, but then from the moment you enter the theatre, every time you give this movie a chance, it's just one bad hand after the other, until eventually you are completely numb to it, and you stop paying attention to your wife, and you start cutting out of work early, and you no longer enjoy anything again in life anymore because all you want is your Owning Mahowny. You must have your Owning Mahowny. ""Just let me watch five more minutes,"" you say, ""and I swear it will get good. It's due."" Which is a shame really, because the movie just really blows.

In fact, they should have called it Blowing Mahowny, or Owning Baloney, or some reasonable facsimile--only then the ace detective on the trail of Mahowny would not be able to wittily observe that ""Mahowny"" spells ""How many?"" when the letters are rearranged and a question mark is inserted, which is a lazy anagram at best as it only requires two permutations. A much better one is ""O Man Why?"" as in ""O man why, o why upon why o man did this movie even get made?"" or ""O man why didn't I save that $7 for Vegas where I could be far better entertained by an hour and a half at the nickel slots?""

Nothing against Mr. Hoffman, who is one of the finest, most important actors of our day, but this movie has nothing to hold him up. It is not worthy of his talents. The dialogue is forced and hackneyed, never fully deciding if it wants to be moralistic or sympathetic, but always settling on being just plain crappy. The protagonist is never shown to have a single redeeming quality, except possibly in the end, when he tells his girlfriend ""I love you too"" and kisses her hand, and this is supposed to make up for the fact that she has always come in a strong second to his addiction. Apparently in real life they got married eventually, but the characters in this movie could never have gotten married in more than a postscript, because they were just too ingenuine, and the movie omits any moments that could have explained why on earth they ever got together in the first place.

There was something maniacal about the casino boss who was so inviting to Mahowny but at the same time stood to gain millions of dollars from him and completely ruin him. A better movie would have explored this, but this one was content to revel in his clown-like antics. Elsewhere, the token black floorman and the Italian bookie were an insult to multicultural casting. And what was with the suspicious co-worker at the bank, or even more so, the scruffy cop who tracked Mahowny down? He was clearly a ripoff of Brad Pitt's scruffy cop from Seven, only in that movie, Pitt was chasing someone actually scruff-worthy. No, this movie would have been better suited with a Fedora-clad Tom Hanks in a fake Boston accent. Perhaps these characters were all based on real-life scruffy or ethnic people, but this movie didn't convince me as much.

In the end, on a scale of 100, with 100 being Air Bud 2, I give Owning Mahowny a 20. And sure, maybe 20's good enough for some people--even Mahowny himself. But me, I just want my money back.",0 "Complete bakwaas in story, dialoge, dramatization, editing and accuracy. 3.5 ghante ka torture .. Hoping someone will edit cut it down to 15 minutes and post it on Youtube ( hehe)

politically correct, historically inaccurate, financially flushed, glamorized notions ... look at Ashoka - I personally hated that - after all these reviews, I a can only imagine what a torture it would be sit through 3.5 hrs. Modern day movie makers insist on showing every little piece of crap they get on film - editing and dramatization has absolutely no meaning.. On a tangent here - look at old and new Don... the older director gives more credit to the Audience than the newer one... the new ones make it a point to spell out the subtleties consequently destroying the entire scene ( got that off my chest )

The 10 lines rule is quite painful. I am not a big writer like Mr. Sardarji above ... Let us hope this gets submitted - or else I will have to copy and paste his stuff here - just to fill the lines.",0 "The animation was poorly executed compared to the original Tarzan flick by Disney. The plot was poor, and insulting to children's intelligence. Overall, the movie was a poor sequel. We should expect Disney to produce better sequels than this. Toy Story 2 was a good sequel to Toy Story. Tarzan and Jane isn't even a good Saturday morning cartoon...",0 "As the others have said, this surprisingly turned out to be a realistic, antiwar movie. Frederick March gives an Academy-Award-worthy performance as the jaded fighter pilot, and Cary Grant gives a good performance as his rival. Since Hollywood made more pro-war movies than isolationist movies up to Pearl Harbor, this one was a bit startling, judging from its era and its title. Perhaps that is why it has not received its due rewards. Those who have experienced war usually try to prevent its recurrence, and the grim reality of its death and destruction are shown in this film about as graphically as they were allowed at that time. I have heard that even Germany's greatest ace in WWI, the ""Red Baron,"" was very disillusioned when he went home the last time before his death. When his mother asked him who his friends were in a photo, he told her sadly when each of them had been killed. War is only glamorous from a great distance and in games. ""The Eagle And The Hawk"" captures the real essence of so many wasted lives in the Lost Generation and the destruction of prewar civilization.",1 "While Gary Cooper was not anything like Billy Mitchell in the film that really does not matter. What does matter is that in his time he was fighting for an Air Force that would be able to defend America. He was right that at the time the armed services use of air power and the safety of the pilots was criminal, the number of Air Forces bases named for the people that died during this time can attest to that. He was also correct that the armed forces would depend on air power, a fact the armed forces ignored until nearly 1939 when Hitler proved what a modern air force could do. If it were not for the fact that private companies like Boeing were developing planes before the military were asking for them would could have been fighting the first year of WWII in biplanes.

While many of Billy Mitchell's claims may have seemed absurd at the time the showed quite an insight of how air power would develop over the next 50 years.

That being said do catch this film. The cast is top notch and their performances leave you feeling sorry for Cooper and hating Rod Stieger! This is one of my top 20 films not only for the cast and crew but for the subject matter.",1 "THis movies is one of the most ridiculous movies I have ever seen. Brannagh or whatever his name is a hammy over actor. THis movie had some of the cheesiest overacting I've ever seen. The love between him and carter is flimsy and there chemistry is non existent. I had trouble believing any of the acting it was just a joke. THe movie also lacks consistency and logic.SPOILERS How does a doctor who can bring a creature to life for the first time in human history study it for a matter of minutes before mistakingly thinking it is dead, and then just leaving the body hanging from his ceiling. Later in the movie after he decides he made a mistake in ""playing god"", he refuses to repeat the mistake on someone he had cared for by turning her into the monsters bride. Yet this same moral reasoning does not apply when attempting to reanimate his murdered wife like 2 days later??? If you know it will make her a monster why would you do that to someone you truly love????just a stupid stupid movie don't waste your time",0 "Low budget documentary. It's all about Ed Wood Jr. and his ""masterpiece"" ""Plan 9 from Outer Space"". It briefly covers his childhood and his other movies but goes into great detail about ""Plan 9"". It goes into how it was developed, how he got the cast, how it was shot, its distribution, reception and how it gained cult status. There are interviews with surviving cast members (Vampria is the most amusing) and very long sections about Wood's relationships with Bela Lugosi, Tor Johnson and Criswell.

This has a lot of fun, valuable information about the movie but it's far too long. ""Plan 9"" is a silly movie and spending two solid hours paying homage to it is overkill. Also the budget for this was obviously criminally low. It's flatly directed and scenes wander all over the place. Still, fans of the movie will love this and it IS sometimes interesting. I give it a 7.",0 "This is an unusual movie, and could well, in time, turn out to be a classic. It concerns 7 siblings left to fend for themselves in a big house after their beloved Mother dies. They bury the corpse in the back garden, and never tell anyone, because they are all under-age and fear the orphanage..

Even if dead, Mother becomes a religious mentor for the children, her thoughts being ""channeled"" through one of the girls in ritual, late night sessions.

They seem to manage pretty well, but things turn out ugly when the rambling, long lost ""father"" returns to take over the household. He wins them over, manipulates them, steals Mother's life-savings, and in a gripping finale, reveals to the children the terrible secret Mother has hidden from them.

It's a quite gruesome film, emotionally draining and heartless, an obvious comparison would be ""Oliver Twist"", or perhaps a dark fairytale from the brothers Grimm... At first, before the father arrives, I thought it was a Christian parable, where the mother represented the dead Jesus, and the children the acolytes and worshippers. But 50 minutes into the proceedings, it turns into something else. From then on, it's anybody's guess! Still, this ambiguity befits the story and keeps you on your toes throughout, until the sorry end.

Jack Clayton's direction is good, if rather literary, the house is a spooky, claustrophobic menace, while the child actors are uniformly excellent. You wouldn't believe young children could perpetuate audience interest in a melodramatic story like this, but, like in that other classic ""the Secret garden"", they do. Brilliant acting! Dirk Bogarde is supposed to be quietly menacing and evil, and he is exactly that.

Beware though, this is definitely not a film for children!",1 "'No Good Deed' as the DVD of the film was titled here is an average adaptation of a short story of the 'noire' classic Dashiel Hammet. It is not a coincidence that many of the clichees of the genre are repeated here - the platinate blonde, the sophisticated evil criminals, the good old lady who is not really who she seems to be, etc. The crime part of the story is not very catching, and the really interesting part if the zig-zag the main female character is doing between the different men in the story. Milla Jovovitch is very good in this film, reminding me the role Kim Bassinger got an Oscar for. Also there are quite a lot of mis-matches and not everything makes perfect sense in the plot, the result is over all an agreeable mix, and a fair entertainment. 7/10 on my personal scale.",1 "I saw a few good comments on this and thought I'd give it a try. What a mistake. The movie started with a flashback within a flashback within a flashback, and just got worse from there. The outfits were unauthentic and looked like inexpensive costumes, the speech too modern sounding, the acting awkward, and the transition from scene to scene choppy. A crucial rule for me is that to enjoy a movie, I have to be able to get lost in the movie. When I can't get through two scenes without being shocked by mismatched outfits, speech, or photography, the movie won't get a good rating from me. Call me picky, or maybe it's just that I've seen enough movies to know what's expected in a historic movie.",0 "This schlock of a screenplay should have been a Showtime or HBO Original movie or to be more exact it would be better suited for Lifetime or Oxygen Channels. What are the chances that two conievers would both be trying to deceive each other over the same 10 day period. And they just so coincidentally meet at a nightclub and agree to start a dating relationship (of course each character is agreeing to date under false pretenses!). LOL! They must really think the audiences are stupid! But a fashion turnaround pose by Kate Hudson in a backless slitted dress (more suitable for airing on the new Star Search) and plenty of bare chested shots of Matthew McConaughey are sure to send the teenie boppers swooning and screaming. But do it at home people please and let the rest of us who got suckered into this flop of a movie based on Hudson's performance in Almost Famous enjoy our consolation popcorn quota in peace. See it at Blockbuster before the Summer Blockbusters open, better yet rent it if you were given a gift card from a friend.",0 "This was shown on a premium channel, so I didn't realise it was made for TV. Even so, I like some of the movies on lifetime (Lifestyle here in UK), but this was awful. The family were so cheesy, ""Love you mum"" ""Love you even more honey"" Then after they were broken into for the second time, 10 mins later, they were at it again, ""Love you mum"" big cheesy smiles etc... She phones her husband, and tells him not to bother coming home. They were only broken into by a guy that wanted them dead, have a nutter living next door, who needs help? She has her teenage daughter and a cat (not for long) to look after her.

However, as a comedy, I'd give it a good 7. I might even show it to my friends next time I have them round. Could be great fun after a bottle of Vodka or 10!",1 "As I write this, Jane Wyman died two days ago (9/10/07) at 93 years of age. I did not watch this because I knew that, it was merely coincidence.

Stage Fright is basically a ""whodunit"" because you, the viewer, will think you know who the culprit is in this for a while and then realize that maybe you don't, after all. Jane Wyman knows of this murder, and helps the man who seems to be a suspect, and tries to ""go undercover"" to expose the woman who supposedly is the culprit, as played by Marlene Deitrich, in all her scary Teutonic glory. Wyman is also assisted by a police officer (""Ordinary"" Smith) and her parents, one of whom is played by the wonderful Alistair Sim, not long before he played ""Scrooge"" in a Christmas Carol. This is entertaining and amusing but not, to me, top notch Hitchcock. The Master himself also puts in one of his famous cameos in this, as usual. This was Hitchcock's last film made in the UK until ""Frenzy"". If you're a Hitchcock fan,of course you'll want to see this if you haven't. I enjoyed it but it dragged on a bit at times. 7 out of 10.",1 "Why is it that so many movie companies, insist on producing so many DTV sequels now a days?. Bring It on Again is a prime example of why people detest DTV movies. It's lazy,it's amateurish,not only that there is not one character you can root for in the film. I was in the video store the other day and figured on renting it,since I'd just finished the 1st,but something told me not to waste my precious money,and just view it online instead. I made the right decision,Bring It On Again wasn't worthy of my money at all. This was clearly a movie to cash in on the success of the original,only they replaced a likable cast,with a bunch of whiny snobs,who couldn't act there way out of a paper bag!. The 1st one was far from a classic,but at least it had a sense of energy and a hint of likability,this Dosen't have any of those traits. Anne Judson-Yager|Whittier| is supposed to be our heroine,our darling so to speak,yet she's almost as whiny and disposable as Tina and Marni,so how on earth is a sequel gonna work like this,when there is no one to root for?. What's even worse is this turkey produced 3 more unrelated sequels,that nobody really wanted. The Cheerleading sequences are average at best,except for one excellent one at the very end,I will admit that was very well done.

Bring It On Again is a reason why I detest DTV Sequels,or even sequels in general. It's got no heart,no creativity,and most importantly it's downright dull.

Performances. Anne Judson-Yager. I read a review that said Anne looked like a poor woman's Reese Witherspoon,to be honest? That fits her perfectly. She can't act worth a lick,she's very unsympathetic,whiny and was almost as bad as the villainous. Bree Turner gives a typical B*tch performance. It was adequate I suppose. Bethany Joy Galeotti known for her One Tree Hill fame,certainly didn't show any of that here,I wanted to slap her one. Faune A. Chambers plays the best friend adequately,she was less annoying then Yager at least.

Bottom Line. Bring It On Again is a waste of film. I had to go through 80 minutes of torture to get one decent cheerleading sequence,let me tell you it isn't worth it my friends. I would advise you to avoid this sequel,unless your a die hard cheerleader fan. Now I just have 3 more sequels to go!,Uggh.

3/10",0 "Ooo-kay. Try and follow this: it seems that there is a plague of vampirism running rampant on Earth, and scientist John Carradine is the only one who has a snowball's chance to save us. It seems there's this planet somewhere where vampires are known to exist, so John and a team of dunderheaded astronauts whoosh off to see if there's anything on this planet that might bring about a cure. Still with me? Okay. When Carradine and crew land their $1.95 toy spaceship on the distant planet, things get hopelessly goofy: the so-called ""horror"" of the Blood Monsters that inhabit this rock is portrayed almost completely by tinted stock-footage from an old Filipino caveman flick. These scenes contain: hopeless-looking bat-men that glide on wires, ridiculous lizard-men that couldn't make it into a Toho soundstage, and vampire-like cavemen wearing tusks from the local Filipino five-and-dime. Carradine and his hapless away-team are baffled by what's going on...needless to say, so is the audience. For those who desire quality cinema--avoid this like the plague. For the rest of us...don't miss.",0 "I caught this on IFC awhile ago, and I was rather hooked (the main reason at first was the title---The Cure is the best ^^). The conversations are interesting and the subtle relationships that build up; the way you can sort of tell what the characters are feeling is a really unique and rare thing in films. In fact it's more of a study of how people are than a movie. It also features one of the single greatest sex scenes ever in cinematic history (without any nudity at all!), revealing its sensual side. I definitely recommend this to anyone feeling up to some thinking.",1 "This movie is great. Nice humor and Tim Conway and Don Knotts is always great together. The kids love this movie. We watch it daily. Even our 2 year old watches it. Our five year old laughs so much. Highly recommended. If you like violence, sex then you won't like this. But for good clean humor and entertainment this is it. The little innuendos is cute and so you laugh over and over at them. The facial expressions also keep you laughing and laughing. Our kids even got the poetry in this movie. I appreciate that they did not have to use fowl language and even though Hilda shows ""some"" bosom, It is not overly used. I had wondered if she would be in it a lot. I was pleased to see she wasn't therefore our whole family could enjoy the clean fun.",1 "William Shatner is the acting high-point in this vapid, phoned-in excuse for a film. If that doesn't send you running to another aisle of your video store you should be looking in the S&M section. Related to the first film in name only, it has none of the style, the irony, nor the plot to say nothing of one shred of the acting. And I didn't even like ""American Psycho."" Lose the catchy soundtrack and there is no reason to even listen to it. Mila Kunis, while pleasant, is a flyweight made-for TV actress and this stinker does nothing to expand that role.

Skip it. Sitting in a dark room for two hours would be infinitely preferable. I bet the echo of the last ""Cut!"" had not faded before this was on its way to the video plant. What a waste of tape.",0 "Woeful, and blatant, attempt to cash in on the ""Breakdance"" craze that swept the western world in the early to mid-eighties.

The script (from Allen DeBevoise, Gerald Scaife and Charles Parker) is a terrible ""Flashdance"" clone with street dancers Adolfo Quinones and Michael Chambers trying to get their big break on the stage, and show the world what they can do, with the help of classically trained hoofer Lucinda Dickey. The only thing worth watching is the dancing itself, with some well choreographed pieces blending easily with the natural 'breakin' talent.

There is absolutely no acting prowess on show, and director Joel Silberg would be well advised to stick to putting up the money for someone else to run things. For something a little more down to earth and closer to reality, try ""Beat Street"". Music was penned by Gary Remal and Michael Boyd.

Sunday, August 18, 1996 - Video",0 "Possible spoilers herein.

Did worker Louis or Sarah Polly's Maren kill two women by axe and strangulation in 1873 New England? Or more importantly, who really cares?!

This movie tediously switches between these 1873 murders and the modern day story of a woman investigating the crime over 100 years later. The 1873 story is supposed to symbolize the modern day story but the flashbacks do not flow with the modern day story and overall don't work. Both stories are uninvolving with unlikable or one-dimensional characters. You don't care what happens in either story. When the movie got a little bit going with one story, the stories switched over and the flow was killed. As two separate movies they wouldn't have worked and would have been a bore.

The acting is adequate but uninspired for the most part. The most interesting character is Sean Penn's character but not enough is built on him to gain any significant interest from the viewer. It's a wonder why Sean Penn took this thankless role. Did Sean Penn's character cheat on wife with sexy Hurley? I don't care.

Both modern day stories and past stories fail to gain any interest. The direction is tedious and overdone. Two uninvolving stories make one muddled movie. This movie is just pointless. A couple points rewarded for seeing Elizabeth Hurley in the buff.

3.5/10",0 "I do not say these words lightly.

I saw Breakfast of Aliens in a pre-release screening at Boston's 24-hour science fiction movie marathon. Let's just say it's a crowd that appreciates the occasional schlock B-movie, and that (lack of) quality is no object to enjoyment. Ed Wood, rubber suit monsters? Prime marathon material.

Breakfast, is not. As the credits rolled, the crowd began to chant ""THAT SUCKED! THAT SUCKED! THAT SUCKED!"" and could not be hushed for several minutes.

Breakfast is un-funny, dreary, and just a mess from start to finish. There is no joy mixed with the pain in this one. It's gross, it's unpleasant, and it's not the bad you can love to hate. It's just the bad you hate.

Luckily for you, I don't think it was ever released, never mind released on video. Potential distributors out there? Just Say No.",0 "What can I say to this movie that is already been said? ""Malibu's Most Wanted"" is a very funny movie that stars Jamie Kennedy (""Jamie Kennedy Experiment""), Taye Diggs (""Brown Sugar"") and Anthony Anderson (""Barber Shop""). It mostly involves ""Brad Gluckman"" played by Mr. Kennedy and what it is like to ""be yourself"".

I have never laugh so hard with so many funny scenes in this movie. The writers of Fax Bahr and Adam Small besides doing this movie and Jamie Kennedy's show, have also done ""Mad TV"", a comedy show. These writers are very very good.

This movie will do very good in the box office and depending on the box office receipts could be a possible sequel.

The Dark Gengar rates this movie from a single Gengar to ten gengars: Nine Gengars. The soundtrack is good. Aloha everyone and enjoy the movies.",1 "This movie reminded me of all of those ""crazy guys on the loose"" movies. ""Weekend Pass"", ""Fraternity Vacation"", et al. Except in this case the main characters were minorities. A big negative was all of the swearing, way too much. To me, a lot of swearing in a film shows a weak script. ""How can we punch up this scene, dramatically?"" ""Ah, just put in a lot of swear words, that adds drama"". I don't think so. Another thing is how each of the four main characters have an epiphany, that is straight out the ""crazy guy"" film handbook. Finally, the first few minutes start off promising and there is some humor but that vanishes further on. Unless, one finds humor in degrading women. And am I the only one that thought the title song sounded a lot like Motley Crue's ""Dr. Feelgood""?",0 "This film is the rightful butt of every bad-movie joke ever told. One of the worst and weakest of all films, it fails in ways beyond comprehension. Few movies have been any less funny or less emotionally involving for an unfortunate audience. At least with, say, Showgirls or Wild Wild West, you have something so bad it's funny. Two If By Sea does not have so lucky an audience. It's the worst kind of bad film, one that doesn't even have the decency to be humorously bad, so profoundly bad you can laugh at it. It is far, far worse. This movie makes Mortal Kombat Annihilation look like L.A. Confidential. I'm certain that watching Two If By Sea is considered torture in some parts of the world.",0 "The story arc gets an A+: At the beginning of the film, two strangers have already met and are already embracing one another In Bed. On the physical plane, the only touching they know is sexual, the only emotion, lust. At the end of the film, after having created a deep bond through knowledge of each other, beyond only sexual knowledge, both the physical and emotional planes are almost familial in nature. Sexual touching and lust have escaped them. Their embrace, In Bed, as the film ends reflects this change.

The film begins with about three minutes of moaning and groaning (which transforms into grunting and groaning, if you know what I mean) by the couple having sex. It started to annoy me about half way through because there wasn't anything attractive or interesting to look at. This is one of those directorial choices that are difficult to make: annoy the audience and hope they understand later why it had to be done that way. The director didn't want to titillate the audience with shots of what turn out to be attractive bodies, he wanted to make clear the couple were engaged in a deeply lustful encounter--for each other, not the audience.

I applaud that decision but confess I reacted to most of the rest of the film that way. I found myself annoyed very often throughout this film, a reaction I don't think the director had intended.

The entire film is shot in a motel room. The couple are in bed the whole time except for a quick bathtub break to give them a reason to get naked again.

To be fair, other viewers could easily like this film a lot more than I did. If you find the couple attractive (I found them both very attractive) you're halfway there. The other half depends on the delivery and content of the stories they share with one another. That's where the film failed me.

For example, we learn at the very beginning of the film (after the moaning, groaning, and grunting stops) that these two people don't know each other's names. The boy asks, ""What's your last name again?"" and the girl responds, ""I think you don't remember my name and that's just a gracious way to ask again."" The boy denies that this is the case. He gets busted in short order, but it's not a big deal as it turns out the girl thought she had just slept with someone other than who this boy turns out to be. The conversation went right from ""What was your name again"", to ""Tell me about the other men you have slept with in this motel room."" I found that, and most of the rest of the dialog in this film, to be inorganic and improbable. The director has approximately ninety minutes to get these characters to reveal themselves to us. With a certain portion of that taken up by more love-making, he's got to get right to the point.

I often think a joke is only as good as the setup. For others, a string of punch lines might work fine. I didn't like the setups. I did like the people, but I don't think they were very good actors.

A film like this is going to have a least a couple obligatory scenes: One, play a romantic song while one actor turns to look at the other just as the other is turning away. We've all seen the scene before. And two, play an upbeat song for the girl to dance provocatively to so she can show us how adorable and how much fun she is while the guy shows how much fun he is by showing us how much he enjoys her.

I thought both of those scenes in this film were awful. The dance scene was filmed horribly, zoomed in too close, and edited with too many quick edits. Someone once told me that if you see a martial arts film and the camera zoom is very close and the edits quick, it means the performer doesn't know martial arts very well and the director must try and present the illusion that they do. I say, ditto for provocative, getting to know you dance scenes.

Having said all this, I still think it's possible for someone else to enjoy this movie. It wants to be a sweet art house film and succeeds in that.

I felt the dialog and the director's capturing of it were awful. If others find resonance with the way this couple is filmed talking to one another they will like the film. As for the naked bodies and sex, there's better (9 songs, for example), but this couple is attractive and they have very attractive, real looking bodies, IMHO.",0 "Much better than 'Backbeat' this is a real treat for Fab Four fans. Filmed at all the actual Liverpool locations (including John Lennon's house, The Cavern, Strawberry Field, etc.) this is a rocking, realistic look at the young Lennon, warts and all.",1 "In 1991, after a career spanning four albums and the death of one of history's most talented bassists, Metallica released an album that sold tens of millions of copies worldwide and made them household names. And over the next couple of years, the cult of Metallica became so feverish it was literally impossible to escape mention or playback of the band. And that was when the first cracks in the band's image as a band of the people, only out there to provide alternatives, appeared. After saturating the market with live albums, videos, and merchandise, Metallica reached the point I am sure the members liked to kid themselves they would not. In other words, they began to repel audiences through mere mention. And with their material becoming progressively more poppy, more formulaic, not to mention more predictable, one sees the point at which they should have given up the ghost was now at least thirteen years in the past. Former fans used to urge them to retire while they had a shred of dignity left. It is now too late for that.

An aspect of the anti-MP3 tirades from Lars that fans or former fans do not often mention is that Lars is scared out of his mind of the Internet and MP3. Not because of the possibility of theft of his music (this, from a band that gained much of its initial notoriety through tape-trading). Rather, it is because MP3 to a large extent levels the playing field in terms of exposure. It is now just as easy for bands signed to labels that do not have million-dollar warchests to saturate the listener with to reach a new audience. And as anyone familiar with the black or doom metal undergrounds can tell you, those bands utterly destroy any claim to uniqueness the band has. Speedy, blinding drum patterns with integrated guitar progression? Morbid Angel or Kataklysm do it far better. And the more I emphasise that Therion have had choirs and orchestras as an integral component of their material since before Metallica's post-black-album crisis of how to revive suddenly ailing record sales, the better.

So when one sits down to view Some Kind Of Monster with those facts in mind, it only further exposes what a bunch of ignorant, spoiled children Metallica really are. Some say that everything the band had in terms of potential or soul died with Cliff Burton, and while it took a while for this to become apparent, I can only agree. If Burton were alive today, he would be shaking his head in disbelief at what burgeois babies his former bandmates have turned into. Fortunately, Burton's successor, a man I had thought of as a poseur going by the name of Jason Newsted, wins back audience respect by showing enough disbelief for both himself and Burton. Whilst I would be the first to protest that there are many problems a hundred million dollars cannot cure, the willingness of the band to rub their possession of such money in the face of their audience says a lot about the true nature of their problems. Not only that, but the fact that their problems are entirely voluntary while people with problems of an involuntary nature who barely have enough to eat, leave alone make a film about the matter...

Well, to put it bluntly, this is not just a slap in the face to fans, former or otherwise. This same bunch of children is sitting here and giving an entire world the finger. Their propensity to blame everyone but themselves for their misfortunes, regardless of their merit, only highlights the problem. Were I able, I would strap James and Lars into seats and force them to watch people comment on this documentary. Perhaps then they might understand that their declining sales have nothing to do with piracy, MP3 trading, or even bootlegging. The party with the most responsibility for the fact that the party is now over stares them in the face every day when they look in a mirror. What makes it even more sad is that even admitting this to themselves and changing the manner in which they conduct themselves accordingly will not fix things anymore. They have literally soiled their nest so badly that they could go to another planet and they would still be that talentless band who were given everything and chose to rub it in everyone's faces.

Does this mean the documentary is entirely worthless? Well, no, there are moments in which outside observers quietly spin the affair into something real, which is where most of the comedy is derived from. As James, Lars, and to a lesser extent Kirk all make themselves look like bigger and bigger idiots, it is people like Dave Mustaine or Torben Ulrich who come off looking the best. The former because he shows us that just because you have a number one single and multi-platinum album does not mean you are more successful. The latter because he speaks the mind of every truly musical person on the planet when Lars plays him the track the band is thinking of opening the new album with, by telling Lars quite plainly that he would throw it in the trash, never to be heard again. The problem with the latter scene being that it has come about fourteen years too late. For reasons like this, one could view Some Kind Of Monster as a kind of black comedy. It is funny to laugh at a pack of yuppie idiots who have no idea what is going on. But it is also sad to think of what they could have been.

Some Kind Of Monster is a one out of ten film. The band doubtless intended it to be brilliant, but I doubt they meant to accomplish that by being this stupid.",0 "If you like the Comic, you will like the film. Javier Fesser and Comapny have made the perfect film of Mortadelo and Filemon (Clever and Smart, etc). Benito Pocino is the perfect actor for Mortadelo because he is Mortadelo, and we can't forget Filemon, a great Pepe Viyuela who makes a great performance too. But even the Super and the Profesor Bacterio are as I have imagined them. They have done a great job recreating the inventations and all the items that are in the comics. You can see the Eskimo, and a lot of nonsense in the set, like signs, draws, etc...

The Plot is very funny, the seed of the film is the comic El Sulfato Atomico, one of the masterpieces of Ibañez, in where you can see the Tirania Dictator, and a lot of inventions.

A Must see for all the Real Fans.",1 "The gang from Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show and A Mighty Wind are all back and raring to go. Each actor once again comes up with their own unique character quirks and personalities--some, of course, more outrageous than others. Stand-outs in that department include Higgins as the uptight, militaristic publicist Corey; Willard as the bombastic TV host with a ""faux"" Mohawk, with the plastic Lynch, smiling sweetly--and completely insincerely—by his side; and Coolidge as yet another dumb, hat-wearing, push-up bra-strapping blonde who delivers some of the funnier lines in the movie. But the real surprise is O'Hara as Marilyn, the veteran actress who has all but given up on the dream of making it big—until she gets caught up in all the excitement and starts to believe again. It's actually more than a little heartbreaking to watch, as O'Hara provides an emotional core amidst the sea of cut-ups.",1 "The game is great, the story is great with twists i would never had expected had my friend not spoiled it for me.

The creative puzzles will have you confused to the max and the level design is surprisingly small but thanks to the portal technology and wall walks levels seem surprisingly bigger then they actually are.

The thing that surprised me the most was the long lasting storyline that kept going even when you thought i would end but a small downside is the Multiplayer.

The MP is good the weapons and maps are good it's just the fact that the amount of people playing is small and if someone lags everyone else does.

The Single player has a long lasting and lively story as well as inventive puzzles.

Nowadays you can pick it up cheap, i got my copy brand new for £20. I Say definitely rent it at least.

Graphics: 8 The graphics are good but some areas are a bit too shiny for me.

Sound: 9.5 The sounds are pretty good and the voice acting is great.

Story: 10 Play it yourself, you'll understand.

Weaponry: 6 There aren't many weapons but they're cool.

MP: 6.5 Could be better",1 "I really dreaded this when it came to my daughter via my mother, but it is well done, turns out, and quite amusing in that something-for-everyone Sesame Street way. There are all the usual messages here - sharing, sticking up for yourself/fighting for a cause, being a friend, etc. And if you like Oscar, you will undoubtedly love Grouchland - Oscar seems conservatively grouchy and gritty in comparison with these citizens (perhaps this is why Oscar has chosen to be a Grouchland ex-pat and live on Sesame Street). The songs are quite good - I especially like the song the plant sings to Elmo. I have probably seen it with my daughter at least 6 times, but I still laugh at sight gags and funny lines and continue to find it hilariously funny how sexy Vanessa Williams' character is especially for a pre-school kid's movie! Even if you are not particularly impressed with Vanessa Williams in general, brace yourself!",1 "If you actually seen this film. Im plays out to be a lot about Tupca Shakur / Suge Knight and the whole Death Row Records. Its very obvious that this is what the movie is really about. You have to be a fool not to think so. So the film is inspired by Tupac's life and experiences with Death Row Records. Red HQ, Juvenile as Tupac, Suge, etc. Even faked death, and came back. It a very good movie, about Tupac and Death Row Records.

The film in a whole is OK! But I would've felt like the director, Paul Wynne could do something more better.. Unlike Charlie's Angels (film-wise..) there was a lot of things.. Humour, action, love, etc.. which all makes up the whole film entertaining.. This one was almost hits the mark.. Mind you, the three lead characters were good. They stood out alright.. But this is a black urban version of Charlie's Angels.. The rap music did get me going.. There are musical tracks on there that I was really rocking to.. which made me (the viewer) kept going with the film..",1 "André Téchiné was never part of my favourite French directors.""Les égarés"" will not make me change my mind.It's certainly a cinema de qualité with polished pictures,good directing.But his movies (and I've seen a lot of them;""Barocco"" ""les soeurs Bronté"" ""j'embrasse pas"" the ending of which is particularly infuriating)do nothing for me.

""Les égarés"" ,in its first sequences on the road ,recalls René Clément's masterpiece ""Jeux Interdits"" .Then the scenes in the country far from the war might have been influenced by Louis Malle's ""Black Moon"" which would have turned ""realistic"",Yvan replacing the twins. The relationship Yvan/Odile is predictable and provides the low point of the film.The one sequence which reaches something out of the ordinary is when the wunderkind starts singing an operatic aria ,in German,which is all the more disturbing.",0 "Well, if you are as new to the Bollywood phenomenon as I am, you will be as confused by this movie as I was (... and if you are a Bollywood expert, you should skip this review). To Eureopean tastes, and probably also to American tastes, many aspects of the movie seem to be implausible. The male lead, Shah Rukh Khan, THE Indian Top Star, seems not be able to act, but nobody seems to care; the story is outrageously simple and pure kitsch; the movie is extremely long; the actors tend to break out in song and dance for no reason whatsoever; etc. However, the movie is quite charming in its way. The actors, Khan included, are lovable and do not even try to display any skills at the Robert de Niro-type of method acting. The overly emotional acting is highlighted by dramatic panning and freak breezes that even turn up in closed rooms, but it is exactly what the audiences want, and it goes hand in hand with the over-the-top lavish extravaganza of the sets and the well-choreographed song and dance sequences, since ENTERTAINMENT is all the movies aim at. So, if you are a purist, if you cannot accept kitsch for all it is worth and if you want psychological drama instead of bright sets and sentimental love stories, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. If, however, you occasionally indulge in something that is neither intellectually challenging nor deemed high art, but that is clean, bright and bubbly fun, you will enjoy this picture. There I will not bother you with a synopsis but I will only point out that you will probably want to watch one or two other movies to understand this phenomenon. The chances are high that you will see the same actors again, playing the same roles again, only with different names.",1 a great and very different movie. It's stylish and cool. I enjoyed every second of it. If u are bored and looking for a thriller or a action movie then rent this movie. It's worth ur money. I will rent this movie again.,1 "This is really stupid to make people laugh without respecting other's religion....... This is unrespectable show... Muslims aren't like this They live in SAND houses!!!!!!!!!! how dumb, come on people... i can't see this is a funny show at all, i even watched a million little fibers episode and it was not funny at all... they didn't respect Oprah's character and they made fun of her, i just wonder why we laugh to something while other's cry when they watch it... u know y i cried simply because media shows Americans and the whole world another face of Islam...a face they created especially for them. this in not our religion, our religion is much higher and spiritual that makes your soul to fly into another world... it's a pure religion leads your life to perfection, and if you don't believe me, please just turn the TV off and go on, order books taking about our religion, let yourself judge not others judge for you",0 "Over the last two weeks I watched the six hours of the American release DVDs. Given some of the things that I had heard about this film, I was expecting much more. Alas, on key points I was less than overwhelmed. At least in the American six hour version there are several discontinuities and unexplained points that detract from the overall effect.

To cite one example: Initially both Giulia and Nicola support the student demonstrations. Yet as the story continues, Nicola focuses on his psychiatric career and their daughter, while Giulia abandons her music and turns away from them to go underground as a revolutionary. Why? Without offering an explanation, we are left wondering why her entire life took such a trajectory.

Is this an issue in the full length original or just in the six hour version?

Still, the movie was fairly nice. It was just not as powerful as I had hoped.",0 "This is one of the best Dragon Ball movies. It has Goku, Trunks, Gohan, Vegeta, Piccolo, Krilin, Mutenroshi... the story is interesting, Broly is a fantastic villain and the action is spectacular. In my opinion, it has only one problem: what we see in the movie isn't actually a fight. It looks more like Broly's training or something like that, because Goku and co. can't even hit him because he's too strong. All the action we can see in the movie is Broly hitting and the Z team receiving, it can become a bit boring. I would have preferred a weaker Broly (I'm not saying a pathetic one, of course), so we could see an authentic EXCHANGE of punches, and not this. Anyway, the movie is fantastic. It has very memorable scenes (I love the beginning, with a suited Goku) and the Z team does his best. A must see for all Dragon Ball fans.",1 "This is a beautiful and misunderstood film. I remember seeing it as a child and it opened up the world of fantasy and adventure visually for me, it was a great film. Unfortuanitley, the film was not at all successful. For the reasons that the aliens don't come into until 30 minutes before the movie ends, and the rest of the film is the dramatic adventures of three best friends going through life and making discoveries, guiding themselves by their friendship which will last for ever. The film wasn't popular and I don't know how much it grossed, but this is really a recommended film for those that have dreamt of space and adventure.",1 "I am a HUGE fan of Nandita Das. She is my favourite Indian actress, by a long way. When I bought this movie I knew that it would not be a Bollywood type cheese-fest. It wasn't. What I liked about it: The pairing of Sanjay and Nandita was very good. They were very believable as an ordinary married couple. Committed to each other and their children. No glamour, no implausible wealth for them. Just sincere, real people. Both were very good in their roles. Nandita is a beautiful woman, who seem literally luminescent, with her intelligence and passion radiating out from within. Sanjay was excellent as the tortured father. Om Puri was frighteningly good as the psycho Dad from hell, and the supporting cast all played their parts well. This movie doesn't pull any punches, either metaphorically or literally. It was one of the most taxing movies I've watched in a long time, but ti was worth it. If you're looking for Main Hoon Na or DDLJ, look elsewhere. If you want powerful, affecting cinema, with a good cast and great performances, give Pitaah a try.",1 "If you are expecting horror, forget it. If you are expecting ""psychological thriller,"" forget that too. In fact, if you are expecting anything halfway moving, gripping, or attention-grabbing in the least, FORGET ALL ABOUT IT.

The film has a decent premise but unfortunately displays the absolute worst traits of a certain strain of Japanese horror films which, as another reviewer mentions, owe a lot to Miike's more exasperatingly BORING experiments, such as that ""Ichii"" crap.

The problem here is that this movie move's at a snail's pace. That would have been alright had there been some kind of payoff, but there is not. Characters stare at each other for MINUTES ON END inexplicably in the middle of a @#$# conversation, children see dead, bloodied bodies and simply stand there aloof like scarecrows before casually walking away--countless reactions are completely fake and unrealistic. The film was a great idea but any kind of dramatic effect is robbed from it by the stupid SILENCE and stilted dialogue which plagues the entire film.

If you think boring crap such as ""964 Pinocchio"" and the ""All Night Long"" series were ""disturbing,"" you'll probably like this film too. If you're looking for a REAL MOVIE, you'll wish you hadn't given it the chance in the first place, especially considering it's nearly two hours long. (If they had had haflway normal dialog and half-way HUMAN reactions among characters, the film would've been an hour and a half).

If you're looking for good Asian horror/revenge/drama, see the Korean ""Oldboy."" As far as ""Rinjin 13-gô"" goes: AVOID.",0 "I remember growing up with ""Dennis The Menace"" TV re-runs. I loved the black & white sit-com, but this 1990s movie version almost tops it! That lovable sling-shot-toting kid with the cowlick is an unlikely ""menace"" to retired postman Mr. Wilson, who wants nothing more than to be left alone. Dennis Mitchell always seeks out Mr. Wilson's company, but each time disaster strikes, usually causing harm to property or Mr. Wilson (sometimes both). Mrs. Wilson adores Dennis and often volunteers to watch him when the Mitchell's list of possible baby-sitters is exhausted.

There is a sub-plot with a ""bad guy"" who, of course gets ""fixed"" by our hero. This is the perfect family movie. It's funny, sweet and makes you feel good when it's through. I showed this video to my 4th grade class (as a reward). I never saw a group of 10 year-olds enjoy a film like they did this one. Enjoy this wonderful film again and again, it's a gem!",1 "Seth Green took hold of the screen in every scene he was in. Some of his character's lines could have NEVER been pulled off by any one else. Another thing that set this movie off for me was not only Green's character's line but the delivery. He did not just give a line, he punched them to the viewer. His vibrancy and energy flowed magically.

I have to say I was happily surprised by this movie. I original rented a) Because it looked to be scary, and I love scary/thriller movies; b)Seth Green.

Plus to watch Seth Green try to kiss another man just made my day! Seth really made this movie for me.

If you have not seen it do!",1 "I used to watch the 80s series remake of ""Mission Impossible"" and feel this movie is largely ""Mission Impossible"" in title only.

It's really just a big star vehicle and money-making enterprise for Tom Cruise.

Sure, it's an entertaining mindless romp that will keep your brain happily in neutral for a few hours and that may be all you're after.

The revelation of who is the true villain will anger some fans such as myself.

It really wasn't anything like the 80s ""Mission Impossible"" I remember. What about the comraderie between characters? What about the team effort thing? These things are missing because it's Tom Cruise Vs the rest of the world.

The best thing about the film is Larry Mullen Jnr and Adam Clayton from U2 being on the soundtrack.",0 "My gods, I want those 28 minutes of my life back! This so-called movie is a therapist's dream client. The guy who wrote this has issues, massive, major issues.

It was worse than any Woody Allen movie I've ever seen.

So his dad's a jerk. Well, grow up. You aren't your dad. Get over it.

How the hell did this thing win an Oscar? It was pure, utter crap.

I saw this tonight at a screening of the five short animated films nominated for the Oscar, and I cannot possibly fathom how any of the other four lost to THIS.

Avoid at all costs.

The writer of this film should issue a written apology to the world for unleashing this massive Shite Monster on us. I've seen the Shite Monster, in the movie Dogma. This was its poppa.

Did the people who voted for it actually SEE the movie? Or were they just impressed by its length?",0 "I'm very disappointed about this film, I actually expected something from Gael García, but I can say that without question is the worst film I ever watched: - There is no plot at all - The characters are very weak - The direction is awful, even Gael as an actor performs very bad - Edition & Cinematography are below an acceptable film - The difference between social classes in the film is not clear and it doesn't exist at all, in Mexico we can consider all the characters in the film from the same social class (only different life-style)

After watching it, you'll get the feeling that you were watching a home video of one of your so-so parties, because even most real-world parties are a lot more fun and interesting than this film.

Hopefully Gael will perform better in his next work.",0 "Lewis Milestone performed one of his best directing jobs with ""The Racket."" He had a superior cast in what, in a later talkie, might be just a mediocre script, but taken in context, ""The Racket"" is a great movie. Watch the byplay during the funeral, for example. Milestone and his editors and special effects people create some excellent visual effects to complement a cast that charms even in the role of slimy bad guy. Minor characters still got their chances to shine in the spotlight and even the non-speaking -- well, of course all the characters were non-speaking in one sense -- the un-named characters whose job was to look menacing or even just interested in the goings-on, all stood out. Frankly this film was a surprise to me -- not that it was so good, but that I had had no knowledge of it beforehand. To come so early in the career of so many of the people connected with it, notably Howard Hughes, who had the (to me) strange title of ""presenter,"" this film is a stand-out. Robert Israel, who wrote the music, is fast becoming one of the great composers of the modern era. All the people who are responsible for this film's recent revival deserve the thanks of film lovers as well as film historians. ""The Racket"" is one to see again.",1 "I have the man from Atlantis pilot and the City beneath the sea movie.And when i saw the movie The city beneath the sea i noticed that the character Aquila swam the same way that mark Harris dose on the show Man from Atlantis,did anyone else notice this besides me?If you did let me know.The show in it self was OK but not perfect.The year for city beneath the sea was [1971]and the man from Atlantis was [1977]If you have both the movie man from Atlantis/and city beneath the sea on VHS or DVD compare the two and see for your self that one was copied from the other as far as the swim moves goes,thanks for reading my comment",0 "I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.

The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...

They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad...",0 "I nearly gave this a miss because of its inane title, poor reviews, and unknown (to me anyway) actors and Director. Thank god I didn't.(Brody was Brilliant). This wasn't a ""buried alive movie"". The lack of Oxygen aspect was a sub plot to what was happening between Tierney and Brody, Tierney and Kinney, and Tierney and her... Friend??? Until reading other users comments I didn't realise it was a ""small town production"". In the hands of the Silence of the Lambs crew this would have been a big psycho thriller. More would have been made of the ""Alone"" interview, which could have been a precursor to a much more masochistic violent ending. This film was a few rewrites short of being a very good film. If it had been made in the fifties we would be calling it a classic.",1 "While I enjoyed the plot, and especially the cars, the film had some glaring continuity errors, two of which I note here. 1) The Jag is seen approaching the starting line with no race number, and in the next shot it is still approaching the start bearing the '55' that had been allocated. 2) From the start of the film, the Jag boasted wire wheels. During the race the car had pressed steel wheels most of the time, yet occasional shots showed wire wheels again. Why change the wheels - or was it a different car?

There were also some technical errors that should have been picked up during the editing, the most obvious being the microphone boom reflected in the car's windscreen at one point. Maybe it was too late to re-shoot.",0 "The screen play and slightly higher production values seen in this zombie flick are the only things that set this film apart from the hoard of other ""back yard"" produced zombie films which flooded the market during the time period of it's release. While it is true that lovers of George Romeros zombie films will see many welcomed and familiar themes and plot elements in this production, the bad acting reflected in the entire cast's performances drag this film's impact and quality to a sub-par level. Sometimes bad acting can be humorous and endearing, here it is just bad acting and leaves the film with a flat feeling.

Only serious lovers of zombie flicks will feel that they got their moneys worth out of this one. Any movie that has this kind of stilted acting, coupled with zombies that find a wobbly pile of boxes an unmanageable obstacle deserves a rating of 3 out of 10.",0 "****SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS****

You've been warned. Okay, I can't stress this enough but the 'hero's' chin really does focus your attention on him rather than what masquerades as a plot. The hero, Nick Miller, a college physics professor, invents a time machine on his Cessna using a Commodore 64 (yeah, you had one too right?). He, stupidly, sells his invention to the local evil corporation headed by the initialed JK Robertson (NOT to be confused with JK Rowling of Harry Potter fame, of course). Said evil corp duplicates the technology and proceeds to usher in Apocalypse in the year 2041. Big-chinned hero and reporter girlfriend try to change the future and in a series of events too painful (and not horribly important, though including one version of girlfriend Lisa getting killed and a duplicate Nick coming into the picture) to recount, they along with JK, flunky Pink Boy and garage mechanic end up in 1777 Vermont. Blah, blah, blah...

One of the blaring flaws is them messing with history. JK kills his Michael Medved looking flunky in 1777 with an Uzi and the body is left there. The group freely mixes with the Red Coats and the Revolutionaries at that time without either side making notable comments about these strange looking people. And somehow, after all this interaction, the future from that point wasn't affected by the fact that these differently dressed people with strange accents that came down from the sky in a flying bird. Riiiight. You could see where, with talented writers and editors WITH eyes in sockets, this could've been a decent film. Big budgets aren't always needed. Thank the heavens for MST3K! I miss you!",0 "The movie portrayed to me, young love in it's purest form, lived unconditionally and with great courage. Too often people fail to love with such courage. They clutch at their hearts along with their pocket books and head for the door. I found myself feeling immense pride for this young man in his endeavor. We all know that too often in life things don't have a storybook ending but this one did and I enjoyed it. I loved the characters, the music, the settings and the humor injected. I would like to see more from these young people.",1 "Waited for many years to see this, being a lifelong fan of the books by Ms. Gilman.

However, the film left a taste in my mouth as dry as the sands of Albania it seems.

The film did make good use of the actors. The script was poorly written dialogue though, not as much humor as needed for this film.

I would say the film had an essential problem but there were entirely too many.

First, poorly written dialogue. Just not humorous.

Second, Roz, while appearing somewhat matronly, still looked a little too young for the role. Although her performance was outstanding.

Third, for the attractive thief/rogue agent Farrell, we get Darin McGavin? No, not the blond haired lout I had read about, not even close.

Fourth, Carstairs. Sigh. Just totally not done well at all. Written as an uncaring unfeeling government agency employee who didn't really care at all that he had sent an elderly lady on a courier mission. he humor of the whole situation was contained in the fact that in the book, her mission was an accident. Leaving out the first 20 pages or so and completely changing that plot point, well, it made for a completely unlikable character.

Fifth, they never, ever told her family members in any of the novels she was on assignment. Ever.

Essentially it took a few elements, not nearly enough and compiled a poor movie whose most interesting aspect was its lead actress'es charisma in the role and its musical score.

If you enjoy the books I think you will not like this movie. If you haven't read them and like 70's era comedies, go for it.",0 "...because it saved me the price of an entrance ticket. I'm not entirely entitled posting here because I turned it of after about half an hour. Just for saving my brains of getting any more damaged. Besides that, when I look out of my window, I see a HUGE wall which was more interesting.

After I deleted this movie, I got an email from my own PC. It was something like ""If you ever download sh*t like that again, I'll blow myself up""

I really want to tell something more, but the only thing is the warning that this movie is more damaging for you then smoking. Sadly, the rating does not go below 1.",0 "Oh well... I've seen a lot worse than this. It's brainless, its only selling point are the three gorgeous women and the script is stuck halfway between nonexistence and Never-never-land. Not completely awful, but still I have a hard time finding the point. But I'm guessing it's got something to do with money.",0 "Number 3, why? How far can they wear out this formula? I started routing for the bad guys and maybe this way the series would be finito. Joe Pesci plays an annoying character. It makes me wonder what he is like in real life. This is a typical shootout hollywood ending. It is so predictable. The humor between the two main actors is getting old. 3/10",0 "This is definitely the best romantic comedy that I have seen in the past several years. Great writing, solid acting and delivery, excellent production values. The dialog was fresh and edgy, and it was the first film that I have seen in a while that felt like it was written and directed by real people, and not vetted by a series of industry drones. The dramatic aspects of the film were familiar and yet not predictable. The women in the film were much more progressive and real than are typical in larger budget studio productions, and the portrayal of sex and sexuality was downright honest. The cast was obviously enjoying themselves, and stayed on task to deliver excellent performances. I really appreciated that it actually dealt with some real content and issues, but wrapped in a warm and fuzzy bubble-gum Saturday night eye-candy teen-Disney kind of context. I'm surprised that this wasn't snatched up by a distributor (note to distributors - snatch this up before the bidding war begins).",1 "It would be nice if a comedy show were actually scheduled in this time slot! This show is pathetic and far from funny. You spend more time being embarrassed for the heroine than on any other emotion (well - maybe irritation). If all else fails, just thru in a ""big boob"" joke? If this was supposed to appeal to the 17 - 20 age group, it may be doing fine. Many have been divorced and found the way, this shows writers and lead have no clue -funny or otherwise. On the plus side, the little boy is cute and the uncle IS funny. The ex-husband and new girlfriend are played by well known master comics, able to carry the show on their own,",0 "OK so I think its good fun,

On the TECH level

I dug the look in some areas more then others such as some ext stuff looked Well videoish (Being that it was shot on video) while the some of the INT especially when Rane fights one of the main bad dudes (who was giving a blowie to other dude) hand to hand had a cool gritty look, Girlie Club also...I wish the latter look was kept throughout more, that's just my personal taste..There's a lot of gun action going on in this flick!

Story

Simple and to the point it was just good ol Revenge..Nice gratuitous violence =) Aborted babies always a good for a cheer in my book(You'll have to see the flick to understand how messed up it is)!..I liked also the constant hits of coke etc prob most coke hits since Scarface lol..

Acting

John Fallon who played Rane was solid the rest of the cast ranged from decent to passable(I felt weakest acting wise was female cop)..I Rane's coked up buddy he was cool and I liked the two Fhorensic Cops cracking the jokes.

All in all considering small budget and what these guys went for I feel they suceeded on all levels! Will this hit a theater near you, Not likey but will make for a very cool DVD rental or hell go out and buy it. I was entertained and in the end that's all that counts",1 "This is one of those Japanese samurai films where the red paint cost probably more than everything else in the movie. This movie inspired Quentin Tarantino to make Kill Bill, so if you liked that movie you should watch this one. The plot is quite simple: the Japanese girl is seeking revenge for the killers of her parents, but the killers are tougher than she thought and this is where the bloody fight between good and evil begins. The movie is well directed and the acting is pretty good. There is a lot of violent swords-fights but it looks kind of funny sometimes. If you are samurai film fan you really should watch this one it's one of the best in it's gender.",1 "This is a great movie for just watching and enjoying. No overwhelming drama, no thought to guess the plot or who-done-it, just good old fashioned entertainment. Burt Lancaster shines in a way only he can. The jokes are funny, lines memorable (mamasita, what a rap she gave me... Khassein is a lump of evil smelling goat cheese) the girls are pretty and it rolls along as you ""listen to the squeaking of the little mouse"". Just enjoy yourself, if you miss a few minutes in the kitchen it won't throw you off the plot. It's great to see REAL actors displaying their craft in a time period when talent was more important than looks, bra size and CGI. If you want drama, go find Wuthering Heights and get your fill.",1 "Tyrone Power shows his considerable comic flare in his role as a young American in Paris who is blackmailed into posing as a Russian prince to court a wealthy heiress (Loretta Young). The script is extremely witty with fast-paced, sharp dialogue that keeps the viewer in stitches from start to finish. Highly recommended! Unfortunately, this movie is not available on video, but it is played on the Fox Movie Channel from time to time.",1 "This is a light-hearted coming of age story that manages to succinctly weave the dark undercurrents of bad parenting into the mini-adventure. Centered around 2 siblings, Josh & Sam is a very charming and watchable family film peppered with some good, funny moments, that should raise a chuckle or two.

Constantly being shipped from back and forth, between their divorced parents, takes it's toll on Josh and Sam and eventually reaches breaking point when their mum decides to marry and live in France for a year with a French guy. Leaving them with no option but living with their father and his new family. For Simpson fans, their fathers character bears an uncanny resemblance to Ned Flanders without the moustache. You're just waiting for him to say okily-dokily.

The older of the two siblings invents an outlandish story and persuades his younger brother, whose character was brilliantly delivered by Noah Fleiss, to go on the run together heading for the ""sanctuary"" of Canada to avoid been sent to Africa as a child warrior. Of course the younger Sam swallows the story hook, line and sinker and off they go meeting up with the, exceedingly delicious Libert Maid, Alison (Martha Plimpton) along the way.

Josh & Sam reminds me of the Irish movie called ""Into the West"" which managed to weave some old Irish myths and legends into the story. Both are charming and both are watchable. Both are not the sort of films that I would pick out of a a rental store shelf, but, if you stumble across them on TV both have great child acting performances. Both Tierney and Fleiss carry this with a little help from Martha Plimpton.",1 "This movie should have been a 'Project Redlight'. John Travolta is out of his head and hopelessly devoted to L. Ron Hubbard. That he was able to con 10 other people into investing $80 million towards the making of this movie is the only real impressive angle I can work for this review. Perhaps Travolta wanted to work with Tarrantino again and thought the only way that that could happen is if his own career fell into the tank? Or perhaps he felt it was his duty to make the film in order to get a better seat in 'Dianetics Heaven'? Let's hope that Tom Cruise can learn from Barbarino's mistake.

I don't think it will matter too much to point out everything that is bad about this film, but the acting, the dialog, the special effects, the plausibility of the cave people's quick learning development, and of course, the hair extensions will just have to suffice.

I would have given the movie a 1 out 10 rating, but I did laugh at the movie quite a few times and that should be worth something, I think. The version I watched was on the USA network and it was modified for teevee, so I may have missed some key plot elements that were cut from the original vision of its director, but then again I may have seen some really good Levitra adds in its place. The end credits whizzed by so quickly that it would appear that no one really wanted to have anything to do with this movie except Travolta.

'In preparing a judgment of worth,

I proclaim this lame movie to be worst'

Don't forget that 'I told ya'

to blame John Travolta

and L. Ron for Battlefield Earth.

Oh, if it were only a musical. 2/10.

Clark Richards",0 "A Walt Disney SILLY SYMPHONY Cartoon Short.

The MERBABIES are frolicking beneath the salt waves - swimming & playing with various sea creatures. An elaborate underwater circus parade & performances fill much of their day, culminating in a rise to the surface in the expelled breath of a whale at sunset.

While the plot is virtually invisible in this little film, there's much to fill the eye as the colorful images cavort about the screen. The real significance of this cartoon is that it gave the folks in Disney Animation some excellent experience in working with the particular aspects of underwater scenes (bubble movement, light & shadow) which would be so important in the under seas sequence in PINOCCHIO.

The SILLY SYMPHONIES, which Walt Disney produced for a ten year period beginning in 1929, are among the most interesting of series in the field of animation. Unlike the Mickey Mouse cartoons in which action was paramount, with the Symphonies the action was made to fit the music. There was little plot in the early Symphonies, which featured lively inanimate objects and anthropomorphic plants & animals, all moving frantically to the soundtrack. Gradually, however, the Symphonies became the school where Walt's animators learned to work with color and began to experiment with plot, characterization & photographic special effects. The pages of Fable & Fairy Tale, Myth & Mother Goose were all mined to provide story lines and even Hollywood's musicals & celebrities were effectively spoofed. It was from this rich soil that Disney's feature-length animation was to spring. In 1939, with SNOW WHITE successfully behind him and PINOCCHIO & FANTASIA on the near horizon, Walt phased out the SILLY SYMPHONIES; they had run their course & served their purpose.",1 "This is the most overrated B movie in history. It's ""interpretation"" to some of the most beautiful music ever made is revolting. ""Cute"" centaurs and Pegasuses for the Pastoral? Stravinsky for a children's history of evolution? ""Abstract art"" for Bach's Toccata? Tchaikovsky for dancing mushrooms? If you like classical music (I do) run away from this pretentious garbage.

The movie is so bad that it only gets interesting when the music is as bad as it: Ponchieli, Dukas, Mussorgsky, etc. The joke works because the ""homage"" stresses the banality of the composition.

Not recommended for children (too boring, go watch Pixar's stuff) neither for intelligent adults.",0 "While as Biography, ""Buffalo Bill"" is probably as accurate as the depiction of Custer in ""They Died With Their boots On"", it is still excellent film making and a fine vehicle for stalwart Joel McCrea, who, despite performances in excellent non-westerns such as ""Sullivan's Travels"" and ""Foreign Correspondent"" was known primarily as a Cowboy Star.

I would also hold this film up as another example, along with John Ford's Cavalry Trilogy, of a film which depicted Native Americans as a noble race, victimized by the march of western civilization, long before the advent of films such as ""Little Big Man"" or ""Dances With Wolves"" The White Man is clearly the villain in this and the Ford films. Early on, Cody admonishes a Government representative, telling him that Yellow hand (Anthony Quinn, who also plays Crazy Horse in ""They Died With Their boots On"") is a Prince of his people, and should be treated as such.

Plus, if the reunion at the shooting gallery and the Wild West Show farewell scenes don't put a lump in your throat, better check your pulse.",1 "There was a brief flourishing during the Seventies of using the Negev desert in Israel as location for the filming of westerns. I imagine that now with those rockets flowing from the Gaza, no film company wants to go there. In any event I suppose you could call these things bagel westerns.

Quality wise they're not all that different from some of the mediocre European spaghetti westerns being churned out on that continent, even with American players like Lee Van Cleef, John Marley, and Jim Brown starring in them.

Kid Vengeance stars a kid, Leif Garrett in the days right before he became a pop bubblegum teen idol. Van Cleef and Marley and their gang kill his father and kill and rape his mother and sister Glynis O'Connor stows away on their outlaw wagon. Talk about not too much smarts.

Anyway young Leif is out for blood, but the most androgynous teen idol until Michael Jackson never really makes you feel he's all that bloodthirsty. Garrett also meets Jim Brown, a miner who the outlaws have robbed and left tied up and stretched out to die. Garrett comes him free and the two of them join forces to get the gang that did them dirt.

The climax which I can't reveal is hokey beyond belief, the most unbelievable western showdown ever filmed. This film just might have killed the Israeli western business more than the Arabs.",0 "I had the privilege of watching this at its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Fest, and it's always great to discover new talent. Here, it's not just the discovery of Peter Schonau Fog, but also of the tremendous cast, especially young Jannik Lorenzen, who plays 11-year-old Allan to perfection with his cheeky bewilderment, and eventually with a heavy disappointment that accompanies his loss of innocence. The film reminds me of Schlondorff's The Tin Drum with its rather disturbing, yet comical theme of children growing up entirely too quickly, although The Art of Crying is, in my opinion, far more beautifully poignant as it is told through Allan's eyes.

Henry (Jesper Asholt) is a milkman whose nightly suicide attempts and constant hysterics have driven his wife to taking sleeping pills every night to avoid him, and his son to university out of their sleepy rural village in Denmark. Henry's young son Allan (Lorenzen) adores him, and begins performing a series of bizarre acts in order to win his father's happiness, seeing nothing wrong with his father's manipulative actions and dysfunctional family dynamics.

I enjoyed this portrayal of the tension between the rural and the urban, seen in Henry's interactions with his educated son Asger, his daughter Sanne's boyfriend the ""moped rowdy"" Per, and his neighbour the Buddes, who have introduced self-service at their rival grocery store. It's a compelling tale, grippingly suspenseful as you wait to see what Henry and Allan will do next, yet disturbingly funny as you watch Allan delight in the most unpleasant things (just as long as they make Henry happy). Strong performances all around, and a neat debut for Schonau Fog!",1 "There I was, peacefully enjoying the movie. It was quite good, realistic atmosphere, authentic dialogue etc. THEN came the twist... I'm sorry I can't tell you about the rest of the film, I switched it off after that...

NOT because I was offended or repulsed, but because the big 'surprise' had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what had gone before it. It just came completely out of left field. When even the film's tagline shamelessly promotes the one big 'shock' in the movie for all it's worth, you can be sure the rest of the film that's built around it won't be much cop.

Juvenile shock tactics just to get bums on seats? It's schoolboy stuff; and that's really who this film should be aimed at, despite the clamouring of the pseudo-intellectual crowd who claim to love it for its 'daring'. Pssshht.",0 "If you have absolutely nothing to do, or you need to critique a film as an academic exercise, try this one. I saw the USA version, with English dubbed in, out of sync with the lip-movements.

One can't help but notice the style of cinematography, music, editing and direction so much like the Clint Eastwood ""spaghetti-westerns"", or Hercules movies of the 1950's.

If you want to see a movie about the Battle of Britain, there are others that are better (e.g. ""The Battle of Britain"").",0 "I was rather disappointed with this film, after the high voter rating. My guess is that most of the high votes came from gay viewers, who were happy to see gay love featured so prominently in a mostly unremarkable film.

Sure there were some memorable moments. That's why it didn't totally stink. But the film otherwise dragged. If the love had been between a man and a woman, you could say this movie has already been made a thousand times (philandering man with slightly psychotic woman....).

The action and intrigue are minimal. If you want to see a gay love story (and sure, good acting) you might enjoy this movie. But don't be fooled into thinking its a thriller or an action movie as I was.",0 "If this movie had been made in America it would have received much more objective criticism. But, for some reason, many film watchers think that they must automatically heap praise upon any foreign made movie because it's the ""in"" thing to do. I am not surprised by all of the undeserved superlatives and ridiculous ""10"" votes given to this mediocre film. This movie is watchable but that's about it. The storyline is so implausible and unrealistic that it should be labeled as ""fantasy"". All of the syrupy comments about the great ""love"" shown by the father are laughable.",0 "Having the best film title around is about all G has going for it. Richard T. Jones, a hip hop record producer, and Blair Underwood fight over the laughably emotive (and, frankly, not pretty) Chenoa Maxwell. Considering the genre (pseudo-gangsta love drama), I can forgive a lot. My biggest complaint is not that the editing is slipshod, nor that Maxwell is truly awful, nor that Underwood (quite possibly the most attractive man on earth) looks like R Kelly here (and that's not good). It's supposed to be a movie about hip hop - with practically NO HIP HOP! Oh - one of the most memorable unmemorable quotes in cinema this year comes from G: ""Happiness is God's orgasm.""",0 "The film is almost worth it for one scene: A dead woman is to be made a zombie; the ritual goes like this: a dwarf in sunglasses and love-beads, top-hat and tux (over a tie-dye tee-shirt) whips the back of a native girl kneeling before him. She gets sexually excited (although fully dressed) and has orgasm. Then a goat is brought in. The dwarf licks the whip he has been using to beat the girl, and then he takes a tuft of goat hair and licks that. A white guy kisses the dead woman, who comes to ""life"". Later we find that the girl who has been whipped to death has died as a human sacrifice, although it's not clear how, since the blood on her dead face has nothing to do with the whipping. Maybe it was just the ecstasy, it was too much for her.

Oh, Boris Karloff is said to star in this film I think he's on about five minutes of film here, but I may be overestimating; there's also a Karloff stand-in who's too tall, too thin, and otherwise doesn't look anything like him.

The rest of the film just sucks.",0 "This is probably one of John Waters' most approachable films for the mass audience--along with CRY BABY and HAIRSPRAY. Unlike Waters' earlier films, which were meant for a niche audience (i.e., weird people--and I don't mean that derogatorily). So if you are looking for the ultra-low budget over-the-top films starring Divine, you may be disappointed that this film has a lot more polish and higher production values. However, this is NOT to say that SERIAL MOM is normal--just a lot more normal than these earlier flicks. Plus, this is one of the few Waters films you can watch with your kids--provided they are older and not terribly impressionable!

Kathleen Turner turns in her best performance as a combination between June Cleaver and Ted Bundy--complete with the pearl necklace. This movie, start to finish, is very funny and a great satiric look at life in the suburbs. In addition, like his later CECIL B. DEMENTED, it's an interesting satire that is a way over the top look at America's fascination with celebrity and how we admire and are fascinated with anyone if they are famous--even the vile and horrific.

NOTE--Like many of John Waters' later films, this one features a cameo by Patty Hearst.",1 "I found this title in my search for good quality horror films. This one, obviously, qualifies into the ""haunted house"" genre where the scare factor is more in-direct. But there was a problem. This movie isn't good. I hate to say that, because i strive to find positive attributes in every film i see, but this film simply is badly made. How more contrived can a haunted house script be? The film begins with a woman realizing she needs to spend time alone because she's been having ""difficult times"" (so we can later explain why she thinks she must be crazy when she sees things), then the big house inherited from her dead aunt (low angle shots here, with blue lights behind dead trees, a la Amityville horror) and a bunch of bad acting locals who act unkind to this lady almost as if just because the script calls for it. But here's the biggest fault: The musical score. Sorry Mr. Webster Lewis, but your score took away any possible strength this film could have had. Not only have they re-used the the same 3 cues through out the film (which i can understand to some degree, considering recording costs) but each cue within itself is bad. They begin with this short piano lick which, everytime you hear it, you're supposed to realize that ""something ain't right here"". It becomes tiring, it becomes overpowering. In other cues you hear this Jaws' theme-like piano motif pounding away which is supposed to build the tension, but give me a break guys. And next time hire a composer who knows that writing original film music is more than trying to create suspense by using diminished chords or pounding low piano keys. By the time this film was over i couldn't figure out how or why it ended up on my ""must see"" list for interesting horror films. And the director should stick to his editing career instead (looks like, from his filmography, he's been more successful at that). And that's not a surprise, after seeing this bad film.",0 "Sorry Martin, this wannabe ""Titanic"" didn't do a thing for me...

I don't want to say this is simply a film for the masses about the masses but that's the way it turned out: a big fat mass of masses for masses.

That said, without spending too much time, I belive the film fails honestly because Scorcese is attached to it.

If this was a film made by any unknown director or some greenhorn, I would have no choice but to applaud the effort as the EFFORT is tremendous. But, when you look at the body of work and more importantly the intelligence and multi-level approach of Scorcese's other films, this film completely fails in comparison.

Somewhere along the way this film was butchered, (pun intended) whether it was by the studio, by Scorcese, or by the batch of writers who's conflicting visions and machismo keep bobbing up and down throughout the story. I believe Scorcese (or the studio) tried too hard to make a film for ""today's (young) audience"" instead of just making (or letting Scorcese make) a Scorcese film. Sure, perhaps many of today's brainwashed and dumbed down proles might not get it, but the film would have entertained the large following this director has cultivated over his many years behind the camera. If the only story he wanted to tell was a nobody wins revenge tale without redemption, flanked by an extremely shallow and cookie-cutter romance, then why waste all the time and money with 1860's New York? Whether or not Martin is actually washed up or still possesses his own magical abilities with a camera I cannot say, but it seems that whatever his original vision was, someone went through it (violently) with a cleaver.

It's interesting though, as a comparison, the actual base human story of ""Titanic"" has the same cookie-cutter romance elements as ""Gangs"" yet it is crystal clear that the FOCUS of ""Titanic"" is on an IMMACULATE portrayal of both the ship itself, the passengers, and the events that took place -- an accurate portrayal of history is the most important factor. ""Gangs"" does not present that same sharp and exacting historical focus to any degree, instead bits of chopped up pseudo history and gruesome violence are thrown around for a bit color in an otherwise monochromatic, by the books, and boring love story.

Bottom line: I can hear this bomb falling right now... Half my theatre left after the 2 hour mark, some before, and that was on opening night.",0 "Directed by John Frankenheimer, best known for his political thrillers, this is one of the few films to take a serious look at the increasingly popular thrill sport of sky diving. Burt Lancaster, Gene Hackman and Scott Wilson represent three different points of view of sport parachuting. For Hackman it is a business, for Wilson it is about escape and acceptance, for Lancaster it is something more personal. Seven gifted amateur sky divers did over 2000 jumps to create the stunt work in this film. Between uncooperative winds and rain and with settings in parts of seven different Kansas locations they managed to pull together this film, which will have you on the edge of your seat all the way through. Excellent supporting turns are put in my Debra Kerr and William Windom",1 "I netflixed Godzilla 2005 and started to watch the movie with the Commentary on, because there was no Japanese language track. No Japanese track was a disappointment to begin with but then as the commentators just glad handing themselves about there edit's, re-written dialog and complete disregard for the original film I realized this was just a ruined film. They went for Camp of the old 50's sci-fi, which you can't write camp. You can only play it as straight as possible and the silly things pop out. For instance, how the one researcher is racing to the scene and two plant workers are just strolling by, not at all aware of Godzilla. Also they cut important scenes because they felt the audience wouldn't get it. Don't dumb things down. Or try to explain things that don't need explaining. One of the worst things is the suped up sound effects. A tell tale line of commentary was that when they said about the original subtle missile hits to Godzilla were more real and the suped up ones sound more fake. And they kept repeating this is a movie that shouldn't be scary for kids. Like they were tring to tone it down into a comedy. I love the camp of the Godzilla movies that comes from this straight serious movie that is just unbelievable. All they needed was Raymond Burr as an American reporter to totally ruin a good Godzilla movie.",0 "There are some films which are so bad that they are actually watchable, such as ""The Grim Reaper"", but this is not one of them. It sags dejectedly between two stools - neither good enough to watch nor bad enough to be fun.

This would have been good if it had been done in the greatest traditions of Hammer Horror with oh-so-obviously-a-set locations and the nearest modern equivalent to Peter Cushing et al. The actors try to act, they really do try and some should have known better, but they would have had more success if they had hammed it up in glorious fashion along the lines of ""Psychomania"" or other can't-hear-the-dialogue-for-the-creaking-of-wooden-acting horror films.

I love unashamedly bad movies but everything about this film is just poor. It is best watched while drunk at 3am after the clubs have shut and you just want something on in the background while you and your mates finish your pizzas or you want something to fill the awkward smoochable pauses in the conversation between yourself and the latest bit of skirt/trouser you picked up.

This film is utterly forgettable.",0 "This is a brilliant, charming film. To the poster wanting ""Merci Simca"" to become a common well-known phrase- I totally agree. This movie has it all- wit, charm, great acting, clever script, great use of flashbacks, inventive crimes, great car chase thru the 70's streets of Paris- an almost perfect film. This movie is easily the equal of other classic French crime films of the time- it's a shame it is so little known. You may be thrown a bit (as was I) when characters are doing things out of character, not realizing it's a flashback, but that only adds to the experience- I'd rather be confused for a few minutes than have some obvious corny announcement that a flashback is coming, like squiggly dream lines appearing on screen. I had heard nothing of this film and had no expectations, and was blown away. This film was 25 years ahead of its time, it's kind of a forerunner to comedy/crime films such as Pulp Fiction, True Lies, Go, etc., but superior to all those.",1 "I thought this movie was just fantastic.

the first time i saw it, i thought it was awesome. But when i watched it for the second time i thought it was Fabulous. Its probably my favourite movie now.

It took me a while to realise but i think this movie is better then the first one.

Ashley Tisdale is Highschool Musical she was so so so so good in this movie. Every scene she was in i was glued to the TV, she did such a good job as sharpay and she looked so beautiful in this movie, in the first one her hair was really thick and that what ruined her style but in this movie her hair was so pretty she just looked hot in every scene she was in.

Vanessa Hudgens really did a good job. I didn't like her in the first movie but i thought in this movie her character wasn't so childish.

To bad Chad and Taylor weren't in it more. I love Taylor i think she is funny but they didn't use her much in this film. Chad should of had a way bigger part too.

The songs in this movie were really good. Fabulous is just a really fun feel good song. Work this out was a really good song with a really good beat. Music in me was a really pretty relaxing song. I don't dance was an okay song but i wasn't really that much into it. Music in me Sharpay version was so so so hot and it was so sharpay which i thought was fantastic. gotta go my own way was a beautiful song sung really well and acted really well during it. Bet on it was a really good song to, good beat and good lyrics. Everyday was just a really sweet, cute, fun song and all for one was pretty good not as good as were all in this together but good enough to get my attention.

The concept for this movie was really smart and really enjoyable. It was a fabulous lead up to the first highly successful first movie.

I highly anticipated this movie and i was so pleased that it was as good as hyped.

I am so excited for the third movie. I hope they do as good a job as they did for this one and the first one, im sure they will.

Brilliant.",1 "For me, this is the best role of Hackman's career, and one of Oscar's most overlooked roles. His character was as revolting, cold, and repugnantly racist as a human being could be, but Hackman played Sam Cayhall as a person with a surprising depth and emotion that, although you couldn't exactly like him, you find yourself quietly hoping his death penalty will be overturned as he plumbs the depths of his evil deeds and confronts his past.

The scene when Fay Dunaway's Lee Cayhall Bowen comes to see Sam in the hours before his execution is as good as it gets. Lee asks if Sam would have killed Joe Lincoln when she was young had she spoken up, Sam tells her yes. You KNOW, you SEE, that he wouldn't have, but in seeing the toll that the guilt of a lifetime of believing it was her fault had exacted from his daughter, Sam lied. Sam redeemed her sanity in that lie, gave her life the peace she never had and, in many ways, redeemed himself.

Although Dunaway is only 11 years younger than Hackman, she handily pulls off the role of Cayhall's emotional, conflicted and alcoholic daughter Lee. She has spent her life hiding from whom she is, both from the community and herself, the crimes of her father, and the stigma it has brought.

Chris O'Donnell is just as good as Sam's grandson, Adam Hall, who is now a lawyer. Hall's father had changed the family surname to also escape the stigma of being the son of the murdering Klansman Cayhall. Apparently by design, Hall works for the firm who handles his grandfather's case, although he keeps his grandfather's identity a secret until he requests to take on the final death penalty appeal. Along the way, Hall learns the unpleasant reality of who he is, the bitter hate and ugliness bred into his grandfather, and insight into the truth of why his father had committed suicide when Hall was a young boy.

This film, although unpleasant in theme, is full of stellar performances and by far the most nuanced and conflicted character Gene Hackman has ever played. If you haven't seen The Chamber, get it, it's worth the watch.",1 This was one of the first movies I bought for my VHS collection and would like to see it brought out in DVD with additional commentary.

A story of one man's isolation from others by the fact of being a deaf-mute individual with apparently only one true friend (another deaf-mute whom he love's like a brother). In spite of this physical disability he becomes an important part of all the other characters involved by being a confidant and sounding board for their lives. His patience and quiet concern and attention allows them to sort through their own motives and problems and come to an understanding of them.

Unfortunately because of this disability he remains isolated from being able to take comfort from them when he needs it most. The HEART of the story. To be able to give so much and yet still be denied the love and understanding of the very people you have helped so much. In that respect many of us are Lonely Hunters.

A wonderful and introspective movie about feelings and motivations. View it if you can.,1 "The first-person perspective could be viewed as a brave experiment or a case-study of why nobody EVER makes movies this way. Three points:

1) In a movie, we like to see the main character reacting.

2) Actors look self-conscious when endlessly talking to a camera.

3) The lack of edits makes many scenes tedious.

Still, you can admire how hard all this was to stage and shoot, in a age when cameras weighed a ton, made too much noise and nobody owned a Steadicam. Reminds me of the kind of crazy gimmicks Hitchcock sometimes tried but Hitch would have never let the train go this far off the tracks.",0 "The only thing that saves this horrendous flick is Vincent Price! Otherwise, it's a festival of half-clad dancing girls wearing triple ""D"" costumes and one of the lamest, most stupid plot lines I've watched in decades! Although I'm an avid Belly Dancer and enjoy watching such ""z"" grade ""fluff"" films just to get ideas for dancing, these Terpsichorean attempts hover just this side of burlesque; one of the ""daughters of the 40 thieves"" even performs a pole dance for Sinbad! I read somewhere that the famed Lilly St. Cyr (yes! the one mentioned so worshipfully in Rocky Horror) designed the costumes. If that's true, then it's no surprise that these women look like stripper rejects.",0 "The story is about a beautiful young girl, Blue (Nina Siemaszko), who is approaching sexual maturity. In order to achieve a happy and fulfilling life she must avoid being corrupted and enslaved by sexual desire and lust, and ultimately find true love. But this is no easy matter in the cold, cruel world in which she suddenly finds herself virtually alone and defenseless. She becomes the unwilling victim of power hungry individuals who seek to exploit her as a prostitute. With help from more compassionate and understanding people, Blue struggles to maintain dignity and courage in her desperate commitment to be free.

While its true that the film has little connection with its predecessor ""Wild Orchid"", its main flaw seems to be that its just a little too cliché and at times hard to believe. This shortcoming is difficult to avoid, however, in most any book or film. To Zalman King's credit, the final outcome and the essential theme are not completely obvious from the very beginning. The exotic setting in the past also helps give the film a sense of novelty.

While the movie does have numerous sexually explicit scenes, which may offend some people, it exhibits far less voyeurism and wanton sexual intercourse that are typical of so called ""soft-porn"" movies. Whereas, I found Nina Siemaszko's natural beauty to be a refreshing change from the irritating plastic-boob floozies that are the main attraction of the aforementioned genre. Moreover, Wild Orchid 2 is a far more compelling human drama than stories about men from out of space who want to learn what love is, but seem to only be interested in sex. A rating of 2.8 hardly does this film any justice. I myself was quite found of the movie, and consider it worth viewing by those seek more tragic and melancholy overtones than what you may find in a typical romance.

Nina Siemaszko portrays of young ""virgin"", who is lonely, innocent and vulnerable, yet strong willed and independent, with higher moral values. She acted well enough to earn my sympathy, and I found myself routing for her throughout the film. Through Blue's trying experiences, we learn that in order to find true love we must be bold and determined, we must exhibit self-sacrifice and compassion, and, above all, we must look beyond outward appearances and fallacies, and seek the inner beauty that lies within ourselves and others we meet.",1 "Outstanding film dealing with a teenager who was totally female in thought but was born in the body of a male and suffered each day in his tragically short life.

J.D. Pardo is excellent as the conflicted youngster. Former Oscar winner Mercedes Ruehl shines in the role of his mother who at first thinks that he will outgrow his obsession of being a girl only to find out that this shall be his way of life. She goes to bat for him all the way.

This excellent film deals with a major societal problem regarding transsexual behavior. We saw it in ""TransAmerica,"" and ""Boys Don't Cry."" While the ending is tragic, the film is well acted and creates a disturbing picture of what transsexual people have to endure in our society.",1 "Grand film, has all the elements of a greek tragedy with a socko ending. And all ends honorably. A definite 10. Story plot, character development and even the scenery. From a dance-hall to the railroad yards to a bridge under siege by flood. And Jimmy Cagney dances! How could you go wrong. Dialogue a bit 'racy' in spots.",1 "Henry Stephenson's younger daughter Lucile Brown is getting married to George Meeker. Her older sister Ann Harding is happy for her, but she's got her own ideas about marriage. Remember this is the Thirties before the days of woman's liberation and most women only thought in certain parameters.

She sets a trap for William Powell, a debonair playboy she's been crushing out on for a long time. Being the gentlemen he is Powell marries her, but inevitable problems do ensue.

Double Harness as a film was one I had a lot of difficulty with. The story is an indifferent one, you don't get to really care about these people. Powell, poor man, has to go to work, big deal. Ann Harding's ideas are so much cat litter and Lucile Brown is one spoiled brat who just needs a good spanking, one Henry Stephenson should have given ages ago.

There are some moments with humor, but they're few and far between even in this short film. It's not that dramatic and definitely not that funny.

But this is one of those films in the Thirties when the rich actually put on tuxedos to dress for dinner. People looked elegant, no one was ever better at looking elegant on the screen than William Powell. But he's done so much better work than this. And back in the Depression this was escapist stuff.

Still I've seen better from both Powell and Harding.",0 "This is really no lesser an achievement than the renowned Randolph Scott/Budd Boetticher Westerns; then again, director Lewis was no slouch (for he made his fair share of minor classics)!

Scott's role is typical – a legendary marshal involved in a HIGH NOON (1952)-type situation, where he's practically left alone to clean up a town riddled with corruption and violence – but the underrated actor invests it with warmth, humor, tenacity and a quiet dignity. The star, then, is supported by a most excellent cast: Angela Lansbury (a fine actress but a rather unlikely chanteuse), James Bell (a usurped town leader), Jean Parker (an ageing belle and the latter's wife), Wallace Ford (predictably in the role of the reliable town doctor), Ruth Donnelly (as Scott's gracious elderly housekeeper), Jeanette Nolan (as the wife of a revenge-seeking ex-con whom Scott has killed in self-defense), and an interesting trio of villains – powerful boss Warner Anderson (who also fancies himself a ladies' man and, in fact, strikes up relationships with both Parker and Lansbury throughout), shifty but nervous gambler John Emery and smooth gunslinger Michael Pate (making for a worthy opponent to Scott).

The above-average script by Kenneth Gamet (an in-joke shows the calendar in the hero's room as being sponsored by Gamet's Vegetable Compound!) gives characterization reasonable depth: Scott and Lansbury are married but she had left him because of his dangerous job (a situation which she has to live through again now); Scott tells Donnelly that he hears The Beast (which symbolizes the scourge of the town) every morning until it's replaced by church-bells at the end of the picture. The highlights – most of the action seems to take place in and around one particular saloon, though in a montage we're shown that Anderson's 'protection' extends to many others in town – include an energetic and brutal fistfight between the hero and a dim-witted giant (who subsequently joins forces with him), an astonishing shoot-out two-thirds of the way involving Scott and Pate which ends with the former left for dead, and the splendid extended climax. On top of it all is the pleasing cinematography by an expert in color lensing, Ray Rennahan.",1 "I have yet to catch all of the movie on TMC but I have seen about 7/8ths of it. It's funny, sharp, very interesting and easy to watch. I found myself laughing and crying with the character. Being based on a true story makes it even more fun to watch. The movie sure does explain more about what a missionary goes through. What a life this man had! He was truly blessed. This movie was a great find. The main actor was magnificent in the role and his portrayal made the movie even greater. The locations were like heaven on earth. The main character had to overcome local prejudice against missionaries, his total removal from worldly possessions, his fears of becoming an elephant (see the movie he explains this) and his loneliness for his wife to be are just a few of his challenges. According to his church elders he must first finish his missionary role before he can marry his true love. This is one rule he is determined never to break. The fellowship and eventual closeness he enjoys with the natives proves to be a grand learning experience for both him and his new friends. ""The Other Side of Heaven"" is a must see for anybody.",1 "Brad Garrett was outstanding in portraying Gleason, and the director did an expert job in avoiding distractions which would have occurred if his 6'8""+ height had been shown in its true proportion to other cast members.

Jack Benny was noted as perhaps Hollywood's biggest tipper. Vincent Price and Edward G. Robinson were noted art collectors and connoisseurs, not just among entertainment persons, but the entire nation.

There seems often to be a tendency for famous entertainers to possess different personas in real life, and in instances like the above, even to emphasize them when in contrast to either more negative, or less attractive, characterizations in their roles.

Many comedians have also been reputed or shown to be somewhat different in ""real life."" Certainly one can understand their not wanting to be funny or ""on"" all the time in their personal lives, and undoubtedly they tire of people often expecting them to be.

But many are simply different from the humorous presences in their performances. Arthur Godfrey, and even Will Rogers, were far from the warm figures they portrayed on-air, on-screen or other professional venues. Jerry Lewis, Johnny Carson and many others have had a sharper edge in private/offstage.

This storyline believably portrayed Jackie Gleason's dominating, egocentric, hard-edged sides, as well as the insecurities he always carried from a childhood far from affluent or very happy.

One might wish the film had included a bit more regarding his movie work, but that aside, it captured not only the Gleason character, but also the flavor of the periods in the past as his success grew to its mammoth proportion..

Since these films don't possess the budgets of Hollywood big-screen offerings, even where well-presented, they can fall short in authenticity and details, like conveying scenes occurring in past times, foreign locales, and the like. But this flick captures the feel of the era portrayed excellently.

Along with Garrett's, all the supporting characters were well-cast, with superior performances",1 "This horror movie is quite typical for '40's standards. Horror movies from the '40's were often movies that were slow in its build up and also most often picked a realistic approach, with its unlikely subjects. It also often implied more than it actually showed on the screen. ""Isle of the Dead"" is just a movie like that and for the fans of the genre simply a great one to watch.

The concept is kept quite simple but it works out effective, when a small group needs to remain in quarantine on an island, when a mysterious deadly plague suddenly sets in. The movie often implies a lot and the movie spend most of its time building up things, which in the long run might make this movie a bit unsatisfying for the average viewer (because not a lot is happening) but for those who are familiar and like these type of movies it's quite rewarding movie. Certainly not the best that the genre has to offer but it's simply all good enough.

Of course the movie is also being uplifted by the fact that it has Boris Karloff in the main lead. Once again he proofs that he actually was a great actor, who got stuck in the horror genre. Who knows, maybe otherwise he would had been respected more for his talents, had he starred also in some acclaimed drama's and such.

It's a movie that relies mostly on its atmosphere and main concept and it does this well. ""Isle of the Dead"" might not be a classic, it certainly is still a fine example of '40's horror.

7/10",1 "besides the obvious Rear Window storyline, all of the following in this movie are also signature Hitchcockian themes or devices . . . the sudden overhead shots during interiors for dialog transitions; the use of shadows (the darkness and the light); the wrongly persecuted (Stanwyck) trying to prove the truth; the inept police wanting to incarcerate the innocent person; the average working-class Joe (or Josephine) getting thrown into a sinister web by no fault of their own; the dramatically different stories within each rear window, i mean each door in the apt. building where the victim lived; the stair-climbing climax to the top of the cloister tower, i mean State of Liberty, i mean skyscraper.

not to mention fellow Brit George Sanders who features prominently in some of Hitch's biggest pre-50s films. and Then! there's even a cameo by Hitch himself! or at least an effective stand-in -- the super in Sanders building baring an obvious resemblance to Hitch's profile.

This is Bizarroworld Hitchcock.

it's The Woman Who Knew Too Much. . . . The Wrong Woman. . . . Saboteur-ess -- withthe opening scene being the crime, and the only person who knows the truth being committed / convicted by the police, with no 'authority' to turn to (except, perhaps, the highest one), and the climax up a long flight of stairs (and then a ladder!), and evil (the bad guy) falling off to his death (down to hell) with a nice direct overhead shot.

It's the Spellbound amnesia, but instead of Dali, the lead character is a surrealist painter. It's Shadow of a Doubt with Sanders playing the suave and 'angelic' Uncle Charlie / Joseph Cotton role.

not to mention the whole anti-fascism angle that ran through most of Hitch's '30s and '40s films.

this has gotta be one of the most Hitchcockian movies ever made that wasn't made by Hitchcock. almost like a ""lost Hitchcock"".

i'd love to know the backstory on this film -- whether it was a cash-grab rip-off, or a loving homage. the script directly acknowledges the TV show Dragnet at one point, which makes me hope the portly superintendent was a nod to Sir Alfred.

this is either a heck of a forgery, or a heck of a tribute. but either way, it's a heck of a film.",1 "a surprising hit of a movie Jim Carrey's big breakthrough. In this movie he plays the character Ace Ventura who's an eccentric popper who finds animals for people. When the Miami Dolphin's dolphin is kidnapped they hire Ace to find the animal. This movie is one of the funniest movies ever! It also helped Courtney Cox's career a lot, you must see this if you don't have a stick stuck somewhere hehe and if you like to laugh 8 out of 10!",1 """Triple Cross"" is one of the movies Terence Young wished he'd never done, and it is bad indeed, even though it had all the ingredients a good box office hit needs: an international all-star cast (Christopher Plummer, Romy Schneider, Yul Brynner, Trevor Howard, Gert Fröbe, Jess Hahn, Claudine Auger from ""Thunderball"", Howard Vernon and Bernard Fresson), a massive budget, a director at the height of his international fame, a Bond-like story, a Bond-like score (Georges Garvarentz) and Bond-like locations (Jersey, London, Paris, Lisbon, Southern France). What went wrong?

Basically, ""Triple Cross"" is about one hour too long (there are two versions available, one lasts 145 minutes, the other one 126), and for many parts it seems as if even the director got confused with the different story lines, so the movie is guilty of both, boredom and confusion. The romantic aspect of the film doesn't work out; the chemistry between Plummer and Schneider is everything but right. Christopher Plummer is a huge disappointment in his attempt to be Sean Connery. He is undoubtedly a good actor, but as Eddie Chapman, he remains pale and utterly deadpan. Where Connery as Bond had a lot of sex-appeal and charm, Plummer has nothing to offer. Miss Schneider is equally miscast as the mysterious Countess, she seems lost and bored and gives one of the very few bad performances of her life.

I won't give a summary of the plot here, it's just not worth it. I recommend watching the early Bond movies, like ""Dr. No"", ""Goldfinger"", or ""From Russia With Love"" instead.",0 "Watch either ""Dodos"" or ""Expelled"" if you do NOT want to learn much about Evolution or Intelligent Design.

Both movies are more about attitudes towards their respective theories rather than the merits of the theories themselves. ""Expelled"" argues that scientific communities act with the same partisan and even repressive behavior seen in almost every kind of community, and ""Dodos"" argues that anyone who questions Evolutionary theory is an idiot or a quack (albeit likable idiots and quacks).

And this utter lack of respect for it's opposing position is why I give this movie a low grade. It doesn't even pose provocative ideas (like Expelled), or a sense of humor (like a Michael Moore film).

Instead Dodos offers criticisms of ID that would easily be destroyed if posed to one of the various ID representatives the movie interviews. The scientists offered as friendly witnesses on the side of Darwin rarely if ever pose a scientific argument, and instead offer ad hominem attacks, and other examples of logical terrorism that should make any scientist ashamed.

But perhaps worst of all is the recommendation the movie makes to scientists in the following statement: ""The bigger issue in this whole thing is who will be the voice not just of evolution, but of science in general. Is it going to be scientists who are handicapped by their blind obsession with the truth? Or will it be public relations firms that know the importance of a good story but feel no constraints by the truth?"" This is not the kind of statement made by people assured of the merits of their argument; no, this kind of statement is made by one with blind faith who lacks confidence in their ability to persuade by reason.

Dodos argues that ID succeeds in the public arena because it tells a simple story, while the truth is much more complex. I would argue that the opposite is true. Evolution succeeds because it is such a simple explanation; ID succeeds when the simplicity of Evolutionary theory fails to account for the evidence. IDs biggest problem is that it's central argument (that there is a designer to life) opens up so many more questions that sticking to the simple ""selection via random mutation"" is often more attractive intellectually.

Dodos claims that scientists have good answers to the questions posed by ID, but those answers require time and a depth of knowledge to understand. Personally, I've tried to find those answers, but such responses will rarely convince anyone not already converted, and often are rebuttals to arguments no one is even making.

I will agree with Dodos about one thing: if champions of Neo-Darwinism hope to squash the ""pseudoscience"" of ID, they need to have a more compelling presence in the media. But when they lose the veneer of a ""blind obsession with the truth"", scientists lose all credibility.",0 "This film owes a great deal of gratitude to the second collaboration between Francois Ozon and his leading lady, Charlotte Rampling. They ought to team up more.

As with the previous film, Under the Sand, this is an enigmatic piece of cinema. This film, I believe, has more to do with Sarah Morton's imagination than with the actual story presented to us. There are so many hidden clues within the story that everyone will have a different take in what is presented in the film and what the actual reality is.

Francois Ozon is not a boring director. He will always present an interesting story, fully developed, with many twists to get his viewer into going in different directions trying to interpret it all.

Charlotte Rampling is magnificent as Sarah Morton, the repressed author of mystery novels. Ludivine Sagnier is very good as the mysterious Julie, the alleged daughter of Sarah's publisher, but now, is she really that person?

The ending will baffle the viewer. This is a film that will stay and haunt one's mind for days.",1 "There are some films, like Santa Claus the movie or indeed Hook that are continually panned by critics and cynics alike. Hook is a blissfully wonderful and funny story with a superb cast. Robin Williams never fails to impress and adapts excellently to this role and the changes the character goes through. It is a film that makes you want to be young again, to be carefree and full of ""happy thoughts"" and perhaps there is a message in this movie about not forgetting what it is that makes you happy.

Brilliantly scripted and with great timing; especially between Dustin Hoffman's Hook and Bob Hoskins' Smee, this film never fails to brighten up my day.

""Bring me the heads"" of those who disagree I say!",1 "- After you've seen giallo after giallo, you begin to think you've seen it all as far as a convoluted plot goes. But then you stumble upon Autopsy. It's got to be the King of the Bizarre Plot. I'm not going to even attempt to go into it in detail because it's so twisted and things come out of left field that I could never do it justice. Just try to enjoy it for what it is.

- But the plot isn't where the majority of my problems with Autopsy lie. Instead, I have a real problem with the cast - specifically Mimsy Farmer as the female lead. Unlike Suzy Kendall in Torso or Edwige Fenech in All the Colors of the Dark, Mimsy Farmer and her character are not sympathetic figures. In order for a giallo to work and work well, the viewer must care about the characters who are in danger. I felt nothing for Mimsy. In fact, I was hoping she would be killed off very early in the movie.

- Other things I didn't care for were Mimsy's visions of the morgue patients moving around. It didn't really serve much of a purpose and didn't really go anywhere. Also, the director's decision to show up-close shots of solar flares over and over was totally unnecessary. Again, it didn't really serve much of a purpose and didn't really go anywhere.

- There are a lot of good gialli to track down if you're new to the genre. Autopsy, unfortunately, isn't one of them.",0 "Lorenzo Lamas returns as Renegade cop ""Soldier"" Jack Kelly who declares war on drug dealers who are cutting the drugs with rat poison in this undistinguished yet semi-fun sequel. Well what can we say? Snakeeater II:The Drug Buster boasts good actionscenes, and some good performances from Larry B. Scott and Ron Palillo but overall Snakeeater II:The Drug Buster is a mediocre movie. At least it's better then it's astonishingly bad predecessor.",0 "OK, so he's not a perfect stranger by the end of the movie. We do learn just a little about him. But nonetheless, you feel more or less the way you would if protocol required that you attend the wake of someone you had not even a passing acquaintance with. Respectful in the face of Death, duly serious, yes, but also somewhat bored and hoping you can get away quickly.

Still, the spectacle of a man so intent on suicide, and finding it surprisingly difficult, was rather interesting. I would not have regretted seeing this movie, were it not for the ending, which scotches everything, making you wonder why you've wasted your time.",0 "Jeunet & Caro have created a masterpiece. While certainly this film will not be everyone's cup of tea, I cannot recall anyone I know seeing it and not being delighted. No other movie I've seen so far could top this one for its combination of wittiness, dark humor, love for detail and collection of regular people holding a mirror up to each and everyone of us, showing us how strange we really are.

Indeed this movie will not be constrained by a classification as romance, comedy or science fiction or horror. It is much more than the sum of these - it is a work of art and the painstaking work and love for detail which Jeunet & Caro have put into it show everywhere you look.

This movie is definitely off-beat and I definitely love it!",1 "Here it is, folks: the movie that made ""Jim Carrey"" a household name overnight--""Ace Ventura: Pet Detective."" Although the movie's silly, crude, and often very childish, I still love the damn thing to death. It's a classic. Just one of those movies that you know's great but can't accurately describe why. Maybe because Jim Carrey's the only actor on earth who can pull Ace Ventura off without looking like a complete jackass. Yeah, I think that's it. Can you think of any other actor on earth who could bend over, talk through his rectum, and still manage being funny and make sense? That's what Carrey does here. Ace Ventura is obnoxious, but he makes sense and solves complex cases; he's no idiot. The plot's pretty good for a silly movie. Ace Ventura is hired by the beautiful Melissa Robinson (Courtney Cox) of the Miami Dolphins to retrieve their missing mascot dolphin--Snowflake.

This movie practically made Carrey a superstar overnight. (And even resulted in a funny but inferior sequel entitled--""Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls."") Had this not been made, we'd of never experienced the hilarity of ""Dumb and Dumber"" or ""The Mask."" Jim Carrey's a comedic genius. I miss the Dumb and Dumber/Mask era, when Carrey was in his prime and never took himself or his audiences too seriously.

3 and a half stars",1 "This innovative low-budget effort is about an avid reader of horror novels. Whenever she reads from the pages of a horror book entitled ""I, Madman"" she wanders off into a dreamland and witnesses lurid murders being committed by a grotesque figure in a black robe and scarf. Only then she discovers that the murders are occurring in real life exactly as it occurs from the novel.

Ultimately I found this film quite enjoyable, and only has a few minor flaws and the acting is above average from everyone involved. The most intense and quite chilling scene in the entire movie is the woman being drugged and scalped in a semi-conscious state. That was quite brutal to watch I admit and a well illustrated death. Most of the ""shock"" scenes and red herrings are predictable however (esp. the killer's appearance in the elevator). The gore factor is adroitly used and convincing, the removed lips and nose effects on the killer and victims are shockingly effective and the suspense never lets up after it's initial tedious 30 minutes. Jenny Wright is well used in this horror outing and is way above the caliber than the depressing ""Near Dark"" ever thought of being, in my opinion. Mind you, after reading the rave reviews from other fellow IMDb viewers, I don't find this one the ""cream of the crop"" of B-Horror films, it has the same standard elements of B-Horror films such as graphic gore, OK Acting, and contrived (although still fun) occurrences throughout the movie. By no means am I trashing the movie, I really enjoyed it much and the suspense held my interest throughout the film. What ruined this one from being a superior B-Horror classic was Tibor Takács's poor choosing of using his idiotic monster from ""The Gate"" which is not the least bit frightening as the scalpel killer was. I also wished that Wright was the heroine of the story who saves the day instead of that silly looking creature. A bad ending to an otherwise creative and intriguing horror story. ""I, Madman"" didn't knock me out of my socks, but it is still a gem for the horror genre fans to check out and have fun with.",1 "Is there a worst comedy ever? oh yes in Bollywood we have many but this is one of the worst films ever made

The film has a decent plot but it's ruined with stupid scenes like Sunny going towards the heroine and his mom Sikri getting fits in India

Even the skin show is forced and then the game of Sunny to play Behaal Singh is worst and even Romeo comes across as a stupid idiot

The film makes no sense and is a example of mediocrity

There are several scenes which are so stupid and also the entire track of the FBI suddenly wanting to kill the president is awful and so is the finale

Direction by Rahul Rawail is terrible, it makes even YODHA look a classic Music is bad

Sunny Deol is himself, funny in some comic scenes and over the top in some and too loud in several portions but he manages to lend some credibility to his character- 6/10 The girls Shilpi Mudgal and Nupur Mehta are bad Kamaal Khan is a joke as the main villain

Arun Bakshi is okay,

Surekha Sikri is hilarious",0 "I see I am clearly in the minority here and it wouldn't be the first time, but I just didn't find this movie all that entertaining. Maybe this movie has a cult following that I don't get.

Firstly, the acting was atrocious. Now, that could have been the intent, but if so, I never got that impression. The dialogue was delivered so mechanical, most times it seemed like the actors were reading directly from cue cards.

Secondly, this movie had no direction. Where was this movie going? Again, maybe I missed the intent, but was it just to capture the dull and pathetic life of a clerk and those around him? I don't expect every movie to have a mighty and life altering message, but at least have a loftier aim than go to work, have a screwed up day and go home.

Finally, there was entirely too much profanity. It was to the degree that it had no more impact. If vulgarity is going to be used, then using it sparingly can make it funnier and have more of an impact on the script. The flagrant use of profanity in this movie just made the movie juvenile and childish.

Overall the movie just didn't move me. I laughed very little, there was nothing to think about, and there were no magnificent or even decent performances. I did like one scene though, and that was the different take on ""The Return of the Jedi"". I thought that was an interesting and funny take on the movie, but I also think that-that could have been done in a short film. Cut this movie down to a five minute short film about the innocent independent contractors on the Death Star and the movie is a lot better in my opinion.",0 "Albert Ter Heert does a marvelous job in showing the viewers the inside of a sensitive issue in the Netherlands - integration. A heart warming and funny, bitter-sweet story with high-octane entertainment; Shouf Shouf Habibi enriches the viewer with insight into the struggle of a traditional Moroccan family trying to integrate into Dutch society, while maintaining their ""identity"" as well. An all-too-familiar scenario that occurs in every nation on earth; integrating into a society that neither understands nor fully accepts you is a challenge that every immigrant must face. The Dutch and Moroccan actors in this movie were most genuine in their presentation of the topic. It's an eye-opener to the ubiquitous intolerance of the unfamiliar in every society, but is presented in a light-hearted, enjoyable way that both educates and entertains. A delight to the senses.",1 "As remarkably bad this film is, somehow there is a certain macabre interest in watching a film that is at such a level. Bela Lugosi is always welcome, no matter how bad the movie may be, but the Martin and Lewis ripoff act, Duke Mitchell and Sammy Petrillo, are nothing more than a glaring example of how show business devours its own. One has to sit through this travesty to believe it. Some side trivia: Martin and Lewis took Mitchell and Petrillo to court for stealing their act, but in court Mitchell stated that while Petrillo looking like Lewis was an act of God, Martin got a nose job to look more like Mitchell! And that comment ruined Dean and Jerry's case! Also, in the 1980s, when Lewis appeared on the Today show, they ran a montage of Jerry Lewis clips from The Colgate Comedy Hour, except one clip was of Sammy Petrillo and not Jerry! Lewis pointed out the error to flustered interviewer Bryant Gumbel. Jerry was not offended, though, he found the whole thing funny. ""I was never that good looking,"" he said. Incidentally, Duke Mitchell actually appears in the Martin and Lewis feature ""Sailor Beware.""",0 "The language and obscene gestures used through out the movie, do not make this one suitable for children under the age of 13.

It starts when the main character meets Bingo with delightful screams of ""HOLY SH__!"" and screaming matches calling each other ""Chicken SH__!"" as well as the Parents bickering like 10 year-olds and giving each other the finger when they turn their backs.

Some of the humor is suitable for young adults and adults but small children should not see this one.

As an adult I found the language offensive and it did not add to the movie's value one bit.",0 "It's easy to pick on MEGALODON and call it a bad movie. It's not original, it lacks a bit suspense every now and then, the acting is just average and you can tell that the budget was low, to name only a few things. But if you manage to look beyond its mediocrity, you can see that the film-makers really tried to make it as decent as possible. And you can only appreciate that. Now , if it wasn't for CGI-technology, this movie simply would not have been made. Only the actors and a few sets were real, the rest all CGI. It looks real good most of the time(the helicopter in the beginning and the sailboat at the end,...) but sometimes it fails desperately (that same helicopter crashing on the platform).

You already know that this movie is about a prehistoric mega-shark rising from the depths and terrorizing the crew of an oil-rig. And with it's title being MEGALODON, I thought the mega-shark was considerably lame. There's only one fairly decent attack-scene when he bursts through the ice. Decent in terms of that he finally does something. The rest of its screen time you see him swimming around bumping into things. Well at least they didn't make him roar or something. And the explosion at the end was ridiculous: They just disappeared!? But still, this movie never becomes really boring, 'cause the CGI frequently provides nice images to look at, with the 'cave-exploring'-sequence being a good example (nice glowing flubbery creatures). There are a few other shots worth mentioning. They're pretty pointless, but stylish. It was when they showed that smaller dinosaur-fish with the sharp teeth. The creature-designer actually made a real good-looking sculpture (no CGI) for this one.

I admit, to some MEGALODON may not live up to its humble 4-star-rating, but I think you should at least appreciate the effort the film-makers made for trying to make it work. And even if it can't compete with most of the underwater-creature-flicks, it still is way better than that Casper Van Dien SHARK ATTACK-tripe.",1 "GREAT MOVIE!!!!

I liked it movie because of the situation where the personages are involved, Jim and Josie, prisoners in a supermarket. It has many funny and marked scenes as when Jim, with bride clothes and walking of skids sees Josie and falls after that. Good film

",1 "First off let me make something clear--I LOVE Liza Minnelli. She's talented, beautiful can sing and act. I'm also a big fan of her mom. But this show just bored me. I saw the restored version on Showtime last night.

The show was remastered--the picture was as clear as a 1972 TV special can be, the colors were strong and the sound was excellent. Liza herself looked incredible and belted out the songs full force. But I didn't recognize most of the songs and she seemed to be acting in a REAL strange way during a bunch of lullabies. Also the dance numbers were just OK--nothing special. The show only came to life at the very end when she did all her songs from ""Cabaret"" (No ""New York, New York""--that was 3 years later). Basically I quickly lost interest and patiently waited for the show to end.

I'm not sure why I hated this so much. Minnelli was superb...but I was just bored silly. I can't recommend this at all.",0 "What starts out as a predictable film documenting the Miss World Canada pageant, quickly evolves into a dramatic and entertaining film that keeps you riveted to the screen. The final evening where the winner is crowned is one of the most beautiful and compelling moments I've scene in documentary film. Beautifully styled shots and a sparse yet rich sound design leaves you feeling emotionally drained by the end. The way the film cuts from the backstage frenzy to the silence, beauty and calm serenity of the girls on the stage is absolutely breathtaking. Attempting to do a film on a beauty pageant could very easily have been nothing more than fluff, but this is a film that doesn't try to uncover anything more than the raw emotions that happen during the pageant.",1 "How wonderful, how divine, how engrossing..........it's the Grand Hotel where ""nothing ever happens"", according to Lewis Stone's character. This is one of those films that must be watched repeatedly to savor the glamour and nuances of the performances of the star-studded cast. Let's talk about the cast. GARBO: Many think she went over-the-top with her performance of the ballerina who doubts her own talent and star power. Instead I find it exactly right. She is playing an artist given to flights of fancy and eccentricity (she'd be called a diva today). Watch her as she plays her scenes with John Barrymore......she is besotted with him after their night together. It's perfect JOHN BARRYMORE: The troubled star gives it his all as the suave, desperate but basically decent Baron. He hits just the right note in his performance and it was to be his next to last great performance. JOAN CRAWFORD: ""WOW"" might be the word for her playing of the slightly dishonorable stenographer. I think this may be one of her greatest roles before she went on the likes of ""Mildred Pierce"" and her other roles of suffering women. LIONEL BARRYMORE: His character (but not his acting) is the one I like least because he is constantly cringing and apologizing; however,based on the type of role it is, he is right on the money. His scenes with his brother are extremely well done. WALLACE BEERY: Nobody could have done the blustering, egocentric magnate better than Beery. He spent a lot of his career in more comedic roles and here he shows that he can actually act.

Lewia Stone, as the disfigured doctor who is always waiting for a message (what kind of message is never made clear) is good in support as is Jean Hersholt, the head porter.

Yes, it's dated, maybe some of the dialogue is considered corny, and the performances are of the time..........and it is magnificent. Check into the Grand Hotel. You won't want to check out.",1 "This is undoubtedly the worst movie EVER in cinema history! The jokes are lame (the whole movie is lame) and the quality is just plain crap. I watched the DVD interviews and every actor said that they had faith in this piece of junk. Skeet and Leslie even commented how funny and fantastic the script was.

I rented this out thinking it would be a good adult comedy, but it proved too childish for me - heck it might even be too childish for children. Now that I think of it, this movie has some rude (unfunny) jokes that are not suitable for children. I don't know who the movie was trying to reach, but it sure as heck wasen't me, or the 98% of people who have seen this movie.

NOTE: See this movie to mock it only.",0 "This was Bette Midler's first starring role in a film and she finally showed the world what a great talent she is. This story is very loosely based on Janis Joplin and it takes place (Supposedly) in 1969. Midler is a famous rock n' roll diva Mary Rose Foster and she's known just as ""Rose"". She's burnt out and lonely but is kept working by her gruff manager/promoter Rudge Campbell (Alan Bates) who supplies her with shots of adrenalin to keep her going. Rose is an alcoholic and a former drug user and she has a tough past from growing up in Florida. This past haunts her and she keeps talking about showing everyone from there how she has made it. After a country singing star named Billy Ray (Harry Dean Stanton) orders her to never sing one of his songs again and ridicules her morals Rose is furious. She takes off with a limo driver named Huston Dyer (Frederic Forrest) and starts a romance with him. Rudge thinks Huston is just another hanger on but Rose thinks she has finally met her true love. Huston tells her that he's actually AWOL from the army and she tells him of her past in Florida. They have a rocky relationship and Rose meets an Army PFC named Mal (David Keith) who tags along on the tour. This film is directed by Mark Rydell who went on to direct ""On Golden Pond"" and one thing he has shown in both films is complete trust in his actors. There is very little structure to this film and its mainly just a showcase for Midler. Without her dynamite performance this would have been one of the biggest duds in history. Give Rydell credit for a good eye in giving Midler the opportunity. The film consists of two types of scenes. The concert footage that shows Midler's tremendous voice and stage presence, and the scenes where she's on the verge of a nervous breakdown and the inability to exist in the real world. Its very rare to see an unknown explode on screen like this. Midler is nothing short of riveting and astonishing. Her character is so dark and bleak that an actress of lesser strength would have gave out but Midler has so much energy that she appears tireless. The films cinematographer is the great Vilmos Zsigmond and over 90% of the scenes are either at night or in low lit rooms. This gives the film the dark and bleak look that epitomizes Rose's personality and future. Forrest as Huston is also excellent. Aside from ""Apocalypse Now"" this was his finest performance and the two of them have real chemistry on screen. Forrest spent most of his career playing hardnoses or heavies but here he plays a real normal guy who is at odds with himself and if he should remain with the always drunken Rose. The film does go way too long and some of the scenes are pointless. It seemed irrelevant when a former lesbian lover pops up out of nowhere and Rose and Huston have a big fight. This part of the film could have been edited out completely as it serves no purpose. Ponderous handling of the material by Rydell but with Midler's gut wrenching performance it becomes a film that is ultimately unforgettable.",1 "How this movie could have been left out of the top 100 flicks of all time I will never know. I remember Keaton as a grumpy old man in the cinema of the 50's and 60's. It was only later when in college film school that I recogized his true genius. The General was one of the first silent movies that I was ever able to sit though long enough to fully appreciate the medium. It had everything, drama, comedy, action, romance. It was also pretty much true to the real event also. My favorite part is when Keaton has rescued the train and his girlfriend and they are escaping the federal troops in full pursuit. His girlfriend having run out of wood to stoke the engine hands him a twig. Keaton looks at the twig and thinks about hitting the girlfriend but instead hugs and kisses her. The other thing that I love about the movie is that there is not one second of wasted film, every scene has definite purpose and it holds your attention every minute. This is Keaton's masterpiece always.",1 "The movie is really a very very well made one with the parallels between two plots. It brings out the question-""is subjecting a foreigner to inhuman torture and trauma and humiliation right in one country and wrong in another country?"" For protecting one's country and people against terrorism, if the police can do anything to the foriegners, then any other country has the same rights.

I saw the movie on HBO and it was quite an eye opener on what can happen to a foriegner in some other country. The movie might have been an exaggeration, but then similar things have been reported in past.

The best parts of the movie were the 3-4 clips in between of various us presidents talking about freedom and democracy provided by their nation to their own citizens and also to the world.",1 "Again, Ringu 2 much spookier to the American Makeover ""The Ring 2"" and again, the effects were much spookier . And the deaths were more disturbing. And the end was freakiest when that Kanae girl was seen standing behind Kawajiri when he was recovering in hospital. And when Yoichi's mother Reicha died when walking across the road and she got hit by a truck. And the blood of Reicha headed towards her beloved son calling his name. And when Kurashi went into the Institution to see Masami (a close friend of Tomoko's who was shocked by Tomoko's death), she walked past a t.v. and it showed Sadako coming out of the well and everyone in the Institution went berserk! Too disturbing to think about, eh?

This is definitely a must see!",1 "this movie is lame... I'm an absolute rabid Hammer horror fan, and this little movie comes nowhere near their great quality(this is NOT a Hammer production). Some of the attraction of B-movies is the cheezy horror, unrealistic premises, and downright bad acting... well, the bad acting is here - and the requisite breasts & bums, but there's no actual conflict going on. Again, we don't expect fabulous scriptwriting in these films, but come on, throw us a bone here, please! Something happen already! How about the witch cult kidnaps nubile daughters from the local villages for their 'infernal rites'? Nope, no such luck... Two sisters want to break free of mum & daddy, go to the big city - one finds a modeling agency, modeling agency has witchcraft rites... that's it! Then one sister decides she wants to be High Priestess after one day in the coven, using a magic spell to kill the lesbian HPs that's been hitting on her the whole weekend(she learns fast, eh?). It's basically a few terribly inaccurate occult trappings as an excuse to show some Brit boobies... don't waste your time.",0 "This is a sequel that has no connection to Stephen King. The only thing carried over from the original is the same location. Parts of this film are gory while violence over shadows the horror. This movie has been struck with a mean streak.

A young widower(Anthony Edwards)moves with his young son (Edward Furlong)to an old town in Maine. After hearing the legend of the pet cemetery where sometimes the dead are revived; he wants to take his mother from her grave and place her in the special burial ground in hopes of her rejoining the family. The boy's best friend's stepfather is proof that the legend is true. Some of the strangest scenes are funnier than they are scary. But don't rest easy for there are times you will flinch.

Also in the cast are: Clancy Brown, Jason McGuire and Lisa Waltz.",0 "Where can I start on this hot mess of a film?

The plot, and there's very little of it, is that a werewolf is loose on a mountain and killing people. That's it, nothing else. Some useless rangers attempt to halt the killings, thinking it is a mountain lion. Surprise! A bunch of idiotic 20-something campers are also on the mountain providing easy prey for the lycanthrope. Snore.

The acting by everyone in the cast is completely horrible, not a decent performance in sight. I mean really, unrelentingly bad acting. I was rooting for the werewolf.

Next, the werewolf costume. The outfit is so poorly done that they have to show each scene with the werewolf in soft focus to cover up the unconvincing wolf suit. The head is an oversize papier-mache looking bit of rubbish, with great big teeth. The body and arms look mangy and in need of a haircut. You can buy a better costume at the Halloween store yourself. The soft focus is incredibly annoying and really does little to hide the tragic werewolf outfit.

****Major Spoiler Ahead****

Top this all off with a lame-ass ending where the wolfman is killed by a silver tipped arrow shot into his neck. Naturally, the girl shooting the arrow has to fire off a one-liner before she can release the arrow. The werewolf is apparently so stupefied by the idiocy of the situation that he is kind enough to stand stock still waiting for her to line up the shot, say her line and, finally, release the arrow.

Truly, this is one of the worst horror movies I have seen in a long time.",0 """Gracie's Choice"" is an excellent made for TV movie about the uphill battle of one child to preserve her family, despite social workers, an ex-convict for a mother (well played by Anne Heche) and a system that offered her little help.

At first, one may think this to be the usual run-of-the mill feel good movie; against foster parents, depicting the dysfunctional family in America. Not so; it is a hopeful story which Kristen Bell, (as Gracie) must care for her half- brothers and sisters (they are all illegitimate) before she even graduates high school.

The story is initially sad, showing Heche as an irresponsible, possibly disturbed woman. She has many children, does not know who their fathers are, and manipulates her elderly mother (Diane Ladd) into supporting all of them- she basically collects welfare support for each child and squanders it.

As Gracie matures, she sees her mother for what she truly is, and decides she must adopt the younger children. Her sister becomes pregnant at 16 to escape the situation, and goes off to live with a different boyfriend. Gracie emerges stronger, with the help of social services and her counselor she finds an apartment, a job, and attends school and graduates as well.

Overall, this is a good film, because it accurately depicts a true story, the reasons kids have children prematurely, and the ultimate responsibility it is of the parent (in this case, negligent Anne Heche), for the kids turning to out the way they do.",1 "Back in a time when the term ""popcorn movies"" actually meant something, Predator stands out especially today, mostly due to its high quality writting and top notch action. This movie never gets boring, as we watch the characters interact with each other, it brings to mind the feeling I got when watching the Marines from Aliens; a great feeling of comradary and gruff friendship. The special effects, while dated, in my humble opinion look better then the snazzy ""futuristic"" effects we are seeing today. The Govenator is perfect for the lead role in this film, he commands a certain respect both from the characters and audience alike.

The title character of the film is still cool and frightening by todays standards. The filmakers knew how to use the Predator makeup, they shadow it in as much darkness as possible, cover it in mudd and grime, which hides what could have been very obvious makeup ""guy in a suit"" effects. The guy who plays Predator did everything he could to add some life to the creature, to make people think he could stand up against Arnold in the end. Its really alot of fun to watch the Predator hunt these hapless soldiers, when just a while ago they were kicking ass everywhere they went.

As we watch the downfall of summer ""popcorn"" movies, its good to know we can still go back and watch something great like this film.",1 "Who makes this stuff.

I watched this on BBC one tedious afternoon ... couldn't they just have showed us Titmarch repeats or something. So it's the Hulk none stop, no ads for what seems an eternity. OK so there's a big crazy world out there to explore, and there are even other channels, seems like hundreds of them these days. Obviously I didn't have to waste my precious hours on this inanity and then more time following it up with this effort to save you your hours; but note to BBC director general; McCinsey's Island into TV licenses of £150 or whatever it is, does not go! Going off at a bit of a tangent there but anyway ...

Seriously ... WHO MAKES THIS STUFF! Hulk Hogan ... I can only assume that the man has some kind of disorder that makes him literally need some kind of attention to survive ... he's wrestling at 53 for god sake!! Obviously the only attention McCinsey's Island will get the 'Hulkster' is, well, if it goes up there as one of the worst pieces of film of all time.

Plot: basically there is none ... everything's built around awfully carried out set pieces ... the most ridiculous one coming at the end where the main evil-doer chases our heroes along the shore, wait for it, on water skis, firing wildly at them before crashing. Hulk's stature and physique, his main 'attributes' as an actor; which I guess are supposed to offer the viewer something in the way of a substandard Arnie; cannot hold him up, given his monotone delivery and constant cardboard cutout appearance.

Anyway there's buried treasure, retired secret agents, treacherous damsels involved and an appearance by another wrestler (I think) for a show down with our favorite bandanna clad all action hero. It all pretty much passed me by. I kept watching it though ... sadly I fear just to able to say 'hey have you seen McCinsey's Island ... has to be the worst film I've ever seen'. That's just the petty type of person I am ... I advise you to avoid this piece of trash like the proverbial plague. I dunno; check out one of the Hulk's better efforts in the time you save yourself ... The Nanny ... now that was a film ...

WHO MAKES THIS STUFF EH?",0 "Promiscuous college girls, who remain at their school for the Christmas holiday, coerce their resident cook to go to bed, awaiting gleefully for their boyfriends to arrive by plane(..one of the boys has a rich daddy)so they can gather together and enjoy a night of naughty debauchery, not knowing that a psycho in Santa costume plans to ruin the festivities.

The film opens with a game that ends disappointingly as one of the female students falls off of a balcony, stoned, falling to the ground below..it seems this unfortunate incident might just be the root cause of the Christmas slayer's mayhem.

There's a nerd who talks about the advances in medical science with great detail, some wannabe lothario with an acoustic guitar, an obvious nympho who doesn't get a chance to bed her man, a virginal blonde with a soft voice the gardener wishes to protect, a couple of practical jokers(often criticizing the blonde girl and anyone else they find annoying or bothersome, these two girls are the kind you see in school whispering to each other about people they don't like), etc. As usual, the medical nerd is uneasy about making a move on the girl(..she's this lovely gal with a great body who is practically throwing herself at him, yet, as often was the case, he's too nervous, or focused on his studies, to get a clue). There's a funny scene where our 'final girl' is drinking her milk and listening to the moans of passion from another room! The gardener is one of those old religious kooks dispelling doom to Nancy, the pretty innocent he wishes to protect(""There's something wrong, I feel it.""). Nancy spends time skulking about being lonely, until her and nerd Alex(..having lost his virginity with one of the girls, Melody)hook up, forming amateur detectives, and searching out the place in the dark.

One of the funniest scenes, to me anyway, has a naked Leia, who had just bedded one of the cops assigned to protect them, finding the severed head of her pal stuck on the shower head! I was amused as I watched this flick how characters are blunt and honest about others giggling and insulting them while they are still in the room(..such as gardener Ralph who seems to be the butt of everyone's jokes, even though he moves about, saying little, without really warranting such constant ridicule, despite the fact that he's a wee bit creepy).

To All a Good Night is what it is, a prototypical slasher which doesn't distinguish itself from the others of it's ilk. The cast of characters have little personality and will probably not appeal to the masses who look for obscure slasher fare, and when they die you could care less or feel little pity.

Jennifer Runyon is Nancy, Forrest Swanson(Alex), Linda Gentile(Melody), William Lauer(..as TJ, the rich jock with the plane), and Judith Bridges(..whose Leia goes bonkers, singing to herself a lullaby as she dances around in her own little world after discovering the decapitated head and killer Santa with a butcher knife)round out some of the cast in trouble of being chop suey. Sam Shamshak is Chief of Police, Polansky and Katherine Herrington is cook Mrs. Jensen, both of which have pivotal parts of importance as the film unfolds. Buck West is the weirdo gardener. Neither cult star David Hess' direction nor Alex Rebar's writing seem very inspired(..it feels like the cash-in of a fad, with little spirit or innovation), although the concept of a killer dressed as Santa was somewhat fresh at this time. I guess the most memorable murder sequence will be when Santa starts up the plane while a pilot is working on the engine, the spinning propeller blade chopping him and a female student to pieces. Something to think about..it seems impossible that one Santa can be at two places at one time, even in the wonderful land of movie time where a killer can move at warp speed.",0 "One of the strongest post-Vietnam movies I have ever seen. Like an unofficial sequel to Coppola's Apocalypse Now, the movie starts off with a nightmarish dream sequence that eventually passes over into a real nightmare. This is a slow-paced journey into poverty, misery and the psychological scars that mark the survivors of the horrors of war. With every frame, the situation grows worse for the people in the movie. And up until the ""grand finale"", you find yourself wondering when hell will break loose.

It must be pointed out that this is a low budget production. But with every dollar missing, the crew have managed to add feeling. This is a strong movie, and you'll either love it or hate it.

I love it.",1 "This is the worse film I've looked at in a long time. The acting rises from awful to alright. But the dialog is the worse thing its go going for it. Half the time it doesn't make any sense. The main character makes a youthful bad-ass mistake and gets punished for it. But Jersey sent the 15 year old up the river with the big boys. Insane. So, I think it good in that it got this kids story told and thats why I'm giving it ANY points. The script, the plot arrangement, non-scenceitcal errors in individual scenes and in producing, the cardboard cutout actors (check the gay dude - you canc't miss him - did I say the dialog? I''ll say it again, the dialog! This was all bad. I'm surprised Ice-T got near it, but he imight have had hopes for it. This kids got that is worth the world knowing about, so its a shame they've made such a bomb of it.",0 "This is one of the best kung-fu films I have seen. The originality, which is common in kung-fu films, is astounding. The characters are great; Carter Wong is awesome as the villain. A classic kung-fu film.",1 "Sorry, but I don't agree with the people here. The acting was diabolical, it was like porn movie acting, it was terrible.

I fell asleep through it, it wasn't gripping, it wasn't impressive, it was a badly acted, thrown together film. and even though I had fallen asleep, it was like I had watched the whole thing, very apt there is torture in this film as it was torture for me to watch it.

This was referred to me by a friend, who incidentally had never seen it, but read reviews, possibly on here, where the gushing kissing of asses is so evident.

The lead actor is terrible, he cannot act, in fact none of them can act, Suplee does what he does best, plays weirdos and Mewes is doing the same role as usual, it's the sort of film that had been written in a day and then filmed over two days, it is that bad.

If you are an artsy fartsy type, then you may like this film, or you may just say you like the film to make yourself appear cultured, but you are only fooling yourself. Don't believe the hype.

A film about a violent sexual assault and I fell asleep, well it says it all doesn't it?",0 """La Battaglia dell'ultimo panzer"" is about a German panzer crew caught behind the American lines in France in 1944. The production values of the movie are very low; the anachronisms and errors concerning equipment and uniforms are actually quite obvious. Nevertheless, the plot is quite intelligent. This is a surprisingly serious war movie and much more reflective than most WW II war movies of the period (such as 'Where Eagles Dare' or 'Kelly's Heroes', or the countless Italian rip-offs of these more 'lighthearted' war thrillers.)

This is mainly because the characters, and in particular the German soldiers, are more than just the kind of cardboard cliches one expects from this type of low-budget movie. Especially the main character, a German lieutenant and commander of the crew, played by Stelvio Rosi, is a surprisingly three dimensional character. While he presents himself as a hardline nazi believer at first, we later see that the horrors of war affect him deeply in an unexpected moment and the final scenes of the movie have a very bitter lesson in store for him. Civilians and their different ways of dealing with the occupation also have a place, giving some surprising nuances which most war movies (including the technically infinitely superior, but plot-wise arguably inferior 'Saving Private Ryan') lack.

The acting is middle-of the road. None of the (quite unknown) actors are really bad, but none really stands out. 8/10 for some of the writing, 2/10 for the production values",1 "Entire film wasn't brilliant. Boring at moments, banal structure, but still worth to watch it! Why? Becuose every kids in Poland know that ""kiedys chlop zakladal babie chomato i oral nia pole!"" or ""chcialbym byc jak Tony Halik"". Polish teenage society is cruel, so I also MUST know few lines from such films as ""Killer"" or ""Poranek Kojota"" to survive.

I admit that many jokes are hard to understand, if you are not polish.

Laska (with his ganja-mutated voice) is the best! Typical teenage from Warsaw! Dublicate of my school-friends...

10 for Laska's character, 6 for all the rest. Average: 8.",1 "This film has been on my wish list for years and years. I'd heard so many people commenting that it was one of the best paranoid movies ever. Now, I love suspenseful thrillers and there has been some amazing movies based on an apocalyptic scenario; The Day After, Dawn of the Dead, 12 Monkeys, 28 Days Later, Planet of the Apes, Terminator etal, so was really looking forward to this movie. The synopsis to Miracle Mile sounded really cool, angsty and believable, but what I found myself watching was probably one of the most unbelievably annoying, cheesy, badly acted, badly directed, and badly edited movies I've seen in a long time. In a nutshell it was awful, made worse by the fact that it could have been quite brilliant. As I said the story had the potential to be something special, but the clumsy screenplay and shoddy direction nuked that idea right out the window. It was also oddly camp as hell, quite an achievement for a film depicting the end of the world. Fair enough the 80's trappings didn't help, but what was unforgivable was the performances by EVERYONE involved. What the hell was everyone on? Did they all assume they were shooting the worst film of their careers and therefore were too embarrassed to deliver anything remotely like a competent performance? Every part of this film sucked, right through to the retarded ending with the bloody daft helicopter, complete with a HUGE gay lycra cald pilot (bizarrely played by the hulking Brian Thompson of X-files fame). The only, thing that made it almost worthwhile was seeing this rubbish nuked off the screen at the end. So to surmise, if you want to watch a nuclear thriller with unintentional laughs which is camper than a row of Rocky Horror Show fans… then I'd point you to Wargames, because I simply can't recommend Miracle Mile to anybody. Not even the director of this crap, who by rights should be forced to watch this movie again, and again until he publicly denounces his film as the worst since Howard the Duck. Hang on a minute, maybe those two crapfests would make a suitably horrid double bill in purgatory.",0 "Not a pleasant film. Definitely a male bashing film.

There is little to like about Thelma and Louise. They hate their lives and instead of doing something to improve them, they take off on a road trip that soon turns into a running nightmare including murder, armed robbery, attacking a cop and blowing up a fuel truck.

The saddest moment is when that beautiful T-Bird goes sailing off into oblivion. What a waste of such a beautiful car. Of course, the women are in the car at the time and their road trip ends in their untimely death.

They could have found better lives with a different approach.

Of course, that kind of message movie would have been a lot harder to write and probably drawn a smaller audience.

Instead we got the violence and hopelessness that is Thelma & Louise.

I only decided to finally watch this movie because Geena Davis is so good at playing the U.S. President in the ABC network TV drama ""Commander in Chief"".

Now I wish I had not seen this film. It will be hard to disassociate her from the miserable character she portrays in T&L.",0 "Well just seen it for the 3rd time DVD format. I like this movie a lot, the plot is great, the weirdness admires me and i love the ending. The other seens cut for the movie for time reasons are great and should have been there, no problem if the movie was to be some 30 minutes long.",1 "...the question is how much will it interest the casual viewer or regular fan of horror movies.

As a low budget filmmaker myself, this movie is obviously skewed to my interests--so I identified with a lot of the filmmakers interviewed.

The film goes back and forth between filmmakers like Mark Borchardt, known for his ""American Movie"" and others I hadn't heard of like Ron Atkins. Many of them come off as bitter, but they all seem to have a genuine love of horror.

So if you've got an interest in horror and, and what drives people to create them, you may wanna check this movie out. It may bore the more casual horror fan, but all in all it's a well-crafted documentary.

(The question I want answered is how did that Ron Atkins guy get a girlfriend who's so freakin' cute, and way out of his league? )",1 "(Some Spoilers) When a Polish prostitute is found brutally murdered in German occupied Warsaw German intelligence officer Major Grau, Omar Sharif,becomes obsessed in solving her murder. It's that the murdered woman Maria Covyenska was working undercover for German intelligence in finding and identifying Polish and Jewish guerrilla fighter. What's far far worse, in Maj. Grau mind, is that the person who murdered Maria was positively identified by an eye witness In him having a red stripe down his military trousers which is only worn by member of the German General Staff!

Maj. Grau narrows the killer down to three persons who, besides being German Army Generals stationed in Warsaw, can't explain their whereabouts on the night of December 12, 1942 which just happened to be the evening Miss. Covyenska was murdered! The three suspected generals are Gen. Tanz, Peter O'Tool, and Generals Kahenberg, Donald Plesence, and Von Seiditz-Gabler, Charles Gray.

Even though it's supposed to be a surprise we get to know who the killer is just by his unsavory actions both on and off the battle field and with those he deals with, German as well as Poles and Russians. Maj. Grau runs into the killer some two years later in Paris who commits the very same kind of crime and has his aid Lance Cpl. Kurt Hartmann, Tom Courter, set up and framed for it.

It's during that fateful summer of 1944 that Maj. Grau ends up getting involved with the other two suspected generals, guess who, in a plot to assassinate German Dictator Adolph Hitler! Maj.Grau also ends up making a fatal mistake, in him mistakenly feeling that the assassination was successful,in jumping the gun in trying to arrest the psycho killer German General.

Now twenty two years after the war ended Maj. Grau's friend in the French Resistance the former Insp. Morand, Philipe Nolret, who now works for Interpol finds an important link to both the Warsaw and Paris killings in the brutal and recent murder of a German prostitute in Hamburg. There's just one hitch to Insp. Morand's uncovering just who the killer is! The only man who can identify him Lance Cpl. Hartmann who's been missing, or dead, since he was forced to desert his German Army unit back in 1944. That's when Hartmann was to face a firing squad for a murder that he didn't commit but was framed for it by the person who did! The man who Insp. Marand is curtain is responsible in the murders of not only three prostitutes but his good fiend the late Maj. Grau himself!

Even though we in the audience already knew who the killer is well before he was discovered by both Maj. Grau and Insp. Morand it's still a big surprise when he's finally exposed at the end of the movie. Not in who the killer is but what he does when he sees that his act as a fine and upright German patriot and General, the youngest in the German Army at the time he committed his horrific crimes, is about to be exposed! Being outed as a mad dog killer to the many admiring German soldiers, in the elite Thor & Hammer Division, who served under him was the final straw that broke the camel's, or General's, back. That was far worse to him then facing a rampaging armored division of the Red Army!",1 "Oh my God....this movie so terrible. I love movie violence and all that, but this movie was too bad to describe. I registered just to say how much I HATE this movie. I watched it last night and I almost put my head through the T.V. It was on Superstation and it ran 3 hours long. GRRRRR. I can't believe I watched the whole thing. What the hell was with that South American drug lord guy??? His eyes were as big pool balls and he looked so damn relaxed through-out the whole movie I thought he was going to turn into a liquid. The start was bad....the ending was bad and overall it was a huge kick in the nuts. I got so angry and stressed over watching the movie that would'nt end that I am scarred for life. I WILL NEVER watch another Delta Force movie again as long as I LIVE!!!!!!! I'm getting angry just thinking about it.

P.S Is it just me...or did that drug lord guy..whatever his name is play a drug lord in every Norris film ever made. I also noticed that all Norris does is fight South American drug lords. I wonder how many drugs this guy was on at the time?? GOD!!! I hated the 80's...still do and always will!!!!! ahhh...that felt better.

Worst lines ever in the movie: (whispers in a stupid voice) lesson one (hits the guy) lesson two (hits him again) ...Schools out....

AHHHHHHH....SOOOOOOO BAD!!!!!!!!",0 "A movie about the most commonly used four letter word in the English language that is more interested in bashing right wing nut jobs. The documentary seems to believe that aside from Billy Connolly the only people who use this word are Americans and the word only exists in America. It does have an interesting bit on Lenny Bruce while Carlin is there only in stock footage from one of his shows. F**k soon runs out of steam and starts showing movie clips to fill in time. Ron Jeremy shows up for some reason, as does Miss Manners. A mess of quick edits for a while. You'll get more pleasure out of stubbing your toe than watching this.",0 "STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

In his native Russia, Nick Cherenko (Dolph Lundgren- is this a sequel/prelude to Red Scorpion?) was a Special Forces Soldier with a wife and son until they were brutally murdered by Russian gangsters. After taking revenge on those responsible, with too many bad memories floating around he flees his homeland and goes to work in Los Angeles as a humble car mechanic. Until one day he is approached by a wealthy woman who's daughter has been kidnapped. She wants him to go in and rescue her. At first he is uninterested...until he learns the identity of the kidnapper, the head gangster he didn't manage to kill.

As a director, Dolph seems keen to tell his stories from a more human, realistic angle than from a sensationalist, fantastical Hollywood sort of way. It's a gambit that will work with some and not with others, but I think both sides can agree he certainly has a flair for directing action scenes, and giving them a hard-edged, blood-soaked feel, which this film clearly shows.

If you're looking for an undemanding, blood-thirsty action thriller, Lundgren-style, you've certainly got what you payed for with The Russian Specialist. ****",1 "We have really come a long way in terms of visual storytelling and the types of shows that get produced on television, but when I was watching it, the one thing that stuck out was Bob Fosse's choreography. Especially in the ""Ring the Bells"" number, it really shows how he was able to bring so much to live. Also, we should remember that a primary reason this was able to be resotred was that he paid so much attention to detail, some technical aspects of the show that they were concerned about were able to be salvaged.

On another note, I think you get a somewhat good glimpse of the 70s when you watch this show.",1 "My TV guide gave this movie 3 ticks (out of 4) and described it as a ""gritty police thriller"". They should be sued! The ONLY reason i stayed watching was that I couldn't believe how truly awful this film is, from start to finish. There's no plot and all the characters are unrealistic. Even James Woods and Robert Webber never seemed like real cops. It doesn't fit into any 'genre', except terrible. The 1970s sexism and the Japanese-American character (playing a racial stereotype) are plain embarrassing. I'm sure that all the actors involved in this rubbish (particularly James Woods) must cringe at every mention of it. To be avoided at all costs.",0 "This was by far one of the worst ""horror"" flicks I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Despite the fact it appeared as if it were made on a $50 budget, the acting was just as bad. Mario ""AC Slater"" Lopez has ruined any last hope of any future acting carer by appearing in this thing. And Gary Busey shows his desperation to remain in the film business by shamelessly appearing as a ""chicken-killing"" mad-man. The movie stars a group of spoiled rich tree-hugging college kids who will never be ""coming to a theater near you"" again. Trust me, this movie is not worth the tape-dvd it is recorded on.",0 "WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS

The author couldn't decide what she wanted to tell her audience.

All the main characters in this film are, quite frankly, insane.

Mona, whose real name is Lisa, lives with her brother, Phil, above a pub called The Swan.

Much to Mona's disappointment, Phil has recently become a religious nut,and turned The Swan into a place for prayer meetings. What they're living on since The Swan is no longer a pub, I never figured out, but with this delusional mess, it doesn't much matter.

Mona, meanwhile has been messing around with a married man, who is a real jerk. Not only is he cheating on his wife, but he has sex with Mona and THEN tells her their affair is over.

Mona next meets the young, attractive Tamsin, a girl who has been temporarily suspended from boarding school, so is home for the summer, and living nearby.

The two develop a friendship and then a romance. Tamsin, however, is ever bit as unstable as Mona, and the two indulge in breaking out a car window, harassing Mona's ex-boyfriend's wife, conducting a semi-séance session, and eventually Tamsin even leads Phil into nearly succumbing to her seductiveness.

Phil, meanwhile, is running around like a nut-case, building a huge wooden cross and trying to force his newfound religious beliefs down his sister's unwilling throat, what time he isn't kicking her, shoving her lover Tamsin, or locking Mona up in her room. Yeah, this guy is really filled to the brim with the ""gentle love"" of Jesus!

Finally, when Mona tries to hang herself, Phil loses his religion, and Mona packs her suitcase and trots over to Tamsin's house. There she finds Tamsin packing her own suitcase and calmly announcing she's returning to school.

Disheartened Mona then encounters Tamsin's sister, Sadie, whom she and us, had been led to believe died due to anorexia. So what the heck was THAT ABOUT? And where was Sadie all that time? No explanation is really given.

After a near murder attempt, the film concludes with no real ending.

I gave this convoluted, nearly plot less film, with its nutty characters a 4 and that was being darn generous.",0 "While the film did a good job of showing that these guys never matured beyond 14 year old punks, I had absolutely no sympathy for their characters. They all got what they deserved, with the exception of their Irish cousin.",0 "This is the worst film you will ever see, please stay away from it. i have joined this site only to tell people not to watch this film, now i have to write 10 lines saying how bad it is. Its stupid, its not funny, i hate it, i told all my friends it was good so they would watch it and now they hate me, Jennifer Love Hewitt is hardly in it, please don't buy, rent, borrow this. How Emma Woodhouse says this is good is, i kinda hate her a bit, i'm sorry Emma, i'm sure you're a great girl but for real, this isn't a good film, 94 minutes of badness, i know this film as love sucks, no, this film sucks. Only one more line to go, but i could go on forever hating this film.",0 "Viewed this film early in the AM and never knew that Rock Hudson,(Michael 'Tiger' McDrew),""Embroyo"",'76 starred in a picture as a coach and practically seduced every young girl in the high school. There is plenty of nudity, frontal and back along with wild scenes and Angie Dickinson,(Miss Betty Smith),""Dressed to Kill"",'80, seducing a teenage boy. Telly Savalas,(Capt. Sam Surcher),""Backfire"",'95 plays a police office who investigates a mysterious murder in a men's room at the high school. Roddy McDowall,(Mr. Proffer),""Lassie Come Home"",'43, plays the school principal and looks too young to play this role. Even Keenan Wynn,""The Lucifer Complex"",78 plays the role of a dumb police officer who manages to foul up the crime scene. This film has everything, Drama, Comedy, and plenty of Romance. Poor Rock Hudson must have been worn out trying to play this role, his performance sure surprised me and so did this film.",1 "This film was to be Dirty Harry's last outing in the seventies (do not worry though, he had two comebacks in the eighties). It is easy to compare this film, with the two previous Dirty Harry movies, because there some things have (still) not changed. First of all, Harry (obviously) kept his cheeky mouth, which again provides the viewer with the necessary laughs and his boss with the necessary headaches. This is not the only thing that has stayed the same though. Again some of the scenes could have been shorter, thus (theoretically) making The Enforcer a much tighter package. A perfect example of that is the scene in which Harry chases a bad guy to the rooftop of a building. Not only could this scene have been shorter, but it could also have been much more exciting had there been adequate use of music and cinematography. There is however one upside to this installment in the Dirty Harry series, which is, that it is far more stable than it's predecessors. It is not a decent or good film film, but it gets very close, mainly because of the good acting and the fact that the film remained interesting for the despite it's downsides. Best Dirty Harry film until then. If you want to know if it is the best in the series, check my comment for Sudden Impact.

6,5 out of 10",1 "A middling horror yarn that gets decent mileage out of a thin story line and a premise that's too silly for words. The feature lacks any semblance of professional polish but manages to convey the backward, clannish atmosphere of a rural Georgia town where flash storms and downed power lines gradually unleash a terrible, crawling menace. A spurned suitor for a girl's affections is scarier than the worms that attack the town with a vengeance. However, this twisted farm lad has his own plans for revenge. The cast isn't distinguished but Fran Higgins, a droll, rustic type, is spirited and has her moments, such as they are. The movie has the usual unexpected shock scenes when the story line drags and the special effects don't really work well at all. Still, this film has its devotees and is regarded by some as a camp classic.",0 "Hello fellow Drake enthusiasts! As many of you already know, the picket line protest that we had planned in behalf of Drake Hogestyn was pretty well a bust thanks to the devastating California fires. It is for this reason that we decided to plan another campaign to show the-powers-that-be that we, the fans, want Drake to return to the show that has been his home for 21 consecutive years. I know that we're all in total disbelief and are feeling furious and outraged since head writer, Hogan Sheffer, killed off John Black...speaking for myself, I never believed that DAYS would go through with this travesty and would actually fire Drake, but sadly, we can't undo something that has already been done. All we can do is move forward and show Drake's bosses that we will not rest until we are victorious and Drake is back on DAYS where he belongs.

We'd also like to take this opportunity to clear up some rumors. First off, Drake did NOT leave DAYS on his own because he was unhappy on the show or because he wished to retire...simply put, Drake was fired! I know that many people don't want to accept this fact, but it was confirmed by Drake's Fan Club President, so it is no longer deniable. Drake is also quoted in Soap Opera Digest and Soap Opera Weekly as saying that he learned of his character's demise from Executive Producer Ken Corday. ""He called me at home, that's usually not a good thing. Whenever there are changes in head writing or producing, other changes are imminent. I wasn't shocked by the news."" His leading lady, Deidre Hall, said that ""Drake came into work one day and he confided that Ken had told him that it was bad news and they weren't going in his direction, so they were going to kill the character."" Drake also talks about sleep deprivation since he found out that he is being forced to leave the show and how ""It has been an incredibly difficult several weeks due to the disbelief, shock and then final acceptance and closure which is inevitable in any creative endeavor."" So bottom line is that this man was fired, and I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not about to take Drake's sentence lying down! Whatcha say team, are you guys with us? If you guys are game, this is what we're going to do in an effort to make this a world-wide protest. If you support our campaign to get Drake back on DAYS, please sign into THIS thread with your name and where you live okay? Please feel free to also sign in any of your family or friends who are also Drake fans (or who love you and want what YOU want! ha ha!). We'll be opening up this type of thread on as many DAYS message boards as we can, and in December we'll be printing out the lists, putting them in a binder, book-style format and sending it to TPTB. We're going to see if we can get a small group to go down to NBC studios and present the book to either Ken Corday or Edward Scott's assistant, so that we know for a fact that it will be seen. Since I post at very few DAYS boards (I only post here at Soap City and at the DAYS NBC board), I would REALLY appreciate it if many Drake fans from here could take this text and start a thread about this campaign on one of the message boards that you all frequent. If you could keep an eye on that thread on ""your"" board and post in it about once a week at least to ""bump"" it and remind everyone about it, that would be terrific. Once you've seen that everybody who wants to be given the opportunity to sign it has signed it, please email me the link to that board DrakeDBEST@yahoo.ca so my partner and I could go in there and add the names to our list...that would be FABULOUS! Or if you have to be a member to go into that board, you could copy the list and PM it to me and that would work too.

Thanks so much! Also, if there any Drake fans who live in Peoria, IL or NEAR there, could you please IM me ASAP? Thank you!",0 "Poor attempt at the Edgar Allen Poe tale. . I was not invested as an audience member in the film. I actually walked out. I have better things to do with my time. The acting is wooden, the direction and editing are quite poor as well. Cinematography was so so, if not that motivated, predictable. Most everything about the film was predictable. Too bad, could have been a great little thriller. Shot digitally and projected that way, which made it look even worse. the production design wasn't that bad. It didn't get in the way nor stick its head out, which is good. The sound was often out of sync and looped after the fact. All in all, I was disappointed. It really isn't that hard with a story this good to make and even passable movie, but some how this director found a way to squander it all. Don't bother.",0 "With it's completely surreal narrative and winning photography, The bed Sitting room hits me now for a number of reasons, the first of which, is that despite looking strangely contemporary, all it's main leads (Except the young uns) are dead. Marty Feldman, Micheal Horden, Arthur Lowe, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Harry Secombe, Spike Milligan and Sir Ralph, are all pushing up the daisies. There's something tragic about the cast in a comedy all being dead. For all intense and purposes, the film may as well be dead too as it was blind luck that I caught it. It is criminal that this bona fide classic never really made it past the main gates, while lesser films took the glory.

Made by Richard lester (A hard Days Night, Superman 2 & 3) in 1969, just before Monty Python hit pay dirt, it tells the story of Brits after the bomb, working class through to upper, it encapsulates the British eccentricities perfectly. It's pomposity and its sheer blooded bloody optimism. These characters, you might see on the tube on the way to work and despite furniture mutation and hunger, they're just the same. It's a testament to all concerned, that a potentially silly premise, is performed with total conviction and a little tragedy. It's especially weird to see Sir Ralph Richardson and Sir Micheal Horden as leads. In such a bizarre film, it swings the whole experience into brain frying proportions. It'd be like having Sir Ben Kingsley play Ace Ventura, Pet detective.

Another reason, this film is a triumph, is the superb set design and photography. While in Monty Python, it's surrealistic landscapes, while funny and inventive, never really touches the views on offer here, What was essentially a quarry, is now landmarks of Britain, with bits of it sticking out all over the place. stacks of shoes, dismembered traffic jams and indeed Bed sitting rooms clog up the toxic horizon, all glum and desolate, you half believe the story, as the landscape seems sort of real. I'll bet my mums dog that Python was influenced by the designs on display here. As the film was based on a play (By Spike Milligan and John Antrobus) I wonder how it looked in a theatre.

There you have it, a classic film in every way if you like that sort of thing. If you catch it, you'll wonder if you saw it, then you'll be angry that you've never heard of it, after that you'll never forget it, it's just a shame you'll probably never get to see it...",1 "Good documentary about the most famous concert of the decade. Many of the better bands, and some of the worst, were at this shindig where any and everything goes. Personally, I wouldn't have gone within 3 states of the place, but obviously not everyone is as crowd phobic as I. My main objection to the film was the camera zooming in on one band or musician to the exclusion of others. For instance, there was to much Richie Havens and not enough Country Joe. Way too much Jimi, and very little Carlos. It was well worth seeing, though.",1 "Well I can't honestly say this is a great movie, it might even be good if you're into Bug Monsters. This might have been made to honor all the giant bug movies from the 50's, but personally I thought the plot was thin, the premise was formulaic and the whole movie was a little contrived. Typical college kids vs. monster movie. Some bouncing babes, some male to male social conflicts, a legendary cave and a final party for a soon to be married buddy. Add plenty of extra people for fodder and away we go. I have to admit the Indian background characters are a good change. In the final tally, it's still an average SciFi channel small budget movie. Alright for a diversion, but I doubt if I'd rent it. So I give it a 4 out of 10.",0 "Craig Lucas took his comic fantasy ""Prelude to a Kiss"" and created an update for the internet age, a noirish exploration of the same body/soul dichotomy, but this one ends badly.

By 'badly' I mean both the tragic arc of the story, and the failure to end the story in a cinematic way. What plays well on stage seems static here, wrapped up in confusion that poses as ambiguity.

DVD UPDATE: the video release offers an alternate ending that is far superior to the theatrical release. Who decides these things?

Regardless of a few problems with plot and direction, this is stellar work from a tremendous ensemble, and Lucas deserves high praise for the performances he draws from such singular talents. The three leads create a harmony that most movies never attempt, and for this alone the movie is a must see.",1 How bad is this film??? How bad is Chinese water torture or the Spanish Inquisition. The modern day equivalent to these beauties would be forcing someone to watch 'Get Carter' over and over again. It was terrible from start to finish and I cannot say a single good thing about it except the ensemble cast was interesting and one or two of the cast did their best to salvage the wreck. 2/10,0 "this is my favorite movie of all time. i remember seeing this when i was 7 years old. the movie amazed me. the whole concept of ""q"" being an up and coming DJ was great. and watching scenes of him mixing is what made me want to become a DJ. one of the problems i see now is that watching it now some of the effects seem cheesy, but maybe thats because technology has gotten better and I'm used to newer movies. also i did not like how little of the actual djing was involved in the movie. i think its like shooting a movie about Vietnam and having next to no shootings. another thing i liked was the soundtrack. naughty by nature, big daddy kane, too short, empd, and eric b. & rakim. the songs give you a good vibe for the time period. the main song ""juice (know the ledge)"" is a great song that gets that whole feel of the DJ culture along with again that time period. i gave it a 10 out of 10 because of how good it was for when it was done. i don't think it would be the same if they remade this movie so i hope they don't.",1 When Marilyn first goes to the embassy to meet the Grand Duke and ends up getting tipsy is an absolute riot. I think this is one of her better comedic jobs. Very enjoyable.,1 "DIRECTOR Ralph Ziman's vivid, action-packed South African gangster epic makes for exciting big screen entertainment. Highly commercial and hardly politically correct, but reeking with authenticity, the aptly and ironically titled ""Jerusalema"" offers cinema-goers the same sort of tough, high-energy thrills as crime epics like ""Scarface"", ""American Gangster"" and ""City of God"". Unlike ""Tsotsi"", it's not out win awards, or to preach about the struggle. It's out to please crowds. Yet, while telling a strong, funny, gripping, well-acted story of a young gangster's rise to power, it also manages to paint a devastating picture of how and why crime has spiraled out of control in the new South Africa. Telling its tale on a broad canvas, it begins in Soweto in the early 1990s, introducing the audience to two teenage boys, Lucky Kunene (Jafta Mamabolo) and his best friend Zakes (Motlatsi Mahloko). Lucky is an intelligent, ambitious youngster from a poor single parent home who is accepted into university. He doesn't, however, get a bursary, so he tries to earn money through various legitimate schemes. None of which succeed. Eventually he and Zakes are sucked into crime though their relationship with Nazareth (a potent Jeffrey Sekele), an angry disaffected, former ANC guerilla. And soon they're hijacking cars (""affirmative repossession"", says Nazareth). But, after a botched robbery and a near fatal encounter with the police, the lads must flee to the ""jungles"" of Hillbrow. Cut to five years later. Lucky and Zakes (now played by Rapulana Seiphemo and Ronnie Nyakale) are operating a pirate Taxi and scraping by. It's a dangerous life and when armed rivals steal their taxi, Lucky decides to return to crime. ""Jeruselema"" might shock some middle-class viewers, but it is riveting fare and the crowd I saw it with clapped and cheered along with the action. The charismatic Seiphemo delivers a stunning performance - turning Lucky into a surprisingly sympathetic anti-hero, and he's superbly supported by Nyakale, Sekele and a devilish Malusi Skenjana, who plays a slimy Nigerian drug dealer. Then there are the great action scenes and the powerful underlying themes. This vibrant, violent, colorful, authentic crime thriller, which pays homage to Michael Mann's classic, ""Heat"" heralds a new dawn in South African film-making and is highly recommended to audiences looking for top notch entertainment. PS. ""Jerusalema"" is now available on DVD in South Africa.",1 "I rented this movie because I adore Ji-tae Yu - I think he's a wonderful actor. Unfortunately, the material he was given here was just not up to par. The movie goes beyond just being an homage and at several points DIRECTLY rips off Blade Runner (the stripclub, the eatery, etc etc) I could even have liked it in spite of its blatant lifting of Blade Runner's scenes, had it not also had a meagre created world in comparison to the original, and more importantly, had it had a sympathetic main character. R is a drunken lout who we are supposed to believe 'loves' his (replicant!) doll Ria...but we are shown no evidence to actually support this except for his protestations. Ria herself has no personality. Cyon is the only character which I felt in any way sympathetic towards, and for most of the movie she's being horribly abused (raped, kidnapped TWICE, repeatedly attempting to kill her/steal her body etc etc). There's just not much about this that is worthwhile.",0 "I really like Dwight Yoakam...I love seeing him in interviews, I love his music, I love seeing him in concert. He is one of the most interesting and talented people in the music industry. Sorry to say, he should stay in the music industry. This was one of the worst movies I can remember seeing. I tried and tried to think of something I liked about it, just because I like Dwight so much...but I couldn't come up with a single good thing to say about this movie.",0 "I struggled to figure out what was it all about but failed. The duel between a man and a woman in love is seen by me as the most exciting genre on Earth however what this movie offered was, with exception for some sequences, awfully boring and senseless. I would rather blame it on script which was raw and weak despite all the credits of the writer. The whole film is one and the same recurrent scene and plot turns urge a huge question mark in respect to normal human logic, patience and reason. It is hard to conceive how our good Lord could share the throne of the world with Devil but human relationships are always understandable. The characters in the movie mentioned a word ‘love' a couple of times but whatever it was in the end the kind of relationship those two people had in the course of the movie gives a clear indication that it was not love even at the beginning - that was all what the bare lust can produce and you could still cheer yourself up with catching the flashes of the seductive Salma's body. For other sort of emotions, watch ‘The whole wide world'.",0 "I was one of maybe six people who've ever seen this thing. I sat through it mostly out of respect for Blank's prior film 'Sex, Drugs and Democracy', which was interesting. This was not. The Zappa kids looked embarrassed to be there, Thicke looked lost and the script... um, was there a script?

I did like the idea of a TV station takeover ('Tapeheads' did this better), but the idea is wasted here.

Skip this - rent SD&D instead if you can find it.",0 "OK, so as far as plots go, nothing too dramatic here, but I agree, I can't take my eyes off of Jennifer Simon's amazingly tight body as it struggles to get free. I could have watched her for hours on end! Loved the ending, about time we women come out the hero! Bravo! How about a sequal?",1 "even on it's own, the woods was a pretty satisfying horror movie: it was dark, the dialogue doesn't pain my ears, and the ending totally doesn't suck (though i'm not too sure how it made sense [?] still good though), and there weren't any bad performances!

but the thing that really surprised and delighted me was Bruce Campbell's turn from his usual wacky schtick to a straight performance! i mean, i love Mr. Campbell, but i never actually realized that he CAN act! when i found out he was in this movie, i was expecting a cheesy cameo, but i was happy to get much much more than that. also, another important thing about a good horror: Agnes Bruckner and Rachel Nichols are not bad at all to look at!",1 "The funniest parts in this movie are 1) Joan Crawfords painfully obvious underarm SWEAT STAINS!!!!!I mean obvious...this movie was apparently done before Joan's unpublicized sweat gland operations(just kidding)...... 2)The scene where Robert Montgomery has a boxing match in the living room during a party. He looks absolutely juvenile in his little tank top and his childlike rabbit punches. He was, of course, a married man by this, albeit a puny one. He obviously didn't possess a home gym. I recommend this movie.... Great example of an early talkie. Crawford was one of the few silent stars to make the transition to talkies and thrived. Montgomery was one of those actors recruited after the change from silents. Men who could speak while they gnawed at the scenery.......",1 "Stupefyingly miscast, Rex Harrison and Richard Burton attempt to act queeny in a pointless, depressing film about two aging gay men in 1969 England. For Christ's sake, they're both HAIRDRESSERS. That tells you everything you need to know about all the imagination and work that went into this film. Richard Burton is completely and utterly unconvincing as a gay man, and Rex Harrison seems absolutely lost, constantly squinting off into the distance as if he was looking for Eliza Doolittle, or at least a decent Pushmi-Pullyu. This movie is so thoroughly bad that it isn't even good for humor value. It oozes homophobia from every rotten frame, and the main message it seems to have is that homosexuals are loathsome people and should loathe themselves, in public, out loud, as often as possible, while prancing about with bad hairstyles. Watching Harrison and Burton play gay men will give any modern viewer the same sick cringing feeling you get from watching Stepin Fetchit say ""Yassuh, Boss!"" in old 40's movies. THIS MOVIE SHOULD BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS. IF GIVEN THE CHOICE BETWEEN SUICIDE OR THIS MOVIE, CHOOSE SUICIDE.",0 "Watched about an hr of this dull tripe . My date and I got up and went bowling which was a much better time . If you want to catch up on your sleep , go waste a few bucks and rent this movie . We only watched about an hour and we walked out and got our money back . More like age of boredom. Joanne Woodwards narration is akin to sominex .. avoid this garbage",0 "I used to be a big fan of this show as a teen growing up, but as an adult I find the antics of Will Smith's characters annoying and repugnant. In each episode, Smith acts like a jerk to someone or does something that will obviously negatively effect some other character. Then he continues to act like a jerk while attempting to cover up whatever misdeeds he previously took part in. All of this for the final five minutes where Smith has an epiphany and then is absolved of his actions.

Will Smith's character consists loud and goofy noises and constantly cracking jokes about his looks. His character is extremely narcissistic and classless. The only redeeming quality of this show is Uncle Phil who is actually a decent actor with good comedic timing. Too bad this show degrades his weight every week while going after the lowest common denominator",0 "I remember this series very well!! It captured my attention over a period of several weeks.

I have tried, over and over, to obtain a VHS or DVD of this series....but no luck.

NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW IF IT EVER WAS PROCESSED FOR VHS OR DVD.

Anyone know about the possibility of a future release on VHS or DVD? WHO WOULD WE 'petition' to release it??? It is one of those RARE Historical series that I would love to have in my collections.

Adolfo Celi gives a performance of Rodrigo Borgia that is SUPBERB. Was this an A&E production, BBC or....? We can only hope that someday the production company that produced this series will see that there are many who would love to own either the VHS or DVD series.

Thanks Claude King",1 "Not only is the film itself of poor quality, but its based around uncertainties, and in some cases downright lies. The truth is we don't know what the hell happened to flight 93. Do the research yourself and you will immediately notice a few things. Number one, the crash site is extremely peculiar. Its a 15 deep hole. No and I mean NO major sections of the plane were found other then one of the engines( 100 yards away from the hole) and later a few larger scraps ( 5 feet to 10 feet, no larger) . Oh and somehow a bandanna and a magazine page also survived intact( WTF? ) and were later used in the Moussaoui trial. Larger sections are almost always found at a crash sites, even in the case where an airliner slammed into a mountain, at the same angle flgit 93 supposedly hit. Look it up yourself, large tail sections etc found. Number 2, eye witness testimonies suggest multiple aircraft in the area which is not what the government claims at all. Eye witness testimonies also suggest many other things including there was no plane at the crash site and some claiming to have seen it smash into the ground. Number 3. The only known photographic evidence to exist at the time of impact only shows a large mushroom cloud halfway hidden by some forest. Not only do plane crashes not leave mushroom clouds, but when the image is compared to those of military grade bombs, a striking resemblance can be seen. After impact no fires rage as normally seen with airline crash sites. DO YOU OWN RESEARCH and do not watch this film until you at least have heard the whole story. The back of this movies box doesn't even depict the crash site accurately. Is that OK for a documentary like this one?",0 "Once again the same familiar story about a man (writer here) who sell his soul to the devil in order to have his most desired ambition in life: success. Unfunny script (we should ""go home and write better""), ridiculous lines in order to understand the ""strong"" ""Christmanish"" message (our only aspiration in life is to find love, respect and a good friendship) and a very long trial scene at the end where the agent Hopkins beat the devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt is no sexy or evil at all) for all the bad things she made to this unlikable character. Not bad efforts from the actors (Baldwin also as a director, Cattrall in a ""Sex and the City"" role again, Aykroyd with some funny lines in his limited role). P.S. Try also a not so popular film from Greece called ""Alloimono stous neous"", a brilliant adaptation of this myth (an old man give his soul to the devil to get back his youth)",0 "I have only seen episode two which was included as the short on the MST3000 episode where they watched the Indestructible Man. The likely reason it was included was the presence of Lon Chaney Jr in both. Lon's the key. Anyway.

I think that is the most memorable aspect of this episodic serial from the 1930's, as the rest appears to be rather common and what one would expect out of a serial of the period (cheap sets, cheap costumes and props, atrocious acting and simple plot lines). If you have seen the Flash Gordon or Batman serials of the same period, then you know what to expect. These serials have not aged well and can be especially (and usually unintentionally) comedic.

Atlantis. Unga Khan (think Ming). Ray Corrigan as Crash Corrigan. Thats an easy one to remember. You're playing yourself, dummy. Horses. Fighting. Robots. ""Lasers"". What's more to tell? It's not as exciting as it sounds. Outside of a 5 year old, the only entertainment value that can be derived from this as an adult is as some sort of stress relief comedy. Accompany the viewing with others and include at least 3 shots of Gentleman Jack.",0 """Black Widow"" is a well-written, though old-style, entertaining mystery. The story is taken from a novel by Patrick Quentin, a sound mystery-writer.

However the essence of the movie lies in the magnificent cinemascope photography, colors and visual effects. Note that most scenes have in the background large windows or terraces wide-open on the spectacular, terrific New York sceneries. Even the furniture of the various apartments is carefully chosen and placed, with beautiful artistic effects. Outstanding is the brief scene inside the dark bar, with the costumers merged into a liquid light: an evident reminiscence of Edward Hopper's paintings.

Alas! All these visual beauties are seriously damaged, if not destroyed, by the TV version, which essentially shows just half of the screen.

The performances by all interpreters are generally good and professional. A major (personal) disappointment is that Gene Tierney does nothing. She's not even in the list of suspects, since she was thousands of miles away from New York during the whole murder affair. She just sits silently on the background, adding her incomparable beauty and natural refinement to the magnificent New York views. It should be added that George Raft seems completely out-of-role... but I'm too fond of this guy to be able to criticize him.

""Black Widow"" is a good film; hopefully someone will be able to see it on the wide screen.",1 "Purist fans of Arthur Conan Doyle's legendary detective Sherlock Holmes usually heap scorn and derision on Sherlock Holmes In Washington as it is not based in any way on one of Conan Doyle's stories. It is clearly an inferior product and I'm by no means a Holmes purist.

But this was wartime and it would only be natural that world's most famous detective be called on to lend his services overseas when a British agent carrying a vital document disappears, but not before he passes it on to an unsuspecting Marjorie Lord on a train. Holmes and Watson go to America at the behest of British Intelligence to find out just what happened.

Holmes and Watson dressed in their Victorian/Edwardian attire seem dreadfully out of place in wartime Washington, DC. Still with the keen intelligence that Holmes has and Basil Rathbone brings to the role, those enemies of democracy had no idea what they were dealing with.

As a bow to current radio favorites, Thurston Hall plays a bloviating southern senator very much along the lines of Senator Claghorn from the Fred Allen radio show. Might have been even more interesting if Kenny Delmar who originated that character had been in Sherlock Holmes In Washington. Still Thurston Hall was quite good, possibly the best thing from this film.

After some wartime propaganda films, the Basil Rathbone-Nigel Bruce Sherlock Holmes movies got back to some of Conan Doyle's stories as the material for the films. Good thing too.",1 "I get such a kick out of all the comments that mention how beautiful Jennifer Connelly is. Basically because in this movie that's all Josie's ever heard... how she's such a great piece of a$$ (""the town tease""), and the redundancy of these comments she's encountered up to now has her almost proud of that fact. ""... I never tease..."" But the truth is, nobody cares who she is as a person (including you the viewer), and that kills her. Those that have criticized and commented on the movie are actually characters IN the movie. As we comment on how beautiful Connelly is, we in turn become a part of Josie's past, and we are responsible for who she is now. Add the issues of her father, who only threatens her (and the cop) with abuse and attempts of control. Josie is physically beautiful, but that is her main problem. She's a really f'ed up chick. She is a temporary trophy, until something better comes along. And being that negative attention is better than no attention at all, you can understand what brought her to the store in the first place. When Jim tells Josie of his dream of her, she instantly thinks ""sex""... cause up until this point in her life, that all she has to offer anyone. She is instantly caught off guard when Jim suggests a simple dance, one that he's been dreaming of since the 7th grade. And of all the people Josie has ever been with, Jim is the first gentleman she's ever met. And for the first time in both of their lives, a true connection is made. Yes, the Home Alone skits are below average, but for me, the problem is that they take away from the connection that the two leads are making. The best part of this whole movie is the unspoken dialogue between Connelly and Whaley, as they tried desperately to comfort each other in this time of chaos. Whaley has most of the creative dialogue, but Connelly's character is the one of interest (and issues). This is a much more psychological romance than most give it credit for.",1 "An involving, clever, romantic, and sometimes very funny film featuring two of the era's most popular stars. Forget all the other silent starlets; Norma Shearer is the Queen of the silent movies! I'd never seen her in anything but dramas, and was delighted to see what a great comic actress she was. Ramon has some great moments, too. The end of the movie was a bit of a surprise, and is just one more reason to view this charming romantic comedy-drama.",1 "A somewhat schematic script - you can almost see the boxes being ticked as each issue is dealt with - does not ultimately detract from a fine achievement. The story surrounds the succumbing to HIV-AIDS by a life-loving young man at the time when the world was taken by surprise by the ferocity of the hitherto-unknown virus. The various reactions - bewilderment, fear, panic, hatred, self-loathing, guilt, determination, courage, loss, grief and, of course, love - are all charted in the five central characters.

There can be little argument, I'd have thought, concerning the excellence of Michel Blanc's performance; nor of the puzzling awfulness of Lorenzo Balducci's - whyever was this Italian actor cast as an American who had been brought up in Australia?

Julie Depardieu's character is the least developed of the central quintet but nevertheless the actress manages, as ever, to make a fully-rounded contribution.

Emanuelle Beart's striking features and dynamic screen presence make it difficult to assess her as an actress. In the end she didn't convince me she was any kind of writer, but she was entirely convincing as a mother with ambivalence to her baby. The scene where her character talks to her own mother (the late Maia Simon, in a brief but noteworthy final performance) about the difficulties surrounding her own birth is one of the most tender in the film.

Johan Libéreau is touching as the doomed Manu, fleshing out what seems to me to be a somewhat idealised character - unreflective but sensitive, foolhardy yet vulnerable.

But the film ultimately belongs to Sami Bouajila as the policeman who finds himself in the most unexpected of relationships. It's by far the most complex role and also, perhaps for that very reason, the most believable. Bouajila embraces the contradictions, possibly realising, as Heath Ledger proved so memorably in Brokeback Mountain, that struggles with sexuality can produce compelling drama.

Les Temoins is well edited, photographed and, on the whole, well directed. The influence of Truffaut's Jules Et Jim is all-pervading, but it's none the worse for that. The film's biggest advantage is that it tackles its subject in an entirely unsentimental way: the same script made in Hollywood would undoubtedly turn into something unspeakably gooey - the memory of Philadelphia, with which it could all too easily be compared, makes me shudder. Les Temoins is way, way above that.",1 "Master of Action John Woo delivers once again with his hard-hitting, action-packed thriller `Hard Boiled,' starring Chow Yun-Fat as a veteran cop known as `Tequila,' Hong Kong's answer to San Francisco's own `Dirty Harry.' In this one, an undercover officer infiltrates a gangland Triad dealing arms, and when a rival gang threatens to take over, Tequila joins in the melee, and once it begins the action never stops until the last of the credits have rolled off into the recesses of the darkened screen. Along the way there are tests of loyalty, mistaken identities and a staggering display of superbly choreographed violence. There's a couple of plot twists, but it's a rather straightforward story, and as usual, Woo melds it with the action with his trademark style and perfection. The action sequences are incredibly well staged and delivered, but so exceedingly violent that it passes beyond reality at times (especially during the climax) into a somewhat surreal state of being, only to be ultimately drawn back in again by the grounded core of the story. It's a fine line that Woo treads successfully time after time in an arena in which many other `action' directors have foundered. A consummate professional, Woo knows exactly what he wants and what works, and he doesn't quit until he gets it. Among the directors of the `action' genre, he is quite simply the best there has ever been. As the somewhat jaded and `hard Boiled' cop, the charismatic Chow Yun-Fat demonstrates that if Jackie Chan can team up with Chris Tucker, he most certainly could find a place at Eastwood or Gibson's side. He has the attitude and the look that make his character credible, which helps anchor Woo's art in reality, albeit a rather violent one. As with the `Dirty Harry' or `Lethal Weapon' movies, it gives the audience someone to whom they can relate and root for. And it's all buoyed with symbolism and metaphor and Woo's impeccable sense of timing and deft and sparing use of slow motion, which in his hands becomes an extremely effective tool. The supporting cast includes Tony Leung Chiu Wai (Alan),Teresa Mo (Teresa Chang), Philip Chan (Superintendent Pang), Hoi-Shan Kwan (Mr. Hui) and Philip Kwok (Mad Dog). The true brilliance of Woo's films lies in the fact that he never sacrifices story for action, but instead blends the two together to create a whole that is artistically rendered (his action sequences are something akin to visual poetry) and substantial, rather than having an action film that-- like so many others of the genre-- is hollow inside. Like his earlier film, `The Killer,' which also starred Yun-Fat, `Hard Boiled' pushes the envelope and will keep you on the edge, right along with the characters in the film, right until the very end. As with all of Woo's movies, this one is a satisfying foray into the intense, cutting edge `Action' world of one of Cinema's Master directors, and a must-see for any true film buff. I rate this one 9/10.",1 "The high rating @IMDB made me watch that movie - and I am *very* disappointed. It is shallow, plain and predictable! While one must assume that this was intended to be that way, the movie still turned the corner towards ""cheesy"" way too hard. Really... waaaaaayyyy too hard. Actually, my brain felt violated and offended.

However, there are two person I enjoyed somehow: Old Joe (Andy Griffith) and Shelly herself (as ""Dawn"", especially when she confessed about her new boyfriend). ""Earl"" was another character more interesting (I like Jeremy Sisto).

Résumé : maybe one should be a woman to enjoy that movie?",0 "This film undeservedly took a bashing when it was released and since then Get Carter '71 fans have insistently tried to bury it. However, in the 7 years since it's release I've come to realize that this isn't the worst film ever made. It's not even the worst remake ever made.

This film felt more like a stylized version of the gritty Michael Caine version which has earned its classic status in British cinema. The one thing I liked about this version versus the original was the fact that they humanized the characters. I could relate more to Carter even if that wasn't the point of the original story. The original film gives us a Jack Carter who will attack or kill anyone he suspects was part of the murder of his brother thus turning it into a hate filled, vengeance fest. There's no character development in Michael Caine's version which explains the campy, cult status it has earned as being a low budget gangster film full of ruthless characters. It was hard to care about any of the characters in the original and films usually lose points with me when I cannot fully connect with a character. If they don't care why should I as a viewer? Regardless of we were supposed to like a character or not in the original I feel that's an essential ingredient for a good film.

With that being said the film still suffers it's drawbacks. Mainly the stylized vision of this version will turn off fans of the original from the start. Also, the main villain wasn't convincing enough and I'm talking about Alan Cumming's character. The ending was too hunky-dory but Mickey Rourke was exceptional in the short amounts of time he was on screen.

This film is entertaining while not standing up to the 1971 classic, it does stand up as a good Stallone film and a worthy edition to an action fans DVD collection.",1 "This cheapjack Conan rip-off is so mightily inept that the villain actually comes off appearing more sympathetic, interesting and intelligent, not to mention handsomer, than the hero. Surely this was an unintended consequence of the poor script and bad acting, the seemingly lumbering stupidity of the wooden muscle-bound hero and the obligatory trotting around cardboard sets in g-strings by these supposedly heroic do-gooders. This makes the Conan and Beastmaster films look like Ben-Hur and El Cid in comparison. The only (accidental)redeeming feature is the striking presence of Harrison Muller, Jr. as Morak a surprisingly appealing ""bad guy."" Both his person and his character stand out, perhaps largely due to the colossally boring nature of those around him. It's hardly his fault that he was warped by destiny as the plot would have it...the viewer can't help but root for him to succeed since he's the only one of any interest or appeal on scene.",0 "This is one of the few remakes that actually surpasses the original. Jeff Goldblum plays Seth Brundle, a scientist who created two teleportation pods (or telepods) in his apartment. He then meets a journalist whom he shows his experiment to in action. They end up falling in love and he goes through the teleportation successfully--sort of. Unbeknownst to him, a common house fly got into the machine with him, causing their DNA to get spliced together. He then begins the slow transformation into what he calls 'Brundlefly'. His body parts (ears, fingernails, teeth) begin to fall off as he mutates into a fly creature. David Cronenberg directed this awesome remake with some great, memorable makeup effects. Definitely one of the best remakes ever made.",1 "Finally, an excellent movie utilizing the dark and brooding past and secrets of India, while blending them perfectly with the modern era...A Die-Hard Royal Guard who is willing to lay his life for his Rana...A Royal Heir with a guarded past...A powerless Rana who has turned murderous...An uncle with greedy motives...A cop with umpteen respect for the old royal guard, yet lots of anguish against the palace...all this sums up to a great story by a master story-teller, well defined characters, some well executed action shots, and great performances, and you have a modern-day masterpiece...A must watch...Glad to know Indian Film Industry can still churn out great cinema...If anyone is criticising this film, just avoid them...and see this movie...you'll be glad...India has made a mark in the International scene this time...",1 "I couldn't believe someone has actually liked this movie. It's horrible by all senses. To say it's better than the book is a true atrocity. The book was wonderful, explaining the true nature of children and they're understanding of fear. The movie is more a stupid parody.

This may come as a spoiler, so be aware, and if you don't want to read it move to the next paragraph. I actually laughed at the end, when they exhibited that stupid spider-puppet as the final monster. if some thing like that would approach me, i'll just smack it right into the ground, although i'll probably need a bigger shoe. It was horrible, yes, but horrible not because it was scary, but because it was a huge joke at the author's intentions, i'm sure. a real amusement.

I'd be laughing if i hadn't known what a true master of horror Stephen King is, but i'm mostly sad that his best book never got to have a good movie. Sad, sad, sad. This movie shall get a minor 1, and never to be watched by me again. Nor anyone else, i hope. A true atrocity.",0 I love movies with a theme of cemeteries and haunted houses. This cheap italian movie was terrible. You'll want to shoot your tv every time you hear the little boy's dubbed voice. Don't waste your time. Learn from my mistake,0 "Film about flamboyantly gay Luke (Jesse Archer) who sleeps around every chance he gets and doesn't believe in love. Then he meets Stephen (impossibly handsome Charlie David) and falls for him. But can he stop sleeping around and have a monogamous relationship? And is Stephen really as good as he seems? Various other subplots deal with a black/white gay couple, a woman going crazy over her impending marriage and a gay man searching for a direction in life.

This film knows it's audience--within the first 10 minutes there are about 5 full frontal nude men shown. (I'm saying that as a good thing). Plotwise I hated it at first--Luke was obnoxious, VERY effeminate and just annoying. However this is needed to see how he changes later on. The movie is colorful and well-made on a very low budget. There are some bad puns, groan worthy lines and truly terrible acting but, all in all, it was a fun and amusing gay comedy. Also it was fairly truthful on showing gay life realistically and it's refreshing to see a black/white gay couple. In acting terms Archer and David are very good and all the guys are handsome and in good shape. Worth seeing.",1 "I was excited for this when it came out. Directed by the person who brought us the underrated House On Haunted Hill, many horror movie veterans (Dorff, Combs, and Kier), and at the time a fresh concept (released just before the Ring and all the other ""ghost uses everyday thing to kill you"" movies), and a dark atmosphere. So movie starts to begin, things are mixed. Cool death scenes, but scares are nonexistent (and believe me, I'm a wuss at horror movies in the theater and jump at even the fake scares). Use of Rammstein song, major check! But then after the first major death scenes and Dorff decides to check out the website himself, the movie starts to go downhill. Maybe it was because of how confusing the movie got afterwards or my mind just doesn't choose to remember it at all, or maybe even both but I can't remember too much of what happens in the second half right until the predictable climax. The characters are just too uninteresting too, no matter who is playing them. It just ticked me off how Combs was given a crap role, and a small one too. OK, maybe he didn't have a big one in HOHH, but he still owned a lot more than what he does here.

So in summary, I guess everyone has a few speed bumps in their career of movies. This is one for Malone, and I hope his next movie will make me bow at his feet and forgive him for the 5 bucks I wasted on this movie",0 "I caught this movie late at night while channel surfing and was immediately enthralled. Omar Epps is absolutely fantastic in this movie and his on-screen presence is worth at least viewing this movie once. Shakur was a bit, shall we say, OVERLY dramatic, but not to the point of getting annoying or looking at this as a cheesy ""B"" movie.

The storyline isn't a bad one and serves to entertain as well as teach. It actually succeeds in doing both. Granted, the movie is a bit predictable, but thankfully this doesn't ruin the experience entirely.

Overall, I give the movie 8 stars. The only real drawbacks being its somewhat predictability and Shakur's tendency to overact.",1 "i was shocked by the this very very very bad movie, i can't believe fox video was not ashamed to release it. people complain that Christian films like Time Changer have bad acting (which it didn't), but this, this was just bad! a group of second graders could do a better job at acting. not to mention the horrible dialogs, who ever wrote the script should be fired. i was rolling on the floor laughing till my sides hurt because it was that bad. the directors obviously had a very low budget since half the scenes, which were suppose to be all different where all in the same location and they didn't try to hide that. oh, and did i mention how bad the acting was? so, in conclusion, if you want to laugh at hell-y-wood for making cheesy films, this is the one! i promise you your sides will hurt because you'll be laughing soooooo hard!

ps. the acting was bad",1 "This film is brilliant, i loved it,everyone should see it, I only bought it because vincent kartheiser was in it. Im so glad i bought it,definately one not to be missed.A brilliant performance from Vincent Kartheiser (Angel AKA connor)who plays the misguided child, Tommy.Also Andy Garcia (oceans eleven) and Linda Cardellini (scooby doo).",1 "Brennan Huff's mother and Dale Doback's father get married and go to live together. Since Brennan and Dale still live with their parents (even having 40 years old), they need to live as step brothers. They don't like each other and don't get along. The main problem will come when they start to shake their parents' wedding.

What a HORRIBLE movie! I haven't laughed even once! It is as bad as ''You Don't Mess with the Zohan '', but even more retarded! (If this is possible!!)

How can someone even laugh with those ridiculous situations? The two lead characters seem two retarded men whose main objective is to destroy their family's lives. They behave like babies and they are what? 40 years old?

I cannot believe this movie has almost a 7 in its rate. This only proves how many people with bad taste live in the world.

Don't even bother to watch this movie, or you are going to lose your time with one of the most pathetic movies ever made by humanity.",0 "I can't stand movies that have no realism. The main character would never make it into Harvard, he's not smart enough... not to mention he never went to class or studied. And if you want to talk about the basketball quality, I've seen horrible high school team that are way better than the losers they had in this movie. Is it really that hard to grab some guys who can actually play to shoot these scenes?",0 "My friends and I went into this movie expecting something along the lines of a dumb but funny movie like ""Scary Movie"" or ""Not another Teen Movie"".

Sad to say, this was the worst movie I've seen since the beginning of 2005. DO NOT see this movie and DO NOT believe the advertisements for this movie as those scenes were the best parts of the film. I admit, I laughed during the Napoleon Dynamite skit, but that was probably the only funny scene in the whole film.

This film is stupid, but not stupid in a funny way. It is stupid in an EXTREMELY boring way. The only (barely) entertaining parts of the movie were in the first 10 minutes. The rest of it was filler as the scriptwriter probably ran out of dumb ideas.

I, along with probably most of the audience, felt like leaving on the spot. This is a bad film with no redeeming features.",0 "Apparently a *construction company* produced this film? Well, that makes just about as much sense as anything.

The movie starts with shots of a Rottweiler attacking a person who is prostrate on the ground. Then, we're at the funeral of a woman. Hester shows up, and her voice is instantly recognizable as that of the actress who played Lily Munster: yes, it is she.

She is the late woman's sister, and she is not well liked by her sister's children.

Hester is rich, and she is angry at her sister and her niece and nephew, because she had had a relationship with her sister's husband prior to their marriage., and she feels she would have been better for him. He died years ago, but she has a place of honor in her house for a photo of him, and she likes to imagine herself dancing with him in slow motion in front of a mirror.

Hester owns a Rottweiler that she brought back with her from Europe. She also dabbles in black magic of some kind. She left a necklace with a pentagram on it in her sister's casket. The dog also has one on its collar. The dog also does things in slow motion.

Hester gives the dog to her niece, and pretends that she cares about her niece and nephew now that her sister has passed on. However, she does rituals involving blood and chanting Latin in order to remotely cause the dog to bring about the deaths of her nephew, her niece's neighbor and boyfriend and others.

The movie doesn't really have any resolution at the end. A real non-ending, not setting up a sequel, but just petering out without letting us know what happened to some of the main characters.",0 "A Lot of Dumbheads try to say look like ...... look like these idiot always love to look like something now mario kart idiot Mario kart bla bla was made after Twisted metal and Vigilante 8 these are basic car combat games like snes Rock and Roll racing D: relearn them then try to say look like ......

And I m the fan of vigilante , twisted metal and Rock'n roll racing But death Race is a TV Show before all we said made it SO STFU DUmbheads İt's a awesome action game not like the others but You all IMDb's idiot knew everything better then others so U gave 6.4 or ~ like it Please don't watch movie may be you could read book your IQ will be upgraded SO go relearn all things go to the kindergarten",1 "The point here is not about if the this film proved anything or if there really is a conspiracy. I think what the filmmakers were trying to say is that why all the concealed evidence? If the gov't has got nothing to hide then why can't we see all the evidence that we the American public has a right to. So, I have to say it is very respectable of them to dedicate this film in memory of those perished in 9-11 because, the victims out of everyone has the right to know what really happened and to be honest the gov't haven't shown us everything.

I can't say everything in this film made sense but at least, some of it is very convincing. This film has raised a lot of good questions. The American public has a right to know every answer to every question that this film has raised. Like why the small explosions in the Twin Towers after the planes have hit? I'd say that is pretty suspicious. Also, where are the bodies of the passengers for the other two planes? Why can't we hear the evidence from the black boxes on the planes? I'm not saying there is any conspiracy here but I think we have a right to know.

For those of you who's seen Farenhite 911. I'd say these two films could be linked together. If you knew what the Bush family has invested in the middle east then you know that is a big enough motivation for them to kill anyone in this world. That's why the old Bush went to war in the middle east and then the young Bush went to war in the middle east. No other president in US history has gone to war in the middle east. Why? Use your brains people. Where does all of Bush's money come from? Not from US tax payers thats for sure. Their money comes from the Saudi Royal Family who just happens to be good friends with Bin Laden. Where does Dick Cheaney's money come from? His money comes from his company that invests in communications of the troops in the middle east and home. Every time there's a war his stocks go up. People kill for money. It's plain and simple. We see it everyday in the news around us. For those of you that don't believe someone in our gov't with power won't kill for money. Then I'd say you need get out of your fairytale world and wake up. If you can make a billion dollars and you need to kill 3000 people in order to do it and you had the power to cover it up and no one would ever find out it's you until your dead would you do it? I'd say a lot of people would. Those of you that say you wouldn't because you never had that kind of power. Power is corruption. Wake up people.

Last but not least for those of you who is dissing this film I bet you don't know anyone that has died because of 9-11 and you don't have a son fighting in Iraq. Because if you do you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this film. You would use your mind and heart and question if all this is worth my loved ones to die for. Is this all worth something? Just ask yourself that question.",1 "Disaster Zone Volcano in NY is about a mad geologist that tries to harness geothermal power under NY to provide unlimited power. He does it under the disguise of a water tunnel and almost makes it. Instead, he unleashes the lava that starts destroying NY. Just like the original Volcano in LA, they find a way to deal with it. The acting just didn't quite make it for me, always a little too much or too little emotion. The characters just never became real to me. The effects were cheap, but adequate. Over all its not too much of a waste of time so I would watch it once just to say I did. Hopefully they will come out with one that's a little more original.",0 "In the words of Charles Dance's character in this film, ""Bollocks!"" No plot, no character development, and utterly unbelievable.

Full of stuff that just doesn't happen in the real world (since when were British police inspectors armed with handguns in shoulder holsters?). Full of mistakes (Bulgarian trains in London?). Full of dull and artificial dialogue. And the directing/editing is awful - wobbly hand-held camera shots that add nothing to the film except a vague feeling of seasickness; confusing jump-cuts; no structure.

Wesley Snipes' character is totally unsympathetic - why should we care what happens to him? Direct to video? Direct to the dustbin!",0 "Most of the time, Mexicans watch movies about American heroes, like The Patriot, but almost never we watch Mexican heroes. El Tigre de Santa Julia (The Tiger of Santa Julia) is a Mexican heroes. History happens to beginnings of 20th century. This movie tell us the history about a Man who was born in a small town in Mexico at 1880, He was left by his father when his mother died, 20 years later, he got to Santa Julia, another small town near to Mexico city, he went to find a better life, with few money and helped for her aunt, he join the Mexican army, but he discovered that they wasn't fighting against another army, they fought against people, people who disagree the government, an antidemocratic government. He refuse the army and star a band, like Robin Hood, they rob rich people to gave them to the poor people. All the other members of his band was female, because they were more loyal, and brave. This is a good movie, is funny, has action, and let us know about a Mexican heroes that many of us don't know.",1 "Whatever you think of this misguided and silly film, please don't tell Mary Louis Parker, Billy Crudup's girlfriend, he stunk big time in this disaster because she might not like you, and hit you, the same way she hit some fan who was bad-mouthing Billy in his last stage appearance in New York.

Whatever was Cate Blanchett thinking when she accepted the title role in this stupid little number? No one can believe for a moment all the goings and comings the screenwriter has plotted at the expense of truth and reality. I'm afraid that our Cate really has to have her little head examined and maybe one day she'll fess up the real reasons for getting near this project that makes absolute no sense at all, let alone the preposterous situation which situates ""la Blanchett"" in that God forsaken little town where she sticks out like a sore thumb.

Billy Crudup is totally out of place in the company of people like Michael Gambon, or even Cate. His character is totally unbelievable and we cannot think of him as the brains behind all the work against the invading Nazi army.

Sorry Ms. Armstrong, better luck next time. We have admired your work before, but films like these are beneath your best abilities. Try to get involved in an Australian theme, one that you're more familiar with, and give us something more dignified than Charlotte Gray, who, by the way, doesn't even have to change her name at all because no one could have cared less if she was Gray, Brown, Green, Black, Blue, Black, or just plain Jane Doe!",0 "If you are looking for your typical shoot 'em up war movie then move on to something else.

This movie shows what real courage is, and REAL COURAGE isn't always what you think it will be.

I thought one of the most poignant statements in the movie is ""the ultimate destination of hate is self-hate."" Many of the characters go through complete transformations throughout the course of the movie, and we get to witness this firsthand. sometimes we get caught thinking 'why would he do that' when a character commits a particularly selfless act, and I think that is a big part of the writer's intent.

There's a lot of historical, literary, and biblical allusions which add to the complexity of the movie, and ultimately I think it adds depth and helps us to understand the transformations of the characters.

The movie is all the more amazing when you consider it is based on a true story.

I would recommend this movie but beware it isn't a walk in the park to watch.",1 "This film is one hell of a sumptuous visual feast. The animated photographs are wondrous, seeming to bring Long Tack Sam and kin back to life. The multiple ""origin"" comics are lush with color. Both merge seamlessly with candid interviews and found(?) footage. I cannot rhapsodize enough about the aesthetics and style. Kudos to Ann Marie Fleming for this biographical masterpiece on her great-grandfather.

The storyline is equally compelling. The scenic shifts from place to place, country to country, allow Fleming to uncover new facts about the acrobat/ magician's life, and cleverly parallel Sam's own perigrinations. Globetrotters, par excellance, the travels of Sam and Fleming provide effective narrative ballast, and in particular, Fleming's adept narration carefully focuses our attention, so that we feel privy to the historical events Sam lived through during the early and mid 20th century.

The Magical Life of Long Tack Sam is in every sense a celebration of an almost forgotten man, who perhaps until now, never got his proper due. And it pays homage not just to the remarkable Sam, but to other members of his family as well (especially his daughter Mina, Fleming's grandmother). With its grea t style and storytelling, this is a film to be seen again and again.

",1 "A potentially interesting film about the hijinks at a car dealership starts out very funny, with on-target jabs at the named industry; but midway through, it abruptly changes tone.

The apparent satire on automobile salesmanship suddenly turns into a dramatic thriller-type film with nearly all the main characters erupting into violence that culminates in a truly rotten denouement.

Worth seeing only for the first half, which, as mentioned, delivers the laughs and offers a nice change of pace for FULL HOUSE's Lori Loughlin, who breaks her ""nice lady"" image with a foul mouth and a brief nude scene.

*1/2 out of ****.",0 "This movie is by far the worst I have ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I love slapstick, I can even confess liking Police Academy. But this?

The basic story, some kids join a ""Dojo"" to become marshall arts masters. Of course they mess up. The director's been following the blueprint on how to make a slapstick comedy.

don't see it, never, noway, nohow...please..

",0 "I love older movies and especially try to watch the ones I have heard of but never seen. For the most part when I do this I am somewhat disappointed in the movie. This is the exception. This movie was well worth watching. I thought the casting was excellent, the characters developed well and scenery was great. It was like a walk back in time. I especially liked the way that many different characters were developed, and you want to know more about each of them. You wonder how they lived the rest of their lives. This is to me a true test of how good a movie is. Did the boys make it home from the war alive? Did Allison become a famous writer? Did Connie and the principal get married? I wish there was a part two to this movie. I would stand in line to watch it.",1 "I had the opportunity to see Babylon A.D. today and just decided to go ahead and give it a chance, from the trailer it didn't look so bad. I know a lot of people have a thing against Vin Diesel, but I don't think the guy is so bad, he makes a great action hero and also makes a lot of movies very entertaining. Just look at the Fast and the Furios as well as XXX, you have to admit those movies would be nothing without him. But we have Babylon A.D. now, a lot of my co-workers at my theater warned me that it was pretty bad, but like I said, some people just judge too harshly, I just wanted to see it for myself. Sadly, they were right, the first hour actually had me, I was like ""Are they crazy? This movie is pretty decent..."" then the ending happened, well, what ending? This film felt so rushed, I was expecting a narrator to speak over and say ""Sorry folks, we forget to tell you about the sub plot"".

Toorop is a mercenary who has just been given an assignment, it seems pretty simple, he just has to deliver a girl from Russia to New York City, unfortunately, it's not that easy. In a world where you have to be a strong person to survive, this girl is something special, with her protector, Rebeka, Toorop leads them to New York discovering that the girl, Aurora, is pregnant with twins that are going to save the world, but they can't discover who to trust since everyone is pulling them in different directions on who will kill her or who wants her alive.

Babylon A.D. is just poorly put together. While I think it was an interesting story, it just could have been so much better and should have been told more properly. Sadly, the only character that we really get to know is just Toorup, who is played by Vin Diesel, he is the only one with depth, while they could have had a little focus on the girl, Aurora, how did she get her powers or was she really ill? What was the history and was she destined for all of what happened to her with her children? There were so many questions that were left unanswered. Over all, this isn't a terrible movie, but I would say definitely to wait for the rental, because while the effects are very good and the whole setting is disturbing, it's the story that leaves you dumbfounded and just bummed that the story ended the way it did.

4/10",0 """The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"" though a fairy tale film of wonder, excitement and joys of unexpected moments broadens it's themes more in depth by showing the joys of life and love. Adapted from a short story from F. Scott Fitzgerald the direction from David Fincher(one who's known for his dark thrillers like:""Seven"")is beautiful as many scenes were done so well with the wizard of computer magic and top notch camera work. Yet most catching of all is it's message proving that each have an expected path in life everybody has a fate. Yet this the main character lives his in a most unusual way he lives it backwards! Just imagine escaping the norm as we are so use to living and being in existence from birth being young and living life till our old body gives out. Only how about trying it in reverse! This film has star Brad Pitt(Benjamin Button) who's born as an 80 year old and during his life span he ages backwards all the way to an infant. Yet from the beginning of his start in New Orleans at the doorstep of an old folks home his life spans thru the years from his meeting of people and friends to travels and journeys of memories that anyone would cherish.

Beginning with Button's friendship early on when he befriends a little female Daisy(wonderful performance from Cate Blanchett)and many years later as Benjamin starts to gain his youth he once again meets up with Daisy along the way after she's became a successful ballet dancer and the two will develop a passionate romance and love story that anyone would dream of it was just so true and simple.

The film even though long moves well with it's journey of drama and life discovery for Benjamin as it's memorable for his working and making a living on a tugboat. And his first love and his being seduced by an elegant and sophisticated married lady(played gracefully by Tilda Swinton). The film is clearly a journey of life's common ups and downs that are common for all yet this man's story of age and living is most uncommon.

Overall this film is a masterpiece of joy told thru flashback it's a real taste of a historical journey of love, drama, and changing and most of all it shows to be happy with yourself no matter what. It's fairy tale and magic theme is well enjoyed as the wonder and thrill to see of how one can age backwards and still enjoy life, have success and discover love is amazing. Remember everyone is different, it's okay to be different and everyone lives and does life in a different way. That's what this epic masterpiece of a film shows it's clearly an emotional, and touching picture to love for the way it shows how life can be in a different order yet still it shows that it can be memorable.",1 "If you're interested in seeing this movie, don't. The only thing it does well is bore you half to death. There is no plot and no acting. I could forgive such grievances for a lot of slasher films, but you have to at least attempt to make it up some other way. This movie could have at least salvaged itself as a mediocre slasher if there was some gore and nudity. Unfortunately, there was neither. The vast majority of this movie is spent watching these silly kinds wander around and say dumb stuff to each other, with only one even remotely gory incident (and I use the term 'gore' lightly). There were also plenty of chances for both of the actresses to show their boobs on screen, but somehow they managed to pass it up. Boring, boring, and even more boring. And I'm not even going to get into the ridiculous plot holes or how incredibly lame the killer is, or how anticlimactic and contrived the climax is...",0 "This is possibly the worst film i have ever seen. I actually saw the premiere in Rotterdam Film Festival, and whilst many people walked out I stayed to the bitter end. But that was mainly because I didn't want to lose my friends. Self indulgent is a word often overused in the arts, and some of the best music and film is incredibly self indulgent, but behind that indulgence there is often genius. Unfortunately here there is nothing, not even a plot. The mistake the director Simon Rumley makes is to dwell on the suffering of the characters, all in a kind of 'gross out' adolescent way, without any insight, or any freshness. All the best films now tend not to be so mawkish, making The Living and The Dead seem like a bad student project from the 1970s. There's no lightness of touch here and no humour. Perhaps we're supposed to laugh at mentalist James in the same way we laugh at Julian Donkey Boy. But he's just not that funny and he has none of the demented hilarity of Donkey Boy. Like the rest of the cast, he's just a stereotype, an extremely annoying stereotype. All you'll learn from The Living and The Dead is that some people clearly have much more money than sense. And I'm not talking about any of the characters in the film here.",0 "Yes, you've guessed right, this is yet another computer-animated film, filled with unnecessary morale and boring jokes. This worked out pretty good a few years ago when Pixar released ""toy story"" and ""a bugs life"" because then it was original and groundbreaking, the new visual style made you forget flaws in the story. However, while Pixar continues to evolve the genre by actually adding some story content, Dreamworks refuse to let go of the classic un-original storyline.

It's about a Robot who travels to a new city to start a new life and i ask myself, haven't I seen this before? This movie reminds a lot of ""a bugs life"", despite the fact that you get the need to puke every time those uncomfotable morale-scenes show up. I think I laughed one time during the whole film, and the film is filled with jokes, silly and real childish, I don't think anyone over twelve years will laugh more than I did.

I don't think that a movie can survive using special effects only, and since this movie is like one, big special effect with no interesting story whatsoever I have to give this movie 4/10. Dreamworks, you have to evolve a little!",0 "I found this film to be an excellent story told in a different setting. Boy finds love, love cant be returned by lover, boy dies before lover is able to admit his love....yes - we've all seen the story before but, it seems to have a fresh angle told in the army setting. Of interest is the way that the love story remains a mystery to all the other characters in the story and, how after the sad events of the movie, the characters remain in silence about the true nature of our protagonists relationship. This is a true love story - makes me proud to be gay and able to tell me lover each day. The soundtrack is nice and supports the primary direction of the movie, cementing some of the themes and ideas of the movie. Oh, both leads are very handsome and are excellent representations of gay Israelis's. Enjoy!",1 "One of the worst movies i have ever seen! I didn't find anything worth in the movie. These kind of movies shouldn't be brought to theaters. They were only trying to steal our money. I cannot think for a reason that someone should see this movie, it didn't have a plot ,at least until the middle of it because i left from the cinema at about that time. it was the first time i left from the cinema and didn't see a movie till the end. Perhaps if the movie had a little bit more dialogs it would be better, but there is a pause of about 30 minutes where you don't hear a word and go to places of the writer's imagination. This is where you start thinking maybe i should have gone to Superman:the return or to a bingo night (anything else but this)",0 "I'm a huge fan of the first movie. And watch it every chance i get on cable. And had no idea there was a sequel till i saw it on AMC recently. I said to myself, what the heck. I'll give it a lookover. I noticed from the IMDb profile that they got the original Hanson brothers to play there roles. And they really look the same. I didn't recognize no one else from the original. Baldwin and the rest of this cast are terrible. There's nothing funny or even interesting here. Its a terrible movie in every way and form. And Stephen Balwin as the captain? You could of cast Pauly Shore and make it more believable. If there was going to be a sequel it should of been done right after the original. Maybe have them moving to Florida like the Newman made up in the first movie. When was this in the theater if at all? I keep up on new movies, whether in the theater or made for cable. This one must be thee old- straight to video cat.",0 "I rented ""After the Sunset"" because it looked like a fun flick. If you delete Woody Harrelson from the cast, you get a pretty reliable threesome headed by former 007 Peirce Brosnan and rounded out with sexy Selma Hayek and the ever wonderful Don Cheadle. ""After the Sunset"" is about ex-jewel thief Max (Brosnan) and his lover, Lola (Hayek) who retire to the Bahamas after being unbeaten in all of their heists. However, FBI Agent Stan Lloyd (Harrelson), who Max and Lola harassed on several occasions during their career, won't believe that the two unbeatable master criminals are done - so he finds them out in the Bahamas and tempts Max with the last Napolean diamond which is on a cruise ship docking in the local bay. Max and Lola say no, but Max is further tempted when suave gangster Henri Moore (Cheadle) offers Max an offer he can't refuse. Lola is adamantly against it but poor Max is pathetically attracted. Meanwhile, Max and Stan become friends.

This movie is horrible. Brett Ratner does the WORST job directing and the script is really lame with only one or two really memorable lines that made you laugh. The rest of the time, you are just so embarrassed for these actors that you want to shake them and say, ""WHY DID YOU DO THIS MOVIE?!?!?!?!"" Selma Hayek puts on all her sexual charms for the role of Lola and would have probably done really well if she had actually had a really well written role. Peirce Brosnan, well, we miss him as 007. And who casts Woody Harrelson?! He is what makes this movie so bad. Woody, do us all a favor and never act again, k? The only person in the movie who does a good job acting is Don Cheadle who has probably never done a bad movie in his life. But his role in the film is so small that he is unable to really make up for the bad jobs that some of the other actors did. Plus, the climatic scene where (sorry to ruin this) Max steals the diamond is probably only 3 minutes long and looks like they did it in a rush at the end of filming.

All in all, don't see this movie. It is LAME and a total waste of your time.",0 "I'm a fan of horror movies, therefore I was glad to find the Friday (late) night horror movie on one of the movie channels here. The only piece of information I had before watching the movie that it is movie shot by a teenager during thanksgiving dinner, during which some aliens attack the house. Well, I must admit - this is a brilliant movie. While it is occasionally not very believable, it sure DID give me a shiver every once in a while. The feeling of being helpless is so overwhelmingly presented in this movie. I gotta be honest and say that throughout about 60% of the movie I was almost sure it was real. The authenticity of the people who commented on the movie in certain scenes was really impressive. I think, however, that the little girl (Rosie McPherson) was just ""too calm down"" for a kid her age. As if the authenticity was not enough, the movie ended with the pictures of the ""family members"" as missing persons and a phone number was given (in case you've seen them). At that point I was dazzled - can it be for REAL? 30 seconds later I realized it is not real, since the actors' names appeared during the end credits. But folks, although it seems illogical that a movie like that can be shot with 2-5 shots, the special effects are very adequate and believable, and the acting is more than OK. It seems odd, however, that the mother was ALWAYS having a drink. Bottom line - other than a couple of glitches (which I am sure to find when I watch the movie for the 2nd and 3rd time), a really brilliant movie. Don't miss it. I give it an 8.",1 "This is a funny Jackie Chan film, that's great fun to watch,with some awesome stunts, and two knockout performances from Jackie Chan!. All the characters are cool, and the story is very entertaining, plus Jackie Chan is simply amazing in this!. I really liked the opening in black and white when they showed the twins as kids, and I loved the reference to Stallone and The Rocky movies with Tammy's(Nina Li Chi) boyfriend Rocky, plus it has some pretty good fights in it too. I actually found this to be more of a Comedy, but that's OK because it was highly enjoyable, and I think this should be higher then 6.0, plus the ending is absolutely hilarious!. As always Jackie does some amazing stunts, and the scene where Jackie and Tyson(Teddy Robin Kwan) escape on the boat is pretty exciting, plus while some of the humor is incredibly silly I couldn't help but laugh at it. The scene where Boomer plays at the Orchestra and does John Ma's work is a scream, plus the fight at the car wash is also hilarious! (since the brother John Ma can't fight). This is a funny Jackie Chan film, that's great fun to watch, with some awesome stunts, and two knockout performances from Jackie Chan, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is great!. Ringo Lam and Hark Tsui do a great! job here with very good camera work, good angles and just keeping the film funny and at a very fast pace. The Acting is lots of fun!. Jackie Chan is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is hilarious, extremely likable as both Boomer and Joh Ma, had great chemistry with both Maggie Cheung and Nina Li Chi, kicked that ass, and was absolutely charming! (Jackie Rules!!!!!!!). Maggie Cheung is gorgeous and does fine as Boomer's(well technically) love interest, she was likable and did a great job I really liked her. Teddy Robin Kwan is funny as Boomer's best friend Tyson, he was likable and added a lot of laughs I dug him. Nina Li Chi is beautiful, and also did fine as John Ma's love interest (well technically), I really liked her. Alfred Cheung is good as the villain and was menacing. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5",1 "Actors (so runs one school of thought) are miserably malleable people who's principal talent is their ability to simply morph into their stage characters. Look no further than this movie, for a prime example of such. Martin and Lewis (ably played by Northam and Hayes), shallow folk with little real talent who through happenstance fortuitously hit the show business equivalent of the lottery, cannot handle relationships, their success, or each other. In the end, the pair's life of comedy plays out as a tragedy.",0 "This episode does have it's annoyances, the Galileo's mission seems poorly-timed (the Enterprise is delivering medical supplies to a planet that needs them and this side trip is questionable to me), it's something that just could have waited. The commissioner is a serious P.I.T.A. but what redeems him is that he IS right.

What bothers me most is how everyone is coming down on Spock, calling him a machine, calling him unfeeling. Some of Spock's decisions ARE questionable but HE'S TRYING TO SAVE EVERYONE'S LIFE AND THEY'RE BUSTING HIS CHOPS. The scene that REALLY irritates me is when Boma pops his head in and says that they're ready for services for Latimer (a crewman who was speared in the back). Spock responds that they're working against the clock. I was like ""Really! Are funeral services REALLY the priority at the moment?"". Let's take a week off and sit shiva for our fallen comrade. If you're in a burning house, this isn't the time to go around and hang sheets over all the mirrors.

Boma takes the same stance when they need to leave Gaetano's body behind. ""Not without a burial..."". If I were Spock, I would say ""We're taking off Mr. Boma. You snooze, you lose"".",0 "This is the worst Troma movie I have ever seen and I normally love Troma films. The pace of this movie is that of a snail. The violence/gore is too sparse and VERY badly done (there is a scene of a stabbing where you can clearly see that the knife is just thrust to the left of the victim), with the exception of a couple of death sequences. The scene progression is often non-linear. The dialogue is boring, and unfortunately it takes up far too much of the film. This film had a very low budget and it shows. I often wondered while watching this movie, if they even auditioned the child actors (most were terrible at their job). The ending, however, is pretty good and totally unexpected. If I ever see this movie again it will be for the ending and/or attempting to understand some of the references and concepts displayed in the film's dialogue.

Not recommended, even for most Troma fans.",0 "I just got back from the con movie/drama/mystery/romance/comedy, The Brothers Bloom, and I got to tell you, it's one of the best films so far this year. Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo are excellent as brothers Bloom and Steven. As kids, they were troublemakers getting kicked out of orphan homes because of their appalling behavior. As a kid, Bloom falls in love with a girl. As kids, Bloom and Steven only talked to each other. When Steven realizes Bloom cannot talk to her, he plans a con with the first step being Bloom talks to the girl. Steven ends up making money off this con. Fast-forward to adulthood. Steven thinks up brilliant cons which Bloom participates in. The great thing about the cons in this movie is that the cons are brilliant, but unlike most con movies, the cons are believably brilliant. Rachel Weisz is hilarious as the wacky Penelope, a woman who collects hobbies. When Bloom talks to her, he figures out she has some amazing talents. She participates in the con. The twist is Penelope does not know they are participating in a con. Rinko Kikuchi (she played Chieko Wataya in Babel) is excellent in her almost wordless role as Steven's personal assistant, Bang Bang. This is a fantastic movie with a fantastic mix of genres and a lot of great performances. This movie has something for everyone, so no matter what you do, go see it.",1 "I didn't like this one. It's based on a very interesting idea, that the enormity and complexity of the universe can be reduced to a single, simple equation. Nowadays they'd build a whole series around that concept. Unfortunately that idea got lost in an impenetrable storyline that left me decidedly flummoxed by end credits. Let me admit right here that a big part of my attraction to the X-Files is its plot contrivances and normally vague resolutions. I think anyone who really likes the show must feel the same way, especially if you stayed tuned in through the last couple seasons. But this episode takes the usual confusion associated with the program to another level. I would wager anything that none of the actors, Gillian Anderson, Annabeth Gish, nor Robert Patrick (and certainly not Burt Reynolds), could make heads or tails of this mess if you asked them about it, even as they were shooting it. In fact, I would challenge even the writers of the show to articulate exactly what's going on here. You see, I cannot give any concise summary of the episode because its impossible. Of course I did rather enjoy the playful tone of the episode. However it would take a lot more charm than Mr. Evening Shade could ever offer to distract from the inanity of the plot. Actually I don't know if I should even call it a plot. And I doubt anyone disagrees because to this point no one else has posted anything about 'Improbable'. For fans willing to sit through the episode it's hard to acknowledge how bad it is.",0 "What a stupid,non-funny comedy! The twins are bad in their characters and the jokes are stupid and vulgar. When starting watching a near movie, you don't have great expectations. But at the end of the movie, you think you were dreaming during the whole time...about two losers who are the twin's bodyguards. That is the story...what about the actors...They are bad too. With only one child, it would be a bit less stupid, but for this one two times more bad jokes. I give it 0out of *****.",0 "Oh my gosh, I loved this movie. I highly recommend that everyone see it. It was absolutely wonderful. I plan to add it to my collection of videos. It was truly inspiring, heartfelt, moving, emotional, and clean. Definitely a movie worth watching with friends, family or just by yourself. It certainly sends out a true message of hope & love for all of mankind. That everyone and anyone can experience the true ultimate gift. I know it will touch the heart of all who watch it and give hope to everyone out their that a persons heart can really change when love, which is given to us by God because He first loved us, is practiced and felt in our lives. I thank God for His ultimate sacrifice and His free gift of salvation. I hope one day all with understand God love and how powerful it truly is in ones life. God Bless.",1 "I admit it, I rented this film because Billy Campbell is in it, but it was a disappointment. I won't say it was a huge disappointment, as I wasn't expecting much, I still found it to be plodding and boring. Outrageously funny? I can't imagine where or how. Don't waste your time with this one.",0 "I loved the book by Phillipa Gregory. I was so excited when I heard they were making it into a movie - and with such wonderful actors... well, I can't even begin to describe how disappointed I was.

The movie is absolutely nothing like the book. The whole tone of the story is changed! The actors weren't bad. Natalie Portman actually gave a wonderfully commanding performance. But I could not get beyond the comparison of movie vs. book. And the movie was just simply awful. It was extremely boring at times and left out parts of the story - like what happened with Mary's husband? I know from the book that he died of illness, but that was never addressed in the movie.

Bottom line: this movie should not even share the same title as the book. If you read the book you will be disappointed in the movie.",0 "As no one has yet commented on this piece of trash I think it is my civic duty to warn people not to be tempted by the title into watching this. It is not a horror movie. There is no tension, no frights and very little gore, and that is badly done. I know Ulli Lommel has produced some of worst movies in history but this surpasses even those god awful efforts. Maybe Lommel's parents are to blame for encouraging him or maybe he's just some spoilt rich kid with more money than sense but either way, he should stop making films immediately. I believe the movie is taken from a book called ""Diary of a Cannibal"". I'm intrigued enough by the awfulness of the film to seek out this book and see if it is better. It must be.The entire movie is made up of flashbacks that are, more often than not, repeated over and over. The whole thing looks like it was shot through the bottom of a jam jar and the main actors do nothing of consequence throughout the whole turgid 80 minutes or so. If somebody offers ""Cannibal"" to you for free, don't take it. Just walk away because you will, most surely, regret the experience for the rest of your life.",0 "I first saw this movie back in 1989 with some friends of mine, we were in the habit of going to the video store and TRYING to find a movie none of us had seen. One trip brought us this rare gem. We watched it and were thoroughly amused by this story of Mike Jittlov vs. Hollywood. The stop-motion effects were simply amazing, executed with skill that would make ILM green with envy. The story was funny in a poking-fun-at-Hollywood-and-ourselves kind of way. NOTE: Our rental copy included the movies own hilarious trailer, this trailer does not seem to be included in copies available today (5 YEARS in the making! 5 DAYS in the theaters! ect). Watch it, love it, share it with your friends.",1 "This ought to be frightening, but it isn't. It's just a sequence of U.S. propaganda films about the cold war and The Bomb. There is no commentary and no effort to supply context. The produces just assumed that the propaganda would speak for itself.

This could be outstanding if only it mentioned why these propaganda films were made, what the state of world affairs was at the time, how truthful the propaganda was, how effective it was, and/or any relevancy it might have to modern affairs. What they have now is simply a montage with no insight and nothing new to say.

As it stands, this documentary works only when seen in your history class and followed by a lecture explaining it. I can't give it anything higher than 3 out of 10.",0 "William Keane is a man living in agony.

Our first encounter with him is at the New York Port Authority Bus Terminal. He is desperately trying to locate his six-year-old daughter, abducted some months earlier from the terminal. There is no help or support as he returns daily searching for clues to her disappearance.

As William recklessly walks into traffic, does a line of cocaine, drains a beer in one gulp and accosts a man he believes may be the perpetrator we begin to question his sanity.

Does he have a daughter? If so, has she been abducted? Suspense builds as William begins a friendship with a young woman and her seven-year-old daughter. The woman entrusts Keane with the care of her daughter when she leaves to sort out her marital problems in another city. This turn of events, coupled with William's erratic behavior introduces more questions.

Will he hurt this little girl? Leave her unattended? Confuse her with his own daughter? Director, Lodge Kerrigan could have presented Keane as a one-dimensional character living on the fringes of society, lonely, unstable and isolated. Fortunately he has given us much more to think about in this complex and deeply humane film. The intensity of the plot was sustained by a riveting and unforgettable performance by Damian Lewis (best known for his role in Band of Brothers).

Keane is a powerful character study of a man grappling with profound despair brought on by loss. Mr. Kerrigan obviously has great sympathy for his subject.

I left the theater knowing how easy it would be to inhabit Keane's nightmarish world of insanity if my own daughter disappeared.",1 "Sometimes I have this strange fascination where I have to watch stuff I know I'll hate. I like Jerry O'Connell as a TV actor, but can't think of a film he's been in since Stand By Me that I've liked. I tried watching Tomcats recently and it was(unsurprisingly) awful- very stereotypical and sexist. Then I saw ""Buying the Cow"" on (of all places!) the Oxygen channel and that Jerry O'Connell was in it. I thought, hey, if Oxygen is playing it, it can't be that demeaning to women or perpetuate tired gender stereotypes! Boy was I wrong!

There are probably less than 5 films that I have never finished watching to the end- this is one of them. I usually don't review films without watching the whole thing, but this was just too bad.

I couldn't make it past the homophobic terror scene when the guy thinks he got drunk and slept with a guy -folowing by a pedophilia joke. It could have been a funny scene, but they had to push the envelope from a funny misunderstanding to sheer homophobic panic - he has to be shown vomiting and almost kill himself just to leave - and then if that wasn't tasteless enough, they added a scene where he's mistaken for a pedophile!

Sexism, homophobia & pedophilia jokes do NOT make for a good movie! AVOID AT ALL COSTS!",0 "I watched it on DVD. I can't imagine this raw turkey ever being in a theater. The entire film should be in ""deleted scenes"" or the gag reel. I thought in the early scenes that I was being set up for a gag. Unfortunately the only gag was the reflex I experienced while watching. Poor George Kennedy. To have been in some great movies with some legendary characters, to end up in this film school exercise. I hope he was paid much more than the role demanded. Unfortunately, he should have paid the producer to leave his scenes on the cutting room floor. This may be a cult classic some day. Wait until it becomes funny to watch it. On second thought, find it, watch it, and be on the cutting edge when it becomes popular. Just don't pay for it.",0 "Cheap, silly porno spoof of Flash Gordon. Flesh and Dale Ardor with Dr. Felix Jerkoff (ho ho) go to the planet Porno (where else?) and face off against the evil Wang and try to get...something. I don't know. I got bored and fell asleep.

I saw the extended DVD version. There's no hardcore stuff but tons of nudity, a fairly explicit lesbian sequence and (surprisingly) a gay sequence! The jokes are all terrible, stupid sound effects are heard throughout, lousy music and terrible acting across the board. And, seriously, Jason Williams really should of worked out more seeing he's nude most of the time and is the hero. This movie thinks it's really funny--but it isn't.

There is some excellent stop-motion animation monsters here but they're pretty brief and not enough to save the movie.

Might be funny if you're dead drunk. Rock bottom--DO NOT SEE!!!!",0 "This is set in a small railroad town, and follows the exploits of a preacher. The preacher's congregation appears to be a bunch of thoughtless, accident-prone people who seem to hate getting hurt but can't stop themselves from doing bodily harm to themselves. Pretty bad acting and boring narration shoot this one down.",0 "I did not know what to expect when I rented this DVD I was intrigued by the write up on the cover. Well I thought that the story in general was very appropriate after what has happened in Asia and the war in Irac. I think that people are very much unaware of what is going on in these countries and it is too easy to sit and watch CNN and SKY and say what a shame and then switch off and go on with their lives (Me Included). I thought that the movie was very real and the fact that there was a love story made it even more real because I'm sure that there are many real aid workers who have experienced the same things. It makes fore more excitement with all the different countries and situations. Showing us that it is not only a problem isolated to one country or one race of people. This movie made me sit up and think about the situations of the World and my own Country. I say thank you to the the actors (Angelina Jolie; Clive Owen),directors,writers,crew and all the folks involved in the making of this movie. Well Done. I believe all the persons who had something bad to say about this movie, need to take another good look and check to see if they actually have a heart beating in their chest. They are probably last or NEVER in line to give a donation to a good cause. I thank you all for listening.",1 "Naturally, I would hate this movie, because Eddward Furlong is in it. Sadly, that isn't the only reason this sucks. The acting is crap, the plot is forgettable and horror is cheesy. The fact that there is too much violence and not enough atmosphere ruins this movie (the first one sucked too).

I obviously wouldn't recommend this movie to any one with a sense of taste for movies. The actors are awful! (especially Edward Furlong) This movie really just seems like an excuse to desensitize people to violence.

In closing, this movie is pretty lowsy and deserves to be on the bottom 100. If you like movies with strong plots and powerful acting, don't waste your time with this.",0 "This is one of the great movies of all time.... on par with = The Graduate = .... It had a major influence on teenage girls who saw it in the '60's.

We constantly joked about the guys we had locked up in our own attics! Of course, it was the other way around... Each girl had 7 or 8 guys locked in her attic, and the fact that a couple of us actually had bedrooms in the attic made the joke even funnier.

I don't know why I have not seen this film since it came out in 1968, but I really wish someone would bring it back.

Even to this day, my friends and I joke about our attics, in the same way that we joked about the Ford that was mentioned in The Graduate (of course, that reference didn't last quite as long as the ""attic"".)",1 It is not often that you find a grand movie with all the super stars plain unwatchable but K3G is one such movie. The reason is plain and simple: almost everything about this movie is fake.

The movie talks about loving your parents but throughout it is impossible not to feel that all emotions have been manufactured. There is a complete lack of realism and people seem to cry at every available opportunity.

The scene where all children at school (including British) sing the Indian national anthem is one of the worst scenes in a very long time. It was so cheap and you feel like asking what is going on?

The movie is just all gloss. There is no substance or soul.,0 "When I read the synopsis and saw that it was made from a play I wondered ""How will they work into a story about a project the requisite themes of repressed women, depressed women, teenage angst, and a guy struggling w/ homosexuality but then giving in?"" They do that, and so much more. Here's how: A white male architect built a project some years earlier. It's falling apart (maybe) and is dangerous.

A black woman lives there with her unwed-mother daughter. Her other daughter is an honor student and lives elsewhere. The woman heads up a group to destroy the project. Her 5-year-old son was depressed and stepped off a building to his death years earlier. The honor student comes to visit; mom gives her some homemade cake; the daughter throws it away later.

The architect's son comes home from college, makes some comments about his sisters sn*tch (his word) and his dad's lechery; then he goes to the project where he meets a gay black kid. They flirt; the son is repelled; but he gets some beer and comes back; they walk around the project at night through gang members selling drugs. The gang members don't taunt them. After much dialogue about gay things, they have (explicit) sex on a rooftop.

The 15-year-old daughter is beautiful, has a nice body, seems stable. But she's depressed because she has to go to the mall with her parents. Maybe she also has too many clothes or shoes. Or her breasts are too big.

She lies that she's in college, goes to a bar, gets picked up, gets scared, is saved by a ~35-year-old delivery guy; they ride around all night in the delivery truck, she comes on to him, he says no and takes her home.

The architect's wife is depressed - her BMW is too new, her custom house too clean and neat, her maid too careful, she has too much money - it's hard to tell. She starts breaking flower pots in the back yard at night and stares into space. The architect puts cigarette ashes on a saucer; she breaks the saucer; he gives her a neck rub; she asks for a divorce.

The black kid steps off the roof - perhaps he didn't realize that being gay meant being gay? The son goes out to the project. The architect goes out for a different reason. None of the gang members bother them, even though they've been threatening others. They meet on the rooftop.",0 "A blend of old-world atavism and crystal clear imagery, compounded with lush art direction and stirring music, Asoka is a haunting journey into the life of India's greatest emperor. The film is extremely stylish in its mix of Indian aesthetic and contemporary simplicity which reflects in the art direction by Sabu Cyril and pleasing costume design. The performances throughout the film are spot on with Shah Rukh Khan ruling the roost once again with his stupendous and sincere portrayal of Asoka, his myriad emotions and thoughts shining like a mirror in every frame. Kareena Kapoor as Kaurwaki makes a beautiful and sensuous princess, commanding the screen with a presence, that few of her contemporaries can rival. The highlight of the movie is of course the surreal envisioning of the Great War of Kalinga, which is breathtakingly choreographed with a scale that could stand in good stead with some Hollywood films. Technically, Asoka has few rivals. The cinematography is A-class and the editing crisp. Sivan's script is tightly woven with moments of passion and intrigue erupting at regular intervals keeping the viewer gripped. For all practical purposes Asoka is a winner, and comes through in style mesmerizing the audience with its spectacular visuals and searing their souls with its haunting portrayal of truth.

",1 "saw this at a friend's house, but it was not that easy to stay focused.

What a load of cramped, un-original metawhores leaching off of the universe of intelligent storytelling.

I suppose if I HAD seen any SG-1 episodes apart from the very first, I would know what the hell anybody was talking about! But as trivia on this piece says: Should 'ave been final ep in season 7... - sure thing! Anybody being introduced into the universe of the SG-series at s07 would expect to feel left out at least some of the time. Or, as the case was for me, ALL of the time! Why is it that anything bad just goes on and on and on, while good stories are killed in mid-flight: Firefly, Surface, Invasion etc etc etc? ""The lowest common denominator"" is not a valid explanation. It HAS to be a conspiracy, TV-network-bosses secretly meeting to pool information about their teenage children's progress in the are of independent thinking - if they collectively show an increase in self awareness, TV-mommies and daddies will automatically cancel shows their children like and commission extra seasons of the ones that bore them. To keep them dull and witless...

Hot damn, I am annoyed! This pile of garbage does not even satisfy the cravings of a feverish rainy Synday.

Even if it was pleasant to reacquaint oneself with Mr and miss Farscape. But the director killed their few and funny lines with Humpty-Dumpty off-beat editing, and the scriptwriter obviously did not care about anything but the main story lines and just employed a few stereotypic remarks from the great and unfunny book of one-liners to make it seem as if anyone but the set designers and the stuntmen had anything to do one this show...

No, please - I'm not done yet. There was one good thing about it, yes, most definitely. No, two, actually: The initial flight in-between mountains lasting some 3-4 minutes with no speak or anything was pretty, and... everything was done in colour. Yes. I believe that's it.",0 "Don't waste your time... I couldn't even finish watching this annoying crap... Claims on the advertising for this ""film"" claim it's a unique look at a gay relationship? Again, gay men are really women, so turn them into transvestites... Who writes this garbage? How about Ugly, meets Ugly..?",0 "I've been watching quite a few ho-hum films lately and this one doesn't quite reach even that status.

We are first assured that this movie is 100% factual, and I guess it came close. I see how the story of a criminal couple on a short crime spree sold tabloid newspapers, but it just didn't make an interesting movie. It aspires to a forties look, but is too ninetiesh for me.

The acting is okay, but no outstanding performances. Directing...well, not very good. Scrept's sorta blah.

There's maybe one good though lurid scene in this and that isn't enough to make sitting through the movie to see.",0 "After a brief prologue showing Ann Leatherbee (""1940's Girl"" Leighann Belair) and her mother, Abigail (""Old Lady"" Douglas Gibson), nonchalantly sitting/standing over a dead body, we move 40 years into the future, when seven feisty young adults arrive at the same house to fix it up. Mark (also played by Gibson) has purchased the home at a steal because of its disturbing past, which he isn't aware of. Of course, this is the stereotypical haunted house film set-up. Dead Dudes in the House combines its supernatural haunted house horror with a slasher plot and entities that are a cross between zombies and ghosts. The story progresses as you'd expect given those elements. Yes, it's derivative, but anyone who knows me well knows I do not subtract points for that. The ""Cult of Originality""--which valued the unprecedented over all else, and which really only came to the fore in the later 1800s--was a mistake in my opinion.

Still, when astute readers notice that my rating for a film like this is higher than or the same as my ratings for films like Constantine (2005), Mulholland Drive (2001), Predator (1987), Ichi the Killer (Koroshiya 1, 2001) and Donnie Darko (2001), they (maybe rightly) wonder, ""What is going on? How can you say that Dead Dudes in the House is as good or better than (fill in your favorite film that you think I underrated here)?"" It's important to remember that my ratings (as well as many other critics', I suspect) are not meant as comparative to other films, as if they're all on an even playing field, trying out for shortstop on the same team. My ratings are comparative, but to a number of other factors. First I consider how well the film managed to do what it set out to do, making concessions only for unavoidable limitations (these include budget constraints and historical/technological limitations); I see the film itself as defining what it wants to do. Secondly, I consider the value I got from the film--including entertainment value, other aesthetic value and so on. The last factor is importance in a historical/cultural milieu. This is given far less weight, partially because it's not so directly related to what's on the screen, and partially because this is impossible to ""measure"" for most newer films; this last factor also only tends to help ratings; I don't really subtract any points for cultural/historical _unimportance_. It's also helpful to remember that I begin all films at a 9 (an ""A""), and then score up or down accordingly.

Understanding this, I believe that Dead Dudes in the House does a very good job accomplishing what it wants to accomplish, although there are a couple small blunders--enough to subtract a point. I also got a lot of value out of it. It's entertaining, often funny (sometimes unintentionally), there is some surprisingly good cinematography, the premise is handled (meaning directed, written, and so on) extremely competently, the death scenes are well done and creative, and the performances range from bizarrely good (in this context) to entertainingly bad (often from the same actor).

Writer/director/producer/coffee-maker James Riffel, who unfortunately only recently managed to complete another film, 2004's Black-Eyed Susan, knows exactly what he's shooting for and easily gets it. The goal was to create a slightly tongue-in-cheek 1980s-style (the film was actually made in the late 80s--the copyright date on the end credits is 1988, and the title of the film is given as The Dead Come Home) gore-comedy slasher, achieving the necessary isolation by locking the ten little Indians in the haunted house and gaining ghouls to enable variety by letting dispatched characters become zombie-like menaces.

Partially because of this set-up, the dialogue tends to be ridiculous, well written, unintentionally hilarious and scathingly satirical, often all at the same time. Most of the major characters fit that set of adjectives as well, especially Bob (Victor Verhaeghe), the carpenter, and Abigail Leatherbee, the ""old lady"". Bob is usually given the best lines, and Verhaeghe turns in one of the most entertaining performances. The extended scene when the ""kids"" first arrive at the house and try to start fixing it is a gem. The funniest aspect, perhaps, is that Bob is not that far removed from a couple carpenters and construction workers I've known in the past.

But the gore is also very well done. In a movie like this, that is extremely important. The only other important aspect that Riffel misses is gratuitous nudity, but there isn't a huge female cast, and it's not always easy to acquire gratuitous nudity for low-budget film-making like this (I'd suspect this was more akin to a ""guerilla"" film).

As for cinematography, Riffel actually anticipates a number of more recent genre stylistic tendencies, such as monochromaticism and chiaroscuro night scenes. There's also an extremely important and attractive shot that breaks the monochromaticism in the dénouement, right before the obligatory and welcomed doom-laden ""tag"". This is using cinematography as symbolism in a way akin to such well-respected films as Equilibrium (2002)--something less broad minded folks act surprised to encounter in a ""clichéd little shocker"" like Dead Dudes in the House.

By the way, Dead Dudes in the House was recently released on DVD through Troma's Toxie's Triple Terror series. It's interesting to note how many films in that series feature transvestite characters. Is it time we ask just what kind of undergarments Lloyd Kaufman is wearing? Does he have something in common with lumberjacks?",1 "One of the great things about the internet having become a semi-official film distribution channel is it giving people the chance to view films they never otherwise would have had a chance to see, particularly first time film-makers and those trying to make a name for themselves.

Little Erin Merryweather would fall into that category for me. I have no idea how writer, director and actor in this piece David Morwick, feels about his film being available in the high quality divx format on the internet, but maybe he should be glad, as it will create an audience for his work it's unlikely he would have had any other way.

With the constraints of first time film making, especially lack of experience, it is always good to focus on the positives in reviewing these films. You will of course expect mistakes and it is a measure of the films success in how far the positives outweigh the negatives.

Little Erin Merryweather succeeds abundantly in scoring positives.

Already mentioned in its reviews here are its art work and photography, they're beautiful. Beautiful photography is always an asset to good story telling and in this case, along with the art work, ties in especially well with the theme of the fairy story within a story.

That theme itself is another plus for LEM. The genre is turned on its head by it's rewriting of Little Red Riding Hood and I like the idea that that was played with. Also clever was the fact that the film doesn't allow it's self to be neatly categorised into any one genre, and that too is a strength that lends originality.

All in all (and given that it had just turned midnight on Halloween!) I enjoyed watching LEM. However there always has to be negatives in criticising too! What puzzles me with LEM, given how much Mr Morwick got superbly right for a first film, is that it's actually quite silly things that let him down.

The policeman and his intervention was very, very unrealistic. I realise there were budget constraints, but if a serial killer has killed three people in three days, there will be more than one police officer involved, who will not just be sharing information with a college lecturer.

A small point maybe, but it made the last twenty minutes of the film seem more contrived and the eventual denouement a bit silly. I think he could have waited until further into the film before Erin's identity were revealed and that would have helped maintain tension for longer. If I had to sum up LEM's flaws, it would be that if explored just a bit more deeply, it's story would have had a great deal for nuance and subtlety to give up and that it would have elevated the film from excellent to something really special. Where Mr Morwick scores B+ here, you feel he definitely has the potential for A's.

Still, given its freshness and originality, I'm glad I spent the time with Little Erin Merryweather; it has a lot to recommend it.",1 "When ""King Kong"" was being remade in the mid-70's, a Korean company decided to cash in on the remake and produce their own version, in 3-D yet!!! Yeah, that'll show DiLaurentiis a thing or two. As bad as the Kong remake is, ""A*P*E"" is considerably worse. He's just another man in a monkey suit smashing cardboard sets and doing battle with a toy-tank army while clutching the pretty blonde heroine (Joanna Karns of ""Growing Pains"", then going by the name Joanna De Varona, and who can blame her for changing her name after this one). There is an embarrassment of riches here, but my favorite is where the army is shooting missiles at the big monkey, and he (and I am not making this up) GIVES THEM ALL THE FINGER!!!!! After having endured an hour and a half of this turkey, I leaned toward that sentiment myself.",0 "by Dane Youssef

""AFTER HOURS"" is a surrealistic experience. It's also one of Scorsese's lesser-known gems and as far as I'm concerned, everything the man has so much as ever sneezed on is a gem. I know that sounds very sad and slavishly faithful, (but keep in mind that the man has a great reputation for spinning cinematic gold with about everything he does). I know I sound like some kind of medication and therapy, but to that, I simply ask you all: Has the man ever made a bad movie?

Many have complained that pretty much all of his movies are kinda the same. ""Mean Streets,"" ""Raging Bull,"" ""Casino"" and ""Taxi Driver.""

Griffin Dunne is Paul Hacket, a computer programmer who is just going through the motions and has an empty social life. He strikes up a conversation with a nice lady named Marcy (Rosanna Arquette) at a local restaurant over a novel they've both read. Words are exchanged. So are looks. She seems interested. He's hooked.

And from the split-second he gets into that cab, the nightmare begins. The cab blows like mad through the busy streets of downtown SoHo. And after his transportation money literally goes out the window, so do Paul's chance of getting home. He has no idea how deep he's in. At first, it just seems like he's the victim of some bad luck.

He encounters a lot on those dark streets after hours. Unpleasant night owls, severe misunderstandings and eventually the next thing he knows, poor Paul is running for his very life.

He encounters a lot on those dark streets after hours. Unpleasant night owls, severe misunderstandings and eventually the next thing he knows, poor Paul is running for his very life.

Now many of you may be asking, ""Is it a comedy? Is it a drama? Is a thriller? Is it a horror show?"" Yes.

It's... it's like a dream about something that really happened to you. It all plays out like a dream about ""the strangest night of my life...."" And everyone's had that one long, weird night where they were stranded somewhere.... just stuck. No money, no ride. And all the weirdos and sickos all come out from their hiding-places.

""They only come out at night,"" as they say.

I don't want to give too much away because this is a movie where surprise after surprise. There's a whole domino effect here as everything leads to a big final act where we fear for Paul and his safety, and our own. Because it feels like we have become Paul.

The movie features a first-rate all-star cast. Rosanna Arquette, Verna Bloom, Tommy Chong, Linda Fiorentino Teri Garr, John Heard, Cheech Marin, Catherine O'Hara, Dick Miller, Will Patton, Robert Plunket and Bronson Pinchot.

This is the most surprising thing to come from Martin Scorsese. Scorsese has been somewhat pigeon-holed as a director, making usually historical bio-pics about true-life Jewish/Itallian Immigrants growing up in the Bronx and embarking on a life of crime. Always operatic, always rich with detail. ""After Hours"" is the arrival of a new Scorsese. One who shows a frightening ""what if?"" story in the Big Apple involving anyone with a big-city nightlife.

If it wasn't for Scorsese's name in the credits, you'd never guess he was at the helm. You'd never imagine in a million years he ever had anything to do with the project. He uses a quiet, subtle feeling the movie has when it's... ""too quiet"" and the pumped-up feeling during the more intense dramatic scenes.

Scorsese is a master of suspense, mood and timing. The fact that the Academy continues to pass him for an Oscar time and time and time again is not only annoying. It's downright offensive. We all know too damn well that the Academy bases Oscars all on politics. Well, as far as I'm concerned, Scorsese has played by all the rules. His films are very well-made and intellectual. They have a graceful operatic feel to them. They are often all-too historically accurate bio-pics.

And it uses it. Every actor is perfectly cast. Everyone is allowed to stand out in a big way without being too contrived or too cartoonish to be real.

And Scorsese, who's name stands for quality above all others, makes the most of it.

Joseph Minion's screenplay (which he collaborated with Scorsese on) is used for all it's worth. All the characters are quirky, colorful, yet realistic. The dialog is smart and honest without being too unnaturally ""screenwriter-ishly clever.""

And 9 out of 10 New Yorkers who see this movie will smile and nod, ""Yep. That's NYC at night to a T."" Everyone else will be sure to avoid New York like a severe audit. Most people who live outside New York fear the city and plan never to go there.

I imagine this movie will do a lot to complete the trend.

My only real complaint is that Minion should have gotten more credit for his original and winning screenplay. He should have gotten maybe a few more nods from other academies, I'd never seen anything so intriguing and elaborate before. It's not just new. It's smart, fresh, well-crafted and all-too believable.

I know the American Academy would give an Oscar nomination to a film like this, but that's almost a sign of it's greatness. Scorsese gives it a realistic, yet outrageous feel and knows how to let the suspense draw out and build skillfully and Joseph Minion has written himself a little bitty treasure. I just wish he'd write so much more.

Still, this is a home run on every account. I say this and mean it: YOU ALL MUST SEE THIS MOVIE. Ask for it by name: ""After Hours.""

by Dane Youssef",1 "That is about the best thing I can say about this little Roger Corman flick about female prison escapees looking for diamonds in the swamp. And trust me that is about all there is to the plot, except one of them is a undercover policewoman and they come across a couple going to examine oil wells or something. Of course, it starts out with these two plots separate, but you know they are headed for a wacky collision in the swamp. And speaking of swamp, man there are a lot of shots of swamp in this one. This movie is not very long, but it still seems long as the scenes just all feel the same. I am wondering how the heck anyone can know the exact place something is buried out there when they haven't been there for three years. Still though you get to see gals in shorts and an alligator attack scene...wow, talk about action. Though after the one girl was killed by an alligator her boyfriend didn't seem all that upset. Well with a film of this kind you basically know what is going to happen so nothing to thrilling to be seen except for those shorts.",0 "I had to comment, because this piece of Chimp dung finally replaced ""Mannequin 2"" as my personal worst movie of all time, as well as replacing ""Blame it on the Bellboy"" as last movie I physically could not watch all the way through. I made it to the big date, and past ""cut week"" and the chimp and neighbor girl were doing something with food, but I have no idea just how long the thing would go on. Bad script, bad sports, bad effects (not so much bad digital effects but incomprehensible ones- what was the deal with the dollar signs in the owner's eyes? I know that the guy couldn't act, but still- let him put on his greed face that he'd been practicing in the mirror)

I kept hoping that Matt LeBlanc, who I love on ""friends"", and liked in ""Lost in Space"" had agreed to do this before he had a going career, like Jennifer Aniston and ""Leprechaun."" But there was a scene where the chimp was watching ""Friends""! I shudder to think how much LeBlanc must have been paid to be in this bomb. I hope for his sake, it was a lot.

And just one comment on the Chimp outfit- couldn't they have somehow disguised the relative size of its head? I know that there were people under the mask, but with the chimp head on, it looks like the cranium is half again the volume of Matt LeBlanc's! A chimpanzee with a brain that size would certainly be smarter than anybody involved in this film. Oh well. A thoroughly hideous experience, gave me a severe migraine, and remembering it now sickens me.",0 "A criminal called ""The Bat"" roams around the mansion house of Cornelia (Grayce Hampton) looking for a secret room with hidden money. We have seen that he has no problem in killing anyone that comes in his way at the beginning of the film but we don't know his identity. A cast of characters appear at the mansion and the story is a ""who-dunnit"" mystery............. so, who is ""The Bat""..?....

The film starts well but unfortunately, it goes downhill when the action switches to the mansion house. This is largely due to the overbearingly dreadful maid Lizzie (Maude Eburne) who plays everything for humour and just never succeeds. She is VERY irritating. Of course, one irritating unfunny character isn't enough so we are introduced to 2 more! A butler/house-keeper type who also plays for humour and fails and a detective (Chance Ward) who is also very annoying and very unfunny. These 3 characters are a big part of the reason why this film is rubbish. The other is the story which is dull and complicated and I found myself watching a totally confusing mess. The only good things about the film are some of the camera shots and Grace Hampton who plays her role well.

They stick an epilogue on at the end of the film which is really tacky. This film is not good.",0 "Set in the politically turbulent Paris of the1970s, ""Blame it on Fidel"" tells of a sheltered young girl who has her comfortable bourgeois existence ripped away from her after her staid, conformist parents (Julie Depardieu, Stefano Accorsi) suddenly become born again leftist radicals. Anna is forced to give up the home she loves and the nanny she adores when her father quits his job in order to dedicate himself full time to fighting for the proletariat against the repressive corporate powers of the world. The family moves from their spacious home in the country to a cramped apartment in the city, which is often filled with bearded revolutionaries who utter strange catch-phrases in barely audible whispers.

Thanks to a thoughtful script and sensitive direction, ""Blame it on Fidel"" manages to provide a compelling child's-eye view of the adult world. Incapable of grasping the ""big picture"" as her parents see it, Anna knows only that the family is now woefully short on cash (she runs around the house flipping off light switches and heaters to save electricity), and that her mother and father are so preoccupied with their ""cause"" that Anna and her little brother (the adorable, scene-stealing Benjamin Feuillet) seem to have been relegated to mere afterthoughts in their parents' tremendously busy lives. In a performance rich in insight and wisdom and utterly un-self-conscious in tone, nine-year-old Nina Kervel-Bey brings to life a character who often doesn't fully understand what's going on in the world around her but who never gives up trying to figure it all out. For a good part of the time, Anna is torn between childish curiosity and an indefinable sense of shame regarding her parents' newfound activities. Yet, through keen observation and endless questioning, and the eventual piecing together of the many unfiltered fragments that come floating her way, Anne is finally able to come to some kind of understanding, however imperfect, of the much larger world community of which she is only a very small but crucial part.

Despite the inherently ideological nature of the material, writer/director Julie Gavras, the daughter of famed filmmaker Costa-Gavras, keeps most of the political stuff in the background while she concentrates on the strain the grownups feel as they strive to juggle their save-the-world activities with their duties as parents.

Add to this some excellent performances by a talented cast and a rich, flavorful score by Armand Amar and ""Blame it on Fidel"" becomes a film well worth checking out. In this her second venture as a director, Ms. Gavras has done her old man proud.",1 "I Mademoiselle Fifi to be something new. I think 30 minutes of the film take place in a stagecoach with a group of people who try to be as mean and nasty to each other as possible. A lunch provided by a peasant woman brings them all together. If this were a play this would be Part 1.

The rest of the film is about kicking Prussians (stoic Germans) out of France. It is a resistance film, appropriate for the year 1944 when it was made. If you liked ""The Return of the Scarlet Pimpernel"" well... this is a more interesting film than that was.

Most old movies are interesting to me because I feel I can learn something by observing the indirect attitudes of the media/generation of the time. I find many subjects now are taboo and we are not allowed to discuss them anymore via the media. I don't fault how things are now or were then. This is just how the media works- it is human nature to reflect biases of the time. This is definitely the case with this film.

I liked it. It is worth watching once.",1 "Despite the summary above, this film actually does have some saving graces - 3 of them. Well, if you're a young male, that is...

It's not worth talking about the plot of this film, there isn't one. It's not worth talking about the acting, there isn't any; not even from Robert Englund, who (frankly) ought to know better.

However, young men take note: There are 3 pairs of deliciously natural-looking breasts on display at various points in the film. All totally unnecessary for the furtherance of the (non-existant) plot, but nice to see anyway...

Oddly enough, if you're willing to ignore 1h29m of drivel, the final twist at the end actually bears a semblance of originality. Also, watching Jerry Trimble apeing Kurt Russell (albeit badly) is a hoot!

If this film could be awarded zero stars, frankly that'd be all it deserved. One star is way to generous, but as that's the minimum I can give it, that's what it's got.",0 "This marvelous 1950 film deals with 3 women who gave up their baby boy for adoption. 5 years later, the child is involved in a plane crash that killed his parents. Each of the women believe that the boy is theirs.

Patricia Neal, as one of the women, is a hard-nosed reporter. As with the others, the film goes back to show the situation that would lead them to give up the baby. Neal had divorced her husband only to learn that she was a reporter. A career woman, she could never care for a child or hold on to her marriage.

Then there is Ruth Roman who went to prison for killing her boyfriend. The latter wanted her to have an abortion when she told him of her pregnancy.

Eleanor Parker is a sweet woman who gave up an illegitimate child and is now happily married. You're rooting for Parker to be the mother. She can provide the boy with the proper upbringing. True, it will mean that she will have to tell her husband about her past, but she can provide the right nurturing environment.

Of course, the 3 women will come to the mountain area where the boy is in the plane. Neal will have to use her paper connections to get to who the real mother is.

As a reader, please connect to this film via your video store. It's well worth the trip.

Naturally, each of the women",1 "Slick, flashy film, a semi-remake of Luc Besson's ""Taxi"" from 1998, here Americanized as an urban action-comedy. Queen Latifah plays smart-mouthed cabbie with a souped-up vehicle in New York City who inadvertently partners with stumble bum cop Jimmy Fallon to crack a major crime case. Film should have relied more on Latifah's natural sass and less on Fallon's white-bread, dim-witted act (race is a constant punchline in the script, and Fallon is just there as Exhibit A). Jennifer Esposito is wonderful as a no-nonsense police lieutenant, Ann-Margret is a stitch as Fallon's tippling mother, and John Sierros (Broadway actor shamefully credited as 'Fat Cop') shines as a bamboozled police officer, but what happened to Queen Latifah? She gets a few good cracks in, but there's no character here for her to play; she sticks to her sarcastic persona and puts everyone down, but her role is depressingly one-dimensional. Comedy has a fast pace, impressive cinematography (although the swooping crane shots in traffic get repetitive) and some good car chases, but the screenplay needed an overhaul. ** from ****",0 "Life can be tough when you are a resurrected French vampire maiden. Especially so when you crave a constant supply of ready fresh blood. Fortunately the vampire in this film has her trusty blood-sister to help her out and keep those bothersome American tourists away from the castle. Overall this is a fairly typical ‘Salvation Films' release with the mandatory candle lit atmospheric scenes. Worth a look, I reckon.",1 "England's most notorious serial killer - the fictional Leo Rook - stalks castaways at a desolate lighthouse in this surprisingly eerie chiller from Britain. Very atmospheric and very gory, as the gaunt killer (Charles Adamson) hacks his way through the supporting cast, comprised of his former keepers and cellmates. Pretty scary stuff despite director Simon Hunter's formulaic ""stalk 'n' slash"" approach. Heads will roll (a total of six, I believe) before the explosive ending.

Even a jaded horror fan like me found plenty of nerve-wracking sequences to enjoy -- especially the lighthouse toilet scene. So, by all means, grab your rowboats and head for the mainland before Leo Rook catches up with you.",1 "****SPOILERS**** Superior crime drama set in South Florida during it's ""mean season"" when the winds pick up and the storms and hurricanes come rolling in and with them rolls in a serial killer who's more interested in publicity for his crimes then his victims who are a result of them.

Coming back from a vacation in Colorado Miami Journal reporter Malcolm Anderson, Kurt Russell, is assigned to the murder of teenager Sarah Hooks, Tamara Jones, who was found dead by the beach that morning. A few days after filing the story Malcolm gets a phone call at his desk at the Journal from someone claiming to be Sarah's killer.

Told by the caller a fact that is not known to the public about the crime Malcolm as well as the police officials Ray Martinez & Phil Wilson, Andy Garcia & Richard Bradford, that he got in touch with who were on the case realize that the caller is the real McCoy and begin to tape Malcolm's phone at the newspaper to identify and capture the killer. The killer, in his calls to Malcolm, tells him that he's duplicating a number of killings that he did some time ago and got no recognition for.It's later found out by someone who knew him Albert O'Shaughnessy, William Smith, that his name is Alan Delour, Richard Jordan, and that those killings were in Chicago a number of years ago.

The serial killer wants Malcolm to be his link to the outside world, via his newspaper to prove that he's the one who committing those crimes and tells Malcolm that there will be, like those that he didn't get credit for, five more killings before he's finished. As his murder spree continues it's Malcolm who's getting all the publicity and the killer feels cheated and takes it on on Malcolm for his failure to get him the recognition that he wanted. That leads in the killer kidnapping Malcolm's girlfriend Christine, Mariel Hemingway, and threatens to murder her.

One of the better crime dramas that came out of the 1980's thats smoothly paced and finely acted as the serial killer gets bolder and bolder with each killing to where he unnecessarily exposed himself, to Malcolm, in order to get his ego enhanced.

Malcolm's life becomes a horror as the killer starts to take it out on him for his overshadowing his actions which lead to Christine's kidnapping. Tense suspense murder drama with an unsuspecting ending makes ""The Mean Season"" a modern Film Noir classic.",1 "I am a VERY big fan of Jenna Jameson, but this movie is horrible. At the time Jenna Jameson was married to Brad Armstrong and he was the director of this film and Jenna was the hottest porn star ever. So, of course, Brad tried to make as much money as he could off her by making this big budget porn film. Now I know why they don't make big budget porn movies anymore. In a fantasy world, porn stars could act, but this is the real world and they can't act. That's why there porn stars, if a women as beautiful as Jenna could act, then she would have tried to go into mainstream movies instead of porn. Just because your beautiful doesn't make you a movie star. A fine example of this is Traci Lords, when she was a teen thru her 20's she was one of the most beautiful, sexy women on earth. She made her move into low budget mainstream films and couldn't act. Where is she now? I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 rating just because Jenna is so hot, but there are better movies she has made then ""Dream Quest"". Come on Jenna, we don't want to hear you talk, as much as we want to see you have sex. Also, you Jenna, would have a lot more fans and more money in your bank account if you would have done anal on film.",0 "Considering that this movie was neither made by, nor endorsed by, the LDS church, The Other Side of Heaven is an endearing, uplifting movie that celebrates and pays respect to Mormon missionaries without going too deep into LDS philosophy or beliefs. Produced in part by the same producer who brought us such cinematic gems as Schindler's List and Jurassic Park, Heaven is refreshingly devoid of many ""blockbuster""-style elements and is a very low-key presentation of a young man's struggle to survive, adapt, and succeed in a world far far away from his familiar hometown in Idaho.

In the early 1950's Elder John Groberg from Idaho Falls accepts a call to serve a three-year LDS mission to Tonga. Although he is thrilled and dedicated to his mission call, he is understandably concerned about leaving Jean, the love of his life, in Utah for fear that she will marry somebody else. Yet his faith and determination to do what he believes is right are shown throughout this movie as his motivation to stay through the hardships, the loneliness, and the difficulties that are faced during his mission.

The Other Side of Heaven is essentially a chronicle of Elder Groberg's true life mission. At times spiritual, humorous, frightening, and uplifting, the movie is a tribute to a young man who faced overwhelming odds and setbacks to continually overcome some of the most difficult situations ever beset a young missionary. Throughout the film, Elder Groberg's letters to Jean and her letters back to him keep the film centered on it's true message, that of a man out of place . . . loving where he is, but wishing at the same time, to be home with the others that he loves. And it is this internal struggle which, I am sure, has been faced by every other missionary in history, that gives the movie its depth and emotional quality.

My only criticism of the movie comes from the very brief explanation of the traditions and culture surrounding LDS missionaries and the way in which they receive their calls. For those who are familiar with LDS missions, this should be no problem, but for those viewers who have not been exposed to the process of a Mormon mission, the first 15 or 20 minutes may seem a bit confusing. There is another bit of Mormon tradition which is very poorly explained, but I can't tell you what it is without giving away a fairly poignant moment of the film's ending.

Nevertheless, The Other Side of Heaven is not just a Mormon movie. It is a movie that can be enjoyed and appreciated by people of all faiths (and even those of no faith). Because in the final analysis, this is a movie about the triumph of the spirit and the joys and rewards of fighting for, and doing something, you truly believe in.",1 "This is just the best reality show that there has ever been. Every show they put in a bunch of people and we watch them 24-7. They have to also perform tasks to get their rewards, e.g. shopping, food, booze, fags, etc. It is basically like a pantomime, if you are the biggest character in the house it is more likely that you would win the show and £100,000, and you are booed or cheered. All the other house mates get evicted, it's us that decides who stays and who goes. Recently Big Brother turned evil and produced the best of the series so far in BB5. That is when I started to like it, since BB5 it has still been a great show. BB5 had the courageous winner Nadia, the nudity of Shell and Michelle, the camp Marco, and my favourite Victor, the slick man. BB6 had some okay people including Science, Roberto, Derek, Makosi, Eugene and winner Anthony. BB7 had some fantastic people including Grace, Lea, Nikki, Aisleyne Glyn and winner Pete. I would have loved to have seen Craig Phillips, Nasty Nick Bateman, Brian Dowling, Jade Goody (who returned in Celebrity Big Brother 2007 with Mum Jackiey and boyfriend Jack), Kate Lawler, Alex Sibley and Jon Tickle. Hosted by Davina McCall and Dermot O'Leary, and narrated by Marcus Bentley. Davina McCall was number 95 and Jade Goody number 4 on The 100 Worst Britons, and it has been on all 100 Greatest TV Treats programmes so far. Outstanding!",1 "While I appreciate the possibility of a zombie film from the zombies' perspective, this is not a skillful execution of that good idea. This is a remarkably anti-female movie. From the opening of a man shooting his girlfriend twice to the continued use of ""faggot,"" ""bitch,"" and other ridiculously disempowering words, this is a piece of garbage. The female characters are either weak (the woman who won't let go of the boyfriend who shot and killed her, then continues to hunt and hurt her after she's dead) or absurdly strong (the character that refers to men needing to grow a pair, prove their manliness by killing, etc). There is much to much gender normative and heterosexism in this movie for it to be any good. The main take aways from this movie are that 1.females are weak. 2. men can and should rule females. 3. women are universally cruel or weak.

Terrible.",0 "Jeff Chandler is 'Captain Hawkes' of the 'U.S.S. Belinda' and he doesn't take any crap.

Hawkes wants a taut ship and he'll gladly keel-haul anybody who waxes the wrong floors or throws metal objects across the room. If Hawkes has any short-comings, it's when he brow-beats the men and has half the ship's shore patrol laboriously construct a sailboat for the purpose of building 'morale'. A bit silly at times and Hawkes' head injury is a boringly unwelcome subplot, but ultimately an OK World War II naval drama.

One of Chandler's better performances.",1 "This movie made no sense. One of the major plot points was for the aliens to find children (in the present time) that could ""hear"" them and take them to another world before the cataclysmic end of our planet. So why did they need to appear 50 years ago and leave a cryptic message with dates of varying catastrophes? Just so Cage's character can figure it out and let his kid go? How about all the other ships with other kids? They get their own puzzles? How come the girl who was able to hear them 50 years ago was not part of the expeditionary force but instead was left to suffer for all her life? In other words, everything leading up to the end of the movie was not a necessary element for the ending. No logic here at all and a real downer of a movie. A couple of stars given for special effects (which for the most part had nothing to do with the premise of the movie). Shame, because I almost always like what Nicholas Cage does.",0 "I suspect that some of the reason this film is currently on IMDb's Bottom 100 List (the 100 lowest rated films with at least 1500 ratings) is because of its obvious political agenda. This film is audacious and dares to create a horror film in which an aborted child comes back to literally haunt the lady who aborted it several years later. The idea, though very controversial, is unusual and could have been done well...but this film wasn't done all that well. However, it surely is not among the worst 100--nor, probably, the worst 1000. It's not a very good film but I am pretty sure what you think of it is going to be greatly influenced by your opinions about the morality of an abortion. HOWEVER, I still think it was done badly--and probably will offend people on both sides of the issue. The film just goes way overboard and is, at times, rather sick and nasty--more about this later.

The film begins with a dancer finding out she's pregnant. She has problems--she's unmarried, her lover is already married and she's up for an important lead. So, she gets an illegal abortion that is apparently botched. Three years pass and she's now happily married and pregnant again. However, oddly, she begins seeing and hearing from the dead child she aborted. The concept is daring and could have worked--but the film makers chose to just be sick. At one point, the dead kid walks around playing with what is supposed to be a dead fetus. It's graphic and nasty--and you wonder why! This is unnecessary and gross--and it's sort of like punishing the audience to make them watch it. Had the film backed off in the disgusting imagery, it would have clearly been more watchable. Another problem is that although up until the end you are never sure if the haunting is really the aborted child or just a manifestation of the guilt the lady feels about her past actions, the uncertainty and psychological aspects of the film (the best things about ARAF) are completely done away with--providing an ending that is just too well defined. Leaving the audience wondering would have made for a much, much more interesting film--one that could be debated and discussed once the film was complete. Instead, it's all telegraphed and pat...not a good ending at all.

Overall, due to bad directing and a script with too many problems (the disgusting elements alone are too great), I cannot recommend it. However, just because the film is offensive does not mean it's an altogether horrible film nor does it deserve such a very bad reputation. It's bad...but not THAT bad.",0 "This is one of those flicks that is just inexcusably bad. There have been less than a handful of really good monster movies (""Alien"", ""Aracnaphobia"" and ""Tremors"") in the last quarter century, so no one should expect SciFi Channel movies to be theater quality, particularly their ""Creature Features"". But at least their offerings should rank up there with Maynard G. Krebs' ""The Monster That Devoured Cleveland."" Unfortunately, ""Centipede"" is just rank.

One can usually forgive inept acting and low grade special effects. (I particularly liked the truck load of dynamite that caused a boffo fireball -- but didn't blow up the truck.) These things cost money. But how do you forgive scripts that attempt to create tension by having the protagonists do stupid things rather than by having the antagonist do evil things? Through the last half of the movie, these guys are continually chased by a ""monster"", so instead of running like hell they just as continually hang around until one by one they get caught. These characters are so inept that one wants to cheer for the monster, even if he does look like a latex hand puppet. Oh, it is a latex hand puppet! Personally, I kept hoping the bug would get them all because they all deserve (need) Darwin Awards. Unfortunately, three get away.",0 "Beautifully shot, well performed film. Definitely worth watching.

I saw this movie at the Mill Valley Film Festival. I had no idea what to expect but I was pleasantly surprised. The lead character, upon learning of her terminal diagnosis, systematically kills people who she thinks are ""monsters"": child molesters and the like. The story follows her deteriorating health and mental state as she tries to complete her kills before her time runs out. There were a couple of really great surprises and I loved the ending.

The filmmakers were at the screening and they took questions from the audience. Despite its large commercial feel, this is a truly independent movie (you wouldn't believe the budget if I told you) and it has a great message: What would you do if you only had three months to live?",1 "I love the Inheritance series, but the movie didn't come close. It was done badly. To many key parts were cut out,the ""Razack"" look like something out of a horror movie, the ""urgals"" just look like large men, i didn't even know there were dwarfs until someone told me; the twins, Solembum, and Katrina weren't even mentioned. It just wasn't done to it's full potential. I think it was lame and corny. ex: ""I'm a princess"", ""When will i see you again?"" And the ending was all wrong. It was just bad in my opinion. My suggestion is to just stick with the books, they are so much, well, more. More complex and the characters are more developed, and the story is fuller. There is more to it than the movie shows. I hope the Eragon is redone in the near future and is done better, and it would be great if the characters look how the are described in the book.For example Aray's looks don't fit her personality, which was also changed.",0 "Probably Director Todd Solondz' most mature work to date, Storytelling is split into two parts `Fiction' and `Non-Fiction' - yet similar themes underlie both and pose questions about what we call reality when it comes to prejudice and taboo subjects. Whilst in previous attempts (such as `Happiness') Solondz' work has merely been controversial, in this film he berates political correctness more accurately and more entertainingly. It exposes ridiculous attitudes in the name of political correctness, whether it is the student with an awful essay who almost escapes criticism because he has cerebral palsy, or a black teacher who gets away with being a pervert because his victim doesn't want to entertain thoughts of racism. Nothing is sacred: Jews and the Holocaust also come in for merciless examination. But part of the film involves the story of a `documentary' being made within the main story, by an exploitative screwed up filmmaker who wants to do his own thing in the name of art, so in this sense, Storytelling even turns on itself and questions the validity of using the subject matter that it does. A controversial, worthy, and very entertaining film that stretches your ability to make moral judgements within a convincingly coherent framework.",1 "Damn this movie sucked, never in my lifetime have I been so angry and disappointed after wasting my time watching this piece of junk! It contains nothing but bad acting and a lot of awful effects! There is no plot at all in this movie and the things that the characters experience does not hang together at all. I cannot believe that anyone would rate this movie higher than rating it as awful (must be some kind of ""sympathy act"" if you choose to anyway). I seriously do not wish for anybody to waste money nor time on this movie.

Damn this movie sucked, never in my lifetime have I been so angry and disappointed after wasting my time watching this piece of junk! It contains nothing but bad acting and a lot of awful effects! There is no plot at all in this movie and the things that the characters experience does not hang together at all. I cannot believe that anyone would rate this movie higher than rating it as awful (must be some kind of ""sympathy act"" if you choose to anyway). I seriously do not wish for anybody to waste money nor time on this movie.",0 "My experience with this film was endured without knowing anything about the story ahead of time. It was a jarringly emotional experience, so to preserve that possibility for those who I hope will see it, I will tread gingerly. What I will say is that its structure is the bedrock of its effect. It begins with a pleasant atmosphere, entirely unsuspecting. Then come ominous scenes that the characters seem to pretend to forget afterwards. Then a plunge into an entirely different world indefinitely. Then the initial mood returns without having lost a shred of credibility. Then we return to deep subjectivity of the alternate one, and when we come back, no matter how unchanged the initial setting remains, we are never the same.

Note the title. Sophie's Choice. Then note that it essentially features merely three people, Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline and Peter MacNichol. One's first inclination as to what the title character's choice shall be proves to be a disquieting revelation of what little we've experienced in our lives. What do we know? Whatever the most harrowing or ecstatic of the moments through which we've lived barely scratch the surface of life's possibilities owing to the infinite extent of human nature. The relationship between two of the characters is a testament to what a person can and can't live with, and what a person can't live without. Peter MacNichol's mediating protagonist learns this, and so do we, through him.

When we are his age, we never believe people, no matter how much we respect them or love them, when they tell us that there is so much we don't understand. As the film begins, we are introduced to the two people he happens to meet when he moves to Brooklyn. In spite of our, and his, initial reaction to them, we grow to believe we know and understand them. We have no reason to believe that when they behave, speak and react, they are inventing or denying anything. Upon reflection, the last line we hear Sophie say to the impressionable young central character has no way of indicating her true reason for saying it, whether it's true or false.

All three leads are becoming, deeply realized and even unique in their performances, but Streep deserved all of her acclaim. She truly delivers one of the best portrayals I have ever seen in any dramatic medium. Where she, as I said, neither invents or denies, intimates an authentic facet of human nature's intricacies, more normal and sexy in the early scenes before showing us who Sophie really is. It is a mystery for many how someone speaks in a foreign accent, in this case pivotal to her role, and even speaks the corresponding language, without pretending or affecting, or doing an impression. There is no sign of any seams through which we can glimpse the devil who wears prada or the adventure mom in The River Wild. Without leaning into any extremes, there is hardly an emotion left untackled by Streep in this film.

Sophie's Choice appears as if it might as well be shot with a soft lens, a film whose scaffolding is its Oscar-winning star. I cannot tell you how contrary that appearance is, and how eerily relevant that deception is as analogy to the movie itself. There is a rawness that remains untouched by many filmmakers superior to he who directed this, Alan J. Pakula, who also adapted it from William Styron's novel. Pakula is sneaky. The structure of the film could easily have felt uneven. His visual choices could easily have felt alternately overdone and under. We realize later that a handful of early certain scenes which feel initially like sappy Americana are emotional red herrings. He simply knew, in spite of tried and true conventions, logic or practice, that his vision would work. And it is unqualified cinematic power.",1 This pathetic movie about a talking detective dog shows nothing but contempt of people in general and children in particular. The so-called special effects are mind-blowingly awful as is the whole tone of the film. Along with Forest Warrior with Chuck Norris and Il Professore with Bud Spencer this is the worst film I've ever had the misfortune to see. I give it a dead certain 1 out of 10.,0 "I have read some quite negative reviews of this film, with many being upset by the lack of coherence with the book despite taking it's characterisations etc...I agree that the film does not follow the book particularly well but it is a film, for film watchers, not a book or a film for book readers so stop criticising it on that level. This film is entertaining from start to finish with a surprisingly clever plot considering the genre and credit must go to Ford for starring and excelling in yet another blockbuster. People may say he's not the most versatile actor in the world and I'm not going to disagree, but he does what he does brilliantly and those who don't enjoy this movie really do need a good talking to. Along with Patriot Games, this is part of an impressive set of movies which are far more entertaining than the books (perhaps thats because I'm not an avid reader) and shall keep all you viewers out there happy, if only for a short while.",1 "I completely agree with you. I saw this film at Canne a few months ago and was very surprised that it made it into the film festival. It was by no means up to the quality of the other films in the festival and there was a great deal of shock after the screening from audience members who were really surprised at the less than average quality of the film. I think the film was written by first time screen-writer Alice bell, and it really shows. The script, direction, and performances are really not up to scratch. I agree and was also surprised that this film got commissioned. I have seen some very good Australian films recently, most notably The Proposition and Look Both Ways and was looking forward to yet another quality Australian product. Unfortunately though, Suburban Mayhem just doesn't cut it.",0 "Being a golfer and a fan of the sport for many years, I was very interested in seeing this, which I did when the VHS first came out. Later, I saw it again because of the same reason plus I usually find Glenn Ford's films entertaining.

Well, the story moves well, it didn't bore me, but I did have problems with the accuracy of it and the general theme of the film, telling us that Hogan really was a nice guy who cared lot about what the public thought. From every account I have read, and from a couple of people who met him or knew him, that was not true. The fact is that he was a mean SOB and remained that way most of his life. This movie looks like it was made by his press agent. It's ridiculous and ruins what otherwise is an inspiring story.

No one can deny Hogan's achievements on the links and his incredible desire to win against all odds. The fact he could come back and play after a near-fatal auto accident was amazing....but I would not watch this again because it was too subjective and just not the truth.",0 "I saw this piece of tripe and couldn't believe the mockery of a brilliant yet ruthless legend. Teach deserves more respect, like the portrayal of him in the National Geographic film ""Terror At Sea"". He was inventive, strong minded, and wise up until his brutal death. To betray these traits is offensive to me when there aren't many others who could have held a candle to him and most likely never will. To make some goofy film about the most notorious seaman of all time, especially in the era of Sergio Leone & others is just an embarrassment. I don't mean to be a nerd or defend a man who some may find offensive, but as far as history is concerned (in my own opinion) he was among the most riveting. I feel he was more of a role model than a villain depending on the perspective you take. Any film that takes at shot at a man such as he is a display of ignorance and stupidity. I suggest reading ""Under The Black Flag"" by David Cordingly who writes about Teach using fact, not silliness which only minimizes and belittles the genius of one of the last true men who embraced freedom and had the will & courage to choose his own destiny ""The floggings will continue until morale improves.""",0 "I saw Khamosh Pani on DVD released in India by this firm called Excel Home Videos. Unlike other DVD biggies released (like Parineeta, Dor, 2046, Hero, Moulin Rouge, Ice Age, etc) released by the same firm, Khamosh Pani begins in complete silence. First, there's the firm's logo, then, the warning notice, and then, the main menu. So far, things have progressed in pin-drop silence. I choose the subtitles On option as the film is in Punjabi. I am informed that Kirron Kher won the best actress award at Locarno for her performance in Khamosh Pani. This information, too, comes noiselessly. When no sound emanates from my 5.1 home theater system I begin to panic. My three-hundred-and-forty-nine rupees gone (That is the price of this DVD). And then, Just like my heart beats gaining momentum, some soft music is audible through the speakers. I relax, and as the film proceeds, I understand why it is called Khamosh Pani, and why silence is so much integral to its plot.

The year is 1979. Ayesha (Kirron Kher) is a middle-aged Muslim widow in this village called Charkhi in the Punjab region of Pakistan. She has a teenage son called Saleem (Aamir Malik) who she loves very much. Saleem wishes to marry Zubeida (Shilpa Shukla), an ambitious young girl with dreams of attending a college, getting a job in an office and owning a mixer and a ceiling fan. Ayesha has spent her entire life in silence. There's a secret she's hidden from everyone. A secret, parts of which come to the viewers in the form of some very disturbing images shot in black and white, showing young girls running, screaming, and a really intriguing visual of the round surface of water in a deep well.

There is communal harmony in this village of Muslims and Sikhs, till two strangers from Lahore come to inform the Muslim villagers of the new martial laws laid down by the then President, General Zia-Ul-Haq. Matters are worsened by the arrival of Sikh pilgrims from India who are often teased by some intolerant Muslims of the village. One Sikh man (Navtej Johar) is looking for his elder sister Veero who had gone missing during the Partition in 1947, a time when Sikh, Hindu and Muslim men were killing their own wives, daughters and sisters or were forcing them to kill themselves in order to keep them from being raped by the men of the enemy community as dishonoring the womenfolk of a particular community was seen as the easiest way of dishonoring that community altogether.

In the meanwhile, Saleem, gullible and impressionable youth that he is, has gone neck-deep in his involvement with the two fundamentalists. He has grown a bushy beard, learns to shoot guns, prays regularly, and cannot stand the sight of non-Muslims. Zubeida fails to understand what has gone wrong with the boy who had wanted to marry her, for Saleem starts disapproving of her plans to pursue further studies and earn her own livelihood. To make matters worse, Saleem questions his own mother about her origins.

The performances are commendable. Kirron Kher truly deserves the awards that she's won for Khamosh Pani. Ditto for the other actors. However, what I liked the most is the way this film has been shot. The scenes are grainy, giving the film a very raw look. This is more striking as the film deals with a very strong theme and such raw in-your-face treatment gives the feeling of actually seeing thing live. Here I should make a special mention of the flashbacks, the secrets shot in black and white I was talking about. They are not exactly black & white, they carry a hint of sepia. The visuals in these flashbacks are not very distinct, very much like Ayesha's memories which are old and unclear, yet unforgotten.

The scene showing a a woman standing on the well's edge, with dust billowing all around her, spreading her arms like Christ, is truly haunting.

Another scene that stands out is the one showing a lone Saleem offering Namaaz on the mosque patio. It has been shot in blue (or is it natural moonlight?). The cinematography of Khamosh Pani reminded me of two other movies I've seen -- Lars Von Trier's Breaking the Waves (for the grainy images) and The Ring (for the raw home video-like feel).

Finally, there's one scene which will haunt me for a few more months at least. I can't say too much about it as it might give the plot away. This scene has been done in blue (natural moonlight?). This makes the character appear very ghostly, like an apparition. It's amazing, and to enhance the effect, the scene doesn't last more than a few seconds.

Khamosh Pani is aptly titled. And the khamoshi (silence) that runs through the movie is justified. This silence makes questions grow inside one's head, it makes one think. I can't believe how I got such a beautiful movie so cheap? My money has been recovered. The silence of Khamosh Pani doesn't scare me anymore.",1 "Unfortunately, this was a film that looked better in the trailers when the film was being promoted, prior to its commercial release. We just caught with it thanks to a borrowed DVD and we are so happy we didn't have to pay to watch this ""masterpiece"".

The film, directed by Tim Story, is a rip off. It is loosely based on much better French comedies created by Luc Besson. This one here gives credit to Ben Garant as its writer.

""Taxi"" is an exercise in how not to make movies. The casting of Jimmy Fallon for the main role was a poor judgment by whoever decided to give the comedian this plum job; he is not even funny! The opening sequence involving the undercover operation where Washburn fakes to be a Cuban mafioso, shows that Mr. Fallon needs to reconsider future appearances in films.

Queen Latifah, a charismatic performer, is handicapped having to act next to an inane actor that ruins some of her best moments in the movie. Ann Margaret must have been feeling desperate when she agreed to appear in this film as the lush mother of Washburn, but on second thought, it makes perfect sense that with a son like him, drinking is the only way this woman can go through life.

Watch it at your own risk!",0 "That is the one of the movies I really liked to see, it made me cry and impressed me greatly.))))))))))) I would say it is about forgiving. Main character forgives herself and her mother. :) Actually i went to this film together with my colleague on European Cinema Week in Almaty, Kazakhstan. And I saw her hiding crying). Maybe it seems to be kinda sentimental, but I like film that make me think about something after I went out of cinema hall. I really think it is film of good quality. And the fact that its Director died just one day before its release is very sad. I would like to buy it, I hope I will be able to see it with my DVD format. Best,",1 "Death 4 Told, an Indie of limited funding (just sounds better than low budget) was well written, directed and acted. The four subtlety linked stories, reminded me of Creep Show, with each tale covering a piece of the horror genre.

I felt the stories were properly sequenced, with the weakest link (which still offered a satisfying level of creep) at the beginning and the strongest as the closer. The resulting buildup easily held my attention through the plot changes. The cast, most of which are newcomers to the screen (as would be expected of an Indie) played their roles convincingly well, that, or casting did a great job.

Judging D4T for what it is, an Indie, not a major motion picture, I found few flaws, and those that were there were forgivable.",1 "Although I had some very high hopes for this movie, I was utterly disappointed. Maybe I had expected a nice sports-flick like the hilarious ""Fußball ist unser Leben"", I definitely did not expect such a shallow review of every single German post-war cliché. Count them, they are all there: the shell-shocked husband returning from a decade of Soviet labour camps, the wife who has grown independent in the meantime by having to run the family business plus the family itself, the son turned communist due to disgust for the crimes of his father's generation (and I would have liked to see that person put up communist party posters in a pub in the early 50ies, even in the Ruhr area... tar and feathers, anyone?). Add to that the entire ""Wonder"" of Bern myth (a fabrication of later decades) and the net result is a not too entertaining fairy-tale. If you want to see a good ""sports"" movie, watch ""Fussball ist unser Leben"" or, if soccer is not up your alley, ""Major League"". If you want to get a closer look at post-war Germany, there are also better movies around.",0 "A man who witnesses his brother plowing his wife, takes him out driving in order to kill him, with the help of some random psycho wearing only a loincloth, whom the cuckolded brother then kills off. But the psycho rises from the grave to kill him. My god this film was atrocious on every level. I think it might have been going for aventgarde, but failed miserably.Even at little over an hour, the movie still succumbs to massive repetition. I consider it to be among the worst zombie film that I've ever seen and trust me if you've read my other reviews you'll know I'm not prone to mindless hyperbole. So trust me and stay away from this waste of celluloid.

My Grade: F",0 "a woman sits at her daughters bed and the next thing we see is that she is somewhere in the woods in a coffin-like box. WTF? there is no connection to ANYTHING in the next part of the movie, except that she has a daughter. then she's bound to a tree with a razor-blade in her stomach which she can pull out and save herself. (i don't think anybody would survive that) i don't need to talk about the other girl having no problems at all after her tongue has been cut out.

this film gets increasingly boring every time the mountain-top-view is shown and we see how many days have passed since the beginning.

i don't know which is worse: this or http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0189456/...",0 "I can understand why Duvall, one of the premier actors of our times, can sit back and look at his body of work with supreme satisfaction, and be more than willing to try new things. I can also understand why he went out and got himself a girlfriend 40 years his junior. He's due. What I can't understand is what he was trying to do with this film, other than spending some time working with his girlfriend. In a dual story about a aging hired killer and tango dancing, neither subject is developed to anything approaching interesting.

Duvall, as usual stellar as an actor, has not given himself very good material here. He goes about his job as a plumber would approach a leaky faucet; this attitude is commendable, and he sells it, but in the end his assassination job is almost as interesting as fixing a leaky faucet. Many twists and turns in that plot could have been developed into good suspenseful material (with another excellent actor, Ruben Blades, playing a supporting role). This is never explored, though, and we are left unmoved.

Similarly, the sequences with tango dancing are also never fully utilized to their full effect, and Duvall, who is supposed to be the central character, is barely shown doing any dancing at all, and his suppressed love for his real-life girlfriend never catches fire.

As a result, both plots are pretty much glossed over and what we end up with is two sub-plots, neither of which is satisfying. I love Duvall and watching him do almost anything is almost always worth it. Nevertheless, I'm afraid I have to say that this one fizzles and never sizzles.",0 "This was the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life and I am sorry I paid money to buy the DVD that I will throw in the trash. Erotic - NO Female nudity - Technically yes about 1 minute in total Sex - NO For practical purposes this was NOT based on the novel by the Marquis de Sade; in fact in the interview the writer admits he rewrote the story to accommodate Tyrone Power's daughter who could not act. So there is no Black Mass or anything of the original book except the two sisters originally being taught by nuns in a convent. This was a shear waste of money on the part of Franco that could have been his masterpiece with the expensive sets and costumes that were absolutely splendid. Jack Palance was totally miscast, even if he were sober it would have made little difference. The same was true with Klaus Kinski because his performance was too remote and did not narrate the story all the way through. Franco said he asked Orson Wells to play the part of the Marquis de Sade, again totally wrong if you are going to make a porno movie. I have no idea what he was thinking. The story was so confused that it failed to make real sense because it deviated from the original novel so much. This movie was not a porno or anything else, it was just a big nothing.",0 "If I could put a zero down for a number I would for this film. I am a King Kong fan and I have seen every King Kong even Kong vs Godzilla so naturally I was attracted to the movie cover of APE. So like an idiot I read the back of the box and say to myself ""It sounds good"" drop ten bucks for it and take it home. I slide it in the VCR and about 5 minutes into the film I turn it off. I couldn't watch the rest of until I had seen a brain doctor to tell me everything was OK. Well about three months later I decided to try and watch it. Its probably one of the worst films ever made. I believe its in the book of worst films ever made actually. Some reasons why the movie is horrible, the ape doesn't make any noises what so ever, he disco dancers why being shot with burning arrow's, flips off the camera, wears sneakers, and throws some nice sliders with rocks. I cant even think about this move any more its depressing. O out of 10.",0 "I'll admit, like many on this message board, I was duped. I looked past Bob Saget and saw Samuel L. Jackson, Whoopi Goldberg, Christine Applegate, and Mo'Nique. I know, I know--how stupid of me for not picking up on the ""Full House"" alumni that are also in the credits. When you burn you learn.

This could have just as easily been written by a quarantined group of pre-pubescent boys under the influence of whippets. You'd have to jack hammer the gutter to find traces of what they pass off as humor. It was crass, gross, juvenile, and seemed a hell of a lot longer than the run time would have you believe. Potty humor, fart jokes, genitalia, and a sprinkling of the ""F"" word are the crux of all intended laughs in this schlock. And don't get me started on the editing--had this been an AV project at your local high school, it would have been laughed out of the most remedial of classes.

I had been wondering what happened to Saget. He should go back to wherever he was hiding and stay there until he passes 8th grade.",0 "It's hard to imagine a more peculiar choice of director for this sci-fi thriller than Stanley Donen. Donen made some great films in the 50s and 60s (Singin' In The Rain, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, Charade), but here he's in disappointing form. Partly that may be due to the fact that the project was originally to be directed by John Barry, but Donen ""inherited"" the responsibility when Barry quit due to ill health. However, Donen should not be made to shoulder all the blame. The script by Martin Amis leaves the actors to contend with some bad lines and situations. Elmer Bernstein contributes a forgettable music score which is well below his usual standard. And even the actors - all of them talented - seem indifferent to the project. Kirk Douglas, for example, seems to have accepted the role simply to enjoy some saucy nude scenes with sexy co-star Farrah Fawcett.

Essentially, the story is a three-handed thriller (or, four-handed, if you count Hector the droid). Saturn 3 is Titan, the third moon of Saturn (hence the name), and it is here that scientists Adam and Alex (Douglas and Fawcett) live in blissful isolation, developing food supplies for people on Earth. Adam and Alex not only work together - they sleep and shower together too, which is a pretty enviable arrangement for Adam (who is about 30 years older than his sexy assistant). Into this perfect space oasis comes psychopathic Benson (Harvey Keitel), another scientist who has recently murdered a shuttle captain. Benson has brought with him a droid named Hector, supposedly to speed up the workload. However, Hector turns out to be a particularly unstable droid, particularly when the randy robot develops a liking toward Alex. Eventually it becomes clear that neither Adam nor Benson can control the droid, and with Hector determined to kill anyone who stands in the way of himself and Alex, that becomes something of a problem.......

If Saturn 3 is a story of jealousy and desire, then it needs more than a sex-starved droid to generate credibility. If it is a sci-fi actioner, then it needs more action. If it was conceived as a sci-fi thriller then it most assuredly needs more thrills. The film emerges as a rather muddled and unappealing mess, with flashes of eroticism and very sporadic flashes of action. It marks a low point in Donen's directorial career, and is too forgettable to be remembered as a significant sci-fi work. Most of the folks associated with this one probably don't give it pride of place on their CVs.",0 "We are introduced to a character, Frank Keller, that just achieved 20 years in service, that can't see really something after the retirement (that is what he hears of a lot, about the retirement) and that not long before he had a divorce (one the guys from his job is now with his ex-wife. Frank is like ""we have been working together for like 6 years but we have never go for a beer yet somehow you stole my wife"", and we will see Frank apologizing more than once with that guy). On the other hand we have the murders: three murdered men, similar circumstances, certainly only one murderer. The third murder is of a man we know, the expected murder, expected by Frank and by another detective (John Goodman's character Detective Sherman Touhey from Queens).

This film, Harold Becker's Sea of Love (with Al Pacino as Frank Keller, Ellen Barkin as Helen Cruger and John Goodman. Also Samuel L. Jackson appears at the beginning of the film as a criminal who thought he was going to meet the New York Yankees but soon received, like many other criminals, the bad news: no Yankees, only arrests. From the IMDb trivia section: ""The apprehension of criminals by arranging a ""Meet the Yankees"" breakfast was based on an actual event""), has two parts, the first one is the one I liked better and the second is just about a love relationship, the whole thing with the murders is sort of just a pretext. And is typical stuff with the woman disappointed after finding out that Frank lied, and is predictable since you always know Pacino and Barkin's character will end happily together (and well the detectives found out who the murderer was just out of luck).

Sea of Love is an entertaining film with a first part that is simply that, a fast-paced entertainment and a second part that, like I said, is predictable, with a sexy Barkin and with really bad scenes (for instance take the supermarket supposedly very sexy scene, very bad music is what stands out in that part!). In the Wikipedia page of we can read that Sea of Love is ""credited as the film that pulled Pacino out of his slump of film failures that occupied much of the 1980s"". Pacino had 5 performances in the 80s: in Cruising, Author! Author!, Scarface, Revolution and Sea of Love. Now, I have seen only De Palma's Scarface and Sea of Love (just yesterday I saw it for the very first time), I think Pacino is just f****** great as Tony Montana and just good as Frank Keller, never really great, he entertains just like the film itself and certainly this performance is extremely far to be one of his best (from the IMDb biography of Pacino: ""It marked the second phase of Pacino's career, being the first to feature his now famous dark, owl eyes and hoarse, gravelly voice"").

And the song, here we can hear bits of Phil Phillips' song more than a couple of times, including a very funny interpretation by John Goodman. Actually the first version of the song ""Sea of Love"" that I ever listened was the version of the great Tom Waits (my favourite). The original version, by Phil Phillips, was first released in 1959 and Tom Waits' version in 1989 on the soundtrack of this film. But I listened Waits' version for the very first time just a couple or so years ago on Waits' latest album, the 2006 ""Orphans: Brawlers, Bawlers & Bastards"" and just this year thanks to my mother (she loves that song as much as I love Waits' version) I listened, finally, the extremely famous original (and she listened the version of Tom Waits and she was like ""what is this?"", certainly not quite her cup of tea but I do liked the original) version. The song eventually made me remember about that film of which I read positive comments some time ago and then I found out that Waits' version was originally released on the soundtrack of that film, pretty much it was time to finally give Becker's Sea of Love a shot. So Sea of Love is just light entertainment to see once, nothing that you must check out.",0 "Lief Garrett? This movie blows. It makes you go ""what the heck? that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!"" It really does! Quite a few times. It's so predictable and none of the characters have any originality. That one weasely looking guy looks like Dennis Christopher's annoying brother. The office scenes, the sex scenes, the demon scenes, it's all been done before. It's very stereotyped and very lame and very boring. And balding Leif Garrett can hardly keep his eyes open the whole time anyway.

The hyper high school girl says to Lief, who is about 30 years old, ""Would you like to fu*k me?"" very clearly, then he says ""excuse me?"" and she says, ""I said, would you like a cup of tea?"" and I said out loud, ""what the heck? whatever!"" and rewound it and it's so stupid that anyone could ever think those two sentences sound the same and it has nothing to do with the girl's personality. Why did she say that? I don't get it. LAME LAME LAME STUFF",0 "This is a great pre-code, unseen for decades and tied up in rights problems until TCM rode to the rescue and cleared matters up in 2007. Now TCM owns the rights to this and five other films that were in the same boat. There is just something about it that I never tire of, although there is nothing particularly unique about the plot.

Ann Harding plays Joan, the oldest of two sisters and the daughter of a man who is still wealthy but has been hit hard by the depression. The film opens on the family shopping for younger daughter Valerie's wedding trousseau. Valerie's champagne tastes are having difficulties adjusting to a cheaper brand, and one gets the feeling that she's used to being pampered by both Joan and her father. This fact figures in prominently later on in the plot. Afterward, Joan runs into John Fletcher (William Powell), heir to the Fletcher shipping line. After a couple of casual dates, Joan decides that John would make a good husband. The bottom line looks good - there's only one problem. John is a confirmed bachelor. Joan decides to take the intensity of her quest up a notch. She begins sleeping with John and, with the help of her sister, arranges to have her father call on John and find her in his apartment dressed only in lounging pajamas. Chivalry will demand that John marry her and so will her father.

Things work out as Joan planned up to a point. John agrees to marry Joan, but wants it understood that there will be a divorce after a respectable amount of time has passed - six months. In the meantime, Joan's business-like attitude towards the marriage has been ruined by the fact that she now loves John and only has six months to get him to feel the same way without trying so hard that John can see that she is trying to get him to love her.

This movie has some great precode moments as well as the always dapper William Powell and the regal bearing of Ann Harding at her very best. In spite of the rather dramatic and heavy sounding plot I've described, it also has some great comic moments. The best of these is near the end of the film when Joan has to pull off a dinner party for some of John's potential clients without having them know about the mayhem going on behind the scenes, yet she is thwarted quite hilariously at every turn.

Highly recommended for fans of precode cinema.",1 "I'm not familiar with the other movies in the Matt Helm series but this is all I need to watch.

Sharon Tate plays an MI5 agent posing as a clumsy Danish tour guide, Freya Carlson, who is to work with Helm. Tate stated at the beginning of her career that she wanted to do light comedy and ""The Wrecking Crew"" proved that that genre was indeed a perfect fit for her. This movie is the highlight of her all too brief acting career and my heart aches to think of what could have been.

Dean Martin's acting skills left a lot to be desired but he and Tate had great on screen chemistry. The rest of the cast reads like a Who's Who of Hollywood during its second (and last) Golden Age: Nancy Kwan, Elke Sommer, Nigel Green, Tina Louise (of ""Gilligan's Island"" in her small role of Lola Medina), among others. You have to remind yourself to close your mouth during the opening credits.

I'm in love with the 60's fashion and music and the fact that we get to see more of Sharon Tate (whereas the rest of her movies, with the exception of ""The 13 Chairs"" a/k/a ""12+1,"" are primarily small roles where you don't get to see or hear her much).

Good stuff.",1 "Here's a movie I wish I'd seen when I was 16: edgy, almost lovable main characters that are weird enough to identify with and an interesting plotline that makes most other ""teen"" movies bow their heads in shame.

Also, I've read the original comic, that the film is based on, months before seeing the movie, so I was actually surprised how much I liked the movie. Ghost World the Comic (in my humble opinion) is one of the most overrated graphic novels of our times. It was nice, but nothing so special. So when the movie turned out good, I was very pleasantly surprised.

Some elements of the original comics plot were altered for the movie version, which I don't actually mind, because Dan Clowes was one of the screenwriters and was at charge (at least to some extent) in bringing his own comic to the big screen. One of the changes, that I didn't like, was the ending. The ending in the comic was much better, although it might have been difficult to recreate it in a movie (anyone seen a nicely done ageing-makeup in a movie? :D)

",1 "Many reviews have alluded to the fact that is a pretty obvious rip-off of ""The Usual Suspects"". Most of the film's ""action"" is moved along by long interrogation scenes, with little snippets of who's who and what's what being provided. How much is real and who's telling the truth is batted around like a tennis ball. But the main point is.... who really cares?? It's the exact problem I had with ""Usual Suspects"".

The supposed hero here is Ray Liotta's character. He does alright with the role, but the character is not especially interesting and doesn't have much on the line. He's running for Mayor, but most conversations give the impression he doesn't much care if he wins. His girlfriend may be a lying turncoat, but they don't display much real affection for each other. As he learns about her ""true colors"" he doesn't seem crushed, only mildly dismayed.

The final 10 minutes of twist, twist and re-twist were all flash and no substance. The final twist has us believe an FBI agent allows 3 innocent people to be killed (2 of them police @ the precinct house), to keep his cover, THEN exposes the ""Suspect"". Phew!! That was a tiring 90 minutes!",0 "'Burial Ground' is one of those movies we horror buffs used to pass by when going through the horror section at the video store. It has one of those artworks on the sleeve that you never forget. For years in the U.S. it was only available on VHS in a poor quality print. The worst of it being night scenes so dark you almost couldn't see what was happening. Now that it's finally available in a high quality print we can see it the way it was meant to be seen. Whether or not that's a good thing is up to the viewer.

Pros: An absolutely breathtaking location. Some really awful...I mean awfully funny dialogue like, ""You look just like a little whore. I like that in a girl."" Lots of cheese with a dash of camp. Some of the zombie make-up isn't bad. The more subtle parts of the score aren't bad and help make some scenes creepier. A good amount of blood and gore. Zips right along. The zombies make for some pretty creepy monsters. The actors, though below average at best, at least seem into it and not embarrassed. Some things have to be seen to be believed. An appropriate ending.

Cons: Threadbare story and cardboard characters. Plot holes and lapses in logic galore. Some overacting. Some of the zombie make-up is really poor. Most of the score feels out of place, especially the jazz.

Final thoughts: Though not quite on the same level as other great ""so-bad-it's-good"" Italian zombie movies like Bruno Mattei's 'Hell of the Living Dead,' you can't deny it's charm. It's one of those special bad movies that has to be seen at least once.

My rating: 3.5/5 (So-bad-it's-good rating) 1.5/5 (Serious rating)",1 "*SPOILERS!!!!!!* (but then, who'd care with this!)

I bought this title for a relative as a joke present, keeping the 50p price tag on it. Little did I realize how bad it was, and they insisted, in the most sarcastic fashion, that i should view it too. Oh dear...

The best bit of this film is the opening sequence, loosely tying it in as a sequel to another film which appears to have nothing to do with this one! It offers a couple of inept chuckles, but the fun stops there.

I cannot find a single redeeming feature in this film. There are no campy moments, there aren't even any moments of unintentional laughter, it really is that bad!

There is no excitement, the script is cringingly embarrassing (there are some truly poor attempts too add some mysticism by reading 'The Jabberwocky') And the monsters look awful. The plot is non-existent, and there are huge swathes of the film that involve nothing but people walking across bits of scrub land, with some terrible keyboard music.

This is a terrible film, don't see it. It's not funny, scary, camp, pornographic, exciting, or entertaining in any way, shape or form.",0 "I saw this film today on DVD.. It was also known as DEAD EVEN.. I gotta hand it to you.. That movie bored the hell out of me.. Yeah! There may've been a plot.. but this was beginning to put me at a point where I wanted to press the stop button.

No wonder Elizabeth Hurley claimed that the movie METHOD was horrible. Horrible cast. Horrible crew. Horrible director. Horrible film.

It makes me want to think that has Elizabeth Hurley made up her mind on giving up acting in movies? The only movie I have of her is PASSENGER 57.. I liked it not because of Elizabeth Hurley.. but Wesley Snipes. He was one those 'action heroes' that kept me glued to the film.

Well, I know for a fact that Ms Hurley has been struggling to get her acting career back on track. ..and I think with this movie.. it seems that it's killed her acting career off.

Years ago, and I still got the newspaper 'cut-outs' of all the movies that Elizabeth Hurley have appeared in and they've all flopped as a result. Is there a curse going around Ms Hurley as we speak? I believe so..

Anyway, I'm bringing the DVD back tomorrow and I'm getting my refund. Sorry Ms Hurley.. that movie was horrible for me! Blame the director..!

0 out of 10!",0 "This movie is a perfect example of a film that divides people into 2 groups.. Those who get the joke and those who don't. People usually attack what they don't understand. This film has a comic style and charm that has been unparalleled since. It's a GREAT comedy.. and a GREAT romance. It's a perfect date movie. A perfect movie for someone who wants a good lighthearted laugh. And if your perspective is too tense, maybe this movie isn't for you, and you may need counseling. It is an injustice that Fox has kept this film, along with Wilder's 1975 classic ""The Adventure Of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother"" on the shelf since the early 80's, having never seen the light of day on DVD. Yet they feel ""Big Momma's House"" was worthy of a special edition. I find it odd that my two all time favorite romantic comedies have never been released on DVD. The other being Carl Reiner's ""The One And Only"", which Paramount has sat on since the early 80's as well... Yet, ""From Justin To Kelly"" is in nearly every video store in the country. There is no Justice in the world. Maybe those who took the time to bash this will enjoy ""From Justin To Kelly"", I'm sure that one is watered enough for them to ""get"".",1 "Two attempted remakes and dozens of rip offs have failed to diminish the hilarious complications and romantic musings of this often-imitated, never duplicated screwball farce. Loosely based on the Alfred Lord Tennyson poem ""Enoch Arden"" (Tennyson does not receive a screen credit in the finished film), MY FAVORITE WIFE piles on the fast-paced, snappy dialogue and outrageous, comedic misunderstandings at a frantic rate. Director Garson Kanin skillfully maintains the perfect serio-comedic tone throughout the film's runtime, and the picture is easily respected screenwriter's best film as a director. Interestingly enough, Kanin took over the directing duties from Leo McCarey (an Oscar winner as Best Director for 1937's THE AWFUL TRUTH, which also starred Grant and Dunne) after McCarey was injured in an automobile accident (McCarey also co-wrote the screenplay with Kanin and Sam and Bella Spewack).

The cast is marvelous, topped by yet another Oscar-worthy performance by Irene Dunne, who offers a multi-dimensional portrayal in a genre where one-note characterizations typically run rampant. Dunne was indeed a rare actress who could peerlessly balance madcap humor and genuine pathos, without ever appearing forced or contrived. Cary Grant is every bit Dunne's match as the befuddled husband who finds himself with one wife too many. Although his role doesn't permit him to display the jaw-dropping physical prowess that was showcased so remarkably in THE AWFUL TRUTH, Grant's mastery of internal comedy is given ample screen time here - especially in the final two-third when he discovers he may have a romantic rival.

The supporting cast is also diligently cast, although there's no animal scene-stealer, a la canine performer Asta's memorable turn as Mr. Smith in THE AWFUL TRUTH. Platinum-haired beefcake Randolph Scott is fun as Grant's rival for Dunne's affections, and the fact that Grant and Scott were lifelong friends and roommates only makes their scenes together even funnier (there's also a hilarious sight gag involving the two of them that will have even the most reserved viewer rolling on the floor with laughter). The appropriately rigid Gail Patrick plays the role of the stereotypical shrew as well as anyone could, and director Kanin also pulls natural performances from the two children in the cast. A comedy with a large dosage of wit and an ample amount of intelligence is quite rare, and MY FAVORITE WIFE has all of that and more in abundance - it's simply a picture where everything works.",1 "Believe it or not, this film's plot actually ties in various racist/Aryan 'lost civilization' conspiracy theories about prehistoric North American 'Atlanteans'(or Lemurians or the boys from Mu or take your pick) having their plans for world conquest thwarted by an act of (a) god. Hitler's academia were supposedly fond of such stories, obviously baseless... or were they!? Yeah, they were. But the promised pay-off of an ancient ruin rising out of the earth is reason enough to co-op some pseudo mythology for your cheap movie. By the way, any ancient ruins? You don't see much of them. What you do see, among other things, are scores of interchangeable masked goons performing less than impressive gymnastics and making 'special ops' moves with their hands. Plus, a guy named Rowsdower. That was kinda cool. The 'hero' kid... not so much. The deep-voiced villain? Not cool either. Still, this movie has something to it, something I can't quantify... a unique Canuckness... and every idiot cliché in the book. They've already been listed in triplicate in the above comments, so I'll try to find something new to bring up... how about the obvious allusion to INDIANA JONES with the penultimate 'driving sorta into the sun-set' scene and the unspoken but palpable hunger the filmmakers had for someone to be moved by it, indeed, to hope for a sequel, an elaboration of the continuing adventures of ROWSDOWER AND WONDER GEEK. Or they could drop the kid. That'd be cool, eh.",1 "I agree with the previous commenter--an extremely powerful film. But I would like to add that I think this was Kevin Kline's best role in any film he has made. I especially love the part in the beginning when Sophie and Nathan are arguing on the stairwell and he finds Stingo eavesdropping. His switch to a southern drawl, the stinging quality of his words, amazed me. I've watched this movie so often I'm about to wear it out. Also the music is very well done. I STILL cry when I watch it!",1 "I really don't have that much against the 80s. Hey I'm an '83 kid myself. That means I survived 7 years of the decade ... I wore a little mullet and a shell suit ... I'm sure of it ...

But this was the age of the action hero and McB ... sorry I mean Raw Deal is just one of those types of film. Basically it's a vehicle for Arnie to look big, muscular and pretty darn tough. Of course he does it really well ... filling out some rather ugly 80s-wear very nicely indeed. He even has a mandatory arming up scene in there (I really think he filmed just one of these for time-effectiveness and posted it in on the last day of shooting for all his shoot 'em ups).

I'd love to be able to say this a run of the mill all out action effort give it 6/10, lament about its lack of originality, point out its near cut and paste qualities and leave it at that, but damn, this is one confusing film.

One of strangest opening sequences I can recall sees Arnie chasing what appears to be a cop on a motorbike before setting him alight. To the viewers relief we discover that this near homicide was committed by Sheriff Arnie before the biker was indeed revealed as an impostor (phew). Arnie (who 's past as some sort of government agent is briefly touched upon) is basically hired by a director in the agency to go unofficially undercover and basically wreak vengeance upon mobsters who have killed the director's son.

The confusing part is how Arnie ends up in the fire fights he finds himself in and why seeing as he appears to be virtually invincible does he have to infiltrate the mob's ranks at all (the figures involved are all seemingly publicly known) before killing them. Thinking about it where does this small town all-American sheriff get all his guns for this rampage, and how does he rise up within the ranks of the mob so quickly ... I guess all this questions are things that will never be answered and really should never be asked.

In the end of course the director who kicked Arnie out of the agency in the first place turns out to be working for the mob; vindicating Arnie's tactics as he becomes number 86 of his victims. By this time I could almost hear the Simpsons McBane character explain why women always leave the toilet seat up or remark that he indeed does wear loafers!

Unfortunately the film can't even be relied on for classic one liners; the closest we get is after Arnie's wife throws a cake against the wall to which he replies

""NEVER DRINK AND BAKE...""

Go watch Total Recall, or Predator again instead!",0 "Were it not for the antics and comedy of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 crew, this movie would be a waste of the film it's printed on! The acting is crap, the music is crap, the sets are crap, the direction is crap, and the camera angles (all three of them) are crap! I think that pretty much sums it up.",0 "In Hollywood of the 50's, the obscure screenplay writer Joe Gillis (William Holden) is not able to sell his work to the studios, is full of debts and is thinking in returning to his hometown to work in an office. While trying to escape from his creditors, he has a flat tire and parks his car in a decadent mansion in Sunset Boulevard. He meets the owner and former silent-movie star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), who lives alone wit her butler and driver Max von Mayerling (Erich von Stroheim). Norma is demented and believes she will return to the cinema industry, and is protected and isolated from the world by Max, who was his director and husband in the past and still loves her. Norma proposes Joe to move to the mansion and help her in writing a screenplay for her comeback to the cinema, and the small-time writer becomes her lover and gigolo. When Joe falls in love for the young aspirant writer Betty Schaefer (Nancy Olson), Norma becomes jealous and completely insane and her madness leads to a tragic end.

""Sunset Boulevard"" is a bitter and tragic masterpiece of the genius Billy Wilder that exposes how Hollywood uses people and forgets them when they get old and are considered decadent by the industry. Further, it also shows the consequences of the lack of adaptation of a former star to the end of a successful career, being forgotten by fans and the industry, and the price that some persons accept to pay to join this business. The last time I saw this film was on 22 September 2002 and even having watched ""Sunset Boulevard"" for maybe five or six times, I still get excited with most of the scenes and I dare to say that it is in my Top 10 movies ever. The DVD has an interesting documentary called ""Sunset Blvd.: A Look Back"" (a.k.a. ""The Making of Sunset Boulevard"" with the presence of a still impressively beautiful Nancy Olson telling peculiarities about this awesome feature. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): ""Crepúsculo dos Deuses"" (""Dusk of the Gods"")",1 "I genuinely enjoyed this movie. A previous comment said something to the effect of an observation that cliches riddle certain parts, but I think it's important to note that this was written in the 1920s, when perhaps those cliches were not quite so pervasive. And the ending isn't nearly as cliche as I would expect from that era.

Samuel L Jackson delivers a worthy performance as Jack, adding his signature personality to the role while still maintaining the spirit of the character.

Milla is good looking as usual, and like all her other movies, gets naked for a minute. Her performance is decent.

I'd give this movie a 7 out of 10

WARNING, SPOILER FOLLOWS.

what REALLY sells me on this movie is the direction it takes. I think you sort of have to put yourself into the 1920s mindset that women are women, and the real character to watch is the hero. IF you do that, then Erin is what a woman was classically considered to be; dependant, in search of a man, hedging her bets to be with the man most apt to provide for her.

Then the story is really about Jack and the decisions he has to make; conflict between his desire for Erin and his honorable, uncompromising personality. Whereas most western movies have the hero triumph over evil, giving him the kingdom and the girl in the process as a reward, here there is a twist; the hero defeats the villain, but chooses not to take the kingdom OR the girl, choosing instead to maintain his honor.

In this regard, the story mimics many classic works of samurai fiction, for example, where the hero denies his own desires in the name of a personal moral code. Also, what is not cliche is the movie's acknowledgement that the real world rarely rewards good character, and the path of virtue and honor is usually a lonely one. The ending is surprising, sad, and lonely, yet somehow gratifying and assuring.",1 "A young couple of 18 years old, Amy and Jordan, in a night club that seems to say ""Welcome to Hell"". Meet another young man called ""X"" (Xavier).Drive away of the three people, 'cause X is attacked by imbecilic junkies. Stop at a QuickieMart. Alas, no dough to pay the chow they took. Not happy, the cashier. Riot gun. Intervention of X. BLAM! Cashier's head fly away in the onions(A little like in the video game ""Mortal Kombat"").

New drive away of the trio after X stole some money to the Quickiemart's register. Next stop: a drive restaurant. Misunderstanding with the clerk. Another riot gun. Drive away.Motel. During the night, the clerk shows up, still armed. New intervention of X. BLAM! The clerk's arm is shot off. They rush out again. On the road again... All along the film, they run away and they have sex. Alas, I think their flight will never finish.

But why the number 666 always comes back (Motel 666, 6$66)? Are the three young people damned? Why each person they meet asserts that they know Amy, the girl, by a different name (Sunshine, Bambi...)? Why do everybody is always after the three people's poor fate? Why this message, in the clothing shop: ""Prepare for apocalypse""? Why are the dialogs so cool? (Heh, heh!) And why so much violence towards the male sex? (See the bar scene, and the hangar scene at the end of the film).

I think the French producers of this film would answer:

""Why Not?"" Anyway, some violence scenes were really too gratuitous. The sex scenes too, but the last scene is very disturbing; It's best to take it at face value. The three actors have really well played thier role, especially Rose McGowan, (see her good performance in ""Scream""), the fiancée of Marilyn Manson. She's one of the prettiest actress I know.The sceneries were really cool (see the hotel room).I think Gregg Araki is a little like the American Jean-Luc Godard of the 90's.

8/10 for this hard road movie.",1 "I'm a real big fan of those animal grows big and kills teenagers movies. What just love the causes why those animals become monster and in this movie, it was one of the most ridiculous I've ever seen. My girlfriend was snoring in my arms after 5 minutes but I laughed a lot that night. Some good SFX adds a point up to 2 from 10 points. This movie really is bad, but as always, great entertainment.",1 "One can not be but startled by the incredibly high reputation that Zeffirelli has in some quarters, where he is revered as an artist, an author, Visconti's heir, a consummate aesthete ,when the guy is so obviously much more banal--a buffoon, a hack, a charlatan, a bluffer, a hustler, a swindler. He began as a Viscontian minion, torchbearer as well as an able _toadie. His skills, abilities and deftness, real and admirable, are often spoiled, miserably wrecked by his hideous personality (and persona). I have seen a documentary about Zeffirelli, featuring interviews with him as well—the man, with his evil, viscous, mean smile, has something sinister and eerie, corrupt and decadent (in a real life way), nasty and filthy, disturbing and deeply, severely, strikingly unpleasant. This is in accord with his career. In fact, he is like Demme, like R. Scott, like Scorsese, Mann, Shyamalan, Coppola, etc.—where he is bad, he is horrendously so. Not an author, but a hack with occasional (significant) achievements. Some talk about him as if he has an art, a project, a continuity—as if he is a Bergman—and not only occasional, almost random successes. Returning to the man, the public persona, he is, beyond the paranoid elements and megalomania, fascinatingly unsettling. He looks somewhat like a reptile, a mean, voracious ,shrewd one. (I liked the looks of Visconti, Antonioni, even the plebeian Fellini.) On a second viewing, I liked much and fined exquisite and pleasing his HAMLET.",0 "Here we have another so-called horror flick made only for tasteless teenagers or fans of modern teen flicks like ""Urban Legend"" or ""Scream"".No violence,no real thrills,only a lot of predictable cliches.Oh,and there's also incredibly dumb sequence when one girl is scared to death by strange masked figure(Ha!Ha!).I hate those completely commercial 90's slasher films.If you want good eerie horror movie rent ""Texas Chain Saw Massacre"",""Wolfen"" or my favourite ""Scarecrows"",but stay away from this crap.My rating:3/10.",0 "I don't exactly know what it is that makes this film better and more amusing than the overload of similar 80's splatter flicks but it just is! The lady who sold me the ex-rental VHS copy wholeheartedly agreed with me: ""Neon Maniacs"" is a classic piece of trash! Maybe it's because the screenplay is a bunch of unscrupulous and light-headed nonsense or maybe it's because you have a lot more sympathy for the characters here than it usually is the case in horror films, I don't know. Fact is that you will have a great time watching it. The Neon Maniacs are malevolent creatures (they look like hellraiser Cenobites only....goofier) who prowl at night in their San Franciscan territory, butcher teenagers and leave behind a funky green kind of mucus. The ravishing Nathalie (Sarelle - she'll later star alongside Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct) is the sole survivor of one of the maniacs' nightly attacks and now they're after her. As mentioned before, the premise of this film contains no logic at all. The existence of these Neon Maniacs is briefly linked to the downfall of humanity but, other than this, no background or origin is given. No problem, though, as there are tons of other absurd elements to enjoy. The costumes and make-up effects are great! Every Neon Maniac appears to be a costume designer's wet dream and their killing style is deliciously insane. We have axe decapitations, icky stranglings and several throats are being slit with rusty knives...Yay! whatever this movie lacks in suspense and intelligence, it makes it up in ingeniousness and black humor. The story loses some of its impact around the hour, when the tempo is constantly interfered with lousy rock 'n roll concert sequences (an often-returning problem in 80's horror). The exaggeratedly abrupt ending disappoints too, especially since the obvious sequel never got made. Nevertheless, it remains a highly recommended splatter flick! As long as you've got a sense of humor, an expert eye for female beauty and hunger for gore, you're guaranteed to LOVE this junk!",1 "i think the main problem with the movie isn't the movie, it's that people are going in expecting a thriller instead of a drama. yes the major plot points could be covered in 5 minutes.. but that's not the point of drama. your average thriller is about things that happen and happen to have people in them. this movie is about the people and how they feel and cope when something momentous happens. if you appreciate that you'll appreciate the movie better, or not watch it cos it's not something that appeals to you.. and that's fair enough.

As far as the film goes, Michelle Williams carries it well. The accent's fine and the various states she goes through as she tries to deal with what has happened never feel you leaving disconnected or not understanding how she got there.

McGregor is his usual charming self, tho his is not really a major part (likewise MacFadyen), this is a movie about the mother and so these two don't get an awful lot of screen time.

The one fault i'd say is that the passage of time is not particularly well expressed particularly right at the end of the film when what seems to be a present day Ewan is wearing the exact same outfit as in the next scene which must be set sometime after.

Regardless, it's a decent movie, but requiring empathy.. so if you prefer action flicks, watch something else.",1 "I think this is one of the first Belgium films I've ever seen so I didn't really know what to expect.

Keeping in mind that I saw this in France, in French, with no English subtitles I think I understood well enough the plot. (je parle assez bien francais) Not to give anything away, a 40 something woman who works in a fast food shop gets locked into the shops freezer. From then she experiences I guess what you could call a mid-life crisis.

It's funny, in an offbeat sort of way, there's not a lot of dialog... and i really must insist, if you do happen to find a copy of this film watch it in french with subtitles (i swear you lose so much from films when you watch it in the dubbed version) I'd give it 8 out of ten, because i came out of the cinema with a smile on my face thinking 'what the?' lol",1 "Casper Van Dien, last seen battling giant bugs in STARSHIP TROOPERS, now gets to take on sharks in the aptly named SHARK ATTACK. Once again it's the humans who are the *real* bad guys, and Van Dien soon finds himself in more trouble than he bargained for. The acting is pretty bad all around, although the mad scientist is amusing and has some good one-liners. The plot is fairly meaningless until the very end, when everything gets impossibly complicated. It's like a Bobbsey Twins mystery gone bad. Complementing the acting and plot portions of the film is second-rate documentary footage that the producers probably sneaked out of the Discovery Channel's ""Shark Week"" reject bin. If you like BAD movies, you should enjoy this one. If you don't enjoy B movies, try JAWS instead.",0 This is one of the worst horror films I have ever seen - and I watch an awful lot of them. The acting is even more wooden than the trees in the wood. The character reactions are not in the least believable and the plot is more rickety than the old bridge. Do yourself a favor and pass this film by.,0 I did not think much of the film SS Experiment Camp This is a sleazy WW2 Nazi horror film which is more like a comedy in parts In this horror film the poor female POW's get raped and groped by The prison guards at the camp. In an amusing part of the film the commandant decides he wants a new pair of testicles and so removes them from one of the hunky guards. The guard doesn't seem to realise he's been castrated until he goes to have sex one of the French prisoners. SS Experiment Camp was banned in th UK from 1976-2005 because it was thought to controversial. it was eventually passed uncut in 2006 because there was not anything in the film that was thought unsuitable.,0 They filmed the part of the missile silos in Longmont. Colo and I got to go there and watch them film the segment where the father (Urich( and his daughter ran down this hallway. It took them all day to do it and in the movie the segment only took a few seconds.

I was pretty disappointed but I did get to shake hands with Jobeth Williams and Robert Urich and he gave me an Oreo cookie for a snack. Of course I kept it. ha ha

I liked the movie just because of this event in my life. I especially liked the part of the effects of the toothbrush. I would like to know where to get a copy of this movie.,1 "Noah Baumbach's semi-autobiographical tale of divorce in the mid-1980's in Brooklyn is funny and touching and ranks right up there with the best work of Woody Allen or Sophia Coppola as superb bourgeois cinema where we are treated to the neurotic underbelly of over-educated, over-indulged, upwardly mobile, urban middle class families. This a wonderful film imbued with a fantastic sense of place and time and small details in which the viewer can find great delight (like the hilarious scene where Jeff Daniels takes his teenage son and the kid's new girlfriend to see David Lynch's ""Blue Velvet"" instead of the first choice ""Short Circuit"" or the closing shot of the actual squid fighting a whale at the NYC Musueum of Natural History).

Jeff Daniels is slyly funny as the cheapskate, snobbish father who was once the toast of the literary world and is now just getting by on teaching. Laura Linney is again perfection (when is she not, really) as the mother just starting her own brilliant literary career and who is a bit too open about her sexuality with her children. While the parents bicker over custody (even the cat gets to skate between two homes), the older son acts out by plagiarizing Pink Floyd in a talent show and nervous encounters with girls (one of whom is his father's live-in student/lover played by the always alluring Anna Paquin), and the younger son (a very good Owen Kline-real life son of Kevin Kline and Pheobe Cates) turns to drinking alone and public masturbation.

It's all as awkward, real, and devastatingly funny as it sounds. A great script and even better acting highlight this tale of a family on the skids. Every member of the family is brilliantly brought to life and even though they are acting in their own flawed, selfish, self-annihilating and myopic ways, they still endear themselves to the audience like they are our own family.

Bottom line: Only a Philistine would turn down the chance to enjoy ""The Squid and the Whale.""",1 "Overall this movie had bad writing and cheap sets. Christian Bale was adorable, though. That was the only plus in this movie. It seems to drag on with it's dry, dull writing. As much as I adore Christian Bale, it was still hard to watch because it was pretty much, a boring movie. Very small children may like this movie, but those over age 8 will most likely be bored.",0 "This is no budget at its best. Hope to see more of A. Schnaas in the near future (heard he is doing an new 35 mm film called ""Demonium""). This one really is great underground, and great special fx.",1 "This show was always a favorite. And now I'm collecting the DVDs. I would much rather watch reruns of this show on the DVDs than most of the garbage that is on the tube now! The realism in the show during the rescues really made you feel like you were there, and the combination of drama and comedy was handled really well. It is so interesting to watch the show as it developed over the years. This show was definitely the basis for the better dramas that came later, and I am sure it convinced many people to become paramedics. If I have one complaint about the show, it would be the lack money spent on many of the special effects, but that is understandable considering the budgets for TV shows at the time.",1 "Onto movie number 11 on the Chilling Classics DVD set. Jiminy Jesus. If there's one thing i've learned about the 1970's it's this. most of their movies are god awful. There are several reasons for this. Since this was the dawn of the age of the slasher film, they didn't quite get the formula down yet. By the 80's they had the formula of it down, but back in the 70's they were still working it out and a lot of them failed. This is one of them.

The second thing i've noticed is that while some films used a lot of day for night shots where they attempt to convince you that it's nighttime when it's obviously daylight, and that's pretty stupid. But at least you can see what's going on. For some reason they feel that it's better to show absolute pitch blackness to show that it's night. But at that point you can't see anything of what's going on at all and there is officially no point. And this movie had A LOT of that.

The last thing i noticed about 70's horror movies is that they try to be artsy about it by putting substories and reasonings and all that art-house crap. And in a horror movie, nobody cares. But anyway, onto the film.

Some guy is an artist and is trying to make this one painting which is apparently going to be his best painting ever. We then have 45 minutes of pointlessness such as a band moving in, the main characters talking about how they need money, and the guy complaining about noise and how his girlfriend won't shut up about when is the painting going to be done. And then he starts to kill hobos with a power drill. Why? I have absolutely no idea. Then the art dealer tells him his painting is crap, and so he gets angry, and starts killing people that live in HOUSES! what a twist! seriously, according to my DVD sleeve, he goes crazy AFTER the guy tells him his painting is bad. So apparently killing hobos isn't crazy, but killing people in HOUSES is VERY crazy! that's very random.

And at the end, i don't know if this was a glitch of somekind like a bad transfer or something, but after he kills his ex girlfriend's new boyfriend, she begins to call for him because she doesn't know he's dead, and then the screen turns red for about 3 minutes and you can't see a damn thing. And then it cuts to the credits. i don't know what happened, if they got a really bad VHS source from Jimmy Dean's trunk or something, but.... yeah... somebody please tell me if i missed the real ending or that's actually how it ends. because that confused the crap outta me.

While being incredibly boring, broken up with hobo killings, this movie isn't the WORST slasher movie ever, but it is a very boring 1970's one and therefore gets 3 drills to the temple out of 10.",0 "I liked Adam and Eve because it is a nice romantic comedy which contains college humor as romance ass-well. It maybe just gets a little boring, and the relation between Adam and eve does not really develops true the movie, but maybe that was the whole point? I thought the acting was nice but don't know much about it, why does this review has to be 10 lines?

To all who are saying this isn't National Lampoon enough: Does it has to be? What's wrong with a nice Romantic Comedy? For all those who just want 2 C something fun new movies Sex Drive and The Hangover are very nice, also Yes-Man is a good one if you want to have a good laugh.

Conclusion: NICE movie, watch it. I enjoyed watching it and I give it a 7/10.",1 "Oh I certainly agree with the comments here, it was a beautifully done movie almost like a Shakespeare in Love type....its a theatrical setting put together on the silver screen. And since I am a stringent critic, I think the movie was a home run all the way. My rule of thumb is that i don't watch any new actors because they simply cant act and make the movie unbearable to watch, BUT the rookie Kapoor's were amazing. They acted like seasoned actors, especially Sonam (I think she could be the Kajol of this era), the Direction was just SLB perfect and even with the simple story line the plot was very elegantly and intricately developed (except the quick ending). And lastly yes I think its best if you watch this movie in a theater to be able to see all the intricate details of the set and etc....truly this movie in the theaters was an EXPERIENCE.

And lastly if the movie had a better ending or a more developed ending, I would say that this perhaps could have been the best Indian Movie i have ever seen...but still i think its second to SLB's Devdas!!!! Enjoy!",1 "I was warned this movie would be emotional, but I had no idea just how understated that was. By the end, my friend and I were huddled together, pouring out tears I've never shed for any movie before. It was a mix of horror, empathy, sadness, and so many more emotions I can't even begin to list.

Visions of this film have haunted me since first watching it, and I would find it hard to watch again, simply from it being so heart-wrenching. Only one movie has ever hit me hard enough to keep me from subjecting myself to it's strong emotions again (The thief, the cook, his wife and her lover).

I strongly urge all to watch this, as it rises well about any films I've seen, anime or not.",1 I'm a little shocked that Michael Madsen was in this movie. He is one talented actor. He could have done much better than getting involved with Vice. I tried to keep from stopping the DVD player to pull Vice out. But that's what I did. The movie is sloooooooow. It moves at a crawl. Super boring action. I don't know when I officially had to turn it off before it put me to me sleep. I do recall Daryl Hannah talking to Michael Madsen in car then getting out. Daryl Hannah is way hotter with curves than she was in Wall Street. She's a timeless beauty. Even Michael and Daryl could not save this one. The plot written on the DVD sounded like it was was going to be smoking like a inferno of action. It was more like a match of boredom. The DVD was only playing 20 minutes before my GF asked me what's this about. It was taking so long for a plot to develop that it lost us. If you need help going to sleep one night rent Vice. It will do the trick.,0 "While Dalton Trumbo's political and professional travails certainly affected his outlook, I believe he looked more to conventional history in scripting ""The Boss"".

Trumbo certainly used the corrupt Democratic political machine of Tom Pendergast as the template for his script. Small wonder. The Pendergast machine was one of the most enduring municipal fiefs of the mid-twentieth century.

The crook that Payne is forced to make deals with in ""The Boss"" appears to be based on the real-life overlord of Kansas City prohibition-era crime, Johnny Lazia. The gunfight sequence at the train station is directly drawn from the famous 'Kansas City Massacre' of 1933 when 'Pretty Boy' Floyd, Adam Richetti and Verne Miller mowed down several F.B.I. agents and also killed the crook they were trying to rescue, Frank 'Jelly' Nash.

Another interesting parallel between the film and actual history is that Harry S. Truman was sponsored by Tom Pendergast and managed to keep himself personally clean and advance his political career while remaining loyal to the Machine. Truman is portrayed down to his glasses in ""The Boss"" by Joe Flynn, subsequently known to many as ""Captain Binghamton in ""McHale's Navy"".

One little known historical fact that was left out is that Truman's first official act upon becoming President after F.D.R. died in 1945 was to fire the U.S. Attorney for Missouri who successfully prosecuted Tom Pendergast for tax evasion and sent him to prison in 1939.

Truman was loyal to Pendergast to the very end.",1 "When I heard Scorsese made this movie, i was very excited. Because one thing that i know, Departed will be an adaptation of my favorite Hongkong movie ""Infernal Affairs"" or ""Wu Jian Dao"". And when I read a magazine, the director denied and said it's only inspired by. So my expectation flew away. But all my dream has gone when I saw ""Departed"". It's all the same. Sorry, spoiler, how the boss gang died, how the captain died, how the undercover died, all the same. In short, all the important scene, are all the same. Maybe, they have different ending but if you have seen ""Wu Jian Dao"", ""The Departed"" just only follower. No need a big name like Scorsese just to remake an Asian movie. One thing, ""The Departed"" has lost the thrill that ""Wu Jian Dao"" have.",0 "How good is it? This movie means everything to me. It's the most perfect horror viewing experience you'll ever have. The whole trilogy is great, but I have to admit this one's my favorite. Part one is a pure creepy and extremely violent exploitation horror film. Army of Darkness (the weakest of the trilogy but still pretty good) is an awesome horror/adventure movie, with more laughs and less scares. Evil Dead 2 Dead by Dawn stands right in the middle, just where it belongs. A perfect mix of comedy and horror! I remember the day I first watched it. I was with two friends. We rented it at our local video store in the early afternoon. I laughed, I got scared, I enjoyed every little second passing by the screen. We watched it four times. Since then, I never stopped watching it. It never gets old. I never get bored. The performance by Bruce Campbell (Ash) is still the best I've ever seen in a horror movie. No wonder Sam Raimi is now directing the Spiderman series. This guy's a genius! The music is excellent, and the atmosphere... what can I say? An awesome movie is an awesome movie. If you never ever watched this film, I order you to turn off your computer right now. Life's too short not to see Evil Dead 2!!",1 "I was drawn in some segments,but unfortunately,i just see half. Let a director do sth. good just in 50 seconds seems too unimaginalbe,but of course they are master,so they can make those 50 seconds produce nice cinema.",0 "A couple of laughs, mainly due to the evil baby doll and his vulgar one-liners and even Dollman himself (Thomerson) gets in on the laughs. It's Halloween night and the Dolls are trying to use the 1 ft. tall Ginger as a host for Satan to be reborn through. It's up to Brick Bardo, aka Dollman, to save her and kill the Demonic Toys.

A horrible mess of a script, crappy acting (excluding the always great Thomerson) and garbage miniature effects.

And at just over an hour in length where the best scene has an evil foul-mouthed Baby Doll tries to have sex with the foot tall Ginger while he makes Dollman watch, it just really makes you wonder what the point to this whole mess of nonsesne even was.",0 "I was dragged along to a film festival to see this by a mate after he convinced me based solely on a picture of a fat metalhead playing an inflatable pink guitar at an unnamed concert. Thus I was expecting something pretty cheesy and maybe a bit of fun. What a surprise Metal: A Headbangers Journey turned out to be. The guy who made it, Sam Dunn is a anthropologist and metalhead who treats his subject both seriously and with a bit of humour and his love for what he is describing, as well as obviously deep knowledge of the subject, goes a long way to making Metal: AHJ so worthwhile. It has an excellent global rather than US or British focus and covers everything from the roots of metal to all it's various past and present incarnations with almost all of the information coming from either band members themselves, fans or interested third parties from various academic backgrounds. The documentary is divided into sub-sections such as Roots, Controversy, Gender and Satanism and held together by following of our documentarian Sam as he conducts various interviews and visits festivals and countries like a touring band himself. Perhaps the most interesting part was the section on Black Metal, with interviews with both Norwegian church burners and advocates balanced against the Minister of one of said burnt churches without going the easy road into provocations and angry sniping. Every metalhead I know who saw this loved it (although equally everyone has some minor disagreement with the metal family tree Dunn presents) but equally everyone who I made watch it with me who was not into metal came away surprised at how interesting and enjoyable it was. Best moment: Ghaal from Gorgoroth's answer to ""What is Black Metal?"" (so dead serious but all the more hysterically funny for it). Complaints? Simply too short, even with all the extras on the second disk (many of which are excellent just as stand alone pieces-Lemmy is a highlight here too!) on DVD.",1 "This is arguably the second worst movie I've ever seen as I rarely give movies a ""1."" The ONLY reason I ever give a movie a ""1"" is if the movie commits what I call ""the unforgivable sin."" That being, it has an incoherent plot. (Vampire Assassin is arguably the worst) I'll start by saying, it's very hard to tell what exactly is going on. The dialog is poorly written and delivered even worse. No one really seems to ""care"" about anything even when they're shot or shooting at someone. Basically, the whole thing is like a script someone threw in a blender, ground it up, then pasted it back together at random then made a movie. This movie more correctly depicts a wild wild mess than the wild wild west (yea I'm not original, so sue me). :) Basically Dwight is the ""Uwe Boll"" of westerns.

And Dwight is normally such a good actor, like he was in Panic Room and Sling Blade. This was a lesson to him to stick to acting and singing and give up writing and directing. And he's got one of the greatest country voices EVER.

He needs to get a new team of songwriters together and make another hit album. Directing and writing...""it's just not for you, dawg, it didn't do it for me."" Sorry, I had to do that. :) I don't even know how to go into the plot...was there a plot? Um...Dwight was the sheriff...Vince Vaughn was the leader of the bad guys...umm...the bad guys did something bad for some reason which wasn't clear...Dwight and his buddies try to stop em, I puke, the end. :) Sorry Dwight, I respect you so much as a singer I'm trying to wipe this movie from my mind.",0 "Set in the run up to the disastrous first day of the 1916 Battle of the Somme, The Trench isn't entirely worthless, but it's not a movie, more a filmed play (despite being written as a movie), and a very poor one at that with that 1970s BBC For Schools television look. The decision to shoot on a soundstage is particularly disastrous, since it never looks like anything but a soundstage, and this despite having a good cinematographer (Tony Pierce-Roberts). The decision to never leave the trench until the final scene doesn't really work, partially because we have no indication of the world that awaits them, but largely because Boyd's finale is just too televisual to have any compensating shock value. The abrupt jump to exterior for the last couple of minutes (and very tame they are too) is very noticeable, the film stocks and looks just not matching at all. Borrowing the final image of Gallipoli as well doesn't help.

Characters constantly explain what they're doing to each other despite having been in the trench for several weeks or months; there's no immediacy, no sense of danger, no sense of having to live in a fetid, claustrophobic open grave. Indeed, it's one of the most comfortable British trenches I've seen, with an absolutely level floor for the most part place. The soft barrage - the quietest I've ever heard for shells landing 700 yards away - doesn't help. Boyd really doesn't have any idea of the possibilities that cinema has to offer, either camera or sound. It's real problem, though, is that ultimately it's a polite, clean and determinedly inoffensive film about a dirty, ugly war.

Pluses are some good performances, most notably Daniel Craig and Paul Nicholls, the latter improving after a bland start to establish a credible screen presence. There are a couple of good scenes, too, but it doesn't really have the ring of truth or authenticity - the mood seems more influenced by hindsight than the actual mood in the run-up to the first day. Not only do you never feel you're there alongside them, but there's no sense of people caught up in, and disposed by the mad rush of a cruel history beyond their control. There's no dread, no fear, just observation. The shortfall between the film Boyd thought he was making and the bland one he did is made frighteningly apparent by his interviews in the EPK included on the DVD.",0 "I may be saying this with a bit of bias but this is my favorite movie of all time. Unlike a Hollywood movie it does not picture the world a perfect place but instead it pictures people and the world the way they are, racist, hateful, etc. Racism is present in any country you go to, and if you tell me different you are just to ignorate to realize it. This picture depicts the American and Russian sycie and how western and eastern thinking are different from one another. I have only watched this in the original Russian version and would recommend any Russian speaking person to see it, not sure how accurate the subtitles are and how much justice they give to the movie.",1 "This would be the last musical Jane Powell ever made and it's one of her best movies. It was one of the last movies RKO made. They made quite a few films I have liked over the years. She plays the daughter of Frank Cady and Una Merkel(two of the best). Her best friend is played by Kaye Ballard. Jane has three men after her in the movie. First there is Tommy Noonan who loves her from the start. Next Keith Andes takes her fancy. Then finally she sees Cliff Robertson. She thinks she wants to marry a rich man, but she only thinks it's a dream. Jane Powell really looks mature and beautiful in this film. Her voice might be the best here for me because I am not a big fan of her high notes she used to hold in her early movies. I still just love her, she is so likable. Jane jumps into the ocean and meets Cliff. He takes her to shore in his boat. She thinks he owns a yacht. He actually is just a repairman. Cliff really looks in his prime here as well. They have a date that night. Jane looks stunning in a white dress as she comes down the stairs. Cliff instantly falls for her. They have a nice song and dance number on the beach with others. She loses interest in Tommy and then she meets Keith. She makes a date with him. She decides to stay with him until she kisses Cliff one more time. She gets a glow from kissing him and Keith does not give her a glow. She ends up with Cliff. A nice movie and a good way to spend an hour and thirty eight minutes.",1 "What makes this action drama particularly moving is the comparison between the extended family of a Sicilian crime boss and the clannishness of the hillbillies. While Joey Rosellini insults the mountain folks as people ""who farm rocks"" his boss John Isabella sees the link -- ""that is what they said about our people back in the old country."" It is not a matter of who wears the nicer suit; it is a matter of blood, of kinship, and of ensuring that the one with the greater grievance has justice is done for his family. This is a very old tradition, both in the Sicilian families and in those Celtic clans that moved into the hills of Appalachia. In this aspect ""Next of Kin"" reaches a level of art not usually found in action films. The scene of the women packing sandwiches for the big hunt shows a level of clan community not well understood by us city-folk.

Watch this film and enjoy.",1 "For me, a disappointing sequel to the successful, breezy ""That'll Be The Day"" as the bright young scallywag Jim MacLaine (David Essex) somewhat improbably tries his luck in the rock industry only to crash and burn by the end having lived the rock dream to the bitter end, along the way cramming into the narrative as many rock clichés as you can think of. So we get the inevitable ""musical differences"" which cause him to leave his band The Stray Cats, encounters with groupies, strained relationships with the estranged wife and son he left behind, his rise to solo mega-stardom and eventual retreat to a drug-filled existence leading to the inevitable downbeat conclusion. Rock fans might derive fun from the peripheral characters' purely coincidental resemblance to any living person, as the legend goes, with a foreign intellectual interfering girlfriend (Yoko Ono?), old-style matey, but sexually ambivalent manager (Brian Epstein?) and loudmouth, money-obsessed American manager (Allan Klein), as well as Essex's character's own career path which seems to echo Jim Morrison of the Doors (who also died in seclusion in continental Europe), but the situations are too conventional and predictable to really engage. On the acting front, Essex's limitations are exposed and he fails to draw in the viewer, unlike his lighter playing in ""That'll Be The Day"", although more experienced actors like Adam Faith and Larry Hagman get more to chew on in their roles. Another weak point is the original music, (a failing also of the much later ""Dreamgirls"") which especially when set against contemporary classic tracks by The Who, Kinks and Mamas and Papas, to name but a few, is sorely lacking in catchiness and leaves you wondering just how The Stray Cats actually got to the top of the charts. This is slightly surprising given that the musical director here is the talented Dave Edmunds, whose own solo career abounds in recreations of mid-60's pop and rock. Ironically, trivia-fans, Edmunds in the 80's successfully produced the popular rockabilly band The Stray Cats, best known for ""Runaway Boys"" and ""Stray Cat Strut""! In the end an overlong, over-pretentious movie and evidence if it was needed, that the best way to portray rock star excess is with parody, e.g. ""The Rutles"" and of course ""This is Spinal Tap"".",0 "Very strange movie that deals with g-men obsessed with RADAR. As we all know, radar is a fantastic piece of technology, but the movie doesn't seem to really be about it. It's more about long-winded speeches about a robbery and nothing more. It's quite funny, but I don't think that's how the director originally intended it to be!",1 "I am probably biased against this film, as I am studying it at school in extension french, but this is the most terrible movie I have ever seen. The people simply can't act; the camera angles are always dodgy as, and there is almost no backing music; a terrible film all up.

Not to mention, the whole 'old-people love' thing is just gross. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but it is kind of sickening seeing Gerard Meylan's derrière TWICE in the film.

All round, a terrible film; no plot, no acting skill... terrible quality piece. I'm sure Robert Guediguian is a very talented director and producer, but this movie was not some of his finer work.",0 "Excellent Movie! Cheech is sent to a factory full of illegal immigrants to pick up his cousin ""Javier"". When he gets there, a pile of cops come in a arrest the immigrants. They think cheech is one of them, and they send him to mexico. If he had only took his wallet with him, he wouldn't have been sent down south. I read all the reviews and most people didn't like this film, but i think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread! The best part of the movie is when he tells the prison guard, Phil,says ""Rudy, you still owe me $100!"" Cheech says ""Yeah, Heres one of them, F**K YOU!"" (I wish IMDb allowed curse words!) This gets a 7/10. It's worth your money!",1 "I guess by now you could call this movie a ""classic."" It would meet most definitions. It was so popular that it spawned a number of sequels, but they just got dumb and dumber. This is one of the most famous ""revenge"" movies ever made and still stands up today.

This was a very, very simple story and it panders to our base instincts which is probably why it was so successful. Most people want justice, and they want it now....which is what this movie preaches. At the time, the movie was shocking. If it came out today, it wouldn't have nearly the impact. However, the early scene of the mother and daughter raped and killed is still horrifying. That will never change.

The story then slows down as we see the transformation of the husband, from conscientious objector to vigilante. When Charles Bronson hits the streets, the film picks up big-time. The movie also ends on a very satisfying note.",1 "n 2005 the BBC did a live version of Nigel Kneale's Quatermass Experiment. Originally a 6 part three hour TV series about a rocket that returns to earth with only one of its crew still alive, and he's horribly changed. It was the first appearance of Professor Quatermass a flawed genius who is in a way the precursor to Dr Who.(This version co starred David Tennant, the current Dr Who).

The production is very good and the cast is excellent with Jason Flemyng making an excellent Quatermass.The show is for the most part very creepy and had it held together until the end it might have actually crossed into scary. The problems with the show come from two places. First the 96 minute program effectively removes half of the originals 180 minutes. There is a great deal of story compression especially in the second half as the plot does not zip along as much as it jumps. I have not seen the original series (only two episodes survive the last I heard) but I've read on the show and seen the film that was made from it so I know there was a bit more towards the end than we see. The other problem with the show is that in adapting the 195-something scripts for modern day broadcast they didn't update enough. the space shot is secret, the technology is often out of date (audio cassettes in a black box?), the media is much too trusting and not enough in your face. It creates a nice sense of its own world, but at the same time its not wholly believable. That said its still a very good retro-sci-fi drama 7 put of 10",1 "Sam Elliott and Katharine Ross play an American couple traveling through England where they are taken in by a mysterious millionaire who apparently heads up a devil's coven. The evil lurking at the mansion won't allow anyone to leave--and so we're all held prisoner together, watching the guests meet their 'imaginative' grisly fates. Fashionable nastiness, ""Ten Little Indians"" style, with director Richard Marquand showing no sympathy for his victims--nor giving viewers any genuine thrills to enjoy along the way. Marquand gets ridiculously showy with his camera tricks--even staging one shot through the nozzle in Elliott's shower stall! Lethargy settles in early, the talented leads are wasted, and the shocks are awfully slow in coming. *1/2 from ****",0 "Benny Perkins, the man who won a truck before and comes back to try the contest a second time, is a genuine cowboy genius. His opinions on the contest and his philosophy of life are inspirational. Maybe the reason Benny's thoughts made it into the film is that he gave a sit-down interview. Most of the other interesting action of the film happens off-screen, because Bindler and the other film makers failed to capture it. They miss people cheating in the contest, they miss Benny deciding to drop out, they even miss the most vital moment of the contest, when the first runner-up takes their hand off the truck.

Bindler also uses choppy, melodramatic, and extremely repetitious editing techniques. While this is a great subject for a documentary, and there are many fascinating people, especially Perkins, in the contest, Bindler fails to make a film to do th",0 "In some cases I'd say this is better then Pretty Woman. I say ""some"" with weight because Pretty Woman is a classic. But Milk Money fills that ""hole"" you had watching pretty woman. Ed Harris's character is sincere and attentive which matches Melanie's softness (which at the best of times can spoil her on screen performances) perfectly. It's a classic boy meets girl movie with that dash of ""damsel in distress but is now hardened and tough due to life being so rough and who now finally meets a man who breaks through it all and understands and loves her for who she is"" - as far as romantic comedies go- it was better then I thought it would be and even gets the heart strings welling when Ed Harris tells her ""this could hurt""...The story itself can be at times almost childish, but in the end that's part of it's charm.",1 "I watched Bitter Blood to its bitten end, three grueling hours! You might ask why I watched to the end. Well, after sitting through the indescibably awful first two hours, I needed to see how this mess ended. Let me just say that when I shut my TV off at 11pm I was less than happy. Out of the 1602 movies I've voted on, one of the three I've given a rating of 1. Horrible.",0 "I heard this movie sucked. It did not. It is not great film, but it is good film. The homage to the 1970s was there, the little ""film buff"" touches that remind one of urban horror's roots as far back as nosferatu.

this movie could easily have been a sell out, with Bones as ""Snoop da CROW""

with the vengeance thing, but it did not.

the only ""bad horror"" gimmick was the last 4 seconds of the film.

I expected a crappy horror movie. This beats urban legend or scream 3.

",1 "I've been writing for Ain't It Cool News for 11 years and I found out there's a rift between Harry Knowles and Uwe Boll that's why Harry won't publish it. Regardless, its the best movies Boll has ever written and directed; except for the ending. WARNING! SPOILERS!

Uncapie here!

Let's spend a ""Holiday In Cambodia"" where the people dress in black.

Okay, now before everyone gets on my ass, this is the best film Uwe Boll has written and directed.

Yes, I'm serious.

""Tunnel Rats"" is a powerful, well-written story about the little known group of American soldiers in Vietnam of the same name based loosely on elements from the ""Tunnels of Cu Chi"" and real-life events that took place there.

The pre-credits sequence is intense. A Tunnel Rat armed only with handgun and a flashlight searches for Viet Cong, in a tight, claustrophobic environment. Stops and listens. Nothing. We see the VC doing the same thing. They're heading towards each other. When the confrontation happens, the audience never sees the twist coming.

Boll captures the intensity these men went through in the crawl spaces. You actually feel like your trapped in these tiny confines with the soldiers. The dirt, the dust filling your lungs as you attentively search for the enemy, crawling on your belly, not being able to stand up for long periods of time, no light except for that of your flashlight and the fear of what unknown factor might lie ahead; whether it be an enemy soldier or a deadly booby-trap.

You look for a way out of a 75 mile interconnected maze that is 2-3 levels deep.

Its intense.

One thing I like about Boll what he did with this film is that he showed both sides of the combatants. Each side had their reason for doing what they had to do and what they believed in. Both sides had gray areas in their duties, but basically, both groups just wanted to get this war over with and go home.

Michael Pare portrays the burned out, ""Lieutenant Vic Hollowborn."" A real hard case, who at one time was probably a captain or major, but was busted down to lieutenant because he's too stern with his men challenging them to boxing matches if they step out of line. A good tactician, they gave him a dirty job instead of a one-way ticket to the LBJ(Long Bihn Jail; a military prison.).

Hollowborn is in charge of a group of young soldiers who risk their lives everyday where one slip is fatal even being warned not to smoke the night before they go into the tunnels the next day because the VC can smell the smoke on them. They can even tell the brand.

None of these guys want to be in the 'Nam. They all hate it. They stay away from the FNG's(F-ing New Guy's) because all they do is talk about home and that's a place the Short Timer's want to be. They also feel that the FNG's aren't worth a salt unless they've proved themselves in combat, but that's hard to do sometimes as that they'll probably be killed in the first week, so why bother getting to know them.

The next day, the squad goes on a simple ""Search and Destroy"" mission, but all hell breaks loose and each man must fight for his own life in order to survive.

Boll's co-writer and producer, Dan Clarke, particularly pays close attention to detail in the script to give the story the realism it richly displays. The booby trap sequences invented by the Viet Cong based on real events are creatively deadly.

Great photography by Mathias Neumann. From beautiful jungle vistas to the dark tunnels. Quite an impressive contrast. The sound is crisp and clear. The most impressive part is, is that the entire movie was shot in South Africa doubling for Vietnam and you cannot tell the difference.

This is Boll's best film...up until the last ten minutes.

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

You get to know the characters. You like most of them, but everybody dies. EVERYBODY. Who's left to left to tell the story? No one. At least in ""Go Tell the Spartans"" and ""Apocalypse Now"" somebody lived to tell the story. Here, you walk out of the theater, and yes ,there are some intense, memorable scenes that you can't get out of your mind that lingers on days after, but there is no one left alive! You're depressed as hell!

Boll creates the best work ever and blows it the last ten minutes. Like the film, ""I Bury the Living;"" one of the best horror movies ever made until the cop-out ending the studio wanted. It could have been a classic, if not for that.

Boll should re-shoot the ending and have someone live to tell it. Its the only thing that hurts the movie is that ending, otherwise this is the best film he's ever done.

SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER END

This film is realistic and well made. My only complaint with it is the ending. Other than that, Boll did a remarkable job with this movie that deals with a little known chapter in the history of the Vietnam war about a group of remarkably brave soldiers that had to do a rough job.

Uncapie",1 "I had the unfortunate experience of viewing the Prince & Me original movie just before the sequel, the Prince & Me 2. The sequel had none of the charm and believability of the first, Whatever on-screen chemistry Julia Stiles and Luke Mably had in the first is completely lacking in the sequel. It's safe to say that Kam Heskin can't act her way out of a paper bag. When the marriage is called off, she's shows as much emotion as one hearing it would rain that day; a momentary contemplation, a shrug and off.

The only enjoyable part was seeing how Luke Mably matured from a care-free student to a more serious King of Denmark. As it should be.

This movie was completely disappointing, not only in the majority of new actors from the original, but the overall cheesiness of the production. Anyone who viewed Lady Diana Spencer's marriage to Prince Charles knows what a royal wedding looks like. The Prince & Me 2 perhaps paid $99 at David's Bridal for the wedding gown. The church was woefully empty of attendees. Very little pomp and almost no circumstance.

One thing that really gnawed at me were Paige's parents, also new actors. They dressed the father well in a very nice suit, but the poor bride's mother looked as if her clothes came from a rubbish bin. Yes, she's a farmer's wife, but believe me, lots of farmers I know have very attractive and well-dressed wives. And how did the parents fly from Podunk, America to Denmark in two hours? The space shuttle?

The script was predictable, the actors weren't stretched by any means and, sadly, when needed most of all, Paige was a dud. She had none of the sparkle, determination, honor and depth of character as written in the first film.

Others have gone into the historical inaccuracies and blase' treatment of Danish history, but 5,000 years indeed!!! There wasn't even a Denmark 5,000 years ago, much less a monarchy. Were they so low on funds that scene couldn't be re-shot??? If the writer made the mistake, was there no one - producer, director, even an actor - who didn't catch this? The role of Soren, so ably portrayed by Ben Miller, with sly sarcasm and stoic wit, in the original movie, was taken on by Jonathan Firth, the brother of able Colin. Unfortunately, the writing wasn't nearly as clever as the first, and subsequently, left Mr. Firth with nothing to work with.

The ball scene was also unbelievable. That a princess of the blood (Kirsten) wouldn't know how to dance? Commmmme onnnnnnnnn. And that an American girl could pull it off flawlessly with no visible training? My suspenders of disbelief were stretched to the max throughout this film, although I stuck it out to the end to give it a chance.

Best thing about the movie? The horses, purebloods all, unlike the actors.",0 "Wearing it's Italian-American heart on it's blood-soaked sleeve, this derivative horror film has a group of unlikable, stupid jocks and their girlfriends getting killed by a masked killer while a retired police detective pairs up with a female one to try to find out who the murderer is. Lamely acted and uninteresting, uninvolving plot line makes this play out like countless other 'teen slashers' of the '90's/2000's. Not a totally worthless film, merely a ho-hum bad one that no one give two damns about as they likely have seen some variation of it before (and better). Sal Sirchia as Troy, a mentally challenged janitor, is absolutely horrible in his role in this film (everyone else in the movie are FAR from master thespians themselves, but he stood out as the worst)

Eye Candy: Misty Meeler gets topless in the obligatory shower scene

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: 4 featurettes (Music and the Sound, Special FX Make-up, The Beat down, and Rico Behind the Mask); a Promo for Fear.net; Theatrical trailer; and trailers for ""Midnght Meat Train"", ""Seance"", ""Dead Man's Bounty"", & ""Christie's Revenge""",0 "This true to life film is a inside glimpse into a family that is, at its core, held together by the mother. Toni Collette plays the mother of an autistic son. Her performance is real and a driving force in the film. Her autistic son Charlie is a trial for the entire family and for his mother, whose life is so static and day in day out, she has come to accept Charlie for the person he is and she does this through simple love.

At the center of the story is the other son, Thomas (Rhys Wakefield) and his burden of keeping his brother Charlie a secret and his further burdens of family life. When father Simon is away from the home it is Thomas who tries to run the household. Charlie is played by Luke Ford who gives a wonderful performance (remember him from The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor). Their family struggles with bouts of seeming normalcy and shocking bits of harsh truth and bitter reality.

Thomas develops a strained relationship with a girl that is nice to him. This girl, Jackie (Gemma Ward) is striking and upon making it clear that she likes Thomas finds that he doesn't know how to deal with this. Both solid performances by Gemma Ward, a model, and Rhys Wakefield with his truthful, from the gut acting.

Written and directed by Elissa Down, who has two autistic brothers in real life, obviously brings her experiences to bear and is innately able to bring pressure to this trouble torn family while bringing out some very emotional love. The winner of this film is Toni Collete whose acting through the turmoil is completely convincing. The acting together with a strong script really make this a movie worth seeing.",1 "After a variety of sketchy farcical/romantic complications, the movie settles for a sentimental epilogue, and remains unsurprisingly dull. The biggest shock is Andrew Dice Clay - the comedian you love to boycott - whose 'Vin-Man'character utterly fails to get laughs transforming himself from a macho beast to a caring, sharing New Man via the 'Pretend You're Sensitive Handbook'.

Definitely a lightweight movie, without any heavy ambitions, and for the most part an unlikable one. With script and direction by women, it's considerably more arch and dehumanized than the usual sex comedy. Most of the men in this film are portrayed as belonging to a disgustingly hairy, penile-obsessed subspecies.",0 "Zohan is a Special Agent from Israel, but his dream is to be a hairdresser. Decided to pursuit his dream, he fakes his death during the pursuit of a rival agent named ""Phantom"" and goes to America, precisely New York. He has a lot of problems to get a job in a salon, until he is hired to work in the salon of a Palestinian woman named Dalia. Proving to have talent as a stylist and pleasing old ladies with sex, Zohan makes a lot of success, specially among the elder women. He also meets Michael, a guy who eventually becomes his friend and offers Zohan his house to stay for sometime. But Zohan's fame will bring him some problems too, and after he falls in love with Dalia, a big confusion is going to start.

This movie is the worst thing I saw in 2008. It is boring,annoying and I didn't even had the nerves to watch until it ended. It's so Lame!! Why Adam Sandler would make a horrible movie like that is beyond my comprehension,specially because he has a potential to be a much better comedian then that! They tried to copy the Borat formula of a hairy naive foreigner from a middle east country with a strong accent, but they didn't have the same success in doing that.

Nobody should watch this movie, unless they want to suffer for almost 2 hours of boredom and stupidity.",0 "Great movie, although it rather is a documentary... The abortion-scandal is well displayed and the director, producers and the cast can be proud of their work. The last story (with Cher) is based on real documentary-footage, so the things the anti-abortion-club does and the things these people say, were really done and said. A movie you MUST see if you are at all interested in the abortion-case.",1 "I took my two kids aged 7 and 10 to see this movie. They seemed to enjoy it, but I found it to be one of the worst movies I have ever had to sit through.

The plot seems okay on the surface - A chimp who works as a spy. However it all goes downhill from there. There are many silly twists, characters that just don't fit and situations that are completely unbelievable. The film was obviously made on a tight budget and it shows. Nothing seems even remotely real.

The director has made a number of animal movies in the past, specifically the MVP (Most Valuable Primate) and Airbud movies. This is easily his worst yet.

Save your money and go see ANY other kids movie.",0 "Babe Ruth (as Babe) helps his foster sister Frances Victory (as Pigtails) get her dog Herman out of the Dog Pound, where he is brought for having no flea license or tail lights. Mr. Ruth is heels over head in love with Ruth Taylor (as Mildred Tobin). Professionally, he wants to be a baseball player. He loves baseball more than eating. Eventually, he'll become accomplished at both. Pitcher William Sheer (as Harry Knight) is an embezzler. James A. Marcus and Ralf Harolde impress as father and son Tobin. This film is very silly.

Babe Ruth fans must have known this was all hogwash in 1920, so it's difficult to ascertain the film's point… possibly, this was a proposed film about a baseball player; after Ruth signed on, the story was probably tailored for the famous baseball star. Certainly, people knew, for example, of Ruth's longer history with the Red Sox. It's interesting to see Babe Ruth as he looked back then, but the film isn't very good, and the better performances are by some of Ruth's supporting cast.

*** Headin' Home (1920) Lawrence C. Windom ~ Babe Ruth, Ruth Taylor, William Sheer",0 "Seen it years ago when it came out to rent and again this year on DVD, it is a good film but still in the straight to video bunch of films, some FX are really good for such a film and some are not so hot but it has been done to the best of there budget which has not been much, any weak parts are made up by a good story one i would like to have seen run another 20 mins or more as it seems to end just as its getting in full swing, this is all down to budget mind, if the film had more money, bit more gritty. bit more spent on FX, better lighting, more depth on story, then who knows this could of been a very very good film to push other films such as ALIEN and others, but as it is 7 out of 10",1 "As an electrician, the final resolution for the posed problem is not just beyond possibility... It's beyond reasoning and certainly not plausible except to the most uneducated or jaded viewer. And to partially blame the hybrid hopper on Australia! Who writes this stuff? The premise, while fantastic, could have been much better executed. For all intents it appears that the writers have taken their 90 minutes of screen time, built their story (albeit thin), executed the major plot points (how did the bugs survive the truck on the airfield tarmac?) and then tried to coast home on some pitifully thin technical excuse for a solution. Thank goodness for weather balloons, silver streamers & diverted voltage!!! Give me a break.",0 "I saw this film last night at the Barbican in London, apparently it hadn't been shown for thirty years, longer than I've been alive! We were warned at the beginning that it wasn't the easiest film to watch and with that in mind, I actually found it not too difficult to watch. All the chartacters were very different and I really like the idea of having people play the animals. It was pretty sad but also heartwarming in a way. I loved Robert Downey jr as the puppy, so cute!!!

I would say that the film was pretty bizarre and I'm not sure if I could watch it again for a while but for someone like me who is interested in they ways of past decades, I think it was a brilliant peek into the late sixties. There was one particular character, the old lady who played the dog with the mange problem who I thought was brilliant, amazing styling and directing. A film that should be available to be shown.",1 "A perfect example of a ""notorious"" film that has been canned by many and seen (uncut) by few. As I have been in the latter bracket for years, I thought it was high time I chucked in my two cents worth.

Not only do I like ""Antropophagus"" very much, I think D'Amato has been unfairly maligned. His ""Emmanuelle and the Last Cannibals"" (see my review), for example, is classic trash, and never less than enthralling. It zips along and delivers everything the ad art promises. It isn't dull and it's nicely shot, too. His ""Beyond The Darkness"" (see review) is also righteous exploitation, a shameless look at a deliciously revolting subject.

Which brings me back to ""Antropophagus"". Often criticized for being boring, badly made and slow, it is none of those. Its island setting is atmospheric, D'Amato creates creeping suspense, and George Eastman, as the flesh eater, is memorably hideous. And the scene involving the removal of a fetus and its ingestion is just want genre fans ordered.

There is a creeping sense of death and decay surrounding this fine horror entry and I, for one, appreciate its stench.",1 "Aha...so this is among the low-budget films of the 90s. In my opinion, believe it or not, this is an OK use of the budget. Not that it's socially-redeeming, or anything, 'cause it ain't. It's just that I kept waiting for a really bad part of the movie to happen...but it didn't. Not that it's good, 'cause it ain't. Half bad 'bout says it. Three cavemen return to what's left of their village to learn via the dying breaths of one victim that the plunderers kidnapped three gals from the settlement. So off go our heroes to rescue the babes. That's the extremely simplistic plot. Like I say, I thought that the ancient beasts were OK. The dialogue was mercifully abbreviated. (Hey - that also describes the attire.) There are at least two things that I could have done without: (1) a narrator; and (2) the blending at the end of the futuristic with the prehistoric. Sexism be damned, but the ladies were pleasing to my eyes. Still, don't expect too much if you view this film - not even a lotta bare boobs - just plentiful skin. Buy it only if that doesn't exceed the cost of a reasonable rental.",1 "Having seen the Project Greenlight series about the making of this film, I had very low expectations for the final product. The director was portrayed as amateurish, and his stubborn attempts to cast his unproven actress girlfriend in the movie seemed to support that charge.

In retrospect, it seems that the Weinsteins sacrificed any shot at successfully distributing this film theatrically in favor of exploiting it as TV fodder. A rare misfire from the usually brilliant media moguls. Had they been brave and supported this movie, they might have ended up with a mega-million dollar theatrical franchise like Nightmare on Elm Street, instead of a straight-to-vid release.

A classic B horror film, FEAST serves up heaping helpings of cheap thrills in lieu of long-winded ""back stories"" which thrill development girls and story editors but leave horror fans snoring in their popcorn. The character development is clever and perfunctory, introducing a dozen characters with minimal fuss and maximum efficiency--colorful characters worthy of a (good) Tarantino flick.

The script is fast-paced and the direction captures the tone of it perfectly. The real fun starts just a few minutes into the first act, and keeps on pumping throughout the film, with just enough lulls in the action to reset the audience for more.

The cast is superb all around, with luscious ladies and hunky guys playing it for all its worth. Thankfully, whatever humor there is is not the insipid one-liner crap or tedious reflexive humor that's dragged the genre down for the past twenty years.

The EFX are topnotch, and the cinematography is outstanding, giving the film a bigger budget feel and greatly enhancing the limited number of sets.

Although some may disagree with the lack of a ""back story"" of the monsters, they were no more mysterious than the creatures in ALIEN, another film in which there was no way for the protagonists to learn more about their foes without contrived and boring exposition.

I can't wait to check out John Gulager's other films, and hope he gets a chance to expand into bigger budgets which he deserves. I also hope he stays in horror and doesn't lose his edge, because there are far too few consistent directors in the genre.",1 "I have to admit that I haven't seen this film in a while, but I loved it as a teenager. It is very eighties, very sickly sweet, but Paul Nicholas is absolutely gorgeous in it! Not much plot, but some lovely camera work with cracking scenery. Don't watch this with anyone who isn't a true romantic through and through. Have just bought it on DVD from Amazon as I really want to see it again.

The basic plot is: girl is getting married, boy sees girl and falls in love-at-first-sight. Boy spends the run up to the wedding trying to win the heart of the girl, even though she thinks he's an idiot. You can probably guess at the ending. Lots of beautiful countryside, a gorgeous manor house and fabulous horses. The comedy is a bit funny-by-numbers, but it made me laugh anyway. If you fancy a feel-good movie, something to curl up to with a hot chocolate, this is worth the time. Be warned though, I can imagine it has probably dated quite badly.

All in all, a nice way to waste an hour or two.",1 "Contrary to the known world it seems, I disliked Shrek for the same reasons I love all Pixar films. Shrek 1 & 2, as with all Dreamworks animation, are bent on bombarding the audience with modern pop culture references ad nauseum -- partially because the creators believe such recycling is humorous, but also I suspect because they understand, smartly, that modern audiences desperately sop up pop references as a means of affirming their own image of themselves. They are hipsters, on the pulse of modern culture. You can't put one over on them. They feel smart when they recognize the reference. I find it embarrassing. Wheras Pixar create original characters, stories, settings and music, Dreamworks repetitiously offend by piling on cliché after cliché. I love Mike Meyers, I love Eddie Murphy and John Cleese, etc. etc. But I abhor Shrek. If you are a young child, it makes sense that you feel drawn to something to which you are accustomed. If you are an adult with any semblance of taste, go watch The Incredibles or Finding Nemo and LEARN something about storytelling and character execution. Long live Pixar. Shrek is for the unwashed masses. Good day to you.",0 I love what i have watched so far. The first hour of it was kinda not interesting for me. But as soon as it started to pick up and i saw Julianna i loved it. The acting is great from Julianna and Peter. The others are good. This mini series is very different from what i have watched. It keeps you hooked especially if you have never heard of these things. SciFi has finally showed something that doesn't suck. It would be great if this turned in to an actual show. It doesn't just throw a bunch of information your way. All three parts are worth watching. This was a great mini series compared to the other crap thats on TV these days. It would be great if they release this on DVD or in some other way. This is definitely worth watching.,1 "Silly cheesy horror movies, man how they make a Saturday night. You can pretty much tell from the box it comes in whether it's a dud or a gem in hiding. This one was of the former persuasion. The actors were capable and the overall production quality was good. But the STORY - that's where this falls into the toilet. It's not scary in the slightest, it's just a ripoff of that classic short story ""The Most Dangerous Game"" where a guy is trapped on an island trying to avoid some killer (there's even a pit trap just like in that story). In this case it's six people trying to avoid a killer

---Spoilers follow ---

who is revealed to us pretty much at the beginning of the movie in a flashback. They spend the rest of the time doing the stupid things people in every horror movie do - split up into smaller groups of 1 or 2 to make it easier for the killer to do his thing instead of staying together. You expect this in this genre but you at least want some tension, drama, or at least a ""boo"" moment or two. There's none of that here. Each person is dispatched very matter-of-factly without the slightest scare. The ending is incomprehensible and makes no sense - I didn't understand what happened to the two who got away and I didn't really care. Pass this one by, folks...",0 "Having first seen the directors' 12min take on Poe's Fall of the House of Usher, I was looking forward to seeing this one too and wasn't disappointed at all. Though perhaps not quite up to the same level of artistic attainment as 'Usher' it is nevertheless very much in the same vein.

Like the 'Usher', the viewer should be familiar beforehand with the story on which it is based. In 1928, the directors, Watson and Webber, could have safely assumed the audience's knowledge of the biblical tale. (Interestingly, apart from the actual Genesis account, a phrase from the Song of Songs is also used when Lot is offering his daughters to the mob outside, desperately trying to convince them of the attractions of 'woman'). To complain that the film does not present the plot more overtly is beside the point, and almost a declaration of ignorance.

The basics of this tale (for those that know them) survive intact its retelling through the particularly distinctively visual, sometimes abstract or symbolic approach of Webber and Watson, and its protagonists are all clearly identifiable and well portrayed by the actors.

On the whole, a more accessible film than the 'Usher' film from the same directors. It bears, even demands, repeated watching. My only wish is that Webber and Watson had made more than just these two films together.",1 "I completely agreed with the last comment that this was the worst movie depiction of Jesus ever. Unlike others, I did not appreciate Jesus smiling throughout the movie,,and was unable to take him seriously. I don't consider myself an expert in acting, but the actor playing Jesus was one of the worst. Its amazing to me too how many commented how closely it followed the Gospel of Matthew,,,,,yet it left out quite a bit and actually mixed up, for one reason or another the sequence of events. I have just seen the Gospel of John,,,,,,and would highly recommend it as following the whole Gospel account and being much better acted. Also the older Jesus film released by Campus Crusade in 1979 and based on Luke was much better too.",0 "... they don't make them like this anymore? If not someone should. In connection with another film I stated that most errors or unrealistic situations can be overlooked if we are compensated via Style, Class, Sophistication etc and this movie proves my point. It is 1) unrealistic that Irene Dunn, missing at sea for seven years, should reappear on the very day that husband, Cary Grant, has succeeded in having her declared dead and then, moments later, remarried in the same courtroom and 2) that Grant's mother would not have attended the wedding; presumably the writers needed Dunne's mother-in-law to be in when Dunne (who naturally would not have known about the new wedding so would have no reason to attend and try to stop it) resurfaced though a little thought could have solved this. Gail Patrick is saddled with the typical Ralph Bellamy part but the whole thing moves along lickety-spit and generates lots of laughs and good feeling. A minor gem.",1 "'Nowhere' is definitely among my favorite movies of all time with the likes of '2001: A Space Odyssey', 'Eraserhead', Pierrot le Fou' and others. It's sad to see that many people have misunderstood it, but then again, it's certainly not meant for everyone. People think it's thrash, just a fun flick like 'The Evil Dead' or the Troma movies. This is actually ART made to look like thrash, because it brings the audience closer to the characters. In my opinion the movie is totally impressive, both both visually and thematically. I love the dark and apocalyptic feel to it, this definitely looks like the generation that's gonna witness the end of everything. Araki is a MASTER and 'Nowhere' is his MASTERPIECE.",1 "Greetings again from the darkness. I was very excited to see this as I have always been fascinated by the Titanic. A few minutes into this, however, it struck me that this might be nothing more than a tax deductible vacation for multi-millionaire James Cameron and his sidekick Bill Paxton. The available technology had me wondering what wonders the great Jacques Cousteau could have delivered to us were he still alive and working. My only real complaint with the ""movie"" is that we really didn't get much insight into the scientific discoveries and data that this ship full of scientists was able to gather. Mostly it was close-ups of Bill Paxton saying ""Would you look at that?"". I will say the Titanic visuals are quite creepy and fascinating and the subtle overlays were pretty effective in showing the viewer what section of the ship we were seeing at a given time. Just wish we had been provided with the payoff - what was the value of the trip?",0 "Secrets and Lies is my favourite movie so I was keen to see this. Unfortunately, it doesn't work on any level - the plot is unbelieveable and contrived, and the characters a little annoying. All of this is a bit surprising given Leigh's other movies.",0 "I got this movie because of the box art. It looked interesting, like a nice little romantic comedy. The tag line even looks like a comedy. But what really looked cool was Harvey Keitel on the cover.

So I paid for the video, went home, and was all set for a good movie. The movie then played. The movie finished. I don't think I'll ever pick a movie by the bow cover again.

The movie has perhaps the most uninteresting and unlikeable characters ever. Natural Born Killer's Mickey and Mallory were at least interesting.

The plot itself mainly revolves around two or three, maybe even four main plot points. The rest of it is just filler leading up to the quasi interesting.

Keitel's and Winslet's performances aren't bad. They worked with what they got. What they got was Holy Smoke.

I don't like summarizing, and I don't think I'm allowed to , so I only give my opinions. And in my opinion, don't waste your time on this.",0 "From a British perspective, part of the fun of watching this is seeing people who later became famous for other roles. Derek Thompson had had a minor role in Yanks, and this suggested he had a bright career in films, but he ended up playing nurse Charlie Fairhead in Casualty, and has now played that part for 23 years! Gillian Taylforth became better known in EastEnders, and Paul Barber was in Only Fools and Horses, but returned to the big screen in the Full Monty.

Some of the violence in The Long Good Friday is very graphic; the scene in which Harold (Bob Hoskins) ends up glassing his sidekick Jeff (Derek Thompson) after the latter had betrayed him is VERY nasty.

Helen Mirren is now an international star. Here she is supposedly playing a gangster's moll, but where she doesn't simmer with sexuality (""I want to lick every inch of you"", says Derek Thompson in an unguarded moment in a lift), she shows that she has as much control over Harold (Bob Hoskins) as he has over everybody else, never more so than in the immediate aftermath of the glassing scene. It is a tour de force in a supposedly supporting role.

But this film undoubtedly belongs to Bob Hoskins. Despite the violence, it is the film's climax which is the most memorable and chilling scene. Hoskins is held at gunpoint by a silent and menacing IRA gunman played by a young Pierce Brosnan. This takes place in a car driven by another IRA hit-man. The camera focuses in close up on the face of Bob Hoskins for over a minute, while the very catchy theme music plays, and while Hoskins, without a word of dialogue, goes through a whole raft of emotions, showing a man struggling to accept that he is finished, but is finally resigned to his fate. This is a magnificent performance.",1 "In most instances, I like to begin one of these ""reviews"" (I put that word in parentheses because I'm not sure that what I'm doing here would actually constitute a ""review"") with a plot summary. But, this being Agatha Christie and all, I would hate to give away even the most insignificant of clues. So I'll be very glib and just say that there's a murder, lots of suspects, and Hercule Poirot (I told you I was being glib).

I was prepared to write a rather lengthy review detailing all of my many problems with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but after reading what others have already written on IMDb, I'm not sure I see much of a reason. The issues I have with the film have been spelled-out more eloquently than I could ever hope. Like many other Agatha Christie fans, I've always thought of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd as one of her better efforts. It's a clever mystery told in an unusual style (at least unusual for Christie). As other reviewers have noted, gone is much of the mystery that makes the book so wonderful. Instead, the movie adds on a quite tacky finale that's completely out of character with the source material. I understand that creative license must be taken to bring these novels to television, but this time it's just too much. I could, and probably should, have rated The Murder of Roger Ackroyd lower, but the acting, sets, locations, etc. are too enjoyable to rate it a total disaster.

Maybe someday someone will tackle The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and gets it right.",0 "Not going to waste a lot of time on this one. Stay away. There is not one good thing I can say about this bad piece of work. The acting sucked, the effects sucked, and the ticks sucked (no pun intended). I keep asking myself, why they keep making movies this horrible. Why? What a tremendous waste of money and people's time. For God's sake, they could use their time more wisely by putting on orange vests and picking up trash along the I-10. PLEASE!!!!!",0 "Unless you are American or have detailed knowledge of that country's history, this film is best avoided. Initially attracted to it through a fascination for time-travel movies, I ended up disappointed and confused. The use of colour and black and white does not correspond to the periods in time as I imagined initially and I ended up totally confused as to what time one was in. The premise for the film is interesting but the story itself, to me at least, was far from entertaining. There's also use of bad and crude language which I abhor in films generally, unless there is a very good reason for it. Quite frankly, I am not particularly interested in what JFK did or did not do with Marilyn Monroe ..doubtless, those people who are interested in this sort of thing will find some pleasure in the work. I know it is not easy to make time-travel films, a certain logic needs to be respected, but if in addition the story line is confusing for the spectator, there is no hope of salvation. Admittedly if I knew more about American politics at the time, fewer events would have passed me over but as a European, my interest in this particular part of American politics is limited - and even had I myself been a US citizen, I would never never have voted for a Democrat !",0 "After years in the army Richard returns to his hometown at the countryside with his simpleminded brother Anthony. He soon realizes that nothing has changer. The smalltime gangsters rules the city and the locals try their best to maintain some degree of peace in their small society. When Richard decides to let the toughs know that his back, he immediately causes fear and awakens hidden memories from the darkest sides of their past. Richard is not back to reunite with old friends! Behind his cold and robust appearance lies a merciless hate. A hate about to overcome his soul. Anthonys absentmindedness makes him incapable of understanding Richards plans. Richard was always the one to watch over Anthony and protect him from trouble, but he seems to have lost his sense of responsibility to his younger brother. Someone has crossed Richards line of tolerance. They have committed a heartless act without considering the consequences. Remorse is to late. There is no remedy for their action. Richards heart is bowling over in hate and his soul has no room for forgiveness.

Paddy Considine known from ""In America""(2002), ""My Summer Of Love""(2004) and ""Cinderella Man""(2005), plays the revengeful ex-marine Richard with authority and credibility in on of the best performances of his career. Toby Kebell delivers a remarkable portrayal as the gullible Anthony. The detailed cinematography by Danny Choen balances between adventures beauty and cryptic darkness. Shane Medows use of flashback scenes in black and white gives the film a grieving and disturbing mood. A strong and invading thriller that's uneasy to forget!",1 "What a wonderful mini-series! A really excellent use of television to apply the time necessary to do justice to a good book (in this case, two books). Derek Jacobi shines as the lame, stuttering title character. But, so many fine performances abound in this treasure!

Brian Blessed, the benevolent, cunning, and oblivious Augustus. Sian Phillips, the malevolent Livia. George Baker, the brooding and frustrated Tiberius. John Hurt, the cheerfully insane monster, Caligula.

Look for a swaggering young Patrick Stewart, and an ambitious young John Rhyss-Davies as virile captains of the Guard.

Terrific in DVD, which seems to have corrected the series' sound engineering problems. Only one minus: Make-up is theatrical and does not hold up well to the TV camera.

Watch Episode 1 ... you'll be hooked for the entire thirteen hours of great this story-telling epic that was made for TV and TV was made for!",1 "A fascinating tale of lust, jealousy and mourning. Well acted and skillfully written, it shows why British cinema is best at giving us a view of the dark side of human nature.

This film is not for the squeamish, and those of a delicate stomach should close their eyes at the first sound of ""Anyone Who Had A heart"", and not open them until it ends. Great use of old (1960's)songs.",1 "This film is a chilling view of how New Zealand could be if ruled by a totalitarian oppressive Government, like so many other countries around the world. It focuses primarily on one character named Smith (played by the now famous Sam Neil). The direction is excellect thanks to the talents of Roger Donaldson (Dantes Peak). But if you read those names and expect a big budget, action-packed, thriller your out of luck, it was made back in 1977 when they were starving artists. This may not appeal to those unfamiliar with New Zealand, but its worth a look if you like well scripted well acted emotional movies",1 "This was just so crisp and the dialogue so sharp that I actually finally registered at IMDB just so I could publiclly praise this film. The looks, the leers, the wigs! What's not to love? Rented the DVD & after hearing the directors comments I must say I'm so glad that his DP told him he couldn't have white walls. The sheer b*lls out saturation of those colors totally made the movie for me. If they ever really do decide to re-make Valley Of The Dolls the only logical helmer choice is Richard Day. I can't believe there are only those two quotes from the movie. But perhaps the barbs are best savoured in their proper context. In any event, lovers of drag queens, bits of absurdism, and satire should snap this movie up.",1 "This is utter crap. There is no two ways about it. The comedy is not funny the acting is horrible and the girls don't get naked enough to make up for the horrible everything else.

PLOT: a geeky thin college kid on scholarship needs to sell 50 pills in one day or he's totally in big trouble. A variety of totally unbelievable and unfunny scenes follow this is an incredibly boring and tired movie that uses a lot of recycled see it coming a mile away jokes.

LAME.

The dominatrix was a nice touch but not anywhere near enough to save this complete train wreck.

Don't bother.

As I said- see a movie that IS funny and WORTH WATCHING with basically the same plot- see ""GO"" from 1999",0 "It's always interesting to meet people just passing through Thailand doing a documentary. Their conclusions are almost always wrong and their evidence is almost always suspect at best.

As one who has lived and worked in Thailand I can tell you that any documentary that does not include a LONG HARDlook at the role of the Police, the Politicians, and the King is leaving out the primary motivation for Thai prostitution in the first place.

Without the Top-Down Hierarchy in Thailand essentially Stealing the money via the Banking systems (the same way it is now being done in the US)Thai people would be some of the richest in the world.

So any slice of life documentary like this one, fails completely because Thailand is like an onion (or an Ogre), it has many layers, and some of those layers can't be exposed without brining tears to your eyes...",0 "This is cheesier than a cheese-o-phile's toenails, and if it wasn't so darned boring in most scenes, would actually be almost entertaining. Unfortunately, ten minute plus scenes of overpaid actors watching 70s style monitors in silence does not make for riveting drama. And the uh 'special' effects? These resemble nothing more than a cohort of marital aids taped together and heading woozily space-ward. They uh, don't look very real - as the 'artist' hadn't twigged the concept of 'weathering' at that stage - making models look realistically aged and grimy. Still we do have the spectacle of Karl Malden having a severe hair malfunction during the 'money' shot when the Hudson river, or what looks like either (a) chocolate soup, or (b) sewage, engulfs the assembled anti-Meteorites. Helpfully, Sean Connery is on hand to help Karl sweep back that 'repartino' and dignity is restored. Great for those of us older folk who have trouble sleeping, I struggled to stay awake to watch this over the course of three evenings and felt greatly refreshed for weeks afterwards. Q - another hair featurette - isn't Martin Landau's hair a wee bit on the uh, longish side for a serving U.S. officer??",0 "Ever have that day when someone gets on your nerves and you feel like pulling the axe on them?That's exactly what John Waters demonstates in his dark comedy Serial Mom.After starring in the cheesy family movie ""House of Cards"", Kathleen Turner has created one of the best performances in her life as the beautiful, heroic, misunderstood, law-obeying serial killer Beverly Sutphin.Eversince six murders, she has been placed with some ""terribly untrue charges"" and the only 'serial' she knows ""anything about is Rice Krispies!"".But she has good reason for butchering six people: they all commited a crime that no one understands, like dumping her daughter, eating poultry (because Beverly loves birds),smart-alacing about her dentist husband, refusing to rewind a rental tape, critisizing about her family skills, and witnessing one of the other five crimes.You may think she's insane, but really, she's just expressing things we'd rather hide inside of us.Like, say you work in a store and someone wants to return something but they don't have the recipt.It can't be returned without the recipt, so you tell them ""No can do"".Then they start cursing you out like you're worthless.Wouldn't you get the urge to shove a bullet in their brain?Well then, you now know how Beverly Sutphin feels when someone decides to be a wise guy.This movie is perfect for anyone who loves to laugh.Plus, the DVD contains the theatrical trailer, a behind-the-scenes featurette, several TV spots, four interview clips, and extra behind the scenes footage.I give this one a 10/10!",1 "Perky aspiring actress Janet Gaynor (as Esther Blodgett) leaves her small town for Hollywood; instead of extra work, she finds work as a waitress. Ms. Gaynor breaks dishes; imitates Greta Garbo, Katharine Hepburn, and Mae West; and meets alcoholic actor Fredric March (as Norman Maine). Mr. March likes Gaynor's sweetness and sincerity; he arranges a screen test for her, and the two become romantically involved. Then, Gaynor becomes Hollywood's newest star sensation (as ""Vicki Lester"") while March (as ""Mr. Lester"")'s star sets...

David O. Selznick's version of ""What Price Hollywood?"" (among others) is beautifully photographed (W. Howard Greene) and directed (William A. Wellman); especially noteworthy are the location scenes, with its near-final ""sunset"" providing an excellent thematic statement.

Few of Gaynor's contemporaries could have played the early scenes with the same sincerity (which parallels her character). She is terrific as the naïve young star; most importantly, she is believable as a woman who steps from obscurity to stardom. March is perfect as the eclipsed movie idol; it would have been nice to know more about his character's history of, and reason for, drinking (amusement is a given reason). Lionel Stander (as Matt Libby)'s portrayal of a prickly publicist stands out, among the supporting cast (Adolphe Menjou, May Robson, and Andy Devine).

This film was heralded as realistic depiction of ""Hollywood"" stardom; and, there are cute, clever, and realistic details throughout. Nothing too extraordinary is revealed, however. The film barely scratches the surface; and, it is curiously more asexual than previous cinematic trips down the walk of fame (it was affected by the ""Hays Code"", no doubt). Still, due to its strengths, this version of ""A Star Is Born"" compares most favorably with subsequent versions.

********* A Star Is Born (4/20/37) William A. Wellman ~ Janet Gaynor, Fredric March, Lionel Stander, Adolphe Menjou",1 "The idea of making a film about the secrets and wonders of inside the Earth sounds like good idea for a movie but this movie just can't seem to deliver.The actors are bareable(well sort of)except for the main charecter who is just as way to smug.As far as special effects and set the crew did a okay job.And the plot would be better if there were more creatures and stuff and less of a boring,tedious buildup.",0 "OK. What would happen, if Roger Corman, who directed produced and wrote all those nickel dime horror movies, like ""The Terror"" which was made with left over film and three days left in Boris Karloff's contract for another movie, the movie in which Jack Nicholson plays opposite his wife of the time and ad libbed many of his scenes and lines--WHAT IF--Roger Corman ""married"" Saturday Night Live.

You get shlocky trash, you get unknown actors, you get dumb cartoon characterizations shot on the cheap for nickels and dimes--canned and sometimes original linear productions, first act second act third act straight action with a hint of sex ( and little more than a hint ).

You'd get the eighties substitute for the chapter serial of the forties, an hour and a half of utter dreck with nothing more than Ed Wood appeal.

But.

That's the idea. What's interesting is how they put this crap together, and you get to watch.

I like stuff like this. $15K worth of technology you could shoot a better movie today.

Which is the point.

So.

Why don't you? And just sit box with a huge box of jujubees you got at RiteAid, or maybe chips unending with hot sauce you'd pay five bucks for, and kick back with an idiot movie you don't need to have a Master's in English lit to comprehend and hoot the villain.

Get it?",1 "What I saw was a throwback to cliché-cluster flicks of decades ago, but the soundtrack puts it firmly in the eighties.

It is thumpingly and enormously awful, as wretched and phony a film as could be conceived. Tittering harem ladies a'bathing, stern Turks delivering script bits from the 100 Most Popular Stock Lines for the genre. They might as well have gone beyond the scattered skin peeks to a fuller soft-core intention -- all pillow-plush and pleasures in the sultan's palace, because that's already the quality/ambiance/performance level of much of this thin 'n cheesy production.

The producers may have scored the perfectly suited shooting location, but much else in the movie seems to be reaching for the furthest reaches of inauthenticity.

Admissions: There is amusement, even delight, in encountering something so consummately lame, in wondering who could work on it and think for a moment this embarrassment should be taken seriously. I really did laugh out loud a few times at this painfully acted, double-dreadfully written, obliviously directed caricature. Maybe I WOULD view a portion of it again, preferably with someone else. ""Look!...watch this! Watch!""

And..I only made it through the early half. Turned away easily without even the tiniest rhinestone of regret. (A bug buzzing by in the living room could be diversion enough from this bungle.) Could be...could be that when it moved deeper into violence and intrigue, into dramatic seizures(!) of fate and steering of history, it took a turn toward something more engaging and more plausibly presented. Could happen...right?",0 "This film is about when 4 teens (Wes, Shaun, Ritch and Lauren) go wild after they graduate from high school, brake into private property, and kill a grizzly cub whose mother goes on rage to kill them. The film includes bad actors, goofs, and the toxic junk shouldn't even be in it. I gave it two because I gave it a little credit and at least all the bad actors died! I wish I could go back in time and never watched this rip-off. I mean, bears don't live in that territory, 3 branches will not hold a car, and fake blood splatters isn't going to make it better. Plus, at least a woman got a contraption in her back for bad acting! Plus, this is the first movie I've seen that before the credits, it says the title again. My rating: D- So don't waste your life on this junk like I did, it is also possibly the top ten boringest film I have ever seen! Plus, the dialog is boring and pointless. Don't watch this boring junk.",0 "but I had to watch it as is. As is, it's awful. I can definitely buy that it was cut to pieces in the editing room, because the characters don't even get onto the boat until about 30 minutes in - the time before that being taken up by about three different, and inconsequential subplots that fail (in my opinion) to enhance the story one bit. And once they're on the boat, we get treated to the killer's ludicrous stalking about . . . seriously, you're on a small boat, why can't you 'hear' the crazy slasher coming? Once people start dropping dead, aren't you going to be a teensy bit more careful about everyone's comings and goings? And the 'Nam flashbacks are laughable. The peasants look like they're wearing day-glow rags, while the lush Southeast Asian forests are represented by someone's back forty.

To be fair, the cover art's impressive, although at least one of the screen caps on the back wasn't even in the movie.",0 "i personally love this movie. it's one of those movies that you wouldn't really think of watching it on the theater. but when it gets shown on HBO, it is considered as a rare find. Frequency is a more serious combination on Back to the Future :) it's all too impossible to happen, but the movie made you feel that it COULD happen.

there's a lot of emotional moments here and there, but there's also a mix of suspense which is surprisingly just right. this a great film, if there are flaws, i didn't bother listing it because the story itself shines. great actors too.",1 "This short is an extremely funny teaming of Daffy with Porky as his ""straight man"" (with Porky's antics the cause of a lot of the funniest bits). I have to talk about something specific in the short, so let this be my spoiler warning: Any cartoon where Porky Pig sings the first verse of ""Barbara Allen"" is one my permanent list of favorites. When I first saw this cartoon, hearing an old tradition song issuing forth in the dulcet tones of Porky Pigs had me rolling on the floor and it still makes me laugh like a loon to this day.

The fun in this cartoon is watching Daffy and his progressively desperate (and increasingly unsuccessful) attempts to convince Porky that he really is Robin Hood, honest and for truly, he is! This has been released on a Looney Tunes Golden Collection on DVD and it (and the rest of the Collections) are well worth having and all most highly recommended!",1 "Hello! I gave this film a 10, not because it stands up to Citizen Kane, The Godfather or Mulholland Drive, but because for this genre (soft core porn/erotica) it's the best. Emmanuelle 2 (1975) is just about as good. The rest in the series have their merits and faults, but for the most part get steadily worse. But I am not just comparing Emmanuelle and Emmanuelle 2 to the other Emmanuelle films -- I am comparing them to all the films in this genre/subgenre -- all those films that you saw on Cinemax After Dark.

Also, I would like to point out that Sylvia Kristel (b. September 28, 1952, Utrecht, Netherlands) is the best that you can do in this type of film. It's embarrassing to see her in (barely) legit films like The Nude Bomb (1980), The Fifth Musketeer (1979) or The Concorde: Airport '79 (1979). She seems so ill at ease. But in her best work -- Emmanuelle, Emmanuelle 2, Borowczyk's La Marge (1976); moments from: some of the other Emmanuelle pictures, Curtis Harrington's Mata Hari (1985), Jaeckin's Lady Chatterley's Lover (1981), and Vadim's Game of Seduction (1976) -- she's as mesmerizing as Garbo was in Camille (1937), Anna Karenina (1935) and... Mata Hari (1931).",1 "I agree with the other posters on this title, it is truly dreadful. The lesbian sex is not arousing and very dull. I'm not very sure what this film is about because there is not much of a continuous story. Robin Sydney is gorgeous and the only part that I enjoyed in the film. She is killed early on so we don't see much of her. Terrible settings and bad camera angles. I didn't care about any of the characters and the acting was horrendous. Everyone involved should best leave it off their resume and I am still angry for wasting the time and cash to see it. How this got a distribution is truly a shock. The poster is awesome but the movie isn't.",0 "Contemporary Turkish cinema produces 20-30 movies every year (not counting straight-to-video or TV stuff) and about half of them are good, decent movies worth watching. Mehmet Ali Erbil generally is the lead in the other half.

As a golden rule, never watch a movie with Mehmet Ali Erbil. He is not a good actor, has no comedic talent beyond fart jokes, and no sense of appropriateness or decency. He apparently has a following who enjoys to see his torturous TV shows, and ready to pay for more of that crap in movie theaters.

Also, never watch a Turkish comedy that tries to emulate the American ZAZ movies of the 80s. They invariably suck because of poor writing coupled with bad casting.

Finally, to be specific for the ones who are late to take the hint, never see this movie. Actually, forget that this movie existed...",0 "I know that Canadian cinema is noted for its contributions to the Horror genre but this is horrible horror. Don't waste your time.

I had to write 10 lines of commentary to get this comment published. So I am going to fill up 10 lines of commentary to comment on this film. I do this so that I can get my 10 lines published because they won't publish it unless I submit 10 lines of commentary for publication. So here I am writing the 10 lines they demand before I can get it published. Once it is published you will read it. Once you have read it, you will understand. You will understand how boring and pointless this exercise was. And you will have some idea akin to just how horrible and boring this horror flick was. Get it! sorry to have had to waste your time.",0 "This movie is complete waste of time. Yup. Why? Oh, boy, where should I start? Bad acting? Lousy screenplay? Fact that movie is to late?

Emir Hadziwhateverhisnameisić hated this role, he admitted it in some news interview, and that can be easily seen trough this entire move. I even felt sorry for him seeing how much he suffers acting in this movie. I doubt he faked his drinking... He is talented actor, but not even his talent couldn't make him even to try to act. I don't blame him. Sergej Trifunović is giving his best. Which means that he suck. Yup, Emir at least has talent, this poor sob doesn't... Only possible explanation why would anyone even consider him for (any) role is fact that he look like what other ex-YU nations see as a stereotypical Serb. Funny enough, Serbs see him as stereotypical Albanian... Toni Gojanović... is chosen for this role simply because he's Croat... Croatia have much better actors than him (is he an actor at all?), but he does seems to be trying, and since he's a ""newb"", we can look trough his fingers...

Now, take a better look... Bosniak, Serb and Croat... and voilà, you have a generic ex-YU wannabe comedy... and that's it. It tries to look at war and reasons for war trough comedy but it just fail... there is no deep background story, there is no secret agendas, there is no comedy there is no nothing.. Movie was heavily advertised here as ""Movie that put together Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks in hilarious comedy"" and people wanted to see trough Karaula their youths and lives in pre-1991. Yugoslavia, but most of them abandoned theater before end because they have found foreign country and foreign army with foreign people and foreign stories. Something they didn't wanted or cared to see. Macedonia is foreign to Serbs, YPA is foreign to Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats are foreign to Serbs. Famous scene at the end of movie where actors get out on stage and public isn't tapping is clear sign what public thinks about this movie.

I thought that pathetic ex-YU ethnic humor has died in 1991. And it did. This is just zombiefied version if it, and it's not funny. It's sad. Strange thing I find is the fact that only in Serbia this movie was advertised like this is 1975, like we all live in perfect ""brotherhood and unity"" and that war never happened. Film had financial success in all countries of former YU, except in Serbia, despite big advertising campaign. Movie entered trough big doors, but it exited through back door, quietly and shamefully. This movie is wanting to look back at last moments of Yugoslavia, it is trying to say to us that it's not our fault, that we all were seduced by ""drunken and selfish"" leaders, blah, blah, blah... It could make some point if it was released during 1995; 1996; or 1997; considering that war and Yugoslavia were still ""fresh"" and all... but in 2006, this movie just doesn't make sense...

Legacy of this movie is big. Yup, before this movie, many various EX-YU actors and directors were talking about making some new movies as homage to old partisan films... luckily, this movie showed that it would be just waste of money...

I want my 94 minutes back.",0 "Boisterous and funny, Buddies is (yet another) widescreen spectacular of larrikin behaviour set in outback Australia. Looking like MAD MAX or Sunday TOO FAR AWAY and in mining territory, this is a blokey comedy with excellent leading pals (Colin Friels and Harold Hopkins). However, like most films released in 1983, it died the death of a brown dog at the box office. Nobody went to the cinemas in Australia in this period as the video boom took away all but the very biggest of releases. So many good films crashed and burned in 83/84. I have never seen it on video, or TVand a DVD release would be good looking for all the intended original reasons. On a big cinema screen it works well and looks great. It is dusty outback buffoonery and well made. If you have seen SIAM SUNSET or PRISCILLA QUEEN OF THE DESERT you might get an idea of how well BUDDIES looks in cinemascope. Same territory and equally as enjoyable.",1 "Burton and Harrison mince, preen, prance, and flounce about the screen in a horrendous display of bad acting. This movie would set gay rights back a century if it weren't so badly made and badly dated. One must wonder what made it a hit on Broadway at the time. The score is an especially abysmal atrocity by Dudley Moore. All those involved (especially Donen) should be ashamed.",0 "They just don't make many this good. The audience and I cried, laughed, cheered and applauded. The climactic scene is as powerful and cathartic as The Shawshank Redemption's golden moment. Will Smith is terrific, his son Jaden is just perfect, and Thandie Newton puts in a convincing supporting act. The movie's 1980s San Francisco is absorbing and authentic without stealing the show.

Best of all, if you are a thinker, this movie will challenge your visions of family, business and society. On one hand, the film reinforces the great American myth of the self-made man and equal opportunity. Myths are not necessarily false simply for being myths--we can make some of them true by choice, and our belief in this myth still helps make America great. Free-market capitalism is not the cure to all ills--surely it is the source of many ills--but it does open social doors that nothing else can even budge. On the other hand, if you can leave this movie without a burning indignation that any American child of any race should have to struggle just to have a place to sleep, you must be cynical indeed. This movie doesn't get on a soapbox, not even for a second--it just tells a real-life story that owns you before you know it.

I hope a few of us will let our motivations own us for years instead of hours after the movie's over.",1 "Mark Twain was a man who sometimes could not get a notion out of his head. He loved the issue of twins and switching births. It pervades much of his fiction, and few seem to comment on it. In one of his early sketches he tells an inquisitive reporter that the tragedy of his life was the strange death of his twin - the boy had one only one mark on his body that differs him from his brother - Twain shows it to the reporter on his own person, and says that was the boy who supposedly died mysteriously and was buried. The reporter leaves after that tidbit.

Of course the novel (which became the subject of this film and several others) is the one that people think of as Twain's ""twins switching"" story. It isn't. He would write (in the 1880s) a piece called ""Those Amazing Twins"" about a pair of Italian Siamese twins. The piece (which is not one of his best) became part of the germination that led to his last great Mississippi novel ""Pudd'nhead Wilson"". He separates the twin Italians into two twin brother Italian counts who turn up in the Mississippi town where the action goes. He also takes the ""switched at birth"" motif and uses it in the main story of Chambers the slave switched by his mother Roxey with young Tom Driscoll the wealthy heir.

Twins pop up too in ""Tom Sawyer Detective"" - which was based on an old 17th Century Danish murder case involving twins.

But it's ""The Prince And The Pauper"" (1876) that is recalled as Twain's ""twin story"". I think it's because the other pieces are minor or (like Wilson) full of other interesting small matters - like the business of the use of fingerprints to settle the mysteries of the plot (a first in 1894). Here it is central to Twain's looking at an appalling, inequitable social system in Tudor England.

Henry VIII is dying and his son Edward, Prince of Wales is aware that he is going to soon lose his wise father and take over the reins of government. Of course the truth is he is still too young (in 1547 he is only 11) and he really can only rule in his own right when he reaches adult age (presumably 21). He will need a ""Protector"" and the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Herford are the leading contenders.

In the film wise old Henry Stephenson is Norfolk and crafty, power-seeking Claude Rains is Hertford. Henry (Montague Love) appoints both to the governing counsel, but does not name Norfolk over Hertford (or the reverse). So Rains starts jockeying for position in a confrontation with England's premier Duke.

In reality it was more complicated. Norfolk was on the outs with Henry in 1547 (he was facing execution - his son the Earl of Surrey was executed the year before - but Henry's own death saved Norfolk). The two contenders were the Duke of Somerset (Edward Seymour), blood uncle to Edward VI through his mother, and John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, who dreamed of placing the Dudley family and the Tudors permanently together by marrying the three Tudor heiresses, Princesses Mary and Elizabeth, and Lady Jane Grey, to his sons. One day this plan would blow up in his face (see TUDOR ROSE). Somerset's doom was tied to a similar hair-brained scheme of his brother Admiral Sir Thomas Seymour regarding marrying Princess Elizabeth (see YOUNG BESS).

Edward, in Twain's story, while waiting for the sad news, meets Tom Canty, a boy who looks almost exactly like him (here played - for a change - by the Mauch Twins). As a lark they change clothes so each can see how the other half live. Tom is soon over his head, causing his cousin Jane to question his sanity, and revealing enough to Hertford to realize that the false-King is his own key to power. Edward is unfortunately forced to endure the poverty of Tom's social class, but also the brutality of Tom's father John Canty (Barton McLaine) who is a professional thief. But Edward is soon helped by a young squire, Miles Herndon (Errol Flynn) who is trying to return to his ancestral home to regain his possessions from a greedy brother.

The twisty plot did show much of the underside of English Tudor living that many of the other early Tudor history films barely touched on (except to show the intrigues at court). It also had plenty of humor - look at the business about the usefulness of ""the Great Seal of England"", which is typical Twain humor. I feel this version of the story is quite good - possibly the best of the different versions of the novel that have reached the screen.",1 "The thing that distinguishes Halloween II from other TV movies is the fact that it has an actual plot. Most of the TV movies I've seen have the plot of a fourth-grade picture book.

This film's storyline actually works for the most part. The only flaw is the time travelling. If they could travel through time, why not stop Kalabar before all of this every happened?

I thought Kimberly J. Brown's performance was brilliant. She has the charm and the ability to be the next major child actress. All she needs to do is to put a bit more emotion to her acting.

Also, the special effects were impressive for a TV movie. It's hard to find TV movies with special effects comparable to a full-length film. The special effects here surpasses many theatrical productions.

Obviously, this is not an Oscar-worthy film, but it's very impressive for a small-budget film.

Final rating: 3 out of 4.",1 "This is a great movie, worthy to compete against American movies from Hollywood. Sergiu Nicolaescu is one the greatest Romanian Director and even actor! Now he is old but he written history with his achievements and he will always be remembered as the first greatest Romanian actor and movie director! The new actors and directors are jokes! He is the only one that remains true! This movie was very touchy and realistic! The story was very good and if you're not Romanian you should search for a subtitle in your language then look at the movie! I rated the movie at maximum because it really worths!

P.S. If you're looking for a great Drama, Romance movie, here it is, if you want something else, this is not a good place to look...",1 "I saw a special 2 hour version of Dreamkeeper at a screening at UCLA film school (there's another 45 minutes that will be in the televised version, I think it's being shown for two nights, end of December.) This is an incredible piece of filmmaking and storytelling, better and more authentic in many ways that Dances with Wolves (Dances is hyper-hokie in many places.) The last film about Native Americans that was this good was the Canadian production Black Robe.

Dreamkeeper is brilliantly directed, written, acted, executed. I'm pretty jaded watching films, but yes, I laughed and cried (okay, tears didn't actually fall, but moistened my eyes were.) The visuals are staggering. Buffalo stampedes, fights, dream sequences all believable. What's really cool is that the intertwining of the stories works so well, a current story of a grandpa telling his bored grandson Indian legends that become real flashbacks. Superbly written and shot, the director (Steve Barron, an award-winning video director) pulls all elements together and lets the legends tell themselves (okay, I'm really biased against video directors making features, all show and no tell. Dreamkeeper, however, is show and tell done well, ain't that swell?) The two lead actors, Eddie Spears and August Schellenberg don't appear to be acting, they inhabit their contemporary rolls. Each legend has it's own feel and rhythm, and are beatifully directed and edited. And it's all politically correct to boot (apparently each legend had consultants and advisers from the specific tribes.)

Hats off to Hallmark Entertainment for taking the great risk to make this staggeringly good production. It should be released as a feature, because it played incredibly well on the big screen at UCLA. Dreamkeeper is a better and more important film than anything in the theaters today. Grab a beer, fry some bread, and sit down at your own home and watch this wonderful miniseries.",1 "

I didn´t enjoy the film at all. There was too many things in the film that didn´t match the story in the book. Bille August has taken himself too many liberties changing the story all the time. The entire book was based on Smilla´s thoughts, dreams and memories. Things which August totally failed to express.",0 "I can pretend no knowledge of cinematography or Mr. Angelopoulos. But I know Greece and I love her people. In July my 14 year old son and I traveled to Cappadocia, Turkey in search of some remains of the neighborhood where his great grandfather Iordanis lived until the great exodus of Anatolian Greeks in 1923. Reading the summary of the film (refugees from Odessa) I thought that perhaps I might learn something more about the forced migrations of modern Greeks. If I did not have a home in Rhodes, had I not been to Greece 28 times in as many years, were I not familiar with dozens of islands and cities in Greece and if I had never enjoyed the friendship of these ebullient, life-intoxicated people, I might have believed that this lamentation had something to do with modern Greece. As a professor at a New Jersey State college, let me assure you that I am familiar with the history of the period covered in the film. Indeed, my wife's uncle was murdered by the communists during the communist grab for power. My mother-in-law lived through the Italian invasion and German occupation...barely. These characters on the screen speak Greek, they listen to Greek music but who are they? No, they are not even vaguely Greek. Of course they are not people at all but simply allegories. They are that which the artist invents when life does not entirely fit or is inadequate to his perception of how it was or should have been. All represent some aspect of post WWI Greece that greater outside forces consigned to a fate they didn't deserve. As we joked in the late 70's in America: ""The Revolution didn't happen."" For an ideologue/artist, this is no joke. It's in fact grounds to put us through two and a half hours of torment. And it's all because the various Powers (Eleni's soliloquy of ""guards"" in different colored uniforms) didn't allow the generation after the ""aristocrats"" of 1919 (Spyros) to follow the call of peace and freedom (the music of Nikos and his fellow musicians, i.e., the Movement, the Cause). This dark, surreal revisionism smears the true and heroic efforts of the Greek people to sustain their lust for life through the tragedies of the 20th century, to achieve more than any of their Balkan neighbors, to have become so politically evolved and globally integrated.",0 "A movie very disappointing in many points of his plots... why should Germany and France sign an agreement for enlarging the 60-years old Maginot line? How is it possible that only Jean Reno and his friend can survive the flooding of their room, when they are bonded and all the other people present have their arms free? How can a people dressed like a 10-centuries ago monk walk freely into the restricted area of an airport with a nail-firing gun under his dresses?

These are only some examples of the many questions taht does not have answer in this movie, or admit a very confused one. I don't pretend perfection but at least a decent story.",0 "In 1985 I went to see this at a theater based on the impressively cool artwork used in the ad. There was nothing in the story that resembled the poster image. An absolute failure on every level, Def-Con 4 is the antithesis of entertainment. My precious _soul_ was damaged by this cinematic monstrosity.",0 "4 out of 10 for the animation. It's true that there's lots of action-packed anime out there that's big on flash and light on story. But this movie raped my eyes. This movie forcibly shoved unwanted imagery into my skull. I started watching it because I believed the slugline on the DVD box, that it was a sequel to NINJA SCROLL, which of course isn't true. I had to watch the whole thing, because I had to see how it ended. Any minute, and it would get good, it would show purpose. But it didn't END. It's one thing to fill it with the most graphic depictions of gore the animators could conjure, but it's another to have it all mean NOTHING in the end. A pointless, nihilistic waste of shelf space.",0 "Unfortunately for there is no shortage of these so-called film makers who travel to Thailand with preconceived notions and return with a poorly researched self-indulgent piece about (surprise) prostitutes. Leaving aside the overly melodramatic narration, the way that the narrator/director mispronounces many Thai words and shows an alarming lack of local knowledge, I saw no attempts to check the stories he was being fed, and no background information was looked into to validate the stories he reported. The narrator just accepted everything fed to him as fact.

Had he talked to people who know Thailand he may have discovered that the hard luck stories are par for the course, and as was shown, when the subject finds they aren't going to be making any money off it, they tend to stop answering the door.

Nice try, but this is just another inexperienced director who did nothing to back up the veracity of anything presented, though stories about prostitutes always sell don't they?",0 "I caught this bad boy at a showing in a Tulsa Oklahoma theater. The title made me think I was getting in for a cheesefest. Conrad Brooks is in it too so it has to be REALLY bad doesn't it? Well, no. See what makes this flick stand out is that it's far different from anything else I've seen. It's not Romero that's for sure. Think Romero with a little Lloyd Kaufman with a little Larry Cohen. I sat through the entire film and was not bored. That does not happen very often. At one point things in the film are happening so fast it felt chaotic and that's exactly what I'd imagine the filmmakers wanted you to feel. They wanted you to actually get in the movie. Now I don't want to sound like I'm totally praising the film because it's not THAT good but it's not bad either. It's one of those low budget shot on video horror films so how can you go in expecting much? Then we've got the title and the fact Conrad Brooks and Joe Estevez are in it. How can you expect much? What you can expect is a good time. I think anyone who actually knows this convention like list of horror stars will have an absolute blast. If you're looking for A grade acting with an incredible beautiful story go rent Hamlet. If you're looking for a nasty good time rent Zombiegeddon.",1 "Movie adaptations of popular TV shows is not a trend unique to America. The Japanese have been doing it for years before. Odoru Daisosasen (Bayside Shakedown) is but the latest attempt to bring a popular Japanese TV show to the big screen. Based on Fuji TV's popular and hip cop show starring pretty boy Yuji Oda, Bayside Shakedown basically delivers what fans of the TV show expect and want. All the formulas that made the TV show such a hit are all well displayed here. Just as with the TV show there is the right blend of comedy, drama, action and even some bureaucratic intrigue in the mix. Unlike recent American attempts at updating TV shows such as Mission Impossible, The Avengers, Wild Wild West, Mod Squad and the upcoming Charlie's Angels, Bayside Shakedown has not altered or revised it's look (granted Bayside Shakedown is a relatively recent TV show as opposed to the examples said above). All the characters from the show and those actors that played the characters on the TV show are all here. This is basically your equivalent to a TV Movie or `Reunion Show' albeit one geared towards a theatrical release. All that being said, Bayside Shakedown will definitely please fans of the show, but for those like myself who are not really fans it leaves somewhat of a mixed reaction. The story is not all too exciting and the action is somewhat tame for a movie. Bayside Shakedown succeeds solely on the efforts of Oda and the cast and their interactions with each other. There's a lot of flash and style but it might have as well been a direct to video release than a `road show ` movie extravaganza. A nice try but could have been better.

",0 "Two passengers aboard a ship sailing from Hong Kong to San Francisco are doomed. Joan (Kay Francis) is in delicate health and probably does not have long to live. Dan (William Powell) has been arrested for murder and is being brought to the states to be hanged. They meet in a casual way, unaware of the others problems, and fall in love. Leaving a trail of crossed stems and broken glass, they spend their passage enjoying their last moments on the earth.

To be honest, I was more impressed with the secondary actors in their roles than Francis and Powell. Aline MacMahone is so regal and beautiful as the fake countess. She really knows how to put over a comedy line and she never seems overly tough. Frank McHugh has some great comic moments and provides an extra dimension to the film. Even Warren Hymer as the cop is rather good.

This is a sweet romance with great photography and snappy direction, a wonderful example of early 1930s film making.",1 "I think a 10 out of 10 is not high enough of a rating. We had a viewing of the whole series last night, and I must say, that it had to have been one of the most well paced anime's I have seen. Noir was awesome and comparatively as dark as Elfen Lied, but, in no way did it have the punch and power of this anime.

And if you are a fan of great anime with great background music that is totally contradictory yet totally appropriate to the series, then you have your helping in ""more than you can eat"" servings.

The plot is a well thought out one. There are times in the first episode that you think my opinion may be wrong, but, sit through it and you just may be more shocked by the final episode than the first.

I wish I could go into length and discuss it with everyone who reads this review, but that would take away your viewing pleasure.",1 "Raptor Island is a Sci-Fi Channel movie. It's very funny because it has a dumb story,bad acting,bad visual effects,bad direction,and enough plot holes to make a small cemetery.

It starts out with a fake looking Chinese Aircraft getting struck by lightning. THE FILM IS ABOUT A GROUP OF Navy Seals that are on a mission to rescue an agent from terrorists led by Steven Bauer who was in Scarface with PACINO. They follow the terrorists to an island with Raptors. That's where the bad visual effects come in.

This movie is hilarious in its awfulness. Oh and the Plot Holes ""I don""t think he'll make it through the night. In the next scene that man is up running around. Why was a Chinese Aircraft holding American chemicals",1 "If this movie was meant to be anything but a farce, it failed miserably.

If it WAS meant to be a farce, it was a very poor quality, and a not funny farce.

Internal logic is lacking. Events happen without any indication of how the characters arrived at conclusions/decisions/actions.

Genres & sequence:

- Starting with a Road Warrior type of sequence in 2025.

- Character time travels to 1986, then promptly dies after telling a local young couple that a spear head he brought is special (it had pierced the body of the once called ""Christ"").

- Couple is inexplicably chased by Nazis who somehow know that the spearhead is in their possession.

- Couple travel to Hong Kong in search of a ""professor"".

- Couple and Kung-Fu taxi driver encounter and fight a Kung-Fu Master who doesn't like their visiting the ""Silver Fox Pagoda"".

- Couple find ""professor"" who is captured by Nazis, and professor dies while couple miraculously escapes the Nazis twice.

- Everyone ends up on a ""small"" island off the coast of Hong Kong.

- Small island off the coast of Hong Kong is inhabited by lost tribes of: Mogols, Little People, and Amazon Women. Couple & Nazis interact with them positively and negatively.

- Couple wins the right from the Amazon Women to retrieve the spear shaft that the spearhead belongs to.

- Spear shaft and spearhead are joined.

- End of movie without anything following the joining the spear.",0 "Hey, I laughed my butt off watching this film! It was a laugh a minute thrill for me. Once in a great while, Hollywood will actually make a movie for the sole purpose of entertainment, and this film is one of them.

I don't see this as a cruel movie in regards to animals, but it's more like a live action cartoon. We saw this type of thing in the old Tom and Jerry cartoons, and the writers gave the same formula a James Bond/Mission Impossible theme and gave us this great comedy. It's not anti-cat, as someone wrote in these pages, and I say that because the cats are decidedly the funniest characters in the movie. Hey, I own two cats and two dogs, I love them all, and a true animal lover will love this film.

A hilarious triumph! However, I will suggest that if you only love cats, stay away, or you might be offended. Other than that, great film for seeing over and over.",1 "Hard to fault a Clint Eastwood movie; he is so versatile. Interesting to see his daughter Allison at such a young age, as previously the only thing i ever saw her in was ""Midnight in the Garden of Good an Evil"", which he put together around a set of Johnny Mercer songs. Interesting to see him so young too; he looks like a kid in this movie. Also cool to see New Orleans in the 80's, ""pre-Katrina""..Pretty risqué for an ""80's"" movie; lots of nudity for such an old movie. The one thing i didn't like about it was that it was so dark; a lot of it was filmed at night or in the cat houses. Also after seeing current ""CSI"" shows regularly, it does seem a little primitive in their investigative methods.",1 "This show was terrible its its final years. Daryl Somers refused to change the format of the show (like the bosses/fans kept telling him he should) and so it got axed (yet he was still suprised).

Whenever a side kick would get more popular then Daryl he would kick them off the show. He did this to Denise Drysdale because she was simply to funny, so anyhow he then decided to put blonde bimbos as his co-hosts on the show instead (they were really REALLY dim)

I will give the show credit for unveiling alot of talent on its RED faces segemnt (this was a segment EXACTLY the same as The Gong Show from America)but beyond that it was pathetic.

Actually the show was mentioned to Jay Leno once and he said "" what a stupid name for a show, whats next run run its Monday. LOL This was actually show to Daryl during the show and he obviously wasnt expecting it by the look on his face. He was talking up Leno beforehand saying what a great guys he was and all this. You should have seen the look on his face what a classic!",0 "This movie absolutely deserves a 4. The premise is great any anti American activity results in death. The movie sticks to that for a little while. The major downsides were that Uncle Sam doesn't really appear until forty minutes into the movie, and like an hour in he just starts killing everybody. The best part of the movie was at the end when they fire the cannon at Uncle Sam and you can see the string pulling him back through the house. God that was soo funny. I couldn't stop laughing at that. The acting was kinda bad, but expected. The best character is the blind kid in the wheelchair. Bottom line if u like cheesy movies especially horror see this.",1 "I remember watching this movie at school not too long ago in film history and immediately fell in love with it. Not only did Douglas Fairbanks star in this film, he also produced it.

***A FEW SPOILERS AHEAD***

The Raoul Walsh film is based on a tale from the Arabian Nights. A noble, nice-looking (sorry, I had to add that in), young thief named Ahmed who sneaks into the palace (with the help of a magic rope) and tries to steal, but changes his ways when he falls for the Caliph's daughter. After hearing that the Caliph is searching for a husband for his daughter, the thief disguises himself as Prince Achmed. He fulfills the prophecy of the princess by being the first to touch the rose of the tree. Later, he expresses his honesty to the princess about him not being a prince, but a thief. His true identity is revealed when one of the Mongol slaves he ""ran into"" tells the Mongol prince who he [the thief] really is. Then, the Mongol prince ends up telling the Caliph and the thief is stripped, whipped, and thrown out of the palace.

Now the princess must wed one of the suitors that were left. But suggests that whoever brings back the rarest treasure after seven moons, she will marry. Before the thief goes out on the quest, the princess gives him her ring. Ahmed goes through several obstacles such as the Valley of Fire, the Valley of the Monsters, the Cavern of the Enchanted Trees, the Old Man of the Midnight Sea, the Abode of the Winged Horse in which no one has been able to survive.

The special effects are outstanding for a 1920s film! The tinted scenes of the thief's quest sets you off in a mood and gives you a feeling for that particular scene. Despite the age of the film, it's worth watching!",1 "Adam Sandler is rapidly becoming my favourite on-screen comedian. He has this knack of doing incredibly stupid films that nevertheless manage to put a big stupid grin on my face for the whole show. This one has all the Sandler trademarks: a daft plot, a pervading sense of (mostly) innocent fun, incredibly funny supporting cast, plenty of cameos, cartoon-like laws of physics, references to his other films (or is that vice-versa in this case?). His characters tend to start out unlikeable (such as Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison), but the viewer ends up rooting for them anyway as the film progresses and the character's good side is revealed. There is usually a positive, inclusive feeling to the comedy style: just about all the characters in the film (even the sleaze-bags) are treated well by Sandler's character (once he gets over his temper tantrums in this case), which puts these films head and shoulders above the derisive, divisive style of humour that seems so common elsewhere these days. Sandler's characters tend to only make headway when they are being good, which isn't a bad message for the kids in the audience. Yet there's nothing saccharine or Disney-esquire here. While some gags are a bit predictable, there are still plenty of surprises and some outright lunacy that keep it fresh. Even once you suds out what the Sandler formula is, the films are still enjoyable to watch. Sheer fun!",1 "I will admit I had been looking forward to checking out this film for a while now. Hearing stuff about how it was a great character based drama in a post-9/11 New York City and how it really held meaning and was a catharsis for those who watched. Just the fact that it was a serious dramatic turn for director Danny Leiner, yes he of Harold and Kumar fame, was enough to pique my interest. In the end, however, the film really fell flat for me and besides the numerous references to the horrific event, The Great New Wonderful didn't need to have it as a backdrop. Sure there are some really nice moments, but overall it just shows stories of vapid people going through their meaningless existences until they finally let go from the tragedy that hit. Are we to believe that once the shock went away these people's lives changed for the better? that without 9/11 they would still be trapped in useless existences not being able to break free? Well if that is the case, than we need global tragedies more often because they really make the world think about life and become better people as a result. Maybe one needs to be a New Yorker to get the film, but I just didn't see the greatness, just exploitation about how the Twin Towers falling changed a few people in the city and made their lives understandable in its context because they weren't good enough people to see their wrongs without it.

We are given an all-star cast here, with many actors that I truly enjoy watching. They even do a pretty good job with what they are given, and I can't really fault any of them besides the fact they read the script and still wanted to be involved. Maggie Gyllenhaal is great as a cake designer discovering the utter uselessness of her job in a world that should mean more than five thousand dollar pastries. Judy Greer and Thomas McCarthy are fantastic as a husband and wife duo trying to survive professional and personal hardship while their troubled child devolves into a monster. This segment is interesting as a concept and I would almost like to see it as its own movie. I mean besides a racial slur from their son, the entire story has nothing to do with 9/11 at all, but just an emotional piece of family struggle. Even Jim Gaffigan surprises with his nuanced performance opposite Tony Shalhoub. The rapport between the two is electric and could have really gone somewhere instead of languishing in an awkwardly comedic setting, ending somewhat laughably with Shalhoub's sly smile into the camera.

Thankfully there are a couple moments that worked completely for me. Olympia Dukakis is amazing as a wife who has been creatively and emotionally stifled by her husband and monotonous existence. Only when she meets an old friend from the past and sees how he can laugh and care about the little things in life, does she open up to herself to try again at living her life the way she wants to. The best section of the film, however, contains two Indian bodyguards protecting a General in town for a run of speeches. Sharat Saxena is effective as the troubled one suppressing his anger with everything that has gone on, but it is his partner, played by Naseeruddin Shah who steals the show. A consummate family man, Shah does all he can to lighten the mood of his friend and just speaks about random things going on around them, flirting with the women going in and out of their paths and finally confronting Saxena to get the point across that ""life is too short, if anything we should all know that now."" The conclusion of their arc really hits home in a surprising turn of events and becomes the only reason I would recommend the film to anyone to see.",0 "This is an okay Svankmajer short that comes with Conspirators of Pleasure on the Kino DVD release.

It's worth seeing for that movie but seems much longer than it actually it is.

What's interesting is how each chapter seems to deliberately pare itself down in the level of detail given each chapter. The first segment, ""Breakfast"" is uniform in it's depiction of each actor's ""meal"". ""Lunch"" (the most obviously meaningful of the three) moves along a bit faster and ""Dinner"" just crams as many brief encounters into a couple minutes as possible.

Svankmajer, it would seem, is pretty serious about breakfast and pretty lazy by dinnertime, but I like Dinner the best.

7 out of 10",1 "After a bunch of early films where Robert Taylor was playing both modern and costumed romantic leads, taking full advantage of his extraordinary good looks, Robert Taylor asked for some more rugged type roles. Louis B. Mayer's answer to his most cooperative of stars was to cast him first in A Yank At Oxford and then in The Crowd Roars.

In the first film, Taylor rowed crew for dear old Oxford where he was a matriculating student. But in The Crowd Roars he's even more rugged as a boxer. The role was chosen for him so he could have lots of opportunities to go bare-chested and show that in fact he's got hair on his chest. Taylor himself made that comment and back in those more innocent days it was to show he was not a powderpuff as if having follicles on your anterior was proof of that.

Overlooked in this hairy situation was the fact that Robert Taylor got a very fine role for himself as a boxer determined to make a quick buck and get out as fast as possible before becoming a punch drunk rummy. He's had poor and he's had rich and rich was better. Back when he was poor he was living hand to mouth with a near do well father, Frank Morgan, and a gentle mother who took in washing because her husband couldn't hold down a job. Taylor's mother in The Crowd Roars was played by Emma Dunn in a brief, but very telling role.

Anyway when young Gene Reynolds grows up to be Robert Taylor he's now supporting dear old dad who's still drinking and gambling. Those two habits are nearly the undoing of his son when he falls into the hands of rival gamblers Edward Arnold and Nat Pendleton. The usual bumbling oaf that Frank Morgan portrays on screen is played far more serious here. It's one of Frank Morgan's best screen roles.

Arnold has his secrets also, his daughter Maureen O'Sullivan and her ditzy friend Jane Wyman think Arnold is a stockbroker, as if that wasn't also gambling. Taylor in courting Sullivan does not disillusion her.

Look for another good performance by William Gargan as a former Light Heavyweight champion who takes an interest in young Gene Reynolds and Lionel Stander as Gargan's trainer and later Taylor's trainer.

The Crowd Roars is a fine film from MGM that went a long way in expanding Robert Taylor's range as thespian.

And we proved he had hair on his chest.",1 "I've watched a whole lot of movies in my life. I'm pretty sure ""The Dream Catcher"" is the best one I've ever seen.

It's the perfect road movie. It's the perfect lost boys movie. It's the perfect American movie.

It's stuck with me more than any other film. The characters seem more real to me than some people I've actually met. The photography is outstanding, and unlike a typical Hollywood film chock full of grand vistas and long helicopter aerial shots and so on, this shows the real America as we'd see it, from eastern railyards to the empty expanse of the Bonneville Salt Flats.

If you're reading this, please do yourself a favor and see this movie.",1 "Oh my this movie was bad. It might have been better had Richard Gere not played the part of Sir Lancelot. Someone should have had a talk with the casting director. It is the story we have come to know for those of us who have followed the King Aurther and the Knights of the Round Table myth. Sean Connery plays the role of Arthur but brings nothing to the part that is interesting, and walks around stiff and delivers his lines like he wants to speed things up. Julia Ormond plays Guinevere and also brings no charm to the part. Ben Cross is the villain as Prince Malagant and really is the only interesting character in the film. Gere well, just hangs in the woods a lot.

Want to see a better film about King Auther and the knights of the Round Table? See John Borman's stylish Excalibur.",0 "That one line summary makes me sound like I'm calling the Bad and the Beautiful a case in 'tough love', where director Vincente Minnelli wags his finger at what happens to some people (cough, David O. Selznick, cough), while also showing too the joys of working in the business. But it's a business at its most booming time, coming out of the 40s where the producer was king, and the director had to vie for room at times to really get his vision in. Here the producer Jonathan Shields is played by Kirk Douglas as someone with big ideas at first- he even has an idea to help make a scary movie about cats even more frightening by not showing the cats (echoes of Val Lewton). Soon he rises the ranks and becomes big enough to really call the shots all he wants, but it also gets in the way of personal relationships, severs ties, and sometimes even makes him out to be monstrous (there's one shot I remember all the time where Douglas, in a big fit of anger against Lana Turner's character, seems like he's a whole foot taller with the ego almost manifested). The narrative of the film is a retelling by people who knew him, a sexy but soon disillusioned actress, a director who once worked with Shields but then got cut off from him, and a writer played by Dick Powell. Rashomon or Citizen Kane it is not in trying to reveal more grandiose and amazing things about human nature, but rather a supreme rumination on the good times and the bad times, possibly more of the latter. What's great about Douglas's portrayal is that through the stories from the three ex-friends and co-workers and lovers, he becomes a very well-rounded character. At the core, of course, is the producer who at the time had as more creative say than anyone else on the set. This brings some of the great scenes ever shown about movie-making, such as the moment when Amiel, the director, tries to put Jonathan in his place about how a scene should be shot, ""in order to direct a picture you need humility"". Another comes with the moment when Jonathan and his soon to be 'asistant to the producer' has to object out of just being stunned. But more than Douglas, it's also tremendous, memorable screen time for Lana Turner, perhaps in her most successful performance in just sheer acting terms (not necessarily just in presence or style like in other pictures), and for Dick Powell, who with this and Murder My Sweet has two defining roles outside of his usual niche. With many sweet camera moves, a script that crackles with the kind of scenes and dialog that makes one wish for the glory times of Hollywood's Golden Age, and at least four or five really excellent performances, The Bad and the Beautiful might not be as astounding and near-perfect as 8 1/2 or as funny as Bowfinger, but it ranks up there with the best movies about movie-making, and can make for some fine entertainment even for those who aren't really interested in how movies are made.",1 "I found this movie to be one of the most inspirational that I have seen in a long time. The filming was exceptional. The riding that Viggo Mortensen did was awesome and the horse that was Hidalgo was quite an actor. I was riveted throughout and it should be considered an epic. This movie shows so much about this particular piece of our past and how we started and what happened to the Native American Indians and to the Mustangs. We don't have enough of this kind of movie now. There are children that don't know about these things. There were many messages in this movie that were courageously and sensitively put forth. Viggo Mortensen was perfect in every way as was the horse. I found all of the actors wonderful, the scenery so different from just a western and the horsemanship outstanding. What a movie. I loved it. I will see it again, in the movie theater, and I will buy it when available.",1 "Ang Lee has the ability to transform simple stories about human relationships into epic films that somehow maintain the quality of intimacy and tenderness despite the grand sweep of his productions. In LUST, CAUTION ('SE, JIE') he has once again created a symphony of a film with a script by James Schamus based on the short story by Eileen Chang, assembled a cast superb actors who convey the story's multileveled messages on the historic backgrounds of World War II Shanghai and Hong Kong using the sensitive camera eye of Rodrigo Prieto and accompanied by Alexandre Desplat's evocative East/West musical score. It is a visual triumph, a fascinating recounting of China's history about which we know little, and one of the most intriguing love stories committed to film.

The film opens in Hong Kong focusing on a group of college students who form a theater group to present plays of 'significance'. Young Wong Chia Chi (the luminous Wei Tang in her first cinematic role) is asked to join the theatrical group and she consents primarily because of her attraction to the leader of the group, Kuang Yu Min (Lee-Hom Wang, a commanding and handsome actor). Events of history alter the purpose of the art groups and they become a Resistance force against the Japanese occupation of China. The leader of the Japanese sympathizers is a Mr. Lee (Tony Leung, one of the most solid actors on the screen today) and the student group plans an infiltration into his home and life by placing Wong Chia Chi into his household. In residence in Mr. Lee's home, she learns to tolerate the constant mah jong games with Mr. Lee's wife (Joan Chen) and her gossipy girlfriends, only to await the moment when Mr. Lee will notice her and hopefully begin an affair that will result in inside information espionage. As the effects of the war tighten problems the Yees move to Shanghai and the troupe follows them: the troupe has become a committed political resistance force with plans to kill Mr. Yee and the cadre of men who support his siding with the Japanese. Wong Chia Chi agrees to follow Mr. Yee's sexual advances and in short time they are caught up in powerfully erotic explosions of lust: it is during these very frank and very erotic lovemaking scenes that Ang Lee manages to reveal the inner aspects of each of these important characters, allowing the audience to see the complete picture of how lust can dissipate caution. The changes that occur between the two characters set in motion a surprising ending, at once disturbing and understandable.

Accompanying the DVD (already in excess of 157 minutes) is a 'making of' feature and a discussion period with not only Ang Lee but also with the stars and production people that is very solid commentary and for once seems pertinent to enhance the enjoyment of the film. Some may find the extended lovemaking scenes too frankly sexual, but so much of the real grit of the story lies in the non-verbal, purely physical language that could only be understood in the way Lee decided to film these gorgeous scenes. This is an important film on many levels and will probably become better appreciated with multiple views. In Mandarin, Japanese, Shanghainese, English and Hindi with subtitles. Grady Harp",1 I like this movie very much. Anyone committing or having committed ID Theft should be made to watch this movie no less than 20hrs a day and not less than 2yrs every day. Maybe then people will understand what kind of damage they have caused and stop and think about it. I can personally related because two people in my extended family did this and they're getting off the easy way. No sympathy should be the punishment. Anyway I thought the movie was directed and performed with the excellence to make this seem so realistic and not twist the truth of what happened. I think everyone should watch this movie. It really gives you an idea of what can happened when you least expect it.,1 "Buster Keaton, never heard of him. I only new Charlie Chaplin, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, before i turned into a comic titles searcher. And guess, I would have missed some of the best works from the silent era.

""The General"" is the best Silent movie, I have seen. Even if I remove the last 3 words from the previous sentence, it would be true.

The Plot is known as ""The Great Locomotive Chase"". Keaton plays a railroad engineer and story is all about how he saves his side, without any help (with some help from his love), in the war. Keaton's less expressive face suits great to the subject.

I enjoyed the background music. A commenter said it is repetitive. Yes, it is, but the action goes on steam engines throughout the movie and the music just felt like going with the engine.

Fans of Chaplin and Laurel & Hardy, will love Buster Keaton for sure. A Must watch movie.",1 "The interesting thing about ""The Fearless Freaks"" is the difference between the style of Brad Beesley's film-making and the production process of the Lips' albums. Wayne Coyne's music is weird, yes-- even chaotic, but it is carefully put together and endlessly tweaked, elevating the raw elements of songwriting (guitar chords, sung melody) into a mesmerizing digital orchestra of sorts. Beesley's documentary, however, is satisfied with gritty, hand-held 16mm footage of (usually) Coyne pontificating. It's odd that such futuristic, unconventional music-making would make such good source material for old-school, back-to-basics film-making. The most interesting part of this documentary, rather than the heroin scene with Steven Drozd, is Wayne revisiting his old Long John Silver's and enlisting two young children to reenact a robbery which launches him into a spiel about the rather un-poetic reality of death. It, like the rest of the film, is an incredible snapshot of some true oddballs in the American music scene.",1 "As if creating one comedic masterpiece with 1938's BRINGING UP BABY was not enough, director Howard Hawks returned to the same genre a scant two years later - and he somehow managed to rival even his own previous masterwork. Nominally a reworking Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur's play THE FRONT PAGE, HIS GIRL Friday manages to surpass it's classic source material and emerge as one of the screen's finest comedies. The film is also perhaps the perfect example of Hawks' trademarked rapid-fire, overlapping dialogue, which has never been as fast nor as furious anywhere else before or since. This is certainly one of the fastest moving comedies ever filmed, and the whole cast never misses a beat.

Walter Burns, the conniving, self-serving newspaper editor, is a character that could have easily come off as a tyrannical jerk. As portrayed by the suave Cary Grant, however, the pompous, arrogant Burns actually becomes (gasp!) likable! It is a difficult balancing act that Grant must perform as teetering between the two extremes of the character, and he is arguably the only actor imaginable with the skill and charisma to pull such a tricky characterization off this successfully. And the one-and-only Rosalind Russell is every bit his match - full of verve and aplomb, Russell's Hildy is an independent career woman, brimming with intelligence and class, that impressively pre-dates the major feminist movement of the mid-sixties by a good 25 years.

The film's supporting cast is no less impressive, with every single role cast to perfection. This is particularly true of Ralph Bellamy, who (along with his Oscar-nominated performance in 1937's THE AWFUL TRUTH) proves once again that he is the ultimate straight man. The film contains some grim subject matter that may seem like unlikely fodder for a screwball comedy (murder, attempted suicide, and public execution are all touched upon), although the film somehow manages to deal with such topics respectfully and without sacrificing any laughs. In the end, HIS GIRL Friday is an absolutely unbeatable romantic comedy that remains wildly hilarious and comes as close to sheer perfection as any motion picture could ever hope to.",1 "I just wish it was longer, an hour long short would do. If that makes any sense at all. The plot drew me in like a magnetron pull. The best part though is your wonder and amazement through the adventure. Bravo I do say so myself for a well organized structure of a story. I just can't believe this isn't a big hit. I mean yes it does have some dry humor in it. That is because it fits like a skeleton key in these generic movies with extraordinary plots. I do feel a little ""deja vu"" in a sense. It feels like this was a in a show or was a short clip of a movie. Or maybe just a hybrid of random plots that already steam-lined through my mind. Don't take my word for it, see it. And see it anywhere you can(I just watched it on this site). Just imagine if this movie was a little stretched out. Instead of punching you in the face with an explosion of climatic cinema type. Maybe that is just me, but sometimes it feels like you need to beat around the bush to get to the bass of a situation. Still a great plot, climax, and hero.",1 "While Japanese theater has reached a new height in the west, there are still some duds to be seen. The premise of ""Dragonhead"" is a great one, 3 students survive a train wreck in a tunnel on the way home from school. One of them decides to get out of the tunnel and get to the surface any way possible where they find Japan changed drastically. Total destruction as far as the eye can see from an unknown cause. This premise opens the door on LOTS of possibilities, but the film falls short of any real scares. The problem that I had was that the film has a feel of a society in months or years of disintegration, not days. There are kids that have had MAJOR brain surgery and fully recovered, fully degenerated people out to kill themselves and the students that find them, and a somewhat weak explanation of magnetic forces on the brain. Originality aside, this film fails to deliver what so many other Japanese films do well. Skip this one.",0 "This wasn't too bad a movie. It was basically about following your dreams and dealing with adversity along the way. Although I had basically seen the movie before with different titles (if you get my meaning), I thought the movie was good. Izabella Miko was good in the lead role as she performed the dance scenes well. Those scenes, by the way, were spectacular! (especially the ballet scenes and the part at a night club) While the themes of the movie were familiar, I found this movie to be refreshing and a good way to spend less than an hour and a half. I would recommend it.

** 1/2 out of ****",1 "It's hard being M. Night Shyamalan. Year after year, his works of uncompromised genius are poorly received by theatergoers and film critics alike. Even Disney didn't want to make his latest film, Lady in the Water, fearing that it was poorly written, featured too large a role for the writer/director, and contained an embarrassingly self-indulgent attack at his detractors, the crrritics. And as much as I hate to agree with Disney, they were absolutely right.

The story, as convoluted as you've come to expect from the man, is not the main problem here. Sure, it's chock-full of narfs, tarturic, and poorly drawn stereotypes, but the larger issue for me was the cringe-inducing self-indulgence that runs rampant throughout the film. For instance, Shyamalan plays the role of an author, misunderstood in his time, who will one day influence a boy destined to become the president of the United States. Self-fulfilling prophecies, anyone? His acting is embarrassing and unintentionally hilarious in turns, and his reactions to pivotal plot points had me longing for the brief, campy cameos of years past.

While I can understand M. Night's desire to respond to the unenlightened critics that failed to see the staggering brilliance of his previous works, one has to question the response itself. Shyamalan is multitasking here, attempting to transport his audience through the magical realism of his self-proclaimed ""bedtime story"" while simultaneously denouncing his critics for trashing the gospel of M. Night. In the end, we're left with a fairy tale too aware of itself to fully envelop us and a pseudo-manifesto too delusional and self-important to inspire us in any way. In the end, Shyamalan made a film that can really only be enjoyed by himself. It's just a shame that the likes of Paul Giamatti, Bob Balaban, and Freddy Rodriguez have to go down with the Good Ship Shyamalan.",0 "Private Thatcher Hospital is suffering a spate of murders, but THE PATIENT IN ROOM 18 - a young detective recovering from a nervous breakdown - is determined to find the killer.

Fast-moving & fun, this is another example of the comedy crime picture that Warner Brothers was so expert at producing almost without effort. Casts & plots could be shuffled endlessly, with very predictable results. While this assembly line approach created few classics, audience enjoyment could usually be assured.

Patric Knowles & Ann Sheridan spark the action here. As a convalescing detective & stern head nurse with romantic difficulties in their recent past, they keep the plot racing - especially after murder rears its ugly head. Knowles, who never quite graduated to starring roles in major pictures, shows a fine flair for comedy. Sleepwalking down the street dressed in pajamas & bowler, he is indeed a very droll sight. Sheridan shows flashes of the talent that would eventually make her an important star at Warner Brothers.

Unfortunately, the two most potentially interesting characters in the film - Eric Stanley's English valet & Greta Meyer's German cook - are given very little to do. And what about the film's other mystery: just what is so special about Room 18?",1 "Talk about movies that slip under the radar! Almost nobody heard about The Doe Boy and there really isn't a good - or even acceptable reason.

Slowly paced this very gentle film packs an emotional wallop few films with far bigger budgets, more stars and loftier reaching stories could hope to achieve. Doe Boy is about Hunter - a boy with an American Indian mother and white father. Hunter is a hemophiliac, a disease seemingly unknown to Native Americans and which separates him further, forever making him feel like an outsider. His macho father (an absolutely terrific performance by Kevin Anderson) loves him, but is ever let down by the boy's inability to be more physically active because of his disease.

As the film traces Hunter's story from childhood through his late teens, we see the difficulty of the relationship between he and his father strained to the limits as well as the inability of his mother to let him go and become the man her son needs to be.

James Duval gives a performance that is positively incandescent; it is an amazing achievement. With relatively little dialogue, it is through facial features and body language that he fills Hunter with a sense of defiance and a desperate need for acceptance. We witness the painful struggle he endures of always being different, in not one, but numerous ways. Acceptance and understanding do not come easy, but with the aid of his wise grandfather, a beautiful girl, and coming to grips with his heritage and and the forces of nature, Hunter's journey is one that everyone should be able to relate to. It is a brilliant, moving performance.

In every way this quiet, little movie is about as perfect as indie film can be. A joy to watch.",1 """Gangs of New York"" takes us back to a time when America was a young country and New York was divided. Those who felt they were ""native"" Americans did not want immigrants to enter their great country, spawning hatred between groups all over the city where many of them landed. In the story we see how much of the town is run by one man, with William Cutting (""Bill the Butcher,"" played marvelously by Daniel Day-Lewis) being the most feared and well-respected man of the ""five Points.""

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Amsterdam Vallon, who as a boy watched Bill the Butcher kill his father in one of the Points' great battles. Now a grown man, he returns to the Points to find Bill pretty much running the show. He gets on Bill's good side and eventually becomes his number one man, all the while still plotting for his father's revenge.

While there is a lot of gratuitous violence and gore, the film does an excellent job portraying life as it was in New York. You can be sucked in to the time of the movie, and even though the setting is much before our time you don't need a textbook to understand how things were run and what life was like.

I've never been a big DiCaprio fan, but his effort here (along with his performance from ""Catch Me If You Can"") have made my opinion start to waver a little. He is good as Amsterdam, and believable in his actions and expressions. Daniel Day-Lewis is simply phenomenal as Bill the Butcher and really should have won the Best Actor Oscar. Overall, I feel this was the best film of 2002 and really was robbed at the Academy Awards.

8 out of 10.",1 "I watch a lot of foreign films. The problem I have with this film is the same problem that I have with a lot of Italian films of this era. It is the same problem that I have with Italian automobiles of this era.

The film is ""high concept"" and there is a lot of trendy sixties-style artistry in the colors and the camera angles. The plot is well-crafted but there is no shocking turn of events (a la ""Sixth Sense"" or ""Psycho""). But the primary problem I have is with the execution.

Like Italian automobiles, the film is stylish but the mechanics are crappy and very distracting. One major problem is the dialog. Actors frequently switch between fluent accent-free English and fluent accent-free Italian. The only problem is that their voices are completely different in tone and intonation, which makes it jarringly obvious that the dialog is being dubbed. This actually makes the characters seem completely different when they are speaking English vs. Italian. The female lead is a ditzy hipster in English and a sultry temptress in Italian.

Of course, if Dario is your demi-god, you could argue that he was trying to emphasize some sort of emotional divide between the English-speaking and Italian-speaking cultures by creating such a jarring contrast. But Occam's razor suggests that it was just the standard sloppy execution that tends to characterize Italian films of this era.

This is supposed to be Dario's masterpiece, but my opinion is: If you want to see effective use of a dab of red, go to the Tate and look at the Caravaggio paintings. If you want a twisted plot, there are probably a dozen films a year now coming out with better ones, and that includes European and independent films.",0 "I know Subiha way back since Eighties. At that time she was a young lady and just came back form Oxford to Karachi. She was engage in a War Against Rape to save innocent women and also joins an Urdu newspaper AMN with us. She was although too young but a brilliant and socio conscious girl. With reference to her film Khamosh Pani I would like to say Weldon Subiha…. But my dear you may don't know, today situation in Pakistan is more dangerous than Zia period. Nowadays we are sitting on a volcano that erupts every day some where in Pakistan and take lot of innocent peoples life. Karachi was a modern city by every means in recent past but today go anywhere in this city, it may be a posh area, middle class locality or a slums you will find bearded men and burqa clad women in such a huge numbers that no one could even imagine some years earlier. This huge number of black bearded mullah and black burqa clad women on streets looks to me a black storm which is coming to destroy every thing. Time has come to make a film on this situation, I would like to suggest name of this film '' LAWA''. I think no one but Subiha can produce that kind of a film. I wish you best of luck Subiha. MUBASHIR MANSOOR",1 "Django (Franco Nero) has given up his brutal past and spent the last ten years in a monastery. When he is captured by slave traders and learns that one of the kidnapped children is his daughter, he escapes and seeks revenge. This woeful update of the Django series, considered by some the official sequel due to bringing Nero back to the role, is not even a western and doesn't even seem to be set in America! The film is in English and is terribly predictable with Django digging up his fake grave which contains his machine gun coffin and just when all seems lost toward the end, the main villain's (Christopher Connelly) jealous servant sets Django free. Although the film seems proud to be associated with the original Django (1966) going to the trouble of listing - ""Django created by Sergio Corbucci,"" this is a disgrace to the original. Co-starring the ubiquitous Donald Pleasance.",0 Best detective show ever. Tony Shalhoub is impeccable as the compulsive detective. He is able to solve crimes based on the thinest (and believable) threads of evidence. He is also able to draw you into the plot with ease - like an old friend who brings you into his trust you wait on every word.

Mr. Shalhoub is an enormously talented actor. Anything he has a role in is worth watching just to see him in it. You must watch this great program. 10+/10

-Zafoid

PS: ...sorry - I got so involved in Mr. Shalhoub's acting ability that I forgot - major kudos to the writers and supporting cast and the crew. :)

-Z,1 "Podium. Directed by Yann Moix. ***

I haven't had this much fun for a while!

Courtesy of the 8th French Cinema Tour, ""Podium"" just hit theaters in a festival-like run here; Oh! I got so lucky! It's such a funny comedy, one of the best I've seen coming out of La France, and one of the best of the year for sure.

Benoit Poelvoorde is Belgium's national treasure for sure. He's performance is outstanding; he played Bernard Fréderic with such emotion, wit and realism that I'm gonna be real mad if he doesn't get a Best Actor nomination at the Cesars. The thing that is so great, is that his character is hateful and charismatic at the same time. He believes he's a star, so he starts acting like one: mean and rudely. He's a great singer and dancer too (maybe Kevin Spacey could borrow him some ideas).

Great writing, solid direction, hot French chics (or according to Bernard, ""sexual bombs"") in a comedy that smartly explores the obsession for fame, celebrity and pop idols. You won't regret if you watch it. Believe, it is worth it.

The tribute to French super star, Claude Francois is there, making the whole thing nostalgic. And one more thing... perhaps Americans should keep their hands out of it, and not starting to think about a remake. I suppose it will start its international commercial run in 2005, so where it's available, don't miss it!

7/10",1 "I was expecting a great movie hearing all the good comments it got from my friends. However I was utterly disappointed last night when I saw it.

The title of the movie suggests that the movie is about a knight templar with the name Arn. Funnily though, you won't get to know mr Arn at all! Or any of the other emotionless characters in this film.

I'm not sure what the director thought about when he made this movie, but I guess he thought that he could make about 100 scenes with people saying 2-3 lines, then another 100 scenes of scenery. Cut them together like a zip-lock and then let the audience do the rest.",0 "The Unknown is one of the more interesting Lon Chaney collaborations with director/writer Tod Browning, as Chaney's typically physically malleable performance is often executed here in conjunction with ""stunt double"" Peter Dismuki. It also features a great, early appearance by Joan Crawford, a complex, gripping, allegorically deep but economically told story by Browning, and it is an excellent instantiation of themes found throughout Chaney and Browning's other work. It even strongly presages Browning's 1932 film, Freaks.

Chaney is Alonzo the Armless, a performer in Antonio Zanzi's circus. Alonzo is in love with Nanon (Crawford), Antonio's daughter and Alonzo's assistant in his act, which consists of him using his feet to shoot guns and throw knives around Nanon with precision aim. In a typical Chaney film complicated love triangle, Nanon and Zanzi Circus strongman Malabar are also attracted to each other, but Nanon has an aversion to being touched and keeps distancing Malabar and any other man who wants to be intimate.

Alonzo is the perfect complement for Nanon then, since he cannot manhandle her. She feels safe with him. But Antonio objects to Alonzo's approaches towards Nanon. Complex confrontations and a number of fabulous twists ensue, and Chaney fans will likely expect the resultant profound tragedy with the reciprocally bittersweet ""happy ending"" consequences.

I probably made that synopsis sound more soap-operatic than it should, since it doesn't very well convey the overall twisted, creepy atmosphere that Browning achieves in The Unknown. Like Freaks, this isn't exactly a horror film, but it has all the unsettling, macabre attitude of one. Alonzo is one of Chaney's more demented, sinister characters, as almost every move he makes has a nefarious, ulterior motive. This even includes the reason that he joined the Zanzi Circus in the first place. It becomes quickly clear that Alonzo will stop at nothing to have Nanon all to himself. But because the character has no arms, he can't very well resort to physical bullying. Instead, Chaney paints a subversive and deviously manipulative character. Even the character's love for Nanon feels wicked--it's more of an unhealthy obsession than love.

Browning makes good use of his largely pared down sets and cast. Except for the opening circus scene, most of the film takes place among only four characters, in only a handful of circus wagon (used later for both Freaks and Chaney's 1928 film Laugh, Clown, Laugh) and apartment locations, with the ending, set in a theater, symmetrically reflecting the opening of the film. A single scene in a formal courtyard provides a nice, symbolic contrast, as does the use of the ""extended technique"" of a thin piece of gauze placed over the camera lens for some of Nanon's scenes.

Equally economical is Browning's complex story, which tells as much--with the aid of the performances--through implication of various backstories as it does through direct action. The (heavily allegorical) subtexts are fascinating. Nanon is frigid, so her most intimate relationship is with a man who has been effectively castrated. He is so obsessed with her that he'll physically sacrifice himself to enable a relationship. She secretly desires a normal love, but can't have one until she falls into it, or is tricked into it in a way. No one is quite honest with anyone else except for a man who is a relative simpleton, there to be manipulated. But he's the one who ends up coming out ahead, even though he never quite knows what is going on.

Browning had to construct a number of elaborate set-ups to produce the illusion that Chaney had been using his feet to do everyday activities for a long time. We often see Chaney's body but Peter Dismuki's feet, such as when Alonzo is playing guitar, smoking, drinking, and so on. Occasionally, Dismuki just stood in for Chaney, usually when Alonzo has his back to the camera, but at least in one wider shot, we can see Dismuki's face.

The 1997 score on the Turner Classic Movies version of the film by the Alloy Orchestra is occasionally excellent--especially during the climax of the film, and occasionally a bit pedestrian. When it's only pedestrian it's at least unobtrusive. The score has a modern, occasionally ""rocky"" feel that meshes surprisingly well.

There are a few scenes missing from the print transferred to the TCM DVD, but for many years, The Unknown was thought to have been lost, similar to Browning and Chaney's 1927 film London After Midnight. A print was found at the Cinémathèque Française, mixed in with a lot of other films marked ""unknown"" because the contents were (at least temporally) unidentifiable. The missing scenes do not hurt the coherency of the film, which is a must-see at least for any Chaney or Browning fans.",1 "I had high hopes for this. The trailer shows us what appears to be a very good movie. Tense and exciting. Upon sticking this in my DVD drive I found that the trailer in fact appeared to show a very different movie.

Whilst I found the idea of this movie interesting I found it very very very hard to watch all of it. I liked the idea of trying to show this genre in a more realistic light and I expected more from the Documentary segment but alas no.

Poorly scripted, poorly acted, poorly filmed. The special effects are good. But I feel most of the budget was wasted on them.

Disappointing.",0 "An absolutely superb movie.

The performances were believable without a doubt. Perhaps this is just coming from a male's perspective, but there is no-one in this movie you cannot relate to. Watch for similarities with ""American Beauty"", and, to a far lesser extent, ""Cruel Intentions"" and ""American Pie"".

The cinematography is spectacular. Each scene's camera angle, lighting, et al, increase the mood tenfold. The ending is how all Hollywood movies should be. No wonder this one isn't.

Issues with the amount of smoking and drinking they do, but then again, who didn't at that age? No gratuitous sex or violence, although rather large portions of both.

Overall: ********/**",1 "EXCELLENT Flick! Adam Brody is amazing! A must see movie! I wasn't sure what to expect, but being a fan his show I wanted to see Adam in this role and I was happy that I did! I give it an ""A"" and would recommend it to everyone.

I can tell you that this is one of the better movies of it's kind that I have see in a very long time. The story line is so well done and I was captivated by it. I like a good dramatic story and I was hoping to be taken back into someone else's world and this movie did just that.

It was also great to see Brody give such a different performance. I was more than impressed. Enjoyed it a lot!",1 "Things are different down at the malt shop in small town lily white America. Seems some surly gents are turning kids on with mind altering Mary Jane aka marijuana. The iniquitous soul stealing substance popular among urban hep cat Negroes and sex crazed Mexicans is making its final push into the white suburban middle class targeting its children. Before our eyes we see kids as fine as a May morning degenerate into crazed lunatics with uncontrollable appetites for nostalgie de la boue. Reckless behavior follows and comic scenes of debauchery ensue as the kids get existential, craving faster music, driving recklessly and becoming overtly more lustful. It all comes to a head when sweet Mary finds herself compromised by a craven Bogarter and then murdered. Law and order ultimately sets things straight but not before a guilt ridden member of the dealers haunted by flashbacks jumps through a ten story window to her death.

This cautionary tale of blatant lies and unintentional hilarity about demon weed is one of the first broad sides in the war on drugs. Amateurishly and clumsily patched together with sensationalistic blather and mad tokers it irresponsibly condemns what would turn out to be a medicinal panacea used by millions.

Having extensively researched and observed the herb in use during my college years I found none of the deleterious effects dramatized in the film. On the contrary I found among colleagues a more subdued good natured mood fueling a penchant to consume vast quantities of carbohydrates (as well as a more restrained appreciation of sex and music). By ignoring this ""munchies"" factor Tell Your Children loses a golden opportunity to dramatize and publicize the greater threat that faces this country-obesity. But in its day these insipid ravings allowed then kinda drug czar Harry Anslinger to develop a cottage industry to employ jobless revenue agents who lost their meal ticket with the end of Prohibition. They needed a demon and found it in a benign plant that could avoid being regulated and taxed and was pervasive among second class (Blacks and Latinos) citizens who were already being institutionally abused of their rights. When it crept into white society films like Tell Your Children warned of the impending apocalypse. It must have worked because the disaster thus far has been averted. But as the stern narrator soberly warned we must remain vigilant. Pass the Hagen Daz.",0 "I'm 15. I was only a year old when The Wraith was released into theaters. As I grew older, I would always try to catch it when it was on T.V. but a lot of the time, I couldn't. Now after finally buying I could finally watch the film in its entirety.

One night, a kid named Jamie was caught making love to a girl. All of a sudden, a gang of punks, led by the fearsome Packard(Nick Cassavetes), bust in and they beat up and finally killing Jamie.

Now a year after his death, a kid named Jake(Charlie Sheen in a pre-stardom role) mysteriously rolls into town on a bike. He immediately starts a friendship with a kid named Billy, who works at the local burger joint. When Jake begins hitting on Keri(Sherilyn Fenn), who also happens to be Packard's girlfriend. Soon after, a mysterious car, the incredibly rare Turbo Interceptor, rolls up and challenges one the gang members to a race. As the race draws to a close, the gang member crashes and has a fiery death. One by one each of the gang members meet with lots of gruesome deaths. I won't go any further than that.

This movie is totally underrated. I'm surprised it hasn't gotten much attention over the last 16 years. You'd think it would, even with Charlie Sheen in it.

I especially like some of the performances, mainly the two gang members Skank and Gutterboy. You can easily tell they are the comic relief in this movie. Seeing Skank get high off of anti-freeze is absolutely hilarious.

Now to get to what I think is the prize of this film: The Turbo Interceptor. From what I read somewhere, only six were ever made, hence making it probably one of the rarest cars ever brought into existence.

10/10",1 "I am confused by the magnanimous praise for this film. First of all, let me respect it for its unsensational style. It expressed the everyday unromantic experience of what it must have been like then. In this way, it avoided Hollywoodism, but when I consider how the film-makers could have incorporated vast vistas as a cinematic expression of the isolation of these communities I was dismayed. These people lived in immense isolation, but all we were given 90 percent of the time were tight shots, and landscapes were generally presented as one section of the pebbly beach with some stark rocky islands off shore. And let us consider the opening (of the version I saw). There was no attempt at establishing the historical context. Instead, we got close shots that could have been anywhere, and certainly shot in the style for 'straight to video"". Come on! The script was clever, with the potential for a great dramatic experience, but the director must have been limited by a highly restrictive budget, because it ended up looking like 'made for TV'. The synthesized music was occasionally effective but surely deeper chords would have created an ominous atmosphere. The hero did not really have any tense challenges. He seemed to cruise through it all. While I sort of liked him, I never had a sense of his jeopardy. In short, there was no dramatic tension. In this sense, there was an echo of some of Clint Eastwood's movies, but without the stylishness. There was an assumption that we were on the protagonist's side, but why deprive us of his human vulnerability as he seeks revenge? I feel that the writers deserve a bigger budget to prove to us that they can create a truly cinematic experience rather than a small dimension TV drama. I have not seen the subsequent 2 parts of the trilogy.",0 "Oh my god! I just got out from seeing Taxidermia at MIFF 2006 and I was literally speechless. As I was one of the first to leave the theatre, I took it upon myself to stand out the front and watch the expressions on the faces of other patrons as they exited. Most were laughing in disbelief at what they had just seen, some were white as ghosts and some looked plain baffled. Whatever way you look at it, Taxidermia will certainly make a strong impact on you.

I saw Gyorgy Palfi's ""Hukkle"" a few years ago at MIFF and although that was an interesting film, he's really excelled himself with Taxidermia. One thing's for sure, you'll need a strong stomach to watch Taxidermia a) for the gore & b) cause you're gonna laugh your head off! Outstanding cinema! 10/10",1 "This was quite possibly the BEST hour of television that I have ever seen. I give major kudos to HBO for not backing down on a sensitive topic and producing a fantastic show. I admit that some of the nudity was gratuitous, but I know that using it was trying to make the situations as realistic as possible. I'm a law school student, and I was horrified that people, in our country or in others, do not protest that they have some basic human and civil rights in interrogation settings. I don't usually watch HBO because I don't like the programming, but I am glad I tuned in to watch. Again, this was a great show that everyone should watch. Make more shows like this! Don't be afraid to touch on sensitive topics.",1 "There are very few silent films that I enjoy as much as a modern film. In fact, the only silent film that I would rate as a 10 is Buster Keaton's The General. But Douglas Fairbanks is certainly worth watching, if you have any real interest in film. He has so much charm, and moves so fluidly, that he captivates even when the special effects are, well, very 1920s. Fairbanks does not so much act as he dances the role. The costumes and sets, by William Cameron Menzies, are also spectacular. I have watched this movie in the earlier DVD version, and frankly it put me to sleep. First, a great deal of it was missing, and so the story was choppy and hard to follow. Second, the print quality was poor. But the new Kino Fairbanks collection is a miracle of film restoration. There is one section on this DVD that is poor quality, compared to the others. But since this is a section that I have never seen before, to see it at all is wonderful.",1 "The film was started post HAHK(even the title was HUM AAPKE HAI SANAM that time) and it took 8 years to complete

When the promo was shown i was shocked considering SRK and Salman haven't shared screenspace since KARAN ARJUN and suddenly a film with them and Madz comes

The movie is regressive, outdated and could be better in 90's

The back story of Madz- Salman is so cringeworthy even there is too much sermonising

But there is one plus point and that is SRK in this film, well normally he overdoes his scenes here he is in full control and plays his role with a straight face and brings a lot of fun in the movie

Sadly the film never manages to sustain the tempo and we have tripe like GALE MEIN LAAL TIE.etc

Also it's funny to see the appearances of actors Salman suddenly in 1 scene looks straight out of JUDWAA days with his medium sized hair and with his overacting but lively acting and then he comes to 2001 days where he looks dead The dubbing too is inconsistent and also his acting which goes from amateurish and then to dead acting SRK too suddenly has short hair, long hair and also his looks keep changing and so his dubbing and acting Madz too, in 1 scene she has brown hair and then the ponytailed black hair look

The film also has the late Laxmikant Berde who wasn't much seen in 2002 Also we see Atul Agnihotri who was rejected post 1998 i feel and was just seen as an extra

Direction by KS Abdiyamaan is outdated though good in parts Music is okay, most songs sound old Cinematography is inconsistent

Acting SRK though looks inconsistent yet he delivers a wonderful performance and rarely hams which is a relief Madz is as usual, she does a good job but her role is too regressive Salman khan is inconsistent, at times lively and at times dead below average overall Laxmikant Berde is okay Alok Nath is okay in a small role Atul Agnihotri is a reject and he annoys",0 "I think this movie really contrasted a sociological perspective of outlined curriculum. The foreshadow in the eyes of the beholder of the realm in which the setting lies continued to baffle much more than the intellectual side of myself. To pursue in a lifestyle of such diseased, open-minded negligation of the congregation in a situation of a presidential, supersticial, consequential, suspenseful mood, I must say the catastrophe of agencies to build upon ages of young personalities seemed to purify my thoughts on the beholders of stationary bikes. When I put myself in their shoes, I realized my foot was too big. Metaphorically speaking, I could never put myself in a position of such satisfaction of any assorted grade A bologna. To befiddle extremities of locomotionalizationalized inconveniences, I don't think that I could eat breakfast the same...

Billy- Bob Jallet and Beetle-headed Wilson of Head Inventory Clerk of the presidential statuses of the international offensive phrases and materials deposit agencies of the district attorney's offices of America and foreign legions",0 "My chief complaint is that there are no captions, so I'm only catching bits and pieces of the movie. The names are already killing me. Jezebel... Jericho... Is this pool or 'Children of the Corn'?

The acting as a whole was atrocious. Was there even a director on the set? The accents and dialogue are hilarious. All I hear is ""sisal, sisal, sisal"". I have never in my life heard anyone talk like this in any pool hall I've ever been in. The special features said the slang was 30% made up by the movie makers - try 90% and the rest they got wrong. Like what is all this ""tribe"" talk? Nice tattoos, by the way. So they get branded. With eight-balls, no less. Way to hustle there, sports. I expect to hear Ving Rhames offer to get the horses for his ""mastuh"" any minute now. Oh, Freddie... if you're lyin, you're dyin? That's tough. Especially with you lowering your voice like that. It's reminiscent of Rocky Balboa.

Then not only did they make up their own jargon, they butchered actual pool terminology. It's a good thing this movie never made it to theatres, or we'd have a bunch of clowns running around our pool halls rambling about dandelions and lemons.

Of course, the shots, the bridges, and the ""sharking"" these guys are doing are all horrible, but I expected no less. The rack twirl got me, though. You know what I'm talking about... That thing ball-bangers do. I also noticed when ""Jericho"" and ""Cueball Carl"" (*rolls eyes*) are playing, they rack the balls in numerical order. Nice. And love the glove, Carl.

Shooting Gallery was also an apt title. I think they shot more with guns than cues. I actually felt like I was watching a soft porn through some of those scenes.

Not all is lost, though. I walked away with a new playing strategy: When on the nine, hit it as hard as you can. And cuss. A lot.

This movie does what I never thought possible, which is suck more than 'Poolhall Junkies'.",0 "Okay, I'll say right off that I could possibly *SPOIL* the 'biggest' part of this...er...'film'. Well, if you can really *SPOIL* something this bad.

I consider 'The Item' the worst movie I ever saw in my life. Worse than 'Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey'. Worse than Vanilla Ice's 'Cool as Ice' (although ya'll gotta check that out to hear how he says 'horse'...that alone is worth the rental price).

Basically, a bunch of people pick up a box they're not allowed to open. What do they do? They open it. Inside is what appears to be a cross between the old children's toy (Glow-worms...you squeeze 'em, they light up and glow) and a moldy sock with some sort of nuclear waste poured all over it. That's it. Just this fluorescent worm-like thing that speaks in tongues and makes people kill themselves.

The irony of the whole thing is that without the cheesy sock, it could have been a good movie. The gore factor was pretty good (and when I rent horror, I want gore...unfortunately, I picked this from the 'bore' section). I could tolerate most of the acting. A couple of the characters obviously needed some psychiatric help, but that's not unusual.

But the sock. Unfortunately, due to the fluorescent sock, this movie sunk to the dregs, being rated, at best, with 0 stars out of 10.",0 "I'd seen only the great films from the 30's by this director, before enjoying this first color film from 1955. It is a light work with some sombre undertones from the military setting: we are after all in the summer of 1914, and the gallant young officers will soon be facing the terrors of the Great War. Clair reminds us that this world has vanished into the mists of time by the careful use of pastels--lavender, gray, pink--and by the camera receding into the distance: you hardly ever see a close up, most shots are long or medium. Leon Barsacq did a wonderful job as production designer; this is one of the best designed films I can remember seeing from this period.

Gerard Philipe is the best Armand you could wish for--he's brave and skilled as a soldier and incredibly immature as a man. The idea that you can carry on affairs with five women at a time is no more than a logistical problem for him. Michele Morgan plays her part so well; she's got to be mature and responsible (she's a divorcée, and hasn't been long in this town). Her heart is pulling her in a direction her mind doesn't want to go. Jean Desailly reminds me once again that he's one of the finest French actors: his Victor isn't a stuffy bourgeois, his heart is with Marie-Louise and he knows what a formidable opponent Armand is. Also he's got to combat the closed minds around him, notably his sisters.

Les Grandes manoevres can be compared to Rules of the Game, and if the Renoir classic is greater, it's because Renoir was dealing with more profound themes. I was engrossed in the story of this garrison town just the same.",1 "This movie was good... about as good and tasty as a cow manure sandwich! Every now and then, I suffer through watching movies made by a group of severely UNartistic and UNtalented people. I like to see how NOT to make a movie. I'm just not a fan at all of these ""campy"" horror flicks. Sometimes they turn out to be more comedy than anything, laughing at how dumb the whole thing is... with Uncle Sam I mostly just rolled my eyes, lookin' forward to the ending credits.",0 "I don't care if you arn't really into anime - I really wasn't when I first watched this. I don't care if you really don't like slaughter and death. This anime is beautiful and amazing. I would suggest watching it with the Japanese vocals and the English subtitles. You'll get past the death and slaughter and see a story so great that you'll want to watch more.

Although this does stray from the manga (i've never seen the manga, just know its a lot longer and different then how the animation ended) it is still worth watching.

don't forget to grab episode 14, while is really doesn't have much to do with the story (you do find out a little more about Lucy's past) if you're an Elfen Lied fan its nice to watch. It would be fine to watch it either after you've seen the whole series or after episode 10.",1 "I'm usually critical of children's' films, but this one is quality through and through. It was filmed in New Zealand, (Which looks a lot like Scotland). The production was brilliant. The challenge for the crew was to create the feeling that the New Zealand fjord was a Scottish Loch, and they did a first class job with it. The cast was excellent. Alex Etel,the child lead, was very competent and shows a great deal of maturity in a difficult task. Apparently he did all his own swimming and stunts, so he must be a tough little actor. I hope we'll be seeing a lot of him in future films, The script was well paced and finely crafted. It balanced the emotional content with realism and humour. It's not easy to do. It avoided sentimentality and slap-stick comedy. (The dog was brilliant). If we want to fill seats in cinemas, we must educate our children to appreciate fine films. This is an excellent piece. It will become a children's' classic. Well done!",1 "So stupid movie. There could be 3 different movies from this story. Bad script, bad solutions, bad plots, bad seks scenes. Why, Monica, Why? Why you did this? I have to fill 10 lines of comments for this stupid movie, what can I do? Spike tried to solve all the problems of the world with a single movie. But, being socially responsible, doesn't mean you are making a good movie. The whole lesbian pregnancy theme is so fake, comprising the final with the 2 lesbians kissing each other and the father of their children. The trial was treated in such a naive script, as if reading a school play written by the math teacher. I guess I did 10 lines. Fine. Why Monica, Why? Why you?",0 "Dean and Sam go to Hibbing, Minnesota, to investigate the mysterious disappearance of a local. Once there, they realize that there are many missing persons in the place. When Sam vanishes in a parking area, Dean asks for help to Officer Kathleen (Jessica Steen), whose brother also disappear a couple of years ago. Dean and the sheriff disclose that Sam was abducted by a family of deranged hillbillies that hunt human beings.

""The Bender"" is the scariest episode of this series up to this moment. In this tense story, the Winchester brothers do not face demons, ghost or fiends, but sick human beings worse than their usual enemies. I liked the open scene when Kathleen kills the father of the Benders; it is not explicit, and each viewer is allowed to have his or her own interpretation. In my point of view, justice worked through the hands of the female sheriff. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): ""A Família Bender"" (""The Bender Family"")",1 "TELL ME SOMETHING is one of those rare treats from Asia, as it has no creepy little girls with long black hair, or ghosts, or ""rings"", or anything like that - instead this film is a straight forward serial-killer horror/thriller, and a pretty damn good one at that...

Body parts are turning up around Korea and the only thing linking them is a quiet young woman who used to date all of the victims. A cop who's being watched for possible misconduct is put on the case, and we slowly start learning more about the girl's life - including things about her father, her best friend, and her current boyfriend that casts rays of suspicion on herself and everyone around her...

TELL ME SOMETHING is well-acted, well-directed and is an all around well-done film. A little gorier than your average American thriller (which is a plus...) but not an all-out bloodbath either. The strong story keeps you guessing, and the end has a decent little twist. Fans of SEVEN and the like will dig this one. 8.5/10",1 "This game is pretty good, but I liked both Call of Duty 2's better. But this was still a good game. The only thing that I think is bad about it is that there only 13 levels. In Call of Duty, there were 27, and in Call of Duty: Big Red One, there were 14. I would have given this a ten, but I took one star off for that. I also took one star off because at first, the levels seem like they are long, but after you play them for a while, you start to get bored and you realize that the levels aren't that long. I took another star off for that. But the rest of the game is pretty good. It has a really good story that follows the campaign that followed D-Day, and the battles through France between the Americans, British, Scottish, French, Polish, and Canadians against the Germans. It's a pretty good game that, I thought, was kind of a sad ending. Another good thing about it is that instead of fighting and finishing one campaign at a time, you switch off between missions between factions. This was a pretty good game. 8/10.",1 "Viewing this film makes you question, no pun intended, yourself on whether or not you want to continue watching it. Not because it sucks, not because its boring, but because you have to question on whether or not the deep, crass, in-your-face approach to its storyline falls within your humor and cinematic appeal.

At first I was disgusted, but then when I started to get to know Art (poor big, rich teddy bear character), I couldn't help following his plight and unbalanced relationship which develops with his co-star (West - twisted, disenfranchised, sociopath) until the film presented a resolute conclusion.

The story progresses with these elements flaming into a feverish pitch until reaching a climatic ending, while the whole time holding on to its roots of truly twisted humor.

Why not?! – 7 out of 10",1 "When I first watched this movie, I felt like it is just one of those movies that I would give a 6 score. But I found myself watching this movie again and again. As conversations or question of immortality arises, I found myself quoting or referencing the movie.

Because the movie is so watchable after so many viewings, I think this is a classic movie. It is about two woman trying to steal a man and fighting over their differences and jealousy. These woman wants to pursue immortality while another man wants to choose mortality and live a full life. It is the question of superficiality and immortality that struck me deep. The other issue is the desire to find that fountain of youth at the same time. The issues are as old as time. How do you feel when someone comes to you and say ""You are old!"". That was one of the phrases when a young man complains to Meryl Streep. These are some of the things you will ponder.

Bruce Willis really surprise me this one as he no longer plays the tough man image. While Goldie Hawn and Meryl Streep play great opposite roles as the two jealous fighting women who fight over differences and yet have to live together inspite of it. Yes, I have people I really detest and must live with them. Therefore, a lot of issues in this movie really hits me deep.",1 "First of all, I love high school/college setting, dysfunctional family and coming of age drama. Despite having the elements in this film, it was missing lot of chemistry between the actors, the time period didn't fit the screen, wasn't really impressed by the lens/filter or the cinematography. It would be amazing if Gus Van wrote/directed this film.

Nevertheless, I do have to praise Fred Durst for evolving. He has come long way from directing music videos to the big screen. He displayed so much maturity through music choices in this film and long drone camera staring into the characters. Also, to get a dramatic gig like this film and to bring forth so much emotion off the characters/story was just good for Fred. He really tried to capture the mentality of teenagers/young adult. it was very good first choice for Fred Durst. I am very much impressed by his first attempt. (o yes I love the guy, he was so humble and awesome guy when I met him at TRL in 2003)",1 "Despite its fascinating writing and editing credits, this movie emerges as a surprisingly dull little ""B""-grader, not only paced with the speed of a snail but full of more empty talk than a bag-pipe. The characters could not even justly be described as one-dimensional. They are mere shadows that unconvincingly act out the hollow and threadbare plot. Certainly pros like Robinson and Van Eyck do manage to breath a bit of life into their portrayals, but insufficiently virile to overcome the inertia of Mr Allen's studiously slow, uninvolving handling.

It's hard to believe tutor and text book author, Leon Barsha, had anything to do with the editing. The insertion of stock travelogue footage is clumsy in the extreme. Other credits are likewise patently routine.

Considerable pruning would definitely help the film, although Miss Totter is likely to remain a firm liability. Mr Letondal would also stay far more colorless than the screenplay demands. Last but not least, the unconvincingly patriotic climax is something not easily overcome.",0 "I found the movie boring: a self indulgent throwback to the fifties, as interesting as a fall off a bike with much less poetry. Sitting thru it seemed to me as frustrating as being trapped in a traffic jam like the one depicted on screen. Some beautiful shots of Paris and a pleasant score fell far short of redeeming this picture for me.

",0 "I gotta give my props to Brian Singer. Man, what a fantastic job he did in bringing my favorite mutant superhero team to the big screen. The X-men comics have decades of established treasured mythology and this film does it justice almost perfectly. Some story elements have been altered here and there but it never undermined the finished product significantly as to throw off die-hard fans, although I was disappointed that Gambit wasn't included. But the film superbly makes up for that with action, special effects (and what MARVELOUS EFFECTS they are!!!) and a plot that's intellectually stimulating actually. It's a shame that most action films today don't have that kind of pizazz and gravitas to keep it from being mindlessly entertaining. Not so here as X-Men challenges its viewers to ponder the nature of acceptance , fear, and prejudice. My one main complaint is that the villains such as Sabertooth wasn't fleshed out more and similar to his vicious comic book counterpart. I will purchase the director's cut for any bells and whistles not in the theatrical cut but for the most part ""X-Men"" is an exciting and exhilarating experience with something more beneath the surface even more so than action films today and I can say with all authority it embodies the spirit of the comics nearly spot on.

Great film.",1 "This film is the first sound picture filmed entirely on location, with good plot, and great action by the dogs that actually DO their stuff the way they were bred to do. I saw this film over five years ago, and can't seem to find it anywhere, either playing or on tape. I Highly recommend it to all families with any breed of dog in their homes. It's ""breed specific"" but that is just what it's about. Hope you can find a copy and enjoy it as much as I did.",1 """Say, Jeff,"" says Frankie (Frankie Darro), a student at Rawley University who is doing some biology homework, ""do you know how the head is formed?"" ""Well,"" says Jeff (Mantan Moreland, bugging his eyes and rolling his head), ""I'd say it starts at the base of the spine and works its way up to a lump.""

That's as good as Let's Go Collegiate gets, folks...except for two things, and one of these depends on how old you are. The movie is a dispensable programmer, one of thousands churned out quickly by studios (Monogram, in this case), which had minimal budgets and shooting schedules and, often, minimal plots. With Let's Go Collegiate, Frankie Darro plays the coxswain on what might be Rawley University's first champion rowing team in 15 years. When Bob Terry, the new star stroke for the team, who hasn't arrived at Rawley yet, gets drafted, Frankie and his pal, Tad, spot a big guy, Herc Bevans, hefting a safe on the street. They immediately decide to recruit him for the team and substitute him for Terry. That way their girls will continue to think they'll be heroes when the team wins the big race. Of course, the big guy is prone to sea sickness, Frankie and Tad may get booted off the team because they're spending so much time coaching Herc that their grades have slipped, their girl friends have fallen for Herc, their coach loses his glasses, and Herc has a secret that's discovered only after the team wins.

As one of several popular movies Frankie Darro starred in with Mantan Moreland as his pal, always named Jeff, this one isn't much. Moreland gets stuck with all the stereotypical mugging and dialect that passed for racial humor back then. The acting is self-conscious. Collegiate movies about the big game were a cliché even in 1940. So what are the two exceptions? First is one excellent song sung at a fraternity/sorority dance by Gale Storm. She plays Midge, seventh billed, and is one of the girlfriends. The song is ""Look What You have Done to Me,"" music by Edward Kay and lyrics by Harry Tobias. It's a bright, swinging song with a smooth melodic line that takes a couple of unexpected turns. It's a quality song and you'll never hear it unless you slog through Let's Go Collegiate.

The second exception depends on how old you are. Barton Yarborough, a journeyman film actor who made 17 movies in the Forties, plays the role of Coach Walsh. For those of us old enough to recall sitting around the radio in the evening, Yarborough was Doc Long, one of the three major characters in perhaps the greatest adventure series on radio...drum roll, please...""I Love a Mystery."" It went on the air in 1939, became hugely popular and then sputtered out in 1952 as television took over. Jack Packard was the tough, smart leader of the three, Doc Long was the ebullient one, always ready for a fight or a laugh. Reggie York was big and strong, and fancied himself as much a ladies man as Doc did. They were old friends who started a detective agency in San Francisco. Most of the installments ran 15 minutes and Carlton Morse, the man who also created and wrote ""One Man's Family"", wrote all. Jack, Doc and Reggie were always getting involved in dangerous adventures and mysteries, with lots of action and vivid situations. If you were sitting around your radio, you didn't need CGI to visualize the worst that was happening. All this was delivered in your home every weeknight. One of the memorable things about I Love a Mystery was the opening theme, Valse Triste, a brooding, foreboding dark melody if there ever was one.

Yarborough was born in 1900 and died in 1951. He played Doc Long until the last year of the show. He also was a key character in Morse's ""One Man's Family,"" playing Cliff Barbour when the series started in 1932 until he died. Yarborough had a distinctive voice that doesn't seem like much when you see him in Let's Go Collegiate. And he doesn't look like how I imagined the young Doc Long. He used his voice memorably as Doc (and as Cliff Barbour). That was the point of radio.

The impression of great adventures brought distinctively to life in ""I Love a Mystery"" is still vivid in my memory. Another radio highlight for a little kid listening alone one afternoon to, I think, Jack Armstrong, was when a beautiful and evil woman dispatched a victim by taking a hat pin from her hair and driving it into the guy's ear. That sent me out running into the yard, where I stayed until someone came home. I was not about to take the chance that this woman and her hat pin might emerge from a closet and rush toward me. Those are the delights of a person's imagination, free of the can-you-top-this curse of too much CGI. Give me a hat pin in the hand of a beautiful woman any day instead of an enhanced comic book hero flying through mile-high explosions.",0 "While this is an interesting thrill ride (and Caine is a marvelous actor), the problems associated with the movie detract too much to make it worth watching.

The basic story involves a former Nazi affiliate being hunted down after avoiding execution for over 40 years. In short, the Catholic Church has been hiding and supporting the fugitive, because they have also been guilty of anti-semitism, and they believe that he just obeyed orders when he killed 7 Jews and later repented. He now has constant nightmares about the whole thing, and they sympathize, having granted him absolution. They turn out to be as corrupt as mafia.

The half-Jewish now agnostic judge who pursues Caine is a moderately interesting character, but the audience never can truly sympathize with her because she's rude, arrogant and impulsive most of the time - a young, annoying idealist. The Caine character is interesting because he has touching moments (like when he leaves money and a penitant, caring, thankful note for his estranged wife) and seems genuinely emotional, open and desperate at times. Clearly, he's not simply a hard-hearted man, yet he does despicable things like kick an innocent dog. Perhaps this is meant to mimic the Sopranos? Although the movie may be trying to say something about justice and corruption, it's hard to engage, because there is no real protagonist [it's not Caine simply because he's a fugitive although the audience roots for Caine at times because the camera follows him]. The viewer needs a little more affinity with the young female judge or one of the people pursuing the murderer for his crimes against humanity if we are to engage this film beyond its action-adventure.

Secondly, the story is set entirely in France with all French characters, yet NO ONE speaks French! Personne. No restaurant owners, no one conversing on the bus with friends, aucun. It makes the dialog about Caine's character receiving his passport to Canada especially humorous: ""Oh good - They speak French there, don't they?"" Do they speak French in France too? [see by way of contrast ""Last Samurai"" where Cruise's character learns Japanese, and most of the movie is subtitled, as Cruise actually speaks Japanese!] To be fair, there is a little nod to France with the occasional French accent, when pronouncing French names. [no I'm not French but how about a touch of cultural sensitivity]

There are a number of similar shortcomings with the writing/directing, but perhaps the most serious detraction in my opinion is that, in an interview, the writer spoke a great deal about conservative Catholicism, saying that it's an important time to expose the history of their anti-semitism. He explained their opposition to Vatican II, their practices and their retention of the Latin mass.... Is this another cheap ""guilty by association"" slam against Mel Gibson? Wow. The media and entertainment community have stooped to some low levels before, but an entire high-budget movie? Why didn't they just cast Gibson in the Caine role as scary religious hypocrite and anti-semite? I actually liked Norman Jewison (and loved Ronald Harwood's ""Piano Player""), but now that I realize the ironic persecution of the Church (or Mel) that drove them to make this movie, I'm repulsed. [and no, I'm not Catholic or a particular Gibson fan!] This movie is loosely based on historical events and yes the truth should be told. But will people conclude that all conservative Catholics - or all Christians - are hateful, anti-semitic liars, hypocrites and moblike villians? Such ridiculous conclusions are the sort that seem to be in the air. The whole hateful idea - the hypocritical motivation behind this movie - should be avoided. Stand clear.",0 """Keane"" is a low budget, independent film that provides a cinematic tour de force for both actor Damien Lewis and writer/director Lodge H. Kerrigan.

William Keane is a man who experiences every parent's worst nightmare when he loses his young daughter in a New York City bus terminal. Wracked with guilt and overwhelmed by grief, Keane devotes his every waking moment to combing the area where she was last seen, accosting total strangers with desperate pleas to help him locate the missing girl.

""Keane"" is a highly unusual film in that, for the first half of its running time, its focus is entirely on this one character as he roams aimlessly around the city, muttering to himself in barely comprehensible fashion. At this point, there are no other characters to speak of, just random passersby whose paths cross with Keane's for brief, unsettling moments. Virtually bereft of dialogue, the screenplay, in the film's early stages at least, is almost entirely a stream-of-consciousness monologue of disconnected and disjointed comments, vividly reflecting the chaos of Keane's deeply disturbed mind.

About halfway through the movie, however, we are introduced to Lynn Bedik (beautifully portrayed by Amy Ryan), a down-on-her-luck mother, whose young daughter, Kira (the astonishing Abigail Breslin), may hold the key to either Keane's redemption or damnation depending on the decisions he makes. For, when all is said and done, the film is really a study of a man's ever-spiraling descent into paranoia and madness - with barely a glimmer of hope that he might possibly be saved in the end.

Lewis delivers an award-worthy performance as Keane, managing to create a compelling character out of a man who remains an inscrutable and often very creepy enigma throughout virtually the entire film. Indeed, at times we begin to doubt if his daughter ever even existed in the first place, which only increases our curiosity and apprehension regarding who Keane really is, what his real problem might be, and just how much of a threat he poses to himself and those around him. Intensifying the challenge for the actor, Kerrigan forces Lewis to endure a mercilessly intrusive hand-held camera which follows him around relentlessly and rarely pulls back more than a few inches from the actor's face. In a perfect blending of form and content, the movie plunges us into the chaotic world of Keane's troubled psyche, making us both a voyeur of and a participant in the nightmare he is going through.

""Keane"" is a success on many levels, but the film is Lewis' all the way.",1 "There are disturbing elements to the film. Mainly, that the gang kill and rape indiscriminately, just because they can and depending on their mood at the time. Which makes this film slightly uncomfortable as it is based on a true story. Although how much of the film is true I'm not sure. But the film does come across as a cross between Bonnie & Clyde and the first half of A Clockwork Orange.

I watched this film, for probably the same reason that most people watch it today. Because it contains an early performance by De Niro. And although he is the best thing in it, that isn't saying much. He doesn't really give any indication of the big star or acting guru he was only a few years away from becoming.

But that isn't really his fault. What lets this film down the most is not the acting, but the script. None of the characters are developed at any point to become interesting, or for you to care what does or does not happen to them.

Nor do we have any empathy for most of the victims. One is so particularly stupid I found myself wanting them to get their sticky end. The army of G-Men chasing them are not developed, so there is no antagonist for the gang. The gang themselves get on pretty well with each other so there's no drama there.

This film really was a wasted opportunity and by the end of it you really couldn't care less.",0 "to say this movie is bad is an understatement. Guardian represents everything that's possible to be wrong with a movie, that's also its sole redeeming quality. The reason I gave this movie it's single star (aside from the fact that there is no option to put 0 stars) is because it has certain educational purpose. Robert Altman, when asked which movies influenced him the most, said: ""the movies I hated the most,"" he'd see a film and think ""I'll never make a movie like that."" That's the case with Guardian. Watching it makes you understand how and why a movie can be bad (or oh-my-god-it-burns-my-eye bad in this instance). There is not single aspect I can start you off with, it's bad globally: every line is a cliché stolen from Buffy, Blade, or some other B vampire movie (and the ending is a word-for-word rip off from the first Blade -- I can't spoil the movie with this, it hits the bottom on the first line); the image is terrible, either they used magnifying glass for a lens or rented a wrong camcorder, because this is not shot on film with an HDCAM, not even on HDV or DVX from the looks of it; the cinematography is ...well, I don't think they thought about lighting; the set pieces and the makeup is admirably expensive for such a low budget, but the actors wearing the suits couldn't act their way out of a noose on the day of their sentence.

At first I actually thought I was watching a rerun of a Buffy episode, but then I realized that even Buffy wasn't that bad (and there weren't any commercials!). I watched further and I couldn't believe it was on a premium channel, on cable! But seeing this piece of s$@t make it this far, I now know that any film can find distribution...",0 "Movies from unreadable books for unwatchable movies was said during the movie True Romance. This hits the mark! It is more of a play then a movie. In this respect, it sould never had been made into a movie. A short play made into a long movie. At least in the moive we know they had sex, but in the play you have to guess. It is hard watching Jean act like a jurk for that long of a time. 3 out of 10",0 "I am Russian and I just checked this movie out because i heard so much about it. I find this movie OK. It's not a masterpiece. But it's much better than the other Russian blockbuster Night Watch. However, both of these films have something bad in common and it's the immature obsession of excessive cheesy visual effects. When watching these high budget movies you start thinking the filmmakers forget that it's not the visual effects that make movie a good movie. Those parts in the movie, where they show the dark abyss all the time and then this LOTR style map pops up with a wheel falling down - it just doesn't look good, it looks totally tasteless. I mean the producers spent so much resources to make all those costumes and setups, but when you see something like this, it just ruins the whole point. Bad bad taste. Hopefully, in future Russian filmmakers will grow out this unhealthy obsession and start making great and stylish movies.",0 "A group of five friends travel to Ireland during their school break vacation in order to do some shrooms in the wilderness along with their Irish friend/ mushroom guide. When Tara (Lindsey Haun) takes a particularly bad mushroom, she fills her mind with horrific visions of the past and of her friends' future. A future that will bring death and destruction. It's also a future that will hold boredom, and a wasted hour and a half for those who choose to watch this uninvolving, predictable, agonizingly slow horror flick. The acting is all right, but the scares are just sadly non-existent. Also the ending (which anyone with half a brain can figure out EARLY in the movie) is pretty much a direct rip-off of another modern horror film (no spoilers)

My Grade: D+",0 "while i actually liked the first two Candyman movies,i didn't' like this third and(so far Final)installment.i found it boring and repetitive and i didn't like the story very much.there's a lot of filler here,which suggests to me that the filmmakers didn't have enough of a story for a complete movie.i also wasn't too impressed with the acting.there was a lot of overwrought theatrics.as well,there were some things in this movie that did not fit with the previous movies,basically throwing out certain aspects of the lore.maybe i'm just imagining things,but this is my opinion on things.finally,this movie has none of the style of the second movie.adding it all up,this third installment in the series is much lower in quality on all counts.my vote for Candyman 3:Day of the dead is a 3/10",0 "Undercover New York police officers Eric Roberts (as Kit Adrian) and Romano Orzari (as Jay Flowers) go up against a ruthless Russian mafia, pretending to work for bleached-blond crime lord Shawn Doyle (as Anton Seaberg). Mr. Roberts invites even more danger by sleeping with the enemy's estranged wife, luscious Lucie Laurier (as Lena). This film's obvious intent is to bring female flesh and human blood to the home box office crowd, without resorting to anything hard-core. The female flesh is real, and the human blood is fake. On a cheap blood and guts level, ""Stiletto Dance"" is successful. Mr. Orzari and Yaphet Kotto (as Captain Sands) provide star Roberts with solid support. But, it's really Mr. Doyle's characterization of the temperamental bad guy, who keeps it moving.

**** Stiletto Dance (6/8/01) Mario Azzopardi ~ Eric Roberts, Shawn Doyle, Romano Orzari, Lucie Laurier",1 "I couldn't even watch the entire movie. It was horrible. It just wasn't funny at all. Sean William Scott is a funny guy, I think this was just the wrong role for him. And Billy Bob is a fantastic actor. I don't know where this one went wrong. The premise is great. This could have been outrageously funny given either a different mix of cast or better directing. But in it's current state, it sucked. Big time. I think Jason Biggs or someone who is more of a ""straight man"" funny-type would have been better in the lead role. But given it's current state, I would advise you to avoid this piece-of-crap. It's just out and out not funny.",0 "This dull and utterly unscary horror film is cruddy in every department and I simply can't believe that some genre fans actually liked it. The fact that it was followed by a sequel (!) also seems inexplicable to me. There are absolutely no scares here - and no gore, either; our views of the ""monsters"" are always too brief - but not brief enough to hide how cheap the effects are. ""C.H.U.D"" is rock-bottom stuff, and no fun at all.",0 "This film is miles better than you might expect from the video cover (a bunch of impossibly young good looking kids - I thought 'Star Trek' rip-off, but no, it's better than that, even if it did come from a video game) (or so I am told..) Freddie Prinze jnr is a bit wooden, but the other actors more than make up for it. The marvelous Tcheky Karyo is a standout, and so is David Suchet, popping up quite unexpectedly, as the too short-lived Captain of the Tiger Claw. The women are excellent as well, Saffron Burrows as Angel Devereaux and Ginny Holder as Rosie Forbes. The story has depths and I wanted to learn more about the Pilgrims, and the war against them... The international cast is a great strength, how refreshing to hear a mix of voices and accent for a film set in 2654 (?).",1 "OK, first off, Nell's lakeside idyll is a TVA lake, made for generating hydroelectric power in the 1940's. So much for untouched by civilization. And where'd they come up with the idea that twentieth-century mountain people practiced these crude bronze age cave burials? Bogus and manipulative all the way through, it's a patronizing rip-off even without its condescending and wholly fraudulent ideas about Appalachian history. Jodie Foster tries desperately to gimp her way to an Academy Award, and surprisingly, it didn't work (unlike Dustin Hoffman's one-note performance in Rain Man or Al Pacino's self-parody in Scent of a Woman). Michael Apted should know better, having done a half-decent job portraying mountain life in Coal Miner's Daughter. An altogether horrible film, the worse for its pretensions and delivering some ""profound"" truths.",0 "There were some good moments in STLD2, sure, but the few good ones could not make up for all the bad. In the first five minutes of this movie we saw an interview with no context (Who was interviewing her? Why? Documentary?) and a misfired Hamlet joke.

On the first appearance of the room mate, Zoe (who even has a cliché quirky brunette name) we see that the writer clearly doesn't even have the basic knowledge required for his craft. Zoe's trunk is full of random things that are nothing but random and there to paint her as the crazy whore drama kid. Thanks. I appreciate you stereotyping my people. When the skull was picked up and Zoe said that it was Hamlet, I almost turned off the movie. I don't think you can call yourself a writer if you are not familiar with the masterpiece of English speaking literature. THE SKULL IS YORIK! The rest of the movie follows in this way. Clichés, bad lines and jokes that don't quite make sense in context. There was a good moment where Miles (Columbus Short, the redeeming actor in this movie) plays the sound of ice cracking. That was pretty much it. The dances weren't that good and half of them were cut creatively so they didn't really have to show them. Half of one girl's dance was inter cut with the exact same ""oh puh-lease"" expression that the main actress kept pulling. It was painful.

The movie didn't address the race issue (which was half the point of its predecessor) and the conflict was a creation of the main character's head where she decided her boyfriend lied to her when in fact he never did. They never danced together either. So why was it a sequel? The movie also had an annoyingly self righteous message about conservatory schools. They painted the elite elimination of students in the lower half of the class as cruel. Sorry, in the real world you DON'T get an A for effort and people CHOOSE to go to conservatory schools for the elitism and the status they can achieve if they make it through. Boohoo, life isn't fair.

At the end of the movie I really hated the main character. She pretty much spat in the face of her teacher by refusing to go to the party. Instead of being grateful for her amazing opportunity and letting the old bird show her off for a few hours and then quitting ballet the next day, she had to embarrass her. It's not her fault you don't wanna be a ballerina! In the end I think someone else wrote Miles (Columbus Short) and then they hired a fifteen year old girl wannabe dancer to write the rest of the movie. Way to go. When there are so many talented writers who are struggling to make ends meet, you go and pay someone who should probably go be an accountant.",0 "The beginning of this movie was good. It started to get really dumb after he told the people he wanted to kill himself. I think if I came from a little town like that I would be offended after seeing this movie. They made a lot of these people look dumb and crazy. How could these people have so little to do that they follow him around all day. A lot of times these people were telling him ways to kill himself like they were urging him to do it. How can so many people have little respect for other people? I also think they could have made a much better ending for this movie. There were some good parts to this movie also. Some people might like it, but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.",0 "Daddy Day Care is a nice family film that is entertaining to watch. Charlie and Phil are so consumed by their advertising jobs that they are completely missing out on the joys of fatherhood. After failing to excite the public about vegetable cereal, Charlie and Phil are fired from their ad jobs. While in search of employment and tending to his four-year-old son Ben during the day while his wife Kim is at work, Charlie has an idea. If he and Phil can handle taking care of two kids, how much harder can it be to supervise ten? Much harder than they ever imagined. But, they will try to manage to pull through and not let Miss Gwyneth Harridan ruin their day care. The plot doesn't sounds great but it does have some potential, Fortunately, it delivered as this is film was actually quite funny. It wasn't over the top funny or Finding Nemo funny but it defiantly can stand on its own. At most times Daddy Day Care may just seem like a film with a bunch of screaming kids and nothing else which isn't true as there are many laughs to be found as well. Eddie Murphy stars and gives quite a funny performance. The real stars of the film though are the little kids. Most of them were funny, some were annoying but they were all tolerable. Regina King plays Kim and she doesn't really appear in the film very much but gives a funny line or two. Steve Zahn was really funny as Marvin. Sure sometimes his character was too stupid to like but it never crosses the line. Anjelica Huston plays the same role I usually see her in, she plays a mean person well but it is tiring seeing her do the same thing. Lacey Chabert has a small but funny role and she is a bit underrated. Jeff Garlin wasn't that good, like when compared to everyone else he was weak and not very funny either. Steve Carr directs and does a decent job, nothing special. I don't know why I liked this movie as much as I did. It was stupid and kind of had a weak story but I still liked it. It does get dull at times, particularly the beginning as it starts off slow but it becomes funnier as the film continues. The running time is 92 minutes so it wouldn't be that much of a punishment to watch. The movie isn't very clever it's a simple film but it does contain enough laughs to entertain most people. Daddy Day Care is also a lot better then The Haunted Mansion. So, if you have a choice between the two, I would go with this one. In the end, this isn't a great film but it might fit the bill if you are in need for a family flick. Rating 6.7/10",1 "The story begins in 1999, with an old gangster performed by Malcolm McDowell being advised that Freddie Mays (David Thewlis) would leave jail after thirty years in prison. His mood changes and he recalls 1968, when he was a young punk (performed by Paul Bettany), and he joined Freddie Mays' gang, his envy of his mob boss and his betrayal. The whole story of these two characters is presented slowly, alternating violent and luxury places and action. I liked this movie a lot. I would dare to say that it mixes 'Goodfellas', 'Casino', 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Reservoir Dogs'. Paul Bettany has a great performance as a psycho-killer: differently of those sadists in Hollywood movies that make grimaces, the simple look and expression of Paul Bettany is enough to terrify the viewer. The direction is great, and there is one specific scene that I appreciated very much. When Freddie Mays invites Paul Bettany's character to have a drink in a nightclub: Freddie is giving his overcoat to the attendant and the image of Paul Bettany is reflected in the glass of the door exactly over Freddie. The selection of Paul Bettany for this role is perfect, but why not ages him through make-up? Malcolm McDowell looks totally different from Paul Bettany! My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): ""Os Gangsters"" (""The Gangsters"")",1 "This movie was likely one of the ten worst movies I have ever seen. It quite seriously looked like a high school class project, though the actors were a bit too old to expect in to be in a high school class project, the script and dialog were rank, and it was delivered about as poorly as it was written. The production values were non-existent. Character development was extremely limited. Some of the makeup looked as if it was applied by teenage girls. The music was completely out of place with the time period and the action on the screen. And the comment in another review that the ending was good if predictable almost had me wondering if the movie had been re-edited so I saw a different ending.

At no point in the movie did I care about a single character on the screen. At no time was there a single image that caught my interest. At no time did anything happen that surprised me.

If I had paid money to see this in the theater instead of renting it on disc, I wound have been one very unhappy camper.",0 "This film is a Great movie with real good plot that is continuous and keeps you involved. Its a good family film that you can take you kids too and adults will enjoy as well. There isn't much in the film that would justify a PG-13 rating and it appeals to adolescents, teenager's, and little kids will enjoy it as well. This will be a hit when it gets released soon as it is a feel good film. I saw this film preleased a couple of years ago on a Mexico cruise in the ships main theater. THere aren't a lot of good films these days like there were 20-30 years ago. Rocco did a good job thinking out his plot and story line and is a undiscovered talent that good make it big if he can get his films noticed.",1 "This is a ridiculous biopic about the real, incredibly beautiful belly dancer, master spy, Javanese princess etc. Mata Hari, a supposed spy for the Germans, executed by the French in 1917. The movie tries to redeem her, but only makes her pathetic. She would definitely have been all but forgotten today, had she not been shot for espionage. If she was indeed guilty, and in that case for what, is a complex issue, considerably more so than the film in question. Margaretha Geertruida Zelle was born in 1876 in Leeuwarden, Holland, by Dutch parents. Under the artist name of Mata Hari she made a comet career as an ""exotic dancer"" in lavish settings with a less than genuine Indian/oriental touch. She was said to be the daughter of a Brahman priest; or something similar -- all make-believe promotional bullshit, made possible by her dark eyes, hair and complexion (though she wouldn't have fooled nearly as many in Jakarta or Bombay as in Paris, of course). She did, however, have a connection to Java (then part of the Dutch empire), having lived there 1897-1902. What about her great looks and great dancing? When Greta Garbo did her part (in the all but fictional movie which probably have contributed more than anything else to the general image of Mata Hari) she was 26 years old and looked like - well - like Garbo. Sylvia Kristel was 33 in the trash in question. The gift of Margaretha Zelle never was great looks as much as charisma and sex appeal. At her execution in 1917 she was 41, and had her dancing well behind. Most of the dancing took place in 1905-06, then the assignments gradually became fewer and worse paid, until 1915. She now lived on her lovers. Her living standards varied considerably despite her international fame; sometimes she spent months at the best hôtels of Paris, sometimes she survived on quite limited means - sometimes simultaneously. Downright prostitution did occur, though she never accepted any customers whatsoever. (Her preference for men in uniform - rather a poor officer than a rich banker, as she put it - would contribute to her end.) In the genuine jet set, she was a temporary visitor. As far as dancing is concerned she was an autodidact, and her shows had really nothing to do with anything one can find in the Middle East, India or Southeast Asia. The point of marketing herself as a native woman of class who shared the ancient culture of the Orient etc. was that the nobility (men and women alike) for the first time ever could sit and watch someone undress. That would also be her lasting (?) contribution; to make strip tease acceptable. The words mata hari literally means ""the eye of the day"", compounded to matahari (she also spelt it ""Mata-Hari"") it means, literally, ""sun"" in Indonesian (similar meanings in related languages like Malayan); today it's also the name an Indonesian supermarket chain. Her first artist name was ""Lady MacLeod"" after a supposed lord father, and it didn't disappear from the posters until 1912, when the real MacLeod (her former husband) sued her. In August 1916, Captain Ladoux, head of the French counterespionage, told her that the British considered her a German spy. He didn't believe them, he said, but wondered if she would like to work for the Republic? She eventually accepted; a single mission on the highest level, for the mind-boggling price of one million franc. On her way to Belgium and her supposed mission, she was arrested by the British who took her for another spy. After her release, she had to go to Madrid, and that's essentially where her entire career as a spy took place, during two weeks in December 1916. For a start, she contacted the German embassy to gain their trust - she was to turn into a double agent. That the name of Mata Hari has become synonymous with a master spy is definitely a factoid, considering her very short career as well as her very limited skills in the craft (even when compared to her colleagues), not to say naïvety. (Like when she attempted to discuss her mission in clear in ordinary mail or over a plain telephone, or when she refused to use invisible ink.) The German military attaché obviously found this out within minutes. Mata Hari apparently didn't understand she had been revealed, but returned to Paris, happy with the (worthless) intelligence she thought she had fooled out of the attaché. The problem was that Mata Hari had indeed accepted to work for the Germans. In May 1916 she accepted the payment of twenty thousand francs (for services delivered, as the prosecution would later claim) which at the time was a small fortune. She insisted that she wanted to fool Germany of the money as payment for some furs she earlier had lost due to the involvement of that nation, and that she never gathered any intelligence for them. If she actually got the money for nothing, it would explain why the Germans had aggressions toward a useless agent, instead of feeding her with disinformation. But was it true? The court didn't believe her, in particular since they never got to see all the evidence, nor did they hear some key witnesses who could have defended Mata Hari. She was executed at October 15, 1917. It's worth noting that no German spies have claimed that Mata Hari was part of their organization but actually denied it . Whether she was a mythomaniac, Public Relations-minded, naif or simply had bad memory - or all of it - it's a fact that many of the myths that surround her were of her own fabrication.",0 "I can't believe that the NZ Film Commission puts money into trash like this at the expense of serious film makers, who want to actually make films that NZ film makers an be proud of. The best actor was the sheep dog. Plot was okay, but badly acted, pathetic script writing, and badly directed. Weta of course did their stuff well, but nothing could save this film.

I suspect this has been a case of someone, knowing someone else that could pull some strings to allow this to go ahead. And then putting all their mates into the cast and the result speaks for itself.

Am I the only one with the guts to say this publicly? This is exactly why I have moved to Australia to continue my film making, where it's taken seriously.",0 "It's very interesting that the most positive review for this film is written by someone who used to work in the same industry. But it makes sense, because to anyone else this film is just mind-numbingly dull. It's basically about a man who is diagnosed with lung cancer and so hides it from everyone and continues his usual life of hookers and drugs. Its best redeeming feature is that it is short so you don't waste too much of your life.

Ivan is played by a decent actor, but quite a few of the others seem like amateurs. Being shot with a hand-held camera just compounds that feeling, although it's different I guess. This film was so dull, that for the first time, IMDb has said my comments were too brief even though I can't think of what else to say.",0 "At 58 minutes this garbage was never going to have a chance with me, but I must admit I only rented it for a good laugh. And I got it. Get this, this movie is a sequel to not one but THREE different movies from Full Moon Entertainment(the Puppetmaster series look like the Star Wars Trilogy in comparison). The films are Dollman, Demonic Toys, and Bad Channels. That's not the worst of it, even the killer G.I. Joe isn't the worst thing about this flick(it's the funniest thing, though). This poor excuse for a horror flick actually rips off a movie called Killer Klowns From Outer Space, arguably the worst film since Plan 9 From Outer Space. Then again, the Quick and The Dead was pretty godawful.",0 "Why was this movie made? No doubt to sucker in the family-rebelling MTV faithful, many of whom do not care about anything other than the exterior of a movie - in Go the story about drugs and sex, and the crude humor. While the plot line of the movie is interesting, the unsympathetic and underdeveloped characters give us nothing to care about.

What is most bothersome is that at the end of the movie nobody learns anything. This movie would have been much better if it had a point. It makes brief and ambivalent references to family life, but never really has the guts to develop its critiques.

I guess what makes this movie so pathetic is that every character is like all the other characters. What's worse, never in the film, not even at the climax, do any characters distinguish themselves. The four men in Vegas hardly differ at all, and the three convenience store workers are all the same. If you want to waste your 7 bucks on uninspiring and forgettable slop, Go is waiting for you.",0 "This is one of the few movies I have seen from beginning to end and then seeing it on MST 3000. Watching it this way first allowed me to see some of the more gruesome parts the show edited. As it stands I don't rate this a one, I give it a three. The problem with this movie is not the worms per se, which apparently go on the attack because a power line is down (that happens all the time, and I have yet to see killer worms) it is the thoroughly unlikeable characters. This is set in the south so everyone revs up the southern accent to intolerable levels (I live here and I have yet to hear anyone sound that southern) then there is Mic who is from New York. Why the heck is he in Georgia you ask? He is antiquing. And they want you to believe he would be interested in the girl. Oh and don't get me started on the sheriff. The stereotypical sheriff of the south who is more interested in sex than solving crimes. Actually the most likable character I thought was Roger. Sure he becomes crazy, but he was generally a nice fellow till Mic kept advancing on the girl. Oh, and the character of Mr. Beardsly is also very impressive in his brief stint on the film. So should you watch? Go ahead, it isn't totally bad, and there are some pretty gross scenes on the straight version.",0 "In the middle of The Hole I e-mailed a friend of mine to summarize it. Not sure if the film would break down into a series of submissive gestures, I felt a little un-easy recommending it, but then I saw the ending. It's perfect. I've been living in Korea for 6 months, and this film could just as easily summarize the strange ennui and frustration of any Asian metropolis as it takes on Taiwin here. It uses the myth of Hong Kong musicals the same way Godard or Hartley use Western musicals, but takes it to an extreme, it's gritty world and occasionally Kafka-esquire logic make it all the better. I really feel like The Hole's closest comparison is Hal Hartley's Surviving Desire, but have a kinda bleak edge to what are ultimately hopefully and strangely metaphorical films. Anyway, this is what I wrote to Esther. Hope you like The Hole too.

Hey,

watching a move called the hole. Taiwanese I think seems a bit to weird for china unless it's hong Kong. it's worth seeing so far. it's about a guy and a girl in an apartment complex. the guy's ceiling caves in and the girl starts to get annoyed and well it's kinda a weird metaphor for the simultaneous pleasure ,degregation, and pain of a rather intense crush. there's also a kinda zombie-virus-sub-plot too and a lot of weird little scenes where the girl acts out her desires through rather innocent and kinda fun 50's doo-wop sequences. worth a look.",1 "What can I say about this movie?It's simply an utter garbage.The plot is completely idiotic(the killers roots on the loose)and the acting is lousy beyond belief.The special effects are laughable,the gore is non-existent.Very similar to ""Seedpeople"" but even worse.So if you are a fan of sheer stupidity rent this in pair with ""Sorority Girls and the Creature From Hell"".I am sure,that you'll laugh till it hurts with this turkey.Otherwise avoid it like a plague.",0 "I'm not a big fan of the Lubitsch Touch. This, which I hadn't seen in 20 years, I think is my favorite.

The recent Broadway revival of the Noel Coward play, which was supposedly very ooh-la-la and daring, was a bust. Interminable and misguided.

One problem was that the female lead was made very cold. In the movie, Miriam Hopkins is just right: pretty, seductive, witty.

Gary Cooper is sublime. He was a great comedian -- equally good in ""Desire,"" the delightful movie with Dietrich that Lubitsch produced and supposedly had a big hand in directing. Too bad he changed gears so drastically and became the strong, silent Western hero he's known for today (if he's known at all, alas.)

Fredric March was a very fine actor but not a comedian. He is the weakest link; but he works well in the ensemble.

Edward Everett Horton is funny, as always.

It really works, and is as racy today as it must have been when it came out.

",1 "This movie sucked. The box claimed that it was the female version of Die-Hard, this movie was anything but that. It started out as soft port then a horror flick and finally an action sequence. The only redeeming quality was that it was only 80 mins. I was really disappointed since I thought this movie was similar to Die Hard but I guess not. Grrrrrrrrrr.",0 "Story was relatively boring. Directing was definitely boring. Some of the dialogue was a little too predictable.

The one clever item was the deal with ""Ritz"" and trying to figure out for a moment how someone found Henry after he took off by himself. (I won't write a spoiler.)

This movie is _not_ worth the two hours spent on it.",0 "If you are after a movie with humour, a touch of romance, and a new twist on the hero undercover cop, then this is the movie. Liam Neeson shows he can equally well play the frightened neurotic as the solid heroes of Star Wars and Michael Collins. Sandra Bullock is the executive producer, as well as playing the ""Queen of Enemas"". A movie that leaves you feeling good at the end.",1 "The Secret Garden is a rare treat where in the screenwriter and director actually understand their source, The Secret Garden by Frances Hogsden Burnett, and make a translation to the screen that not only captures the essence of the book but enhances the story as well. Too often directors spoil the story with their own self-interested spin (Little Big Man and Chocolat come immediately to mind)but here is a jewel that leaves the viewer saying ""That was as good as the book."" A genuine triumph.

The cast is outstanding, the children in particular, Kate Maberly as Mary Lennox above all. Even to the most minor extra everyone brings a smooth and compelling reality to the story.

However, the real star is director Agnieszka Holland. Against a challenging climate ( a rainy location) she manages to create a movie with a touching commentary on how children can literally change the world. Her insightful grasp of the themes of isolation, growth and rejuvenation, the need for a balance between nurture and allowable risk are all managed through the controlling metaphor of a garden. The artful rendering of these literary themes are what many directors apparently find most challenging ( I'm looking at you Arthur Penn)and generally blissfully ignore them compensating by glib insertions, extra action or clumsy sentiment. Not so here.

Not only is her focus exemplary but the photography is amazing. The interplay of light and dark, the time elapse photos of clouds rolling and flowers emerging all set to beautiful music captivate the viewer. The rainy weather was not shunned but used to fullest effect. I can only imagine the discipline it must have taken to wait for the sun to peep out from the clouds and then roll film hoping that the cast can pull off the shot before the light changed and a second take became a long wait. Fortunately all are up to the task and the film, the final scene in particular, results in a brilliant piece of motion picture art.

The 1993 version of The Secret Garden is a must for every family film collection, one the parents and kids can enjoy for its sophistication or simply for the great way in which this timeless classic is retold.",1 "Although It could be worse, this movie may have done it's job Too well. Especially James Belushi playing a ""jerk-friend."" It feels like he has a lot of practice playing this role (know what I mean?). But Demi Moore's friend isn't much better. On the plus side, Rob Lowe's acting is very good & Moore's (such an underrated actress!) is excellent. Maybe a good movie showing young people not to rush into anything, but be warned: the medicine isn't especially good tasting.",1 "Takashi Miike makes a samurai movie as a western. The Japanese cast speaks in English, the music is eclectic with strong spaghetti western influences, and the material is referential and full of homage and send up.

It begins with a Quentin Tarantino cameo, then switches to the story of two clans fighting over the supposed treasure in a small town. Into the stand off rides a stranger with no name.

Forgive the brevity, but if you've seen any number of spaghetti westerns then you've probably seen something like this story that spins out here. The tale of gold lust and warring factions isn't anything new. What is new is how Miike dresses it up. Clearly the Japanese could make a western if the wanted to. Its a clever re-imagining of the genre and is interesting enough to warrant at least a brief look see.

The problem with the film is that its 30 to 45 minutes too long. A very good first half hour gives way to long exposition in the middle hour, and while there are some genuinely nice moments its a little too plodding as it tries to cover one cliché too many. The film then picks up in the final 40 minutes with a huge shoot out. Its a schizo movie at times as things just go on and on. However when the film works- which it does at the ends and for a chunk of the middle, this is some of the best film making I've seen this year so far. The characters, the action, some set pieces are simply stunning, not to mention touching, there are several moments of real emotion.

And make no mistake, this is a spaghetti western, and the film is a bit more fun if you know the genre. For example the Django in the title will alert anyone who's seen the Franco Nero film of Django what is inside the coffin that is dragged around. You don't need the know the genre but it will help you identify what they are stealing from.

7 out of 10 for the mixed up and down nature of the film.

Probably the only one who could have pulled this off was Miike and he did it wonderfully.",1 "There are some people that only sees sh*t in the Mexican movies nowadays instead o supporting, I mean I don't really think the people of Sundance don't know anything about movies! The acting is good, the screenplay is hilarious, the fx are quite good, the characters are funny I especially love the ""Santo"" spoof), the best in show is Joaquin Cosio (""Mascarita""), of course its not the best of the movies but its entertaining and that is something everybody likes right?

If there's one thing i have to say bad in this movie is that Ana Claudia Talancon was wasted in the movie

So to all the people stop discriminating your own product and enjoy this movie because its entertaining!",1 "This excellent and dramatic movie, a co-production US-Mexican, is based on Graham Greene novel and written by Dudley Nichols. It starts when a priest(Henry Fonda) attempting to flee from a Centroamerican country, because Christianity being pursued by a totalitarian govern. He encounters help by an Indian woman(Dolores Del Rio)with a baby. She gives him direction to port where he could embark towards freedom. Meanwhile, he finds a mean countryman(J Carrol Naish) craving reward and is pursued by an authoritarian officer(Pedro Armendariz). Furthermore, his existence runs parallel a banks robber, The Gringo(War Bond) also relentlessly pursued .

Magnificent movie featuring awesome performances by complete casting. The film develops some John Ford's usual themes, as the sentimental nostalgia, sense of camaraderie, religion, and abound touching scenes. Henry Fonda in a larger-than-life role as good priest is top notch, Pedro Armendariz as nasty general is perfect and War Bond as outlaw wanted by totalitarian police is cool. Fonda(Grapes of wrath, Drums along the Mohawk, Young Mr. Lincoln) and Pedro Armendariz(3 Godfathers, Fort Apache)played several films for John Ford. Besides appear habitual Ford's friends, someone uncredited, such as Jack Pennick, Rodolfo Acosta, John Qualen, Fortunio Bonanova, J Carrol Naish, and Ward Bond . Luxurious cinematography with lights and darks by Gabriel Figueroa( usual of director Emilio Fernandez, here also producer). Enjoyable musical score by Richard Hageman, adding Mexican songs with emotive dance included in charge of Dolores Del Rio. The picture shot in Mexico, was produced by Ford's Argosy Production Company, RKO pictures and Merian C. Cooper. Rating: Better than average, well worth seeing for John Ford enthusiastic.",1 "i loved this movie very much. i say this because in the original Cinderella is all goody goody and has dreams of getting away from her step family and all she does is sit around just waiting for something to happen. seriously people when kids see the original they will think that some random magical person will come and solve all their problems. although when you kids see this and also the first sequel (cinderlla 2 dreams come true) they will learn that something might happen to their magical person and that when you sit around doing nothing you wont get anything near of what you want (ofcoarse friends would also be helpful) also in both sequels Cinderella is much more independent and you learn a lot more about the other characters like the princes mother and the kings past and the stepmother is countless times more evil. and you also learn that one of the stepsisters want what Cinderella also wants. i love the songs epically ""just a dream"" and ""at the ball"". their is so much more comedy and more sweet moments with a lot of the characters and not just Cinderella and the prince. also you get a lot more information about the prince except for his name. i would give this about an 8/10 because i wish that Disney would put Cinderella's dead mother and father figure in the clouds or something watching her live happily. so to sum it all up watch this movie and your get a much more magical feeling.",1 "Stay FAR AWAY from this film. The fact that you're reading reviews tells me you may have already been tainted by the awfulness it carrys. This is a truely horrid movie... so let's get down to the problems. Writing and Direction: It wouldnt surprise me if these were handled by a group of overactive gradeschoolers that watched 'scream' and 'I know what you did last summer' a few too many times. GIANT GAPING plot holes abound; while I can't congratulate them for this movie, its nice knowing they're finally potty trained. Actors(or lack thereof): Only the finest for this film... the finest extras ever to grace a screen, now starring in their speaking role debut! As a disclaimer, I have to note that I am capable of watching and enjoying just about anything. I recognize a good movie when I see it, but I can still giggle and smirk during Bubble Boy (yes folks, its true); so when I say to avoid something, you KNOW I'm not kidding.",0 "It's not a good movie, that's for sure and I watched it at 2 am on hbo but there's something i really liked about it... i think it was the cartoons. the way they used the cartoons reminded me of 80s comedies, u know how they do the cartooning at the beginning credits in a lot of them? that just reminded me of, like, one crazy summer or something and it gave the film an overall atmosphere that i liked. its a pretty bad movie, story wise but theres something kinda cute about it. i think the cartooning redeemed it in my eyes, reminded of better times in teen romance comedy.",1 "I wasn't looking for anything deep, I wasn't looking for anything serious, no Oscar winning actors, no award winning script, I just wanted an action movie, this summer we got Death Race, a movie where the script and characters are just never explored, but the action is non stop and so exciting. I don't know why, but we just need action movies like that and one of the things that I did enjoy about this was that it reminded me of those old grind house films that have quick editing and fast paced stories that are just awesome stories to watch because of the stunts. This is a different form of The Fast and The Furious, only just not with all the fancy gadgets which I like. Also, Jason Statham, this guy is just awesome in action movies, he makes such a great lead in any action role and is such an awesome tough guy that you don't want to mess with.

Based off the 70's film ""Death Race 2000"", it's 2012, the economy is in bad shape, employment is down, but entertainment is up, especially in prison where racing has become the new gladiator fights. Jenson's wife is murdered and he is framed for it, landing him him in prison, where he is approached by the leader of the Death Race program, Hennessey, and she offers him to race for his freedom if he can make it out alive. But there's something a little deeper when it seems like he was put in prison on purpose so he could race.

Death Race is just pure entertainment, it's nothing original, we don't really know the characters that well or what their motives are, but the reason why this movie is enjoyable is just the awesome action that is endless. I loved the editing, it made the race scenes that much more exciting. I would recommend this movie if you are looking for fun, like I said before we just need a pure action movie sometimes and Death Race is a perfect film on that level. I had a great time watching this movie and am looking forward to seeing it again for a good time.

7/10",1 "The main reason this seems so unfunny to many younger viewers is that a lot of the humor was topical, and topical humor becomes unfunny as soon as the topic is no longer ""current events""--how funny will ""Dubya"" jokes seem by around 2084, when they'll be about as old as the jokes in ""Boo!""? I'm twenty-some years younger than ""Boo!"", and the only reason I got most of the topical jokes is that I'm a big fan of 1930s movies thanks to having grown up when TV stations showed movies late at night instead of infomercials (yes, kids, they really used to do that!) You miss a lot of the humor in older movies if you can't time-travel between the ears.",0 "I recently got interested in viewing ""classic"" films, and according to the reviews I'd read of this movie, it was supposed to be quite an unpredictable thriller that keeps you guessing until the very end. Perhaps I'm a little jaded or something, but I was so disappointed with this film I was sure I'd rented the wrong one. There was no suspense, the ending was predictable, and I was left feeling very let down. So much for a ""classic"".",0 "I had the opportunity to watch this movie as a screener and was not shocked by its disappointment. This movie reunites Kristy Cotton(Ashley Lawrence)and Pin Head (Doug Bradley) for the 4th time and hopefully the last. The plot revolves around Kristys husband Trevor and his abnormal life after a car accident. Flashes of the cenobytes and pinhead and the fact that he cant remember the previous month causes Trevor to go insane. No one has seen Kristy for since the accident and the cops are thinking that foul play was involved and Trevor is their main suspect. Later on you start to realize what pain and anguish you have to go through to get ""all problems solved"".

The problem with this film is that its lacking in what made the first 2 films popular. Pinhead and his cenobytes are rarely seen in this film and it lacks the hellish looks. The film starts to resort to nudity to help keep interest in the plot. The series would of been better if the creators would of stopped at bloodlines. It seems like the produces are milking this for all that its worth by coming up with plotlines that have almost nothing to do with the original film. There are no morals to the story and there is nothing you can gain by watching this film. One thing that this film can be praised on is the used of special effects and the sound track, which is a rarity in most direct to video releases. In conclusion I would say watch this film if your a huge fan of horrible rip offs of great 80's horror movies. If you liked this film I would suggest Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4 The Next Generation.",0 "Yes, I played this game on the sega cd video game console, however I do believe it was originally a computer game. This game was a bit different than the games I was used to playing as in this game you progressed through your quest with really no fear of dying. You just solved the puzzles and moved on in your quest. A nice change of pace to be sure in the days of lives and limited continues and many deaths by way of the mysterious pit. This game has you as a wannabe pirate named Guybrush Threepwood. The name is a bit funny is it not? Well the entire game is a rather funny ordeal as our pirate must navigate many obstacles on his quest to become a pirate and rescue the governor's daughter from the pirate ghost LeChuck. Basically all there is to it, you are constantly faced with puzzles to help you proceed such as getting yourself launched from a cannon, having to buy a boat from a dubious salesman, getting past the dreaded piranha poodles, getting caught again and again by natives on an island only to escape buy the same way as the natives keep putting on more high tech doors on your prison, and touching the most violent beast ever just to have a man join your crew of dangerous pirates. So for a fun and rather funny game this one was very good. For the most part the puzzles are not to hard to figure out, only the one involving the head and maze gave me trouble and it was a breeze once I figured out what to do.",1 "Curious...

1) Why would a highly-classified government agency, under military purview and overseen by a four star general, give this degree of access to what are clearly anti-government civilians--including one with a known tie to a conspiracy nut in the media--AND give them unrestricted communication to the outside world?

2) Especially since the government is willing to covertly murder civilians to protect the project.

3) How can a helicopter fly as fast an an F-16?

4) How do you get a team composed of EXACTLY one Asian, one Latino, one African-American, one white woman and one homosexual?

...and that's just the first hour. It just doesn't pass the common sense test.",0 """Songwriter"" was one of the 1st movies I bought when I got my 1st VCR. Basically, Willie and Kris Kristofferson are playing themselves - and that's not bad. This movie is both funny, and heart-warming. You can't fault the music, and the acting's not too bad for a couple of songwriters. The plot is actually very basic - the big bad record company thinks it owns Doc (Willie), but he refuses to play their way. So he enlists the help of his old partner Blackie (Kris) and proceeds to find ways to get around his contract with the bad guys. In the process, he realizes that his 1st wife was his true love, and works to get her back. If you have any liking at all of Willie Nelson, you should enjoy this movie. My tape's about worn out...but there's no one quite like Willie.",1 "I got a kick out of this film for the first half of it, but it got so stupid with the main characters that I had a hard time finishing it. However, it was still worth a look to see Lupe Valez. I had read what a strange character she was in real life, and that she was sexy woman, so at least I have now seen her. She was a very pretty lady and not shy, either. This film just made it under the wire before the Hays Code came along, so Lupe showed us about all of her breasts. They weren't anything noteworthy, but she certainly showed what she had and a year later, she would have been forced to cover up.

Stu Erwin plays the boxer ""Joe Palooka."" He plays a really inept fighter and stupid guy in general who is endearing for awhile but wears thin. The same goes for Jimmy Durante's role of fight manager ""Knobby Walsh."" He really wears thin.

Anyway, this is typical early '30s material which means very corny and dated in the humor and romance department, sometimes hilarious and a bit racy and edgy but one that bogs down midway through.",0 "Rugged private detective Rigby Reardon (a splendidly deadpan performance by Steve Martin) is hired by the enticing Juliet Forrest (marvelously essayed to sultry perfection by Rachel Ward) to investigate the murder of her scientist father. Of course, Reardon soon finds himself neck deep in all kinds of trouble as he tries to find out what really happened to Julie's dad. Director Carl Reiner tells the delightfully off the wall story at a constant fast pace, delivers a meticulous recreation of the 40's era (special kudos are in order for the sets and costumes), and shows a genuine affection for vintage 40's noir. It's a real treat to watch Martin interact with such past stars as Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney (in an especially hilarious scene in which Martin dresses up in drag as Cagney's mother so he can talk to Cagney in jail!), Ingrid Bergman, Veronica Lake, Ava Gardner, Charles Laughton, Ray Milland, Alan Ladd, Cary Grant, Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Crawford, and even Vincent Price; the editing is seamless and the jokes are bright and witty. Martin plays his role with great aplomb; he receives fine support from Ward, Reni Santoni as zealous police chief Carlos Rodriguez, and Reiner as nefarious Nazi villain Field Marshall Von Kluck. Martin's hard-boiled narration crackles with a lot of choice sharp one-liners and the movie boasts a nice sense of the ridiculous (I love the way Ward keeps removing bullets from Martin's hide with her teeth!). Michael Chapman's gorgeous, moody black and white cinematography perfectly captures that distinctive smoky film noir style. Miklos Rozsa's sweeping, melodramatic score likewise does the trick. A very funny and enjoyable one-of-a-kind comedy hoot.",1 "From the weird characters to their estranged roles, this movie gives a new meaning to ""Real Weird"" I was expecting the movie to be somewhat of a scary thriller but my toughts afterwards are contrary. MTV made such a big deal about the lost season through commercials, I'm disappointed that the commercial's intensions wasn't even relevant to the story line. I mean, the reason why this movie is such an upset to some viewers is probably because MTV wasted all there money on it's crummy commercials. Yes, it all starts out as a usual MTV Real World episode, where everyone is arriving and introducing themselves then they are invited to a real world challenge, get kidnapped by some lunatic and get ""real"" tortured in somekind of a jailhouse. By the way, if you were paying attention, the people that arrived together in groups of two like Cash and Melinda, Liz and Keith, Omara and Adam all had somekind of love connection... and then you have your categorized, spiritual, on-the-side person- Boomer. The only thing good about this movie is the suspenseful plot, storyline and the acting. Now they were going to far when they totally copied the Blair Witch Project with the Running through the woods scene with the creepy old house, and not to forget the cheesy disclaimers that it was deemed ""lost footage"" and such nonsense. If you possibly have nothing else better to do,it's late at night and there is nothing to watch then by all means watch this. I recommend it only if you have the time.",0 "After the long success of The Simpsons, Matt Groening and his cartoon creators decided to make another successful series, and they did. Some pizza delivery guy named Philip J. ""Fry"" (Bill West) accidentally freezes himself for 1000 years and wakes up in the 30th century. In this new world he befriends his great, great, great (you get the idea) nephew, clever Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth (West), the weird and funny Dr. Zoidberg (West), the cyclops Turanga Leela (Katey Sagal), Amy Wong (Lauren Tom), Hermes Conrad (Phil LaMarr) and of course, the best character, similar to Homer Simpson, Bender the robot (John DiMaggio). Throughout the show they have many weird and wonderful adventures of futuristic and funny proportions. Guests included Frank Welker, Leonard Nimoy, Pamela Anderson, Nancy Cartwright, Dan Castellaneta, John Goodman, Conan O'Brien, Parker Posey, Al Gore, Stephen Hawking, Hank Azaria, Lucy Liu, William Shatner, Jonathan Frakes and Roseanne Barr. Groening has done a very good job of creating another watchable cartoon. It won the Emmys for Outstanding Animated Program (For Programming Less Than One Hour) (also nominated 4 times) and twice for Outstanding Individual Achievement in Animation, and it was nominated for Outstanding Music and Lyrics. It was number 26 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons. Outstanding!",1 """Tomorrow is Forever"" is a typical example of the type of films that came out of the Hollywood of the 40s. This seems to have been brought to the screen as a vehicle for Claudette Colbert, one of the most admired actresses of that era. Under the direction of Irving Pichel, we get a wonderful account of a woman whose husband is killed during the last days of WWI. The music score by Max Steiner enhances the film, although it feels obtrusive, at times.

Claudette Colbert was a prolific star of all the melodramas that were tailor made for her to shine. Her Elizabeth Hamilton in this film is a typical role she, and other actresses, played during that era. ""Tomorrow is Forever"" is interesting because of Orson Welles' appearance as the supposedly dead husband that returns under a different disguise.

Today's audiences don't have patience to deal with what for the movie going public in the early days were able to allow in the reality department. Some negative comments to this forum express that viewpoint, but in spite of them, films like this will always be immensely rewarding for those fans that feel comfortable with the plots created for this type of movies.

Claudette Colbert makes a wonderful Elizabeth. Orson Welles was the real surprise in the dramatic role that Ms. Colbert championed for him, at a time of his life that he wasn't recognized for his genius. George Brent, a reliable actor, is seen as one of the decent men he played in films. Lucile Watson, as Aunt Jessie, is an asset. The young Richard Long plays Drew, the eldest son that has no clue who his father really is, but grows up believing the kind Lawrence is his dad. Natalie Wood as the young German girl, Margaret, showed a talent for stealing scenes from much established actors.

This is a film to be cherished by people who love the genre.",1 "Because of the fact that the USA after the Mexican War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase which netted for the USA the southern half of Arizona, the original Spanish land grants and whoever had title to them, land office clerk James Addison Reavis hatched one bold and audacious scheme that had it been successful would have had him owning more than half of Arizona.

What you're seeing on the screen in The Baron Of Arizona is a small encapsulation of an over 20 year effort by Reavis as played by Vincent Price to pull this thing off and to stay ahead of law enforcement who after a while smelled a very large rat. Reed Hadley who narrated the film also played the part of the rat catcher.

Only a small part of the plan called for Price to marry the Peralta heir whom he created and is played by Ellen Drew. That in fact occurred very late in the game. It was only during the Nineties that Price's character marries the Drew character and goes to prison and then only for a few years. My guess is that Reavis copped a plea back in the day just to get it over with.

Still The Baron Of Arizona is a fine second film by director Samuel Fuller topped with an impressive performance by Vincent Price before he settled into the horror film genre. But the real story, believe it or not, is more fascinating than this film is.",1 "First of all I went for this film with no expectation. Until half of the film I don't know what this whole movie is about. Then Reema Sen's role introduced. Simbhu failed to convince us Reema as school student and she has an awful screen presence. The things Reema doing to check whether Simbhu is in love with her or not is too ridiculous and some time disgusting too. And Climax.... Just for sake of finishing the film and nothing much to say about it.

The only thing which makes us relief is the music. Even the background score makes us think that something is going to happen next even though nothing interesting after that.

Towards my point of view this film sure gonna loose some money because Simbhu spent more that he should. I read an interview of him that he will become the next ""SHANKAR"" and what I am saying is being ""SHANKAR"" means not dancing with more than thousand people around you. It is more than that.

Simbhu should sit down and think more on developing the story than his screen presence as a director. I think even SUPER STAR RAJINI did not had such ""Build Up""s than Simbhu in his films...

Simbhu still have a long way to go and as a result he should TALK LESS.",0 Reading the book is giving me an incredible introduction to the substance of the story. I am seeing some profound insights to individuals that gives understanding to people I know. Especially religious people are portrayed so I understand the religious mind so much better. One element of the movie that is missing in the reviews I've read so far is the musical score. Composed by Dave Grusin the theme sends a chill into my psyche when I hear it years after viewing the movie. Mick seems to be a surprisingly deep person; considering her environment. Her love of classical music exposes a mind that rises well above her simple life. This is the nature of genius and is probably part of Carson McCuller's own persona. I would believe she writes from memories of her own childhood.,1 "Rated R for Violence and Language Quebec Rating:13+ Canadian Home Video Rating:18A(Should be 14A)

I saw Juice a couple of months ago.I would say I am a fan of films about South Central LA.Menace II Society is one of my favorite films of all time.I saw Juice expecting to see a movie like this.This is not like Boyz In The Hood or Menace II Society which are ""growing up in the hood"" films.Juice is actually a fairly entertaining thriller with good performances.Tupac is one of the few rappers who can actually act! His acting in this film is excellent.Omar Epps and the rest of the cast are fairly good as well.The film is about four friends named Q,Bishop,Raheem and Steel who skip school one day, they find out afterwords that one of their peers was shot and killed while he tried to rob a store.After hearing about this, Bishop(Tupac) wants to do something crazy.So the four friends go and rob a store but Bishop ends up killing the owner.They then run into an alley where Tupac then kills Raheem.He threatens to kill Steel and Q if they tell anyone.The film then goes on with Q and Steel trying to hide from Bishop who is losing his mind and kills some more people, then frames Q for it.Q must prove his innocence and confront Bishop.Juice is a pretty good thriller with good performances and a good early 90's rap soundtrack.",1 "This movie was possibly the worst thing I've ever seen. I showed it in my 10th grade English class because we were studying Antigone and this was the only film version the library had. I will never show this again! I am a big fan of ""artsy"" movies, but I couldn't take this crap. The ""acting"" was minimal, the actors just flailed around and touched each other sensually a lot. The soundtrack was hideous: a lot of pseudo-opera screeching. Oedipus and Creon were the played by the same person, which was confusing at the end when Creon took his shirt off for no reason. It really turned into a joke. They could have cut this movie in half and not had to lose any of the story.",0 "This was a good film, but it has flaws.

Visually it's got problems because much of it was shot on digital. I suppose they ran out of money, but it's a shame they couldn't use film. There were some interesting shots but the discipline of film would have had them making sure the light readings were carefully evaluated rather than what happened: the typical low quality of digital, but with even muddier shots than normal for digital.

Now, on to the story: very interesting plot. And interesting characters. I felt they were real people. But the two actresses did a better job than the actors. Not that I didn't think the Michael character was that unbelievable. But he wasn't given lines to show any range of emotion. Of course his character is SUPPOSED to be subdued and pensive, but all people have a range of emotions within their personal boundaries and the Michael character didn't test them.

The different takes on sex give you a lot to think about. But there could have been a little more irony/human condition/redemption...something in the story to give us more to ponder about. But there WAS something there. I left the theatre thinking about how there are more chaste individuals and more ""alpha"" individuals but how they can sometimes drift into the opposite directions. Specifically in this film how Michael unexpectedly responds to ""Do you want to make love?"" with ""No. I want to f*ck you hard."" Contrast that with the sexually confident Justin, who has to deal with one of those ""criers after sex"" on a one-night-stand and contemplate alone in a car later just what he lost with his current girlfriend.

6 out of 10 because it kept me thinking and I'm confident that both the director and actor/actresses have the talent to create even better art in the future.",1 "The romantic comedy genre usually proves a precarious balance between attempting to recapture the genuine passion, spark, and often hilarity of a budding romance while simultaneously doing so in a fashion unique from its many predecessors - more often than not with less than limited success. With that in mind, it still never fails to stupefy that in an industry of such excruciating rehashes, Hollywood can still churn out a film which exemplifies the above conventions and still manage to up the ante in terms of sheer lack of quality and coherence. Such a film is License to Wed, an alleged comedy in which one would be hard pressed to discern even a painstaking scrap of anything comedic, or any real merit whatsoever.

Put generously, the film can be described as nothing more than an abysmal, painful re-treat of just about the worst possible amalgamation of romantic comedy clichés and failed slapstick gags which consistently fall flat. The entire plot can be summed up as essentially a pitiful attempt to bank of the success of Meet the Parents while throwing in the occasional crack at religion to no comedic effect whatsoever, as the relationship of engaged young lovers Ben (Krasinski) and Sadie (Moore) is put to the test by a series of gruelling relationship tests by a deranged priest (Williams) attempting to determine whether or not they are fit to be married in his church. But this one joke premise wears thin almost immediately, and with shoddy, uninspired directing and an embarrassingly hackneyed screenplay, complete with paper thin characters characters and a complete lack of originality in any shape or form, one is baffled by the concept of how the filmmakers could have ever expected this sordid mess to result as anything remotely enjoyable. Even on the comedy front the film fails miserably, as the slapstick schtick is painfully monotonous, and the excruciatingly heavy handed ""moral"" at the film's end is a wince-worthy throwback to early Disney films, let alone an allegedly ""edgy"" comedy - and the word is used here in the loosest of senses.

Increasingly disenchanting is the sight of so many talented performers descending to such an excruciatingly embarrassing level. Continuing a pattern of painful sell-out performances, Robin Williams generates what can hardly be considered a performance as opposed to simply a slew of irritating, allegedly comedic mannerisms as the borderline psychotic minister - some of Williams' routine may have actually proved funny had he not exercised such pseudo-comedic tribe years ago in previous autopilot performances. The normally reliable John Krasinski (familiar to viewers of TV's ""The Office"") aims at endearing, but instead comes across as uncomfortable sour, saddled with a weak rehash of the typical Ben Stiller ""uncomfortable boyfriend"" role. While he escapes with more dignity than others concerned, it is still nothing less than a shame to see a promising upcoming talent reduced to such a point. Similarly, Mandy Moore seems to have never fully realized she was in fact on the set of a movie, as she seems firmly distant from the picture throughout, never once generating what could even be considered a facsimile of emotion. The non-existent chemistry between her and Krasinski makes for a rather redundant romance, as neither fails to captivate the audience or capture their sympathies in the slightest. Christine Taylor comes away the least shamefully as Moore's sardonic sister, but even she is given no real opportunity to generate laughs.

A minute amount of charm generated by an otherwise syrupy climax is not enough this pitiful mistake from the dredges of banal commercial monotony. License to Wed alternates between being patronizing, astonishingly ignorant and just plain poorly made - in fact, anything but funny or charming, as it aimed to accomplish. While small glimmers of enjoyment might be discerned by viewers with non-existent expectations, those anticipating any more should avoid License to Wed like a rash, as it often boasts the same results: painful, persistent and never funny.

-2/10",0 "A girl cuts her ring finger in an industry accident. The tip of her fingers will float in a container that was supposed to be filled with water but will be colored red instead. This will be the first and last occurrence of explicit violence in this weird film but violence will be ever present. The girl's way will cross with a preservationist and an absent roommate and this is all I will say about the plot. What preservationist stores will be mentioned early in the film but what he really does, no. There are many ways to interpret this story and almost all of them begin in the ending moments. It seems otherwise as the film is going but it's not. What it depicts is totally fascinating but it is only the tip of ""what it suggests"" iceberg. Its extraits of silence, eerie fractured music pieces, strange ideas, empty surroundings and odd images (and also the lead actress) are why it works. L'annulaire makes it way through its subjects with the accuracy of a surgeon's knife. It's a film so masterfully made that leaves few to complain and much to think about. Images and sounds call extremely little attention to themselves at first but each scene and each movement ventures further into your soul and once it's there, it never leaves. It's creepy, it's scary, it's thoughtful, it's atmospheric, it's mysterious, it's glorious. I haven't seen anything like it. Hal Hartley and the great Kiyoshi Kurosawa come close but ... no. Diane Bertrand is a name worthy of preservation.

I can write more or at least tell you what the hell is this film about, but I won't. I just say that it's about the fractures of memory and how loneliness is meshed with them, and about the silence and how it can evoke our deepest fears. We don't think (as) much about our past when we are not on our own and with the same logic, relationships can be defined as different forms of escapism, and this goes pretty much unnoticed all the time. It's better not to be noticed at all. The world may have been a better place if this fracture would have been erased from memories. Collecting the pieces of mahjog from the floor and putting them on their right place is a painful task but doing so for those pieces of mind is impossible. This is a film about the people who want to leave themselves behind but their artificial solutions are no match for a legacy of painful remembrance. We all know that done can't be undone, but it can be covered. Good enough ... but maybe not.

You should walk into this film with the least previous knowledge possible. I know this is a clichéd statement but it's really true in this case. Do yourself a favor and see this brilliant movie as soon as you can.",1 "This is a bad movie. The real story of the Entebbe rescue was much more exciting and interesting than this. Everything about the movie, apart from the star-studded cast, screams low-budget. But even the stars can't save this movie: Kirk Douglas and Liz Taylor overact horribly. So does the guy who plays Idi Amin, but I suspect Amin was even worse in real life so I'll cut him some slack. Anthony Hopkins and Richard Dreyfuss perform well, though. The woman who plays the female German terrorist is a caricature of a Nazi. The characterization is paper-thin, though that is perhaps understandable given the number of characters. A lot of the dialogue is awful, a part near the beginning where Linda Blair is having an insipid conversation with her new beaux actually made me laugh out loud. The effort to humanize the male German terrorist was silly and pointless. I haven't seen the other two movies about Entebbe, but don't watch this one. Read a book about it instead.",0 """Cabaret"" boasted big songs, big ideas, and big actors … yet it felt long, dull, and convoluted to say the least. Edging on the historical, but focusing mainly on a squabble of young love, the muddled themes of originality, independence, and sexual revolution seemed to take backstage for overacting, choppy editing, and a twisty story that begs for more but desires nothing. In the Oscar world of ""The Godfather"" vs. ""Cabaret"", the obvious winner is Coppola's film – but how did ""Cabaret"" even get in the running? As it took me nearly three viewings to conquer this behemoth, one has to question the 1972 value, and whether this musical stands up next to the others nearly 40 years later. In this reviewer's opinion, it is an obvious ""no"", but arguments will apparently follow.

If discussing this film around the cinematic water cooler, there would be no doubt Joel Grey would be discussed. His portrayal, as small as it was, as the infamous Master of Ceremonies has yet to be repeated in any film to date. In various moments ""Cabaret"" felt like it was directed by Terry Gilliam, complete with the flash and darkness subsequent in his features. Joel Grey brought it to the table, and will forever be a frightening, yet influential image in my mind. He made the nearly 2-hours redeemable. The excitement in his swagger coupled with his level of pizazz completely overshadowed his co-star Minnelli whenever the two shared the screen. His performance alone, the transformation itself, is what made ""Cabaret"" worth a view. It was he and Minnelli's duet of ""Money Makes the World Go Round"" that saved this film from utter obliteration. It was reminiscent of a modern day ""Moulin Rouge"", but it was the surrounding story – without surrounding characters – that caused the pain known as ""Cabaret"". One must also applaud Bob Fosse for his direction, for without him, these dark scene filmed with Grey would have just been as bland as the story. Fosse took this flimsy story of three characters that we are emotionally void for, and pulled in some great song and dance numbers to buffer the pain that was sure to follow. His work on ""Lenny"" was outstanding, and while this didn't speak as greatly, you could see his influences on the script and final edit.

To bookend the positive, one must also ask ""Where did 'Cabaret' fail?"" Without wasting pages of words, ""Cabaret"" failed because of the sloppy editing, the poorly developed historical slant, and due to the massive disappointment from the actors. This could have been a memorable song-and-dance rooted with historical symbolism-esquire film, but instead fell flat thanks mainly to the horrible nature of Liza Minnelli. Her flat voice matched well with her disassociated character, which carried no emotion, flaunted no values, yet tried to win our heart. She sang decently, but I just couldn't stand behind her as a central focus. Her entire relationship with Michael York is flippant. Does she love him? Does she love money? What is her true background? What does she want from life? Mix these unanswered questions with the uncomfortable hint of sexuality between York and Minnelli, and you have nearly 90% of this movie. From Minnelli's undefined character, to the passive aggressive York duel-jobbing as both language educator and African safari supporter, there just isn't a character you can stand behind. As we get close to the middle of the film, our writer seems to realize this and the extremely vague Maximilian is introduced as a man who enjoys the company of both Minnelli and York. For ""Cabaret"" to work, there needed stronger characters for us to follow – ones that were defined, yet complex, not just jumping from emotion to emotion. How did Minnelli win an Oscar for this mess?

Outside the of intermittent use of Grey, our writer - Jay Presson Allen – tried to incorporate what was happening in Germany at the time with the Nazi movement, with the chaos of a cabaret show. In theory, this would be a great idea – but it failed because of again, the lack of focus with our characters. In one scene we are troubled by York's disagreement with one of Minnelli's haphazard choices (a big decision that was diminished by choice) and in the next, we are dissecting the idea of a German Jew. It just didn't flow well together. In another scene, we are forced to listen to a young Nazi soldier sing a ballad that evokes singing from everyone – and our characters just drive away. For me, to best summarize this film would be one of the final scenes between York and Minnelli as she takes him to the train station. She leaves by merely waving her hand, demonstrating her care for the characters and ours as well. When this film was over, I took it out of my player, walked away waving unemotionally. ""Cabaret"" failed because there was nothing for the audience to hold onto. When the breakout actor was someone that didn't speak but merely sang that should speak about how the film as a whole turned out.

Overall, both with presentation and delivery, ""Cabaret"" failed. Minnelli's acting and eyes told a different story, and portrayed a character that just didn't fit for a feature film. What was attempted as original just felt stale after the first several scenes. Fosse's direction and Grey's performance are the only two saving qualities of this film, as the flakey York does his best as a love interest. The dual sexual roles are just too abashing for both the actors and the viewers. I was eager to witness this film, but nearly 40 years later, this film has not held up. Bravo to small part and big directors, ""boo"" to those that think Minnelli can carry her weight as an Oscar winning actress.

** Waves eagerly as you leave this review **

Grade: * ½ out of *****",0 "This series truly is awful. The scripts are tedious and repetitive. After hearing the phrase ""the child-like princess"" over and over and over again you feel a desperate need to start throwing things at the TV. You would applaud this level of performance in a school play but in anything else it's pretty unacceptable. The special effects are not too hot either, but if the scripts were better, the plots less predictable, the acting less bad and direction less clunky you would forgive any shortcomings in the level of production. It's sad to see all this effort wasted. And it's very sad to see a production cashing in on the ""Neverending Story"" name to scam a few bucks off a duped audience. With any luck I might get my money back by selling this pack of dogs on eBay.",0 "A surprisingly good warmovie.

It has realistic battle scenes, competent acting plus it shows the Vietnam war from the medics' and doctors' point of view. The romance was believable and Cheryl Ladd was always a decent actress (and good-looking).

Battle scene highlights: the NVA assault on a USMC firebase. Those Marines' bloodlust was on a par with the NVA's!

I don't like chicks' movies, or *romantic* movies. I do agree however, that nearly all warmovies need a healthy dose of realistic romance. 'Purple Hearts' provides us with just that.",1 "This may or may not be Chabrol's best, but it must be his bravest. For what else can ""The Pleasure Party"" (1976) be but an open protest of patriarchy and battery. Think Ibsen's ""A Doll House,"" and you cannot be far off. I think it's the final scenes that erase any minute doubt about the film's intent. First there is the belated rescue attempt of four men and a woman: the adult men's physical prowess seems suspended as if, as men, their hands are tied, while the woman casts a blinding black veil over Philip's head, halting the action, and condemning the actor. And then the prison scene in which Elsie (his new llama or lamb) tells her father that she is unable to learn under the harassment of a male student, to which his non-response includes the same transcendent jargon he used in the cemetery prior to his vicious assault. Chabrol and the Leguaffs have indeed taken their stand with this shattering portrait of male terror--one that explodes out of a convincingly two-faced man, and is thus all the more effective.

Yes this is a movie about male power. It is not about sexual impotence, philosophies, or a mid-life crisis , but about Philip's hard-wired connection to masculine identity. If he feels inadequate and helpless in the face of what he can only understand as female weakness, it is because he has bought into women's difference--from men. In other words, Esther is so other to him that anything other than ownership is threatening. The turning point of the film is when he advises Esther --""you should do it.""--to sleep with other men. This moment must be as pointedly misogynist as his later acts of violence; for here he equates his lover with sex, temptation, and whoredom --ostensibly to test his purity and his ideas of freedom, but, in effect, he is using her to provoke her own demise. It's very instructive that although he manages the first test--even offering his satiated wife breakfast in bed the next morning, it is sex in bed--with him (to reclaim ownership) must come first. And during a party scene, he argues for the comparison of Gandhi and Hitler--unaware that Gandhi similarly used women to test his own purity, and that the latter's sadistic, eruptive violence would soon adhere to him.

What Philip becomes is a full fledged Magus: ""the man who tells you everything and what to do"" as he explains to Elsie, in his characterizing Habib. Toward Esther, he grows increasingly resentful, suspicious, tense, judgmental, menacing--and possessive. He shows the brawn to break down doors, and a mentality which can accept and enact cruelty. He becomes more withdrawn and, as Esther points out, racist. In the bathroom mirror scene his face, viewed through her tears, is as perverse as the Landru he introduced to his daughter in his House of Wax. The ""freedom"" he has granted his wife has boomeranged on him. He hates it and everyone and everything connected to it. ""Liberty makes me sh_t,"" he says. When Sylvia simply asks ""Why do you yell at Esther?"" he answers that she talks too much of freedom and hangs out with guitar players. And his ""profound"" need for his ex-wife doesn't occur till Sylvia displays her independence in the fishing scene--here he longs for Esther's dependency symbolized for him in her fear of crabs.

Esther grasps the picture, but does not have the social power to act sufficiently on it, so finds herself ultimately trapped. However, her defiance is quiet, lucid, and courageous. Her ""you, you, it's all about you"" refrain, and lines like: ""You make the decisions, I only say amen"" and ""I was great as your reflection"" are equal to Ibsen's Nora. But she is more psychologically isolated than Nora, and must suffer from far more abuse, verbal, and, of course, physical. Esther is a battered woman and must endure that syndrome--she cannot fully grasp what Philip says to his buddies: ""her weak point move me,"" and how many times is she willing to forego the depth of her own words: ""since when do you care what I say."" She can never finally disbelieve her husband--even the forced foot-licking is not proof-- and so, in the end turns to him in a moment of personal crisis because ""she is too scared"" to visit alone the tomb of the dear deceased aunt, the woman who raised her. The irony here is as devastating as her words are convincing. And her final ""NO, NO"" has come too late and is heard too late.

I understand that the Phillip role was turned down by several leading French actors. If one can relive some of his lines just previous to the assault, one can understand why? But his words serve to finally and totally expose the man behind the mask. His self-assurance, disarming directness, and engaging and almost defenseless smile belong now to a slave-holder, rather than a man who in his words, was ""born to be joyful."" When he say to Esther that all his sufferings (since their breakup--ha, ha, ha) ""must be compensation for what I've been through,"" the viewer can only say bring on the executioner. It's so extremely tragic that he is the executioner.",1 "Mischievous Johnny Banes (scrappy Dion Gossett) has an unfortunate knack for getting into all kinds of trouble: he smokes, lies, steals, rudely disrupts class, doesn't do his schoolwork, and even mugs an old guy for his money! Worse yet, Johnny's vain struggling actress mother Denise (nicely played by Sandy Reed) and hard-working insurance salesman stepfather Phil (a strong and likable performance by Renny Roker) spend more time squabbling with each other than they do with Johnny. Writer/director Horace Jackson concocts a somewhat clumsy, but well-meaning and insightful social drama that pertinently addresses how severe parental neglect contributes substantially to juvenile delinquency. Moreover, Jackson tosses in occasional ""what the hell?"" unexpected oddball moments: Denise gives Johnny a rubdown in a scene that's simmering with incestuous undertones and in one especially startling sequence a creepy pedophile assaults a little girl in a bathroom. The jolting downbeat ending packs a pretty potent punch, too. The kid actors are all appealingly natural (Gossett in particular impresses as the moody and unhappy Johnny). Rich Holmes is memorably hateful as stern history teacher Mr. Bishop. Dennis Coffey's funky, syncopated score and Mark Rasmussen's plain, no-frills cinematography further enhance the gritty realism of this moving and effective picture.",1 "Documentary is all about taking real life and shaping it into a story. 'Forgotten Silver' suggests that real part doesn't even have to be real, as long as the story's good.

I watched this again tonight - probably the 4th or 5th time I've seen it since it was first screened as an (allegedly) true doco back in 1996. Despite knowing the whole thing was cod, I was quite surprised to find tears in my eyes as NZ pioneer film-maker Colin McKenzie accidentally filmed his own death in Spain, so drawn was I into the story.

Once you strip away the hype over the hoax factor, what's left is just a great story about a struggling film maker facing and almost overcoming insurmountable obstacles to create a work of mad genius. Anyone expecting belly laughs from 'Forgotten Silver' is probably going to be disappointed, because viewed as a story, this isn't a comedy - it's a tragedy. It's no wonder so many people were sucked into believing it when it first screened - the Colin McKenzie saga has an emotional depth which is heartbreaking.

Bonus points for a brilliant musical score, some superb technical effects (especially the corroded, bubbling, self-destructing nitrate film; most filmmakers would have settled for a couple of cliché tramlines to make the footage look old), and the gorgeous Thomas Robbins as Colin McKenzie.",1 "i completely disagree with the posted review i usually give people the benefit of the doubt but this movie is quite funny and i think the usage of different movie mediums (ie animation, documentary)added a very cute yet thoughtful comedic value. It is a romantic comedy and not much should be weighed upon the realism but there are some pleasant real life twists and communicational misunderstandings and misinterpretations that give the movie a nice personal relevance. Also the underlying theme of the importance of people worldwide learning English as a necessity is mind opening.Especially how it is presented. The movie Isn't very serious or artsy which makes the point of people having trouble worldwide with being forced to learn English that much easier to witness for those of us who grew up in a place where English is the native language. I definitely recommend this film for fun and definitely for anyone who has the experience of being forced to learn English.",1 "I watched this simply because I was intrigued by the write up in the TV Guide which mentioned that Annabel Chong is the porn star who was setting a record for having sex with 251 men in 10 hours . Aren't you also intrigued ?

There's two reasons for a prospective audience to watch this . One is that they're equally intrigued as I was and the second reason is that it sounds like really good masturbation fuel . If you're watching for the second reason you'll be bitterly disappointed since there's very little on screen sex but if you're watching for the sensible reason you'll still be as disappointed as the voyeurs . Ms Chong gives a pretentious neo feminist explanation of why she's doing it , something along the lines of "" I'm doing this because I'll be striking a blow against chauvanism and by being in control of the situation I'll be showing that it's the men who are sluts "" . I don't think Ms Chong has thought through he reasons fully . Either that or she's not a great communicator

What is obvious is that Annabel Chong is certainly a very unhappy individual who probably needs to use sex in order to boost her esteem in much the same way as a person with a drink problem uses alcohol to boost their self esteem . Sex and alcohol like so many things in life are metaphysical false economies for the human soul . Luckily we see towards the end of the movie the self destruction that being a porn star can bring but Ms Chong unlike the audience can't see the woods for the trees",0 "Some college kid reporters go off in search of a hidden ghost town called Acheron. Naturally they find a bit more than they bargained for. After a good start the movie gets pretty bogged down. During the first half it's kind of hard to figure out much about what's really going on, it just plain jumps around too much. There are flashbacks that don't really help since they just sort of pop up out of nowhere. The last half hour or so picks up nicely as people are getting knocked off left and right in very violent fashion. You're gonna have to watch this sucker twice to actually enjoy this flick. That way you'll have some idea where the plot is going. Watchable if you like blood and guts. I give it a four out of ten for gore.",0 "This movie lacks anything worthwhile. The story is rehash and the cinematics get annoying within the first ten minutes. Constant closeups and slow motion get too aggravating that this movie looses its entertainment value very quickly.

Although whenever one watches a movie, a bit of ""suspension of reality"" is to be expected. But with this movie, it becomes laughable and lame. I had flashbacks of watching ""The Core"" with some of the cheesier moments.",0 "Everybody seems to think that this movie is funny and well-acted and stuff. Let me assure you: it is not! Just because it is a little better than the average dutch movies, doesn't mean that it is a GOOD movie. I saw it after reading all this reviews at IMDb. All those actors look like if they are acting in a soap-show. Yeah, it's all about that, but it is not meant to look like it all the time... So, don't watch this movie, it's a waste of your time, if you want to see a dutch movie, watch LEK!",0 "Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor are a pair of doofuses who decide to leave New York for a better life out west. They get a job at the local bank as a pair of dancing and singing woodpeckers apparently as a promotional thing, but things get hairy when two bank robbers steal the costumes and rob the bank, and the police blame Wilder and Pryor for the crime and are sent to jail, they get a chance to take the case to court, but are found guilty and are sentenced to 125 years in prison(no joke.)At first, prison is considered to be a living he** for the both of them. But Wilder is chosen to be the main rider in the prison's annual rodeo, but the warden is actually planning to rig it so his prison wins it and not the other. This is a great send up of prison films with a lot of memorable scenes including one in which Pryor is treated for an appendix operation in the prison's hospital by a Korean doctor recently new to the United States. This is the second movie featuring Wilder and Pryor so be prepared for big laughs.",1 I for one own the movie on DVD. You can get it off of Amazon.com. But if you want the TV Version (Only one episode) then you can get it on VHS from amazon.com ....

The story starts out with a cop that gets beat up. He is shoved off of the pier and supposedly left for dead. There is a funeral and the movie leads you to believe that that is the end of him.

HOWEVER. You see him wake up in a hospital with his face rearranged. The actor Fred Ward does a good job as he plays Remo Williams. He gets his butt whipped by a china man named Chiun. (Pronounced CHOON) The comedy starts when these two meet for the first time. And it stays funny throughout the movie.

I recommend this movie for any movie library. Get it on DVD.,1 "This is the best of Mike Myers's films to date. I know that it's not the most popular but it represents the intelligent humor that Myers is capable of but chooses not to explore for apparent commercial reasons. It is a pity that SNL's ""movie stars"" have all become ""Sandlered"" by releasing teen targeted movies with few genuinely funny moments. I only hope that with future success Mike Myers will take over Woody Allen's throne. Hollywood could do worse than release films with integrity by artists whose following grows yearly rather than the current dustbin classics of late. An artist is young only once; but can remain immature indefinitely.",1 "A fisherman and his father set foot on the foreboding Snape Island to discover the aftermath of a massacre, not to mention a severely traumatized (and appreciably naked) female survivor who stabs the father to death. The subsequent investigation leads to the discovery of an ancient artifact on the island, and then a museums' expedition to the island to explore it further. (All of this while doctors attempt to break through the survivors' catatonia). The team finds themselves menaced by a mysterious assailant.

I found this an enjoyable horror / mystery with a definite edge to it. Director Jim O'Connolly creates good atmosphere and tension, and pulls off a great reveal of the crazed island resident. The island is a very impressive study in blatant doom and gloom; it looks ominous right from the get go. The movie has great settings and just the right look. Doses of grisly violence, sex, and intrigue also add to the mix. The movies' little twists may not come off as all that surprising, but they're enjoyable nonetheless.

The solid British cast does well at selling the material. Standing out are such performers as Bryant Halliday, Jack Watson, and Dennis Price. Both Jill Haworth and Anna Palk are quite sexy, as is Candace Glendenning in the small role of the traumatized Penny.

Creepy, raw, and brutal horror in a nicely bleak location, ""Tower of Evil"" is a good deal of fun.

7/10",1 "What is it with Julie Delpy? I have only seen a hand-full of her movies but she always manages to surprise and excite. She acts brilliantly as the title character in Tarantinoesque Killing Zoë, manages to stay convincing in the far-fetched An American Werewolf in Paris and is great as a young lover in Before Sunrise and as a confident woman in the sequel Before Sunset. This brings us to 2 days in Paris which could easily be mistaken for a continuation of the Sunrise/Sunset movies. And that would be a huge mistake: 2 Days in Paris is a dialogue driven romantic comedy dissecting a couples quasi-dysfunctional relationships and how they have to come to terms with their individual imperfections to be able to truly coexist as a pair. Though that may not sound like compelling viewing its actually hugely entertaining as it dissects a million small mix-ups which can make or break a couple.

Adam Goldberg is compelling as the sarcastic yet witty American boyfriend visiting Paris for the first time with his girlfriend. What follows is a series of hugely entertaining misunderstandings involving cross cultural differences, hilarious conversations in broken French with family members and a series of unplanned rendezvous with former lovers all of which combine to drive him high up the paranoia ladder.

It's refreshing to find out that not only does Julie Delpy act brilliantly as the naive and clumsy Marion but she also directed and wrote it, heck she even composed the soundtrack.

The lasting message of this movie is although you might hate 80% of the things your lover does if you just cant live without them don't lose them",1 "A few years ago when I was a bit younger, I used to not mind this show(I'm now 16). But when I saw it again last month I must say that it was just plain boring and annoying to me. It's still full of the same old rubbish and nothing has changed.

It is all about two twin brothers called Wayne and Lucien Cramp who have nothing at all in common and look nothing like each other. Lucien is like a nature boy who's always hanging round an old swamp and Wayne's like a hard man who likes playing with metal and junk from a scrap yard for some reason. They both dislike each other and are always fighting and at war with each other and after watching several or more episodes of the series this becomes really irritating and just makes you want to jump into your TV set and strangle them both.

Overall this show has its few moments but for most of the time its just annoying. I'm shocked its still on TV after three or four years now. I give The Cramp Twins 3/10 stars. There are many far more impressive kids shows on TV today, do not waste too much time on this one.",0 "It looked good on the trailer, I keyed in a reminder on my Digi Box, it came on, It was rubbish.

Patrick Stewart an actor I admire- is he short of work?

Also was this in 1863?

Nemo said he had been on the island for 10 years, lost his family in the 'Indian Revolution' so that would have been 1853..

Only I think he was vaguely referring to the Indian Mutiny, which happened in 1857..

Confused, I was.

also why were the pirates right off the set of 'Prates of the Caribbean??

Who wrote this, a bunch of 9 year olds?",0 "Meryl Streep is always an amazing actress but there is no depth to her character nor to anyone else's. She plays a sadistic, bitchy boss who makes impossible demands to a young woman who gets the impossible done out of nothing more than fear. If there is determination to make it (or as Streep's character infers because they are so alike) it is not apparent. There is almost no plot. Even the NY Times had an article stating that no one in the real fashion world would dress like these people. No plot, no character development and no real fashion. It was a big disappointment. It was unclear if Streep's superficial relationship with her children was because she had no life outside of the magazine or because she was indeed that superficial.",0 "Yes there were problems with the plot, but the acting was so bad I could not stand to watch the entire movie. The main character was just plain pathetic. I think someone could have convinced to chop off her own hands for the hell of it. Oh and who did wardrobe? He is wealthy so he wears nothing but a very out of style suit for the first part of the movie (the same one day after day). Obviously the wardrobe person or director never met a wealthy man. She also wears only two very unstylish outfits before she becomes his pet. Really this movie is not worth watching. I also found that the situation was very unrealistic. At first he is going to go buy some girl from the slave trade that the animal shelter people don't notice is in a cage. Then he is not doing that but instead wooing his soon to be pet instead. I just can't believe how much these characters just did not make any sense.",0 "I only give this movie a 9 because it was a bit slow to get started. A young man gets out of jail and moves into his mothers old apartment. No one is quite sure how she died and the door had to be broken in for her body to be taken out. He makes some discoveries in the apartment that leave him with a lot of questions. One day as he's going to his apartment, he ends up in an elevator with a police officer. He doesn't say anything, but you can sense is discomfort as he feels like the officer is following him. He proceeds to his apartment and the officer enters the apartment next door. He begins to hear arguments in the adjoining apartment and bangs on the wall at one point to let them know he hears them. Occasionally he sees their little girl sitting in the hall playing a tiny play piano. Each day seems to pull him more and more into the events of this family. When we find out why the guy went to jail, we understand why he is reluctant to risk a possible fight with the man. I don't want to give anything away, so I'll end here. This movie should make us reflect on whether or not it is our business to step in when we see someone getting abuse. Like the woman that was raped and killed outside a building while no one did a thing to stop it, or the current gang rape that just happened. Ask yourself if you would put yourself at risk for someone you don't know and whether you would expect someone to step in if you were in some kind of danger at the hands of another person.",1 "This movie was nothing but a lame ass cheap trick. I did not buy it at all. Honestly, they had nothing to sell. A lot of the holes in the plot can be justified by what was going on in the killers mind, except for: WHERE DID THE TRUCK & MURDER WEAPONS COME FROM???? Up until the plot twist, I was enjoying it, but if the twist and ending do not pay off, the movie sucks. End of story. I thought I was in good hands until the twist. This filmmaker conned us into believing we would be taken care of, then f*ck ed us over. Don't get me wrong, there are some excellent films that have crappy plot twists (ie. Fight Club); this is not one of them.",0 "It's nice that this film exists, but as it stands it's a major disappointment. Director Leslie Hiscott and cinematographers Sydney Blythe and William Luff get some nice proto-noir compositions into the first and last reels, but in between it's a very claustrophobic movie that seems to take place entirely indoors, either in the home of Ronald Adair or in Sherlock Holmes' and Dr. Watson's digs at 221B Baker Street. We know the film is set in 1930 instead of the 1890's because Holmes deduces that Watson is having trouble with his car, but we never see any cars — or much action of any kind. It's just eight reels of dull, ill-paced talk (where was Alfred Hitchcock when they needed him? Actually working at a bigger, more prestigious British studio than Twickenham!), sloppily recorded by Baynham Honri, who for some reason gets an on-screen credit in type as big as the director's. And though I usually respect the critical judgments of the late William K. Everson — who said Arthur Wontner was one of the two best actors ever to play Holmes — he's never convinced me in the role. He's perfectly adequate in the scenes showing Holmes as a cerebral ""armchair detective"" but utterly wrong for the neurotic man of action Sir Arthur Conan Doyle also intended Holmes to be. But then to me (to paraphrase the opening of the Conan Doyle Holmes story ""A Scandal in Bohemia"") Basil Rathbone (who looked uncannily like the Sidney Paget illustrations for the original Holmes stories and did both the cerebral and the active sides of the character consummately well) will always be THE Sherlock Holmes.",0 "Hey, I know by far that Spain produces the best comedy series ever, perhaps even better than any American. I can't say the same of other kind of series, but we are GREAT at comedies. For example: ""Aquí no hay quien viva"", ""Los Serrano"", ""Aída"", ""7 Vidas"", ""Médico de Familia"", ""Todos los hombres sois iguales"", etc, etc, etc... Yeah, we might not be the best making movies, or making mystery series, but we are good with the comedy series. 7 Vidas? A very good example. And, it's not like Friends at all. It's just some kind of humor that makes it singular. The main theme it's not very much. There is a guy who had an accident and was in coma for 18 years. Then his sister, his best friend, his best friend's mother and his cousin try to get him into the world again. The most important thing of 7 Vidas are it's jokes and it's stupid stories, the singularity of the characters that make you laugh. The actors are so good, too. Javier Camera is a genius, Amparo Baró does it pretty well and Anabel Alonso (I gotta say, my favourite) is a great comedian. If you haven't see it yet, you have to see it.",1 "I grudgingly watched this movie at my fiancé's request. But I really enjoyed it wholeheartedly and I laughed out loud at least a dozen time. In addition to being very clever and funny, the story was interesting and heartwarming. Cary Grant player Jerry Warriner, am man to whom we are introduced while he is in a tanning bed to help provide the alibi that he was on vacation in Florida. We never find out what he was 'really' doing but it was probably naughty. He returns home to an empty house early in the morning. He doesn't know where his wife is and then she returns in a full evening gown with a handsome ""continental"" man. It sounds dramatic, but its actually very very funny. I enjoyed seeing the double entendres and the innuendos that they were forced (by convention) to use in 1937. I am going to buy this movie and watch it repeatedly, just as I watch ""The Apartment"" and ""Some Like it Hot""",1 "This is a bad movie that purports to be an educational film designed to warn America about the menace of marijuana use. However, like almost all the so-called ""educational"" films of the 30s and 40s, it was really a shabby little film designed to be snuck past the censors of the Hays Office. In 1934, the major studios all agreed to abide by the dictates of a stronger Production Code--eliminating sex, nudity, cursing and ""inappropriate"" plots in films (these had actually been relatively common in films in the early 30s). However, in an effort to sneak in smut, small studios created films to shock adults when they learn about terrible social ills, though they were REALLY intended to titillate and slip adult themes past the censors! Such films as CHILD BRIDE, MAD YOUTH, REEFER MADNESS and SEX MADNESS were all schlocky trash that skirted past the boards because they were supposedly educational. Even though they were laughably bad, they also made money due to low production costs and because they offered nudity, violence and sordid story lines--all in the name of education!

ASSASSIN OF YOUTH is a bit more watchable and entertaining than the average grade-z expoitational film. While it DOES feature a brief glimpse of nudity and plenty of over-the-top scenes, it also occasionally actually has some decent acting (I love the old man who owns the soda fountain--he's great) and writing that make it rise slightly above the rest of the films of the genre--particularly towards the end.

It's the story of two sisters--one is wild and the other just really stupid. The really stupid one is the heir to her grandmother's will and she stands to inherit a lot of money--provided she stays out of trouble and is a ""nice girl"". If not, then the local drug-dealing skank (her cousin) will inherit it because no one knows that this blonde floozy is evil. So it's up to this rotten cousin to do everything she can to destroy the stupid lady's reputation. First, when the stupid lady falls in the lake (thus allowing the audience a cheap thrill when she flashes her boobs), the bad cousin pushes the stupid girl's clothes into the fire (where the had been drying). As a result, she had to go home in only a coat. Second, on two separate occasions, the cousin slips her drugs and makes everyone in town think she's an addicted slut. However, when a nice reporter gets involved, he is able to rush in and save the day at the end--convincing everyone that the lady is only a dim-wit, not a slut or drug user!!

So let's talk about the bad--because after all, that's why people today would approach this film--wanting to see and laugh at the bad. There is a very prudish character who at first glimpse looks a lot like Margaret Hamilton from THE WIZARD OF OZ. Again and again, they show the exact scene of this old biddy on her motor scooter and it's super-reminiscent of the scene of Hamilton riding her bike (all that was missing was the ominous music). Her silly performance and the frequent use of this footage became comical. Second, the dialog in this film by the dumb girl is among the funniest in film history. Here is just one example:

Dumb Girl taking a sip of a spiked drink--""Gee this tastes funny"". Sleazy Guy--""Don't worry--just drink it"". Dumb Girl--""Okay"". (as she sucks down a mickey).

With dialog like that, is it very surprising that again and again this idiot gets in trouble and nearly loses her inheritance?

Now understand that the Dumb Girl doesn't get all the rotten dialog--there's plenty for others as well. Such as when the doctor is called because the Dumb Girl's sister is ""in a bad way"" after using pot. When her mother asks the doctor how the girl is, he declares ""she's a hopeless psychopath""--all because of the evils of marijuana!!

Sadly, there might have been a good reason to make such a film--after all, drugs do make people really stupid and ruin a lot of lives. But this film is so anti-marijuana that is tells us that it is much worse than heroin or pills. This over-statement might have potentially encouraged kids to avoid the dreaded pot and stick with ""safer"" drugs, like morphine, heroin or god knows what!! My assumption, though, is that most pot-heads just watched the film for a good laugh.",0 "I first saw this movie on video around the time it was produced. I immediately liked it even though it was a bit bleak. But the late 80's were full of apocalyptic nuclear holocaust movies and this was the only one that stayed with me. Now, years later, I've just rewatched it (this time on DVD) and I still think it's a very good -- but not great -- movie.

Admittedly, there's some over-the-top 80's haircuts and costumes, stuff that would be seriously 'retro' nowadays. And the acting, particularly in the beginning, is 'obvious' and a bit tiring. But when the hero receives that fateful phone call, it all changes. Suddenly, it's like watching a stage-performance of a play, a pressure-cooker where everyone suspects everyone else and no one knows what's really going on.

In fact, one of the best parts of the screenplay is that we, the audience, also don't really know what to believe (until the very end). We watch the hero struggle with what to tell people who's help he needs: if he tells them the awful truth, they may not believe/help him; if he tells them a more believable lie, is he denying them the chance to survive or at least to die with their loved ones. Either way, both he and the people he meets turn to progressively more and more extreme behavior -- people die! . . . and what if it all turns-out to have been a hoax?

In all, I think this movie ranks as a great sci-fi film, and in the truest sense of the genre: What If. It's not about aliens or galactic empires or anything else that's more fantasy than reality. Instead, it's a situation that any of us could easily imagine and I think this is why it stayed with me all these years, why it now forms a part of the framework for my imagination whenever I find myself catastrophizing about terrorism or natural disaster, anything that could separate me from the ones I love. What would I do?",1 "What was Sharon Stone thinking. To see her in this sorry excuse of, well anything, is truly a terrible offense. The once sexiest woman in Hollywood starring opposite Billy Connely, (who, supposedly is very funny?) in a movie that doesn't know what to do with itself. One cliche after another, but the worst part is the acting. Gil Bellows, the guy from ""Ally McBeal"" is plain terrible, he singlehandedly ruins what's left of this fiasco. So there is absolutely NOTHING even remotely good about this crappy movie. Never should have rented it! 3/10",0 "One night, when I had nothing better to do, I decided to watch ""Damnation Alley"". Let's just say that I should have found something else to do. Anything would have been better than sitting through this horrible film. The acting is bad - Jan-Michael Vincent and George Peppard simply cannot act. The storyline is decent, but the movie makes it extremely boring. I wasn't impressed by the hour-long ride in the land-rover/tank, regardless of its all-terrain capabilities. As for special effects, the sky images were interesting but didn't really do too much for the movie. If you ever have a chance to see ""Damnation Alley"" -- don't.",0 "It is best to look at Madman as a movie with two halves. The first half of the movie is pretty slow. It does have some suspense but isn't able to sustain a level of interest as it goes from being creepy to scenes of inane chatter by the camp counselors. The second half of the movie is pretty good. Lots of suspense to keep the viewers eyes glued to the screen. Unfortunately a quick and vague ending spoils the atmosphere that was created. I imagine the film makers were hoping to make a sequel. Also, while the ending is vague the film makers don't follow the guidelines of a typical horror movie ending. You may be surprised at who survives and who dies.

On a whole Madman suffers from problems that plague most horror movies. Lack of story, unanswered questions, strange character motivations (would you go into a house which you just saw a Madman exit?) and stupid characters. Stupid characters are common for horror movies but in the case of Madman the characters aren't just stupid but several of them look like they don't even have a brain in their heads. A couple of them even seemed to have trouble speaking. What strengthens the movie is the suspense and numerous good reveals of Madman Marz. I was very impressed at the ability of the director and his timing for having Marz show himself.

Overall Madman is an uneven film but for it's genre it is surprisingly well filmed, if not well acted, and very suspenseful. However, the first half of the movie hinders Madman from getting a better rating. Madman receives a 4 out of 10.",0 "originally, i had high hopes for this movie. obviously, it IS madhuri dixit, who wudn't want to see her? and welll... it was a fantastic movie, as i expected. the songs were very well done and the dancing was .. spectacular. I'm not such a great fan of Hindi movies mainly because their story lines are so repetitive and speak of love, which is great, but this movie IS a hit for sure. dixit has come back with great style... one wud expect otherwise because of the years spent abroad and the difference in culture, also influencing a person over time. she apparently is still Indian, and I'm glad :) i'd give this movie a ten out of ten, because the acting is great and also the dance.. I'm intrigued by their dancing and can't wait till i get to see more of her future up-comings. this movie is so so good, that i just HAD to comment and make a login account on IMDb. it's THAT great. if ur a fan of dancing and madhuri, you should watch it. :)",1 "Two zany scam artists find it's all HIPS, HIPS, HOORAY! when they meet the curvaceous owner of Maiden America Beauty Products and her lovely female employees.

Wheeler & Woolsey (Bert Wheeler is the short guy with curly hair; Robert Woolsey is the bespectacled fellow with the cigar) star in this often hilarious film. The Boys were a perfect comedy duo and their movies are always great fun to watch (here they try to promote flavored lipsticks and get involved in a cross-country auto race, while keeping one jump ahead of the law ). It is indeed a pity that these very talented comics are all but forgotten now.

Cute little Dorothy Lee returns as Wheeler's perennial love interest. The beautiful & tragic Thelma Todd, a very gifted comedienne in her own right, puts the spark in Woolsey's eye.

Movie mavens will spot an unbilled Bobby Watson, who gets one funny line as a Dance Director.

Director Mark Sandrich keeps the plot moving at a frantic pace throughout. Some of the sights & situations push the borders of good taste in this pre-Production Code movie.

The Boys, Miss Lee & Hot Toddy do a wild burlesque of Diaghilev during their performance of `Just Keep On Doing What You're Doing'. Singer Ruth Etting drops by long enough to trill `Keep Romance Alive' at a radio broadcast featuring ungarmented bathing models.

And, yes, those really are frogs climbing out of the race car's radiator...",1 "I thought the film even with the dramatization was compelling, but unfortunately the scriptor and director forgot or ignored the end of the film by simply ending the story with a cute Voice Over, and tracking shot of the young boy running into the fade out. There were basic errors in story telling, and some times you have to give the audience what they want or perceive to want. example: It would have been good to see the doctor meet up with his daughter. It would have been good to see or read a bio of the young boy's life in 2004 as the story was written about his life in 1987.

The audience is always right. . .hence the film's pitiful 1.7mill box office.",0 "Jeremy Piven and Sherilyn Fenn are sane lovers trying to find one another in an insane world. They make a very charming screen couple -- why aren't they doing more films together? Piven's role as a tour bus driver keeps him putting on an act he despises to maintain an unlikely relationship with Fenn, who plays the part of a rising movie star. Just Write is a fresh, charming treatment of an old storyline, made enjoyable by memorable characters.

To balance the niceness of the two leads, Jo Beth Williams and Alex Rocco give outstanding performances as cynical supports. Williams delivers some great lines as Fenn's forever-on-the-phone agent, and Rocco, as Piven's lame father, provides an entertaining obstacle for his son to nudge aside so he can shoot for the moon.

Wallace Shawn, Jeffrey Sams, Yeardley Smith, and Stephanie Miller keep the laughs coming in minor support roles, and Costas Mandylor is the Hummer-driving, GQ- reading soap star boyfriend Fenn can't shake loose.

Relax and give it a try. I think you'll end up watching it more than once.",1 "A Nymphoid Barbarian In Dinosaur Hell. A really interesting title that seems to promise a fun movie. In reality, the title gives you no hints about the actual movie. The word Nymphoid was used just to give it strong sexual overtones, which were completely, absent in the movie. The word Nymphoid, which actually isn't even a real word, has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Now, about those dinosaurs. There are no dinosaurs, plenty of mutant monsters but no dinosaurs. So, a more realistic title may be, A Barbarian in Mutant Hell. It's a pretty bad movie with plenty of poor acting. The plot is poor but interesting enough to keep you watching and so simple it is very easy to follow. The one thing I did enjoy about the movie were the special effects, and mutant monsters. Even though most they were crude, they were plentiful and interesting. It's a bad film but certainly not the worst I've seen. Do not go out of your way to see it. If you don't see it, you're not missing anything.",0 "Before Seth MacFarlane got to where he is now with adult comedies like Family Guy and American Dad, he actually had a job doing kids shows and worked on titles like Johnny Bravo and Dexter's Lab. But in the case of this short, this was a remake of an old short he did years back, which was essentially Family Guy with these two characters, Larry & Steve. So he tried again, but his target audience wasn't adults, it was kids. He took two characters, Larry( essentially Peter, except he's older and not fat) and Steve( essentially Brian, except he's taller and doesn't have any of the adult dilemmas that Brian faces, could mention them but you know what I mean).

This was about how Larry met Steve, or by this short's opening, Steve's perspective. Steve is in the dog pound and if he doesn't get taken soon, he'll be put to sleep. Nobody can understand him until a dimwit named Larry comes along and purchases him. Larry takes Steve to his apartment and shows him his room, so far the room has everything Steve could want; light, television, and a bed. Then they break down and it's off to the store, where they try out a lot of high tech stuff that causes a lot of destruction.

Out of all the shorts on Cartoon Network's What A Cartoon?! this was one of my personal favorites. Wish they did make a show out of this, although it does seem that MacFarlane was more of a hit with his adult cartoons. Shame, this was pretty good. But don't blame Seth, blame Cartoon Network( I guess...).",1 This movie could have been set up a lot better and would have actually been a decent movie if it would have been set up right. For starters the majority of the movie should have been night. Night is what instills fear in most people anyway. Also the death scenes were horrible. The one where the guy gets a can stuck into his head is probably the worst. I guess I wasn't aware of the type of material this can was made of obviously to go through someone's head it must have had a razor sharp bottom and been made of something far stronger than an aluminum can. The most expensive piece of equipment that they people who filmed this owned was obviously an underwater camera which they used way way way to much. May have cost you more to get it but it actually made the movie look cheaper than it was. The plot was not terrible overall though it actually showed some potential but it wasn't without flaw. I would however be interested in viewing some other movies by this director if anyone knows of anymore of his movies.,0 "I am a big fan of teen movies, and was surprised that I didn't find this one engaging. I enjoy the work of all of the actors, but frequently found myself looking for the kind of moments and engaging characters I found in Sixteen Candles, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, the Last American Virgin, etc. Perhaps I am mistaking the film as one that fits in that category, but humor should be a greater part of the storyline. The film seemed slow to me, and just didn't have the memorable bits that really make a film a classic. I just wish it weren't so. I did enjoy Molly and Harry Dean, but that didn't carry the day for me. I would have liked to have seen a more memorable sound track as well.",0 "*Bad Moon SPOILERS*

Ted (Michael Parè) is going to be our lycanthrope for today, a young man who has this 'curse' upon him, and tries to do as less trouble as he can, but his nephew (Mason Gamble)'s dog has other ideas, and begins to attack poor Ted, and Ted's sister (Mariel Hemingway) doesn't understand a thing, because she's as dumb as a rock...

Am I going to believe that a mere dog can kill a werewolf? No sirreee! The main characters were so annoying, and Parè was the best of the bunch, so I was rooting for Ted (the werewolf) to make it.

It can be read as the drama of a misunderstood werewolf, or as a failed attempt at a horror movie. And for a werewolf movie, the transformation scene is so-so.

Bad Moon: 4/10 as a horror, 2/10 as a werewolf movie, 8/10 as a Drama.",0 "Will the wonders never cease? First Denmark introduces a long line of Dogme films, many of them better than anything out of Hollywood, and now they have developed a talent for romantic comedies as well? If someone had told me 10 years ago that this would happen, I wouldn't have believed them.

This is a wonderfully warm and funny movie. It's great to see Niels Olsen in this type of role, not playing his usual wacky roles but instead a romantic lead - yet another surprise. And what can I say about Paprika Steen - she's fast becoming one of my favourite actresses, Danish or otherwise. What a comedic talent!

I recommend this movie to anyone who doesn't mind subtitles - comedy is a language in itself.",1 "1. The first disappointment of the movie is too brief to cover the whole story within 116 minutes. It may take two or three chapters, or even an mini-series to cover the cream of the story, like the scientific theory of Quantum roaming, the thrill and suspense.

2. The second disappointment is the lousiness of the scene setting, especially the castles. The castle is just like a big house, too small to be a castle standing for battle.

3. The third disappointment is the love and romance element too shallow. Unfortunately, it is same as the original novel by Michael Crichton.

4. The last disappointment is the characters. The Professor is not portrayed as a wise and calm as the one in the novel. The effect is bad, because the whole team is all the same panicking, without someone wise and calm. The Professor in the original novel is like Gandalf in The Lord of the Ring.",0 "i saw this film at a private screening in London, and was quite overwhelmed at how well the film played out, with a very low or non existent budget, it just goes to show that a low budget. can make the creative mind work in a much more resourceful and not indulgent fashion, which can make the hole thing play even more real and without the flood of commercial propaganda this film is a true jewel in the crown of low budget British films.

the film takes a good look at the length that some ego's will go to stay at the top of there game funny thought provoking and worth two hours of any ones life. hats of to the director, cast, crew and producers.",1 "Wow. Another clunker from Canadian ""auteur"" Andrew Van Slee. At least this one is somewhat watchable, unlike his earlier epic ""Totally Blonde.""

The scariest thing about this entire movie is the teeth of the actors. Instead of rehearsing, the director must have thrown a teeth-whitening party. Almost every character has teeth that look like chiclets which had been soaking in bleach for a week.

The plot line follows that of ""Fiday the 13th"" -- the only difference, and it's huge, is that instead of watching the kids die one by one in imaginative efx sequences, all of the violence takes place off-camera. A shadowy murderer appears, the victim reacts, and we see the bloody aftermath. The entire efx budget seems to have been spent on a bucket of fake blood and a number 4 paint brush.

Most of the actors are good, but a few are grade A hambones. The characters are entirely generic. In fact, none of the human characters are as interesting as the farm tools used by the killer. And we don't get to see those farm tools act... just the aftermath.

The dialog is atrocious. The opening character set-up is a long, labored discourse which makes it clear to anyone who didn't already know that teenage boys like sex. They also call each other ""dude"" a lot. It seems dated, but hey, maybe Canada's teens are on some kind of culture curve. Another ten years and they'll be getting into hiphop.

There's a big surprise ending which I won't reveal. Anyone who makes it through this piece of dreck, even on fast-forward, deserves the miniscule thrill of the revelation.

The ending sets up a sequel, apparently intending to rip off ""Halloween"" in the next installment, since they blatantly ripped off the theme music to set it up.

If you're tempted by the premise, skip this turkey and rent the original ""Friday the 13th"" instead. Even if you've seen it fifty times it'll still be more exciting.",0 Clive Barker did a good job on the original Candyman. It was truly a cut above most horror movies. The second movie was mediocre at best in my opinion but this one was just horrendous. There is no suspense at all in this movie and the acting is deplorable. Donna D'Errico is soft on the eyes but too bad she talks. Lets hope this is the last sequel to this series.,0 "All seasons of 24 have been fantastic. I've been on the edge of my seat throughout each season!! The direction, storyline and acting is brilliant. Jack Bauer is a fantastic character...friendly, kind hearted, yet certainly not a guy to mess with.

I only started watching 24 recently, treating myself to the first season. After that I was hooked and went to buy the other seasons. Although if I'd watched 24 on TV and had to wait each week for an episode I would have gone crazy. At least with the box sets I could watch 3 or 4 in a row each night! Can't wait for season 6...and the movie!

For those who haven't seen it treat yourself to season 1 and you'll be hooked!!!! It'll be the most intense 24 hours of your life ;)",1 "This movie will be framed in gold as one of the most astonishing movies ever made in Indian cinema. Each and every scene gives you an impression of 2.5yrs of real efforts done by the great Sanjay Leela Bhansali. He has truly evolved the Indian cinema with his unique way of movie making. He has emerged as one of the most daring movie makers in the world, specially in India. This masterpiece is about an imaginary world about 2 lovers and their journey towards true love.

Raj played by Ranbir Kapoor and Sakina played by Sonam Kapoor have done marvelous job as the lead pair. Both are looking immensely confident and amazing in this movie. They are going to be the new superstars of Bollywood as they have shown a lot of talent and amazing chemistry. They both are so true and close to their roles that their characters-Raj and Sakina will be remembered in lines of DDLJ, QSQT and Bobby.

Ranbir is sure-shot a star material and so is Sonam. The movie starts with Ranbir coming to this imaginary world and how he mesmerizes Gulab, a prostitute played by Rani Mukherjee and gets in to her heart as a special admirer. With her help, he manages to stay with Zohra Sehgal. An old women who found his lost son in Ranbir. The movie then takes you in a steady journey of Raj meeting Sakina and how they found or lose their love. To be honest, I'm not a great fan of sad-ending movies but Saawariya is a true exception.

Remember those days when your grandma or mom tells you a story about fairy world? How an angel comes to help a small girl and singing a beautiful song for her which led trees, rivers, birds to rhyme and enjoy all together? This movie is exactly about that kind of world with lots of hope and sacrifices for the true love.

Understand, there is no set of format to make a movie where a movie should have a flow from A to Z. Its all about understanding the movie with a different set of mind. There are some classic movies like Satya and Company which are so true to real bad world. But with Saawariya its not about how true or logical you are, its about thinking all good things and getting in to the flow of the movie.

Zohra Sehgal as an old lady who helps Raj in this new town is also a strong pillar to hold this movie in terms of acting and appearance. Salman has done a descent job in a cameo appearance and Rani is wonderful in her performance and dancing.

Its sheer delight listening such a soothing music after very-very long time and my favorites are 'Jab se tere naina', 'Yun shabnami' and of course, the title track-'Saawariya'.

All said and done, its a lovely movie with great performances from Ranbir, Sonam, Zohra and Rani. This is the first movie which has impressed me with its looks and cinematography. Hail Sanjay Leela Bhansali!",1 "There are a few times when you discover an actor who just gets the characters right. The Col. in Apcolypse Now is very real (I was a Marine). Gus in Loansome Dove (I was raised by cowboys). The lead in Tender Mercies (my cousin is a country western star), etc. In this hard to find film you will see a great actor Duvall at his early best. A great author who builds a penetrating study in Faulkner. A great screenwriter play-write director Foote (who worked many time with Duvall and knows how to show him at his best). These all come together in a very special way. A film that is for actors and people who get it... not for the masses(may think it moves slow). This is a file for folks who see the little things that make craft Art. I Love the film and the black white works perfectly.",1 "Nancy Wagner (Sandra Dee in her last movie role) is a librarian at the Miskatonic Univ where the only copy of the Necronomicon (an evil book) is kept. Sinister Wilbur Whatley (a young Dean Stockwell in a hideous mustache and hair do) uses her to get access to the book. He then invites her to his house in Arkham. He gets her there and drugs her to make her stay...he has plans for her! Also there's someTHING in the attic banging at the locked door. Two of Nancy's friends come to get her and all hell breaks loose!

First off, this is NOT a faithful adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's story (I should know--I just read it a few weeks ago). Some scenes are taken from it but the script is very different from the source. That said it's not a bad film. It's elaborately done (beautiful settings, eerie sounds and rich deep color) and is mildly engrossing.

Unfortunately it's far from perfect. The script is OK but there are far too many plot holes (for instance, Dee tells Stockwell she can't stay the weekend...in the very next scene she's saying she is!). Also the acting is really bad by the two leads--Dee seems uneasy and unsure of how to play her part; Stockwell (who is a great actor) is, surprisingly, terrible! He acts like he's stoned half the time (maybe he was) and is just horrible.

There are scenes of a monster stalking about (hey, it's an AIP film!) and attacking which are very psychedelic (lots of flashing lights, negative film, different colors, loud sounds) and quite effective. Look for Talia Coppola (later Shire) as one of the victims. However, there's no graphic gore or blood. Also, a real cool ending. Also, there's an odd somewhat homophobic line in this--a friend of Dee comments on her staying with Stockwell--""If he were straight, I wouldn't be worried."" ??????? Is that supposed to be funny? It's pretty stupid and offensive today.

All in all, an OK film. It's been reissued in VHS and DVD in a beautiful new print with great color and sound. Try to see it that way--it really helps the film.",0 "Unfortunately even though there is plenty of air action, one is left flat with this film. The build up is great, however as the movie comes to a close and the viewer realizes the final outcome, one cannot help but feel cheated.

The paradox at the end is good. Kirk Douglas is (as always)a great presence. Marting Sheen's acting on the other hand, has a lot to be desired. Katharine Ross is adequate, but I would have liked to see more involvement with her character. Charles Durning's character was very good, if not a little over the top.

This movie really had a lot of potential. It's unfortunate that the writers didn't work up a better ending.",0 "Some parts of FLESHBURN are very good and it sure could have been a very good movie. Instead, however, the film is just pretty poorly executed and stupid much of the time. Too bad.

The film begins with a guy breaking out of a hospital for the criminally insane. Obviously bad things will ensue. The maniac is apparently in the mental hospital because years earlier he took a group of folks into the desert and allowed them to die due to exposure--a slow, lingering death. Now, his plan is to find all the people he feels are responsible for putting him in the booby hatch and exacting revenge--and killing him just like that first group of people; So far, all this is a very good setup for a film. However, it has two major strikes against it. Instead of the villain simply being an American-Indian who knows the land and how to survive, he's some sort of American-Indian who dabbles in WITCHCRAFT (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean). He has some goofy psychic or magical power that allows him to occasionally do things like catch and train a hawk to attack on of the four people stranded in the desert!! Gimme a break. And, the more serious problem is that although the people are exposed to the elements in the desert, they seem amazingly healthy even after many days there. With very, very little food and water, they all seem to have miraculously avoided any sunburn!! And, what's worse, a couple of them are running about with no shirt on--and yet their skin isn't even pink!! The inconsistent elements of their dire circumstances and their actual condition makes no sense at all and is just sloppy. Just as sloppy is the gun scene at the end--again and again, the guy who takes on the killer gets the upper hand but never finishes the job. If I were taken into the desert to die, if I ever got a chance to kill my tormentor, I'd not hesitate for a microsecond. duh.

Overall, this is a wonderful example of a decent idea for a movie that was totally botched because the film makers were apparently squirrels.",0 "Simply put one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. I adore the first three minutes of the film and have just watched them several times now. I adore the music and will have to see if I can run down a CD of it.

The plot concerns an old man who lives on a derelict boat in the middle of the sea. He ferries people to and from it so they can fish. Living with him is a young girl who came to the boat when she was seven. The old man intends to marry the young girl when she turns 17. All is fine until one day a young man the girls age shows up and begins to awaken her curiosity about the outside world.

Ultimately more fable than real life this is a very good film. The odd dynamic between the old man and the young girl may upset some people but it flows naturally out of the situation. Its also a film that doesn't play to expectations, so much so that I really will have to sit down and watch the film again, there are a couple of things that happen that seem odd or out of place on first viewing that may not be that way once you reach the end. I'm not sure what I make of it all, however I do know the film still haunts me and on some level colored everything I watched after that.",1 "The Prince of Egypt is mightily impressive. Although an unexpected story for Dreamworks to embark on, they do a fine job of it. The animation is astonishing and the characterisations are great. I will not add further mention of how inappropriate 'You're Playing with the Big Boys' song is. Dreamworks must now set a different path from that of Disney. To avoid the inevitable comparisons, Dreamworks should continue with the idea to produce animated motion pictures equally for the adult because there IS an audience for such a genre. Additionally, I don't know why no one has picked up on this before, but songs in cartoons suck. With the exception of the River Lullaby and When You Believe (Pfeiffer/Dworsky), there is no need for the others. This is the same for all of Disney's animations. On each of Disney's films, who can really remember any of the songs besides the main piece? The lesser the amount of ridiculous songs the better the animation. All kids really want to see is the animation and action - not the silly songs. Disney discredits kids too much - kids are much smarter these days. The Prince of Egypt is wonderfully told and the actual line drawing is marvellous. It is great to know that Fiennes and Pfeiffer sang their parts. If movie studios are going to get celebrities to be the voices of characters and are still willing to persist with silly songs - the least they could do is make the actual actors sing the songs - or alternatively let the singers SPEAK the parts.",1 "I'd say this review was going to be a spoiler, but...well, to be honest, it's a slasher movie. You know how it's going to go.

Friday the 13th: the Final Chapter features a small family made up of a relatively young mother, the movie's ""innocent"" girl, and a young video game player and mask-making prodigy (a young Corey Feldman) that lives out into the woods. A bunch of teenagers rent the house next door for a night of debauchery. Jason Voorhees, being a slasher, wasn't adequately killed last time, so he gets to come back now. The non-character teenagers in the house, like most people in this film, exist only to increase the body count and have no discernable character traits except for degree of sexual experience, which is enough to get them all killed by the end of the film, playing straight by the rules.

This episode of Friday the 13th follows the slasher cliches to the letter, but the only times suspense is even attempted are during a few ""false scare"" scenes early in the movie and in the final chase sequence. The actual killings just aren't all that scary--Jason murders again and again. It's a badly shot, poorly lit, trashy fast-food slasher with wretched acting. You can pretty much not only call every death, but from time to time predict the exact manner of the death.

As far as gore and T&A go, Friday 4 delivers, but in that ""fast-food"" style. As a result, it doesn't even hold a lot of fun for slasher fans. It reeks of lack of effort, and really wasn't entertaining as teen-killer fare goes. Avoid it--you'll find a slasher that does it with more style pretty easily.",0 "This infantile adaptation of Jonathan Swift's shows that the creators were simply not up to the task. It depicts only one of Gulliver's four journeys, and fails to render even that accurately. The film communicates none of the themes of Swift's literary classic.

Instead, the creators fabricate a Capulet and Montague style feud that captures none of the absurdity of Lilliputian politics, the grotesquerie of Gulliver's size, or the misplaced pride of both Gulliver and the Lilliputians. In fact, in this version, Gulliver does not speak until 40 minutes into the 75-minute film.

Aside from the fact that Gulliver washes upon the shore of Lilliput where he is restrained by tiny people, the plot of the cartoon bears virtually no resemblance to Gulliver's voyage to Lilliput.

**** spoiler this paragraph ****

A series of Snow White inspired string-laden ballads separates scenes of insipid Lilliputian gags. The only clever turn is Prince David rescuing--rather than slaying--the Goliath-like Gulliver.

**** spoilers done ****

I'd steer clear of this, even for the kids, as there is plenty of better material out there for all of you to enjoy.

3 of 10",0 "Okay this movie was just plain awful. The plot is rediculous, The jokes aren't funny, and as for the acting well, the star of the movie is Joey Lawrance, enough said. I did however enjoy this movie because my friends and I just mocked it so horribally. Thats really all this movie is good for. You don't even have to be particularly clever or witty to do this either, the movie pretty much mocks itself. I can't imagine how incredibally boring it would be to watch this movie by yourself.",0 "Everyone in this website thinks this is a bad movie, but i wholeheartedly disagree.(pardon my spelling). Now it's true that buddy cop movies have been copied since 48 hours, but this one uses the formula they all use and cuts out all the cheesy special effects and awkward dialogue that the ""bad boys"" films had. Also, good movies don't have to be longer than 2 hours to be great ,and at 79 minutes, this film uses it's time wisely. Jackson and Levy are hilariously Miss-matched in two on key performances. So, just give this movie a chance and ignore the clear ripoff, the exorcism of Emily rose. One more thing, Roger Ebert gave this movie 1 and a half stars but he also gave, ""the honeymooners"" 3. Think about that.",1 "Horror Business Review by George A. Romero (director of Night Of The Living Dead, Dawn Of The Dead, Creepshow, and Day Of The Dead)

"" Horror Business is a terrific flick. Christopher Garetano has completely succeeded in describing the passions, the adventures- and the misadventures- of crazy people like me who, somewhere along the way, decided they... needed to make movies. Anyone who wants to write or direct should see this film. Those who have never dreamed of being filmmakers should see it for its humor and its pure entertainment value. Two thumbs up- both of them mine because, like the others Garetano has portraited, I basically work alone."" -George A. Romero",1 "Srdan Dragojevic does it again! After ""We are not Angels"" and ""Pretty Villages, Pretty Flames"" he wrote and directed another masterpiece. This is one of the best gangster movies I saw. What makes it even stronger is the fact that Beograd underworld really looked like that between 1992 and 1997. Someone who isn't familiar with the situation in Serbia during those years of sanctions might think that some things in the movie are exaggerated but they are not. This movie makes fun of everything. From former Yugoslavia to todays Serbia, from Tito to Milosevic and whole situation in Serbia during those years. Actors are great, especially Dusan Pekic (Pinki) and Milan Maric (Svaba). I hope that people across Europe and USA will get a chance to see this movie.",1 "Maybe I should have seen this when I was a kid. Perhaps viewing it for the first time in the 21st century just doesn't provide the necessary atmosphere to appreciate what this film is about. But for whatever reason, this movie didn't grab my attention at all. It was full of long, and as far as I can tell, pointless shots of people walking, riding bikes, driving cars, or just plain standing around. They were accompanied by spooky noises or music, but they still dragged on for way too long. Maybe that was the late 70's way of building tension, but by the time 20 minutes had gone by, I was so disenfranchised that there was no way I could be apprehensive. And this while watching it in the dead of night alone with the lights off.

I love horror movies, and especially hokey ones like Evil Dead. My wife and friends start groaning whenever I go off on some movie that everyone else thinks is stupid. But this one...it just didn't work for me.",0 "The Trouble with Harry is set in a serene, Technicolor-awe-inspiring backdrop of autumn in New England, reminiscent of the 'cheery' Americana of Shadow of a Doubt. There's also a cast of characters who are more wrapped up in their romantic entanglements than in the body of Harry, who should be the focal point of the story. Matter of fact, one of the greatest delights of The Trouble with Harry is that the so-called MacGuffin this time *is* the dead body, and not some random object. Harry could just as well be anything, but the only thing that is of concern is, of course, that he's dead.

What I loved seeing, as almost Hitchcock being a surrealist (he was a big fan of Bunuel after all) as much as being a director of dark/light comedy, was the non-chalance treated with the body from those around it throughout. The opening scenes had me floored, grinning cheek to cheek and sometimes just chuckling or laughing hysterically, at some line or moment in behavior from Edmund Gwynn and Mildred Natwicks' reactions (or lack thereof) to the dearly departed Harry on the ground. They go on and on talking about meeting later in the day, almost flirting by Gwynn's advances, and there's a DEAD BODY ON THE GROUND! On top of this there's the reactions from a little kid who loves playing with a dead rabbit, Shirley MacClaine as his mother and ex-lover of Harry, and the artist Marlowe played by John Forsythe, who seems to take a detached position almost in spite of making a detailed sketch of the dead Harry's face.

So all of this, done in a manner that should suggest reality but doesn't in the slightest, builds up to something that is like the other side of the morbid coin that one saw in Strangers on a Train. Murder is treated a few Hitchcock works almost philosophically, but with with an air of 'oh, it's just a little death, no harm really', and in the Trouble with Harry it's done to the max. A good portion of the movie has nothing to do with Harry, even if he's on the characters' minds; a lot of courtship goes on between the elder Capt. Wiles and Miss Ivy Gravely and (very rushed, which is the point) between Marlowe and Jennifer Rogers. Forsythe might not be the best cast in the part, but everyone else is, and they all bring something to putting whatever potential is in the script to the fullest. Sometimes it doesn't look like it should be funny, but then something else comes along- another strange line of dialog, another aside about Harry's body being moved here or there- that turns things on its head.

It's basically Hitchcock having fun with something that, for him, is probably more lighthearted then it might be for most. It's not a totally pitch black comedy, but then again Hithcock is deceptive, devilishly so, in in making things as simple as they seem. As with Bunuel everything seems like it should be straightforward, which adds to the absurdity, until one realizes that it means to be absurd like some yarn that you hear from a fellow you don't totally trust but listen intently anyway. It's not quite one of Hitchcock's masterpieces, but it surely is one of the best among those ""experiments"" that the director made from time to time, testing himself and the audience and putting energies into something that could turn his reputation on a turn.",1 "Great on location photography in Budapest Hungary, and surprise at the end (don't blink or you'll miss it) can't save this otherwise boring movie about a group of people, seemingly chosen at random, attending the reopening of an old Hungarian castle which has been closed for half a millennium, being stalked by an unseen killer. The killer turns out to be a werewolf. Or, maybe it was just a great big hairy dog. I couldn't tell, the killer was on screen so briefly.

This one isn't as awful as the previous three sequels, but that doesn't mean that it's very good either ...

*1/2 out of ****",0 "Normally, sequels are worse than their predecessors. This is generally more true for movies than computer games, but mostly holds true for computer-games too. Escape from Monkey Island is an exception to this. It is in my opinion the best of the four games, and then I think the three predecessors to this one were great too.

You will like this game the most if you have played the previous three, since there are a lot of flashbacks, and characters from the old games in this one, so you will miss out on a lot of the jokes and story if you haven't played them.

But if you did play the three other Monkey Island games, and loved them as I did, you MUST play this one. It is truly great, and everything is perfect. It's true they moved to 3D this time, but it wasn't at all disturbing as I thought it would be. The graphics is great, the story is even better, and the humor is fantastic! It's a must-play!

The monkeys are listening...",1 "This Great Alaskan Western is absolutely fabulous. The dialog alone is worth seeing (yes, seeing) and hearing. The innuendo and double entendre are written beautifully and delivered with crackle. John Wayne is a rather rakish ladies' man and played with much less bravado than typified his later roles. That is wonderful and fun to watch. Yeah, Dietrich played a very similar character in Destry Rides Again, but here she is more sympathetic, and has killer dialog and wardrobe. Seeing Randolph Scott as a charismatic bad guy is also worth the price of admission.

Old silent star, Richard Barthelmess, delivers a nice performance, too, in his supporting role as Dietrich's spurned but loyal suitor and employee. His secretive character, Bronco, really is key. In more run-of-the-mill movies, spurned suitors always side with the bad guys in the mistaken belief that The Hero is their obstacle to happiness. (How predictable is that gambit?) With Bronco you always have that scenario in the back of your mind.

The best scenes all revolve around Dietrich, whether she is being sweet talked by Wayne or Scott. They are both charming, which also is rather unique. Usually the bad guy competitor for the affections of the leading lady in a Western is pretty transparently, well, bad. But Scott manages to make us believe that the law-biding front he maintains for the public is credible - at least to some, but not good ol' Marlene!

I always enjoy seeing Harry Carey in a movie, and this role is particularly neat, since he was one of Wayne's idols. In fact, Randy's cronies are terrific, too. If you are a fan of Westerns, this one is excellent.",1 "Of the multitudinous bad movies that have come out of Hollywood over the years, it would be difficult to pick the worst. This film would certainly be a candidate. West, having enjoyed a late film career resurgence with 1970's ""Myra Breckinridge"", made one final celluloid splash before her death (at least, it is widely reported that she was still alive while filming this!) This deadly, dreadful horror is the result. Sauntering (if that verb can be used to describe something so sloooww!) around in a variety of surprisingly flattering Edith Head gowns, Miss West cashes in on nearly every one of her memorable quotations from years gone by. Her face is pulled taut to reveal a row of buck teeth, slits for eyes and a platinum wig piled to the ceiling. There is no chance of her face being able to emote even the vaguest expression or reaction. The thin plot involves her wedding day (to Dalton!) being interrupted by several of her former husbands as she tries to prepare for a new film and...of course ensure world peace from a group of dignitaries staying at her hotel! She wanders around mouthing filthy double entendres about sex, but thankfully, never does get around to any. Hapless has-beens Curtis, Starr and Hamilton play a few of her earlier grooms. DeLuise tries earnestly to inject some degree of comedy into the utterly lame and ridiculous story, but his talents are wasted. The worst part is that several well-known songs have been carelessly planted into the script in a halfhearted attempt to make this turkey a musical! Waxlike West considers singing as she waddles around caressing her hair and stomach, Dalton is dubbed during a hopeless duet with her, a dozen or so fruity bellhops prance through the hotel lobby and, at the end, an unrecognizable Cooper pointlessly pops in to serenade West as she is about to leave. DeLuise has a spirited number in which he tap dances on a piano and sings in front of a cardboard cut-out of West. There is absolutely no difference between the cut-out and the real thing except that the cut-out is carved on the sides to make it look thinner. West even has a ghastly number delivered to various weight-lifting titleholders dressed in '70's Speedos. It all sounds like it's so bad it might actually be unintentionally funny, but it really isn't. It's just BAD. Raft (West's first cinematic co-star) has a brief bit in an elevator and Regis Philbin of all people has a cameo as a reporter. This was based on one of her decades-old plays.",0 "Yes this movie is bad...the only good part is that Cerina Vincent is hot...other than that....I cried when I watched this movie because it makes Jeepers Creepers look good...I watched it all the way...twice...only twice because I wanted to show my friend how bad it was. Turn your head and run from this movie, other than the ""Attractive Female""...and the parrot this movie has no real value to anyone anywhere...I know B movies aren't always good...but this one, just makes me sad. Very very sad. ""This part may be a Spoiler"": We get no real closure as to what the ""Demon"" is, if it is dead, or if it will just continue to wait. I'd have to say the story and the way Danny St. Claire goes about calling her boss a 'Protoped' when she herself is still confused on the definition of said word. Also Indian Guy in cave saying ""It's not Safe in here"", really throws the movie into a, ""What is going on"" mood for the rest of the movie.",0 "Bob Hope and Dorothy Lamour star in this tired comedy. Hope is a photographer who specializes in baby pictures but really wants to be a private detective like his hero down the hall, Sam McCloud (a cameo by Alan Ladd). One day when McCloud is out of the office, Hope happens to be there when Dorothy Lamour slips in and, mistaking him for McCloud, hires him to unravel a mystery. This is just one more of Hope's mistaken identity comedies, and not a particularly good one. The writing is weak, Elliott Nugent's direction is flat, the supporting cast--other than Peter Lorre and Lon Chaney Jr.--isn't really up to par, and for some reason Hope and Lamour don't seem to have any chemistry at all. On top of that, the picture just looks cheap, like a later Bowery Boys movie from Monogram. Hope and Lamour made much better pictures than this. It's not really worth your time.",0 "I have just seen this movie, and so thought that I should comment on it.

It's been a while since I have seen an action movie of 'this type'. You know, where the 'hero' gets wronged and has go after the bad guys, regardless of the fact that he is one man, and he is going up against a well connected organisation. But this movie was very different, as the hero uses his brain as much as his brawn, accepts help albeit a bit reluctantly, and has a second reason for his quest.

The direction is very tight and classy - I commend Dolph as I can't even remember the name of the last film I saw him in - I just seem to remember that it was fairly awful.

The characters build well in this film - not just a bunch of bullet fodder, and although there are quite a few deaths you actually feel for some of the characters.

There is a lot of violence - the fighting scenes are well orchestrated and look very realistic -it's definitely not one for the kids, and being a fan of gore and splatter effects, I was pleasantly surprised to see that when people got shot, there was a real bloody impact in each scene, that didn't seem at all over the top like some squibs end up looking.

The acting was superb from all involved, although I do think that one scene where the rescued girl has a grizzle was a tad hammy, but it lasted seconds and didn't spoil my enjoyment or the flow of the film.

For what it was I would say this is one of the best films of its genre I have seen.

If, when you think of Dolph Lundgren, you only get a picture of him saying ""I must break you"" from the Rocky film, think again and check this movie out.

You'll be glad you did !",1 "Godzilla has been and will always be a Japanese creation and thankfully Godzilla 2000 has no Hollywood input. The American version some years ago was a disaster with the story plot focused on Hollywood actors, not the big fella. In this film, Godzilla once more comes to the rescue of an ungrateful planet. Godzilla always saves the world from some creature or aliens that would take over the planet Earth. The military tries it's best to kill Godzilla without success of course. The whole plot involves a flying, ancient rock that has a flying saucer hidden within it. The saucer attempts to clone itself with the cells of Godzilla. This film brings us the fight music of the original movies beginning with Godzilla, King of the Monsters. If you enjoy Godzilla then you will be pleased with this film.",1 "I am not going to tell you about the plot because there's no plot at all. After the movie ended quite awkwardly, I couldn't help to ask: what the heck is this movie trying to say? It appears like a sex comedy, but the dildo thing is not funny at all, and the cum during the meeting is so old that it becomes quite embarrassing. The affairs between the husband and the student, the wife becomes a slut, and the huge swimming pool of DeVito, all have nothing to do with the main story - wait, actually there's no story at all! Fortunately it runs less than 80 mins.

This is a definitely NOT a SEX COMEDY, don't be deceived by the tag lines.",0 "First of all, I am a sucker for post-1960 black and white. This photography does not disappoint. It is all to easy to look back on things now and start naming heroes. Lenny Bruce was no such thing. He had serious problems, not the least of which being substance abuse. So, this is not someone whose word is law. However, the man had something to say, and tried to say it at all costs. Dustin Hoffman nails his role. (Mr. Carney better give a mind-bending performance in ""Harry and Tonto"" to beat Pacino and Hoffman in some two of the best performances American cinema has seen.) The documentary approach was very effective and poignant. One of my favorite things about the film was the editing between the narrative and the performances(s?) toward the end of his career. Not only did it work aesthetically, but it was subtly brilliant to intertwine Lenny's observations with his real experiences. This shows that, right or wrong, he was coming from the heart. He did not claim to be a saint, but he saw problems in his life and America at large, and he didn't hesitate to share those thoughts. This is a stirring film with importance. Forget that you do not agree with him, at least hear him out.",1 "A truly awful movie. Amazingly bad from the start to the finish. The Invisible Maniac, Sorority House Massacre 2 and Hard to Die are in a sense a trilogy because they all have Melissa Moore, nudity and bad acting. The other two movies are better than this one. Moore's nude in all three, and all of the other actresses look like they came straight off the corner.",0 "As Good As It Gets is one of those incredibly moving films that is also hugely entertaining. It's not just a comedy, you can't quite label it a drama piece, it just is what it is; simply great.

What works here so well are the actors and the script. Nicholson and Hunt both won Oscars and they're simply great but Kinnear is no less effective as Nicholson gay neighbour. Plus that dog is amazing as well. This film really relies on great performances and there's no shortage of that here.

As Good As It Gets is also remarkably well written. So well defined characters and completely involving, you quite simply grow to love them and sympathize with their plight. Nicholson's remarks are terrific, each one very quotable (personal fav; I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability).

Direction is first rate, Brooks made Terms of Endearment so it's well established that he's quite capable of making great films. As Good As It Gets is very nearly as good it gets.",1 "I just have to put my two cents in. This show is without a doubt my favorite, and I normally hate television.

But this is worth seeing. Some of it is absolutely hysterically funny, some of its is brutally real and part truly touching. The characters are uncompromisingly written and acted, and the storyline doesn't ring false once.

I read a review that said that F&G didn't feel so much like a show about the 80's as a product of the 80's. And they were right. There's still "" 70's stuff"" everywhere and traces of the 60's, if you pay attention. I love this. Its not like the ball dropped on January first in 1980 and everyone across the world immediately stripped down and had a nudist party to burn all there 70's cloths and and any other belonging they may have acquired over the past 10 years.

The writing is perfect. The script has its fair share of one liners but the humor never feels forced and the writer possesses the useful talent of setting up situations where we are not entirely sure whether to laugh, cringe or cry.

And the acting is very good too. The casting directors must have been up for a year to find a cast so talented and completely unknown across the board. They also did well to cast teenagers who actually look like teenagers, almost unheard of in the world of "" One Tree Hill"" "" Gossip Girl"" etcetera. I'm fully aware there will be a fresh set of 25 year old playing high school students along shortly. I can barely keep up.

But the kids in Freaks and Geeks look like they just wandered out of 6th period, and didn't get much sleep last night.

Linda Cardenelli is luminous and doesn't worry about always being likable, only about always being relatable, and does exquisitely.

A young Seth Rogen provides some dry humor for most of the earlier episodes, and shows some genuine dramatic talent during the latter ones.

John Francis Daley spends a lot of his time on screen gazing around him with wide eyes. But unlike a lot of young actors who do this, he gives the impression of absorbing everything around him, being exposed to new things every second. So much so that you kind of wish you could protect him from some of it. In scene where he and his friends get hold of a porn movie he is almost devastating.

Martin Starr and Samm Levine are, there is no other word I can use, perfect. Martin Starr is worth watching the show for on his own, perfectly sweet and socially awkward. Samm Levine however, gradually gets under your skin as a kid with to much self confidence to be entirely believable.

Jason Segal is good, too. Sweet at the beginning and slightly scary as the series goes on. But I guess thats to his credit.

James Franco brings alittle extra to the traditional bad-boy role. Intill this year I would have said that this and his role as James Dean were the high points of his acting career. He's probably the only kid in the cast who's alittle to beautiful, but he makes up for it by showing us a character who's a bit to broken to try as hard as he can at anything. He also interestingly alternates with Linda Cardenelli in the role of the straight man. And does so to perfection when he's called on to. He and Busy Phillips are devastating in their portrayal of two kids who don't stay together some much because they like each other, but because they need each other desperately. Who cling together for support, love, sex and everything else good in their lives.

Altogether, its perfection as far a TV series' go. Almost anyone can probably relate to at least one of these characters, and get something out of this show. highly recommended.",1 "This effort attempts to be humorous via sheer puerility but fails miserably.

The reason for its failure is at least three-fold:

1) No scriptwriters were employed during this production

2) Actors with ability were deemed entirely unnecessary

3) The advert for the sound man appeared in the ""Deaf Times""

It would be an affront to all films ever made (independent or otherwise, and including Gigli) to label this plotless effort as a ""film""; this ""attempt"" is truly dreadful. I shiver when I recall the crass manner of ""acting"" in this ""thing""; please do not make the same mistake I made in watching this.

Waste no money, no time or even bandwidth on this!",0 "This is one of those truly awful films whose true awfulness doesn't even amuse the viewer. Sometimes a perverse enjoyment can be derived from very bad movies; all that can be derived from this is a keen sense of having wasted a valuable segment of one's alloted time on this earth. The sex scenes are as most risible, boring and lacking in eroticism as one can imagine: there was more eroticism in ""The Donna Reed Show"" - note to those of you not old enough to remember this piece of televisual entertainment, Donna and her unfortunate husband shared a bedroom but not beds. The script, if there was one, is meaningless, wandering twaddle. The plot, such as it is, could have been successfully resolved in fifteen minutes, and the denouement is just plain preposterous. To those of you still determined to watch this because you think it might offer some sexual gratification I can only say again ""THERE IS NO SEX IN THIS MOVIE This film is as entertaining as athlete's foot.",0 "You can pretty much guess my feelings of this movie when I say that the two best things about it are the movie's title and the presence of Edwige Fenech. Other than that, I can't find much to recommend. The killer isn't very interesting. The mystery elements of the film aren't engrossing. And the kill scenes are poorly done. There's just no tension that is necessary for a good Giallo. And the final reveal of the killer is anything but suspenseful. In the end there are only three people left alive. If two of the characters are being chased by the killer, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out who is under the motorcycle helmet? Sure, there's plenty of sleaze, but it's not done in what I found to be a fun or entertaining way. Unfortunately, I found Strip Nude for Your Killer to be a boring watch. I found myself looking at the clock about half way through just wishing it would end.

As a group, Gialli are often criticized for their misogyny. Consider Strip Nude for Your Killer as the poster child of misogyny in this type of film. Not one woman is presented or treated as anything but a mindless object. Take our heroine Edwige – her boyfriend acts as if he is going to strangle her in one scene. Does she send him packing or show any sign that she objected to being treated in that manner? No!",0 "I went into watching this with zero expectations and came out really surprised. I love anthology style horror films and have been searching for the best ones for a long time. My personal favorites include Creepshow, Cat's Eye, Tales from the Darkside, Asylum, Tales from the Crypt, Nightmares, The Willies, etc.. This movie manages to be funny and pointless in some parts and really scary in other parts. The wraparound story is so weird that you can't help but laugh at it. I think the scariest story is the second one about the couple moving into the old house. The way they built suspense and atmosphere was excellent and the end was a pleasant surprise as well. The first story wasn't very original but it was fun none the less. The third story was just plain bizarre but was by far the most original and creative out of the three tales. Overall I really recommend a late night viewing of this to anthology film fans. I think a DVD release would get this film the credit it deserves.",1 "I've seen my fair share of bad movies. But I can honestly say that this is in my top 3 worst movies. Usually, when I see an extremely bad film, it's so awful that it's funny - which makes it somewhat entertaining. But this film went into another and far worse category. A film so awful that I got a headache - not because the plot was so complex and intelligent, but because the plot was so ridiculous and unrealistic.

It's simple: when you go in search of a killer, call for backup. Don't go alone into an empty building. Have some common sense! Unfortunatelt, all the characters in FeardotCom, seem to have been born without the common sense gene.

I could suffer through dozens of cheesy horror flicks where the victim getting chased by a killer conveniently trips and falls down while the killer get increasingly closer. . . I could even suffer through poor acting in a horror flick if the plot is entertaining and at least scary.

But, when the plot of a film is neither logical nor entertaining you get one movie: FeardotCom",0 "

An uproariously witty satire on ""petty"" bourgeois American values, John Waters brings his own distinctive madness to the screen by focussing on cardboard cut-out caricatures of pop culture Americana.

Turning his outrageous gaze on an archetypally perfect housewife and mother from the Baltimore suburbs in Maryland, supportive to her loving husband and teenage kids and possessing a real tlent for cooking, it appears that she is everything a stable, hard-working business man could want. However, there is a slight catch. She is also a serial killer.

Mom's tendency to take bloody revenge on any poor neighbouring housewife who fails to observe her rigid socially acceptable guidelines, like not recycling rubbish or driving too fast, is so barmy you are sure to find it absurdly and darkly funny. Kathleen Turner, alternating between dizzy, unquestioning devotion to her family and clinically cool, yet psychotic anger to offending neighbours, either appears to possess a martyr's yellow halo above her head, denoting divine lightness and freshness, or a focussed smile as she carefully contemplates her next victim.

If you are on the lookout for some perfectly vibrant, yet malicious black comedy, subscribe to ""Serial Mom"", one of the most ruthless, patronising skits on good manners and nosey, voyeuristic neighbours ever to hit the screen. If you like Waters' latest irreverent venture into visceral, cutting black humour, then get all his other movies, because they are all even more extreme and grotesque - ""Pink Flamingos"", ""Hairspray"", ""Cry Baby"" - all kitschy, underrated classics in their own right.",1 "Freaks and Geeks is quite possibly one of the best television shows of the last 20 years. Maybe even better. It's raw, real, full of laughs and pulls every heart string. I believe, wholeheartedly, that if this show was aired now, it was have a massive viewing audience. I think ten years ago, the public wasn't ready for it. Now that Judd Apatow has had some serious box office hits (Knocked Up, etc.) the public might be more receptive to F&G.

My proposal: Judd Apatow, write a Freaks and Geeks movie with all of the same characters. Yes, John Francis Daly will be much taller and I'm sure some of the other freshman (i.e. Martin Starr) may look a little older. I don't care what plot twists might have to be added to make it work, but I think it would be incredible.

I just watched the final episode, again, and was choked up. It never gets old. ""Ripple in still water....""",1 "It was great to see former O.J. Simpson prosecutor Chris Darden playing a cop here - I knew he looked familiar but I couldn't figure out where I knew this actor from. I'd missed the opening credits, and when I looked them up on IMDb I was very pleasantly surprised to see who it was. I really liked him a lot in this role and found myself wishing that he had done more acting. Unfortunately, despite the added involvement of other talented actors like Brian Wimmer, Barry Bostwick, Anne DeSalvo and Tobin Bell, this movie isn't much to write home about. The murder mystery is interesting enough, and there is a refreshingly un-melodramatic approach to the proceedings (fairly unusual for something shown on Lifetime), but ultimately the story doesn't wash. It's one of those complicated conspiracy plots that are never believable because they always hinge on everyone who's NOT involved in the conspiracy behaving exactly a certain way at each key moment in order for things to work out - which is a very big chance for anyone involved in a criminal enterprise to take. The ending is rather predictable, but the script does manage to do a pretty good job of not telegraphing it. But consequently one is left feeling that it hasn't been set up well from a character standpoint, so it doesn't ring true. And the one revelation/twist that's really an out-of-left-field surprise is completely unmotivated and implausible, given all that went before. All in all, this film is not recommended, except to see Chris Darden in an acting role.",0 "I'm sorry. Maybe I just expected too much after seeing Black Belt Jones. Maybe I expected there to be less of what the filmmakers call ""comedy"". I could barely stand to watch it. I would have to say that I think this movie is on the top ten of my least favorite films ever.",0 "As a true lover of the Ealing studio films, especially those of Alec Guinness, I am delighted to find this movie on television. Unfortunately, this is the only way one can view it, as it is not available on VHS or DVD. The story of the seasick prodigy of a navel family and his attempts to keep a British ""stiff upper lip"" in the face of adversity is endearing and hilarious. Also catch The Man in the White Suit, The Lady Killers, and The Lavender Hill Mob. You may also enjoy Hobson's Choice.",1 "The 1999 remake of ""Gloria"", is an insult to the great John Cassavettes, who wrote and directed the original in 1980. Sidney Lumet proves that he is not even in the same league as Cassavettes. This new version completely lacks the energy and the intensity of the original. Ridiculous melodrama and overblown sentimentality is the only thing Sidney Lumet has to offer. And Sharon Stone's acting ability seems laughable when compared to Gena Rowlands, who originated the role in 1980. Rent the original and skip the remake. Make Cassavettes proud.",0 "Based on the Hecht-MacArthur play, a newspaper editor and his ace reporter battle each other while fighting civic corruption in Chicago. You better be in good shape if you wanna survive this one. Is it just me or did I miss something here? Nearly two hours of badly recorded shouting in this early talkie with barely intelligible dialog, absolutely exhausting. But perhaps it's just the bad transfer on the DVD.

The fact that this film received three academy award nominations, Best Actor, Best Director and Best Picture, is illustrative for the difficulties regarding sound in the these early stages of sound in film-making. These technical deficiencies came with the period and might be easily forgiven, if there was something of cinematic interest to be found, but this is not film-making. It's a filmed play and a bad one at that. Badly shot, badly lit and the stagy acting style doesn't help either, with just about everyone shouting their lines to the ceiling or the windows, wherever the microphones are hidden. I guess the material is OK, based on the later adaptations of he piece, but it's almost impossible to figure it out, so distracted is the viewer by the constant clamoring. I know it's an early talkie but that's no reason to ignore the far too many shortcomings of this film.

If you like the material, remade infinitely better by Howard Hawks as HIS GIRL Friday (1940), better but not brilliant by Billy Wilder as THE FRONT PAGE (1974) and yet again as SWITCHING CHANNELS (1988) with Kathleen Turner and Christopher Reeve. Save yourself a headache and watch these instead.

Camera Obscura --- 3/10",0 "Watch this movie, and you'll see why it didn't go nationwide. It just can't hold it's own.

Like most movies with young actors, yet no aliens or psychopaths, it was labeled a comedy. (Using stars from ""Can't Hardly Wait"" and ""She's All That"" doesn't help.) It's not. If you laugh aloud more than three times, you're probably drunk. I do agree with other reviewers that this movie would make an okay stage play, but as a movie, it's not targeting its ideal audience, assuming there IS one.

This movie looks as if it was being written as they filmed. How else would you explain their top billed stars, Jennifer Love Hewitt and Peter Facinelli, starting as main characters, then switching to comic relief. Meanwhile, the unknown Dash Mihok becomes the main character.

Not that he's a bad actor; his performance surpasses that of many of the others. Sadly, his character is so serious compared to the others that no chemistry exists to link them. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if we see him again soon.

As for the others, Hewitt and Matthew Lillard are the only ones cast in outright ""bad"" roles (and should be more worried about ""The Audrey Hepburn Story"" and ""Wing Commander,"" respectively). This movie is too unknown to effectively damage any careers, anyway.

There were two things I did enjoy about this film. The first was how Mr. P (the hobo) turns out to be the hero from ""The Rime of the Ancient Mariner."" Unfortunately, not all viewers of teen movies share my interest in literary allusion. The second was the song, Soccer Ball, written by the director. I am, of course referring to when it's played during the closing credits by professionals, not when Facinelli ""sings"" it during the rave scene.

Overall, the video is good for insomniacs, provided they can find it.

My rating: 3.",0 "The story has... well... huge holes! But the relationship between father and son made this movie worth watching!!

The young actor, Jesse, has alot of natural talent and is surprisingly believable in his role as this self-assured young man.

So, set aside reality, get out a large dose of salt and enjoy.",1 "I've just recently started watching the reruns of this show, and I have absolutely fallen in love with it. And honestly, that surprises me because I really haven't liked much of anything that was new on TV during the 2000s decade. But one night I was flipping through the channels and all I could find was Bernie Mac. I started watching, thinking it wouldn't be any good, but I couldn't have been more wrong. If you're looking for a good laugh and a show that hasn't forgot about family (but doesn't make the family message too exaggerated like many family shows), I'm telling you, this is the show for you. You watch a couple episodes, and I guarantee you'll be hooked. I know I am. And since I never saw it while it was new, all the reruns are new to me. I love having a ""new"" show on TV that I look forward to watching every night.",1 "this film surpassed my expectations, that's for sure. most of the lead characters act with the right amount of straightness very reminiscent of frank drebin of police squad.

and the actual plot line is great. you might expect it to be handled completely silly and ridiculously, but really, it isn't! it is a movie you can submerge yourself into and forget about the outside world for a while. which is why it is a troma classic.",1 "This movie is awful, I saw it when I was kid and it did not scare me at all, in fact it bored me. I watched it again recently and I am pleased to say even as a kid, I knew my horror movies. I don't know why it is hailed as one of the better 'Friday the 13th' movies as their are far superior ones such as part 3 and part 6. Corey Feldman is one of the reasons that the 80s is looked on as a cheesy and tacky period in Post Modern history and once again he blew it in this movie. The guy who keeps laughing at the silent movies is probably the worst bit of casting I have ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the series but this one is a real let down. Don't be fooled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!",0 "Sometimes movies with potential try hard and fall just short of being good. In some ways ""The Traveler"" falls into that category. In other ways it falls so short of what should be considered film that it's downright sad.

Let me start by saying that if this is a student film, it should probably get a decent grade. It's story had potential, the effects are fairly good given the budget, and it genuinely made me (a real horror fan) cringe from time to time. The problems? First of all, the production values are are poor. Extremely poor. In fact I think I've made home movies that took longer to produce. Half of the fun of watching horror flicks can be the bad production, but this is just too much. Then you have to deal with the ""actors"". I use quotations because I'm fairly sure the makers of this film just asked friends and possibly strangers on the street to be in this movie. It's so bad that it makes a somewhat promising story and makes it almost unbearable to watch.

Why the 2 extra stars? As I said, the story isn't bad (think TV show ""Survivor"" meets your gruesome untimely death by way of creepy British guy)...it's just executed very poorly. Add another star for some practical special effects that were more than I expected (probably where the entire budget went for this film if it had one to begin with). All of this gives you a finished product that, if more time and a little more money had went into it, could easily have been a real contender for a good horror flick. I really wanted to like this piece of indie horror...I just couldn't.",0 "Personally, I thought this movie never really found its direction. One of the advantages of a novel (this is based on one by Graham Greene) is that it can go in many different directions successfully and work very well because the written word allows for a much fuller depiction of what's happening. If you translate the novel into a movie, though, you're dealing with a more limited medium and it's a lot harder to make multiple story lines work. So - what was this? Part Cold War thriller, part murder mystery, part romance, with various other things thrown in, mixed together and ending up as mush.

There were parts of this that I enjoyed. Generally, I thought that Peter Redgrave as Fowler (a middle aged, jaded British journalist) and Audie Murphy as ""The American"" put on pretty decent performances, I appreciated the look (somewhat limited but still present) at Vietnamese culture, and I also appreciated the portrayal of the very early years of the Vietnam War, when it was still the French dealing with a Communist insurgency in what was then an integral part of their Empire. It was an interesting look at that aspect of the Cold War. Not really anti-Communist, as one might expect from the era, but somewhat anti-everything. In that sense, the movie took on Fowler's jaded personality. Starting with the American's murder, the story revolves around the search for the killer and I didn't find that part to be particularly interesting. Unfortunately, that's the bulk of the movie. Woefully underused and under-appreciated, I thought, was Giorgia Moll as Phuong, the young Vietnamese girl who becomes a love interest to both Fowler and the American. One wonders why an Italian born actress was cast as a Vietnamese (not a single Asian actress was around in 1958?) but more disappointing was that she had little to do except sip her ever-present milkshakes.

Frankly, I found most of this dreadfully boring. 3/10",0 "Don't get me wrong by the suummary as I enjoyed this movie very much. Bernhardt plays an ex-Navy SEAL who is forced to murder a corporate executive after the Yakuza kidnap his daughter. Their is a subplot involving Bernhardt and the Yakuza boss...oh, and Naval Intelligence and the local police are after him, too! Gunfights, fistfights and a slam-bang ending make this a watchable film. Bernhardt definitely has the looks and talent to become the next action star. Check him out in Bloodport 2, 3 & 4, MK: Conquest (on TV) or watch for him in the upcoming Matrix sequels!",1 "Bulworth was released quite a few years ago, but it is still (if not more) relevant today. It merges two ""cultures,"" one being the rich white class culture, and the other being the urban lower class culture, and ends up with many universal ideals. The story's hero is Jay Billington Bulworth, portrayed brilliantly by Warren Beatty. I think some people have a problem with the fact that he is...well, more or less insane, but that is possibly the most important thing about the character. You could call him insane, but if you look at it more romantically, perhaps he is ""posessed"" by the ""spirit"" of social justice, a mere vessel for the truths that need to be told. He is a character unaware of the significance in what he is saying. To him, if he's not completely insane, he's simply a man who broke down and decided to tell it like it is (ala Peter Finch in Network, but with rapping and rhyming). There's something actually kind of mystical about all this.

Since it would be way too preachy if that's all there was to the story, there's some other aspects that make for an entertaining viewing. Bulworth, in his depression and anxiety, hired a hit-man to ""off"" him so his family could collect the life insurance. Once his speeches and raps become a success, this is obviously a big problem since he wants to live again (""You should never make life and death situations when feeling suicidal""). There is a love interest with a girl named Nina, played by the lovely Halle Berry. You don't know if you can trust her, and her intentions are unclear.

There is also a fine supporting role by Don Cheadle, who plays a ""business man"" who uses young children to sell drugs. His character does bring up some valid points, and we're forced to really put ourselves in his shoes. He's doing what he feels is right, but ultimately, the ends don't justify his means.

With a movie that has so much going on, it would probably be difficult for the filmmakers to figure out a way to wrap everything up, right? Unfortunately, yes. Bulworth ends pretty abruptly and leaves with the film's message being half-assedly shouted at the screen. The last act is a huge flaw in an otherwise perfect movie.

Bulworth is a hilarious comedy and it heralds something truly special and unique. It is not a film to be taken for granted or forgotten. It's a quintessential example of a 'contemporary classic' for our generation. I have no doubt that over the next decade or so, people will want to revisit it and examine the politics and the cultures; it should be studied in classrooms, it should be valued. I loved Bulworth!

My rating: 9/10",1 "Sure, this film is a classic romance, but the treatment is refreshing. The acting is splendid (especially by at least three of the Bastounes family), the witty dialogue rings true, and it's a pleasure to get involved with characters who aren't Ken and Barbie clones. However, it's the music that is especially beguiling. Even non-aficionadi of the opera will surely enjoy it.

I also liked the way the blue-collar background of the main character, George, is juxtaposed with the high-falutin' milieu of the art (i.e., opera) world. Scenes featuring the opera house's gorgeous stage sets and five-star hotels are nicely contrasted with Southside Chicago neighborhoods.

The filmmakers are obviously from the indie scene and received help from movie notables. (I noticed Woody Allen is thanked in the credits.) But this film was made three years ago. What are they up to now? (I hope the Weinstein brothers are listening.)",1 "Is there a movie category lower than Straight-to-video? If so, perhaps it's Straight-to-Showtime-at-3 a.m., which is where I caught this little oddity. I won't waste any time on how idiotic the picture is since others have already explained it well--but I did want to comment on a ""technique"" so badly executed that I had to pinch myself to confirm what I was seeing and hearing. Midway though the film, for what seems like 20-30 minutes, there are passages of dialogue and voice-over narration that are accompanied by the actors talking, or mouthing words since you can't actually hear them--you can only hear the voiceovers. It seems like you've stumbled onto the worst dubbing job of all time. The actors appear to converse, and separate dialogue is heard on the soundtrack. I think the director was trying for artiness, a way of conveying events in a way parallel to the action on screen. Or something. We'd have to dig out THE CREEPING TERROR to find another botch job of this calibre.",0 "This film is indeed horrible. It makes the first American Kickboxer movie look quite good, something it definitely is not. The problems are many. I can't remember one single fight scene/action scene which was even remotely memorable or exciting. The characters never caught my interesting, and I wished they would disappear from my TV screen. It seems to be made by a bunch of amateurs. Maybe it really was a high school project, where some Z-grade actors/models got hired and were told to do a couple of karate moves. That's simply not enough to make a martial arts movie. And why the title ""American Kickboxer 2""? OK, it's set in America, but it has nothing to do with the first movie at all. (and was the American Kickboxer title something that could attract interest? Who had heard of the first movie anyway?).

A failure at everything it tries to achieve.",0 "I don't agree 100% with what jnaradsay says about this movie, but that reviewer is on to something that likewise irritated me about it. In this era, a mainstream movie for kids should be beyond having a villain with a physical disability, for one example of all the weird stereotypes, prejudices, and symbolism in this movie. (You Californians may not realize how offensive the barroom couple would be to southerners in a humorless movie like this.) As for technical, I can assure you Europeans that the English dub is equally as bad, though one can tell that indeed the characters' mouths were animated for English. I thought Atlanta was cute, too, but given to cartoonish gestures that were jarring in a movie like this. Though they sat through the movie last night (we rented it), neither of my kids (3 and 7) liked it enough to want to watch again this morning. Enough said.",0 "Okay, this one was 11 minutes less than 3 hours, but if you include the trailers etc. beforehand it's 3 hours plus. It felt like an eternity to watch.

It's a doc about the repetitive daily lives of European monks who have taken a vow of silence. That's it. Almost three hours of it. They should show it to prisoners as a form of psychological torment.

When the camera is pointed at the faces of individual monks I wanted to scream: ""Where's the narration?!! Sure, you show us their daily routines but what about some analysis?""-- I wanted to leave before it was finished. Total asceticism doesn't translate as a film-able or interesting subject.",0 "This is a terrible film and it's amazing that the film producers were able to get many respectable actors to appear in it. Now the fact that William Shatner appears in DEVIL'S RAIN isn't much of a surprise, but it is surprising that his performance is rather restrained. He does what he can with the silly material. But, for people like Ida Lupino, Keenan Wynn, Tom Skerritt, Eddie Albert and Oscar-winner Ernest Borgnine, it's amazing that they act in a film as dopey as this one. Of all the actors, the one who deserves the biggest round of Bronx cheers is Borgnine, whose performance is utterly awful--particularly when he, believe it or not, transforms into a ram-man late in the film. No, I am not talking about the football team, but Borgnine undergoes a weird transformation where he dons horns and an entire male sheep's head! You've gotta see it to believe just how far Borgnine fell since his Oscar-winning performance starring in MARTY!

The film begins in the middle of the desert in the Western United States. A lone house occupied by Lupino, Shatner and some old guy (whose role is never defined in any way) is suddenly attacked by supernatural forces during a freak rain storm. Apparently, some Satan worshipers are making this happen until they get some sacred book that Shatner's mother (Lupino) is hiding. When they won't give it up, Lupino is kidnapped and Shatner goes to an abandoned Old West town to get her back from these evil scumbags. However, in a silly contest of wills, Shatner not only loses but is forced to join the group of eye-less zombies in this coven.

Later, Shatner's brother (Tom Skerritt) shows up at the house and is told by the old dude that Shatner has gone to the ghost town. Now it's obvious that the house was ransacked but the sheriff said he and his men were too busy to look for Shatner and Lupino! Shouldn't this have been a warning sign?! Despite this, Skerritt and his lady friend go to the abandoned town for a showdown.

Once there, they see evidence of the coven and Skerritt actually sees Shatner forced by some mumbo-jumbo to become an eye-less zombie. He sends the lady for help and just manages to escape on his own. Unfortunately, she is captured and Skerritt and Eddie Albert (who's an old man) on their own return to the city to face a huge coven of evil demonic Lucifer lovers! Wow, talk about great planning! Once there, there is a dumb showdown where again and again, Albert and Skerritt show they have the combined IQ of a muskrat. Skerritt has a rifle, yet jumps from the balcony to fight the hoard with his bare hands. Albert grabs some cool TV set-like device that the coven needs and threatens to break it--but instead of just doing it, he gives everyone ample opportunity to kill him or take back the cosmic TV.

Despite him being about 70 and giving them every chance to get it back, he still manages to smash the TV thingy and then all the evil folks start to melt like they are made of gallons of colored latex. It's all rather gross but funny at the same time. Now normally, seeing these people melt would have taken up about a minute of screen time. However, the special effects gurus must have been relatives of the director and this melting sequence takes about ten minutes (I am not exaggerating). Most of the ten minutes consists of ""actors"" writhing about as green pudding shoots out their eyes and gallons of Creepy Crawler goop comes dripping out of their skin. Then, out of the blue, there is an ending that is cool to watch but doesn't make much sense, but considering the film so far, who's to quibble about the ending?! As you read this, you are no doubt shocked at how silly the whole thing sounds. Well, it surely was but in some odd way it was also watchable because it had a certain stupid charm. Plus, seeing respected actors (I am not including Shatner in this statement) making fools of themselves is a lot of fun. Additionally, if you look carefully, you can see a very young John Travolta making an idiot of himself in his first film. Look for the cleft chin and nose--you can't miss it.

Anton LaVey appears in a small role as a Satanic priest and organist as well as a script consultant for the film. Being the leader of the Church of Satan in California and author of ""The Satanic Bible"" somehow gave him some great insights into how to improve the script and make it more realistic. Yeah, right.

Finally, I really liked the opening credits. Having the camera slowly pan across paintings of Hell by Hieronymous Bosch while eerie music played was very effective and spooky. If you have a chance, try picking up a book or do a web search of Bosch's works--they are amazingly bizarre and unusual when seen today. Believe it or not, when he was painting in the 15th and 16th centuries, he was very popular and others often copied his odd symbolism. Today, Goths and all-around weird people (like myself) enjoy his work, though I will admit it's an acquired taste!",0 "I watched this film primarily as a fan of Sienna Guillory. To be honest, she was the only thing worth hanging around for, the film became so boring at stages I felt myself drifting off to sleep. It feels incredibly long, especially once you reach the end of the movie and realise not a whole lot has actually happened. It doesn't feel original (the same ideas have been dealt with in countless better films), the acting was hardly top notch, and the characters were thoroughly unlikeable and unoriginal. Unless you're really into these types of films, or you have a *really* strong fascination with one of the actors involved, I wouldn't recommend it. You're not missing much.",0 "RGV must be praised those days for trying something new

One such adventure which was latter tried by others is DARNA MANA HAI(03) of having multiple stories in 1 film

The film however falls short of expectations though it's novel

The different stories are:

Sohail- Antra Bad and boring Acting- Sohail has nothing to do, Antra is okay

Sanjay- Shilpa This story lacks logic which can be ignored but the treatment could be better, especially the portions showing characters making weird faces while eating apples is too much Yet a decent story Shilpa acts very well while Sanjay is okay Rajpal leaves a mark

Vivek- Nana this is the best story and handled very well though it doesn't make much sense and they are flaws but that is forgiven The story makes for an edge of a seat story Acting wise Nana is brilliant as usual while Vivek too does a great job

Aftab- Isha This story which was latter made as GAYAB(03) has it's moments and the scenes involving Aftab and his power is well handled The culmination too is good but some people may not agree with the story Acting- Aftab is very good and Isha is okay

Saif- Boman This story is implausible but entertaining and well handled though flimsy Acting Boman and Saif are superb

Raghuvir Yadav This story is well handled too Acting- Raghuvir Yadav excels

The worst part of the film is the main story which appears too bad and the scenes involving the college friends are badly handled and the culmination of the film too is horrible

Amongst rest Sameera is okay, Gaurav leaves a mark Sushant is okay",0 "just absolute piece of utter drivel..although I admit I only lasted about half an hour somewhere in the middle You can't even call this rubbish... for instance, I caught the scene where they are supposedly digging in the wrong place, find the right place (72 steps, but no ones counting) and about 20 metres away the heroine brushes away a few CMOS of sand BY HAND and uncovers the tomb....a few rubbishy sentences later we see someone put a dynamite YES DYNAMITE stick in the very same sand, it blows up, and you have this beautiful SQUARE HOLE with nice clean staircase going down to the tomb. No wonder they call it King Tut. Tut tut, exactly.",0 "This was one of the most dishonest, meaningless, and non-peaceful of the films I have ever seen. The representation of the other, of the Israelis, was racist, backward, and unfair. For one, the song played on E.S' car radio when pulled up alongside a very right-wing Israeli driver was ""I put a spell on you"" by Natacha Atlas. The song's style is quite Arabic, but it was released on an Israeli compilation CD, and I have even heard it on the radio in Israel. Many Israeli songs (as well as architecture, foods, and slang) are influenced by Arabic culture, and there is no reason an Israeli Jew would be offended or angered by a nearby car playing that song. The way E.S. appears so calm and collected with his sunglasses and cool glare, via a long, still shot, is meant to force the viewer into seeing the Jew as haggard and racist, and E.S. as noble and temperate.

I have traveled all over Israel, and I have never seen an IDF recruitment poster, since service is mandatory. But in the film, not only is there a recruitment poster, but it depicts a stereotypical image of an Arab terrorist and the words ""want to shoot?"" This is an extremely inaccurate depiction of the mentality of the majority of Israelis as well as Israeli soldiers, and such an ""advertisement"" wouldn't even exist on a random Israeli highway. In including it, the director aims to convince the audience that Israel is a society of anti-Arab racists hell-bent on murder.

The ninja scene was gratuitous and needlessly violent. A Hollywood-style action scene involving Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinians would be just as unwelcome in an Israeli-directed film as the ninja scene should have been. But for some reason, images of an unrealistic, non-comic, and violent scenario manage to elicit applause from the audience since the director has smeared the Israeli side so much beforehand, that any shot of Israeli soldiers being killed would be welcome. The director shows absolutely no attempt at building bridges, portraying the ""other"" as human, or working towards peace; violence is made to be the only solution. This is furthered by scenes of exploding tanks, falling guard towers, and other random acts of destruction. One of my best friends serves in the Israeli military, and the targets in firing ranges are never Arab women dressed in black, or any other quasi-civilian on canvas. Soldiers at checkpoints are instructed not to fire at the head of an approaching Palestinian unless it is clear that their own lives are in danger; the method, according to my friend, is to provide a warning shout, fire into the air or around the area, and then if all else fails, shoot in the leg and then interrogate and hospitalize. Arbitrarily targeting a woman in the head, as shown in the film, is not the proper procedure.

Besides these inaccuracies, the directing style was also poor. Repetition became repetitious, and no longer captivating. Symbols, such as the balloon with Arafat drawn on it, are forced outside any plot structure or effective integration in the setting; the balloon is Palestine penetrating and regaining Jerusalem, and it is created for no reason by E.S. The ambulance being checked for permits by Israeli soldiers followed by subsequent Israeli ambulances flying past the checkpoint is an overly-overt claim of an Israeli double standard by the director. The attempt by the director to show life in Nazareth as dreary and pointless is done with overkill; showing the routines of random people over and over again, even with a slight change each time, and emphasizing that not one member of the cast ever smiles and is minimalist in dialogue almost screams out the purpose of such scenes, the dreariness of life, without allowing much room for personal interpretation. By contrasting one ""section"" of the movie, daily life in Nazareth, with the second section, the checkpoint between Ramallah and Israel, the director subtly blames this dreariness on Israel, but never provides any direct evidence as to why such blame can be properly argued.

I spent hours trying to figure out why music ended abruptly and began abruptly, and why many modern fashion-show-like and metal-action tracks were included in the score. I still cannot come up with an answer. I felt that the music was out of place in this film; the contrast between more silent scenes and intense scenes was actually annoying and not affecting or thought-provoking. I can understand if the director intended for the music to provide some comic aspect to certain scenes, but I found that there was nothing comic to be found in Israeli soldiers shooting at targets or fighting a ninja, or a woman having to suffer another walk through a checkpoint, albeit defiantly. In fact, I was tempted to close my ears during intense scenes, and annoyed by the lack of a score during quiet scenes. Whatever the director's intent, it provided only an audial displeasure throughout the film.

This film has no legitimate political message because it provides an inaccurate and extreme representation of the other, and neglects to actually address any issues. It is a propaganda film, because the director intends various symbols, styles, and scenes to draw sympathy for the Palestinian side, while displaying the Israeli side as cruel and inhuman without exception; the vibrant atmosphere of an action-packed Hollywood scene or of intense music is displayed in every act of violence by Palestinians against Israelis, such that the almost inevitably positive and thrilled feelings the music and cinematography elicit from the audience are directed to one side. There is no thought, reflection, or deepening of the understanding of the conflict by the audience; emotions are simply pulled to one side, and kept there, in a ""good vs bad"" cliché scenario. I believe this film lacked the depth, quality, and power of other Palestinian films, such as ""Paradise Now"" and ""Wedding in the Galilee.""",0 "The story may be 50 years old but this revised version,shown live in 2005, was every bit is tense and thrilling as the original.

Great performances by David Tennant,Adrian Dunbar,Andy Tiernan and Jason Flemyng were overshadowed by the acting of Indira Verma and Mark Gatiss who stole the show.

The lack of CGI and any real special effects will probably seem strange to the modern audience who like monsters and gore but I found it a treat to be able to use my imagination which was stoked up by the performances.

The ending may also disappoint in this regard. However given the premise that Quatermass is appealing to the ""Humanity"" of the victims I think it works very well on an abstract level and has a creepy feel all of its own.

The DVD version uses two clips taken from the recording of the final run through and allows for the smooth running of a couple of shots that, on the night, didn't go to plan! This is a pity as it gives the over all production too much polish and loses some of its ""as live"" appeal.

No matter - maybe the programme will be repeated as was in the future (Or the cut scenes will appear as extras somewhere - they are not on the DVD unfortunately!).

There is an easter egg on the video if you search for it - and is of great interest to Doctor Who fans! Bob",1 """Charlotte Sometimes"" addresses questions of love, intimacy and sex in ways that I've never seen before. The movie's characters say more by what they DON'T say rather than what we do.

Like the best movies, the script is cut to a minimum so that we may drink in how the characters are reacting rather than what they are saying. Sure, it's not a perfect film but it's very good.",1 "I love Bob Saget, and many of the other comedians that starred in this thing. But I can't for the life of me understand why any of them agreed to do it. I've seen Saget's standup, and I think he's very talented. But it does NOT translate well to a movie.

When the dialogue wasn't raunchy, it was incredibly trite, which offended me even more than the lewd humor.

For starters, Samuel L. Jackson belongs in something either a) intelligent or b) badass. This film was neither. And furthermore, I've actually lost some respect for Lewis Black due to his involvement in ""Farce."" What a stupid title, too. Way too obvious.

And why would you make fun of ""March of the Penguins?"" It's completely uncontroversial and didn't make a big enough splash in pop culture to be a worthy target of parody, so I guess they figured they had no choice but to make the penguins use the F-word.

Of course, the crappy paste-up job with the footage didn't help this film, either.

I'm not easily offended by off-color humor, but I am offended by respectable comedians reading VERY un-funny dialogue. What a shame.",0 "Careful -- there could be a comment here that maybe a spoiler.

I only mention the spoiler as I believe this film should carry the ""buyer beware"" label as I believe some scenes have been edited out so it could show in Chicago (where I saw this film). I am unsure of the print that showed as I think I never saw the entire film. Scenes appeared to be ""blacked out"" -- scenes that were probably important to the film ending. Yet let's press on (caution: spoiler comment in forth paragraph).

This could have been a good film but the sound editing is terrible. The sound of water and breathing distracts you as it dominates in almost every scene. It becomes annoying; however, the music sound track is very good. The story does has movement and is helped along by the music score as it builds to the climax. Yet be prepared to be left..... hanging. (spoiler comment below)

I can only guess what was edited out (my guess was a visual destruction that Chicago audiences may have found disturbing). The editing, in fact, ruined the film for me as the black outs came at the climax. If an American viewing (or Chicago) was going to be a problem for the film they should have inserted a stock shot or kept tight on Malli's face.

It had potential as a good Indie but the poor sound recording and poor editing caused me to think ""malo"" instead of ""Malli - si! - muy bueno"".",0 I was looking forward to seeing this film due to the hype I was reading on the IndieClub web site. This film on many levels disappointed me.

Bad sound: I had trouble hearing several lines and the sound bite of the doorbell always sounded the same which made it sound like an obvious add on. Poor editing: nearly all scenes lingered too long. Cutting a few seconds off the end of each clip would have really helped the pacing.

The main story line is weak - we have an introduction to the situation at the start of the film - but then the story is dropped only to return at the very end of the film. Plus the characters are always talking about things that have happened – its always better to show the audience than to tell. And there is too much unfunny toilet humor in the film which seems to be used as filler. This film is modeled after the film Clerks but takes place on a billiards shop. It seems that every character entering the store is retarded. Many of the jokes are taken from the old Month Python routine where a customer comes into a bookstore and asks if they sell books. The video quality is generally good but they should have used better lighting instead of just the ambient light.,0 "The Mr. Wong series by Monogram Studios was an attempt by this tiny poverty row studio to cash in on the success of Twentieth-Century Fox's Charlie Chan. In many ways, the two series were very similar, though Wong (played by Boris Karloff) was played less like a stereotypical Asian and the scripts, unfortunately, were generally not as good as the Chan scripts.

Here, in a completely average film, Wong is investigating the death of a rich jerk who is proud that he owns a stolen treasure from China. Considering how arrogant and unlikable he is, it isn't at all surprising that he's soon murdered--and in a rather clever way. The actual mystery is only moderately suspenseful by B-mystery film standards, but the film's lack of comic relief may appeal to those who dislike this aspect of the Chan films.

As for the acting, this film is unusual in that all the actors were good except for one whose performance really stood out from the rest--it was THAT bad. Dorothy Tree, who played the wife of the murdered man, was simply horrible. Every time she opened her mouth, she over-emoted and enunciated like she was in a diction class. When I checked her biography on IMDb I discovered two things--that she was a reasonably prolific actress AND that she was a singing and diction coach. That really helps to explain her performance as did a quote from Ms. Tree concerning the role of proper diction in advancing feminism--""more resonance, clear speech and a better vocabulary."" Well, sometimes more isn't better!

A decent time-passer--provided you don't mind wading through Ms. Tree's impassioned acting.

By the way, the copy I watched clocked in at 70 minutes--2 minutes longer than the time listed on IMDb.",1 "This film is raw and potent, a true testament to the terrible treatment of POWs in WW2 who were forced to build the Railway of Death over the River Kwai. This is not a perfect film, yet the power of the story it tells is so compelling that I cannot in good conscience give this film anything but a 10. I am glad I had a chance to see this film, to be moved to tears by it, and to hear the filmmakers speak about their experience making it.",1 "Very stupid sci-fi film about a future amusement park where you can live out your fantasies in a simulation, either in a Medieval world, a Roman world, or Westworld. The two main characters of the film choose Westworld, although we check in from time to time on the other two parts of the park. In these simulations, there are tons of robots with whom you can interact. They look exactly like people, and you can pick fights with them, screw them, or kill them. Within the first five minutes of the heroes' vacation, they blow away a robot played by Yul Brynner. The next day, he comes back and they shoot him again. The next day, well, the robots kind of defy their masters and refuse to obey. The story makes little sense. Plotholes a'plenty, let me assure you. The idea itself is pretty stupid. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to pay $1000 a day to be at this resort. Sure, you might point at the rampant sex, but let me point this out: the guns in Westworld don't fire at human beings because they are warm-blooded. Yet they fire at robots, presumably because they are not warm. That means all the tail you get is nothing but cold fish! I realize this film was conceived and made in a hurry, but it's hard not to scoff the results. The only pleasure is watching Yul Brynner die multiple times. Crichton would have much better luck with Jurassic Park twenty years later. 4/10.",0 "Behind the Mask takes place in the parallel world where scary movies live, and a team of young filmmakers set out to make a real life documentary about a serial killer at work. Such is their dedication to capturing realism that they are willing to follow the killer around and allow the murders to happen so that they can capture it all on tape. The movie is a fascinating and clever analysis of how the mind of a horror movie slasher works.

More than anything else, the movie is a brilliant horror comedy in which Leslie Vernon, the main character, leads our film-making team through the whole process of how he pulls off the vintage horror-movie murders. It's basically an exploration of how those horror movie scenes are constructed. How the doors slam shut at just the right moment, how the perfect weapons are always available to the killer while the victim can't seem to find anything to protect himself or herself, and how the killer manages to let all the other promiscuous teenagers in the vicinity know that there is a killer on the loose and yet still manage to pick them off one by one.

It also explores the history of the slasher genre, because Vernon is, of course, an avid horror movie buff, and idolizes all the great masked murderers. At one point in the movie, he claims that having Michael Myers and Freddy and Jason come back from the dead was a ""radical change in philosophy. Changed the whole business.""

Nathan Baesel gives the perfect performance as Leslie Vernon. He's obviously disturbed and is also the product of a rape of his mother, but the most startling aspect of his character is how incredibly NORMAL he is. He laughs and jokes and talks to the film-making team as though they were making a documentary about his collection of rare toy cars than about his habit of brutally murdering large numbers of people. He's far too casual and easy-going to really be able to accept him as a serial killer (he even drives a Prius!), but that is the heart of the movie's charm.

In the second half of the movie, however, the team decide that they were not as dedicated to their film as they thought they would be, and they decide that they can't just stand by and allow the killings to happen. In one of the movie's best scenes, Vernon stands there in full masked slasher get-up, mask and weapon and all, and scolds them like a babysitter scolding a naughty kid.

It's hilarious the way he is so clearly offended by their behavior as he tells them that they have ""that 'we can't just stand here and let this happen' look on their faces"" and says that now they have to leave.

Unfortunately, this is where the clever horror movie analysis ends and it turns into a more conventional slasher movie. The acting falls off a cliff and the killings stop making sense. But worst of all, having lost all of her footage, the remaining member of the documentary team at the end of the movie makes the bizarre and senseless decision to burn Vernon's body, I guess to destroy any remaining evidence of her crazy story, just in case she later had to explain any of this.

But other than that, it's a unique and fresh look at the horror genre and a fun exploration of its history and methods.",1 "I just bought this 2005 released film ACNE from Go Kart Films on a whim and it charmed the pants off of me! What fun! What creativity and wild energy! The movie is about so many things: Political Corruption, America's hypocritical puritanical stances on everything, anti-drugs legislation, sugar as the opium for the masses... you name it.

More than anything... the movie is about old fashioned thrills, suspense, clever ideas and making the audience think while laughing. No doubt the film is truly silly and in no way believable - but once you suspend your disbelief and unbutton your shirt - ACNE really kicks in. I don't want to wreck too much of the plot - I hate when reviews do that. Let me just say - I've been waiting for a bizarre independent film with horror and science fiction elements to come my way for a good while...

Note to the viewing public - this film has a very small budget - do not expect Hollywood style sets or slickness. From what I've read about ACNE - it cost $18,000 and was shot on film (amazing). So don't expect massive production values because you'll be cheating yourself and the film - buy ACNE wherever you get your hands on it.

Jessica",1 "What defines a conspiracy theorist (CT)

1) Believes any weird theory blindly, as long as it goes against all logic and reason. 2) Is a virgin. 3) Is willing to lie and manipulate as much as possible as much as possible to convince/convert people to their believes.

But that aside, this is an awful film - yes it is not a documentary, i think it is fiction.

Do you CT's (Conspiracy theorists) really believe that Dylan Avery have uncovered the ""truth"", by digging trough old government records, websites and archive footage to expose this? The man is a college student or dropout - he has no experience in the world (but then again neither do you CT's).

Do you really think it is possible that Dylan Avery have exposed that the white house have cynical killed 3000 people 9/11?? And that the white house somehow let Dylan Avery do this documentary? The answer is no. If all what is in this ""documentary"" is correct, then we can assume that the government is ""all powerful"" and ""all knowing"". We can assume that the government have no moral problems with killing thousands of innocent people. The government are according to all CT's cynical mass-murders, who kills people without second thought. And yet Dylan Avery was allowed to live and make his ""documentaries"" that could bring down the whole government-system, and he has also been allowed to make a second and now even a third version of his film (he keeps updating them, because he has to replace his exposed his old lies and disproved facts with new lies and facts). The point is that he is allowed to live proves that all the conspiracy theories are lies.

The thing about conspiracy theories is that they are not scientific in nature, they are political and psychological of nature. People want to see a big conspiracy theory behind it all. They want Americans to be responsible. Because according to their prejudges Arabs and Muslims aren't clever enough or angry enough to do such a thing - only Americans. Conspiracy theorists wants some American conspiracy to be responsible for everything ad that has ever happened in human history.

The fact is that there are evil men in the American government, as well as in every single government in the world, and in every religion. They have to be evil, to combat evil, and to do good in the end.

Every man or woman who cant see that there is an undying hate towards the USA is an idiot. Of course Al-Quada exists, and of course they planned 9/11 and executed it - even though you conspiracy theorists wants it to be Americans.

I have known many Muslims, and in many of them, the hate exist - so move out of your grand-mothers basement, conspiracy theorists, see the world, and you will know that evil does not only exist in USA - it is all around us all.

Conspiracy theorists: do you actually think that the US-Government planned all this, and then somehow got the thousands of FBI-agents, fire-fighters, demolition-experts, scientists, CIA, rescue-workers, NSA, airline pilots, Police, the house of representatives, high-level military contractors, air-traffic controllers and the whole Bush-administration to keep this big secret?? Do you actually believe that?",0 "I give this movie 4 stars out of 10. It was entertaining now and then but overall, it was too slow and not enough plot to make it worth going to the theaters to see it. On the flipside, the ending was too unbelievable and made the whole movie not palatable.

The movie is about two retired jewelry thieves (Brosnan and Hayek) who retire to a Caribbean Island. They are pursued by an FBI agent, Harrelson, who try to lure them back into thievery with the prospect of stealing a jewel from a cruise ship. Into this mix is a local gangster who wants Brosnan to steal the diamond for them.

Overrall, it was an OK movie. Maybe I was too harsh in giving it a 4 instead of 5. Oh well.",0 "Where do I begin with this film? To say that this has got to be one of the worst films I have ever seen would be too simplistic and it would be letting this film off lightly. Yes, it is one of the worst films I have ever seen, however how bad it is exactly cannot be measured by a mere passing remark.

I am a huge fan of Paul Giamatti & Clive Owen, their combined body of work is impressive to say the least, with works such as Sideways, The Illusionist and American Splendour (Giamatti) with Croupier, I'll Sleep When I'm Dead and Children of Men (Owen) to their name, this is a pedigree of some standard and to bring them together on a project has gave this film some much needed gravitas that has allowed it to have a cinema release, because believe me if this film didn't have these actors in it, it would have never seen the light of day.

I am not adverse to films of a mindless nature, believe me I have sat through films such as Deep Blue Sea and Transformers and been thoroughly entertained, they are what they are, however when you have a mindless action film that have bad set pieces terrible dialogue, even worse scripting and woeful special effects all you are left with is Shoot 'em Up.

From babies being delivered in the middle of gunfights, people having sex in the middle of gunfights, people parachuting in the middle of gunfights, gunfights in the middle of gunfights, this film is loud, clichéd, stupid and just basically a mess.

The dialogue sounds like it has been written by a 1st year film student who has been watching Lock, Stock and two Smoking Barrels on a continuous loop. The action sequences are terribly handled, feeling unrealistic, stilted and just plain rubbish. The special effects make this already bad film just feel even worse, I am aware what this film is trying to do with its tongue in cheek take on the action flick, however not to throw any money into the budget of this film (£23,000,000) has meant it doesn't even have its special effects to rely on, they make it look cheap and quite unremarkable.

Ultimately what is unfortunate about this film is that it has been able to attract two of Hollywood's brightest talents and shoe-horn them into one of the biggest piles of sh*t I have ever seen. I am sure that their careers will not suffer too much, however I feel that the paying audience have suffered enough. You watch this film at your own peril...don't say I didn't warn you.",0 "Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory play Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory. Yes, as the story goes, these two old friends caught up much like in the film after Andre's return from an awakening journey of life through Asia and during dinner discussed philosophy, life/death and existentialism. They were so involved, moved and amused by their very deep and meaningful conversation that they both agreed to turn their night into a film. And not once during the film do you get the feeling that they were trying to remember what they said the night they had the original conversation. It just came naturally, because their ideas and opinions were fueled with passion and conviction. Their enthusiasm translated through their eyes, facial expressions and fidgety hands. I was so embroiled in their conversation, that the thought of sitting in a restaurant for two hours never crossed my mind once. I've always been compelled by films that are confined to a single set, a claustrophobic surrounding, whether it be one room, one house or one place. These films enable better character development because of the intimacy of the setting. Alfred Hitchcock, Roman Polanski and Sidney Lumet knew the great power of single sets and understood that great stories are never driven by visuals, special effects or mindless mayhem but by character(s) - everything else serves the character and not vice versa. If you were not taken, convinced or fascinated by a character - if you didn't care - the film has failed. And while visuals, attractive actors, special effects and over-the-top action adds value to a film, it however does not define a film. That is why those films which possess all attributes other than interesting characters have shelf lives shorter than the time it took to make them. The reason why Die Hard succeeded over Rambo is because we cared, loved and really got to know John McClane.

What is most fascinating about 'My Dinner With Andre' is that it ONLY has characters. There is no explosions, swearing, sex, CGI and none of the garbage that has attracted brainless movie goers for generations, but rather an intimate story of two friends catching up and talking about lost time. Not only is this film a character study, but the single-setting idea was taken a step further because for two hours while your whole notion of the outside world is erased you do not see a single house nor a single room, but a single table. Your only visual compass are knives, forks, plates and close ups of Wallace and Andre. The pure magic of 'My Dinner With Andre' is its ability to make us feel like we are sitting at the dinner table with them, contributing to the ideas and thoughts of the conversation. Every time there is a surprise twist or revelation we feel as proud and passionate as they are.

The greatest gift the film bestows upon its viewers is its remarkable storytelling. The script never bores. Andre, who does most of the talking, always has our attention. Even when we don't quite understand what he is saying, his obsessive eagerness to tell us something translates through his body and we are happy to listen and try to make sense of everything. Both men have an incredible grasp of language (both are real Theatre producers) and never were there any awkward or dull words spoken. Every word seemed to be dependent on the other in their philosophical debate. It is because this film is completely dialog driven and lacks visual interpretation that our minds create our own. That is the colossal power of the film. You look at the too men and their table but your mind is always elsewhere trying to make sense of their feelings and insights. In other words, you are there but you aren't. Their words feed our brains with rich and poignant imagery, yet no other location photography, sets or computer generated graphics are required and no violence is employed for cheap attention tactics.

'My Dinner With Andre' can be taken on many levels. It reminds you of how great it was to have a friend you could spend hours with talking about philosophy, science or whatever have you for hours on end and be completely oblivious to lost time. In that respect it is a timeless story of friendship. Another interesting dimension to the film is how Wallace represents the audience in his reluctance to accept all of Andre's philosophical views. We voice our concerns, opinions and disagreements through him. However Andre counters all our remarks and criticisms with confidence of a prophet. The film centers on Andre and his five year absence from home and theater. His travels to Tibet and India came as work/life anxieties took their toll on his life characterized by 'writer's bloc' to the point where his grasp on life was questionable. His experiences in Asia enlightened him to life's true reality and those theories, questions, ideas and truths that awoke him from his robotic death and taxes existence of Western Culture are the film's focus. You will find yourself mesmerized by opposing views which in the end combine into a single understanding between friends, an ending that will have you thinking and reflecting for hours, with ample conversation material with those who were fortunate to watch this masterpiece with you.

I can talk about this film until the saliva in your mouth dries and your tongue grows a daisy. This film is just so deep and masterfully realized. Nothing prepared me for it's perfect evaluation of all the thoughts, anxieties and philosophical ideas i've ever had. Whether you agree with what is said at the table or not, you will no doubt walk away from it as ""Gymnopedie for Piano"" plays in the background, thinking about what a great night you've just had with two very intelligent and interesting people. And you will never forget it!",1 "Loved Neve too much to see this movie again, lack of sense, lack of history, lack of imagination...and maybe lack of time. what's Mike Tyson doing in this film? What about the rich parents? who the girlfriend is? what about the African teacher? or better one question what's the sense of the movie? see a looser who sell his girlfriend for one million dollars and manage to get himself in jail. what about the shower scenes does she cleans her conscience there? sis she planned everything or is to unrealistic coincident? the only nice part was hearing the count trying to put some words together about Italian literature.",0 "White Hunter Black Heart is loosely based the true story of the making of The African Queen (1951). The screenplay is based on the book by Peter Viertel who worked with director John Huston during the making of the film.

Clint Eastwood directs himself as an actor, playing the director John Wilson (a.k.a John Huston). With me so far? The story starts in the United Kingdom, where the irascible Wilson/Huston is trying to get funding for a film set in Africa. Sidekick Pete Verrill is drafted in to work on the script and eventually the whole shebang makes it to Entebbe (Uganda). However, it rapidly becomes apparent that Wilson/Huston has little interest in making a film, and his real reason for being there is to shoot and kill the biggest elephant he can find. Suffice to say, it all ends in tears. And that's about it for the plot.

It's pretty feeble stuff. And sadly, the lack of a plot isn't made up for by fantastic performances from the cast. The main problem is Eastwood himself. Wilson is written as a complex, egotistical, inconsistent, selfish character, and Eastwood just doesn't have the depth or weight to carry it off. The performance isn't helped by the fact that in places he looks physically frail. Eastwood's performance borders on an impersonation of John Hughes - a caricature more than a characterisation. Because of this, the film takes on a cartoonish, somewhat comedic air at times (but it's far from a comedy).

Eastwood isn't helped by the script. Given the whole thing revolves around a man who wants to kill an elephant, we never really understand why. Halfway through, there is a lengthy monologue where Wilson/Huston takes a moral stand against a woman who declares that Hitler was right to try to kill the Jews. It's followed by another long scene where he ends up in a bare knuckle brawl with the hotel manager who he sees mistreating his (black) staff. Wilson/Hudson explains his behaviour with 'We fought the preliminary for the k*kes; now we'll fight the main event for the n*ggers' This valiant supporter of human rights is the same man who harbours an obsessive need to kill an elephant? It seems the inconsistency doesn't make sense to the cast either. When challenged to explain his bloodlust, Wilson/Huston's answer is: 'It's not a crime... it's bigger than that... it's a SIN'. And that's all we get. It just doesn't add up.

What does make White Hunter worth watching is the beautiful photography of the African landscape. Also good is the unexpected appearance of Timothy Spall (of Auf Wiedersehen Lads fame) as Hodkins, the eccentric Bush pilot. He's not great either, but he does his best. Finally, Marisa Berenson, in the minor role of Kay Gibson (a.k.a. Katherine Hepburn) doesn't show up very often, but when she does, she's somehow riveting . Oh, and there's a really, really cute baby elephant.

Clint Eastwood directed this film two years after he directed the excellent Bird (1988). Watch Bird instead.",0 "Not a bad try,Yes it's a cheap B movie ..but its easy viewing and enjoyable.Some so-called reviews on IMDb take themselves way too seriously and movies at that!, and had knocked down these kinda B movies. If your one of these annoying train-spotting IMDb reviewer. Then please do not watch this movie ,Just go a bury your heads in the sand, and tap together your little red shoes 'there's no place like home'. I'm sure that the wizard of oz ..would be more enjoyable for you anyway. Ratings

dated 90's graphics 7 out of 10 background music 7 out of 10 acting 6 out of 10 story line 5 out of 10 enjoyablity factor 8 out of 10.",1 "I watched this film on the belief that is was notoriously gory, what a mistake I made. I can't begin to describe how mediocre the film is, it has so many wretched traits. It starts off OK with the first killing of a couple, albeit a cheaply staged one. Then we are introduced to the two cops on the case, a portly, inept and tactless duo who couldn't catch the killer if he/she was trapped in a phone box. They start the investigation at the drive-in where the owner is a foul-mouthed and acerbic character, and also interview a janitor there named Germy, a dozy but amusing simpleton who is possibly the only slightly redeeming character involved. Needless to say there is a lot of appalling acting, some of the worst I have seen, most of the cast seem to have their minds elsewhere throughout the entire film. But just when you think it can't get any worse it does, with an utterly ridiculous and infuriating ending. Avoid this film like the plague. The video cover is good, though.",0 "No wonder so many people think Kal Ho Naa Ho is directed by Karan Johar himself though in reality KJ only scripts and produces , his former assistant Nikhil Advani is actually at the helm . It's because the film talks of love , hope and goodwill and the characters and packaging is very much KJ-style . If KKHH was a usual college romance developed into an adult romance later and K3G was all about ""loving your parents"" , KHNH talks of loving life itself .

Where Advani improves over KJ is that the overall emotional quotient is toned down and KHNH is a lot more colourful than KKHH and K3G . Also the characters' introductions aren't so ""filmy"" as in the first two .

Preity Zinta's character Naina narrates the story . She lives in New York with her widowed Catholic mother Catherine Kapur (Jaya Bachchan) , Punjabi grandmother Lajjo (Sushma Seth) , brother and an adopted sister . Rohit Patel is her best friend (Saif Ali Khan) . Naina is too serious , too boring . She misses her father who committed suicide for reasons explained later in the movie . At home her grandma constantly bickers with her mom on trivial issues .

A new neighbour Aman (Shahrukh Khan) comes to reside next-door . Aman charms the entire neighbourhood , brings all Indians together and solves their problems . Naina resents him at first but cannot help falling in love with him .

But there's a twist .. Aman suffers from an incurable heart ailment and has little time . So he lies to Naina that he is already married . Naina is heartbroken but now Aman embarks on a noble mission of bringing Naina and Rohit together .. because Rohit loves Naina and Aman wants to make her happy .

The introductions of characters through Naina's POV is very different and funny and striking at the start . The first half is laced with witty humour and the second half is tinged with sadness . And yes the movie leaves a message as Aman says, ""live every moment of your life fully , because there may be no tomorrow"" .

GOOFS : Aman's surname is Mathur , so how could his uncle have the surname ""Chaddha"" ? And the scene where Aman takes off his life support and runs through New York's streets to meet Naina is a clear exercise in OTT melodrama .. wasn't needed .

Shahrukh is the driving force behind KHNH and as always does justice to his part . Preity has never looked more beautiful . She acts like a pro , though over-expressive in a few scenes . Saif Ali Khan continues where he left in Dil Chahta Hai and looks great . Jaya Bachchan had disappointed me in K3G , here she gets all her old greatness back . Sulabha Arya (who plays ""Kantaben"") cracked me up , and so did Lilette Dubey and Satish Shah .

Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy's music is not high on melody yet the title track and ""Pretty Woman"" are very hummable though I didn't dig ""It's The Time To Disco"" .

Kal Ho Naa Ho might be resented by some for its rather high-pitched EQ but overall it's great to watch once .",1 "very funny. very shrewd. very straight. warren beatty has always been one of the smartest & funniest people in hollywood. this is a super piece of work. as for halle berry, well there have been black male superstars but as far as i know no female black superstars. to my mind this woman is a super super star. shame on hollywood. (once more).",1 "The Flintstones cartoon series is in essence a dumbing-down of the Honeymooners TV series of the 1950s. Change suburbia to caves, add dinosaurs and sabertooth cats, and cut the IQs of every character from the 90's to the 80's and you have the Flintstones. Fred and Barney can dream big, but they are too dumb to realize the folly of their dreams.

So here's the big story -- Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble compete to become executives. They are the only ones to not know that they are being set up. Duh-uh!

Costumes and scenery are tacky. The plot is weak (white-collar crime isn't good for a plot). Characters are stereotypes. Technically this live-action film qualifies as science fiction due to anachronisms, but it's the fiction of pseudo-science.

The dinosaurs-and-humans stuff is utter nonsense. Large mammals (anything larger than Yorkshire Terriers) could never have survived around T. Rex. If your children like dinosaurs, then stick to Barney (the dinosaur, not Barney Rubble) or the animated Land Before Time series. When they get older, then introduce them to the documentary (animated, but as realistic as it can be) Walking With Dinosaurs. Don't let your children get any idea that Man and dinosaurs ever coexisted!",0 "By 1986, director David Cronenberg was one of the rising stars in the horror genre, having a bright career in his natal Canada where he had directer modern classics such as ""The Brood"", ""Scanners"" and the masterpiece of the genre, ""Videodrome"". After directing his first movie in the U.S., ""The Dead Zone"" in 1983, Cronenberg was chosen to direct his first big budget project in the U.S.: the remake of the classic movie ""The Fly"".

The plot of the original movie was kept at its core, a brilliant scientist, Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum), creates a teleporting machine, but when he experiments teleporting himself, something goes wrong and he gets combined with a fly. That is the plot outline and all the movie has in common with the original, because Cronenberg took a whole different approach to the story.

While in the original movie the doctor turned himself into a giant fly, in Cronenberg's movie Seth Brundle doesn't change instantly, his mutation is progressive, at first not apparent but later he becomes a new creature, something that has never existed before, as Brundle describes himself, he becomes ""the offspring of man and fly"".

The script is simply brilliant, not only it explores Seth Brundle's tragedy, the inclusion of Geena Davis as the reporter who falls in love with the scientist only to discover that his lover is slowly changing into something unnatural plays an important part in Brundle's tragedy. The story is full of metaphors and it is the ultimate romance/horror tragedy.

Now, all this would not be possible without the acting of both Goldblum and Davis, their chemistry together is remarkable and their performances carry the film with the power enough to give us insight in the tragedy that slowly gets in the middle of their love.

David Cronenberg's direction is outstanding and this is one of his best works. ""The Fly"" truly shows his progression as an artist and it is an important step in his career. In ""The Fly"" he successfully mixes the character study of previous works like ""The Brood"" or ""The Dead Zone"" with the SFX-packed action of ""Scanners"" and ""Videodrome"". this is without a doubt one of his most accomplished pictures.

Overall, I could go on praising this film and yet it would not be enough. ""The Fly"" is not only a modern classic of the horror genre (so much that it has casted a shadow over the original), it is a perfect example of the art of film-making. 10/10",1 "This had to become a show. they fund crappy cartoons to be crappy shows with boring story lines, and they didn't fund this or what is the problem? this is a hilarious show. I offer you the formula for this show.

The slapstick kind of comedy of Tom and Jerry + The sarcastic humor of Family Guy = Larry and steve.

Larry and Steve is a short animated comedy that depicts a dog, steve (Voiced by Seth Macfarlane) and his idiotic owner Larry( again voiced by Macfarlane himself) the chemistry of those two characters is just hysterical.

i have seen the short comedy macfarlane made in 95, the life of larry. but larry and steve is even funnier. larry and steve is mainly focused on physical humor where ourrageous explosions and car crashes occur in every 20 seconds.

if i was seth macfarlane, i would consider making this as a sitcom, there is no doubt that it'll be successful.",1 "This movie from start to finish has really no merits that I could see. The plot unfolds at an almost painfully sluggish pace, and came across as very disjointed and overly drawn out in places. Very little insight was established in terms of what Rex really had to endure with the disappearance of his lover, the film almost makes her disappearance seem trivial in it's execution. The protagonist/the kidnapper was lacking in the character development department too, small insights into his early boyhood behaviors and apparent sociopathic personality are presented, but in my opinion executed very poorly. Overall a pretty uneventful film, I really do not understand the intrigue at all.",0 "for dragging me to this estrogen-drowned disaster of a movie. Truly, this is one of the top three worst films I've ever seen. I am convinced that Adam Sandler must have been blackmailed somehow for him to appear in this dreck.

Begin with the oh-so-heartwrenching story of a single mother forced to flee her native land in search of a better future for her daughter. Of course, the daughter will end up attending Princeton and her entrance essay is the premise of the storytelling in this movie. Shaking your head in bewilderment? It gets better (worse, actually).

The dysfunctional family that the mother finds work with is possessed of a shrew of a father (the soft, unimposing and backbone-free Sandler) who is dominated by his overacting, speed freak-like, obsessive wife (Leoni), and round it out with a live-in, late-stage alcoholic mother-in-law (who of course, acts as a moral compass thanks to the wisdom gained by decades of squandering her life in a booze-soaked haze. Please!) and a few damaged, totally unbelievable kids. Viola, enough ammo for ""drama"" to make any menopausal woman salivate in anticipation of the impending deluge of emotional excess that comes with such movies.

The problem is, there is not one scene in the movie where the characters earn your empathy. If there was ever a point where the viewer was meant to wonder what was going to happen next, or what course of action a character might take, I missed it. I believe it would be impossible to find a point in the movie that was not spelled out and spoon-fed to the viewer in the most plain and predictable terms.

Another problem I have with this picture is the off-target promotion it received. It is not a comedy. I don't know what it is in terms of genre. Suicide-accelerant maybe? Since there are so many who love this movie, I'm sure that my review won't stop you if you want to see it. However, if your wife/girlfriend suggests you watch this movie, I urge you to spare yourself the agony you are sure to endure if you sit through this one. I warned you.",0 "It's right up there with another of my favorites, ""Big Trouble in Little China""! It takes a certain kind of person to enjoy this movie: You have to be open minded and like to be entertained.

I watch it every time it's on tv even though I own it on video. When I watched it for the first time, I thought I must have missed something. The movie seems to start in the middle of the story-like it's already on episode four. Which only makes it more fun!

If you're looking for meaning-take a Philosophy class. If ya wanna be entertained and have some fun-watch Buckaroo Banzai(or Big Trouble).

> I can't wait til they release this on DVD!!",1 So Reyes is really into numerology. And because of this she is able to make connections to a number of unsolved murders and tie them all to one serial killer. I love the part where she makes a total moron out of herself by explaining to everyone her numerological profile of the killer. And then answers her phone all proud of herself completely clueless that everyone there now thinks she is a total moron. It is kind of a shame too because numerology and this sort of thing actually are quite interesting to me. But this episode takes an interesting topic and turns it into filler material for the series.

I don't really like this episode. The main reason is I just am not a fan of Burt Reynolds. Everyone always rants and raves about how great he is but everything I've seen him in he just bugs the crud out of me. Another problem I have with the episode is that it is not very obvious what the crap Chris Carter is trying to say with this episode as he explains in the commentary. Apparently Burt Reynolds is supposed to be playing God. This makes the episode make a little more sense but doesn't exactly improve my liking of the episode as Burt Reynolds is the exact opposite of what I would imagine God to be. And I'm sorry Chris but I doubt God would wear a bunch of tacky clothing just because he likes nature. And I doubt he follows serial killers around trying to teach them how to gamble.

I have one good thing to say about the episode but even this is kind of bittersweet. I like the music used. The problem I have is the part where Burt Reynolds does the lip sync. This entire scene could have actually worked really well without his terrible attempt to lip sync. He looks like some dork in the car trying to pretend like he really likes a song but he's not even sure of the lyrics. And at the end although the whole Italian festival is kind of humorous to watch it seems like Chris Carter just didn't have any idea what else to do with such a lame story because this honestly has nothing to do with the episode. Oh and of course if you ever want to make a character mysterious just have them be able to disappear out of a parking garage. How predictable was that? Oh man what a bad episode. 3 out of 10.,0 "** 1/2 out of ****

Tremors 2: Aftershocks is shockingly well-made for a film that went straight-to-video. As the sequel to the much beloved Tremors, it's easy to say that it's not nearly as good, but it is a respectable continuation that, after a relatively slow starts, mirrors the fun of the original without being a blatant rehash. It is missing Kevin Bacon and some of the character chemistry that worked so well, but it stands as a movie that is easily watchable, and often funny and thrilling.

As the film begins, it features a rather low and depressed-looking Earl Bassett (Fred Ward), who, unlike his partner Valentine Mckee, didn't profit from the appearance of the giant worms, now known as graboids. But a young man named Grady Hoover (Christopher Gartin) arrives at his door and tells him of an offer to kill some graboids scurrying around a Mexican oil refinery. Bassett agrees to the terms and teams up with Grady.

When they do arrive, they meet up with Kate Reilly (Helen Shaver), a scientist who is studying the graboids in the area and is also assisting the owners of the oil refinery. At first, killing the graboids is relatively easy for Bassett and Grady, but after a little trouble, they enlist the help of gun fanatic Burt Gummer (Michael Gummer). Meanwhile, the worms begin to mutate into creatures that are equally deadly, giving rise to a new menace aboveground.

The first thing that is noticeable about Tremors 2 is that it has the look of a theatrical release. Almost Everything about it is fairly well-done and accomplished. I'm sure the movie was given a low budget, but what's important is that it doesn't look like cheap, which makes me wonder why Universal didn't just go ahead and release this one in theaters. It may not have had the possibility of larger box office draw because there's no Kevin Bacon around this time, but audiences consistently watch a movie for its quality, not for the main star, at least not usually.

S.S. Wilson handles the directing reins for this movie, and while he doesn't match the incredible job Ron Underwood did, he still does a solid job behind the camera. Not bad, considering he never directed before this (nor did he ever do so afterward). He does capture some of the feel of the original without making the movie feel like a rip-off. As for how he handled the action, I'd have to say it's pretty good. The movie takes a little too long to get to the new mutations, so none of the thrills really begin until then, but the action is exciting when it's there, most particularly in the final half-hour.

Speaking of the mutations, it's basically a medium-sized creature with legs and a huge appetite, but lacks when it comes to eyesight and sound. They choose their meals by whatever gives off heat, and of course, that principle applies to humans. This creature design is obviously not an improvement over the graboids, but it's nonetheless nice to see the filmmakers do something new, and the effects are actually good, for the most part. The CGI is sometimes a little cartoonish, but isn't very distracting, especially considering that this film isn't taking itself seriously.

Brent Maddock and S.S. Wilson's script supplies the humor, one of the aspects this series is popular for. Tremors 2 is funny, thanks to Fred Ward's fine and entertaining performance, as well as Michael Gross's return. It's obvious Maddock and Wilson were hoping that Grady would be the much-loved comic relief, similar to, say, Kevin J. O'Connor from Deep Rising. No dice, unfortunately. The character's too annoying, though Gartin does get off some good lines. His performance isn't the problem, mostly the script, which often relegates him to doing nothing but whining. As for Helen Shaver, she's okay and has some good chemistry with Ward that should have used a little more development.

The script does have some other major problems. For one thing, they should never have tried to explain the origin of the graboids. Any explanation would have been laughable, and there's a reason why none was offered in the original film. The screenplay, while sometimes clever, doesn't necessarily have a lot in the way of imagination, and sometimes it almost feels like the movie is just going through the moitions, but thankfully, that's not quite the case in the last 35 or so minutes. When the thrills and humor kick in, they push Tremors 2 above the usual straight-to-video crap up to solid escapism.

",1 "Special effects was quite cheesy, as you can see a lot of the shots were poor CGG (computer generated graphics). Also the story line was dorky and boring, and quite implausible. The lady character was good-looking. huh.

The vehicle looked like it was from Battlestar Galatica.

Not much more to say, not worth the money to pay to see, but if it's free, I guess it's okay.

That's about it.. don't have much more to say.

The ""Wil"" character from Star Trek didn't add much to the story line.

The Chinese connection was lame.",0 "I saw The Movie Hero at the Dahlonega International Film Festival and it was

fantastic! Great acting, great directing, great script, great everything! The movie is about the pain and difficulty of making art, even if your ""art"" is just living your own life. I wish this film was playing ""in theaters everywhere"" as they say. But it's probably not going to. It looks like it's going to play at a lot of festivals though, so I urge you to find it. You won't be disappointed.",1 """Hate Thy Neighbour"" combines the classic Spaghetti revenge scenario, with the regular Spaghetti ""map"" tale. The story centres around Ken Dakota's search for the murderer of his brother, who was killed by bandit Gary Stevens, at the behest of Mexican land owner Chris Malone, for a goldmine map. Stevens tears the map in two, and gives Malone half, spiralling into a running feud of double crosses between the two, whilst Dakota attempts to bring the men responsible for his brothers death to justice.

This is a really enjoyable Spaghetti Western, albeit with the odd moment of corny dialogue. It includes some really exciting moments, such as peasants and bandits duelling with metal claws for Malone's pleasure, torture by hanging over a pit of snakes, and some very talented bandito musicianship! My experiences to date have highlighted that Director Baldi can come up with some great movies (Blindman, Viva Django) and some absolute turkeys (Get Mean and, so I've heard, Rita of the West). Hate Thy Neighbour doesn't hit the highs of Blindman by any means, but is certainly an enjoyable view, with George Eastman (as Stevens) and Horst Frank (Malone) putting in good roles, and the plot having some quality twists and turns.

Not the easiest of movies to get your hands on, but certainly worth the effort if you are a fan of the Spaghetti genre.",1 "One of the very worst slasher films ever made; a ski-masked killer is doing away with vacuous coeds for a reason that never really becomes clear. Not even a spark of originality and EVERY girl who dies struts around naked despite the obvious presence of the maniac in the house / woods / room.

The only notable thing is a marginal appearance by Kevin Costner as a boyfriend who everyone thinks is the killer (but probably isn't if you've seen a few of these). Suspiciously, his name is elided completely from the film itself, and the way the end credits roll has to be seen to be believed. Awful.",0 "True, ""Splash"" is pretty silly, but it's impossible not to like. The plot of course has unfulfilled clerk Allen Bauer (Tom Hanks) meeting up with a mermaid (Daryl Hannah) who turns his life upside down. Much of the movie's humor derives from Allen's brother Freddie's (John Candy) goof-ball antics - namely when he drops coins and later speaks Swedish - and nerdy scientist Walter Kornbluth's (Eugene Levy) chronic bad luck. Another great scene is when the mermaid identifies her sea name before choosing Madison.

All in all, this affirms Ron Howard as a director who always has some ideas. This movie really does make a splash!",1 "Life isn't easy for Thomas. Living as the younger brother in a family of four, with a fifth on the way is hard enough to begin with. It's even worse when the older brother is severely autistic and unable to care for himself in any way. So, quite naturally, Thomas struggles with growing up.

Films dealing with family lives like this only work when they show all the sides to a story and this one does it well. All the members of the family are properly introduced and their interaction is done well enough to give the impression that it is a perfectly normal family, which has a specific difficulty added to it.

The complexities of living with a mentally handicapped person are brought out well enough without ever being overly sentimental and, as far as I know from the interaction I have had with several autistic people, real enough.

All in all it is a real good film about growing up and growing up with a tremendous challenge making it harder on you. I loved it, and even more so because I know what Thomas went through from personal experience.",1 "I hate this movie so much with love.I love French Stewart,but I hate him in this.This film makes no sense what so ever.How did claw get old when this film takes place 4 years later.Why didn't penny get older.Why does the town look different.Why is Gadget still stupid when his glitches are fix.Why ask why.This is stupid.Too many question,none of the answers.",0 "It's Low Budget, Amateurish, and Simple. When I came across the DVD on Amazon I was only interested in buying it, because it had National Lampoons plastered over the front cover. When it arrived and I watched it for the first time I was pleasantly surprised.

It's the story of Adam and Eve, but not the story we are familiar with. In National Lampoons version of Adam and Eve Adam falls for Eve a beautiful college student who happens to be a Virgin. At first the virginity thing doesn't pose a problem, but during their nine month relationship and Eve's reluctance to lose her virginity Adam's frustration causes him to question leaving the relationship and the woman he truly loves.

This is a teen movie so there is obviously profanity, fart jokes, and alcohol filled parties with half naked girls, but blended in with a beautiful story of Love and Friendship.

The beautiful Emmanuelle Chriqui was of course fabulous in the film. I wish I could say the same for Cameron Douglas. I could sense he was uncomfortable in certain scenes, which made him appear like a poor actor, which in all honesty he isn't just a newcomer. Maybe a little more rehearsals and he would have done the part justice.

I'd recommended this to all National Lampoon fans and possibly anybody who likes a beautiful love story with some fart jokes in the mix. This is a great first date movie or for any guy still trying to get his girl into bed.

7 out of 10 stars.",1 "I watched this movie at a bad movie festival that included ""Plan Nine from Outer Space"". Plan 9 made me laugh my head off; this one caused me to look at my watch every two minutes to try to see how much longer it could possibly last. The most unfunny comedy I have ever seen; it wasn't even unintentionally funny.",0 "Maureen O'Hara gives a quiet, confident and masterful performance as a retired schoolteacher, Helen Parker. We gradually learn about Helen Parker's past as she become reacquainted with one of her former students, Todd Cope. Todd Cope, Todd Cope's family, and we discover the importance of not getting caught up with the details of life and to slow down to appreciate what life has to offer.",1 "I found this movie to be incredible! I found the very adult relationship to be extremely intense. I was completely interested in the story that was being told on the film. It's very rare that you find a movie that truly touches the depths of human relationships, this was one of those movies.

Incredible! I'll give it the perfect 10 rating.",1 "A big hit in '54 (3-14-54, Varsity, Palo Alto CA, w/The Great Diam- ond Robbery, Red Skelton's last at MGM), due to the ongoing popularity of I Love Lucy, with which this film has more in common than its makers knew. Like Lucy Ricardo, the girl Ball plays here (Tacy) is a selfish bitch, with a low IQ and a Me First attitude. Her childish insistence on loading their trailer with rocks after being told not to do so, puts her and her husband's lives in imminent danger. Stupid doesn't begin to cover it. One thing's for sure, very little of this is funny. Disaster comedy has a brief shelf life, and Tacy's moronic antics go sour in a hurry. Robert Surtees, a master with the camera, has captured some beautiful Technicolor images of America in his near perfect location work, which is easily the film's greatest asset. By the way, The Great Diamond Robbery's a lot funnier.",0 "You know you're in the land of Deep Meaning when the characters are defined instead of named in the credit crawl. I recall the hype surrounding the movie's release. Audiences were yearning for a follow-up to the provocatively themed Easy Rider, something equally thoughtful about America's cultural malaise. But whereas the Fonda film manages to both entertain and reveal, Hellman's manages only a strained seriousness that overworks to the point of tedium. The Road has long been a metaphor for exploring life in America. But here we get a series of clichés about emptiness and alienation surrounding and including the ciphers that are the three main characters, and little else.

Now, the film apparently wants to use these existential poses and narrow focus to say something Deep about America or, if not America, at least about something. There are, of course, allusive films that do invite a deeper probing. The trouble here is that Hellman's style is simply too minimalist to reach beyond it's own cramped narrative to a broader social or cultural context that would provide the kind of meaning the movie's apparently reaching for. As a result, the film ends ironically as a kind of character study of three empty characters, and as a Rohrschach test for those intrigued by style over substance. Two Lane may be a cult film to many, especially to the Warren Oates fan club and to those who confuse seriousness with results. But there's a reason Easy Rider still defines the time period, while Two Lane has become grist for a ""What Does It Mean"" study group. It's best to keep in mind that sometimes less really does add up to not enough.",0 "The Princess of Thieves is a family movie and as such we enjoyed it for its lack of blood, less than fearsome fight sequences, and general lightness. As the director says on the DVD, 'this is melodrama.' Since Robin Hood is a legendary character, it seems appropriate that any film about him not take itself too seriously.

Anyone over the age of twelve will deem this film banal and simplistic, but for young movie viewers, this film is perfect fit to their sensibilities. We saw many parallels with 'The Princess Bride', another charming melodrama with more comedy. Watch this film with three unjaded, young girls and see how charming this film can be. The plot is not too complicated. The production values are good enough. Plenty of action while the story never drags. Granted, 'The Princess of Thieves' is not as memorable as 'The Princess Bride', but the intended audiences are different.

We could use more good, light family movies like The Princess of Thieves.",1 "1st watched 2/13/2007 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Elmer Clifton): Slightly watchable tale about a traveling prostitution circuit that sets up shop wherever it can until the police get a lead. The heads of the group disguise themselves as self-made rich people who somehow just know how to make money. The two heroines in the story, a couple who give links to the local newspaper, are just trying to get on their payroll to make enough money to get married but keep getting caught in the middle of this thing. The hero gets put in jail after the leader of the ring, Mr. Murray(who also happens to be a customer of his girlfriend), plants marked money on him and sends the cops in to arrest him. The rest of the movie, the girlfriend is trying to get him out on bail and is pulled into and introduced to the prostitutes by her boss at the nail saloon(who's doubling as the other leader of the ring). The acting is actually decent in this B movie, but the story is slow to progress and it just doesn't pull you into the plight. The situation just seems a little too canned and Hollywood'ized(as if that we're a word) to have any believability in the characters and their problems. I realize this is a late 30's movie with low production values but the artists don't have enough to make the story worthwhile to watch or credible. Not bad, but definitely could have been better.",0 "While this movie is still fresh in my mind, I want to commend Joseph Gorden-Levitt for taking on a role few actors would dare to touch. I would have, but I haven't had the pleasure of meeting Gregg Araki - yet. I've faithfully followed Araki's career since TOTALLY F'ED UP and I've since felt he could make an important and profound film - if only given the opportunity and the budget. He finally has! 3RD ROCK is one of my all time favorite TV series, and I've since felt JGL had could prove himself as one of the all time great actors, if only the right script presented itself. This is it, guys! Keep up the good work. I can't wait to see Araki's next film OR JGL's next performance. If you guys were to break up, it would be like The Beatles or Zepp breaking up all over again - so don't do it!",1 "The Plot A troubled teen has the habit of sucking his thumb. His orthodontist puts him under hypnosis and he soon gets rid of the habit. After being diagnosed with ADHD, he begins to take Ritalin. But the Ritalin changes him completely from a quiet nerd that nobody had time for, to a loud-mouthed brat who suddenly became the confident head of the debate team. The film raises the question of whether to medicate your children, which is a very topical issue today.

The Pros This film could have been better. It suffers from bad film-making, which causes it to be boring. The only pro is the cast and the acting.

The Cons Thumbsucker takes too long to get its point across, which for me ultimately was not much of a point at all. There was not enough conflict and drama to satisfy an audience. The woman next to me slept through the entire film and by the time it finished, I could not help thinking she had the right idea. .

Final Word This film is too slow and plain uninteresting. There are so many better films out at the moment for you to see. Leave this off your list. Thumbsucker gets two thumbs down.",0 "Nice production values and potentially interesting premise are wasted on a totally inane script, written by hacks with obviously no interest - or talent - for research. For example, we're supposed to find plausible that the U.S. planted nuclear devices in the Eastern European capitals, as a deterrent to a *Soviet* attack. Or that a 4-star general takes orders from the National Security Advisor who, sorry to inform you guys, is not in the chain of command. Or that an over-made-up Vogue model bimbo is only one of two people who can defuse one of those nuclear devices.

And no, it's not even unintentionally funny.",0 "If you're watching for the purpose of learning how not to make a movie, or how to make a movie for less than the cost of one episode of Trailer Park Boys. I watched because I had an inkling that Kate Todd might actually be able to act, but even if she was an Oscar winner, she couldn't have made this good. Just too low budget to be worth it. If my sister, and her friends made it, I would be surprised, but only because I'd wonder how the f they got a bear to not eat them. Funny, for about 10 seconds, then it is an absolute waste of time. You'll spend a lot of the movie not paying attention, maybe flipping to other channels, as I did, and coming back and saying, didn't something happen that would stop that person from completely walking? Why is that person OK now? Or something? I doesn't make any sense at all. It makes about as much sense as Doctor Seuss having a tea party with Frasier Crane and Peter Griffin, All while on LSD and talking about the recent downturn in the economy of slippers.",0 "And I loved it. The creators of this little gem have far more potent imaginations than I and I envy them that. What a rousing movie! I picked it up in DVD to fill up an evening while my wife was away and what a pleasure it was to get engrossed in this brilliantly told tale of courage and adventure. It took me about 30 seconds to get used to the animation. It will take you longer to get used to the idea that this movie actually does a better job evoking a bygone time than the literature on which it's based. That's amazing to me. Another surprise was that Ms Jolie's much ballyhooed nude scenes were more disappointing than I had expected. I found myself more entranced with Robin Wright Penn's Wealthow who is undeservedly undervalued as an indispensable part of this film's magical weave. Ray Winstone rings more true in the lead than anyone had any right to hope for, in my opinion. And then there's Anthony Hopkins and John Malkovich, both adding bits of irrepressible humanity to the mix. This is in sum a thoroughly enjoyable film and I don't hesitate to recommend it, but especially to guys who will have a richer appreciation of it all than I would expect the usual woman will.",1 "Mafia Vs Ninja is a cool film. I saw it today, and i think that it was entertaining. It included ninjas, kung fu fighters, opponents from all over the world, a good gang and a bad gang, a false love story and so on. In fact, its climate had a great ninja scene.

The story is about a new guy who arrives at town, and this new guy is a great kung fu fighter. Later on, he is adopted by a good Chinese gang whose leader is killed due to his disagreements with the Japanese gang that sells heroin and so on. Therefore, the new guy goes to revenge the bad who have killed the leader of his Chinese group.

Mafia Vs Ninja has many fights, but no monks, no temples, no pupils nor masters, while there is a fair share of ninja attacks and kung fu fights that aren't always cheesy. In a nutshell, I recommend that fans of ninja cinema and kung fu cinema check this film out, it can provide you with an hour and a half of entertainment 7/10",1 "Making a military movie without official cooperation can be difficult. If the story doesn't require major air or naval assets, a script disapproved of by the top brass can be convincingly brought to the screen. Two examples - both true stories that the Pentagon didn't want to support - are ""Men of Honor"" reflecting the epidemic racism of the not-that-long-ago Navy and ""Sgt. Bilko,"" a film portraying what some noncoms do to earn extra income (trust me, it's a true story: a real Sgt. Bilko worked (officially but not actually) for me when I was an Army officer.

But when you need lots of planes and ships, you gotta have official help. And few movies have gotten more assistance than the producer, director and cast of ""The Final Countdown,"" now available on DVD,a sci-fi recruiting spectacular that features - on loan at taxpayer expense - the huge carrier U.S.S. Nimitz complete with crew. Now that's cooperation!

Kirk Douglas skippers the supercarrier which is on Pacific Fleet maneuvers. On board as some sort of efficiency consultant is a young Martin Sheen, not yet ready for the West Wing. A mysterious and never explained weather phenomenon grips the mighty floating air base and to the unfolding amazement of captain, officers and crew dawns the realization that the Nimitz in sailing not that far from Pearl Harbor on 6 December 1941.

Meanwhile a U.S. senator, played by one of Hollywood's deservedly decorated war heroes, Charles Durning, is enjoying his yacht, also near Pearl, while dictating to his lovely secretary, Katharine Ross. A brace of Japanese Zeroes sink the yacht, killing two passengers which then prompts the carrier C.O. to order trailing F-14 Tomcats to ""splash"" the ""enemy."" Durning and Ross are rescued. Without a word, this talented actor's face does a comical double-take when introduced to the ship's executive officer who just happens to be black (in 1941 a black navy man could only serve as a steward in the officers mess. That was it. Period.)

The dilemma facing Douglas, of course, is a classic time-travel conundrum. To interfere with the course of history (the carrier's air wing can make instant teriyaki of the six Japanese carriers) or to let events take their known and disastrous course.

A chaste incipient romance between the nearly drowned damsel and the carrier's Commander Air Group competes with the white knuckle decision-making struggle of the C.O.

So much for the plot. What is on offer here is a demonstration of every aircraft type, fixed-wing and rotary, deployed on the vessel as well as demonstrations of shipboard activities ranging from retrieving a damaged jet to going to General Quarters to...you name it. The technical advisers knew they had a film crew pliant to every suggestion. The result is a genuinely exciting show- a great warship going through its paces. And, unlike ""Tora Tora Tora"" it doesn't appear that any genuine sailors were harmed in the making of the movie.

There's one big problem. A science fiction story is usually utterly improbable, indeed impossible, but its internal logic is vital: it must be consistent. Spielberg understands that very well. Watch the first couple of minutes when Sheen is greeted by his employer's lackey and the last minutes when he debarks from the Nimitz. Something is very, very off-kilter. Could the CEO of a great military-industrial conglomerate have used top secret technology to send the carrier back to 1941 for...

So what. This is a beautifully filmed adventure story, not a great film. The cast probably relished taking over the carrier for a while and the real captain, never shown, surely wished that the Navy hadn't banned hard spirits from our ships in World War I. But all emerge unscathed in a genuinely entertaining romp through time.

8/10

",1 "This isn't a good movie, Starring usually good actors like Hill Harper, Taryn Manning and Michelle Rodriguez that don't seem to focused this time maybe they fought it would be like a vacation shooting the movie.

Two people have bigger roles than them, I don't know their names nor would I want to considering how awful they are.

The movie is NOT SCARY, while being trapped by devious dogs from hell they manage to have a good time drinking and stuff.

Not much more to say really, I guess if you already are afraid of dogs like some people are then you might get scared but otherwise, no.

Being a guy who's had a lot of dogs, I could tell that the dogs were in a happy mood for most of the time, which is good for the dogs BUT bad for the movie-watcher because all the tension is thrown out the window.

And the end was incredibly bad as well, because well I won't spoil it BUT the end is not satisfying.",0 "I cannot think of one redeeming feature about this movie. The acting is wooden, the script unbelievably bad!! If there is a redeeming feature it is the scenery from many shots taken around New Zealand and the brief appearance of some rarely seen New Zealand artists.

If you have a choice between a dentist appointment and watching this film, take the drill every time, even if it means a root canal!!!

",0 "During preparations for Thanksgiving a few years back, my dad noticed that no one had made any candied yams. Fine, we bought a can, warmed them up and set them out. Nobody touched them, pa included. ""Why,"" we asked, ""did you insist on the yams?"" Simple--tradition. With Thanksgiving you need candied yams.

And with New Years in central Europe, you need ""Dinner for One."" That people here love it, is clear. *Why* they love it is an absolute mystery. I honestly believe that it is enjoyed primarily because it is tradition -- it is beloved, so people love it. Being married to a German, I have now seen this short at least five times; I *have* laughed during it. Of course, I can pretend to like yams, too.

The film relies entirely on the clownish antics of the protagonist, Freddie Frinton, as he steadily drinks himself into oblivion. Purely pie-in-the-mush humor here, with gags that were old when the film was made forty years ago. Neither is Frinton a genius of physical comedy, his timing truly hit-and-miss in the skit.

If you are from central Europe, you have already seen this film. Otherwise, spare yourself the bother.",0 "I like zombie movies, and I like Japanese movies, but this one was just too amateurish. The acting went from bad to worse, at times getting so bad you couldn't concentrate on the movie - you had to stop and marvel at a line delivered particularly badly, wondering why it wasn't edited out and if that actor was possibly a funding source for the movie. To be fair, the Japanese actors, in general, did a much better job than their American counterparts.

For a better example of the Japanese zombie movie, see Bio Zombie. That at least has a decent level of humor. Junk had little to no humor, indicating that they took the movie a little too seriously. It wasn't so bad that I couldn't finish watching, but it was so bad I knew I'd never watch it again.",0 "Some of the complaints here are nitpicky things that kept me from rating Dinosaur a 14, but most are missing the point.

This is a Disney movie. Disney plots are straightforward, to reach the very very young as well as the rest of us jaded postadolescents. Disney movies have talking animals in them. And Disney characters use contemporary language. Sometimes, they're downright hip. Remember The Jungle Book? Louis Prima in the part of the orangutan, King Louie, singing, ""I'm the king of the swingers, ohhhh, the jungle V.I.P."" It don't get hipper than that. And Robin Williams' Genie in Aladdin... I mean, if this is your gripe, then you just don't get Disney movies.

Despite what you read about the animation getting old after the first sequence, it never lets down. Disney's Tarzan was complex, but Dinosaur is insanely complex. Plot points depend on shots that demonstrate heretofore impossible techniques. And novel animation touches appear right up to the end. (Anyone who complains about Earl sticking his face in the lens just didn't get that, either).

This is absolutely a must-see--and must-see-again--film.",1 "The sequel to the gory, atmospheric horror flick The Evil Dead is really more of a (black) slapstick comedy... something there was a hint of in the first. Here, it's pushed all the way through... it's cartoony and provided you're into the humor, fun. I found it more cool than fun, honestly; never been into laughing at pain, no matter whose it is. But there's no doubt about it; this film is cool. It's also very much a 'guy' film... get 'the gang' together, call up all your guy friends and get a copy of this film, preferably an uncut one. You'll love it. So did I, no doubt about that. The better part of the film is basically a remake of the first... new characters and new plot points, but the progression and such is the same. The situations are the same, but the ways in which we get to them are different from the first film. It's a fine idea, and it works great, too, because the outcomes of the situations are different, as well... meaning, you see a scene and go ""Oh, right, I remember this from the first... oh yeah, now he... what the ...!?"" The plot is interesting, new and old parts alike. It's not Shakespeare, but it keeps your interest. The acting is the same fairly low standard as that of the first. The characters are equally ill-developed(though this time, I *could* tell them apart... they were easier to tell from each other, however, so maybe I wasn't the only one who couldn't tell those in the first apart?). The editing is excellent, just as the case was with the first. The special effects have improved... harder to figure out than those of the first, and that says quite a lot. The budget is higher(ten-fold, according to this very site), and it's most definitely noticeable. The emphasis throughout all of the film is mostly on humor and 'coolness' factor, very little on scares and horror. There's about the same amount of gore, at least as far as I could tell. The film is worth watching for just about any guy... regardless of maturity, really. There are things here that will make every guy watching it go ""way cool!"". One scene in particular had said effect on me... around the one hour mark, involving a chainsaw and a shotgun... anyone who has seen the film already know what I'm talking about, and I won't say anymore so as to not spoil it for anyone who hasn't. See it for yourself; you won't regret it. I recommend this film to any fan of Sam Raimi, gore, the first The Evil Dead, slapstick and/or Bruce Campbell. Of course, all guys should check it out. The film has such a thick 'guy' vibe, it should almost be mandatory for guys to watch it. Anyway, if you fit into one or more of the aforementioned groups, get a hold of this flick and watch it. Chances are high you'll love every second of it. 10/10",1 "This comment contains nothing that may spoil any point of the movie for it is really a movie that should not be spoiled for anyone.I'm glad it wasn't spoiled for me. For even though it is not a fancy movie and may not be put on a list of the 100 best movies of all time ( even though it'll go on mine)It is a heartfelt and a heart warming movie till the end. But i will say this. It WILL make you laugh and it WILL make you cry, As any good movie should have the power to do. But.... It will also make you do 2 more very important things.

For it will make you wonder, not quite knowing is this man or machine and which should i feel for, and should i feel anything. Most importantly it will make you thank GOD for the gift of life and humanity that he has bestowed on us all, for forever nothing can be compared to human life. Enjoy :o)",1 "I'm not going to get into all the bad critiques I've read on this film. Personally I knew very little about it before I bought it today and watched it, and I was pleasantly surprised. The trailer, like a lot of trailers, it seems, tells you very little about the movie and if anything is completely misleading. The film starts out introducing us to the 3 major players of this film, Allen(Grenier), a Harvard basketball player and philosophy major who is looking for the ultimate form of consciousness through drug experimentation, his sort-of girlfriend Cindy(gellar), the calculating and very smart but-maybe-in-just-a-little-over-her-head daughter of a mob boss, and his philosophy professor and lover Chesney(JLA). Allen's life changes when his parents home in Kansas, is hit by a tornado and, in what has to be the very definition of the phrase ""Deus ex machina"", they do not have tornado insurance. In Kansas. For real. However weak this pitiful plot device is, and believe me I almost shut this movie off right then and there, it does get the real plot going, which turns out to be fantastic. Allen, seeking to ease his parents' financial woes, take the advice of his philosophy professor to ask his girlfriend's father for money. Initially he is turned down, but Cindy informs him that all he needs to do is shave a few points off of an upcoming game and the money is his. After staying up all night debating the issue with himself, Allen receives a morning visit from a chemistry major friend who brings with her the original formula for LSD stuffed into sugar cubes, the way they were done in the 60's experiments. These events shape the rest of the film, taking us through a wild and extremely vivid acid trip that sees Cindy and Allen both being pursued by 2 federal agents who are apparently a couple working undercover on Cindy's dad, and who, coincidentally, are sexually involved with Chesney. All of these relationships work in rather manipulative ways, except for seemingly the relationship between student and professor, which seems genuine. The ending, while it may anger some, leaves a bit up to interpretation, unless of course you do about 3 minutes of research on LSD and Thorazine. Each cast member plays their part very well, especially the 2 female leads, the directing is not without its flaws but overall is very unique and very well done. This movie might have made a few more dollars and gotten some better reviews had they spent more time utilizing focus groups and marketing executives, but thankfully for those who are lucky enough to see this film and intelligent enough to enjoy it, they did not.",1 "Radio talk show advisor finds himself obsessed with his ex girlfriend, stalks her and then begins to see one of her friends, to make her jealous. (?) Meanwhile his friend and co worker becomes involved with the ex and complications arise from their respective jealousies and compulsive behavior.

Smoothly done and fast paced with a good cast headed by Settle.

Worth renting.",1 "a very underrated film by the author of jarassic park. susan day looks sooo good in it. this film gets better on second viewing. there are some problems, like why ARE the girls getting killed but it's a keeper and i wish it was in dvd. i'd buy",1 "The film is not all bad, it has it's charm but the good parts are too few and far between. The acting is generally very unconvincing, still Bai Ling and Alec Newman are more or less OK most of the time. Parry Shen is awful and overacts all the time, a shame since he has a big role in the movie.

The story is weak with terrible plot holes. The emotional development is rushed and very hard to relate to. Bai Lings hard core assassin with a yearning for romance feels like two characters pushed into the same person.

The CGI is very sub-par for a movie made in 2007, I've seen Xbox 360 games with more realistic graphics.

The movie seems to rely entirely on Bai Lings push-up costumes and she is heavily exploited throughout the movie.

The worst part, however, is the pretentious artsy cuts and slow scenes that wants to make this movie into a cult classic, all of which feels embarrassing considering the apparent weaknesses of the narration, pacing, acting and CGI.

Watch it if you're a sucker for the genre, like I am. But keep your fast forward button handy.",0 "When I discovered that David E. Kelley wrote the script for Gillian, it's flaws seem to have made a bit more sense for while I've rarely been privy to such notable TV shows like The Practice, Boston Legal, and Chicago Hope, it became clear that writing dramas that don't pertain to law or medicine isn't his forte and the result is a film in which no elements really work.

Of the seven primary characters in Gillian, only three really matter: David (Peter Gallagher), a man who, after two years, still isn't over the death of his wife Gillian (Michelle Pfieffer); Rachel (Clare Danes), his daughter, whose relationship with her father isn't too estranged; and Esther (Kathy Baker), David's sister-in-law, who's determined to remove Rachel from David's care for fear it is unhealthy for the girl. The remaining characters bring little substance to the film. Paul (Bruce Altman), Esther's husband, is aware of his wife's intentions and quietly tolerates his them despite objections while simultaneously voicing his sexual frustrations in the presence of young beautiful women such as Cindy (Laurie Fortier), Rachel's friend, who's equally frustrated and so bored that she uses her sex appeal to taunt men for fun. Kevin (Wendy Crewson), is an acquaintance of Esther and Paul's who was brought by them (unbeknownst to her and David) to the family's gathering for no other reason than to take David's mind off Gillian. Upon this realization, Kevin learns that her presence is unneeded despite being amiably tolerated (at best) by everyone else, especially Esther, who spends much of the first half of the film using Kevin as her pawn to convince David to get over Gillian. Fortunately, Kevin's knowledge that she's unneeded dissuades her from doing anything more than just being present throughout the film. Finally, there's Gillian who appears as an apparition just to remind us of how un-over her David really is and that ""Rachel comes first,"".

The basic conflict of the story lies in Esther's belief that David's perpetual grief has made him an unsuitable parent for Rachel, which she bases solely on a slip in Rachel's grades. Rachel doesn't think so, which is why she defends her father. But the conflict for viewers revolves around Esther, who cannot sympathize at all with David's grief which pertains entirely to the death of her sister! What is wrong with this woman that she's adamant about about speeding up his grief process by threatening to take his daughter away from him despite proclaiming to care for him and not sparing a moment of heartache for the loss of her sister? We never find out and after a night during which Rachel goes to bed drunk and has a nightmare featuring Gillian, the conflict is resolved when Rachel decides to go live with Esther and Paul and ""let her mother be dead,"". Further (and most predictable) resolution occurs during the final 10 minutes when David decides to get over Gillian, move in the Paul and Esther, and start putting Rachel first. It's far too little too late.

Since Gillian does contain a good cast with a notable performance from Danes, I gave it four out of ten stars but the talents of these people are ultimately lost in this poorly written melodrama that might elicit some tears and sighs from the audience, but is mostly a film about a rivalry between in-laws that is devoid of the compassion usually felt after the death of a loved one.

P.S. By the way, David E. Kelley, stick to televised legal and medical dramas. Your talents and know-how as a writer and producer are most obvious and bankable in those fields.",0 "First of all, I have to tell I mainly watched this movie because the special effects was told to be made by the FX group and the poster was very promising about them. I've seen the uncut version. And if the uncut version is that terrible that it was, how terrible could the ""cut"" version be? It's not a horror movie, though it's full of gory scenes, and it's not a horror comedy, 'cause there's nothing funny in it. I supposed to see a movie where Virus (with Dustin Hoffman) and the melting scene of senator Kelly from the x-men are combined. Or something like that. But there was nothing like this in the whole movie. From the idea of the three stage (hallucination, organ failure, body melt) a far far better movie could be made by a talent director. I only gave three stars to the three stage, but I only recommend this if you think the gore makes a horror movie. And more gore you can see the better the movie is. But if you think that really good horror movies are like ""The Thing"", ""Alien"" or ""Prophecy (1979)"", avoid!",0 "Normally speaking, the name Edgar Ulmer conjures up the idea of a good, solid film made on a shoestring budget. That was the tough part of working on Poverty Row during Hollywood's Golden Age.

I say normally speaking because Ulmer missed this one completely. He was undone by a lousy storyline and a humdrum script, and by enough plot contrivances to sink several pictures. Sorry to see Warren William down on his luck or out of money, but he turns in a better-than-routine performance in a thankless role. Jimmy Lydon also passes muster, and his career was such that he took whatever was offered after a good run in the Henry Aldrich series.

Anyone looking for a recommendation for Strange Illusion must look elsewhere as I feel it lacked plausibility and clarity. I think the fan base overrated this one.",0 "I'd heard Jamie Kennedy was funny. Whoever reported that was on crack. Kennedy makes Pauly Shore seem like Laurence Olivier.

I brought my 2 sons (11 and 13) to see this movie because one thought it looked funny. I'm a pushover for going to movies with them. I figure a movie with a PG-13 rating will not be crude or offensive, simply it will have a few curse words and possibly some implied sex.

I think I laughed once and thought my sons were laughing a little early on. When they got to the part about teaching the formerly comatose break dancer some moves for getting with his love interest (using a short fat Hispanic ""actor"" with a wig and bra as a sex doll -- he looked like Chewbacca with that wig. They showed him how to grope and squeeze his ""boobs"".), I was utterly offended because of what my children were seeing. I was about to tell my family we were leaving, when my 11 year old asked, ""Can we GO, now?""

The rating was wrong. There should be a rating for offensive, insulting, pointless, no redeeming values. I only wish I had seen a manager on my way out so I could have gotten a refund. This is only the second movie I have ever walked out on in my life.

I agree with several of the other reviewers. I felt that my evening out was worse than ruined (we bought 4 tickets, 2 drinks and a tub of popcorn -- easily $40). Time was stolen from us. If I were a fighting man, I would already have beaten the crap out of the people who released this movie. I also agree that the positive comments could only be coming from people who made money on the movie, or who are friends. This ca-ca stinks. ""Lex Luthor"" Rosenbaum was fine in it. Christopher MacDonald must have been paid a lot to stoop this low. The love interest was good looking.

GARBAGE GARBAGE GARBAGE. I'm getting mad just thinking about how awful it was and how much it cost for that lesson. I will never watch a Jamie Kennedy movie again, unless he's uncredited and I didn't know he was in it. If this movie comes on TV and you have a chance to run away, do so. I'd rather watch a political debate with toothpicks under my fingernails.",0 "I found Toback's earlier film Black and White mildly diverting, so gave this one a whirl. The scuttlebutt was that this was Neve Campbell's best (and sexiest) performance so far. Well, that much may be true-ish, but the rest of this film is, in places, almost unwatchably bad.

Most of the characters (or should I say caricatures - take the Italian mogul: did anybody find this man even remotely believable?) are without a shred of originality, and in the case of Ford, bear virtually no resemblance to human beings of the sort you or I might actually meet. It may be that his relentless hustling is *intended* to show him as a pathetic individual - but there is a fine line between depicting characters we may not like but in whom we can invest some interest as to their fate; and, as happens in this film, showing people who are irredeemably ghastly, and about whose fate we don't give a toss.

In Black and White, Mike Tyson had a very funny cameo, in which Robert Downey Junior's character tries to seduce him. Here, it looks as if Toback has simply raided his address book and shoehorned as many celebrity cameos as he could into what passes for the plot. Ooh, look, there's Lori Singer! Wow, there's Mike Tyson (again). Ooh, that really is Damon Dash! Toback's own performance as the ""hilariously"" named cross-cultural enabler is pure smugness in a bottle. The only honest moment is when he confesses to wanting to get into Neve Campbell's knickers. We can only speculate as to whether that is a case of art imitating life.

And Neve Campbell? Yes, she is good in this. She gets some decent dialogue to get her teeth into and delivers it with aplomb. I still think Wild Things is a better showcase for her talent.

The incident towards the end of the film was certainly unexpected; but then again, any idiot can make unexpected things happen in a film. The trick is to work up to it in *some* way. Toback is either incapable of doing this, or simply can't be bothered. The dénouement left me shrugging: so what? Who cares about these cardboard cut-outs?",0 "I agree with those who commented that ""The Jar""(1964) was one of the best episodes in the Hitchcock TV series. I'm actually more a fan of those ""tales of the unknown"" type of anthology series,(like Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Night Gallery, etc.). Since Hitchcock's show always seemed to concentrate more on murder/suspense than the supernatural, I found this particular story to be a refreshingly creepy departure from all those Hum-Drum Who-Dun-its! I'm not saying that this story actually contains supernatural elements, but it certainly does suggest them. It was like watching some kind of nightmarish version of those 60's ""rural"" comedies, I loved seeing Mr Haney and Goober, and others trying to guess what was in the jar. (Heck, I almost expected Jethro and Gomer to make an appearance). Much like the characters in the story, the TV viewer finds himself literally glued to the screen, just dying to know what the heck that thing is in there! Now, I haven't seen this episode for decades and I would give my right arm to see it again, but alas, I can't locate a DVD or even a VHS tape featuring this lost classic. Can anyone help?",1 "Charles Bronson plays a liberal, mild-mannered architect. His wife (Hope Lange) is murdered and his daughter is gang-raped into a near-comatose state by a gang of thugs (one played by then unknown Jeff Goldblum!). He slowly becomes a vigilante--going out late at night and shooting and killing any muggers and thieves that attack him. Somewhat unrealistically he's attacked every single night he goes out--was NY THAT bad in 1974? He becomes a media hero and police detective Vincent Gardenia is assigned to stop him.

Interesting movie--on one hand you're all for Bronson and, on the other, you're disgusted with what he's doing. Both sides of the issue are presented but not dealt with in much depth--this IS a Charles Bronson movie after all! Film is dated (NY has gotten much safer since this came out) but is still powerful.

Bronson gives a bad performance which somewhat diminishes the films impact, but everybody else is great--especially Lange and Gardenia. And look for Olympia Dukakis and Christopher Guest (very young and handsome) in small roles.

Only complaint--the murder/rape--it's way too graphic and disturbing. It's hard to watch today--I can only imagine the impact in 1974.

Avoid the sequels--they're all violent killings and nothing else. All the moral issues brought up in this movie are gone.",1 "Italian horror legend Lucio Fulci (1927-1996) did a great amount of atmospheric and wonderful Spaghetti horrors during his prolific career, his masterpieces being Zombie Flesh-Eaters (1979), The Beyond (1981), The House by the Cemetery (1982) and Don't Torture a Duckling (1972) among many other more or less interesting and noteworthy films from the horror or other genres. His masterpieces have wonderful soundtracks by composer Fabio Frizzi, great cinematography by Sergio Salvati and the kind of surreal and infernal ultra gory imagery that will stay inside the mind especially when experience for the first time. But his career has the other side, too, these ultra braindead cheapies that are so painful to watch especially if one appreciates the director at all.

Demonia is Fulci's attempt in the nunsploitation genre, at least kind of. It has a historical background as a bunch of Sicilian nuns were brutally killed in the convent as they had practised something the others judged as evil and satanic. This is shown as a flashback, just like in his The Beyond, but so much less effectively and it comes clear in this very beginning that even the gore effects are very bad and stupid in the film. Then we jump to the present day as some group of archeologists search for treasures from the historic times (if I'm correct, the mentioned nun killing took place in the sixteenth century) and naturally neither the villagers nor the raising evil spirits like this too much and soon the bloody killings begin...as well as all the possible errors and negative sides a film can have.

There are hardly any positive things to be said about this piece of cinematic garbage. None of the Fulci magic is left. Some of the dream sequences and close-ups of frightened eyes remind me distantly of Lucio Fulci but still, there's nothing in the imagery that would save the film. The ending has some nightmarish scenes and images as the nuns return from the beyond, but The Beyond shows how great that kind of scenes can be. The music is also horrible and probably taken from a commercial or something like that. It doesn't create atmosphere and terror as Frizzi did but is there in order to make the silent scenes not to look so dull, which they still are as well as the whole film. What's there is the graphic gore and very boring 80 minutes.

The film almost gives a new meaning to the phrase ""dead boring"" as it has some laughably long dialogue sequences which almost force to stop the viewing. The characters are uninteresting, but fortunately don't over-act too much, the plot is nothing too special (but could have been interesting if made by Fulci ten years earlier) and every single element in the piece screams in tired pain as does the viewer too. The film also looks very amateurish as if done by a bunch of amateurs and it is no wonder this didn't even have a theatrical run in Italy.

The gore scenes are also very bad and the effects don't even look real as they did in the classics, created by Gianneto de Rossi. They are quite sadistic and graphic at times, the ""body splitting"" and tongue impaling, being the most memorable examples, but still they are not as haunting as in the earlier films that were also effected by the soundtrack and visuals. Now there's plenty of gore but hardly any impact. They show more than Deodato did in Cut and Run, for example, but as everything around the scenes sucks, it is hard to take the horror shocks too seriously. The butcher house sequence, however, is a pretty nasty as an idea and has some interest in it, too, and that is also easily among the film's ""most interesting"" parts. And the guy really has a tongue that makes Gene Simmons look green in comparison.

Demonia is a very, very bad film even as a fan of Lucio Fulci. It has practically nothing to make it worth recommending, only those very few distant things mentioned above and I think it is rather impossible to watch this film again. It is so bad, as unfortunately was the state of Fulci's career when he was forced to make films like these. 2/10 and very barely so.",0 "Goodnight God Bless was much better than I expected after seeing the preview that appears before the film on the VHS version. The movie does have quite an intense and shocking (if not bloody) opening sequence. This is a decent mix of religious horror, cop drama and straight-up slasher 80's films with an original premise and some believable acting from unfamiliar faces, namely Emma Sutton in the lead role. A maniac is murdering people and witnesses claim its a priest. Some genuine suspense, not much gore or skin, but entertaining. If you enjoyed Maniac Cop or God Told Me To then check it out. Not the best of B-Movies but worth a look.",1 "All right, bring on the pain. Now let's start right off the bat with no nudity. I happen to know that those side show strip shows showed skin, if not they wouldn't be popular. I mean it was 1967, Ed Wood even had nudity in his films by now. Now let's look over the action in this movie, there isn't any. Most of the movie is just Jade with long speeches about how bad her life was and long speeches about how she's going to change that rotten luck and long speeches about how much she hates the freak show. My God, we get it. You're a gold digging skank and you want money in order to make your life better. Another thing, they act like the owner was rich, if he was rich he wouldn't be living in a big house not acting like a bloody nomad wracking in the little money from rubs like real carnies do. Ownership of a Carnival or Fun Fair isn't worth killing over, which she does near the end and the freaks get together for revenge. They turn her into a freak. None of the ""freaks"" has supernatural powers, so how the hell could humans to that to a person. It's impossible, as a TALES FROM THE CRYPT episode, it might have worked. 30 minutes and that includes a speech about her crappy past and how she's going to do better. Plus, they might have explained how she was turned into a freak. Long story short, bad characters, bad ending that makes no sense equals a really bad movie. THE RASBERRY.",0 "This production, build on real danish crime stories, is a experience through excellent directing, acting on all levels and has a nerve not often seen in crime series. Every episode is a thrill because it's seems like the hole team believe that ""this is my life right now - this murder or murders are MY responsibility to solve"" and the output is brilliant.

As a viewer, you just have this wonderfully filling of being entertained cause it feels like their focus, on purpose or not, lie on that they WONT you to have a good time...:o) Don't miss this one, it's just right under 'Band of brothers' quality and is a ""must have seen"" experience - What a wonderful crime time !",1 "As a kid, I didn't like it probably because he wasn't with Chong getting stoned all the time. But having just watched it as a standalone piece, I found it quite bittersweet and enjoyable. Sure the story was a bit predictable but the movie did have a decent flow and never seemed to bore. The acting was pretty decent and there were plenty of laughs (again it's not slapstick stoner humor) Also keeping in mind that Chong usually directed their films, Cheech did a good job first time out. I think we'd all like to see them reunite, but lets just appreciate the material they've left us and leave it at that. So if you want to see Cheech branch out on his own, I'd suggest checking this out.",1 After watching this film I had to wonder one thing. Why was this over two and half hours long? A very simple and pedestrian story of a few relationships between a group of adults. Nothing out of the ordinary or unique about the story and it's woefully too long! I did like all the actors especially Jeanne Balibar who is the central character but I would like them even more in a more interesting film and the main problem comes from the fact that the script doesn't really let viewers know who these characters really are and instead the focus is just on their immediate problems. This had the real potential of being something really interesting but unfortunately the story doesn't allow for some needed details.,0 "A friend has been insisting for over a year that I see this movie. I finally shelled out my hard earned money and all I can wonder is why bother? It's quite surprising that this film scored a 7.6 out of 10 with viewers. Director Troy Duffy is a film buff but the quality of this work is lacking. The main problem that I have with this film is the meandering plot. The script wanders aimlessly from one incident to the next without any real plot development. The conventional use of flashbacks and slow motion become rather mundane. After the first 10 minutes of the film I began the elaborate process of matching scenes from the Boondock Saints to other films. I think that director Troy Duffy should really consider the script for his next work and ditch the cinematic pitfalls that plague this film. Character and plot development will go a lot further than the use of the F-word 50 times in one scene. After a while it just becomes tiresome. The film ended with some rather interesting faux documentary interviews with the typical man on the street. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, it was too little too late. If you want to see a film that deals with the same subject matter then rent Leon: The Professional. Don't waste yr time with The Boondock Saints.",0 "As soon as I saw Neil sit on the chair and pick up a guitar I thought ""This is going to be great"" and It did not let me down.

Through the coarse of the night he plays Guitar and Piano and Harmonica.

The best song was ""Looking Forward"".

NEIL IS GREAT",1 "What a phenomenally horrible film! I am completely and utterly surprised at two things - 1) The relatively high rating and 2) the relatively successful careers the two lead characters have had. The girl was OK, I guess, but Billy Joe! Oh jeez. I don't think my judgment is too heavily influenced by the god awful hillbilly accents either.",0 "This is essentially a slapstick farce in the vein of POLICE ACADEMY (they were all popular around then weren't they?) only it was made in 1996 and seems like a film from the '80s (that's how cheap the quality of the film is). It stars Corey Haim and Jim ""Ernest"" Varney (R.I.P.) but isn't funny at all, with revoltingly bad performances and ""jokes."" It's stupid, crude, unfunny and downright hard to watch at times. Saw it years ago on HBO, and don't plan to ever again.

This is the sort of movie that you wish could be burned. The plot (if there is one) is basically just a lot of chaos at a snowboard academy in the middle of nowhere - sort of like OUT COLD meets POLICE ACADEMY meets something else that's really dumb.

Don't bother. Please.",0 "Anh Do's constant spruiking in the media about what a come-from-nothing, refugee, westy battler he is, which by the way is true, only serves as a cop out. Positioning himself to get away with making such a crap movie. While the background of struggling underdog is certainly there, make no mistake, the accolades and experience are certainly there too. Khoa was widely praised for his previous film, ""The Finished People"" for which he won the independent spirit award and was also named as ""Young Australian Of The Year"" and Anh was also ""Stand Up Comedian Of The Year"" a few years back and is an accomplished stand up comic. My question being that with all this industry cred and decent financial backing and casting... couldn't they have put together a kick butt film. Answer: Apparently not.",0 "Surprisingly tame (at least in the version I saw, titled ""Island of Despair""), boring schlock from Jess Franco, whose direction is, once again, pretty terrible (example: we get a flashback regarding the events that led a VERY MINOR supporting character to prison - and Franco inexplicably keeps it going for about 20 minutes!). Luciana Paluzzi's role is little more than a cameo. (*)",0 "It's good sometimes to be reminded we need low budget indie films to tell us warm, genuinely human stories. Despite poor production values wonderful performances shine through here. Most notable is Bill Henderson giving the performance of his life. Mainstream films offer so few strong emotional roles to the elderly (as opposed to pap like The Crew or Space Cowboys) that it's nice to see Bill shine. When I saw the premier screening at Toronto International Film Festival it received 3 standing ovations, one especially for Henderson, who was overwhelmed with joy to receive it.

I look forward to this film coming to town again so I can see it a second time after post-production.",1 "Lon Chaney plays Alonzo, a supposedly armless knife thrower with a gypsy circus. He DOES have arms though (one with two thumbs)--he just straps them to himself. He then uses his arms to rob jewels at the towns they play in. He loves Nanon (Joan Crawford). But he strangles her ridiculously cruel father to death one night. She doesn't see his face but notices one of the hands has two thumbs...He has his arms amputated...but she falls for circus strongman Maldabar (Norman Kerry).

Not really a horror film (as it's often called)...more of a tragedy. The plot is OK (and not as convoluted as my synopsis makes it sound :)) and the direction is solid but uninspired (Tod Browning has always been overrated). It's worth seeing for Chaney and Crawfords acting. Crawford is incredible--so young, beautiful and full of life. Chaney is just incredible--the expression on his face when he tries to hide his anger and sadness at Kerry is truly extraordinary. He does carry on the sneering a little too much (I started giggling at it towards the end) but that's a minor complaint.

The only version I've seen is on TCM and it IS short (less than an hour), but it's the exact same one I saw back in the late 1980s when revival theatres were showing it. And it SEEMS complete to me--there are no gaps in story or continuity.

So, well worth catching. One of Chaney's best.",1 "Predictable, hilarious treatment of the cult video game character. The actors are obviously amateur and the acting, well hammy. They are all a hoot as the title hero and the villains, respectively--watch out for their robot like body movements and feeble attempt at shock value with the ""gun in the mouth scene"". To its credit, the film has adequate production design, but that's about it. For a good laugh, check it out; for good action, look elsewhere.

The film quality is OK but the content is questionable. It plays like a video game with really really good graphics. Wouldn't be seriously considered for distribution. Scenes were basically ""cut and pasted"" from stuff already exists out there.

Needs unique items to impress. Again very predictable.",0 "We rented Vulgar after seeing the trailer. The trailer promised a sardonic View Askew property. It looked like it was going to be tragicomic, but fun. Lighthearted. Maybe a little like DEATH TO SMOOCHY meets Jay and Silent Bob... Jason Mewes was in the trailer, we thought he was gonna have a significant role. But - Jason Mewes is basically a speaking extra... its just a little cameo for him... and oh what a shock, this film is brutal, gritty, intense...

Even the many reviews here liken the film more to the temperament of Tarantino rather than Kevin Smith - who has a gentle edge at the end of the day.

We sat through it, feeling utterly unclean. I had to fast forward through the really violent parts, I could only really watch a little of them, they were really harrowing. Not my cuppa joe.

It was intense, but the redemption was dishonest and spotty, and I am not sure what the final message is meant to convey. We feel a little ripped off because the trailer really set us up to expect something else.

Bryan Johnson and Brian O'Halloran are better together than any of these other reviews give them credit of. They have good chemistry and I'd like to see them buddy up again in a more mainstream storyline.

I don't feel like our watching this film was a complete waste of time, but I'm really wondering how we managed not to turn it off before the bitter end, especially since the ending was not exactly satisfying.

One last comment, the film really stirs people up. Scroll through these comments, I've never seen such a load of really verbose comments. Ever.",0 "......Eh, well at least at my household anyways. I have always preferred Square's other games than just the obnoxiously repetitive FF series.

I would rather deal with a plot that has to do with deep spiritualism, the nature of human and human-like beings, creative magical system (the spell out your mantra system), and plenty of strange and diverse cast of characters with distinct and deep personalities of his or her own; rather than deal with the Teeny-Bopping angst of fitting in, endless cinema and very little gameplay. The only gripe is that even though the create-a-spell system was interesting concept, but the characters had no special abillities of their own. Oh well, at least outside of the gameplay, the characters are likable.

I like how Rudra no Hihou balances out different formats as well. As serious as the game was, at least they balance out with humor, GOOD HUMOR!

It was also good for it's morals as well. Rudra no Hihou like many classic RPGs of its time did not talk down to gamers nor underestimate their intelligence for that matter. I my honest opinion, this game should be re-relased legally.

Now Rudra is dubbed in English online and is ready to play.

P.S. I think Riza and Foxy are far cuter and more tolerable than Tifa or Lulu.",1 The sumo ring on the beach when they imitate the game made of cardboard. I will never forget that scene for the rest of my days. How Kitano ever thought to enter that in the middle of this serious movie is beyond me. I don't know anyone else that has seen this movie and I needed to share. Also the suicide at the end threw me.....why kill yourself after taking all of the assholes out? He could have still retired like he wanted. Was it guilt for the young guy that got killed on the beach? I don't know but I have a feeling that Kitano would want me to answer the questions myself. If anyone has any insight or would like to recommend some other Beat movies let me know.....,1 "Brian De Palma's so called ""film noir"" has all the aspects of a great film: detectives, guns, murder, a beautiful blonde, an Oscar winning brunette, and a boxing match. It involves violence, money, pimps, porn, and ""the most notorious murder in California history"". Sadly though, the movie just doesn't cut it.

The Black Dahlia isn't about murder, or guns, or pimps or porn. The Black Dahlia is about the new American dream: to sleep with Scarlett Johansson. The Dahlia isn't even introduced until a third of the movie is over, the longest 45 minutes I've ever experienced in cinema. A good hour of the movie doesn't have anything to do with the plot, and watching it is just like watching paint dry. Much of this wasted screen time is attributed to the relationship between Sgt. Leland ""Lee"" Blanchard (Aaron Eckert) and Officer. Dwight ""Bucky"" Bleichert (Josh Hartnett), where we see their transformation from enemies to partners to friends unrealistically fast, which is unrealistically cliché.

But the biggest downside of the movie is Josh Hartnett. What Hartnett is doing as a serious actor is beyond me, but his performance is a wooden as they come. It is unbelievable that he was considered for the role of Bleichert, and the fact that he was cast really makes me lose faith in Hollywood's mainstream actors. His noir-ish voice-over was like reading words off the script, making it feel less and less like the artsy film De Palma intended it to be.

The only redeeming feature of the flick was Mia Kirshner who had about one minute of screen time as the Dahlia, but was the most memorable character. Oh, yeah, and we do get to see Hilary Swank's ass.

But overall, The Black Dahlia is just another bad film to cap off the summer. It is extremely confusing with all its pointless sub-plots, and just gets annoying at the end. It's one of those movies you consider walking out of, and I counted down the minutes to what I thought would be a climactic finale, but was just a series of long monologues and unclear speaking. In the end, we learned little about the Dahlia, and were pretty much back where we started, except for a few missing comrades.",0 "It's a shame - all the research, all the interviews, and all the back story would have simply made an entertaining biopic of a larger-than-life man who's actually had an impact. Instead, she magnifies insignificant details of a man's life that demonstrate not Moore's missteps but her own.

She tries time after time to show that Moore's films aren't flawless scientific reports on their subjects. Is it a surprise that a film might not be a perfect, exacting list of empirical data? Moore's films have always been under extreme scrutiny, specifically Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and now Sicko. Moore is open and honest - he refutes each and every claim of error on his website, backed up with links to the official reports and sources for his information and facts. So the attacks change to ""Yeah, but Moore's film made is SEEM like..."", that his films somehow imply things not offered into evidence. I think everyone's hope is that NOTHING is taken at face value - if it is, the fault is with th ignorant viewer.

Much is spent demonstrating that his ""image"" of being poor, hapless, slovenly and angry is manufactured. In fact, as a whole I consider the entire piece to be an ad homing attack on Michael Moore's work via attacking Michael Moore. It's a tool used by debaters lacking actual evidence.

Going back 20 years to the filming of ""Roger & Me"", the filmmakers are unable to find confirmation that Ted Koppel had canceled coverage of a town hall meeting (a quick humorous mention in the movie is that the satellite news van was stolen so Koppel's report couldn't be broadcast live). This movie then goes so far as to convict Moore of actually manufacturing not one, but all elements of the story. There WAS no town hall meeting. No news van. No Ted Koppel report. They even filmed a phony news reported commenting on the town hall meeting, Ted Koppel and the stolen news van. Of course, nobody mentions this in 1989 when the movie is seen and scrutinized by millions. But 20 years later, they can't find evidence so it must be a fraud. When a young girl pro Bush was ask if she see the ""Fahrenheit 9/11"" the answer was just great...NO. but I am a sensitive person and I cry when I saw ""Saving Private Ryan"", witch mean: ""I don't know what is about but I know something else and I proud about""",0 "Absolutely brilliant, occasionally queasy-making, gut-bustingly funny comedy. Matt Lucas and David Walliams have created a cast of curmudgeons and ne'er-do-wells that are astonishing in their range -- Lucas, in particular, melts into his various roles with an almost eerie changeability. The humour is actually relatively simple (a tiny man with giant props! the PM has a gay aide with a crush on him! a hypnotist manipulates his friends and neighbours!), but is executed with such subtlety and wickedness that it never gets old. Some of the characters, such as David, the only gay in the village, are destined to be cult classics, and deservedly so. Only complaint: some of the skits have the usual faint whiff of misogyny we've come to expect in British sketch comedy. But I have to admit that even as an inveterate feminist I tend to chalk these moments up to ""cultural differences,"" and keep watching and laughing all the same. Please keep making ""Little Britain"" till the end of time!",1 "This is such a beautiful movie. I could go on and on about how good it is but I don;t want to bore anyone.

""Splash"" is the story of a love between a new york Bachelor and a mermaid he meets in Cape Cod. She saves him from drowning and eventually meets up with him in the big apple. He doesn't know she is a mermaid so basically the rest of the movie is about her trying to conceal the fact that she is not human,while they are in the meantime falling in love. Tom Hanks, Daryl Hannah, Eugene Levy and John Candy give fantastic performances and the New York images are just breathtaking:)

Katrina",1 "It's too bad, really, that the horror anthology is not more common or popular these days. Amicus Productions came up with some mighty fine ones in the 1960's and 1970's, and the form continued into the 1980's with such entertaining fright flicks as ""Creepshow"", ""Cat's Eye"", and ""The Offspring"". However, studios still don't have as much enthusiasm for these kinds of movies as fans such as I would like.

Dennis Bartok, screenwriter and longtime programmer at the American Cinematheques' Egyptian Theatre, came up with this reasonably enjoyable horror anthology that unites an intriguing (to say the least) assortment of directors. It was this single facet that drew me to the picture, and each director gets to do a different story in a different style.

Basically, we have an aged tour guide (the wonderful veteran Henry Gibson) leading some tourists to a run-down former movie set where a diabolical director filmed his most notorious film. The disparate group becomes trapped in the set and learns that they will each have to tell their own very personal horror stories in order to get through their situation. This wrap-around segment is directed by Joe Dante of ""Piranha"", ""The Howling"", and ""Gremlins"" fame. It features a non-speaking cameo by one of his longtime regulars, actor Dick Miller (too bad he didn't get to do more).

The first story, ""The Girl with Golden Breasts"", comes courtesy of actress Phoebe (Rachel Veltri), who relates the story of a breast enhancement surgery with truly horrific complications. Far and away the silliest story in the movie, it does however deliver sex, nudity, and gore in an enjoyably campy way. It's directed by Ken Russell, who's known for flamboyance in his films such as ""Tommy"", ""Altered States"", and ""Crimes of Passion"". Look for the director in a cameo as ""Dr. Lucy""(!).

Next, in ""Jibaku"", married couple Henry (Scott Lowell) and Julia (Lara Harris) have their Japanese vacation (literally, a vacation in hell) exposed. Combining animation and other horrific special effects imagery, it's highly unlike anything that director Sean S. Cunningham (""Friday the 13th"") has done before. Seeing his name on this, I found it engaging that he was lured back to a directors' chair, and he comes up with a surreal, creepy, and intense shocker.

Screenwriter Leo (John Saxon) next gets to tell his story in ""Stanley's Girlfriend"". Based on director Stanley Kubricks' early years in Hollywood, it stands apart from the other entries in this anthology. Directed by Monte Hellman (""Two-Lane Blacktop"", ""The Shooting"", ""Ride in the Whirlwind"", and ""Cockfighter""), it's a low-key mood piece with good acting and a nice Old Hollywood feeling.

Finally, Nathalie (Michele-Barbara Pelletier) unfolds the tale of ""My Twin - The Worm"", in which she reveals that her mother had a parasite - a tapeworm - in her body at the same time that she was pregnant. Instead of being repulsed by such knowledge, Nathalie more than anything feels something of a bond with her unlikely ""twin"". This tale is as creepy as the second and marks some good work by special effects expert John Gaeta (""The Matrix"") in a sound directing debut.

The denouement for this film is, unfortunately, too similar to other ""twist"" endings that I've seen, diminishing the overall effect a little.

But it's still an interesting and ambitious effort, with a generous array of talent in front of and behind the camera. Reportedly inspired by stories that were strange but true (!), the tales that Bartok came up with are pretty entertaining. The combination of sex, gore, shocks, and general all-around nastiness makes for a good little horror film.

7/10",1 "The Feeding was an interesting werewolf movie using the same effects from the howling with a little more fog to hide the wolf suit and continuity problems. Teenage campers and a forest ranger couple meet the wolf in the woods and fight for their lives. Some funny scenes and some good suspense, but nothing truly scary. Its set up like a B horror movie and it fulfills that niche very well. Most of the camera work was pretty dark, but it did the job. The acting left a lot to be desired, but not as bad as some B movies. Special effects were very rudimentary, but not too poorly done that they detract from the film. It is what it was meant to B.",1 "I guess I had to get past my snobbery to see that this film was OK,in the genre of the early ""Dirty Harry"" movies. The film is Greek tragedy, not Hollywood novel-turned-movie. I see Scott Wiper as a young Clint Eastwood or Scott Glenn. There was a certain dark humor at play in this movie, under the more obvious slapstick. With that all said, let's face the reality that Scott Wiper, like Eastwood and Glenn, is all sex all the time. The guy has that charisma and a body to back it up, even when the script gets a little bumpy. Lou Diamond Phillips, whose career also has its hormonal side, actually turns in a good performance as the complicated secret agent. Andre Braugher, while consistently earnest, seemed to be portraying the last six characters I've seen him play. I can understand why this film has gotten a fair amount of notice in the European market. It portrays a fantasy America, still routed in Wild West mores and justice.",1 "I wanted to like the movie, I really did. I know that the guy who did the movie has done some classics, movies that I enjoyed......and Bill Murray is in it, so I figured, how could I go wrong. Well, even he couldn't save it.

Wow.....I just don't understand how this movie has received the positive reviews that I have read on this site.

I got about a 1/3rd of the way through the movie and wanted to turn it off, but I stuck with it in hopes that it was going somewhere good......maybe it just started slow.

Nope! It went nowhere. The story was lame. The characters were boring. The movie was uninteresting and unfunny. What a total waste of time!!!!",0 "Acting? Not so hot, in fact quite poor. If you like Hollywood, you wont notice this. For the record, 'Mousehole' is pronounced locally as 'Mousall', not 'muzzle'. Accents were poor. Go to Cornwall if you don't believe me. Lots of continuity errors. Did I say the acting was poor? Over-acting, melodramatic stuff. Poorly made. How can all these reviews here like this movie? Lousy script too - did I watch the same movie? This thing is pretty much unwatchable - are you folks on prozac? This was like a bad silent movie. The melodramatic music/scenes in the early stages left us in no doubt as to the outcome. Not enough dialogue.

Lots wrong with this movie. Sorry.",0 "I was a 21 year old working as a projectionist in a neighborhood theater when this film was released and I had the opportunity to help get it up on the screen. This seemed like such a nice and enjoyable gem back then, with some scenes as breezy as a summer's day and others with a somewhat darker but thoughtful tone (themes of rejection and the sadness of separation). It was an early "" buddy movie"" shown pointedly in the cross-country journey that Snoopy takes with Woodstock. Some scenes are reminiscent of a Hope and Crosby ""road"" picture. There is a delightful song sung by Shelby Flint in the film....she would later sing another in the first rate animated film, The Rescuers. I actually tracked down a couple of her albums as a result. I don't have children, but I still think this is a delightful film and I have my own personal video copy. Good for all ages.",1 "This show is just not funny, and this is not just from the perspective of a straight male, but also from the perspective of someone who enjoys good humor, whether it be from a straight or gay person. This humor is not funny, and is actually too gay for it's own good. That may sound homophobic, but it isn't, and it will later be elaborated on.

In a Saturday Night Live/Madtv like sketch show, we are treated to may sketches featuring an all gay and lesbian cast. And to make matters even better, every sketch has something gay in it, making this show one of the gayest shows on television (this is not meant in a negative way, but instead a factual way).

Saturday Night Live has, for the most part, an all straight cast. The sketches can vary greatly, and every sketch isn't about a person being straight. With this show, every sketch is about guys being attracted to guys, or men in drag, or lesbian women. It's understood that this is a sketch show catering to homosexuals, but why must every sketch be about someone being gay. It's extremely repetitive. It would be like if every sketch on Madtv was about guys hitting on girls or trying to get with girls. This would be fine for one sketch, but there needs to be more. It's fine to have an all gay cast, but when every sketch relies on them acting gay for it's humor, there's a problem with the writing. On top of that, the performers just aren't very funny, adding to the dismalness of this show.

Unfunny actors with repetitive material adds up to a pretty horrible sketch show.

My rating: BOMB out of ****. 30 mins. TV14DLS",0 "With the work of South Korean filmmaker Kim Ki-Duk, the viewer has to accept some very fundamental ""flaws"" that inherently seem to be a part of his work in a practical sense. The production values are always cheap, the soundtrack music is always tacky, the acting is never more than at the most basic level, there are continuity errors... in a word, his films always seem low budget and as if everything were shot in one take. Also he has almost an insistence on breaching realism and lapsing into his own vague allegory. His characters never follow any kind of real internal logic, but rather act according to the scenario he conceives. All of these factors amount to the reason I don't think I will ever be able to consider any of his films true masterpieces.

That said, in return for accepting these inherent flaws, the viewer is rewarded with a candid, unadulterated look into the creative mind of a very interesting person. Kim Ki-Duk's vision is relentlessly idiosyncratic, but very consistent and pure. Watching his films, you gain direct access into his thoughts. This is not film-making by committee, this is ""auteurism"" in the truest sense. That in and of itself is such a rarity that his films are worth seeing for this reason alone. And this film, ""Bad Guy"", is probably the purest, most definitive example of Kim Ki-Duk's vision. All the preoccupations that manifest in his other work are here: The mute, inexpressive protagonist, the seeming obsession with prostitution and the degradation of women in general, and also the director's tendency to eventually lead his characters into an incomprehensible fantasy world. Whether or not the viewer is willing to accept these illogical flights of fancy is purely a matter of taste, but personally i find his work fascinating solely because it is so stubbornly idiosyncratic and fueled by a remarkably pure sense of creative expression.",1 "Before I got paid to photograph Hotels and Restaurants (advertising). I spent a good part of the eighty's and ninety's as a photographer in the Music industry. I've traveled with many bands doing tour photography and also was a contributor to many Music magazines. So I've been behind the scenes. Whenever I get a chance to watch these documentaries, esp Vh1 Behind the Music. I sit and watch them to see how much of it is a true realistic look at life in the music industry. I have to admit I think Vh1 Behind the Music is an excellent production (even seen myself in the background a few times). The difference between the Vh1 show and a documentary like All We are Saying (or babbling it should be). Is that Vh1 does their research and gives you an a full history and true account of the artist (good and bad) from beginning to the present. They make it interesting to the viewer to watch. Rosanna Arquette basically just sticks a camera in the faces of these artists and gives them this open forum to ramble on and on and on....30 Min's into it...I thought what is the freakin point of this? I'm falling a sleep here!

I loved hearing Steven Tyler at the very beginning of the film sitting at his mansion complaining about how his record label calls him to tell him his song that was worth a million dollars is now worth 12 cents...cause every ones downloading! But its certainly OK for him to allow the promoters and his record label  to rip his fans off by charging a $150 for an Aerosmith ticket and $20 for a Cd. That's very lame Steven. You have lost my respect.

Many artists in this production I've photographed. I didn't remember them babbling this much when I met them. Maybe..if she would have showed the full interviews or didn't cut away to so many at once. Each interview would have made more sense. The editing in this film is some of the worst I've ever seen. Unless they were trying to make a film that absolutely made no sense whatsoever, and wanted to bore everyone to the point of wanting to slice their wrist to end the pain of watching this very boring film. Then they did a great job...",0 "*SPOILERS* This is the single worst film I have ever seen, and by some distance. It starts off with terrible visuals of someone's head exploding, and at that point I thought it might be a funny film. I WAS WRONG! The next hour consisted only of pointless crap about a band being signed to a record label. Seriously, nothing else happened! It was just so boring! The plot was unveiled 5 minutes before the end, there was a tiny bit of zombie action (without much gore - just hearts on sticks!) and then it ended.

When I was about 5 years old I was taught that a story should have a beginning, a middle and an end. Whoever wrote this thing should rightfully be scrubbing toilets or shovelling poop for a living! I love bad films that are funny, but I just couldn't laugh at this. It was very boring and very annoying. If you suffer from depression, I urge you to get someone to tie your hands down before you watch this film!",0 "I was surprised to see the wide range of opinions in the other reviews of this movie, from ""terrible"" to ""brilliant"". I go with the former. From start to finish this movie is uninspired, unfunny and just plain silly.

The plot is a weak mixture of implausible and meaningless. Apart from once or twice, I laughed _at_ the movie, not _with_ the movie. The twist at the end doesn't explain much and just makes the movie that much more random.

This is a strong contender for the worst movie I've ever seen. Totally pointless.",0 "This movie is awful...it makes one blow chunks. I just rented this as I'm a Horror movie fan and this piece of Garbage is just that garbage. The plot was bad,the acting terrible,there was no gore,suspense or real thrills. If anyone out there just rents horror movies on stormy,dark nights to get scared as I do...avoid this film as you will not get any thrills from it...makes one appreciate the fast forward button on the VCR. Its a big turkey...need I say more. I'm not one to criticize films or nothing but this one stunk. The deaths were faked and predictable....my cat shadow can out act the actors in this flick. Is this the only work Yvonne DeCarlo(The Munsters)could get. Lets just say if I was an actor in this turkey I would not want to put my real name or my name on the credits. This is one of the worst films I've ever seen...we can't forget Howard the Duck. I think that ones got to be the worst one out there but this ones up there on that scale.",0 "fantastic film, the best ,not!! But it has its moments,my favorite is when zoltan hound of Dracula hopes out of his own dog sized coffin!!!i found this film on videocassette from local goodwill.hard shell case release from EMI .SWeet,the dog seems scary when they shine lights into its eyes,thats about the only special effect I saw hahaa,a cult classic in the making,lets see it has to be ten lines, well this was a turd of a film but gave me hope that I could create an Indy film better than this and release it.Wow, how did they ever get the green light on this turd.though the dog is a nice looking dog.I jsust cant picture a studio exec saying wow this is a truly gripping film.Was it put out asa joke?",0 Absolutely glorious series. All the actors in this series are in or have been in American films but they have always been underrated and are some of the best actors alive. There are more dames and knights than you can believe. Derek Jacobi is breathtaking in his performance. Sian Phillips is subtly evil. John Hurt as Caligula shines with madness. The sets are unbelievable considering the small budget they had. The most shocking thing is that everything in one sense or another is true. These people really did die these ways. It will take you completely out of your everyday life and deposit you in the world of the Romans.,1 "This show was amazing. An engaging, romantic, touching, and beautiful story about love, innocence, forgiveness, and tragedy; and how these feelings all correspond with each other in the relationships of the people who deal with them.

Elfen Lied had some of the best animation I've seen in a long time. The colors are vibrant, the character designs are superb, and the environments are well drawn and realistic. The animation flows very smoothly and it's a joy to behold.

The series is presented in both English and Japanese 5.1. The English voice actors did an actually decent job of representing the characters and there weren't very many ""painful"" listening moments in the dub. It's an understatement to say that the music is absolutely phenomenal. The opening theme ""Lilium"" is great and it really sets the emotional mood for the show; the song itself is gorgeous and is actually very touching in how beautiful it is. The rest of the music in the series, minus the ending theme, is also very touching and well composed.

I won't go on and explain the whole story behind Elfen Lied, i'll just kinda highlight the main points. The story is essentially about the characters finding out where they belong in the world and how they deal with the situations they're faced with. The show deals heavily with the concepts of love, romance, innocence, promises, discrimination, and acceptance. It essentially sums up with that despite all the evil that there is in this world, there is still innocence and love to be found.

The characters in Elfen Lied were superb. They all acted like anyone else would in their situation. They all changed according to their circumstances. They were all REAL characters that people can relate to; and they were very fulfilling to watch.

This anime will go down as one of the best in history because it speaks to the heart of the person watching it. It takes you into the world of the characters to where you can actually feel for them. Elfen Lied accomplishes what most anime doesn't, it actually hits you right in the heart and moves you.",1 "i think naf' said about gangster films in england.. but this is ""the movie"" it's amazing! it's kinda like a mix between guy richie and david lynch just without the bulls**t! it's a really brilliant! when u'll think u finally getting it.. even at the end... you'll than see once again that you wrong and this movie is even brilliant than you thought it is.. that this movie is one of the best movies i've ever saw.. i liked snatch and lsn2sb a lot! i gave them both 9 or 10.. but this one is da' best i saw in the genre",1 "Want to see a movie that leaves you uneasy, paranoid, makes you question the reality you're presented with? Scared to go out and scared to stay in? But at all cost, distracts you from mundane reality? This is one film that does that. Forget movies that rely on lavish helpings of gore and blood, gratuitous violence, habitual screaming and endless repetition of expletives. That's not scary any more. It was only ever shocking, really, and nowadays people seem to have become used to that. No, this is a French film. No clichéd devices such as explosions of discordant noise to startle you when you least expect it. Instead, something excruciatingly sinister somehow manages to silently creep out from this film, like a miasma. A chilling, clammy, atmosphere that's reinforced by subtle but compelling acting and directing. Did you hear a noise just then . . .?

I've seen this film only a few times over the years as an adult, but I was still left disturbed by it each time. I didn't exactly 'have to leave the light on' when I went to bed afterwards. But, let's say, it left a permanent impression on me. It's the way it's executed, you see. I'm too macho to admit to anything more. For connoisseurs of effective films of this genre, this is a must for the collection. You'll end up looking over your shoulder after seeing this film. Unless, of course, they come for you too . . . .",1 "If you enjoy suspending disbelief and you appreciated ""Gremlins"", then this new offering form executive producer Steven Spielberg and director Joe Dante is guaranteed to keep you thoroughly entertained for over two hours (though you won't believe you've been sitting down that long). This extremely lively comedy concerns the misadventures of inept supermarket assistant manager Jack Putter (Martin Short), who is accidentally injected with a microscopic pod which contains a crack pilot who was supposed to be exploring a rabbit. So while Jack is beside himself with fears of demonic possession (he's hearing the voice of pilot Tuck Pendleton - Dennis Quaid), he is being pursued by government agencies and ruthless criminals. It all might sound rather fantastic, and it is, in the best possible way! Comic genius Martin Short really makes this movie his own with some outrageous antics (not unlike Jerry Lewis) that carry scene after scene, hilariously. Second billing really should go to Kevin McCarthy (though his is a small role) for his eccentric portrayal of Scrimshaw, the megalomaniac criminal who is 'just in it for the money'. Also great is Wendy Schaal, a checkout chick who is a little unsure about whether she should be dating the erratic Jack. Dennis Quaid makes a rugged, handsome hero while his real life wife Meg Ryan is a pretty heroine, in one of her better roles. Other strong support comes from Fiona Lewis and Henry Gibson.

Director Dante and screenwriters Chip Proser and Jeffrey Boam (Proser wrote the original story) have a ball with the wild premise (based loosely on ""Fantastic Voyage"" - 1966) and milk the comedy aspect dry, whilst the Academy Award winning visual effects team recreate the inside of the human body spectacularly, and Jerry Goldsmith provides a very effective and at times rousing score.

""Innerspace"" is one of those movies that's loads of fun no matter how many times you see it! Several scenes are still riotously funny even for the fifth time. If only for Martin Short's manic performance and the brilliant special f/x, this picture is a must.

NB What looked like an opening for a definite sequel never did eventuate, or at least no yet!

Saturday, July 15, 1995 - Video",1 "I've been watching this every night it's on Cinemax recently. My favorite parts are when Fred is pointing the sub at Randy and when Fred reads the letter and says ""Sharktank."" I wish they used the part where the boss tells Red ""You don't have to tell me everytime you have to take a p**s,"" because I would have just lost it. I think another reason I like this so much is because I find Shawshank to be somewhat cliche and extremely manipulative (for creating loveable prisoners and for that sappy closing monologue). Don't get me wrong...I think Shawshank is very well done, but it has become overrated, and this is exactly what it needed.",1 "Parents, don't subject your kids to this cheaply made, poorly written crap!

This movie is just a commercial for Mystic, Connecticut in the guise of a GOONIES-type kids adventure movie. It will fail to entertain them. Why? How could a kids movie fail to entertain kids? By throwing in endless long shots of the town which try to make it appear beautiful (and fail).

One of the major characters is a kid who works on a fishing boat with his dad and befriends a new kid (named Jonah of all things) whose father works for the Navy. They discover a German water-mine and wind up hot on the trail to buried treasure. There's an evil archaeologist who wants the treasure too.

Kids have fun/adventure. Jonah must overcome a bully. There are light-weight family problems. It's all really lame and slow. Filmed in a Connecticut studio with obviously limited resources. The color quality is very poor (green is almost never shown). The story they tried to tell wasn't worth the pathetic effort put up to make it. I mean, the production quality is passable, but I've seen better stuff from bad TV-movies.

My vacation video from my trip to Mystic was more entertaining than this, so just don't bother. Show the kids WIZARD OF OZ, or any other kids movie made by professionals. This attempt belongs in the scrap heap.",0 "Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging, an attempt to cash in on the quirky British teen book of the same name...no wait...that was called 'Angus, Thongs and Full-frontal Snogging', my mistake. I know, that name is just so darn raunchy.

Anyhow, I saw nothing in the film which warrants a theatrical release. You'll find nothing here that you wouldn't find on any other teen girl series on CBBC. You have the awkward 14 year-old girl Georgia and her quest to find the hottest guy evarrr in time for her birthday party, helped by her bratty friends. Dramatic stuff right?

I wouldn't say there's anything necessarily wrong with this, I just don't see why it needed to be released in theatres. By the end, I'm like ""so what?""

Even on it's own level, everyone but pre-teen girls are going to be annoyed by the film and it's stereotypical view of British adolescent life. Basically, the characters have their priorities all wrong and don't learn a satisfactory lesson. This could be potentially harmful to it's audience, much worse than any violence or bad language, in my opinion. That leads me to my other main problem with the film: it doesn't know which tone it's going for. Georgia describes the love interest as a ""sex God"", a tad inappropriate considering that the furthest anyone gets is a good snog. If you had a film tackling issues of teen sexuality, that would be a film I would like to see. This is your average teeny girl nonsense which will be forgotten soon enough.

I don't recommend this to anyone but the target audience. If you are part of it, don't make your parents watch it.",0 "While reading the Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer in a coffee shop, the bored word processor Paul Hackett (Griffe Dunne) meets Marcy Franklin (Rosanna Arquette), and she gives her phone number to him. Close to midnight, Paul decides to call her and she invites him to visit her in the loft of her friend, the sculptor Kiki Bridges (Linda Fiorentino), in Soho. Paul gets a taxi and loses his money through the open window of the cab. Paul arrives in Kiki's place, where begins his surrealistic adventure along the night.

I do not know how many times I have seen this movie along my life, maybe ten times, but it still attracts me and now I have just seen it for the first time on DVD. I love it and it is one of my favorite cult movies. The surrealistic 'saga' of Paul Hackett trapped in Soho without means to return home is fantastic and fascinate me. The cast, direction, soundtrack and camera are excellent. I believe it is the best role and performance of Griffin Dunne in his career. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): 'Depois de Horas' ('After Hours (literally)')",1 "This was horrible. I remember that the original movie was mildly amusing, but this stinker left me disgusted. This is one movie where I was actually wanting the villains to win, because of the annyoing, constipated sounding screeching noises that ""Tum-Tum"" was making for karate yells and what not. I actually laughed when Loni Anderson said ""Rest in pieces"". The first two movies were cute, the third was...blech, but when a movie stars Hulk Hogan.... slow up on that, you've already lost all the money that you put into this flop; and then some.",0 "Having heard so much about it online, The Mad Death ultimately turned out to be a disappointment when I finally obtained it on DVD. The main highlights turned out to be its opening sequence and an eerie synthesizer score.

The main problem with the miniseries is that it is not particularly well written. Many of the characters are too dumb to care about, picking up animals that are clearly rabid even to an untrained eye, and not bothering to have animal bites checked out by a doctor. Furthermore, the film has a certain element of predictability about it, with many of the plot developments telegraphed in advance.

Moreover, there is a disturbing lack of violent animal attacks in the film. If one purchases a film called The Mad Death about a rabies epidemic, the least one would expect would be a good, violent mauling every fifteen minutes or so. Most of the violence here is directed toward the animals, mainly gunshots to the head.",0 I should have walked out. It started bad and it never improved. The actors completely overplay their roles and the added smart alec isn't this fun cuts doesn't seem convincing. While the movie have a few good ideas they are consistently badly implemented and the timing and acting doesn't do it any favours.

I think you will have to be American or the long time owner of a mustache to laugh of this one... It is that special kind of no fun humor that only really appeals to yanks. You know where everything is so obvious and overstated that any fun that could have been is thoroughly eliminated by overstating every point of the joke.,0 "Instead of watching this, just watch 8 1/2. The same themes and ideas are expressed, but 8 1/2 is beautiful and expressive. This movie, while referencing and showing clips to other movies, generally takes most of its inspiration from 8 1/2 and, honestly, I feel if I hadn't had watched 8 1/2 previously I wouldn't have been able to care about this documentary.

Another thing is that this documentary lingers in heavy close-up on Fellini's face a lot, which isn't composed well and is kind of annoying. About the only really good original imagery in the film is long takes of the Italian countryside, but even those aren't technically necessary... especially since Fellini and some of the others in the movie discuss how sometimes sets are more preferable anyway.

All I got out of this movie was the feeling that I could have much better spent my time watching one of the films presented in this essay. So I think I'll go do that now instead of lingering any longer on it.

--PolarisDiB",0 "Ten Inch Hero is a touching, elegant and sweet movie about people not quite so ordinary, and the masks they wear for each other without even knowing, without even wanting to. It's also a movie about tearing down the masks and - simply - finding what's really important.

The movie is worth watching at least several times. The dialog is witty and sharp, the plot elegantly constructed and absorbing, the music masterful (and funny, because it perfectly mirrors the plot and - surprisingly - brings comic relief in a few carefully chosen places), the filming beautiful and professional, and the actors good, funny and entirely believable.

Clea DuVall is, as usual, a quiet but very intense presence on the screen, yet the filmmakers don't let her steal the show entirely. Same goes for Jensen Ackles, the central ""fun"" character, who has quite a few superb moments that show both his comedic ability and enchanting subtlety. Alice Krige was a wonderful casting choice, and her presence (complimented by the music) transforms the scenes in funny and touching ways.

In other words, I want the DVD, and I want it right now!",1 "Pants, baggy, sweaty pants. Not even good for the WWII 'pump up the home front so they buy bonds' circuit. It seems like a combination of two scripts, neither of them very good. Is it a love story? Maybe for the first few minutes. Is it a war movie? Sort of, in that there are guys getting shot in a cartoon fashion. This movie doesn't seem to know what it wants to do.

An attempt is made to show the fall of Corregidor but somebody wanted to add an element of a love triangle. It didn't work then and it didn't work for Pearl Harbor. At least Pearl took a lot of time to try to make both sides work. Corregidor didn't even bother to make one side work. I cared more about Hey Dutch and Pinky than I cared about any of the three main characters.

Add in really lousy stock footage of various US planes being passed off as Japanese planes and this thing screams mass production. It also whispers silent movie, like the one part where the Doc goes in to do some surgery and there's no more gloves. It's all pantomimed, like a silent. Except this is 1943! If this had been made in the 30s I could forgive a lot of the flaws but this pig was made well into the 40s and there's just no excuse other than being a cheap knock off. Frankly I find it insulting to the men and women of Corregidor. It should have a real remake except most everybody that was there is probably dead by now so all you'd get is more Hollyworld hogwash.

2/10",0 "A great cast like the one assembled for this film is often a warning

sign. How many movies have you gone to see because of the cast,

only to see their talents wasted? 'Gun Shy' breaks that curse; it is a

great, imaginative and fun film. At first the storyline may seem

disjointed, but wait; the threads are woven together and culminate

in a lovely ending which I found refreshingly sweet.

Liam Neeson's is one of many great performances--he must have

loved this role as an antidote to the turgid mess that was 'Phantom

Menace.' Oliver Platt and Richard Schiff are fine as well.

Highly recommended to those who look for a little intelligence and

humanity in their entertainment.",1 "I was a cinema projectionist at the time of this release and it came out at the end of the 'disaster movie' era in the seventies (in the UK).

I ran this at a press screening and it was obvious from the first minute this was a disaster movie of it's own kind. What initially was mildly amusingly bad soon went to so bad it's funny but thereafter, and very quickly and for most of the film, it reached that rare distinction of 'so bad, it really is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad'.

OK, so I've seen lots of rubbish films but what sticks in the mind with this one is the level of money and the cast involved. I had/have no expectations that some cheap budget film with no-name actors in it might be awful but this had a decent cast and money thrown at it and for that simple reason I personally regard it a THE WORST FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN.

Avoid like the plague",0 "Jane Austen rolls in her grave every time this movie is played. The film adapts the story into a dark, sexualized drama meant to attract the attention of today's oversexed audience, but the success of previous Austen adaptations should have been an indication that this is not necessary. Mansfield Park adds in a least common denominator in order to appeal to a modern viewer, but this modern view just turned it off.

Horrible!!",0 "This is the sort of film that only Woody Allen (in the 70's) could do. It is all surprisingly classy for a sex comedy, and has many brilliant sketches. There is one part of the film where Gene Wilder plays a doctor who falls in love with a sheep that has to be seen to believed.

Certain parts of the film might be considered to be in extremely bad taste. Case in point is the TV show, ""What's Your Perversion?"", where a Rabbi has a fantasy to be tied up in silk, get whipped, and have his wife kneel at his feet eating pork. All at the same time! Not to say the film isn't funny. In fact, it's one of the funniest I've seen in a long time. Of course, the best part of the film is the well-known ""What Happens During Ejaculation?"" sketch, where we get to see the inner workings of a man's body during intercourse.

Throughout the course of the film there are many great supporting roles, such as John Carradine as a Frankenstein-esquire doctor, Tony Randall as the ""Operator"", and the aforementioned Gene Wilder.

Recommended (But not for your parents).

7.6 out of 10",1 "Recently a friend of mine watched ""The Beach"" after I told him my favorite quote (i.e. ""Never refuse an invitation, never resist the unfamiliar, never cease to be polite, and never outstay your welcome""). He enjoyed the movie a whole lot and told me he hadn't watched it before because of it's low IMDb rating. That's when I decided to register here and post a comment - I hope I help someone else to watch the movie because it is worth a watch. What I personally like so much about this movie is that it is not just plain vanilla. It actually makes sense and can be a starting point for new thoughts and ideas - something I truly appreciate in a movie.",1 "As a horror/sci-fi, this film is a peerless failure. It's yet another ""Alien"" rip-off created in the early 1990s when rubber monster suits became more affordable. The acting, direction, and screenplay are all awful - to say nothing of the aforementioned bargain basement creature effect. ""Syngenor"" does, however, deserve an 8/10 for pure entertainment value. Rarely have I laughed so hard at a film. If you want to watch a real movie, avoid ""Syngenor"" at all costs. If, on the other hand, you want an evening of hilarity, gather up some friends, buy the spirits of your choice, and enjoy ""Syngenor"" in all its absurd glory. Goofy dialogue, ridiculous plot devices, monsters who jig wildly when being shot... ""Syngenor"" truly is a giant among B-grade sci-fi schlock.",1 "Any similarities that the previous correspondent sees between this and the uneven, but always interesting work of Emir Kusturica, must be the result of having seen the supremely awful Gift from Above with an altered mind. Kosashvilli's film is one of the most annoying, poorly-scripted (first year film students would be able to construct the plot better than he does), badly-acted and sloppily-directed pieces of muck that I have had the misfortune to see this year, and I have seen many poor films in the past nine months. If this film had been made by an outsider about the Georgian community of Tel Aviv, they would have a good case for racist stereotyping. As it is, it was made by one of their own and we are all invited to have a merry laugh at the constant humiliation and molestation of women in situations that are not even structurally or physically comical. The plot strand of the young bride forced to get married under the threat of rape is particularly offensive and what is laughable is the expertly millennial sex that this putative virgin enjoys on her wedding night. One wonders exactly how much Kosashvilli knows about real life rather than what he has gleaned from third-rate Hollywood pictures. Our Israeli friend is not the only one to have had bafflingly positive reactions to this film; Cahiers du Cinema compared it to Scorsese. Not even the turgid hackwork churned out by Marty in the past ten years is anywhere near as bad as Gift from Above. A measure of how messy the film is that you are watching it for a full before it becomes apparent that most of the characters are members of the one family. Fundamentals of plot structuring. There is a lot of good cinema coming about of Israel at the moment, such as Raphael Nadjeri's Avanim, Ronit Elkabetz's Prendre Femme and the continuing cinema of Amos Gitai. Gift from Above however is awful rubbish that makes even poor Israeli films like Nir Bergman's Broken Wings seem watchable. Avoid.",0 "Sorry I couldn't think of a snappier summary title, but this movie really (forgive the pun) got under my skin. An excellent, intelligent documentary about Stacey Valentine, a porn star in her mid-20's,how she ended up doing what she does, but more importantly, what it has done to her.

Any female (especially the younger ones) who is even remotely tempted to go into the industry should see this movie. I respected the fact that it doesn't have an obvious agenda, other than to entertain and give you a 90 minute glimpse of what a porn star's life is really like. It manages to show the unglamourous (at best) day-to-day realities of the business, how it can ruin lives and destroy self-esteem, without being the least bit preachy. If there was any voice-over, I don't remember it. Most of the story is told by Stacey herself, in interviews with the filmmakers, or through her interactions with other people including her parents, boyfriend, directors, fans, and friends. My husband said that when it started out, SV ""seemed happy and pretty much OK for a while"", but from almost the first shot of SV talking about how this is a great job for her because she loves sex and how the porn industry ""is the only job where she would get people telling her she's sexy and beautiful"", it was obvious that though she is smiling and sounding positive, but really just trying deep down to convince herself that she's happy. In the first few minutes of the movie she reveals that there is only one thing she has any sort of talent for that she could make a living from-sex. She tries to sound proud, but that's a tip off right there that her self-esteem is in the dumpster.

This movie is just incredible on so many levels, there's not enough room for me to go into it. It was so riveting, I didn't want it to end. Let's face it-most people (whether they will admit to it or not) would love to be behind the scenes for the filming of a porno movie, just to see what really happens behind the camera (and when the camera is off) and I was no exception. You get to see several scenes of that, and I think anyone who sits through the movie will agree that $1000-$2000 a day (the performers get paid more for the ""kinky""-or, more realistically, the extremely uncomfortable, unpleasant stuff that most performers prefer not to do)doesn't even begin to approach the amount of money that women in the industry deserve to make. For one thing, it is not as easy as it looks, to say the least-an image that stuck with me was the ants swarming in a puddle of...( well, you can imagine what liquid needs to be cleaned up on a porn shoot), some of them crawling on SV and even biting her. Keep in mind, these are the high-end, high profile porn films she works in. There's actually some pretty funny scenes, too (especially the driving scene another reviewer mentioned).

The film shows in extremely graphic detail what breast implant, collagen injection and liposuction surgery looks like-I would not recommend hitting the concession stand beforehand. For anyone who regards porn stars as less than human, you see that they go to the drycleaners, have trouble meeting decent men, get cut off in traffic, feel insecure about their bodies, get jealous, and visit with their friends just like anyone else.

Some of the most poignant scenes involve SV visiting her mother and having an honest talk about her settling down (both of them end up teary), visiting a hypnotist to try to improve her self-esteem, talking about her on-again, off-again relationship with her boyfriend (also in the industry), leaving an Adult Entertainment Awards ceremony by herself, with no award, in the dress she was so excitied about wearing earlier that day, and petting her cat, saying since she doesn't have a special man in her life, there's always her cat for affection. In one of the saddest, she tearily talks about how nice it would be to have someone in her life who would touch her out of love and companionship, instead of for sex. In another, she's shooting some scenes for a movie with her boyfriend, and you can see the hurt on both their faces as he starts to slowly pull farther and farther away -especially after he's 3 feet away from watching the woman he loves perform oral sex on another man, even if it's ""just acting"".

It sounds cliche (it would to me, reading about it) but when you actually see the movie and watch her talking, looking young enough to get carded with her clean-scrubbed face and baggy casual clothes, you can't help but feel for her. I doubt that any woman, after seeing the movie, would trade places with SV for any amount of money. God, I just wanted to go up and give her a hug or something.

Having done plenty of research on the 'adult entertainment industry' (for a thesis in college-really!)and also talking and being friends with a few women in the industry, I can say the movie presents a very realistic portrait. Her life isn't a complete living hell- you do see her happy at times, talking about what she wants to do when she retires, laughing with her co-stars, looking like she's having fun doing a photo shoot dressed as Marilyn Monroe and even seeming to genuinely enjoy a scene with a female actress interacted on a live porn web-cam. But the sadness on her face and in her words speaks for itself. What's even sadder to consider is the subject of the film is one of the rarer, more ""together"" women in the business- SV is mentally and physically healthy, doesn't do drugs, didn't get molested as a child, is reasonably intelligent and has a good sense of humor, and her parents even approve (as much as a parent could, anyway) of her career. Imagine what happens to women who don't have it together as well. I was happy, however, to read that SV has retired and started her own business-hopefully she'll be one of the lucky ones.

One side note:not a good date movie if you are hoping to, er, get lucky afterwards, because after watching it, having sex will be the last thing you feel like doing. Trust me, you will NOT be in the mood and end up just playing Monopoly or something. About as un-erotic as you can get.

Unless you're easily offended, I can't recommend this fascinating, haunting documentary enough. 10/10 stars.

",1 "The first thing I must say is that I have not read the book so I can only go by what I saw on the small screen and at this point a further introduction is necessary. Loving Evangeline appears to be one of twelve Mills and Boon/Shilloute romance novels that have been brought to the small screen. I have seen 10 and these are:- Another Woman, A change of place, The awakening, Broken Lullaby, Hard to forget, The Waiting game, This matter of marriage, Diamond Girl,Recipe for revenge and Loving Evangeline. So to get the best out of these movies or to see the worst you must view them in the context of this being a romance novel brought to the screen. It is a pity if these movies do not follow the course of the original book but still view it as a mills and boon brought to film nonetheless. So how does loving Evangeline rate? Well I liked it! Out of the ten that I have watched I would put it at position 5 and to explain this I will run down what is needed to bring a mills and boon/shilloutte romance to film. First of all the couple must look the part the man must be strong and handsome and the woman beautiful and their must be the chemistry! The background story must not overshadow the romance so to overcome this our couple should be seen together in 70% of the film. The Mills and Boon man must have integrity. For example in Broken Lullaby there was a seen where our heroine was shot at now she was understandably upset and as a result got close to our Mills and Boon man and one thing led to another if you get my drift. The Mills and Boon man should have checked with the lady and made sure it was okay to proceed but in this case he just got down to business. Points lost. Another thing that is essential for a Mills and Boon man is that if he is going to get into a fight he should win. In broken Lullaby and Loving Evangeline both mills and boon men got into fights and lost!! Finally there must be a marriage resolution at the end of the film. Loving Evangeline did not have the marriage resolution and I would not have pegged our hero as a typical Mills and boon man but the film did keep me going because of the competency of the actors and a none too taxing storyline so I did like it!! Now if you are wondering what my top five films are I shall tell you. 5th Loving Evangeline. 4th Recipe for Revenge. 3rd Another woman. 2nd The Awakening and my number one Mills and Boon film is DIAMOND GIRL. I managed to get nine of these films via ebay at extremely good bargain basement prices so you could check out all ten and even get the ones that I have not seen yet and these are Treacherous Beauties and At the Midnight Hour.",1 "When Maurice is on his way for the city with his new invention (and horse), he gets lost i the forest. When he is trying to find a way out wolfs attack. The horse escape and Maurice runs into a castle. When he goes in, he find himself trapped again. In the castle lives a big beast an he's NOT happy with the new visitor, and puts Maurice in prison. Meanwhile the horse ran home and Belle (Maurice's daughter) make the horse led her to her father.

Beauty and the Beast is one of Disney's best movies, with humor and true love that will teach you not only to love the outside, but the person in other people. Are you more the the fun parts, you still won't be disappointed. Character like LeFou, Lumiere and Cogsworth makes you laugh time after time, and parents can also find them self laughing of the sweet Chip. And lets not forget the evil in this movie, and his name is Gaston. Not scary, but VARY selfish and he won't give up for the things he want (okay maybe that's scary).

So lets all sing along with the movie, and see it (again).",1 "I read the book ""The Sum of All Fears"" with fascination--Palestenians discover an Isreali nuclear device lost when the aircraft is shot down in the six day war, sell it to Al Queda, and the arab terrorists proceed to blow up Denver with said nuke.

I was very much looking forward to this movie, only to find that for fear of offending Al Queda, the director and screenwriters had substituted some ridiculous plot about German Nazi's and turned the whole thing into a melodramatic hash.

This could have been a GREAT, prophetic, movie. instead it became a silly waste of money and talent. I know Tom Clancy hated the movie, so did I.",0 "A gaggle of kids - standard slasher movie characters, all of them - who are associates of one of the first film's survivors, go to the desert to race their bikes and test their experimental fuel - and are menaced by the surviving mutant (Michael Berryman) from the first film, as well as a new ugly thug, ""The Reaper"" (John Bloom).

Silly sequel; truly a disappointment from a talented horror veteran (Wes Craven), from whom I expect more than just a run-of-the-mill slasher film, which is what this is. The first film could have been seen as a statement on the breakdowns of family units, but writer / director Craven obviously didn't care about making Part II particularly intelligent.

Highly reminiscent of a ""Friday the 13th"" movie, with a Harry Manfredini score that sounds much too familiar.

Cast is nothing special at all, though it is amusing to see Penny Johnson (Jerald), recently of the TV series '24' (she played Sherry Palmer), paying some serious dues, and to see Janus Blythe reprise her role from the first film.

Michael Berryman is fun as always; with those distinctive features of his, he was born to be a cult actor.

The fiery finale is okay.

You know you can't take a movie seriously when even the dog has flashbacks!

3/10",0 "This piece of cinema is breathtakingly beautiful. But not only skin-deep. Underneath the gorgeous visuals, music and overflowing humor in this film, I found its secret. Like the moon's reflection on the water. The breezes may shake and distort it. But it's always there, waiting to shine starkly when the waters are still at last. It is the reflected reality of my own struggle with understanding and knowing my own sexuality and identity as a woman in this world of men. It is shining with a heartbreaking sincerity and honesty I've never encountered before. Amid the struggle through much pleasure and so much more pain, its compassion tells me I'm not alone. An inspiring expression of Woman.",1 "I remember a couple of years ago when IFC or Sundance was running this film on an endless loop.At first I avoided it like the plague because I'd heard so many negative things like ""it's boring"" Or ""all they do is talk""--but then I watched it anyway and saw that the great Wallace Shawn was one of the actors.How can I not watch a movie with him in it?And the other guy-I forget his name-was the evil bishop in Ladyhawke!(I think--I could be wrong and anyway he looks just like him... If you aren't sure who W.S is remember Princess Bride? He's the little dude who tries to poison Wesley. Sure they talk their heads off in this movie but they talk about interesting things.I can't right now recall the exact tenor of the conversations but... Anyway anyone who expects at least one car crash per scene will not enjoy this movie.And no naked chicks,either.No hip hop music and no people falling down just to have someone fall down. I'm sorry to say but this movie requires a bit of intelligence and an attention span. I rate it four arty New Yowk stars!",1 "A bigoted video full of nothing but lies and hatred.Use this video to teach your kids about how to identify a bigot,and tell them how these anti-PETA Nazis spread lies and vicious rumours about PETA.If you're a Penn & Teller fan,then you'll be horrorfied and deeply saddened to learn the ugly truth about Penn & Teller.You'll cry as you hear the vicious lies Penn & Teller spread about PETA,and you'll never want to be their fan ever again.Yes-Penn & Teller are bigoted people,jumping on the anti-PETA bandwagon to help control people with hate,lies,bullying and fear.Now that you know the ugly truth about Penn & Teller,you will quicjkly be against them. By the way,I'm now a recovering Penn & Teller fan.

PETA are terrorists?Then you anti-PETA people might as well brand all blacks as drug-using thugs,all rednecks as stupid alcoholic rapists,all oriental people as buck-tooth morons,all Native Americans as bloodthirsty murderers,all old people as senile toothless fools,all teenagers as no-good punks,etc.",0 "A year or so after George C Scott was spooked by a cadaverous child in 'The Changeling', Devere decides to try and keep up with her ex-husband's career by inheriting an Old Dark House from her deceased aunt. This affords sundry opportunities for neighbours to give her dirty looks, a priestly Joseph Cotten to pop up and proffer ubiquitous blarney, and the titular carriage of death to keep turning up outside the front door heralded by mist-machine overkill.

In terms of supernatural 80s horror movies this is acceptable enough for undiscerning nostalgists; though purists may balk that the central things-going-bump-in-the-bedroom sequence between Trish and her resident toyboy handyman Gautreux sets the whole picture at odds with the otherwise PG-compliant avoidance of physical horror and narrative suspense. And just when you thought it was safe to go back into the shower... it is.

Whilst it is fair enough comment to make that no-one (probably rightly so) took Devere seriously again after her split with Scott, she at least here proves herself a capable enough genre screamer for the undemanding. What is more interesting however, is how suspiciously similar this film is in terms of plot and style/construction to the soon-after 'The Nesting' - in that it misses most of its most crucial horror 'cues', but nevertheless burns independently down its own vaguely self-stylised 'fuse' to an incoherent, unsatisfying 'explanatory' climax. This also, but slightly more exclusively, involved a has-been actress ignominiously doing very little for the money (Gloria Grahame in that particular instance).",0 "When it first came out in '88, I read in the newspaper that it was not well received.

Years later I watched it again and I now thing it's one of the best comedies out.

Randy Quaid and Richard Prior made pure humour.

It would have been great to see them both in something much more intense.

Each great in their own way, as a team they would be double the trouble and 5 times the fun.

Far better than any Adam Sandler or Seth Rogan movie made and better than the Sandler/Rogan actors themselves.

Nothing enormously award winning, but a pleasurable waste of time.",1 "First things first - this is barely real at all. It's classified as a ""reality TV program"" when in fact Pauly Shore himself admitted a great deal of it is written because he is bored by reality TV.

I hate reality TV too. But then don't create a sitcom and pass it off as a reality show! I can understand the concept looking cool on paper - having a sitcom in the format of reality, shocking viewers - but that's been done before with ""The Office"" and ""Minding the Store"" is just a poor man's version.

Essentially Pauly, the once-famous ""comedian"" from the '80s, inherits the ""world famous"" Comedy Shop from his mother and takes on the financial aspects.

Of interesting note is that Pauly has grown up. He's older. He's put on weight. He's going bald. He generally looks...normal. He's no longer the skinny babe magnet he was in the '80s (well, he was never a babe magnet I guess, but girls liked him anyway - we might never know why).

This physical transformation alone isn't enough. Pauly's attitude hasn't changed at all. He's still annoying, still dumb, still unfunny. The show details his early life in the opening credits - he grew up in a family of comedians and was raised in the Comedy Store, around many famous stand-ups.

There was just something in his blood, I think, that wasn't right for comedy. He felt obligated to become a comedian but it wasn't natural for him. As a result he achieved brief success on account of his background but the natural instinct for humor was never there; he had to work hard for whatever jokes he landed, whereas a naturally gifted comedian might be able to succeed brilliantly by growing up in such an environment.

I digress. At the end of the day Pauly still hasn't learned his lesson. This show is fake, unfunny, scripted, annoying, and stupid. I was willing to give Pauly Shore another chance, and I've found he's just as annoying and whiny as he was in the '80s and '90s. Grow up, Pauly. Lose the stoner voice. Get some class. Get some good jokes. Try again.",0 "My friends and I were debating about what movie to go see the other night. I suggested a foreign art film because I was getting sick of all the Hollywood story lines that were starting to look alike. Anyway, we saw a film that was moving, wild, unpredictable, emotional, seductive, and dramatic. I fell in love with the characters so much I didn't know what to do. You are definitely moved and excited. Yes, you get excited...admit it. I have never seen such an explicit film that was so raw, yet romantic and pure. It was so forbidden but adventurous. I have seen a lot of foreign film that have raw sex, but this one...took the show. The colors in the film are also unique in that I'm sure they were chosen so that your eyes would not wear out because of so much life you see.

Incredible film from Spain. I'm going to marry my next woman from that beautiful country.",1 "This is a story about a young ambitious man who likes being a gangster and when he is young the role is played by Young Gangster, (Paul Bettany). Freddie Mays, (David Thewlis) is the head king pin and decides to hire this young gangster who wants to fill his shoes someday. There are many flashbacks concerning the life of the young gangster and the older gangster played by Malcolm McDowell who managed to send Freddie Mays to prison and he also took over his entire business. There is plenty of blood and gore and rough and tough British crude language which is very hard to understand. This is a very unusual film and it will hold your interest right to the very end.",1 "Many great films have a half a dozen (or more) copy-cats. This is one of the films that borrows, yet still stands alone in creating a revolution of beastie pictures. Gremlins, along with it's sequal are part of the ""Greats"", like ""Jaws"", ""Star Wars"", ""Ghostbusters"", among many many others. Some people don't get this dark comedy, and that's understandable. It is a mean spirited, fantasy film at times, but sometimes you laugh harder after you've been scared nearly to death. It would be wrong to deny this film it's just do. It showed, along with ""Jaws"", that thrillers can be fun and profitable, if you do it right. A loveable Creature named Gizmo, is brought home to Billy Peltzer, by his father, Rand. The new gift came with 3 rules. All of which Billy must abide by,and was forwarned. Billy does his best, but fails as he brakes the most important rule and lets loose hundreds of green monsters, that love to break things, and hurt people. It is a zany film, and if you haven't seen it, I don't want to give to much away. Enjoy the film, and it's sequel, which is one of the few arguably worthy sequels in film history. So check out ""Gremlins.""",1 "The people who have written here to complain about this show's plot obviously don't understand what the Blue's Brothers movies are about. They are in good company though. When the second Blue's Brothers came out the Spice Girl's movie was also in theaters. I was amazed to see how many reviewers panned the Blue's Brothers and gave half-decent reviews to the Spice Girl's dreadful exercise in film making. The Blue's Brothers is all about the Blues and I feel sad for those reviewers who can't appreciate the quality of the music and musicians showcased in this excellent and entertaining movie. There are so many goose-bump inspiring vocal and instrumental performances by some of North America's most legendary musicians. The dancing is good too. The car crash is fun. There are some great lines. I think there is a serious side to this movie though and it is summed up neatly in Elwood's inspirational speech when he reminds his rebellious band members what society will be left with if real musicians give up making music. I think that if you read a review by someone complaining about the plot you should quit reading right away because that person, who probably never ventures beyond the top 10 in his musical tastes, obviously missed the whole point of this movie.",1 """Winstanley"", directed by Andrew Mollo and Kevin Brownlow, is a true masterpiece of British Independent Cinema. The talent of these two film makers in unquestionable. Their vision of 17th Century England has never been bettered. Andrew Mollo's attention to period detail is unsurpassed resulting in costumes and design that are simply faultless. The cinematography is breathtaking and Kevin Brownlow's editing is masterful.

Miles Haliwell plays the lead part of Gerrard Winstanley and he gives a moving and insightful performance. This is a must see film the like of which we may never see again. I am sure it taught Kubrick a lesson or two about filming period dramas.",1 "Babe Ruth was as wooden as one of his bats, but Pigtails hit a grand slam! I understand that Frances Victory went on to a distinguished Broadway stage career with her equally talented chien partner. It has been hinted that this superlative duo drove the Astaires from Broadway.",1 "I tried so hard to take the movie seriously, but being from the City where it was filmed, it just seems they took the complete mickey out of the city/culture etc... and every time I was nearly taking it seriously again something else ""local"" happened that we couldn't stop laughing at! I will agree it was a good attempt, but way too cliché-ed! The accents were awful and bore no resemblance to authentic Cork accents. As previously commented on, I'm sure it will be a hit in the States, but for anyone in the know, it will be a cringeful experience. I just feel that they put the scenes together and no one ""proof-watched"" it. All in all it tells of a true Irish tradition, but overly and badly dramatist.",0 "Eating Out 2 maintained the off-the-wall dialogue and ridiculous characters that made it's predecessor hilarious. However, the near-constant semi-nudity was a significant detraction to the film, with some scenes approaching soft-core cable pornography. My straight friends were visibly uncomfortable during several scenes and even my gay friends could have done with less nipple biting and stomach licking. That said, there were several fantastic comedic moments in the film and, unlike other raucous comedies (think of the ""American Pie"" series) there was no endless parade of fart jokes and tired one-liners. Overall, it was a fun movie to watch, but probably should be one to catch on DVD so as to utilize the ""fast forward"" button.",1 I thought it was a pretty good movie. The acting was good and the story was well told. It's one of those *feel good movies* that you know how it's going to turn out but you want to watch and see how it all ends anyway.,1 "If Brosnan somehow transferred his memories to Lesley-Anne Down, then why do we mostly get a third-person's point-of-view of his life in the flashbacks, with only brief and random intervals of his own point-of-view? It may sound like a small quibble, but think about it and you'll see that the device simply doesn't make any sense. McTiernan fails to bring out the supernatural elements of the Nomads (who come off looking more like your standard street punks - ""they don't live anywhere, they don't work anywhere, they resort to violence at the slightest provocation""), and the movie drags. The ultimate point seems to be that Brosnan's character should never have bothered thinking about The Nomads, just as you shouldn't bother watching this film. (*1/2)",0 "Yes, it does ""period"" in the same broad sweeping comic-book gestures as the Hollywood of yesteryear. Yes, saying Sam Neil is over-acting in this one is like calling Lassie merely a good dog. Yes, we've so done the hero-who-actually-IS-a-good-guy bit. Yes, the overly French-Horned theme reminds me of the satirically self-important music from Young Frankenstein. It is cheesy, yes! But you start out with a classic romp of a tale that happens to (as a little bonus) dig a little deeper and discuss some pretty important stuff. And – my god – Olivia Hussey was a babe.

And what is really great is that as this book was written, your interest doesn't have to be maintained by the titular character because there are supporting folks heavy-laden with their own fascinating tales – and that's the way this movie was cast; the most interesting actors are playing the most interesting characters.

And Robin Hood is in it. That just rocks.",1 "I can't even imagine what must have been running through the directors head when he did this movie... without any doubt, this is the worst horror movie I have ever seen in my life! The story is plain: a mad clown from hell (OMG, that's very original!), seeks to kill as many teens as possible in the most brutal and horrific way. I'm sure ur very impressed and extremely anxious to see this great film but hold ur horses :) Drive-Thru is a real test of character because it takes a real man/woman to see this movie till the end, where, like all great movies, it leaves room for a sequel. The action is weak, the acting is weak, the screenplay is even weaker... the story is really overused and beside the cool clown costume, it doesn't have anything worth watching. All the lines are unnatural and the young actors take it even more below the average.

In conclusion, do urselves a huge favor and don't waste precious time on Drive-Thru...",0 "I saw this movie in the year of its release. I have always been a great fan of Peter O'Toole and his performance in The Night of The Generals, as General Tanz is amazing.

There are no weak performances in this film and I consider the story line to be sound throughout. The plot against Hitler's life - which is a well known historical fact, in no way detracts from the murder mystery at hand.

The musical score associated with the film, composed by Maurice Jarre, is stirring and memorable. After more that 30 years, I still remember the haunting musical theme very clearly.

The Night of the Generals is a terrific murder mystery. I hope that I will have an opportunity to view this picture again in the future. Sadly, it appears that it is now difficult to find.",1 "I woke up one morning and saw that there was a new action thriller running called ""Virus"" I thought ""yahoo"" a movie for the international nerd, but when the movie started I soon relised that this wasen't a movie about a virus, but a horror thriller about a ""electro"" alien that is trying to take over the world using the help of half human robots witch it manufactures in a russian ship, a unlucky crew of a 5 stumbles upon the ship and tries to save the world from the evil alien. first of all this movie is terribly written, nothing in the storyline holds together and all that ""save the world"" bull**it is getting a bit tired, the acting is below average, and the special effects are horribly out dated. Take my advice, see any movie, just not this one",0 "At first glance, this episode is wonderful. Funny, achingly sad, and adorable all at once. But look a little deeper and you'll find that What Is and What Should Never Be shows a level of sophistication, acting, series and character continuity, and polish, that will blow you away.

Jensen Ackles knocked this one out of the park. Though he always does an exceptional job, he really took it up a notch this time. Never an off moment in the whole show. I have heard him referred to as a subtle actor before, and I think that comes through in this episode. The facial expressions, the gestures and movements are all spot on. You don't have to wonder how his character is feeling; it's written right there on his face, and in his eyes, for all to see. He's heartbreakingly sincere. Spectacular. Jared Padalecki also did an excellent job in this one.

A definite must see for newcomers and regulars alike.",1 "I agree with some of these comments. By 1984 I thought we were more familiar with AIDS...maybe 82 is the year this should be set. My main gripe was the unconvincing make up Manu wears, and the way he doesn't lose weight. What was so shocking and devastating for those of us growing up with the onset of AIDS was running into people who were gorgeous, fit young and beautiful. Next time you saw them their faces were blemished, their bodies wasted, emaciated, skeletal like. I recall bareley recognising a young lad who'd once been a fixture on the scene. So the scenes where Manu is nursed through the terminal stages were less than convincing and left me somewhat unmoved. Otherwise its worth seeing and its sex positive, uplifting, life affirming attitude is a welcome riposte to Hollywoods schlocky treatment of the subject.",1 "This incredible movie tells the story of Germany's slide towards Nazi rule in the late 1920s or early 30s. The world of pre-WWII Berlin is seen through the distorted mirror of the Kit Kat Night Club. While technically a musical, the movie does not use the contrivance of having people stop in the middle of a scene and burst out in song and dance. Rather, the songs and danges are integrated into the plot either by being performed on the Cabaret stage or in some other natural manner--including the bone-chilling Tomorrow Belongs to Me. Unlike most movies of the time (including the vastly overrated Godfather), director Bob Fosse does not keep the action entirely linear; rather event A will happen in scene 1, you then have scene 2 dealing with an unrelated issue, then the consequence of event A will be played out in scene 3. This lets the viewer draw his own connections, rather than having everything spoon-fed by the moviemaker. While the Godfather un-deservedly got Best Picture for 1973, it got a total of only 3 Oscars, while Cabaret got 8 (including Best Director)--making it the movie to have gotten the most Oscars without also getting Best Picture. It surely should have--in 1973 or just about any other year.",1 "Tonight instead of a single movie review I tackle a recently released DVD flipper disc of 2 rarely scene Mexican Horror movies, both directed by Ruben Galindo Jr.. The first movie is Cemetery of Terror lets take a look.

Cemetery of Terror (aka Cementerio Del Terror) is about a Satan worshiping killer who is supposedly shot dead by some local cops only to be resurrected by a bunch of teenagers who steal his body from the morgue and use a book of black magic to revive him. The cops are warned by the killers doctor that he is more than a normal man but a satanic killing machine. These elements were very Halloween like in their approach with this in the beginning but then this idea seems to dissolve as we get to meet the teens that will resurrect him and finally to another group of young trick or treaters that end up facing off with this Satanic fiend.

This is where the problems with this movie come into play. I really liked how this movie started as it looked like it was going to have shades of Halloween with the directors own little twist added however the movie, which starts off slow builds up for about a good 10 minute killing spree (nearly 50 minutes in, ZZZZZZZZZZ)then the movie veers off into weirdness as it turns from a satanic killer from the grave movie to an all out zombie film..thats right an all out zombie film. You see remember I said there are some trick or treaters well these kids end up taking on the killer and some of his undead friends culminating into a ho hum ending.

I really wanted to like this movie but for every decent thing they did they did 2 more things wrong. The movie seemed to try out one too many ideas into one movie when they should have just stayed with the main point at hand. Despite 1 or 2 OK kills the movie really drug along in parts and the whacked out last 20 minutes had me scratching my head. All in all not a bad film but really not all that good either. My score for Cemetery of Terror: 4/10: Below Average, with alittle more thought about what kind of movie they wanted, Satanic Killer, Zombie, or Scooby Doo(mainly do to the kiddie sequences) flick this could have at least been mildly entertaining however, since the movie bounced all over the place I cannot recommend this as a have to see film, maybe a rental at best.

Head over to Grave Robbers for the second film review of this flipper disk from BCI Eclipse",0 "My wife and I couldn't even finish the film. Truly, it was rather painful.

First, the historical accuracy is compromised not so much by the events themselves as the ridiculous one-dimensionality of the characters. For instance, Augustus takes the ""burden"" of power only with great reluctance. Indeed, he is portrayed as if he's some sort of great humanist and believer in democracy.

Second, the camp! My lord, the dialog is horrifically bad. I recall the soap opera my mother watched when I was a child having better dialog than this. The constant exposition and pontificating grates upon the ears like fingernails on chalkboard. Ugh. (Okay, I exaggerate a bit, but the dialog truly is bad.) The HBO series Rome is superior for no other reason than that its characters were at least believable, regardless of their historicity.

Rome was also wise enough to know they couldn't stage epic battle scenes. The creators of this film did not. When Caesar attacks Munda, the battle scene is practically farcical.

I will grant that the costumes are perfectly good. The sets are fine, though their CGI backdrops can be a bit jarring at times. The sound is bad, though—both in terms of the music, the foley work, and the dubbing of so many of the side characters.

Anyway, it's completely not worth renting. As a history major, I was hoping for an alternative approach to Augustus than HBO's Rome, which, I feel, failed to capture his overall ""feel"" quite as well as they did Caesar or Antony. Instead, I should have just stuck to my reading.",0 "I watched this movie several times because it didn't flow well at all but it had some great information in it. The beginning seems about one subject and suddenly it becomes an entirely different plot. Maybe the writers and director didn't want to spoon feed the audience into anticipating everything.

The whole film had a home movie quality about it but there are some very good performances in spite of this.

Maybe someone will remake this and fix the problems. I wonder which story they will go with?? Really though, either story in this film is worth watching. And it could be fixed where the first story could move into the second smoothly. That would be my preference. If they did that I would watch it again to see who plays the surprising characters in that one. There are several characters that are very much worth watching.",1 "This is perhaps the worst superhero movie I've ever seen. What the Roshans have done is simply spent a week watching all the Hollywood superhero movies and spiced it up as 'Desi.'? And who ever on earth told them that Priyanka Chopra fitted the role? No man, don't even think about making the third part for this film. And what's up with the script, character artists and everything? Mr. Rakesh Roshan must take few lessons on writing a powerful screenplay and get rid of lame language. The big problem with the thing is that the Roshans have managed to make a 2006 movie with recipe, that worked only 11 years ago. They've failed to realize they're not making Karan Arjun. (http://imdb.com/title/tt0113526/) Well Roshans, hope to see an original movie next time around!",0 "Katie O'Neill (Susan Hayward) first meet Paul Van Riebeck (Tyrone Power), a leader of the South African Boers, when he comes to Ireland on a horse-buying trip... The two fall in love, but Paul, intent on establishing a Dutch Free State back home, has no time to settle down and refuses to marry her while he has this commitment...

Several years pass and Katie has wed Shawn Kildare (John Justin). When the great potato famine of the 1850s strikes Ireland, Katie, still in love with Paul, persuades Shawn that they should go to South Africa to start a new life...

They sail with their infant son and his nurse, Aggie (Agnes Moorehead), and in Capetown, join a group of homesteaders on a trek to the interior, where en route, Katie catches the eye of handsome Kurt Hout (Richard Egan), leader of a band of outriders...

A surprise Zulu attack on the wagon train is broken up by the timely appearance of Paul Van Riebeck and his men, but during the fighting, Shawn is killed... Paul does what he can to comfort Katie but finds that Kurt Hout, an old friend, already has made clear his interest in the newly widowed homesteader...

When the wagon train finally reaches its destination, Hoffen Valley, Katie convinces Paul to settle down with her, but their happiness is short-lived... Paul leaves to continue his work with the Free State movement, unaware that Katie is carrying his child...

Kurt, very upset for not being desired, becomes a dangerous outlaw, enemy of the authority... Rita Moreno plays his mistress...

Katie is the example of the brave intelligent, ambitious, lucky lady... She proves her courage, persistence and full determination to win as a wife, a mother, and a woman in love...

Filmed in the ""grandeur"" of CinemaScope, ""Untamed"" is a romantic action melodrama, short in action and long on romance...

The role of Kurt Hout was originally intended for Victor Mature, but he was replaces by Richard Egan...",1 "We've seen it many times before. From ""Miami Vice"" to ""Lethal Weapon"", and furthermore in ""Rush Hour"", the cultural and personality clash of mismatched allies unwittingly working together has long become an established formula.

The newest unlikely pairing comes in the guise of Eugene Levy and Samuel L. Jackson, two individuals who stand at the furthest polar opposites from each other, both relying on their stereotypical persona of the tough guy and the bumbling nerd to illustrate this contrast.

A routine business trip from Wisconsin to Detroit turns into an unexpected case of mistaken identity for Andy Fiddler (Levy), a dental supply salesman, while heading to a convention.

Upon his arrival, he coincidentally crosses paths with Derrick Vann (Jackson), a federal agent who just happens to be dealing with the death of his partner and a stash of stolen firearms. From then on, Derrick uses Andy in his scheme to recover the weapons and expose the leader of the operation (Luke Goss). Andy, who is believed to be a participant in the whole criminal dealings, has no other choice but to cooperate with Derrick and solve the case in time to make it to his convention the next morning.

""The Man"" employs the usual rules of buddy movies, as we see the two leads initially teaming up with reluctance only to inevitably become accustomed to each other in the end. Both discover that they can learn from one another, with Andy teaching Derrick to be more trusting and more appreciative of family values, while Derrick teaches Andy to be more assertive.

Levy and Jackson's combination is effective to a certain degree, due in great part to the clear distinction between positivity and negativity which emanate from both characters, the two elements nonetheless blending together to create highly compatible opposites.

Unfortunately, this exuded chemistry cannot sustain the rest of the material which all too often resorts to extensive flatulence sequences, resulting in two heavyweight actors floating on nothing more than hot air in a film that practically has no other substance and that lingers unpleasantly, long after it has passed.",0 "Finally, a movie that has succeeded in properly portraying the small-town working class family. For such a short film, all the major characters are amazingly complex, as they captivate the audience with powerful transitions wrought by financial and social crises. Director Doug Sadler has extracted some of the best acting out of some of Hollywood's most underutilized talent: Cherry Jones playing Julia Tyler, the strong, persevere-at-all-costs mother; Robert Knott playing Will Tyler, the cash-strapped father who loves his family, but who falls apart and seeks escape when his plans for providing for his family fail; Sarah Paulson playing Merrill, a young woman with psychological problems rooted in her childhood; and new-to-Hollywood child actress Tara Devon Gallagher playing 11-year-old Emma Tyler, whose sudden need for a medical procedure becomes the source of the crises and redemption, and through whose both simple and profound perspective the beautiful story is narrated.",1 "After hearing Tonke Dragt's ""brief voor de koning"" was about to be filmed I really was looking forward to it. ""Kruistocht in spuikerbroek"" showed a dutch filmmaker can do really well. So when I saw the trailer and read about it, I hasted myself towards the cinema, assuming this would be a great two hours movie.

In the beginning all was fine, nice locations, beautiful costumes, all looked like it could be part of the book. But then, after ten minutes or so, the audio became very irritating with horrible lip syncing. It looked like afterwards in the audio recording studio the director forgot to show the movie and actors had to read their lines straight from paper … at once, without retries or any rehearsal. And why didn't any one bother to think about distance?? On film the actors turn their head, walk away, stand one meter from the camera or ten, but the volume is always the same.

I guess I could get used to this, wasn't it for the horrible stage acting pronunciation. I mean, if an actor is on stage he should speak as clear as possible. But hey, this is cinema, the audio comes from several speakers, speak naturally, do not overdo it! Then there's the acting, how many shots did it take to make this movie, only one? Was half of all shooting days wasted on rehearsals? With every single scene I was under the impression the director shouted ""Great, well done! Next one!"" You can sometimes even see main characters without lines looking around like ""what am I doing here, or hey, what kind of lens is that cameraman using?"" And then the locations, though well chosen, did anyone really bother to recheck them before filming?? Why are electricity cables running on walls in a medieval setting? And was it so hard to cover up twenty century electricity boxes?? After this, I think it was twenty minutes into the movie, everything became very annoying. The night shots taken at day time with dark filters, but with the sunny shadows so clearly visible. The rare good acting of even fewer actors became bad, rapped by bad voice recording.

And then, halfway through the movie I became angry, very angry, this was not a movie made to do just to the book or to entertain the audience. It was made so uninspired famous actors had a job and a film crew without any talent could make a full movie.

Was it all bad then? No, the choice of many locations was great, even some actors really tried hard and costume design was great, but what remained was this horrible feeling I completely wasted my time, money and even worse, my good mood. So I left the cinema with an very angry feeling. This movie was an insult, a blasphemy of what good cinema is all about. Besides very few efforts it all looked like the makers wanted to make a very, very quick buck.

But hey, this is my opinion. I still would say, go see for yourself. But please, rent it, or much better, try to lend it from friends or family or any one who was drunk enough to buy this one, because in all honesty, the idea the creators of this flick receive any more money makes me sick: they should be in the TV business, not the film industry.",0 "*** out of ****

After the disappointing Romeo Must Die it's great to see Jet Li back in ass-kicking form in Kiss of the Dragon, a movie that features a story that doesn't always make a whole lot of sense but features martial arts fights that rank among Li's best. The movie improves considerably on the mistakes made in Romeo and is a thrill ride that moves at a consistently good pace.

Li plays a Chinese intelligence officer on a mission in Paris. He's been assigned to work with a French officer named Richard (Tcheky Karyo), who's obviously corrupt and also calls Li by John since he can't pronounce his real name. Anyway, their assignment involves busting a drug kingpin, but everything goes horribly wrong when the crime lord is killed and Richard pins the fault on John. Thus, John goes on the run in a city he's unfamiliar with; he has almost no allies and is being chased after by the police and Richard's countless cronies.

He meets a prostitute named Jessica (Bridget Fonda) inside a restaurant, and a mutual friendship begins to develop between them. It's also by chance he discovers that she was a witness to the kingpin's murder and can clear his name. But she's reluctant to help him because Richard has her daughter, which is the only reason she continues this demeaning job in the first place. As Richard and his men begin to pin them down, John prepares to fight back with all his skills and strengths and retrieve Jessica's daughter safely.

From the get-go, there's a fault in the story. There's simply no good explanation given as to why Richard actually had the kingpin killed in the first place. My own assumption would be that they were working together and this led to the possibility of his corruption being revealed. That's as good as any guess, I suppose. Luc Besson's script isn't particularly distinguished, but hey, at least it's more comprehensible than the Romeo Must Die's plot, a move which I will probably refer to many times in this review.

Not only is that element improved upon from that film, but Li is actually given a hell of a lot more screen time and the fact that everybody seems to be after him gives the movie a more frenetic pace. That's not to say that Kiss of the Dragon is a lightning-paced film. After an exhilarating opening fight sequence inside a hotel that features Li using props a la Jackie Chan style, the movie does slow down considerably.

But to compensate for this pace is an interesting relationship that forms when Bridget Fonda enters the picture. True, this isn't the most well-written role the actress has had (well, then again, she's not really give many well-written roles in the first place, is she?) but her performance is good, and the chemistry that clicks between her and Li is strong, and even sometimes sweet and touching. Some see the lack of an actual romance blossoming between them as another sign that Hollywood isn't much for interracial couples (much like in Romeo Must Die) but I think it's better this way. Plus, I'm getting tired of seeing the hero bed the heroine in an impulsive moment of passion. Fonda and Li's quiet communication and toned-down feelings are more effective than a kiss or love scene would be. Of course, there are the obligatory moments of cheesy dialogue when she says to him that all he cares about is himself, but the fight scenes kick in before any of this can significantly hinder the film.

Speaking of the action scenes, they are supremely exciting. I'm not sure if director Chris Nahon was in charge of the choregraphy, but if he was, this is very impressive. First of all, there's no wirework, or at least none that I noticed, so there's a feeling of authenticity in all the fight scenes. The film's best action sequence is Li's two-on-one fight with the ""blonde brothers"" in the finale who, I must say, also display some very impressive martial arts moves (Can Li even do flips like that one blonde guy does?). I've seen several of Li's other films and these fights on par with his Hong Kong work, if not better than some. The only real complaint I have with the fight scenes is that some of the camera movements are too quick, making it sometimes a little difficult to make out a couple of Li's impressive moves. But it's a problem that thankfully doesn't permeate the film.

The action is also very bloody and graphically violent. An early scene with a man being literally blown in half by a grenade let's us know that isn't a family-friendly Jackie Chan film. When someone gets hit, they bleed and they bleed a lot. (Minor Spoiler here) Tcheky Karyo's death scene is perhaps the film's bloody highlight; he bleeds from every orifice on his face until he dies in a frenzy of spasmatic twitching.

What can be seen as a flaw in the film is in some of its settings. Those who think present-day Paris is nothing but a beautiful city will be unpleasantly surprised by Kiss of the Dragon, which almost exclusively focuses on the grungy and seedy side of society in the city. Seeing Fonda in a mess of sweat and dirt in a filthy allieway isn't a fun sight.

As I said before, Fonda is good, and so is Li, who can actually act, unlike so many big-time action stars around. The quiet intensity he displays says more than any dialogue that spews out from Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude Van Damme. Tcheky Karyo is so snaky and disgustingly vile in his role, everybody will cheer for his death (well, that and the fact that some people in the audience couldn't stop proclaiming how gross his death was).

The actual Kiss of the Dragon the movie's title refers to is a form of Chinese acupuncture, a method that Li uses in the film can put people to sleep or give a very bloody death. It's not mentioned as often in the film as I thought it would and neither is it extremely significant to the plot, but who cares? This film's all about the action and I'm certainly not complaining when it comes to that. It's funny to see that from the so many lackluster blockbuster films of the past summer two of the best have its roots in Hong-Kong filmmaking (the other such film is Tsui Hark's Time and Tide).",1 "A man's relentless drive toward self-destruction is the tenor plot in this film, but the surrounding study of human nature, and of what can be the ultimate values in life fill out the canvas. Squarcio, the hero, has through good fortune escaped detection long enough to establish a comfortable life for his family and loving wife. Other fishermen, who have reason enough to detest him, consistently show him compassion - their basic good natures prevailing. Squarcio, though, like a ""Sturm und Drang"" character, relentlessly pursues a path his logic - and wife and children - tell him he should abandon. He is offered other choices; he sees other charismatic characters uselessly die - yet his actions are emotionally driven.

At mid-film, the local coast guard commander chooses to retire, to quit service before having to witness the death or imprisonment of his childhood friend. I, the viewer, felt likewise - very much like abandoning the theater before the inevitable. Yet I stayed on, hoping for some early hint of a happy end to come.

But for me, the most memorable moments in this film were certain sea scenes set to challenge the most beautiful and intriguing of any painting of the old Venetian school - sepia sails, emerald seas, white and green (?) hulls, and old fortresses in the background - all looking a bit unreal, like a child's playthings, almost too perfect, too harmonic. Squarcio, of course, wasn't part of such scenes - he was off on his own, individualist but misguided path.",1 "This movie is being promoted as a new Jackie Chan flick. Don't be taken in! Having seen(and really enjoyed)his last 3 movies I eagerly waited in line for my ticket. Once the film got to ""present day"" (the film starts with Jackie's characters' birth.) I waited and waited...and waited for anything resembling the humour and action of his most recent films. It didn't come, and hadn't come when I walked out almost an hour later. The technology alone was enough to make any modern film goer cringe. You could actually see the blue line between the 2 Jackies!! All I can say is that Jackie Chan must have signed and released the rights to this film long long ago! I will go and see the next Jackie Chan film but only AFTER checking the production date! Poor Jackie!",0 "A curious offering. The premise that the film's star, a hot-shot forensic psychiatrist, Jack Gramm,is given 88 minutes to live by an unknown assassin on the end of a phone, is a good one. Pacino is a fine actor. The plot twists and turns, is fast paced, and has a dramatic conclusion as the dead ends disappear, and the ""reveal"" in the final act unfolds. Add in some salacious sado-masochistic sex scenes and you should have the ingredients of a ""gritty"" psychological thriller. But for some reason the total is considerably less than the sum of the parts.

Part of this is due to the fact that although Pacino is convincing as an experienced psychiatrist, his dyed hair isn't, nor is his ability to womanise with females around a third of his age. Furthermore, Pacino's strength is as an outstanding cerebral actor. Yet he slips into ""action-cop"" mode on a number of occasions in ways which seem out of character, and inappropriate.

Even the 88 minute premise is played around with as attempts are made upon his life within that time frame. I cannot imagine that the plot will be too popular with feminists either. The gruesome sado-masochistic sexual torture of one victim makes for uncomfortable, and explicit viewing, and the female characters around Pacino serve as little more than eye candy . At 108 minutes overall, the 88 minutes run in real time, the story only just stays within its welcome too. A sure sign that the characterisation has engaged with the audience.

The finale is dramatic, if preposterous, and the action scenes exciting enough. But ultimately this is fairly standard formulaic fare with Pacino having to work far too hard to make up for both the shortcomings of the screenplay, and the underwritten roles of those around him.",0 "The sequel to David Cronenberg's remake of ""The Fly"" is nowhere near as entertaining. I felt like they put more thought into special effects than into storytelling. This time around, we are told the story of Martin Brundle, son of Seth (Jeff Goldblum's character from the 1986 film). While the first movie had heart to it, this one seems to lack it. It tries to mimic the relationship from the first movie between Seth and Veronica, this time with Daphne Zuniga as Martin's love interest. Unfortunately, it takes a backseat to the fly transformation and gore effects. Don't get me wrong, gore can be good. Just not when its the centerpiece of the movie. It had been a while since I had last watched it and I had an easier time remembering the elevator death than what the actual story was about.

On the plus side the fly effects were impressive once again. The various puppets they used to bring the fly to life moved fluidly and were more convincing. I didn't really like how the fly looked less human than it did in the first. That was what made it easy to feel for the character and remember that there is still the mind of a man deep in there. This time it looks more monstrous. On the other hand, some of the other telepod mutations came out looking too fake for me to believe. They were like puppets rejected from ""Sesame Street"" for looking too unfriendly.

The acting really got to me in this movie, and not in a good way. Every character the movie wants us to hate seems almost cartoonish. The scientists working with Martin gave me a Dr. Evil vibe and I half expected them to raise their pinky finger to their mouth and laugh maniacally. Scorby, the head of security at Bartok Industries played by Gary Chalk, oozes with a hatred for Martin from the very beginning that the filmmakers never explain. We got some good performances from the main three actors: Stoltz, Zuniga, and Richardson. It isn't nearly enough to save the movie.

If you were a fan of Cronenberg's ""Fly"", I almost recommend against watching this one. This movie is best watched with no expectations, except for that of a mildly entertaining horror flick with some good special effects.",0 "In 1946 Tyrone Power managed to start convincing his friend and producer, Darryl Zanuck, to occasionally let him flex his muscles as a straight, serious actor. Zanuck reluctantly agreed, so that Power did THE RAZOR'S EDGE and (more important) NIGHTMARE ALLEY. In the former he struggled to show a man who sought and found spiritual piece in the years following World War I, while his friends went mad in the materialistic hopelessness of Europe and America. In the latter he showed he could play a really nasty, opportunistic heel. But neither film was a blockbuster for Power (THE RAZOR'S EDGE did help push the career of his co-star Clifton Webb). NIGHTMARE ALLEY was a critical success, but a flop at the box office. Zanuck returned Power to his old heroic films, aged a little because he was growing older. As a partial sop his characters had less pleasant sides - his character in PRINCE OF FOXES is a willing tool of Cesare Borgia (Orson Welles) for the first half of the movie. But Power remained the good guy hero.

In the 1950s (after his contract with Fox was completed) Power made more varied films, that showcased the good actor he had become. In particular his tragic biography THE EDDIE DUCHIN STORY, his interesting western RAWHIDE, his shifty defendant in WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, his physically damaged (and emotionally wounded) hero in THE SUN ALSO RISES, and this film, ABANDON SHIP/SEVEN WAVES AWAY. The story is reset in modern times. It is the story of the sinking, in 1841, of the William Brown - the same shipwreck that is the subject of Henry Hathaway's movie SOULS AT SEA (1937) that starred Gary Cooper, George Raft, and Henry Wilcoxen. Basically the situation is this: you are in the sole floating lifeboat from a ship that has sunk. There are fifty people clinging to it or inside it. But the frail boat can only be assured of floating with twenty or so passengers in it. So, as the surviving officer in the boat you have to decide who shall live and who shall die. Cooper had to make that choice in SOULS AT SEA, and faces trial for murder as a result. Power does the same thing here too - with similar results.

But the handling of the William Brown tragedy in SOULS AT SEA was the conclusion of that film: The situation and it's resolution took all of ten minutes of the total movie. In ABANDON SHIP, Power is in this dreadful moral dilemma for the entire film. The Captain (Lloyd Nolan) dies early on. Power has to pick and choose among all these few survivors as to who should be kept and who is expendable (based on age, physical condition, value to society). He is unable to rely on anyone else - a fact that is brought to his attention not only by the actions of a critical Stephen Boyd at one point, but by the way Mai Zetterling and James Hayter distance themselves from him when the lifeboat is finally picked up. All powerful in his unwanted element while everyone's lives depended on him, he is all alone when the dangers for the survivors pass away.

ABANDON SHIP is a hard film to sit through as it is so bleak - it is the bleakest movie that Powell ever made (even THE EDDIE DUCHIN STORY had an element of hope in it because Eddie's son Peter was there to carry on the family's name and reputation). But it is an example of good acting all around with a thoughtful script. And it demonstrates that Tyrone Power was a mighty dramatic performer when he was given the right material.",1 "watchable movie not really unless watch most of it in fast forward.The opening erotic lovemaking scene tells you already forget the sci-fi it's just coating for some rather strange actions that the main character played by Grieco does.He is a pretty boy for the women viewers and that's it For the guys you get to see a lot of Maryam D'abo's body[it's nice] and some of Natalie Radfords body[also nice]So i give it two stars just for the nice bodies on the female leads.If you are looking for plot,acting good script etc Stay Away.",0 "The painful memory of watching this movie when it was released 20 years ago lingers, like herpes.

The only good thing about this movie are the unintentional howlers, such as the bad guys who live in the desert, and wear full-length fur coats (hmmmm, maybe not the best thing to wear when it is 120 degrees out). Reb Brown proved he cannot act in this film. It is ludicrous, horrible, terrible and more than a complete waste of time. It deserves a rating in the bottom 100 on IMDB.

Another howler. The scientists Yor encounters tell him that they have been watching his parents. Yor wisely concludes ""Ahh, my father and mother"". Yep, that's who parents are!",0 "I wish there had been something like this when I was younger rather than my 70 year old music teacher who had no idea what was going on in the music I was listening to at the time other than the certainty that ""that's not music that's just loud banging and screaming!"" It's one thing to understand notes and technical aspects of being a musician but an understanding of attitude, performance, vibe, etc is a necessary trait that most music instructors lack. I got a kick out of watching him treat the kids as peers instead of condescending to them. Great finale as well. I really dug the movie. Teaching kids to rock is a noble calling indeed :) Can't wait to see it again when it comes out proper.",1 "This film tries to be ""Film Noir"" but just doesn't make it.

When I started watching it I could have sworn it was from the late 30's or early 40's, partly due to the poor quality print. When I realized that it was from the late 40's I was shocked.

The plot is actually quite good until the end, which was a dreadful anticlimax.

There are two main problems with this film, one is the obviously very poor direction, the other is that Brian Donlevy's character is far to mild mannered.

Brian Donlevy was a great actor, strong willed and forceful. Check out ""Beau Geste"". In this film, even though he starts out to be a businessman who doesn't take no for an answer, he turns out to be a wimp. Poor writing.

A wimp is not what is needed in the second half of this film and wimps do not belong in film noir.

Charles Coburn was a fine actor and could be gruff when he needed to be. This role called for a hardened detective, instead he acts like Shirley Temple's kindly grandfather. Poor direction.

Ella Raines and Helen Walker did a good job, though I think Ella's character should have gotten stronger and nastier after she found out that her husband was alive and her lover was dead. Again, poor direction.

Anna May Wong should have quit when sound came in.

I believe Mae Marsh to have been a good ""sound"" actress but she never got a chance to prove it. She had all but retired from acting until the stock market crash wiped her out. She doesn't seem to have wanted to be an actress and was relegated to uncredited mother roles when she had to return to make money. Mae did a good job in this role as in the other small parts that I have seen her in.

Now back to the biggest problem with this film, the ending.

Brian Donlevy's lawyer tells his wife that he can prove that she is guilty. Charges are dropped against him, brought against her, The End.

The writer seems to have been late for an engagement and just hammered out a quick end.

This could have been a great film with some touching up of the script and a better director.",0 "This movie is about Ghengis Khan, which stars John Wayne and Susan Hayward. I had heard that this movie was bad, but then I decided to sit down and watch it. What did I think of this movie? This movie is honestly one of the worst movies ever made that I have seen! This movie is filled with a lot of bad things for a start. For example, rather poor acting from John Wayne, Pedro Armendáriz, and Thomas Gomez, laughable dialogue, most of the dialogue in the movie was totally modern talk! Another really bad part was where they did the filming, you could tell that it was filmed out in the desert out in Utah, because since when did the Gobi Desert have small plants and cliffs and rugged terrain in it?!

Before I really get going, I am going to say: What was John Wayne thinking?!

After seeing this unbelievable atrocity, I thought that whoever was in charge of the casting department for this movie ought to have been fired, because casting John Wayne as Temujin, or should I say, Ghengis Khan, was perhaps the worst mistake that they made with this movie, because I can't picture Temujin with John Wayne's voice! And I like I said above, Pedro Armendáriz and Thomas Gomez's acting was also very poor. This movie has some of the worst acting in Hollywood history, the acting was atrocious.

Also, it seems as if a large majority of the battle scenes in this movie were drawn out. It only goes to show that even John Wayne was not immune to a box office bomb. This is one of the worst movies that I have ever seen, I know that other movies such as Plan 9 From Outer Space are bad, but this makes Plan 9 From Outer Space look like a Best Picture Winner!

John Wayne has made some clunkers, such as The Green Berets, McQ, and Brannigan, but this is probably his worst. It only goes to show that even John Wayne was not a completely perfect actor!

I'm only giving this movie one star because I have to give it one star. If I could, I'd give it a very rare rating, perhaps one that there never could be!

Negative one star out of ten.

-1/10",0 "In San Diego, the powerful Bill Templer (Dale Midkiff) leads a governmental defense agency, and after the explosion of an expensive satellite, the government intends to shut-down his agency. He frauds the government and the population with images showing the danger of an alien attack to justify the explosion of the equipment. The aliens were in the hidden side of the moon ready for attacking Earth. Templer convinces American government to send a nuclear weapon and blows the alien force up before the invasion of Earth. Detective Kevin Anjanette (Dondré T. Whitfield) finds that the images used by Bill Templer are forged and threatens his plans to regain power. This story is so absurd and ridiculous that becomes funny. `Alien Fury' hooked my attention until the last scene to check the capacity of a writer and a director to make such an unbelievable mess. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): `Fúria Alienígena' (`Alien Fury')",1 """Flushed Away"" co-director David Bowers makes his stand-alone directing debut on the $65-million, Summit Entertainment, big-screen remake of ""Astro Boy,"" the first example of anime that Japanese television broadcast in 1963. Initially, ""Astro Boy"" went by the name Tetsuwan Atomu, or Mighty Atom. Later, when the character made his debut on American television, the fictional robotic protagonist acquired the name of Astro Boy. Naturally, ""Kindergarten Cop"" scenarist Timothy Harris and Bowers have diverged slightly from the original, but they have kept the essential storyline largely intact. Historically, ""Astro Boy"" made his literary debut in Japanese comic books back in 1952. Osamu Tezuka, who created ""Astro Boy"" and has since been hailed as ""the God of Manga,"" turned his back on a career in medicine to write stories about an android ""Pinocchio"" whose feats of strength and speed more than match the DC Comics' hero Superman. The success of the original Japanese television show spurred a remake both in 1983 and in 2003. Essentially, this pint-sized automaton spends its time waging a perpetual war on crime, evil, and injustice. Humans that hate robots, robots-run-amok, and alien invaders constitute Astro Boy's primary adversaries. Excellent computer-generated animation, charismatic voice performances by Nicholas Cage, Donald Sutherland, Kristin Bell, and Nathan Lane, and Bowers' energetic helming make this 94-minute opus refreshing as well as worth watching.

This fantastic but formulaic Japanese-animated science fiction adventure epic takes place in a futuristic society where robots perform all the menial tasks and are discriminated against because they lack humanity. A father loses his son during a laboratory mishap involving a military robot implanted with a core substance that enables it to defy the three rules of robots as established by sci-fi guru Isaac Asimov. The brilliant but selfish scientist Dr. Tenma (Nicholas Cage) has created 'the Peacekeeper,' a hulking cyborg that General Stone (Donald Sutherland of ""M.A.S.H."") has commissioned to solidify his presidency from all contenders. Tenma's inquisitive whiz-kid son Tobias (Freddie Highmore of ""The Spiderwick Chronicles"") wants to witness the robot trials. Tenma has Toby locked up for safety, but this smarty pants schoolboy figures a way to escape. Later, he finds himself trapped in the same area with the heavily armed Peacekeeper robot. When the machine tries to penetrate a force shield with awesome array of armaments, the blasts render it useless and atomize Tobias. The grieving Dr. Tenma retrieves the only remnant of his son: a baseball cap. He takes a strand of hair from the cap, extracts the DNA, pulls out all of the memories and inserts them into a cyborg version of his son. The allusion to Pinocchio is clearly obvious. Unfortunately, Tenma tires of his son the robot and pines for the real McCoy. The catch here is the robotic version of the boy does not know that he is a robot.

Eventually, the father cannot stand the sight of the robot because he knows that it is not his son. As it turns out, the robot has a blue-core in its chest that allows it to pull off some pretty amazing stunts. When the evil political leader wants Dr. Tenma to remove the blue core from his son to put into the war robot, the father turns against him. Astro Boy escapes, but is exiled when enough explosions knock him off the floating chunk of earth called Metro City to the ground below where rusting robots lay piled in heaps. Metro City is a solitary island of land that levitates above the polluted earth. Astro Boy discovers new companions, orphaned humans, but he also realizes now that he is a robot. He can understand what robots are saying when they speak. Now, Astro Boy has to keep his identity a secret from his new friends, foremost of whom is a pretty little thing named Cora (Kristen Bell of ""Veronica Mars""). These kids scour the earth for robot parts for another scientist, Ham Egg (Nathan Lane of ""The Producers"") who rebuilds robots and matches them against each other in gladiatorial struggles to the death in a coliseum Roman style. Astro Boy helps rebuild a gigantic robot named ZOG and Ham Egg reveals Astro Boy's secret and forces him to fight ZOG. The only problem is that Astro Boy refuses to kill. Meanwhile, the evil military leader, General Stone (Donald Sutherland of ""M.A.S.H"") sends forces to retrieve Astro Boy. One of the funniest scenes occurs when Astro Boy is battling a ""Transformers"" style robot and learns that he is equipped with a pair of machine guns loaded into his buttocks! Director David Bowers never lets the momentum slow down. The hyper-kinetic action scenes are spectacular with our underdog champ Astro Boy pitted against some wicked foes that want him dead. The theme of racial intolerance pervades the action with robots seen as our inferiors until—in the words of one human—Astro Boy emerges with more humanity than most humans. Occasionally, Bowers' film takes on a grim feeling, particularly when Dr. Tenma turns against his son. What sets ""Astro Boy"" apart from the usual competition is the subtlety of its storyline. This colorful storytelling is ideal for both children and adults.",1 "I met Randy Quaid many years ago, when I was bartending at a bar in Toronto. I was surprised to see how very tall he was, and felt a little nervous around someone with so much physical presence. Truth is, he's a pussycat. But not in this film! Mr Quaid's presence is massive, and I mean that in the best way. His laconic Aussie is frightening from his first entry into this two-hander, and he ably sustains that looming, brooding character right through to the end of the film. Along with Jay Baruchel, another terrific actor born to play this role, the pressure begins with our initial encounter of hit-man and loser, and never lets up. I have to say that I'm glad that I saw this film, and the level of acting showcased - with major props to Jayne Eastwood, a Canadian acting legend, whom I've followed for decades - should be mandatory viewing for aspiring actors/actresses who want to see what a great actor can do with a great role, and the right acting chops. As an aside, the soundtrack of mainly Canadian musical stars of the 70's adds a melancholy, nostalgic feel to the experience. Amongst the musicians showcased are the Jive Five (""What Time is It?""); Abraham's Children (""Goodbye, Farewell""); LightHouse (""One Fine Morning); The Stampeders (""Sweet City Woman""); Chilliwack (""Fly by Night""); Trooper (""Two for the Show""); and The Tragically Hip (""Scared""). Also used to great effect are Nilssen's (""Without You"") and a taste of Erik Satie's ""Gymnopedies #1"". This film will make you think. It may make you reconsider what 'luck' is. And it may make you see your world a little differently than it looked at the beginning of the day. To quote Ruben's character (Quaid); ""Actually walking away at the right moment - how often do we do that?""",1 "This movie was a big disappointment. It went from having potential to becoming and absurd piece of Hollywood crap. The acting was mediocre at best (with the exception of Travolta)- I counted a half dozen times where Robin Wright's accent changed during the course of the film.

What makes this movie so uncomfortable to watch is that all of the leads are considered fine actors, but they are hopelessly trapped in a boring, ridiculous, confounding movie.",0 "Bad film seekers rejoice! Rent or buy this film on video and marvel at its sloppy tackiness and sheer badness. There have been a lot of Grade Z horror films made over the years, but few are as enjoyably awful as this one! Its one of my all time favorites! Yes, it's sad to see Lon Chaney, Jr. and J. Carrol Nash in their last roles, but what a way to go out! Director Al Adamson's wife, the busty dim witted bleach blonde Regina Carroll is used to great effect in her best role! We are treated to her incredible bad night club song and dance routine which is mind numbing! She's said to be a star in Las Vegas, but we only see one table of people in the audience, and sitting right in the middle is the director Al Adamson himself! Jim Davis, of Dallas, is a silly police detective who endlessly babbles his philosophy about the ""freaks and weirdos."" Great Grade Z supporting cast. Lots of tacky circa 1970 fashion, language, and situations (like Regina's acid trip). Zandar Vorkov is certainly filmdom's best-worst afro headed Dracula. His voice is processed through an echo device so cheap it makes Mexican radio sound realistic! Some of the Frankenstein effects are 40 year old original Universal props! Wonderful schlock from master crap film maker Al Adamson. Don't miss it!",1 "It was in films like Sagebrush Trail that John Wayne learned his craft, but thank the Deity he got out of doing stuff like Sagebrush Trail.

The Duke has busted loose from jail, he was in the calaboose for a murder he didn't commit. He eludes a posse chasing him, but gets into the clutches of an outlaw gang headed by Yakima Canutt. It's as good a place as any to look for the man who can clear him. He doesn't realize though how lucky he got.

Now granted this was a Lone Star production, not even a B film. But I would have liked to have seen just how Wayne got into the jackpot that landed him jail for murdering the lover of a married woman if he wasn't involved with her. When we do find who the murderer is that's never explained to us.

Since this was for the afternoon kiddie matinée crowd maybe such things weren't delved into even before the Code came in place. Maybe it was a question of sloppy editing also.

I think John Wayne's most devoted fans might like this one, I really wouldn't recommend to others, even other western fans.",0 "Give thanks to the internet. After bringing forth Nigerian money scams, phishing scams, identity theft, email viruses, spyware and stupid urban legends, now it thrusts upon us yet another abomination we have to warn all our friends and relatives about. Loose Change, and it's various 'editions'.

First things first. Do not believe a word this video says. Sources include anti-semitic 'news' organisations, wacky mad-scientists and alternative-science 'entrepreneurs'. (But of course they don't tell you this.) When it does cite legitimate news providers, the stories are almost always from the immediate aftermath of the attacks - a confusing time when even the media organisations themselves admit they made a terrible mess of the reporting.

If you're not careful you'll get suckered in by its logical trickery. A military document about 'Operation Northwoods', a sinister plan to stage a fake terrorist attack on US citizens, supposedly proves the government is willing to attack its own people. Yet, read the fine print: in Operation Northwoods nobody was to be killed, or even hurt; civilians weren't involved at all. And more importantly the idea never even went into planning because the government wasn't prepared to carry it out! So what does this prove again? Beware the cheap tricks to make you think the Osama Bin Laden confession video is fake. Think carefully about the astounding claims that someone stole $200 billion in gold and silver from under the World Trade Center (try calculating how much that weighs!). Ask yourself if its really possible all the phonecalls from the hijacked planes were faked. Could somebody impersonate your wife/husband without you realising? There's example after example, of dishonesty, trickery and stupidity. Take a look around the internet for the Loose Change Viewers Guide. Although a little sarcastic it lists literally hundreds of distortions, quotes out of contexts and logical blunders, and it gives the real facts behind some of the conveniently truncated quotes.

Worst of all though, despite pleas to the contrary Loose Change is an insult to the memories of those who died, those who mourn them, and those who struggled to save lives. Without daring to point the finger directly Loose Change's innuendo implicitly accuses thousands of citizens of complicity in murder. The crimes proposed simply couldn't have been committed without the assistance or subsequent lies of local government employees, clean-up workers, medical staff, coroners, the NYPD, the FDNY, hundreds of other agencies and private companies and most importantly the victims and their bereaved relatives.

It's an appalling, egotistical, nasty piece of work.",0 "This is not a typical Dolph movie nor is it a typical obscure film. I mean it's obscure, but not in a cool new find way. Perhaps it's due to bad writing and directing but it just seems so different in terms of dialogue and plot development. For most of the movie Dolph sits around and drinks but after about an hour he finally gets down to some action.

He also sounds different. His voice is gravelly. Like he's smoked 100 cigars a day for a decade. But I guess this is him just getting into character, too bad it's not interesting but it's nice to see the effort. There should plenty for Dolph to get his teeth into here and lots of opportunity for a hot-potato of a movie. Land mines are a delicate issue but at some point in the movie it all collapses into standard action-man territory.

The beginning is badly directed, some shootouts seems really false and the trailer is, by far, the WORST I have ever seen. The DVD has plain old stereo sound with a pan and scanned fullscreen picture. Avoid it.",0 "Saw this last night, and was looking forward to watching a film with both Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock.

As for the witchcraft aspect of the film, it looked all OK to me. Nothing was too wrong or inaccurate, after all, there are as many incarnations of witchcraft practices as there are shades of green. That is to say that any portrayal is not necessarily wrong, as there are no set teachings in what is right and what is wrong when practising the craft. So to the person who said it was totally incorrect when the bird is stabbed with the needle as Wicca doesn't do it, no. Your practice of wicca doesn't but other's might.

My main complaints about the film are script and production inaccuracies. The first is when Kidman is saying that her boyfriend is from Bulgaria: ""close to Transilvania... he's got the whole Dracula-cowboy thing going on"". Please. Transilvania is a region in Romania - a totally different country. Even from the border of Bulgaria and Romania to Transilvania is at least a couple of hundred miles. The 2 countries are different in language and culture. I really hate when films from the USA get such basically simple but fundamental things such as geography wrong. It's not hard to get these things right! The second thing in the film, which is more of a goof... when Sandra Bullock had to go and rescue Nicole Kidman, the aunts were going to take the kids to the Solstic Celebrations. There are solstices a year. One on 21 June. The other on 21 December. The film was supposed to be set around the December solstice. There was no mention or indication of Christmas (or anything to do with the Christmas season) in the film. OK, witches may not necessarily put up a tree, etc. But in the scenes with Kidman in Arizona, or wherever, surely the motel would have had something Christmassy - from experience in the USA, 4 days before Christmas, everything has lights and decorations.

I'm tired typing. But these were the 2 main issues which bugged me about the film since I saw it last night.",0 "And to think, I was actually looking forward to seeing this film! Forest of Fear is a Video Nasty zombie flick, and if that's not enough to put you off; the fact that it's really boring might. The plot looks like it might give way to a fun little flick, as it follows the idea of a field full of weed being sprayed by chemicals, which turn everyone who smokes it into zombies. However, the film can't capitalise on this plot base; I'm not sure if it was because of the budget constraints, or merely a lack of talent on the writer's part, but most of the film is made up of tedious sequences; and even the parts where the zombies get to munch on human flesh aren't up to much. I've got no idea why this film was banned, as while there are gore sequences in the film; none of them are particularly gruesome, and I reckon that whoever made up the actual 'Video Nasty' list decided to take this film out of circulation because it's a zombie film. Not that I particularly have a problem with a ban on this movie; it's not worth seeing anyway.

Despite being rubbish, however, Forest of Fear marks a personal achievement for Charles McCrann. McCrann, apparently a movie buff, has credits on this movie for acting, directing, editing, producing and writing - and that's no small feat, even for a movie of this low calibre. However, despite McCrann's personal achievement; Forest of Fear is a zombie movie of the lowest order. Movies like Dawn of the Dead took the idea of zombies and moulded it around a substantial social commentary, and later films such as The Evil Dead worked in spite of a low budget thanks to a constant stream of entertainment; Forest of Fear lacks both intelligence and interest, and it very much just another zombie movie. Ironically, had the film have been Italian; I may have been more forgiving given all the glorious trash that they've given the world of cult cinema, but unfortunately; this is just a really bad film and unless you're planning to see everything on the Video Nasty list (like me) - I can't recommend going out of your way to find this.",0 "QUID PRO QUO shows us that no matter how entrenched we are in our world view, there are always people who feel, with equal intensity, the exact opposite. Who would trade mobility for a wheelchair? Meet the characters in this film. QUID PRO QUO examines a psycho-sexual subgroup who feel that they are normal, but ""trapped in a walking person's body"". We are introduced to a paraplegic radio talk show host who meets a young woman who yearns to be disabled. This part is played by the radiantly crazy Vera Farmiga who rolls over Nick Stahl's staid NPR persona with willful glee. Farmiga injects a recklessly erotic element to this otherwise plodding script. She throws down a little MURDERBALL into this decidedly odd and weird universe, and as to why she is up to all of this? It becomes the strange trick-ending to this odd bit of fantasy. If you liked David Cronenberg's film, CRASH, you might enjoy this movie's nutty vibe.",1 "In her office, late at night, Mary (Corr), a psychologist, takes a voicemail from the father of a girl who has committed suicide whilst under her care, urging her that it's time to 'let go'. Having lost her position through this unfortunate event, Mary finds it very hard to do so, and scribbles down the man's number only to see it vanish beneath the remnants of a teacup, upended by her friendly cat. An attempt at remembering the number leads to a call to an elderly man, Simon (Fenton), who only moments before was poised, barefoot on a snowy ledge, about to leap to his death into the dark waters below… Against the shadowy silhouette of the bridge, blue-tinged and feathered with falling snow, director Richard Raymond elicits a most magical and haunting sense of other-worldliness, the stylised heightened reality an escapee of a Tim Burton landscape, demonstrating all of Burton's delicious dark melancholy but devoid of his black humour. However, this is no triumph of style over substance: Raymond gently unfurls his tale, Mary at first still as she receives the message, her agitation growing as she takes the call from Simon and realises he is on the brink of killing himself, and then her flight into the night as she attempts to lay her own ghosts to rest by saving another, all leading to a taught and chilling climax.

Whilst an interesting combination, there may not be the highest of expectations for the pairing of the lead singer of a pop group with Doctor Legge from Eastenders. In that case, be prepared for a most pleasing surprise. The pacing of the film is dependent on the camera exploring the performers' actions and gestures and, within their dialogue, to linger on their expressions. As such, any mis-timing or errors would be magnified to the audience. That they both deliver convincing, gripping and moving performances is a credit to both actors and Raymond as director. Corr, previously seen in The Commitments and Evita, the Madonna vehicle in which she was criminally allowed only one line of what should have been her character's own song, has her sights set on an acting career and the evidence on display here leads one to suspect she'll be most successful. Underplaying rather than overplaying is a most subtle skill and Corr demonstrates this with aplomb. Fenton, meanwhile, ranges from pathos to simmering rage, as his anger at his life erupts and, his face a close-up of crevice shadowed contortion, bores into the viewer. The interplay between seasoned thespian and fresh-faced newcomer is nicely balanced, and the unlikely two-hander deftly explores a range of human emotions. As the falling snow is by turn luminescent white in the lamplight, or midnight blue against the darkened night, it reflects how the film's themes of regret, guilt, blame, loyalty and redemption are rarely black or white but instead change, Monet-esquire, dependent on the light in which they're seen.

Are there flaws? One or two, but even these are debatable. The plot is stretched slightly and could be shorter, but to lose the slow-burning build would almost certainly detract from the atmospherics of the film. The ending, too, is not as dramatically climatic as one has been lead to suspect, but it is satisfying and quite haunting, resolving itself and yet is ambiguous enough to leave the viewer revisiting the tale in the mind's eye.

The Bridge has already attracted a considerable fanbase and plaudits from home and abroad. It's legacy will be as a beautiful, melancholy calling card that heralded the beginning of a most promising career for both its director and its leading lady, but one which will remain a favourite in it's own right in any viewer's personal film collection.",1 "This film starts off with a mother and daughter traveling together and both of them are not getting along because of her mother getting a divorce and the daughter feels sorry for her dad.

As this couple travel, the daughter is kidnapped by a very strange group of young people and the mother soon finds out that it is a group of people who are well organized in dark mysteries and spiritual powers that can transform people into all kinds of creatures that love to enjoy drinking blood and all sorts of sick dark acts of lust.

This is not your average horror film, but it is worthwhile viewing even if it does not make any sense.",0 "Well the film is a murder mystery and actually looks like an Indian film though it's a Hollywood film

It has Indian actors like Naseeruddin Shah, Amjad Khan, Dalip Tahil, Ratna Patak Shah

The film is a thriller and how a cop goes an investigates it

It touches on lots of topics on the problems cops face in India while solving cases albeit in a light manner

The film is serious and lighthearted at the right places and there is a nice balance

Direction is good Naseer essays his part with brilliance like always, One of India's finest actors Ratna Patak suits her role as his wife(in real life too she is his wife) Amjad Khan looks overweight and he is okay Dalip too is okay",1 "If you check the other comments, you'll hear about this being a great romantic comedy. It's not. As a romantic comedy, it barely passes muster. The laughs are few and far between, the plot is completely formulaic, and the only thing ""National Lampoon"" about this film is the title. Douglas is wooden as Adam, although Chriqui is very convincing as Eve. The frat-house shenanigans are tame beyond belief when compared to other Lampoon college movies, and the girl waiting for the perfect time to toss in her V-card is an old theme that isn't freshened in any way by this film. After great National Lampoon titles like ""Van Wilder"", ""Animal House"", and the ""Vacation"" movies, this one feels like the first attempt of someone straight out of film school.",0 Khamosh Pani a.k.a Silent Waters (Urdu/Punjabi-English Subtitles) is an extra-ordinary feature film i've ever seen till date. It is totally belongs to Sabiha Sumar all the way. In short it is totally a Director's Film. Every scene of this film shows and portrays the hard work gone into it.

Every actor in this film performs very well. Especially Kirron Kher & Amir Mallik steals the show.

I think this film is a treat to watch. Every frame of this film has something to say and discuss. A truly learning cinema. Sabiha Sumar gives a work of Masterpiece in her debut. Kudos to the film maker for revealing such a beautiful cinema!!!,1 "Angry spoilers ahead After what seems an eternity, finally this movie was apparently coming to an end, but the worst was yet to come: Lambert's wife, who is also imprisoned, is about to give birth to her child. As if in a parody of the Argentina of the 80's, the Government wants to steal the children from her for some hideous purpose. The funny thing is that they don't wait until the woman brings her baby in the world naturally. Oh, no: they're going to use a saw to open her womb and take out the baby while killing her. When she realizes what's happening, the woman starts shouting and calling for her husband, who was precisely running along the prison two corridors away, hears hem and says something like ""I'm coming, honey!!"" This movie is THIS sophisticated, from the beginning and until the very end. If you find it on TV, DVD, or whatever... Please don't waste part of your precious lifetime in this",0 "This was the kind of movie....that I thought was amusing and sweet for a low budget flick! It had some mistakes...but 'so what' all movies do...even blockbusters! I would watch the young sexy actress/rapper Boobie Monroe...over and over again, she's HOT!! Reynaldo Rey is always funny, especially when he gets angry...Remember House Party 3? Singing was 'shaky' but I really did enjoy the rap numbers...especially the one's by Mysterious and Tangerine.....The white, black rap was kind of funny, but could have been just a bit better.....But it was worth it just watching Tangy (Boobie Monroe). Oops, back to Boobie again....""She's Hot""!! I thought that was Richard Williams as the butler...I thought it was cool for him to get a 'bit' part!",1 "you'd actually have to have experienced this weird crap in your real life in order to enjoy it. it was just a weird movie about some killer idiot. he was always thinking about murdering his therapist and it was constantly flashing back to scenes, but it was one of those lame flashbacks where they don't tell you it's a flashback and you think it's happening now. it's kind of confusing, but not in a deep sense. it's more like a sense of idiocy and waste of time. like, ""why am i still watching this crap?"" i'm actually at a loss for words as to why i finished the film. the grenier fellow really needs to try a new hair style. i mean, he has nice hair, but he only has one haircut and that's just retarded. he could get some corn rolls or a bowl cut even. i think the movie was retarded.",0 "So you thought that Norma couldn't make a hit without Thalberg, huh? Maybe Marie Antoinette didn't make a trillion dollars at the box office, but today film lovers treasure it to make up for this. Ty Power is gorgeous, as is Norma, in the gorgeous costumes and wigs, and the sets are magnificent. This movie is so sad and tragic and beautiful that it makes you cry by the time Marie is jailed with her family and has her son testify against her in court. This is Norma's ""last best"" movie.",1 "Well, I'm sure within seven days I'll forget the fact that I've even seen this film. The actors are awful (even Dylan Walsh), the script is written by primary school students, the action scenes and visual effects are laughable (with extensive use of stock footages) and yes, the story. I don't see any single point in the whole storyline that has a minute trace of originality. There are numerous clichés and predicted sequences.

The film would be worth watching if there could be some Erica Eleniak nudity... seriously. Otherwise I don't see why one should watch this type of films anymore.",0 "I really enjoyed the movie. Sometimes you want to watch something that is fun and lighthearted with a happy ending. Not every film is a great epic. People tend to be hard on films like these when writing a review because they think every film must be deep and intellectual. This movie can be enjoyed by the whole family, has a lot of funny moments, and won't give you nightmares. Not a waste of time if you like fun!",1 "This might not be the greatest story ever told, but who cares if Salma Hayek is in it?! (...and wearing practically nothing throughout the whole film!) Same old story: Police officer (Harrelson) is hunting thieves (Hayek and Brosnan). They develop some kind of relationship. He never managed to catch them and now they are retired. But will they come back for one last job... and can he catch them this time?!

Well, to be honest, it isn't actually that bad. I was expecting worse! There are a couple of nice jokes and really beautiful locations in this movie...!

I recommend: If you have a jealous girlfriend, better watch this movie on your own. Unless she likes Pierce or Woody... then it's even and all can be happy! ;)",1 "Anybody who hasn't guessed the surprise ending of this one by five minutes in deserves what he gets.

Which is not much.

Some goofy and abortive mooning over the meaning of life, a couple of boring chases on a snowmobile, some special effects that woudn't cut it on Halloween.

And Vick's repetitive killing of Adam actually gets funny after a while. Like a Roadrunner cartoon without the Acme products.

And can anybody explain why almost the only time Vick wears a hat is when he's indoors?",0 "I watched Beverly Hills 90210 since I was in elementary school it has always been my favorite show. It deals with ups and downs you go through in life. My favorite moments were the first four years when Brenda and Dylan were the couple! When Dylan had to choose between Brenda or Kelly! Brenda, Brandon, Dylan, Kelly, Steve, David, Donna, Aundria,are the best! I miss the old cast the further I get into the seasons, the old cast is what made the show so great I believe even without them the show is good but the old cast had the better times and the most memories.I own all 10 seasons and I am still working my way through to the end.",1 "Don't see this movie, not even for free, the ""action"" scenes in this movie last for about 2 minutes, and i says that over half the budget was spent there.. So what do you get.. its not even close to Bravehart, some scenes in Bravehart you could see people just stand and swing a sword in the background, its the same here, but its the main characters who do it... sigh.. Thers a ""love story"" in this movie too, following that one is more painful then jumping from a cliff just to see the end of the day. Im gonna write something positive, It was so boring so I actually fell asleep the last 30 minutes. Sweden have some good actors, Stellan Skarsård, Max Vond Sydow, Peter Stormare and Dolph Lundgren, I think Sweden should be proud of those people, cause this movie just make Sweden look bad in front of the world.",0 "***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** This is exactly what you'd expect if you gave some thick teenage boys the money to make their own film - lots of pointless violent scenes, childish sex scenes, shallow characters and the simplest story possible. Oh yes, and there's a highly original gun battle scene near the end where the hero is alone and kills about a dozen adversaries. The original bit is that all their bullets somehow miss him completely, but he manages to shoot them all dead. Inspired, eh?",0 "OK. Let's start this by saying that I am from Belfast and although I haven't ever lived in a nationalist ""district"" like the one this film tries to portray I am fairly aware of what happens in parts of Belfast. With that out of the way - the acting isn't that bad, Daniel Day-Lewis is pretty good as is Emily Watson except for the occasional dodgy accent the rest get through unscathed. It's not the ""Irish Rocky"" - despite sporting some very striking similarities in the plot, Danny never really fills you with much confidence. But the most offensive thing is the patronising tone of the film. Perhaps I have been put off by the skyline shots of another town that quite obviously isn't Belfast and the look of a film that could have been shot in 1987 not 1997 but the politics was patronising - a boxing match could bring together 2 communities that have been locked in hatred for 30 years? Substituting one sort of violence for another, albeit a much less nasty violence, is the kind of logic that causes these unending wars. Give me a break Sheridan. He also wrote last year's corny Irish-American flick ""In America"". The picture is fairly dark and bleak, this can be the case for people living in fear, but this film skirted round the true issues that confine them there.",0 "Thisa has to be one of the best of the Corman films that I've ever seen. The plot is a little slow and silly, there appear to be only three sets, and th dialog is campy at best. But the things it has that other Corman films do not have - 1. Not one, but FOUR strong female leads. Corman films tend to have strong females in them, but usually only one at a time(or two at most). And while the girls do spend a bit too much time drooling over the one guy in the film, they're still smart, strong-willed, and(in the case of Beverly Garland's character) vicious, as well. 2. The color's not bad. Most Corman films are in black-and-white, but the thing is even the colorized ones tend to look gray because they're usually so drab and depressing(i.e., Gunslingers). 3. There is no stupid, ridiculous looking monster involved. True, Gunslinger doesn't have one either, but most of the rest of Corman's turds have the dumbest looking monsters ever put on screen in them. Look at It Conquered the World, which still has the worst, stupidest looking monster ever(at least in my estimation, anyway). 4. The plot's not bad, for a Corman flick. I mean it is thin, of course - the entire film is about these women wandering around a swamp while getting drunk, cutting their jeans into shorts, cat fighting, etc. But this is STILL more plot than in normal Corman fare.

Swamp Diammonds is brilliant for a movie made by the truly untalented Roger Corman. It's actually almost worth watching - almost.",1 "As it has just been recovered and digitized by University of Nevada at Las Vegas and Turner Classic Movies along with the rest of Howard Hughes' classic silent movies, the people of today will finally get to see this great movie. A movie about prohibition and the mafia, made at the same time it was all going on. Idealizing the mafia before the Godfather was even thought of. Although it may be silent, it shows detail on the corruption of the mob with the police force and government officials, and not to mention the costumes of the film were obviously fitting for the time period, and used common ""gangster"" themes, such as the pinstriped suit with fedora and the cigar. The production quality is very good for the time, with what equipment they had to work with. The stereotypical choppiness of the frames from 20's movies rarely occurs, except when there is much fast action. Turner also did a good job digitizing this, as the film quality is still high. I recommend that people see this, albeit short, it gives a good idea about the movies of the times. Along with ""Two Arabian Nights"", also produced by Howard Hughes.",1 "Really a $2 million dollar extravaganza, the film has amazing art direction and production design by William Cameron Menzies that keeps this film visually interesting, and the viewer spellbound, for well over its two hour length! But it's not just the fantastic and virtually non stop special effects that elevate this film. The verve, energy and smile of Douglas Fairbanks anchor the well told fantasy and its action. This was the 20s version of a 'blockbuster' with its editing, scope and scale, continuous action, special effects, and a fine fantasy story--something not seen comparably again until the unleashing of 'Star Wars' (1977).

There are a couple of slow spots, the Thief's repentance scene and his first time alone with the Princess go on a little too long, but so much else happens in the film that these momentary slowdowns are easily overlooked. The Princess herself (Julanne Johnston), far from being the entrancing mystical vision who captivates and transforms the Thief is, unfortunately, almost a cypher, since her face is hidden behind a veil for much of the movie, and she's not staggeringly beautiful. And why does it take so long for the Thief to ride to the rescue when the Evil Mongol Prince has taken over Bagdad when he could have flown there on Pegasus, the Winged Horse? To heighten the dramatic tension of course!

We also get the bonus of seeing Anna May Wong, in her first 'big' role, so beautifully slinky as the evil Mongol slave / spy. Her major silent film was the British 'Piccadilly,' (1929). Sojin Kamiyama played the Evil Mongol Prince with great menace and evil eyes. You can see him in 'Seven Samurai' (1954) and the first 'Musashi' movie, 'Mushasi Miyamoto' (1954) with Toshiro Mifune.

What really impresses is the ending in which the Thief uses his magic dust to create tens of thousands of soldiers out of the earth to defeat the Mongols' take over of Bagdad, as he then sweeps up the Princess in his invisible cloak, and flies off on the magic carpet with her to live happily ever after. This is the kind of Saturday afternoon at the movies ending that would get audiences cheering even today. Film histories note that after the end of the premiere showing of the film in New York, Fairbanks, as the producer, writer and star, leaped up on the stage to thunderous applause. Well deserved!

This film passed my test of time test as my 8 and 10 year old grandchildren thoroughly enjoyed watching it. They clearly recognized its similarity to their Disney version of 'Aladdin' (1992). The great DVD KINO version has a new soundtrack (with hints of 'Scherazade') that adds to the thrills of this wonderful movie. Old silent movies are boring? Not this one! I give it an 8.",1 "Saw Out On a Limb yesterday on a non-sell through DVD copy and thoroughly enjoyed it. There are not enough strong British comedy films getting through, but this one really deserves a look.Low budget does not have to mean low rent and this film shows that, stylish and confident, making good use of clearly small funding. Also there is often a danger in self referential stories, (the industry does the industry) but Out On A Limb manages to make its take on the entertainment industry really work. Knowing how hard it is to get a film off the ground then even harder to get it out to an audience, I find it ever more frustrating that our choices are limited by distribution cartels. Good British movies like this need a better chance",1 "I rented this film on DVD, as part of a double feature. Netflix packages lots of their classic films, on DVD this way. In addition to the feature films, the DVD also included some extra film clips. Some of the extras were fun to watch, especially the old Drive-in Intermission clips. They sure brought back fond memories, of trips to the Drive-in during my childhood days.

Just For The Hell Of It, was little more than a melodramatic yarn about violent, delinquent teens. This film stood-out from others of it's kind, by portraying the teen violence as particularly vicious. There was even a scene where a toddler was snatched from it's carriage, and put in a garbage can, by one of the teens. The incredible mayhem that these teens indulge in, is way beyond youthful hijinks.

It's obvious that the producers of this movie, were trying to shock the sensibilities of the older generation in the 60s. Seems like back then, the under-30 crowd were forever keeping their elders bewildered. But very few young people, were actually as brutal back then, as they're portrayed to be in this movie. So the premise of the film, really stretches the bounds of credibility. This movie doesn't even work as a campy film. It's just too grisly, and lacks any real element of humor at all. Only those who like gory slasher films, might enjoy this movie.",0 "If it wasn't for the fact that the male and female leads had triangle ears and long bushy tails, they would've been mistaken for Mickey and Minnie Mouse (maybe Walt Disney did and threatened to sue so Leon Schlesinger told his cartoon directors Hugh Harmon and Rudolf Ising-former Disney animators-to stop making Foxy cartoons). Anyway, Foxy rides on his horse to a bar in a desert town to see his girlfriend play the title song. This being pre-Code (and no stigma of cartoons being only a children's medium then), there's lots of drinking of alcohol treated in a humorous manner especially of the horse at the climax. Historically important since this was the first Merrie Melodies short after a year of Looney Tunes with Bosko as the star. Highly amusing though a long way from the classics that starred Porky Pig, Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny, etc. Still, worth seeing for any animation buff especially of Warner Bros. cartoons.",1 "It could have been an interesting premise. But it was executed so horribly, I was just in awe of what a mess this all turned into. For me, the only reason to watch this film is to see Ryan Carnes for the bulk of 90 minutes. He is completely engaging and could probably have turned in a better performance had he been given a decent script and an experienced director. He is impossibly gorgeous and, as a straight actor, does a really good job of believably portraying a gay guy, without resorting to overacting or being stereotypically gay.

Jim Verraros, in his role as Kyle, is really pretty cute in his own right, except he curls his lips and bobbles his head around in a sneering, dismissive way almost whenever he talks and it's really unflattering and conveys completely the wrong message relative to what he's actually saying. In spite of being cute and all, though, the character of Kyle is utterly self-loathing and just a miserable, bitchy queen. He was also campy to the point of distraction, but again, I blame that on the screenplay. Verraros is no amazing actor, but I believe he could pull off an indie role reasonably well if given better tools.

Apart from having a nice upper body, I did not see the appeal of Caleb (played by Scott Lunsford). He reminded me far too much of ""Ted"" from Queer As Folk.

As for the rather abrupt ending, I find it a bit of a stretch that the geeky self-hating boy would, after one horrible dinner in which he basically pouted the whole time, land the ferociously hot, model-esquire party boy Marc, who apparently instantly forgets all about his major crush on Caleb and acts as though he's been pining away for Kyle all this time. But it had to be a dream for Jim Verraros... an openly gay guy getting to totally make out with a gorgeous straight guy in a movie.

The DVD itself was abysmal. There are only 4 chapter marks, which is ridiculous for any movie, the subtitles are utterly horrible (they're wrong half the time, omit words, misspell words, etc.), and the commentary is among the worst I've ever been subjected to -- I couldn't sit through more than about five cumulative minutes of it. (I jumped around to see if it ever improved.) Basically, it was five people sitting in an echo chamber of a room with what was clearly one cheap microphone in the middle of the room, all talking about whatever pops into their heads. Half the time it wasn't about the movie at all.

The DVD I got from Netflix was obviously edited, as there was no actual nudity in it whatsoever. So clearly there are at least two versions of this DVD out there, which is really just pretty crappy.

The cinematography is decent for the most part, but another person on here said it looked like a lot of the scenes were filmed by a security camera and I agree. Wide-angle lenses have their time and place, but they're sorely misused and overused in this movie. It results in some very weird scenes that you feel like you're watching from afar... definitely doesn't help draw you into the movie, and the inane dialogue certainly doesn't compel you to be drawn into the characters, either.

All in all, it's not an absolutely horrible movie, but it's sure not very good, and I couldn't recommend it without some serious caveats. I'm not sure I understand the shirtless makeout scene between Kyle and Marc after the credits roll, either. It just doesn't make any sense in the storyline and seems to have been added on for prurient reasons (in which case, it could have been much steamier). Moreover, the picture just freezes at a random point, while the counter keeps running, then the disc ends (cuts off, rather) a minute or so later. It's very amateurish, and sadly, fits in nicely with virtually every other technical aspect of the DVD.",0 "An tense and atmospheric film following four teenagers from an English fee-paying school who plan to spend a weekend partying in an abandoned bomb shelter but end up locked in for 10 days with food and drink running short.

The film is held together by Thora Birch who has a very challenging role as Liz, the films central character. The rest of the largely unknown cast provide excellent support.

What brings this film above the run of the mill teen thriller is the intelligence of the writing which places this film nearer ""Se7en"" or ""Fight Club"" than ""Scream"" or ""I Know What You Did Last Summer"".

A must see for anyone who likes a film whose scares come from something deeper than loud bangs and psychos in masks, and whose characters have more depth than your average high school cheer-leader.",1 "Yikes. What a mess this is; it's a lot easier now to understand why this was unreleased on video for so many years. As someone who enjoyed ""Head,"" I was willing to give this a shot, but there is way too much Brian Auger & Julie Driscoll, short shrift given to some rock and roll legends (Little Richard, Fats Domino, and Jerry Lee Lewis) and some awful Monkees music numbers (excepting a nice ""Listen to the Band"" at the end). Pointless and dull, this is for Monkee completists only.",0 "This coming-of-age, romance, baseball story has every smaltzy, sentimental, semi-mental, feel bad, feel good cliche that ever graced a 50's big studio or Disney flick. There isn't one original scene, situation, or piece of dialogue in the whole movie. To make it worse, every point made on the screen is hammered home immediately afterward by having a character tell us what we just saw. The acting is nearly as bad as the screenplay. How is 104 minutes of unlikeable characters whining, crying, and refusing to act with any intelligence supposed to entertain or enlighten us?

I thought they didn't make them like this any more; unfortunately, sometimes they still do. If ""The Natural"" is a home run into the light towers, then ""The Road Home"" is a dribbler to first base.",0 "I got a chance to see this at CineVegas this year and I have to say I was very impressed.

The performances all around were well executed with a standout job by Josh Barclay Caras as Ben. He delivered a subtle performance that embodies the uncertainty of youth, coupled with the desire to fit in and find connection.

Writer/Director Carter Smith creates such a wonderfully dark and heavy atmosphere throughout the film. He really does an excellent job of creating a sense of foreboding in unique and original ways.

This is definitely a film worth seeing if you get a chance to do so.",1 "And it was only 3 squid me ol' muckers…

Pretty bad flick on all counts, Kal Penn holds it together as best the man can, he forges out a couple of funnies but the supporting cast who try hard must have been kinda cheap to hire...the dude with the Big Wang doesn't make much sense, the Irish guy does look a lot like his older bro from titanic, I wouldn't put the nerd in a starburst advert but I thought the English tart had balls spouting such filth...what would her mother say?

Kind of looks like they made it in a couple of weeks so I appreciate the effort and I think it was worth 97 minutes of my life on planet earth...I didn't watch the extra features I'm sorry to say and I was kinda bummed the way the every 'hastings' scene had the cheapest possible activity, sword fight, paintball, dog show, bus ride, drinking competition....yet there was no stunts and only 4 breasts involved plus Taj's golf cart was super slow..........hey ho!

On the plus side they don't need Van or even Taj to bust out a whole host of Van Wilder Chronicles. Funny and cheap that why national lampoons are a rock and i predict will survive the credit crunch.",1 "As others have said.....This movie stays with you....I was 10.. probably younger..when I saw it....and I can still recall the feeling in my stomach and aching in my heart. I don't remember much of the details of the movie......just the overall feeling I came away with....the pain...of something terribly wrong, injustice... I don't believe that it could have been ""workmanlike"" in any way since I remember the feelings so strongly.....A ""Workmanlike"" made film could not have made that happen to me...I would really like to see it again as an adult....I hope I can find it on DVD.

It's revealing to me that someone else.. as a child.. after so many years.. could have come away from the film with the same, exact feelings.

Thanks!",1 "Incoherent, meaningless, historically inaccurate and ultimately completely pointless. What was it trying to say or achieve? What was it about? Why was such a stellar cast wasted on this? Personally, I have no idea.

And for the record: regiments were either British or Indian (with British officers), not mixed; Indian sergeants were known as havildars, never as sergeants; British soldiers do not and did not wear beards; and Indian regiments were officered by British officers of the Indian Army, not officers who didn't understand their men and regarded them as 'savages', assisted by Indian native officers, not one of whom was in sight. Much of this was a blatant politically correct attempt to show how appallingly treated the Indians were. Many Indians, incidentally, were decorated for bravery, including with the Victoria Cross, so the idea that an act of gallantry by Indian troops would be ignored is complete fabrication.

The Indian troops who fought in the Great War certainly deserve a film tribute, but they deserve better than this.",0 """The Galileo Seven"" has always been one of my favorite Star Trek episodes. I know ""City on the Edge of Forever"" is the one show often cited as the best Star Trek episode, but I think ""Galileo Seven"" is almost as good. It is an interesting show because it reverses the series' formula in an interesting manner. In most Star Trek adventures, Spock serves as a harsh critic of human behavior. But in this episode, we get a chance to examine Spock's logic and see how effective (and practical) the Vulcan's ideology really is under pressure. I did think the story goes a little overboard in demonstrating the differences between the emotional humans and the cold Vulcan. However, the episode does make more than a few interesting observations on how leaders must use their intellect and heart in order to make sensible decisions. I have no doubts that this is indeed one of the show's best offerings. Highly recommended.",1 "Unlike John Wayne's more famous movie turkey, The Conquerer, this film is so bad that it is lots of fun to watch. It is incredibly poorly written (even for an RKO picture) and makes his earlier Republic Films look like masterpieces by comparison (and a few actually were). And, combined with the terrible dialog and dopey plot is the absolute worst performance of Janet Leigh's life! She plays a Russian Airforce pilot with less conviction than perhaps any actress could have approached the role. Not once does she even give the least hint of a Russian accent, though through the use of very thick sweaters she DOES appear to be the poster girl for Playboy Magazine. This nymphet role is combined with stoic ""Russian"" dialog that sound like it's right out of a grade school play. It's unintentionally hilarious.

As for Wayne, he pretty much plays himself. A REALLY, REALLY horny self, that is! FYI--Apparently the Russians flew Lockheed Shooting Stars (F-80s). You see, when you stick a red star on it, it becomes the spitting image of a MIG-15. Well, that is if you squint REALLY hard and maybe get REALLY drunk first and hit yourself on the head with a frying pan, and,...",1 "In the opening sequences of the film, we see three Hollywood big-shots; one, an actress, the other a director, and the third, a writer. All three very successful at what they do. The trio are in different ways connected to Johnathan Shields, who at the present time is trying to get the three to be a part of his comeback. The three are in no way anxious to work with him once again. Johnathan, a big time Hollywood producer, ran his career into the ground by pushing away people, who in the end could of prolonged his at one time successful profession. The three go on to tell their own intriguing stories how they met Shields, explaining how they grew to resent him.

Georgia, (played wonderfully by Lana Turner) now a popular actress began as a bit player in one of Shields films. Shield's in time, casts her as a lead in one of his pictures. Her anxiety's of ruining her big break almost lead her to miss her fortunate opportunity. The film becomes a success, solidifying Georgia as a respected actress. She soon discovers Johnathan romancing another woman, leading her to walk away from her contract with Shields, finding success elsewhere with another studio.

Jim, a writer, has his novel purchased by Shields to be turned into a motion picture. At Shields request, he approaches Jim to write the screenplay to the film. Jim dislikes Johnathan at first, in time, seeing him as something better. The two travel to the countryside to finish the screenplay. Before-hand, Johnathan asks an actor to keep Jim's clingy wife away for a while. His wife Rosemary, and the actor have a misfortunate accident and are killed in plane crash. Unknowingly, Johnathan reveals to Jim, that he had a hand in his wife's accidental death, marking the end of their friendship.

Then there's Fred, the hopeful and aspiring director, who of all places meets Shields at the man's fathers funeral. In time, the two become partners and make a few films together, mostly mediocre pictures. Fred recommends to Johnathan, that the two do a picture that is at first deemed impossible. After it gets the green-light, out of nowhere, Johnathan doesn't name Fred the picture's director, ironically, saying he wasn't experienced enough. Obviously feeling betrayed Fred walks away like Georgia did and acquires prosperity as a director, on his own.

The reasons for all of Johnathan's bizarre doings, is for the most part, because of his own need to live up to his father's name, who founded 'Shields Productions', and became a big player in the industry. In the process he estranges himself from everyone who means something to him. The phrase, ""what goes around, comes around"" really comes into play, in the films climax. One of definite greats of the 1950's. Easily one of my Top 20 of all time.",1 "Quirky, independent, theatrical, Christian Slater--these are all teasers that made me look forward to spending an hour or so ""discovering"" a jewel of a film. Boy, was I disappointed. Julian Po never gets over itself. The film is relentlessly self-conscious. I found myself unable to suspend disbelief for even a moment. The overdone, obviously theatrical sets, the overdone, obviously theatrical acting, the overdone, obviously theatrical directing -- well, you get the idea.

Allegories do not need to be delivered sledge hammer style. And it's hard to feel much of anything for Julian Po because we never know much about him. The ridiculous girlfriend, the annoying townsfolk, the idiotic clergyman, the bratty kids -- why would anyone, particularly anyone with a life long ambition to get to the seaside (Slater's character), decide to stay in such a dismal place?",0 "For English speaking viewers: If you can get past the subtitle problems, you're in for a real treat.

The subtitles are 2 or 3 seconds late-synched for the first 65 or so minutes of Disc 1 making it very difficult to watch. After that they come back into synch and are merely bad, a problem with many foreign titles.

Even with the subtitle problems, you'll be thoroughly entertained by a great adaptation of a most engaging novel. The 8-hour length allows Bortko to remain faithful to Bulgakov, and it's amazing to see how the novel works cinematically; decapitations, flying naked witches and crucifixions to name just some of the striking imagery. One can quibble with less-than-optimal special effects, but I'd rather see second-rate CGI in service of a good story than the tens of millions of dollars wasted on overblown blockbuster drivel. And if you see complaints about this or that actor, take it with a grain of salt and realize that Russians especially take characters from their literary heritage as seriously as anyone on earth.",1 "Adam & Evil starts as a group of high school friends intend to celebrate graduation by driving to some old camp & spending the night there, while stopped off at a bar the local Sheriff Earl (Jodie Graham) & his wife Maureen (Alison Warnyca) warn them that the camp they are going to was once the site of grisly murders but they should be OK anyway. Not put off by the reputation of the camp the friends set their tents up & start partying, however someone intends to crash the party & kill all the guests as Seth (Kevin Robson) has his throat slit. When his body is found the friends panic & try to find help but are unsure of who to trust as the mysterious killer continues to bump them off one by one...

Known under the title Halloween Camp 2: Scream If You Wanna Die Faster here in the UK this Canadian production was written, produced & directed by Andrew Van Slee & one has to say that as far as low budget teen slashers go Adam & Evil really isn't that bad, it sure ain't no masterpiece but but it was a lot better than I had expected. Adam & Evil most resembles a Friday the 13th (1980) or The Burning (1981) rip-off with teens being killed in & around a camp, the identity of the killer is kept a mystery until the end when there's a twist & the killer is revealed although one has to say the title sort of gives away who it is. The film doesn't feel too long, the character's are slightly better than usual for this type of film, there are a couple of OK kills & the basic who did it murder mystery while not groundbreaking will probably keep you watching & guessing until the end I suppose. Of course Adam & Evil is far from perfect, it's very unoriginal & the basic idea has been done to death & if the motive for the killer was revenge why did they kill the woman at the diner, the Sheriff & Maureen none of who had nothing to do with what happened previously? I expected a lot worse to be honest & maybe that's why I am being generous here but I think horror & slasher fans might find something to like here, don't expect a masterpiece & I am sure that Adam & Evil will pass 90 odd minutes for you harmlessly enough.

The kills are alright & at least there's a bit of variety between them, in a moment that looks like it could have come straight from The Burning a guy has his throat slit with a pair of garden shears, a couple are impaled by the neck when they have an arrow shot through them, someone is stabbed in the stomach with an axe, there's another slit throat, another arrow death & some more blood splatter along the way. There's a little sex & nudity but not much. The film looks pretty good actually although there's not much tension or build up to the kills & they do tend to come & go a bit suddenly.

Apparently filmed in Los Angeles & Vancouver in Canada according to the IMDb which I find hard to believe, why would the film need to be shot in those two locations? The acting isn't great as expected but the cat try & they are attractive enough to take your mind off their acting abilities.

Adam & Evil is a moderately effective teen slasher, sure there are loads out there already & this is far from the best but likewise it's far from the worst. I thought it was alright, nothing more nothing & less really.",1 "I'm an 18 year old guy, and I watched Bambi for the first time when I was 3 years old and I still remember how sad I felt when his mom died. I was thinking Bambi 2 was going to be another dumb Disney sequel.. but it was actually VERY nice to see how Disney kept to the ""feeling"" of the original movie.. very innocent. I loved that about the original. I bought the 2nd movie the day after it came out for my two brothers who are 7 and 10.. and they loved it! So.. I have to say, GOOD JOB Disney! :) We're proud to have Bambi 2 on our shelf with the rest of our Disney classics.

sincerely, ""A guy raised on Disney"" lol!",1 "O.M.F.G. this movie sits about 5 steps below the definition of Cinema Cheese... Where ""B"" movies reign, this is find a niche in the ""C"" category.. Franco Columbu should have stuck to the role of being the legendary bodybuilder who is aging well and working as a Chiropractor in California.. Instead, he trys his hand at producing & starring as lead role in a movie so awful i would have more readily chewed a handful of broken glass than watch from beginning to end..

The marketed plot of the movie is the following: ""An Elite Delta Force Team is assigned to thwart a Chemical Weapons Terrorist plot, in the process they are trapped inside an Ancient cave and have to fight their way out using all their skills as a Special Forces unit, against the incredible supernatural evil of awakened spirits of Warrior Guardians"" Sounds fargging good right??, the picture of the Skeleton's in armor on the DVD box set the hook in me and i splurged for the purchase...

Aight, lets break it down... There are no damn Skeletons in the movie at all, not a one... Now you think thats bad, there is NO battle between Delta Force and anything supernatural.. In fact, the ""Ancient Warriors"" is a 7 second scene of six Sardinian young men wearing garb with spears in hand, they step out from the wall from which they were previously superimposed, rocks falls killing Richard Lynch's character, then then back step into the cave wall again & disappear... Don't believe me? you haven't seen anything yet... There is a Baldwin in the movie, yes a real live Baldwin, a ""DANIEL Baldwin"" i may add, which was probably the lowest priced bid in the Baldwinian Empire.. Baldwin plays the part of a Delta Force Captain who is so out of shape that he could've been taken out by a 90 pound Polish Downs syndrome patient in hand-to-hand combat. In fact the entire ""Delta Force"" unit in the movie looks about as disciplined as the Guatemalan National Guard. Franco Columbu's role of the lead action character is beyond ridiculous, whilst mastering the double pistol squat run while flailing his hands, his head facing the ground as not to actually see his intended targets, there is a degree of skill required to such buffoonery. The fact that he seems to be completely unhittable by any rounds while in this mode is even more curiously amusing. Occasionally the pistols disappear in one frame and the next he is firing an Uzi, with as much enthusiasm as a stoned teenager playing ""operation wolf"" on an arcade.. Baldwin gets, NO-KILLS in the whole movie, in fact he is so far on the back burner it makes you wonder why he was even included in the film?.. Most of the time he plays a pathetic combination of ""faceman"" from the A-Team & a Pimp-Daddy lying on a lawn chair being pawed by adoring busty women giving him manicures. Richard Lynch's character is 80% coughing up phlegm & blood from some un-named disease, and then the other 20% wishing he was in a Chuck Norris flick.. The whole beach Delta Force training scene centered around the buttock region of the token T&A member of the squad, that and assorted elementary school caliber obstacles for the ""Elite"" Combat Team to negotiate. The action sequences are so preposterous that my eyeballs still ache from absorbing this audio visual toxin.. I love the scene where 3 guys running up with flashlights sends the Squad into a blind panicked retreat off of an 80 foot cliff.. Oh i forgot they were simultaneous under attack by a tin helicopter that obviously encompassed the part of the film budget that the lesser Balwinite did not yet absorb. Nothing, i mean nothing in this film had even a shadow of a basis in reality or the tactical functions of an actual Special OP's team.. Even the terrorists we more organized whenever they were not either mining, searching for the holy grail, or attempting to thwart the mad skills of Franco Columbu's double pistol dwarf walk (I swear he cut loose at least a few pasta farts in these sequences).. The acting as a whole is shallower than THAT ocean on the moon. When watching this movie, if you DO happen to have about an hour and a half of time which can either be spent cleaning a kitty litter box one grain at a time or watching this consider the latter. In any case spare the popcorn & fill a few shot glasses with Pepito-bismol and keep them on standby, your gonna need em'.",0 "This movie is horrible! I can think of many different things to waste my $13 and I wish had instead of watching this movie. It falsely advertises, a ""serial killer"" which is actually a huge crocodile in Africa. The movie trailers portray a human serial killer, but it is the furthest thing from it. Everyone is assuming the movie is actually about Jack the Ripper, but it is not. Don't be fooled. If you want to see a man eating crocodile, rent Lake Placid. They are exactly the same. But much cheaper! Save your money! Worst movie of 2007, and its only January.

There is nothing good about this movie. Enough said!",0 This little gem has just been released straight to DVD in Britain which is a travesty. It deserved to be seen in a cinema. The film shows that horror and comedy do go hand in hand if done well and this film does it perfectly. From the great character bios some of the more gruesome deaths this film has its tongue firmly in its cheek. The cast are top notch with some of the best comedy moments coming from watching the surprise deaths. It breaks a lot of the horror rules with who survives and who doesn't. The gore and special effects are fantastic. The film itself is paced perfectly with very little explanation as to why or what exactly is happening. I love finding a film of this calibre. It shows that you don't need to remake a Asian film with a huge budget in order to make a good movie. Watch it and enjoy it!!!,1 "A documentary that wears its heart on its sleeves is often a documentary that keeps its eyes on the prize. And just days after viewing the disappointingly cursory ""American Hardcore"", ""Metal: A Headbanger's Journey"" throws down a challenge in its first scenes when a frazzled youth with a microphone makes sure to add that ""punk…does not belong in this world"". Canadian metalhead cum anthropologist, Sam Dunn heads off on a personal odyssey to the United States, Germany, the UK and Norway to interview metal's luminaries and academics with two purposes in mind – to find out why metal has been so maligned and to gauge the obsession it inspires throughout its legion. Dunn angles a new perspective on its self-aware, perceptible fanbase and bands by personalising his journey in a formalised, but never didactic way, of approaching his subjects and interviewees as kindred spirits. He features erudite interviews with the subculture's leading and most influential personalities and accomplishes his first goal by juxtaposing their reasoned, informed views on metal with the irrational fear that advocacy groups have waged battles over. But in one of the film's most harrowing interview sequences, he also concedes that there are some bands that take the transgressive state of their cults of personality too far. Dunn's academic background allows him certain legitimacy and the documentary does try to counter the stigma of a pedagogic structure by employing some innovative and accessible use of the documentary within a documentary footage, accentuating Dunn's individual venture into his lifelong fascination.",1 "Went to the local film festival earlier tonight, or at least the kick-off for the local film festival. The venue couldn't have been worse, but it did aid in the general essence of the movie, Hide and Creep. The show was at Sloss Furnace in a concrete pit normally used for rock concerts and had small folding chairs for seating with a plethora of smoking and drinking. So what I am getting at is, it was a fun and unique experience!

Now, as a preface I want to tell you that I am a huge fan of the horror genre. I like it all, shock-horror (naked blood), gore-horror (dead alive), classic-horror (night of the living dead), sci-fi-horror (event horizon), suspense-horror (in the mouth of madness), standard-horror (hell raiser), modern-horror (ginger snaps) and many others that I could go on listing forever. I like these movies for many different reasons and that is a whole other topic altogether, perhaps in the forums...

This movie starts out quite amusingly with Chuck (writer/director/producer/actor) in his movie rental shop in rural Alabama, chastising a person on the phone about ZOMBIE films. Brilliant beginning. After reluctantly killing a ZOMBIE and finding out that the sheriff AND deputy are unavailable he does what any other good southerner would do and drops the dispatched ZOMBIE at the cop-shop and explains to a girl at the restaurant across the street where his breakfast is to be the obvious difference between Coke and Pepsi (the impostor cola).

That is all I will ruin for you. If you are a casual fan of ZOMBIE films and like the new trend of horror films not taking themselves too seriously, then I can offer no better movie in that style than this.

Camp, fun, charm and style, this flick has it all. I have no idea about the national release of this film, but I recommend it to just about anyone with a sense of humor and looking for a horrific-ZOMBIEfied time!

To answer questions, yeah, there is nudity, yeah they have to be shot in the head, yeah, there are a lot of inside jokes for Alabamaians that won't all be lost on everyone else, and yeah, Coke is better than Pepsi!",1 "I loved this movie soooo much! I was first introduced two thirds into it and I was immediately ready to sit down and watch it at three in the morning staying up till five am. The way it is shot is like pure genius! There is a scene in it that is shot from the perspective of the person being murdered and I mean it is aw inspiring! Seriously if it weren't for the way this movie ended it it would have been a 10 on my voting. Point in fact though the ending isn't horrible it just leaves a little to be desired. NON-SPOILER ALERT about the ending, they use a different person for the main character as the older version, but everyone else plays themselves just with makeup....(Don't get me wrong the guy they got 'Malcolm McDowell' to play as the older gangster is the best narrator and therefore carries the movie, but it's just weird and very hard to over look) Not to mention Paul Bettany who is a genius in this movie as well! My god the man can play psycho! All and all a must watch and a pass on to any friend who is in the mood to see a great flick!!!!!",1 "Pretentious slop about a student filmmaker who is so hip that no one ""gets"" him. Robert Forster plays the student and his performance is limited to smug expressions and wooden stares. I don't blame him, though, since the script is so godawful. The gist of the plot is that Forster's character wants to push the boundaries of realism in films, and while making a new film manipulates his cast and crew to perform unknowingly to his master plan. Actually, it's not a bad idea and anticipates the JERRY SPRINGER SHOW to some degree, but as put together the film plays like a very, very bad student film. This was shown on FXM recently, apparently in an R-rated form. The film was released to theaters as a PG film.",0 "Some movie reviewers just don't get it. One calls August Rush, ""…a piece of shameless hokum...""; another calls it ""…the sort of movie that requires you not only to suspend disbelief, but to check your sanity at the ticket counter."" That same reviewer said the movie Babel was a ""towering dramatic achievement""; I thought it was lumbering and tedious with scenes arguably pedophilic. As one Yahoo user said about it, ""Please let's not confuse art with ego…the sensationalism of seeing the naked girl or the masturbating boy was only necessary to compensate…THERE IS NO STORY HERE."" How often do we see reviewers totally out of touch with the opinions of the movie-going public? Back to August Rush. This movie went right over many critics' heads. I believe these are the elements they least understood: August Rush is a story of hope that teaches hope, determination, perseverance, and to never give up on your dream. It gracefully defines the benefits of listening. It takes us to another realm where we can witness there is more to us than our mortal bodies, brains, and intellects. Aha! It teaches things of the spirit, things unseen, things beyond our human understanding, and it does so through a child who is full of joy when there seems to be no reason for him to have any! But, he is a prodigy with a talent kindling in him and he can do things for which there is no logical reason.

My own son, Greg, was reading and doing math beyond a second grade level well before he began kindergarten. Neither his father nor I taught him these things; he just ""knew"" them. His pediatrician suggested tests when he seemed to her to be intelligent beyond his years. The evaluators gave their academic conclusions: Some kids just seem to get these things ""out of the air"" and he was one of them. Honest to God, that was the expression they used.

Numerous other marvelous instances of a ""miraculous"" vein have occurred in my own family's life's experiences. I submit to you, why do the Stephen Kings et al who present almost exclusively the darkside have the corner on the supernatural market? It's okay by today's standards to have the bejeebers scared out of us by the macabre, but to be encouraged by the extraordinary powers of our Creator? Why, that's just ""shameless hokum."" Do you know that each and every one of us has glorious potential within us if we'd just listen to the still small voice within? And that ain't ""hokum,"" folks! My heart truly goes out to those people who are of such a cynical, worldly nature that they cannot set aside their cerebral traits long enough to fathom the positive spiritual potentials of God.

Sincerely, Marylynn Stults",1 "Overall, I did not not like this movie. It is my fifth John Waters Movie and I am usually a big fan. Hairspray is my favorite movie of all time. I also loved Serial Mom and Pecker. I did not like this movie or Cry Baby.

I gave it a four out of ten, because it had some funny scenes and I did enjoy some of the characters and performances; however, I did not like the story at all.

I felt that the story tried to mesh together some of the themes from Serial Mom and Pecker, without success. I enjoyed the Kathleen Turner character in Serial Mom better than the Tracey Ulman Character in this movie. Also, I enjoyed Pecker's older sister more than Selma Blair's character (the huge boobs were a great touch though). I couldn't figure out who was supposed to be the protagonist in this movie. The only character that I liked was Chris Isaac's - maybe they should have had him be more of the focus of the movie, in the way that Pecker had the central role in that movie (and the only normal one).",0 "The plot doesn't fully make sense, there was a lack of suspense, the acting was not spectacular and the big finale was barely a finale at all.

Sad to see John Carpenter having to revert to the the technique in which sudden appearance of off screen subjects/objects that is plainly visible to the character on screen in order to give us a scare. Although I do admit that I did jump out of my chair a bit in the scene where one of the Martian Police jumped out from around the corner while the other Officer was walking toward it, but that was such a cheap shot.

The only scene where there was any slight amount of suspense was when we see the door off to the side slowly opening up, but that just lead to another cheap shocker instead of building up on it.

The flashback didn't work because it was a big letdown as to how Natasha Henstridge ended up being the only survivor on the train coming back from the miner community. I guess it wasn't heading toward the way ALIEN was going to turn out.

The rest of the early scenes were pretty banal, John Carpenter's version of character building, leading up to the second half of the movie where it was basically a action slasher.

I guess it might have worked as a action movie, but then you would have to sit or sleep through the first half of the film.

",0 "Well, universal movie were classics in their own genre, opening new ways, which would keep feeding the movie industry for decades upto this day. Mileages vary, and some rank most of their movies as mid-card to low budget movies. I think they are (with high & low's ) true classics. Without sky-high budget; without focusing on special effects; without A+ class actors they managed to make a better impression than most A+ level movies, genre-wise. This is the case. Very atmospheric, noir movie, which keeps suspense upto the last minute with proper means. Acting is good. Chaney isn't my favourite Dracula, but he's 10x better than Carradine anyways. Even supporting characters deliver a solid performance. Sub-plots are mixed in well, and none disrupts the movie's equilibrium. Count Dracula hides under pseudonym and emigrates to America, where a young belle heiress with a fascination for occultism is subdued under his powers and even marries him after leaving her beau behind. An aging physician and an Hungarian scholar are soon after him, though. Sofar it looks like your classic D movie, right? SFX are very good, not overdone, not inopportune. The plot is very coherent and develops nicely. Well, it isn't your typical D movie because poor D ends up fooled without even realizing it...the belle planned beforehand to first have D kill her father, thus inheriting vast estates, then to convince her beau to kill D himself, thus leading an immortal life with him as ""undead"". Does it look too simple again...? Well, in fact the beau does destroy Dracula, but another plot twist lays ahead... Definitely a movie you'd watch twice.",1 "This is a disturbing, bittersweet romantic comedy about two people who's 15 year marriage is unraveling. Actually, it is more of a romantic tragedy than a comedy. Ben and Katie Jordan (Bruce Willis and Michelle Pfeiffer) are two mismatched people in the marriage that never should have been. He is spontaneous, romantic and impulsive, with low frustration tolerance and an explosive hair trigger temper. She is pragmatic, a compulsive perfectionist with unrealistic expectations, and a high need for control. She takes everything personally and never forgives or forgets a slight. They both blame each other for their disappointments. The pattern is clear. He doesn't meet her standards so she snipes, he explodes and then she accuses him of not listening. She then throws up every mistake he's ever made and every fault he's ever had. This goes on ad nauseam as their romantic obsession with one another continues to get the best of any sense they might have to call it quits. Like moths to a flame, they keep returning for another scorching.

This film is thought provoking in that it portrays marital difficulties that are all too familiar in our society. The problem is that it tries to give every problem known to man (with the exception of wife beating) to this couple and relies on the single strand of a long forgotten romance to be the only chance of keeping them together.

In watching the behind the scenes featurette on this film, Rob Reiner and writers Alan Zweibel and Jessie Nelson discuss how the story evolved. As it turns out, it was a montage of all their own marital problems. So the film was, in essence cathartic dumping ground for the writers and director.

As filmmaking, it was terrific. Rob Reiner weaves the story together expertly, creating a stark contrast between the joy of the romance and the reality of the relationship. The film was punctuated by numerous funny and sweet moments that make the viewer smile and glow with delight.

Michelle Pfeiffer gives a splendid performance of a very emotionally complex and neurotic character. It took a lot of courage for her to take this part because she was playing the least likeable character in the film, something of a departure for her. Bruce Willis was as good as one could have expected considering the fact that nobody was blowing anything up. Actually, he was quite good as the impulsive, childlike romantic, but when it came to the arguments and the serious displays of resentment, he played the scenes too harshly, almost commando style.

Reiner does good camera work and puts together some good rapid fire scenes that have impact and give great insight into the relationship. He also took the film on location in Venice to add a little romantic interlude, and somehow got Eric Clapton to write a great theme song.

The problem is the story. Reiner stated in the featurette that he intended this to be a realistic bittersweet look at the real problems relationships face. But he tried to do too much and made this film a grossly exaggerated caricature of a relationship in crisis. It is really ""The War of The Roses"" lite only it takes itself too seriously. No one I know who saw this could believe that this couple could possibly have stayed married for 15 weeks, no less 15 years.

The result is a noxious marathon of petty arguments that get under the viewers' skin after a while. It is about as entertaining as watching your best friends have a niggling argument in a public restaurant. The whole thing leaves you very uncomfortable and you don't go home feeling like you've had a nice evening.

So, while it succeeds as filmmaking, it fails as a film. I gave this film a 6/10. There were so many good elements to it that I can't see trashing it. But the story is one that requires a level of emotional endurance that few viewers will be willing or able to invest to get any enjoyment out of it.

",0 "I can't say the movie was a disappointment because I got what I expected from the trailer. I hoped for Jackson to reprise the Jules character from Pulp Fiction but I knew I wouldn't get him. Instead we get someone almost as angry and a whole lot more impotent: he threw tantrums when it's obvious that his bad-ass character would beat Levy. The chemistry between Jackson and Levy never develops, it's a tired combination of the oblivious and irritating (Levy) teamed up with the dead-serious bad-ass (Jackson). The director doesn't know how to take advantage of the two as his gags are poorly set-up. There's an awful lot of lowest-common-denominator stuff in this movie. Once the movie starts to drone on, out comes the fart jokes. In the end, I amused myself by substituting my own dialogue throughout the movie and looking for references to Toronto. That's another disappointment: the movie is set in Detroit and filmed in Toronto but there was minimal effort to actually make the city FEEL like Detroit. Sure, they digitally removed the CN Tower from the city skyline but the unique Toronto streetcars and streetcar tracks, Petro-Canada gas-stations, Royal York Hotel, bilingual signposts, people walking about and NO garbage or graffiti anywhere prove that it is NOT Detroit. They should have at least avoided the skyline completely since it doesn't match Detroit at all, even with the Skydome and CN Tower removed. There you go: a poor to mediocre effort on all levels.",0 "which felt like 10 hours. this is one of the most stupid and horrible movies i could ever imagine sitting through. i watched at a film festival and me and my friends felt like leaving but we didn't want to hurt the director's feelings, who was sitting right there. i pride myself in avoiding crap when i go to the movies, i don't watch blockbusters or lame comedies with former SNL comedians, but this movie falls right in there with the worst of the worst. avoid it, run, go do something useful, even eating french fries would be more productive. this movie is full of holes, bad dialogue and run of the mill bad acting. i wonder how the producers conned these actors into working in this movie either that, or they accepted because they were too lazy to read the script there is nothing redeemable about this movie, take my word for it.",0 "The Fog, Friday the 13th, Halloween, The Omen: just a few of the classic horror titles that have recently suffered the indignity of an extremely inferior remake by greedy studios keen to make an easy buck. With box office receipts the only consideration, the makers of these lazy cash-cows make no attempt at improving upon the originals, aware that indiscriminate teens will flock to see their films, regardless of quality.

Back in the 80s, however, things were a little different: easy money came in the form of sequels, which were churned out in rapid succession, but remakes were rare and a surprising amount of care went into their production. Chuck Russell's 1988 version of The Blob was a hugely entertaining romp from a director who clearly loved the genre; John Carpenter's The Thing oozed with atmosphere and pushed make-up FX to a new level; but it was David Cronenberg's re-imagining of The Fly which really proved that a skilled director blessed with a unique vision could turn a remake into a masterpiece.

Cronenberg keeps the basic plot from the Vincent Price classic—a scientist experimenting with teleportation becomes horribly disfigured after his body is accidentally merged with that of a housefly—but discards the silly notion of a man sporting a massive fly head and arm. Instead, the director once again indulges his obsession with 'the flesh', and has his protagonist suffer a much more gradual fate: in the days following his seemingly successful experiment, genius Seth Brundle (a wonderfully eccentric Jeff Goldblum) gradually transforms into a monstrous creature as his body struggles to fuse his own DNA with that of the fly.

In addition to losing his looks, bits of his body, his ability to digest, and eventually his mind, Brundle also has to cope with the possibility of losing girlfriend Veronica Quaife (Geena Davis), who is pregnant with his child. When madness finally takes control of Seth, and his transformation into 'Brundlefly' is almost complete, the scientist abducts Veronica as she attempts to abort her pregnancy, takes her home to his lab, and pushes her into one of his teleportation pods, his intention being to merge himself with Veronica and their unborn child, thus creating the ultimate family.

A superb central performance from Goldblum, whose quirky, individualistic acting style is perfect for such an unusual role, is perfectly complemented by the equally unique Davis, and solid support is given from John Getz as Veronica's loathsome ex-boyfriend Stathis Borans. The film also benefits immensely from stunning creature and gore effects courtesy of make-up artist Chris Walas (who created the memorable creatures from Gremlins); these ensure that The Fly is as nauseating as it is heart-breakingly tragic. Amongst the revolting sights on offer are a very painful looking broken arm inflicted by Seth during a show of strength in a bar, a quivering inside-out baboon (one of Seth's earlier mistakes), and the Brundlefly vomiting corrosive liquid onto Stathis' hand and foot.

If I was going to nitpick, I might argue that baboons seem like an unnecessarily dangerous test animal for Brundle to work with (but then again, maybe they had a special on baboons at the pet store) and the scientist's uncanny ability to program a computer to recognise the poetry of flesh (as he puts it) comes a little too easy, but these are minor niggles and do very little to spoil the film as a whole.

With Hollywood currently showing no sign of slowing down the remake production line, perhaps those responsible should take a look at The Fly to remind themselves how the job should be done properly.",1 "I saw this film as a student, when it first came out. As someone who was involved with important issues like the Vietnam War and civil rights and free speech, I was totally offended by the film's nihilism, the ideas that students demonstrate just because that's what today's students do, and that there are no substantive issues involved. The film is all about the main character's life style and sex life, and (as I recall) his meaningful, altruistic, innovative, and condescending attempt to teach literature to ghetto kids by getting them to read comic books.

In addition, (as I recall) we are clearly supposed to sympathize with the main character for being in trouble because he was caught cheating at an exam. At the schools I went to at the time, we took our politics and social issues seriously, but our academics no less so.",0 "Maybe it was just the theater, or maybe the projector person didn't know what he was doing, but in 75 percent of the scenes the boom mike was just hanging there above people's heads! In the scene on the pond, it looked like the priest was being attacked by a furry bird, and you could see where the actors were going to walk next because the mike was leading the way. It was so bad it was hilarious. Which is good because there wasn't that much else that was funny in this movie. Renee Zellweger shone far above the rest of the cast, Chris O'Donnell still needs to work on his comic timing, and the entire plot was an insult to women. Oh sure, everyone has a wedding dress just sitting around, just in case some stranger wants to marry you with little notice. Overall, a horrible experience. My girlfriend and I fought for the rest of the day.",0 "Even though I am a werewolf horror genre fan, I thought this was terrible. This has got to be the worst in the Howling series. It's not interesting, and the acting is poor. It starts out as a mystery, but it doesn't bring up very many interesting ideas. My score: 2/10",0 "Unfortunately, Cruz is not long in this film. She is a prostitute who give birth on a bus. The story is really about her son, whom we join 20 years later.

Now, hang on. Victor (Liberto Rabal), her son, is infatuated with Elena (Italian beauty Francesca Neri), but she is just a junkie who is more interested in seeing her dealer than him. They scuffle and the police (David and Sancho) come. Sancho's wife is fooling around, so he is drunk and gets into a fight with Victor and a gun goes off injuring David. David (Javier Bardem) heads off to a life of wheelchair basketball and marriage to Elena. Victor goes to jail. When he gets out, he takes up with Clara (Ángela Molina), Sancho's wife.

If you are not confused yet, it gets more interesting as secrets are exposed. Pedro Almodóvar has written and directed another interesting film. It ends just as it begins, but in a dig at the repressive Franco regime, with a nod to freedom.

It is a comedy, a detective story, a thriller, a drama - a bit of everything. - An Almodóvar paella for the eyes.",1 "The Granddaddy of all soap operas, Peyton Place has its place in film and television history. When the steamy best seller by Grace Metalious and film by Jerry Wald and 20th Century Fox were converted into a television series, it set a standard for evening prime time soap operas that some will argue has never been equaled.

Times have surely changed. Set in New England as it is if Peyton Place existed it's now in the vanguard of blue state America. But in 1941 Peyton Place in New England would probably have enjoyed keeping cool with native son Calvin Coolidge and no doubt voted for Hoover, Landon, and Wilkie instead of that radical FDR in the White House.

In this prim and proper New England town it's all about keeping up appearances. Everybody knows everyone so if things aren't quite fitting the America of Norman Rockwell you keep them behind closed doors.

Like Lana Turner never bothering to tell daughter Diane Varsi that she's an out of wedlock child, like poor Russ Tamblyn not being able to relate to the opposite sex in his teen years, like Hope Lange living with a brutal rampaging father in Arthur Kennedy who physically abuses her mother Betty Field and does more than that with her.

Leon Ames as the town's employer, owner of the mill where most of the town works maybe the leading citizen, but the town's moral authority is Lloyd Nolan, a very wise and caring doctor, the kind of small town doctor who's a passing memory.

It's impossible to describe the plot of Peyton Place because there are so many strands in the plot fabric. It all works very well courtesy of screenwriter John Michael Hayes and director Mark Robson. The whole thing is narrated by Diane Varsi as Allison McKenzie who grew up and wrote a book about her home town.

Peyton Place got nine Oscar nominations, but unfortunately lost a lot of awards it was up for to The Bridge On The River Kwai. Lana Turner's one and only nomination came in a year that the Academy voters gave the Best Actress Award to relative newcomer Joanne Woodward. Russ Tamblyn and Arthur Kennedy split the vote and Red Buttons won for Sayonara for Best Supporting Actor and the same thing happened with the Best Supporting Actress with Diane Varsi and Hope Lange splitting for Miyoshi Umeki to win for Sayonara as well.

The Code was still firmly in place and had it not been I think Russ Tamblyn's character would have been more explicitly gay. Here he's a timid young man not comfortable with the opposite sex and not real popular among his own heterosexist males. Then as now, gays are not real comfortable in most small towns.

Still for those who like their big screen soap operas, you'll love Peyton Place, even with changing mores the film holds up well.",1 "...although that may not be saying much, it truly loves these kids that it portrays and is clearly made for such kids. Other reviewers have faulted ""Camp"" for its shallow plot, the inconsistency of its characters, the stereotypes, and an overall amateurish quality. All I can say is ""What'd you expect? It's a teen drama!"" In fact, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have worked if the film tried to be more grown-up. To properly enjoy ""Camp"", adult viewers need to recall their world view during their teen years. Only then can they realize how much they would have wanted to see a movie like this when they were teens. Of course, if you were a quarterback or prom queen in high school, then perhaps you wouldn't be able to relate to this movie at all.",1 "I respect both Corman and Scorsese, but this early effort by Scorsese is not up to even the average work by either. Poor performances by the leads (including Carradine, who simply can't act) and the phony-sounding dialogue don't do justice to this depression-era piece.

Another problem with this film (and one that Scorsese would learn to avoid in his future work) is that everything looks too clean and orderly. Everyone is well-washed (unless they've just been in a fight or fallen in a puddle), the camps are neatly laid out, and the interiors of the boxcars are almost spotless, with just enough nice, clean hay spread around so you won't see the actual floor of the sound-stage.

The IMDb ""Trivia"" section includes a comment to the effect that the sex scenes between Carradine and Hershey were not simulated. You would never guess it from the film itself, since they are some of the most tepid you could imagine. They would probably get a PG-13 today, for brief frontal and rear nudity.

Finally, the credits are up to the best Corman standards...hokey.

This film was a disappointment, but I can suggest it as a curiosity for Scorses fans. All others need not waste their time.",0 "I attended the Gala presentation of Arcand's Stardom at the Toronto Film Festival last night and was so disappointed I felt myself getting angrier and angrier for wasting my time through this cliche critique of the supermodel world.

It was unoriginal, uninspired and totally uninteresting.

I am repeatedly dismayed by my fellow Canadians who champion this sort of crap just because it is Canadian.

If you hated other films like Cronenberg's M Butterfly, Egoyan's Exotica, Whale Music, and other Canadian films that were over-hyped, well....you can add this to the list.

It is a stinker and deserves the Raspberry.

No point in outlining the plot -- it's so predictable and one-dimensional. I'm too embarrassed to introduce you to the characters which never develop, are cliche stock characters portrayed by a series of displays of incredibly bad acting.

Ouch.",0 "I, along with other viewers,was duped into thinking that this was about a serial killer when in fact it was about an animal that kills humans. O.K. animals do this as it is part of their instinct & sometimes animals acquire a taste for blood. In this case the theory is that the ""Gator"" acquired this ""taste"" because of all the bloodshed from the civil war that had gone on for years in that country. Could be? All I know is that when I started watching the movie & realized that it was just another ""Gator"" movie I was not only disappointed, but just plain mad. Mad that I had been duped, but I am not alone as many of of my fellow movie goers will see!!........Very Disappointed!!!",0 "I swear I love Norm Macdonald I think he is a great comedic talent. Right up there with Denis Leary,but this movie (I will not call it a Film) was horrible. This was one of those movies like ""Joe Dirt"" where they had maybe one or two funny ideas and they built a whole movie around it. I really hope his next effort will be more thought out.",0 "I've ticked the spoiler box just in case, but anyone familiar with the 'Carry On' series knows there's never any plot to spoil. If a geriatric Sid James going on a camping holiday to try to 'get off' with his 33-year-old girlfriend in 'Carry On Camping' seemed out of date for 1969, then watch this desperate rehash with your thumb poised above the fast forward button: Swedish stunner Elke Sommer sets off with fellow archaeologist Kenneth Williams (passable, but the same) on a hunt for missing pieces to a naughty Roman mosaic buried underneath a caravan site in the summer season. Flaccid 'jokes', laboured slapstick and bad editing abound with a foul-mouthed flyaway mynah bird, a runaway Irish wolfhound, midnight pratfalls in nightdresses and pyjamas, and the inevitable shower stall scenes.

As with Hammer's formula-into-film, how could any of them, scriptwriter, crew, players or audience, not have realized that it was all old hat, so very, very flogged to death and utterly and irrevocably over? Offensive not just to all women everywhere, but to every sentient creature in the universe, this arrant nonsense will serve its best ever purpose by keeping a date with the recycling bin.",0 "this ""docuDRAMA"" was sorely lacking in drama. you knew the story ahead of time even if you weren't aware of the story from the news. there's no suspense, no thrills, and no drama. it's drier then a 10th grade history lecture. the plot, such as it is, can be summarized in 3 lines, yet they drag it out to 2 hrs (with commercials). it reflects badly on me that i even watched it, but at least i was multi-tasking.

save yourself the time, and don't bother.",0 "The Long Voyage home is not a typical film from this period. It differs in that it focuses on an ensemble cast instead of on a star. That's common nowadays, but not back then. Ford's Stagecoach, made the previous year, had quite an ensemble cast, but the film was always focused on Ringo and Dallas. Here, John Wayne is just one of the stars. Thomas Mitchell, who played Doc Washburn in Stagecoach, has a role that's as big as Wayne's in Voyage. Others are as prominent.

The plot is also pretty tenuous and episodic. And, unlike most films of the time, the focus was not on a goal, but just on the events and lives of the seaman aboard the Glencairn. We see them sail through the war-torn Atlantic, between the U.S. and Europe. They have fun, they fight, they talk about home. It's all rather gentle and beautiful, very subtle. The script is great, which is probably due to Eugene O'Neil, for of whose plays this film is based on (they are blended together seamlessly).

The actors are marvelous. Mitchell and Wayne are probably the best known, but there are also Ian Hunter, Barry Fitzgerald, John Qualen, Ward Bond, Mildred Natwick, and many other great character actors. John Wayne was probably the draw, considering how popular Stagecoach had made him, but, as I said, his role is not out in the front. In fact, he doesn't have many lines. His schtick is that he is a Swede who can't speak English well, so he is generally pretty quiet (Wayne can't muster the best Swedish accent, either, so that's kind of a good thing!). He has one great scene where he has some long bits of dialogue. But even without the dialogue, he emotes so well in his face. I knew his character intimately by the end of the film. We don't often think of Wayne as a great actor, but he certainly was. Although The Searchers probably contains his best role, The Long Voyage Home would certainly be worth a major mention when talking about his career.

If you could say that there is a single ""star"" of this film, that would have to be Greg Tolland. Of course, he photographed Citizen Kane in the next year, as well as Ford's Best Picture winning How Green Was My Valley and The Grapes of Wrath. The cinematography is some of the most impressive to be found in the American cinema. John Ford himself is just as much the star of The Long Voyage Home. He definitely put his heart into this one. The direction is beautiful, artful. It is as good here as it is in The Grapes of Wrath, My Darling Clementine, and The Searchers, that is, it is one of his very best films, if not THE best. To date, it's the only Ford film that made me shed tears. 10/10.",1 "By the early '80s, the car chase genre began to wind down. During his final years of being president of New World Pictures, Roger Corman produced another typical but fun car chase comedy starring Jimmy McNichol as a mischievous teenager who loves to steal cars and having the local sheriff and his bumbling deputies chase after him. The sheriff's daughter, who's planning to be in the next homecoming parade at her high school is kidnapped by McNichol, and from then on, it an all-out auto war between the two starry-eyed kids, the cops, and other hot-dogging speed freaks.

The reason this is a lesser effort from Corman is that much of the car chase sequences were lifted from other movies he produced, particularly ""Moving Violation"", ""Eat My Dust"", ""Grand Theft Auto"", and ""Thunder And Lightning"", albeit with new footage and different sound effects dubbed in. However, if people haven't seen those movies, it shouldn't be a problem for them to watch it. It was directed by long-time collaborator Charles B. Griffith, who also wrote and directed ""Eat My Dust"" and has an uncredited small part as one of the deputies. There's also a sub-plot involving a deranged group of sheiks out to uncover a secret recipe of moonshine...huh? Anyway check the movie out when you have the chance to.",1 "There are 8 letters to describe this show, H.O.R.R.I.B.L.E. It is not at all funny, and is just stupid. It seems like farm animals and 8 year olds made up this show, because it's really stupid and terrible. It's about animals on a farm that like to party and goof off when the farmer isn't around. Not a good concept, which is why I think an 8 year old is the director. I never, ever laugh at this show, unless I'm laughing for not good reasons because the show is so stupid and boring. You do not want to watch this show, trust me, unless you are stuck with one channel on your TV and this is what's on, and even then I'd just find something to do by myself.

1/10",0 I was flipping through the channels when i stumbled upon this movie. I decided that I needed some time to kill so I watched the movie. When it was finally finished I had mixed feelings about the movie. At times i felt bored and confused. The movie in my opinion doesn't really stay true to the novel. But whateva. 4/10,0 "Reportedly five years in the making, this enchanted, inspired production is perhaps not quite on the level of Disney's first-tier masterpieces (Pinocchio, Dumbo, Snow White and Fantasia), but a strong case could be made for it being the best film the studio has released since its 1991 premiere. From the design of the Beast's awesomely monolithic castle to the heart-stopping, Busby Berkley-inspired dance of china and silver in ""Be Our Guest"", this is one of the most rigorously constructed animated films I've seen. Bolstered by grand, romantic themes of self-sacrifice and eternal honor in the face of persecution, this is a marvelous experience for any age.",1 "Albert Brooks still knows how to spin off a great one-liner but something has happened to this man since the great ""Defending Your Life"". He seems angry at everyone and everything with only a handful of compassionate moments reserved for those who can't do him any harm (in this case, his children). Andie MacDowell's sinusoidal career moves on, this performance being on the good side of average (her next will invariably be on the bad). The greatest pleasure this movie has to offer is Sharon Stone. She perfectly portrays the flighty, carefree lifestyle of a daughter of Zeus. It is for her luminescence and the two or three funny jokes (plus great cameos by James Cameron and Martin Scorsese) that I give The Muse 3/10.",0 "This is a movie about a man who wants to be a violin player, but who becomes a boxer and injuries his hands. This film is back from the dark ages as far as how women are treated. In one scene the Father comments to his daughter's husband not to hit his wife in public, but to do it at home. Then the daughter tells her Father to butt out and that her husband can hit her anytime she likes. How sick! Oh and the movie practically put me to sleep too.",0 "I loved this show. I thought this show was creative, unique, very funny, and most amazing of all-clean. Jim Varney was so funny my sides ached for days after watching him. In this age it seems practically every movie I've seen that has tried to produce humour has a scene that involves a toilet and/or shows someone being kicked in the groin( I wouldn't think anyone[especially males]would think that was funny). This movie is an example of filmmakers actually having to think to produce a good, funny, screen play. The plot was turning in many interesting directions making it impossible to figure out the ending (films can get old when producers make movies with the same old plots over and over again). I throughly enjoyed this film and I hope many more people will.",1 "I wasn't sure what to expect going into this, but when I watched it on Netflix I was pretty disappointed by the end of it. As far as film-making goes, it's impressive with the film aesthetics. As far as a documentary goes, it was one-sided anti-white propaganda.

The main problem with this film is that they only interview black people, gang members and the few white people they do interview come off as retarded and somewhat racist. This is not factual to me, 'nor is it the marking of a respectful piece of media. They do not interview members of the Los Angeles government from any point in history, except they use stock footage in a manner that demonizes the government.

I also resent the idea that gangs were formed because blacks couldn't get into the cub scouts, that's absurd, silly and utterly ignorant. This work of ""fiction"" is nothing more than propaganda to bring hate among white people.",0 "Having watched all five seasons, the only reason i did that was because i watched season 4 & 5 first so i had to watch the first three for closure. All i can say is that i was really impressed with season 4 & 5 i think they were really well made however the preceding seasons were ill conceived and patronising to anyone with real sense. This was starting to look more and more like a Steven Seagal flick (only worse this is a series) all the baddies are so generic they are either waiting to have their asses kicked or get hypnotized into giving up intel by Jennifer garner garner's hot body i can't say i am really surprised since the creator is none other than J.J Abrams THE SAME MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR LOST which like alias had a lot of potential but like its predecessor is bricking itself in by trying to overstretch a concept. Any way back to Alias the thing i find most frustrating are 1) Arvin Sloane's implied sense of evil, honestly for a man who is supposed to be so evil i expected gut wrenching evidence of his villainy without this evidence i find it hard to detest this man, in fact i find myself drawn to him and in most cases rooting for him to do something to cement his credibility all ending in disappointment.

2) Sydney bristow - if agent Bristow is really the bleeding hard she is portrayed as why doesn't she have the heart to give Sloane a second chance in spite of his transgressions(the mind boggles). The condescending forwardness with which Sydney conducts herself is a miscalculated attempt to portray her an independent strong woman which backfires because we are all aware that such conduct wouldn't fly with any credible organisation let alone a government agency like the CIA , please,

3)Agent Vaughn's wooden acting, no doubt Vaughn is a cute guy but his face seems incapable of rendering an emotionally rooted performance

In conclusion i feel obliged to recommend to anyone who's planning on catching this show on DVD or tivo DON'T or you CAN'T but if you insist let someone who's watched season season 1 - 3 tell you what happens then watch season 4 & 5",0 "Fulltime Killer was very stylish. It has a good story and some good twists. Although they had to flesh out each character as much as they could, and keep the story going smoothly, some of the characters were not fleshed out as much as they should have been. I didn't read the book, but I am sure things such as Tok and his Brother's illness were more in depth in it. Good performances all around and some great action scenes. There was a good blend of language in it too, which kept it kind of interesting, and yet could throw some people off of what is going on. Though the assassin characters seem almost invincible, unlike most John Woo films they also have unique personalities and are likable. I suggest anyone who is a fan of shoot em' up type crime films should see it.",1 "This movie was warm, funny, sexy, and smart. Mr. Lee's directorial debut was a success! The dialog was delivered perfectly and the actors were made for the roles. I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to sit back, relax and have a good time with the one they love.",1 "The picture of a climber on the DVD box is what made me rent the movie. I was expecting something no worse than Cliff Hanger or Vertical Limits (both of which were ludicrous). But I knew within the first 2 minutes that this was oh-so-much-worse... The special effects are bad, the acting is bad, the script is pathetic, and the climbing... beyond laughable. Another reviewer already commented on the ""crawling along the snow"", the missing crampons in the crevasse, and the poor ice axe technique of the ""climbers"".

I'll add to that: 1) the fact that the climbers go from D.C. to K2 base camp at about 20,000ft with no acclimatization (close to instant death...); 2) they carry big, heavy non-expedition tents to Camp 1; 3) there are tire tracks all around Camp 1 (!!!); 4) they never rope up properly, and walk too close together; 5) it's windy outside, but quiet and calm inside the tent (no wind); 6) they carry Coleman gas lanterns to Camp 1 and no one has a headlamp (what real climbers use); 7) their packs and equipment are all new, and yet, all these climbers are ""the world's best"" with loads of experience; 8) they're not dressed like climbers (furry hood); 9) they keep referring to the fact that it's suicide to climb K2 ""in this season"" (winter?), yet, it's mostly sunny and apparently not very cold on the mountain (no visible ""breath"").

And no one - I don't care how good they are - would ever sign up to reach 23,000ft on the north face of K2, within 72 hours of sitting in an office in Washington, D.C. Not even for large sums of money.

If you're going to write a movie about climbing, wouldn't you learn SOMETHING about the sport first?

For good climbing movies, Everest (IMAX) by David Brashears, and Touching the Void (the Joe Simpson story) --- much, much, much better, even without the fake Russians and glowing Rubik's cubes...",0 "To be honest, after hearing a few things about this film and that it's being compared to The Dirty Dozen, I was not surprised at how funny, light and enjoyable this film was. It starts off on a very light and 70's style mood type opening credit sequence with Sergio Leone western-style graphics and a theme song worthy of A Bridge Too Far. And it continues throughout to be a fun filled movie with likable characters and those good old war film shootouts with a guy shooting at a German and the German grabbing his gut and falling to the ground. Let's face it, we love that stuff.

It also has a few twists to the plot and a few memorable scenes and lines, you seriously need to watch this if you're any kind of a movie buff.",1 "If there ever was a case in point to make about Gangster/film art in history, L.G.F. would be one of 3 cases to put forward, the other 2 being,Get Carter & Layer Cake: I cant see why other IMDb-ers have commented on futility's such as, water running backwards in the swimming pool, when what you have here is the making of two screen idols, coupled with the teaming of probably the greatest film making talent in our history. The music/film score, Francis Monkmon (Sky) fame: Manic orchestral dizzy strings,coupled with the heavy saxophone solo's,puts this film tune theme, up there with the greats of Barry & Roy Budd inclusive: Super-stellar performances from Hoskins & Mirren, make this a must see No 3 of the Bulldog switchblade movies, before your soul, starts feeling the heat or touching the sides of your wooden crate: Helen Mirren (Probably the greatest British female treader of the boards, in our history). Was truly stupendous. Sexy,cohesive and method, on a very weak and poorly written part for her, demonstrated the ability of sheer acting genius: The story is self explanatory and does not require brain surgery to assimilate and nor should it: Now to my case in points 1. If it was not for the late great George Harrison(Same birthday as my dad!) and one or two others, this film would not have seen the light of day(Hand made films). 2. The beginning of the highly artistic 70s started with ""Get Carter"" the ending of the 70s Long Good Friday was born and subsequently, finished the off the decade! I rest my case in point, regarding the silly 60s. This IMDb was written on a Friday, a long hot sweltering one, wait a minute there's a knock on the door! ""Oh hello Harold! Long time no see"".",1 "Woody's stories are often derivative, but he's forgiven that, usually, because the results are good and ultimately do deserve his signature. For PURPLE ROSE, he swipes Buster Keaton's gimmick in SHERLOCK, JR., then lets his imagination run free as he did in the best of his NEW YORKER stories. We wind up with the most fascinating and realistic meditation regarding what it is to be an audience, a viewer's relationship to art, art's relationship to reality. The triumph is amazing, because, despite the depth of the symbolism, PURPLE ROSE can also be seen as sheer entertainment; on its surface, it is still one of the most entertaining pictures Woody has ever made.

Farrow and Aiello are marvelous here; Mia, who is quite underrated, has only been as good once -- in BROADWAY DANNY ROSE. The photography is superb, influenced perhaps by Edward Hopper with generally less obvious light sources.

Splendid, splendid work.",1 "I must say that this film was a great surprise, not only because of my personal taste for sci-fi / fantasy flicks, but because this production is flawless.

I believe Howard McCain is set to be a true revelation as film maker and screen writer. There is no single bad moment in all the film.

Great work in photography and editing make of this film a visual accomplishment.

James Caviezel, John Hurt and Ron Perlman performances are excellent.

All FX are achieved, and the score by Geoff Zanelli is one to remember.

Maybe is something that we all have seen before, but never with this kind of achievement.

For all sci-fi / fantasy fans, this one is a MUST!",1 "I am a film student and tonight Producer Rob Cowan came to our campus to show the first advanced screening of this film. Naturally, many students took advantage of this hoping to see a decent, entertaining film... HOWEVER, There aren't adequate words to describe how awful this film is. I knew going into it that this film was probably not going to be some engaging, powerful war drama, but still something to leave audiences satisfied. The reasons why this movie was awful 1. The acting is preposterous, not one character (Samuel L., Jessica Biel, 50 Cent (Obviously)) was well acted in any manner. 2. It is one of the most poorly written I have ever been privy too. Feeding off of the topical debates over the war in iraq, the script is ridden with clichés and feels like a Lifetime Movie gone wrong. 3. The directing to say the least is an absolute disgrace. This film is horribly structured and a complete headache as a result 4. 50 Cent. Going in, I was ready to give him the benefit of the doubt and judge his acting abilities fairly without any prior stigmas. Sadly, The minute he opened his mouth he erased all doubt that he has absolutely no place in this film

Typically, I am not a big fan of completely trashing a film. I believe that my opinion is my own and it is wrong to spread that on others. With that being said, I can say that this is the one film that I have no problem doing so. If in the event you would like to judge for yourself, don't say I didn't warn you when your cursing out the Movie Theatre manager for not giving you a refund.",0 "Terrible acting, terrible plot, terrible dialogue, terrible soundtrack, terrible dubbing, and a terrible waste of time. It wasn't offensive, just completely and utterly boring. I'm a BIG fan of lots of low budget or B grade movies, but usually they have a great plot or a good idea behind them. I watched this with a friend who loves B grade horror movies and he actually fell asleep through it. This is something maybe a 5 year old kid would find amusing, but you'd have to find one of those kids who giggles every time somebody says the word 'butt'. He wouldn't be laughing at the movie, just the word 'butt'. To give you an idea of how juvenile this movie is, they use the word 'poop' a lot but never say the S word (that would be rude wouldn't it?) however they occasionally use the F word. It felt like a Disney movie, designed not to offend anybody. It doesn't fit into the 'Comedy' genre and doesn't fit into the 'horror' genre either. The most amusing thing about the movie is the name. I can only assume the movie is so far rating at 7.3/10 after 30 votes is because every single member of the cast voted 10 for it. PLEASE DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THIS!! I implore you! Stop giving people who make these movies your DVD renting money! Then maybe they will stop making movies like this. I've seen movies in the IMDb Bottom 100 that were far more entertaining than this.",0 "Hangmen Also Die is an OK sort of film, fatally marred by the fact that it is pure propaganda, obviously slanted towards a wartime audience. The plot, involving an elaborate scheme to incriminate a Czech, who is both a businessman and Nazi informer is a complete fiction! One is left with the idea that the real assassin simply got away with it! The real facts were generally available at this time, and I'm amazed that Lang and the others involved here got away with this! The real story is a bit less upbeat: Heydrich was killed by not one, but two Czechs, who fired at him and finally killed him by lobbing a bomb at his vehicle. The two hid out in a church and were hunted down and killed just shortly thereafter. Sadly, not all the Czechs were as loyal to the resistance as those shown in this film. Someone informed on the killers, which led to their speedy demise. This is the incident which triggered the famous reprisal, carried out by the Nazis: for revenge for the murder of Heydrich they destroyed an entire Czech town, Lidice, the locale chosen at random. Since this is very famous part of wartime history, I am sad that so many viewers don't know what the real story was. The theme of Nazi reprisal is worked in very well, but the film steers clear of the much more shocking and ugly truth. A pity-for the real story would have been a much clearer picture of the true brutality of the Nazis. I guess 1940s audiences weren't considered mature enough to handle the truth! Again this gross distortion of the facts here is a fatal flaw. Sad, since I think the director, with more accurate material could have produced a great film...tragedies such as these were more his forte.",0 "Most of the action takes place on land, and nothing of substance happens there. The film is lowbrow to the extreme (every single female character is an airhead that's ready to go to bed with a stranger THE MINUTE she meets him - the ultimate male fantasy, perhaps?), but at least you get to look at some beautiful landscapes, and of course there is also a lot of nudity to keep you going between the all-too-infrequent shark attacks. (*1/2)",0 "I think this is a very good film with a lot of values. It's another gangster movie, but one with a story I've never seen before and really enjoyed. Walken and Penn are terrific, and Del Toro shows his screen potential. See it, but not with your mother. You will definitely stay awake.",1 "I own the R3 DVD of this movie, and my overwhelming feeling is that the storyline is rather weak, however it's not all bad. The movie starts off quite slow in my opinion, and as in so many such Asian films, the background music is obtrusive. In it's defence though, things definitely improved, until towards the ending it moves at a furious pace with wonderful fight scenes.

One thing though which makes this film are the attractive hot chicks kicking ass, with a sense of sexual undercurrent. What more can any bloke want for a night in with a few beers and some friends. For this eye candy, the weak script can be forgiven.",1 "This is the first time I've ever turned of the movie before the ending. I already started getting worried when I saw the first images.. the movie was recorder with a simple dvcam (or even worse).. The acting is real bad, the camera-work is also very boring and the 'action' is mostly plain stupid...

It's OK for an amateur-movie for the friends of the actors/crew, but it's an awful production for someone who has to pay for it. I expected at least a C-movie.

I'm sorry but I can't be positive about it, and I can't forgive the dutch publisher who put this trash on DVD (I'm glad it was part of a 4-movie DVD which only cost 3 euro's)..",0 "Hersey Cok Guzel Olacak is one of the best products contemporary Turkish cinema can offer, with its modest but solid direction, clever script, and outstanding acting. It is the story of two brothers living in Istanbul, with very different characters, world views, and ambitions. Their differences prove effective as the generator of the comedic effect, although -in my opinion- this movie is also a solid drama rather than a simple comedy.

Altan, played by the ever-popular stand-up comedian Cem Yilmaz, is a penniless dreamer, who has plans to open his own pub. He decides to steal some prescription drugs from his brother's pharmacy, and sell them to the mafia in order to get the capital necessary quickly. Long story short, the two brothers find themselves on a dangerous road trip to the Mediterranean coast of Turkey, and adventure unfolds.

In his first serious on-screen job, Cem Yilmaz seems surprisingly able in his portrayal of Altan, and demonstrates that he can really act. Mazhar Alanson, who is the lead singer of arguably the best pop music group in Turkey, is also worthy of praise as the older brother. Not many know that he was actually trained as a thespian, and he reminds the audience of this fact with his commanding presence in the film. The late master Selim Nasit also gives his last performance as their father.

The movie is exceptionally good, clever, consistently fascinating, warm and funny. Labelling it one of the best of Turkish cinema will not be an exaggeration.",1 "this movie is fantastic, the story, the songs, the acting its something never seen before and really well portrayed i don't want to give away the story but it is a good portrayal of the obstacles and difficult decisions faced by a traditional villager hoping to uphold justice for a foreign woman - its a magnificent portrayal of morals' victory over backward thinking i really recommend the movie because of the excellent acting by the male lead and the great support from the English lady leader.

one thing which i think the movie does well to avoid, is showing the British rulers as totally heartless and evil! its not like Ur old style Indian movie where the British were shown equal to a devil like ruler, but the understanding was there why the villagers didn't like their presence their yet some liked them because of their work - the frictions between members from both sides who are able to accept the other side is also well shown",1 "What I remember most about this movie is that the whole family watched it and laughed their brains out. Oh come on now, you know that can't happen, but why not have a killer boob running the country or men fighting over sheep. Or what about that woman who can only be satisfied in strange places. If you have ever read the book, you know there is no correlation to this movie. Wonderful comedy that oozes the stupid stuff that makes old Woody Allen movies so hilarious. And then of course there is Tony Randall and the whole brain scene. So is there anything to that remark about girls from New York? Oh well, I'll have to add this movie to my collection so that I can chuckle every time I think of a killer boob.",1 "I've only watched the first series on DVD, but would summarise The Sopranos as a Shakespearean plot with a Tarantino-like script. The series is as good as Goodfellas and Casino, and almost as good as The Godfather (hence not a ""10""), and far better than any of Guy Ritchie's efforts. Although there's plenty of action, some of it pretty bloody, the story is character driven. Even some of the minor characters contribute to great story lines; e.g. the priest's relationship (or lack of) with Carmilla and the restaurateur's wife, and Christopher and his dimwit friend (who didn't last very long (a Darwin Award nominee?))

Apart from the plot, the script and the acting, the other reasons I liked it;

1. It made me want to visit New Jersey and eat pasta with a tomatoey sauce. 2. The music. 3. It shows that literally anyone can suffer from mental health problems.",1 "Rarely have I seen a film cover as many layers so flawlessly as this film does. The title itself as a bounty of different meanings to it. Taken literally, it refers to the several break-ins that occur throughout the beginning of the film that spiral everything that is to follow. However if you look deeper, you can find several different metaphorical meanings to the title. It could be referring to the lives that we see. They are already broken, and we enter these lives to see how they play out and progress. It could also be referring to the relationship between Will and Amira. He breaks in to her life and as a result, she enters his and we see how his life changes as a result.

I also loved how Minghella studied the parallels between the two mother-child relationships in the film. Both deal with troubled children and mothers who are trying their best to create the best lives for their child. On one spectrum there is Amira and Miro. Due to an absent father and poor finances, Amira is forced to work as hard as she can to provide for Miro. However, he gets involved with criminals and becomes more and more entwined into these break-ins, as he is the only one who can actually be punished by law since he's the only one who physically breaks in. Amira has to work as much as she can and, as a result, she neglects Miro which leads to his actions. On the other side of the spectrum there is Liv and Bea. Bea suffers from a very extreme case of obsessive compulsive disorder and this takes a heavy toll on the lives of her and her parents. Unlike Amira though, Liv has a husband who works very hard and can provide constant economical support to the family. This allows her to quit her job and spend all of her time with Bea, doing her best to make sure she's alright. It's very interesting to see how these two similar relationships progress throughout the film with opposite approaches to trying to fix the problem.

Another interesting story that Minghella subtly unfolds is how immigrants are treated and how they live in a more established structure. In poverty-stricken areas people like Amira can be very well and have great jobs, such as a pianist. However when they have to pick up and move, it's extremely difficult to find any kind of job so she has to resort to being a tailor working out of her own home. This element is also displayed with Erika, who has to resort to being a cleaning lady and is automatically accused when the break-ins first start.

Minghella does a great job of layering so many magnificent and deep stories under one overlying story of how a break-in causes a man to re-evaluate his life. As always in his pictures, the score and cinematography are some of the best I've ever seen. Simply marvelous work. The performances are all brilliant. Jude Law is phenomenal in a very subtle display of a troubled man, dealing with numerous problems, just trying to be happy with his life. Binoche is deep and absorbed in her role as a mother who will do anything to protect her son. Penn perfectly portrays a mother who is trying to keep her relationship stable, while dealing with a very troubled daughter. Even the supporting actors nail their roles. Martin Freeman, as always, is absolutely hilarious and provides some much needed comedic support. Ray Winstone and Vera Farmiga are severely underused, but they nail their parts perfectly.",1 "I give this movie a 4 of ten and I'm being pretty generous. This was done to capitalize on the success of the Black Stallion movies and series with Mickey Rooney. Unfortunately its just not very good. Isabel Lorca is gorgeous girl but she couldn't act her way out of a paper sack! Rooney is OK, but he plot is really poorly thought out. Very little of this movie feels real, it feels like play someone was staging on Saturday afternoon. The most believable moments are between Stephanie (Lorca) and her boyfriend on the bus! Even the climax feels contrived and manipulative. If your'e looking for a decent family flick for a rainy afternoon, you could do worse, but not by much.

Oddly rated ""pg"" for some profanity and adult situations that seem rather at odds with the rest of the film.",0 "Every so often I am reminded of the inadvisability of rushing to judgement on a single viewing. Michael Winterbottom's ""Wonderland"" is a case in point. I got very little out of this first time round, in fact my reaction was positively antagonistic; characters seemingly as shallow as those in a currently popular BBC soap opera with a similar London setting, but here handled with that clumsy hand held camera cinema verite look, which for me is always a turn-off unless the material itself is brilliant - ""The Dream Life of Angels"" and ""La Promesse"" for instance. I suppose it was the rave comments of so many that drew me back for a second viewing. I can see now that the film has a lot going for it. As a study of unfulfilled lives it is never less than perceptive and is often quite touching, the boy at the football match, the childbirth scene, reactions to the son's answerphone message and the death of a dog where our sympathies suddenly shift from the tormented to the neighbours from hell. I can honestly say it is a film I have quite grown to like. Where I would part company with its devotees however is in my degree of admiration. It is certainly not to be compared with the best work of Mike Leigh and Ken Loach mainly because it lacks their genius for character development. Unlike the characters in masterworks such as ""Secrets and Lies"" and ""My Name is Joe"", those in ""Wonderland"" are one-dimensional: we know all there is to know about them on their first appearance. And then there is that totally inappropriate score by Michael Nyman swamping scenes of everyday life with a spurious pseudo-classical muzak, banal lyrical lines accompanied by throbbing repeated chords. ""Wonderland"" would have benefited intrinsically from being without a score. In any case it is a classic example of a film needing to stand on its own feet without the prop of so called ""luverly"" music. Would it survive so well without in popular esteem is the question!",1 "As a big fan of David Cronenberg's later films, I was eager to see this one. Even though I knew it was his first--and therefore probably cheesy--I still hoped for something of value. I was mostly disappointed. The production values were so incredibly awful they made Roger Corman movies look like epics; the lapses in logic were big enough to drive elephants through; and the acting was so bad it actually became entertaining. (I've never seen anyone ""act"" walking across a room before!) There were two saving graces: if you're in the mood for a blast from the past, the ultra-hip 70's feel is totally groovy, man; and if you still happen to have a dusty bag of grass in a drawer somewhere, this is the movie for which to bring it out.",0 "acknlowedging the individual from pine grove, ca, who is an agnostic, this has absolutely nothing to do with the content, intent, or production of this film that broke all barriers regarding race and blacks in leading roles. additionally, this film was banned in certain southern theaters because of it's theme. most directors and actors today refer to this film as a bellweather production. it has been included as one of the best american films and is so registered in the library of congress' archives.

",1 "The only impressive thing about ""Down to You"" is just how amazingly bad it is. There is no plot, no characters, the jokes aren't funny -- a complete waste of five minutes, not to mention two hours. Henry Winkler is good, but even he can't keep this from being a likely candidate for worst movie of the year 2000.",0 "When I first saw the cover of this video, I had the sneaking suspicion that it might end up being one of those ""so bad its good"" movies that I absolutely love. Instead, it just ended up being bad. As far as a summary, take ""Nightmare On Elm Street 3"", add some even worse acting and production, add a killer that is one part Freddy Kruger, and one part Marcus Welby MD, and you've got this heaping pile of dung. In at least half the scenes in this movie, the lighting is so dark that its very difficult to even see what's going on. Fortunately for the viewer, by the halfway point you stop caring anyway, so perhaps this is a blessing in disguise. That was either a product of bad production, a very low budget, or possibly both. Also, there is this one cheesy song that is played a total of THREE times, including during the closing credits. And the song doesn't improve with multiple listens. Plot holes are everywhere in this film (too numerous to mention), and by the end you are just glad its over. Do yourself a favor, avoid this......!",0 "This is an awful western. The plot reminds me of ""The Last Wagon"", but it is far from having the polish of that film. The cast includes Cathy Downs and veteran character actor Chill Wills and is largely wasted. Chill Wills' performance is particularly annoying. He spends much of his time spewing almost unintelligible praise for the Kentucky rifle. While the Kentucky rifle was surely a fine weapon, it is not exactly the gun that won the West.

The premise for this film is dumb. A wagon loaded with Kentucky rifles belonging to star Lance Fuller breaks down. The Comanches want the rifles. The Indians offer a deal. The guns for their lives. Surprisingly, those in the wagon are willing to make a deal. The Indians waste no time betraying the foolish Whites, but they don't get the rifles. After a battle in which many of the Indians are killed by the sure firing Kentucky rifles the Indians promise to allow the wagons to proceed in safety. This time they keep their promise.

Technically, this film has serious problems. Much of it was filmed indoors, and the sets have a cheap look to them. The artificial rocks have a particularly phony look about them. The lighting is confused. Daytime scenes turn to shadows without warning. This aspect of the film reminds me of ""Plan Nine from Outer Space"".

I rented this film twice. I wanted to see if it was as awful as I remembered it from the first time. It was.",0 "Ronald Colman and Basil Rathbone, two wonderful actors having the time of their careers playing wittily written opposites who are also spiritual soulmates -- Francois Villon, the poetic rebel, born into poverty with a noble soul, and Louis XI, King of France, born into privilege but with a rebel's iconoclasm. Add a witty script by that poetic comedic rebel Preston Sturges, who hits all the crowd-pleasing buttons without condescension and no-nonsense direction by Frank Lloyd, and you have a top Hollywood product -- a crowd pleaser with intelligence.

Rathbone is a particular delight. Pre-Holmes, he revels in playing an unprepossessing cynic to whom everyone must bow because he happens to be the king. Colman is doing what he does best, playing an intelligent, superior man, without losing the common touch. A delight all the way around.",1 "All the ingredients are there for a funny movie and finally the result is really poor. After Papy fait de la résistance,les visiteurs et le Père Noël est une ordure we know what to expect.... and.. no. It is unexpected and finally confusing and boring. Anemone (Claire Trouabal)as soon as she appears will give you a hope quickly destroyed by Götz Otto (one of the main actors (acting as Johnny Zucchini), unknown and certainly not ready to be discovered:-) Disappointing, confusing ... few funny scenes but why do we feel uneasy from beginning to end, you know, like when you drive a car with no gas thinking it can stop anytime?

",0 "I see many people liked this show. Well, I'm not one of them. When I was a kid Goosebumps ans Are you afraid of the dark was my favorite shows to watch and it succeeded to entertain me. Eerie Indiana on the other hand, did not. I actually started watching this show with great enthusiasm. The show was down right to silly for my taste. Im not saying Goosebumps wasn't' silly, but EI was silly in a too silly way ;) I'll admit some of the episodes were okay to watch, but most of them just annoyed me.. The plots were just to weird to appreciate and the main characters were WAY to bad actors.. I remember the acting annoyed me, and I was a little kid!",0 "This, of course, was McQueen's last role. It is nothing grand, and for the most part there really is no plot, but it is still a rather good movie. This movie revolves around McQueen's character who is a bounty hunter. This movie shows him go after various people and also shows his home life...which is a bit unique too. He goes after super big rednecks, small time crooks, crazy guys who blow things up, and one rather dangerous individual. Someone who he captured in the past also stalks him. All in all it isn't the greatest movie, but it mixes action and humor well. Even though McQueen was feeling the effects of his illness during the shooting of this one, he still does a great job.",1 "Ghost World is one of the better teen or comming of age movie i have seen in a while. The story was very sweet, and it gives people who are hopeless (like myself) hope. This is because the ugly, but unique dork of the movie gets to find true love! I don't usually see that in todays movies

The movie consists of many interesting characters, and the actors who played the characters did an outstanding job (especially Thora Birch and Steve Buscemi). The settings in the movie was good, and I liked how the movie used different room colors for different occasions in this movie.

There are some problems of this movie: 1. The movie was a little bit long, and sometimes the story drags. 2. Scarlett Johanson character seemed pretty small, it would be nice to more a little bit of Scarlett Johanson character.

This movie was funny, sweet, and interesting. If you are sick of the ordinary teen movies, you should watch this interesting little teen movie called Ghost World :)",1 "I was looking for a little light entertainment, and TNT's continuous plugs promised just that. But upon watching it I found it to be based upon a silly premise, with inconsistent problems and characters and pat solutions. Examples of the latter: our hero deciphers an impossible dead language during an airplane flight, and from then on can fluently interpret the book containing clues to the mysteries to come. Out of nowhere Nicole the wonder-woman appears to help our hero out of impossible scrapes he gets into. Another inconsistency is the presence of several other librarians, none of whom can do what our hero undertakes on his first day of work; and the previous librarian, who was supposed to be pretty smart, seems never to have had a clue about the answers our hero has uncovered. Noah Wylie was suitable as our hero, though I was most impressed by Sonja Walger as the brawn of the operation. Apparently Kyle MacLachlan just needed the money. In my opinion Bob Newhart would be funny reading the phone book, and he did his thing well here. But overall I felt I had wasted my time.",0 "1st watched 10/21/2009 – 7 out of 10 (Dir-Lucky McKee): Scary, atmospheric chiller about a girls boarding school in the woods that is haunted by something.(which we really don't find out what it is 'til the last scene of the movie) A girl, played by Agnes Bruckner, is brought to the school by her parents supposedly because she's gifted and they want her to be their prize to gloat about to other parents, but actually they are just getting her out of the way because she's different. The school is eerie right from the beginning with a very straight-laced unemotional headmistress, played perfectly by Patricia Clarkson, a twitching teacher and other scary-looking old folk. We can tell the young girl is different at the beginning and that she doesn't mesh well with others but we don't know if the voices she hears are in her head or are coming from the woods. A story is told in a tongue-in-cheek way about how the school was established by some witches that come out of the woods, but again it's hard to tell how real this is. This is what makes this movie good – it's ambiguity. There is an eerie chill around but you don't know why until the end. And then the end isn't an all-out gorefest but is scary and definitely different. This is one of the better scary movies I've seen in awhile. It does what it's supposed to do without being over-the-top and overly-gross. These aren't the type of movies I usually enjoy, so this is really saying something coming from me. I'd like to own this movie, but I might be too scared to watch it again.(I admit it OK, I'm a loaf)",1 """Three Strangers"" has long been a favorite film of mine, with its fascinating reference to the statue of the goddess Kwan Yin, who, in Chinese legend, opens her eyes and grants a wish to three strangers on the Chinese New Year. Geraldine Fitzgerald, Sydney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre are the above-mentioned strangers, each with an agenda that can be easily pursued by money. So the wish is that their sweepstakes ticket win, and the agreement is that it then be entered into the horse race that follows.

Geraldine Fitzgerald's character seems sympathetic, but she reveals herself as quite obsessive and delusional as the film progresses. Greenstreet plays a crooked solicitor, and Lorre portrays a small time criminal - he's the most sympathetic character and, to my mind, gives the most memorable performance.

The film asks the question - did the meeting of the three strangers change their lives, or did events proceed as they would have? This is an unusual, absorbing, and entertaining film. I highly recommend it.",1 "I cannot praise THE RAKES PROGRESS too highly. It has a witty script, extremely fine performances, a good William Alwyn score (including the famous Calypso he wrote for the film), good-looking sets by Norman Arnold and handsome cinematography by Wilkie Cooper. It told a good story as well.

Yes, Rex Harrison was quite a bounder. At the time of the film's release some critics were disappointed in how the character's life suddenly changed at the film's end - a valid objection which, had the script inserted at least one ""transitional"" episode, might have made it more believable. However I find this a minor point, having taken great pleasure in such a beautifully made production. It gave Harrison a good opportunity to widen his acting range considerably. Hitherto only light comedy roles were offered him but in RAKE'S PROGRESS we see some serious sly villainy. It was this performance that took him to Hollywood, by the way. A special bouquet to Lilli Palmer for another sensitive, touching performance. She was, without doubt,one of the finest actresses on the screen.

Highly recommended.",1 "I feel badly for the actors and directors of this film who may come across this site's comments about it, which was fairly well done - for a low-budget film.

All the criticisms about the film are true: The evil CEO's office in an apparent library, the antique computer with outdated floppys, and the fairly wooden acting are all valid criticisms. But what do we expect, Spielberg? Lucas? I'm sure they could have taken this film to greater heights, but let's give it its due.

Think about it. The plotline was clever. How many ways can you go into the past? Car, stationary machine, plane? But the ""future"" portrayed here was embarrassing. Frankly, I thought they had gone BACK in time to 1984! Surely, they could have done better than that. Even in 1994, people knew what types of technologies to expect in the near future. Why not portray even one laptop?

I enjoyed the revolutionary war re-enactors, but I think a ""twist"" of an ending would have been cute, and could have salvaged some of the film. What if, when they returned, everyone had BRITISH accents, including the evil CEO of a now-British conglomerate. Think about it.

So, here's my ""director's cut"" of this film: 1. Allow the lead actor to drive a car (better chase scenes) 2. Use a real computer - at least use the right sized disks 3. Cut the ""ditching bicycles"" scene (it's only 3 seconds long) 4. Show a better, more plausible future 5. Shorten the ""bad future"" scene, and shoot it at night, or in the fog, to make it look REALLY ominous, and 6. Make the final scene important (as I said above).

Until then, my rating is 4.",1 "Slaughter Studios starts as an actor named Justin is shot & killed on the set of his latest film, was it an accident or something more sinister? Either way Slaughter Studios has remained unused & empty ever since... Jump forward 20 years & aspiring low budget horror filmmaker Steve (Peter Stanovich) is going to break into Slaughter Studios & use the unused but still intact stages for his latest project. To help him he has assembled a crew of friends, production assistant Madigan (Amy Shelton-White), Gary (Matthew J.Roseman) the cameraman, Ollie (Anand Chulani) the sound-man, & his cast of actors, Kevin (Nicolas Reed), Chad (Darren Reiher), goth babe Trisha (Eva Frajko), Rebecca (Laura Oatis), Darlene (Serra Ellison), Candace (Lorissa McComas) & Portia (Tara Killian). Together they break into the abandoned Slaugher Studios & get to work, however it appears that they are not alone as a killer stalks the corridors of the once busy studio...

Edited & directed by Brian Katkin I really liked Slaughter Studios. On paper the script by Dan Acre & John Huckert looks pretty lousy, a horror comedy about a bunch of annoying teenagers being killed by a mysterious killer but in fact Slaughter Studios turned out to be a really likable & decent film. I hated Ollie but I found the rest of the character's very likable & were quite funny with some nice witty dialogue. The whole film-within-a-film, Blair Witch Project (1999) anyone?, has been done before but Slaughter Studios incorporates it really well & the whole self referential jokes & mickey taking is done with a certain affection for the genre. There are a few good laughs here including a pretty funny farting in a tent gag! I really liked the ending as well, I definitely wasn't expecting it & was both a clever & satisfying way to round the film off. Slaughter Studios never takes itself seriously, it moves along at a fair pace & is never boring or dull & makes for good entertainment. Don't get me wrong as it's far from a masterpiece but believe me you could do a hell of a lot worse than Slaughter Studios when you compare it to the straight-to-video crap that litter video shop shelves these days.

Director Katkin does an impressive job, the lighting is excellent with bright neon greens, blues & reds along side the dark shadowy corners. The film looks great throughout & only the cheap looking digital video used to shoot it on gives it's low budget away. There is plenty of nudity, some lesbianism including a funny exchange of dialogue with the director convincing Portia that going nude & participating in acts if lesbianism would make her a better actress! The gore isn't so plentiful, a pick-axe in someones stomach, someones throat is cut with some film & someone has a pitchfork stuck through them & there's a decapitated head.

With a supposed budget of about $50,000 the filmmakers have worked absolute miracles. Slaughter Studios went straight-to-video but looks really good from start to finish & they obviously made that $50,000 go a long way. The acting varies, Chulani is absolutely awful. Frajko as the goth bird Trisha is a bit of a babe & really easy on the eyes.

Slaughter Studios surprised me, a lot. I thought it was a highly entertaining & funny spoof comedy horror slasher. As a horror film fan you have to be able to take a chance on a film you've never heard of that will in all likelihood turn out to be complete & utter crap, most low budget straight-to-video horror films fall into this category. But once in a while you are rewarded with a bit of an unexpected gem & Slaughter Studios was just such an occasion for me, definitely worth a watch.",1 """If you like this title, we also recommend...

Boa vs. Python (2004) (TV).""

There's really not much more to say other than that, but I'll try: Imagine being strapped to a chair while every stupid person who has ever irritated you, wasted your time, or otherwise caused you grief pokes you repeatedly in the face with a rolled-up copy of the National Enquirer while explaining the plot of Jason and the Argonauts to you using no words that contain more than two syllables. That's how much fun you will probably have watching this movie. Cue next anonymous hyperbolic scathing.",0 "This movie has a good concept, but it is ruined by Sarandon's horrible performance. She is forever latched into playing herself, a foul mouthed, small minded individual to whom the world must constantly adapt and cater to. Just like her other meager performances, and something to avoid, unless you like discarding two hours of your life frivolously.",0 "One of the funnier MST3K experiments. This was an ambitious film, light years ahead of Manos and Hobgoblins. they simply couldn't afford the talent or special effects for it. In terms of effort they get a 7/10. Almost as funny as Space Mutiny. I give this one a 3/10 because there was a passable plot, and some half-decent acting. The funniest part for me is when the wormy fat guy is in the plane with his evil boss and Crow cracks: ""Sir, I'm getting a little worried about lunch, it's almost 12:30"" or something like that. This one was fun to watch, even though it is strictly fodder for the folks at Best Brains.",1 "I was sadly disappointed in this adaptation of a delightful Austen classic. Although the storyline loosely follows the book, many of the most important scenes were left out of the movie. What's worse, the heart and soul of the book (Fanny Price's shining character) is not portrayed well in the movie. At times, Fanny is fickle, indecisive, brash, and disrespectful, the complete opposite of the literary Fanny's character. Still, any movie based on an Austen novel cannot be all bad. If you haven't read Mansfield Park, or if you are not an Austen purist or accustomed to her superior style, you may enjoy it. Otherwise, expect to be dissatisfied with this film.",0 "I only saw this from half way through but it was easy to pick the storyline up. Also, this was the first movie I saw Barbara Stanwyck in and she's an amazing actress. Humphrey Bogart gives an amazing performance as a bizarre killer. Bogart plays a artist who's wife dies a mysterious death after he painted her as the Angel Of Death. He marries Sally (Barbara Stanwyck) and as the same strange urge to paint her the angel of death. As bizarre and strange as it may sound, it's very entertaining and most definitely held my attention while I was watching. Even my mother, who doesn't really like Mr. Bogart, sat down and watched it. Although at times you feel Barbara Stanwyck's character is completely hopeless (she doesn't put up any fight, quite weak), that doesn't mean that you don't care about what happens to her. You really do, and you feel a sense of triumph as she grabs the gun. I think the ending would have been much better if she actually put up a fight (how I would love to see Stanwyck kicking Bogart in the groin!! Then punching him before saying a witty line). Just my opinion. I would pay to see that!

Anyway, I think The Two Mrs. Carrolls is a very much underrated film. I liked it, it's quite exciting at times. Nice to see Mr. Bogart playing a different role - the villain. I'm getting this on DVD!",1 "Little Britain is a hilarious British Comedy that stars Matt Lucas and David Walliams that play several characters each. This has made me laugh in many ways such as Marjorie Dawes (Fat Fighters), Carol ""Computer Says No"" Beer, Judy and Maggie, Mr Mann, ""Bubbles"" De Vere etc.

Most of it gives me a laugh although it gets repetitive and predictable after a while and it's not so funny. Always watch a couple of episodes at once because of that reason Ignoring that it is a typical British comedy that will lighten you up when you are feeling down. Great show and very funny. 4.5/5",1 "This movie has a few minor flaws that keep it from being what i consider a classic. The first time i saw this movie, i missed the opening scene where sean penn meets with his contact before going undercover, so i didnt know noonan was a cop until he confessed it. For me this made the movie much more interesting. I think something is lost by knowing the characters secret from the beginning.

I also liked the irish-italian mafia subplot, but did not like the fact that it was the driving force behind all the key events in the film. In my opinion it would have been better left in the background. However, I admit I cant think of a better vehicle for the story. Maybe I would have liked it better if Terry wasnt a cop at all, but then it would have been a whole different movie.

State of Grace as it is is a very good movie. I found the nighttime and early morning scenes when terry is first back in the kitchen absolutely intoxicationg. The Rooftop scene with Oldman, and Terry seeing Kathleen for the first time really communicated the feeling of Terry being home after a long time, and truly being HOME.

Sean Penn and Robin Wright did a great job of portraying characters torn apart inside by conflicting feelings and loyalties. In contrast Gary Oldmans character is also torn up in side, but he has no conflict, he is happy going right over the edge.

Worth seeing for any gangster film fan if for no other reason than because it is one of the few that deals with the Irish Mob. Also worth watching at least once for anyone who has experienced conflicted loyalties or rediscovered a lost love.",1 "This made-for-TV movie was so good that 11 years after having watched it I still can't get it out of my mind. The songs were evocative of the World War II era, Courtney Cox played her role brilliantly, and the film/story was inspirational for young women considering non-traditional jobs. Judith Krantz can be justly proud of having written the story, and the film makers did a wonderful job of adapting the book to a movie. What a shame that it is not out on VHS, nor is the soundtrack available (to the best of my knowledge).",1 """The Time Traveler's Wife"" is a heart-warming love story, and will keep you entertained until the final credits appear. The performances are superb, the pacing is fantastic, and the emotional sensation you experience is easily worth the price of admission.

I recommend anyone looking for a unique love story to see this film. Paying homage to memorable classic such as; ""Somewhere in Time"" and ""It's a Wonderful Life,""it will easily be something that should find a home in your living room shelves.

It emits a cinematic glow that hasn't been seen in years while cleverly conveying an educational message;

""Never let go of the one you love, and cherish him/her always.""

Don't let this sparkling gem pass you by...",1 "Woah... I saw it in 1996 in a theater near my small Provençal village, and i simply wasn't expecting that... Christian Duguay proved once again he was terribly underrated by both the press and the public, ""Screamers"" (""Planète Hurlante"" in France i/e ""Screaming Planet"", nice title too...) is the B-side at its best, the B-efficiency with an almost-A script. The cast is OK (Roy Dupuis was almost a star here in the early 90s, the VFX impressive (for the most of them), and - as some viewers wrote earlier - the first part very promising. Overall, a good job. Take it on video with a couple of friends, some chips'n'soda (ok, beer if ya want).",1 "In a world were to be scared, pint loads of gore is shown. This film is different it is obvious that not that much money has been spent on it, yet it still manages to truly scare(for many days). a great film based on true things to get your pulse going even more.The film about a fire demon which a group of friends have unleashed back onto the world through the help of a weejie board, the film could have gone the same way as so many others films have gone but it didn't it kept it individuality as well as help retain many jaw clenching classics. A film that i would recommend to anyone. It has to be one of the most under estimated films for a long while.",1 "Alonzo is a circus performer, who uses his feet to throw knives since he appears to have no arms. In love with the circus owner's daughter, Alonzo kills the circus owner when he discovers he really does have arms. Nanon (the daughter) sees the murder but doesn't recognize Alonzo and develops a fear of men's arms. Malabar the strong man competes for Nanon's attention and, unbeknownst to Alonzo, helps her get over her fear of men's arms. Alonzo, fearing that if he revealed his secret to Nanon that she would recognize he was her father's killer since few men have an extra thumb, blackmailed a doctor into removing his arms. On his return from hospital, he finds that Malabar and Nanon are engaged, so he attempts to have Malabar killed in a circus accident. Does he succeed? You'll have to watch the movie.

Tod Browning directed this tragic romantic thriller and it shows a style very much like that of his later film ""Freaks"". It is a relatively simple plot with a very linear progression that is carried by the wonderful performance of Lon Chaney. I have never seen a performance by the Man with 1000 faces that I did not like and this is no exception. This is a sad tale of unrequited love more than a horror movie and it is touching. Though one might not agree with Alonzo's attempts to kill Malabar, the viewer can at least sympathize with his motive after all that he has gone through to win Nanon's affection.

Just like in ""Freaks"" Tod Browning has managed to create sympathetic characters, even when they are doing some not so nice deeds. And while I like that movie better, this one is definitely worth watching.",1 "This series has its ups and occasional downs, and the latter is the case, here. There's an agreeable amount of spatter, with an inventive implementation of the Baby Cart's weapons, but the editing film is a seriously disjointed, the film-making itself rougher than usual. At times, the action slows to a crawl as the camera follows the wordless wanderings of the ""cub,"" who nearly gets lost early on. All in all, disappointment.

That said, there's a spaghetti eastern quality to the music and action that may win the approval of dedicated viewers. This installment spends much of its time following the minor misadventures of the little boy, who begins to stare into the abyss of death his father opened for him.",0 "This was an incredibly ambitious sci-fi series produced in the UK for international distribution. It was extremely expensive for its day and unfortunately, the series never took off due to a Luke-warm reception. Some of this can be blamed on the series itself--the show had a very sterile look and action was something it was usually lacking. While Martin Landau and Barbara Bain were fine actors, the parts and script were amazingly low-key for the genre. Additionally, had it appeared a few years later, after the sci-fi craze began following STAR WARS, it probably would have fared better.

Another problem is that although I enjoyed the show, there were huge changes (mostly unwelcome) in the second season. Because the show was struggling in the ratings, huge cast changes were made. The most notable ones were the loss of the wonderful doctor (played by Barry Morse) and the introduction of a shape-shifting alien (Maya) who seemed rather inappropriate to the style of the show. The intention was to pump some life into it, but devotees of the series like myself were not particularly pleased).

Overall, there were some amazing episodes (such as the one about the Queller Drive) and some bombs. It's a shame, really, as the show deserved to do better than it did.",0 "Is the Bee Movie the best animated movie we've ever seen? No. But, defying the critics, I took my 11 year old daughter (who didn't really want to go) and my 5 year old son to see the movie and we all really enjoyed it. Most importantly, the story and humor of the movie operates at multiple levels, so it appealed to all of us at our individual age level.

What is beyond dispute is that the visual feel of the movie is incredible. Some of the bee hive interior and flight scenes were just breathtaking. My kids were spellbound.

To me the best judge of a movie is how fast it moves along. This one kept us all entertained throughout and its 90 minute running time felt like half that. So, ignore the critics, and take your kids. They'll have a great time, and even if you're not a Seinfeld fan, so will you.",1 "Well, in Finland this movie is oddly called Executor, though that isn't a Finnish word. So, this tv-movie is very bad. The scenes are made very poorly and some scenes are so funny, especially when one female robot takes her hand and starts to beat with it. The scene where David Bowie's ""Ashes to ashes"" plays, the angel wings come on the the lead character, that scene is so stupid! I would give this * star out of **** (1 out of 10).",0 The real crime involved in this movie is the bare bones dvd release.Though the print is great this movie really deserves a revival and a special edition....its begging to be re-discovered!!! This film would have to be one of the greatest crime flicks ever. No one dimensional characters here...all of them struggle with good and bad inside themselves and the motivations are clear. Totally unpredictable and full of incredible exciting scenes with great thoughtful dialogue. Not a typical black cop/ white cop movie this breaks rules and has scenes Ive never seen before... you cant do better than this flick.great theme song too which was re-done and updated again by the original composer Bobby Womack for Jackie Brown.check it out!You wont be dissapointed....,1 "I rarely enjoy erotic films, but really loved this one. Its plot is quite basic the tale of a cop that works too hard and a wife that is neglected. Shannon Whirry as the wife is stunning and captures your attention. Its adult nature is full nudity and soft focus, with plenty of interesting outfits and people doing what is now seen as swinging. It hasn't really dated too badly, the hair is big, the g-strings high legged and the suits a bit 80s. Other than that they had kept it free of really obvious fashion or image disasters of the era.

The second film is also quite good and in the third Shannon wasn't included.

If you want intelligent eroticism then get Wild Things with Denise Richards, otherwise this will make a fun watch.",1 """The Bed Sitting Room"" is hard to describe to the average viewer. It reminded me of a Monty Python film with set pieces from a Salvador Dali painting. Many have compared the film to the work of director Alejandro Jodorowsky, which is probably the best way to describe the film's surrealism. Because of all the rubble and junk-piles turned into crazed surrealist imagery, It's also been compared to ""The Cremaster Cycle"". But I feel ""the Bed Sitting Room"" is much more enjoyable than the pretentious, self referential cremaster series. Did I mention how funny the film is? The story concerns a nuclear war that happened so fast, that hardly anyone remembers it. There is a dozen or so survivors. Because of all the radiation, one man is convinced he'll turn into a bedroom. A young girl is 18 months pregnant. Her mother turns into a dresser and her father a parrot, all due to radiation. Weird Huh? And we can't forget Mrs. Ethel Shroake, the survivor that's the closest distant relative to a now deceased queen of England. This film is utter lunacy and gets better with every viewing. The humor in the film is very dry. The more you think about the jokes, you realize just how ridiculous and funny it really is. So if your looking for an obscure, surreal end of the world wasteland, this is a film for you. I personally loved this film . Its wit and originality are in a category of its own. It's as if Monty Python and Jodorowsky teamed up to make a movie. ""Long Live Mrs. Ethel Shroake!!!""",1 "I wasn't expecting much of it since i only went to the theatre to see Alexandra Mutu who was sooo hot, but i was far worse than i had expected it to be.A poor plot, poor characters(except Garcea who makes you laugh a few times only because of the stupidity), crap acting and crap directing.The beginning made me wanna know what the heck i was doing there in the first place, the Skol beer advertising was horrible and the character - director interaction from the movie, which was intended to be fun was just bad taste.The TV show is far better.",0 "1st watched 2/14/2010 -- 4 out of 10(Dir-Tad Stones): OK straight to video 3rd entry in the Walt Disney Aladdin series tries hard to be like the Disney movies of old that we love(but that's also it's problem -- it tries too hard!!) It has the many songs, the good guy-bad guy theme, and the guy gets the girl scenario but it obviously has less heart and funds to pull it off. It was made by the TV animation studio and it kind of has that look and feel to it with it's incomplete, un-realistic backgrounds but otherwise looks OK. Robin Williams as the Genie is funny at times(but overbearing at others)and some of the other minor characters brings some laughs but the movie tries to be too grand and too good even though it wasn't meant to be. The story is about Aladdin and Jasmine getting married but is interrupted by the forty thieves. We later find out that Aladdin's father is the king of thieves and he goes on a quest to bring him back and reform him. There is a bad leader of the thieves who keeps fighting with Aladdin's father over the kingship of the thieves, who amazingly is voiced by Jerry Orbach, in a very different role for him. They are then lured to the ultimate treasure of Midas's hand by an oracle and they eventually have to decide what's really important(the treasure or the people). As most Disney films, it all works itself out in the end but the movie overall doesn't deliver the kind of craftsmanship in the story that usually keeps us interested in a Disney movie. A good try by the TV animators but it's not quite what it could have been. Given a little more money and time it could have been a worthwhile effort but instead it's pretty mediocre.",0 "Bring a pillow, a receptacle for excrement so you needn't stir, sign your will, and take your nemesis on a dream date.

Under acted, entirely improvised on the fly dialog. and mise-en-scene that leaves the camera unattended explores the boring spontaneous utterances of undergrads trying to make a really deep art film by saying a lot of ""Like"" and ""So I go..."" or ""So I''m like..."" . If they'd been black the most common utterance would've been repetitive ""y'know what I'm saying ?""

Oh... and it's poorly filmed ...B&W.

Sound guys did workmanlike work. I hate this pretentious crap and was pleased I could turn it off. If at a cinema I would've assaulted a crippled ticket kiosk on my way out after 30'.",0 """The Amityville Curse"" is a seemingly misplaced installment in the ""Amityville"" series, which seems to consist of a whole slew of never ending, cheapie horror movies. This time around, it doesn't even have anything to do with the Amityville house, if I remember right the only relation is that the house in this film is in the same neighborhood. A group of adult friends decide to buy an old house with the plans of renovating it and selling it or something along those lines. Unbeknowst to them, a Catholic priest was murdered in a confession booth that is now stored in the basement, and the man who killed him hung himself because of guilt. So, the ghosts begin to appear to one of the friends who seems to be a little psychic, and it's up to her to put the ""curse"" to rest before her friends' lives are at stake.

This film is nothing new, is fairly boring, and really has nothing to do with the rest of the Amityville movies. It's almost like ""Halloween III"" was in the Halloween series. The house isn't the same, so it's not really the ""Amityville Horror"", the film isn't even really linked to the others if you don't count the title. The acting is so-so and the effects which are supposed to be substantially shocking look very cheap and unscary. The story itself is weak, even more so because of the series it was randomly placed in and the unrelation to the other films. I enjoyed ""Amityville Dollhouse"", but this one is completely unrelated and failed to do much for me. Perhaps if it were it's own film and didn't have ""Amityville"" branded on it, it would've made more sense, but of course it isn't.

If you like cheesy, low-budget haunted house films (which I normally do), then you might wanna give this a look. Although, it may just be a disappointment. I think I'll give it a four for trying, I tend to have a soft spot for films like this. But don't expect anything brilliant, after all, this is an Amityville sequel. 4/10.",0 "I happen to believe that Peter Bogdanovich is an astonishingly undervalued director. Those who feel it worthy to mention him at all usually hand out praise to ""The Last Picture Show"", but his output since that milestone - such as this and ""The Thing Called Love"", for example - undeservedly gets lost in the shuffle.

In each of his films I have seen, Bogdanovich displays an extraordinary level of intimacy and comfort with his characters. We get drawn into their struggles because they are shown to us as fully fleshed-out human beings, not because manipulative elements like the score instruct us how to feel, at what time. He is able to draw our attention neatly to the vulnerability that exists inside everyone, regardless of external appearances. Such an ability is crucial to ""Mask"" and its overwhelming success in making us care about what happens.

Particularly good is how deftly the fierce bond between mother and son is illustrated. As I was once a disadvantaged child myself, I know that what makes a good parent isn't always signalled by a cheerful disposition, but instead security comes from the knowledge that you have always been loved. Whatever may be on her list of faults, you are never allowed to dismiss the love she has for her kid.

So, if you're looking for a journey over sometimes bumpy terrain that never forgets about the joyous qualities in life, then ""Mask"" would be it. It's amazingly affecting and is further demonstration of Bogdanovich's wonderful artistic gifts.",1 "I went into this film without realizing it was by Carlos R. I won't explain the storyline as you may have read it already by now - I will however try to rationalize why it may be loved/hated.

This ""artistic"" film is not meant for the regular masses of people - that much is clear. It however goes a step ahead by trying to create a niche group amongst the ""sophisticated"" critics/viewers as well! It's a ""short story"" shot in exaggerated long moments of nothingness. You will be viewing the (deliberately) expressionless actors looking into space like zombies in addition to the Mexican landscape, roads, people, roads, sun rising, (did i mention roads?) etc with no coherence. It was during these long shots, I realized this film was reminiscent of another rather *boring* Mexican film I had once lost 2 hours of my life to.

It wasn't until the much talked about ""Real Life people"" sex scene that I paused, checked and found it was indeed a film by Carlos Reygadas! At least he has succeeded in imprinting his style even on normal audiences! Once a director does it (ie Geriatrics Sex in Japon) in a movie, its considered artistic by the niche critics but to do something like that again in another gloom of a film? I call it a disturbing fetish crying out for media attention! Let me get this straight - the film is not about sex primarily - it also is *supposed* to be about human dilemmas of morality, class divides etc.

However we never get to see it, comprehend it or actually feel for it. It's a film which will fulfill those niche audiences and allow them that seat of authority which they can have and enjoy.

PS. This film will be enjoyable in 4x Fast forward.",0 "I watched Birth for the second time the other night. There are movies I've loved the first time, then thought on the second time around, hmmm, maybe not as good as I first thought - State of Grace, Fight Club, for instance. There are movies I hated the first time, and hated just as much the second - Lost in Translation and In the Cut come to mind. There are movies that I hated at first, but later came to think were quite good, e.g. Sin City. And there are movies that were magnificent the first time, and even more magnificent the second. Birth is one of these.

This movie, more than any other, reveals the lack of credibility attaching to the Academy Awards. There are always injustices, whereby the most deserving walk away without the prize. In the acting category alone, I can think of Gary Oldman in State of Grace, Cate Blanchett for Elizabeth, Russell Crowe for A Beautiful Mind, Naomi Watts for 21 Grams (hmmm, a lot of Aussies and Kiwis in there - I wonder if there's a message in this). But the greatest travesty of all is not just that Nicole Kidman didn't waltz away with the award by a mile or two for this movie, but wasn't even nominated. One of the great pleasures of this film is watching her sublime performance as she moves gently from suppressed grief to insane grief. She's the one carrying the movie, and takes part in so many outstanding scenes - the lingering shot at the concert hall, trying to explain the situation to Clifford (the best man at her marriage to Sean) during which her declining mental state starts to reveal itself, the scene in the bathroom when she reveals her insane plan to run away with the boy only to find that he's a liar, the boardroom scene in which she tries to tell Joseph that none of it was her fault (probably my favourite scene), the heartrending scene at the beach.

The movie also reveals the hypocrisy, cowardice and basic stupidity of the film establishment. It's possible I've missed it, but no critic savaging this movie and its premise seems to have cottoned on to the fact that Anna was going mad, although the movie makes it blatantly obvious. Rather they like to concentrate on the couple of brief scenes in which the boy climbs into the bath with Anna, and later kisses her on the lips, both handled with taste, discretion, and restraint. Aaaah, shock, horror! The scenes are described as being disturbing, unsavory, of questionable taste. And yet for a film like This Is England, in which a much cruder relationship between a young boy and an older girl is explored (""you look like a four old, but kiss like a 40 year old!"") the relationship is described as ""cute"".

This, without a doubt, is one of the finest films I've seen, containing possibly the greatest performance of all. A 10/10.",1 "Hello there, I just did come home from visiting my parents.

When at my parents house,""Blessed Stranger""just started. Normally I disgust pulp movies.. so I also was thinking of this movie the first minute. What actually made me keep watching was the score/soundtrack. Even after 10 minutes the music mesmerized me, it sounded like ""Hans Zimmer's - Gladiator,(Lisa Gerrard). I had to leave already after 30 minutes but those 30 minutes of movie where enough for me to understand that ""Blessed Stranger"" is NOT a pulp movie. It is not over-acted and the characters are for ""real"". I am going to hunt for that OST! SO, anyone who can help me with that?? Just let me know. Cheers and thank for you minute.

Bye . Peter",1 "The Amazing Race is a show where teams of two race about Earth to win a million dollars at the end (the first to win, of course gets said million dollars). On the way they stop at various locations and must complete tasks. The teams are generally all a type of human or a minority and rarely are normal people used in the series. The tasks involve doing things that happen or are to do with local things, like making pottery or laying bricks or carrying a local creation about. For the most part vehicles, usually cars or 4WDs are provided to help them get about and they are given money for some legs. Since this is reality TV it is always different with no contiguous consistent plot or continuuity apart from reality itself, and so its enjoyability depens greatly on certain variables at the time. However the general gist of the show is quite amusing. It is amazing how weird and unintelligent Americans are, as is clearly shown with many of the teams. Also social observations can be made, as some teams gang to form 'alliances' against others and teams often become aggressive to one another or in the team itself.",0 "I won't be as harsh as the other writer, but this movie is pretty much a mess. It almost looks like a showcase for ""up-and-coming"" actors, anchored by Adolphe Monjou. I don't know why Andrea Leeds disappeared, she's no better or worse than anyone else from the era, and very pretty besides. Reminded me of Donna Reed. Kenny Baker is doing a great Dick Powell, only a few years too late. His type of part was becoming obsolete. He is very good here and 9 years later in ""The Harvey Girls"". But musical numbers come out of nowhere, and suddenly you hear Helen Jepson and Charles Cullman from the Metropolitan Opera, and see Vera Zorina the ballerina (quite funny in her comedy scenes). I never got the appeal of the Ritz Brothers. It's nice (and rare) to see Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy. Bergen's timing is impeccable, and Charlie, is, well, Charlie. I sort of see why they were successful on radio. Monjou is on autopilot, but he can't do much else in this creaky vehicle. Ignore the plot, watch the individual scenes. Pretty to look at, but don't think too much.",0 "Having found the original Scary Movie hilarious and Scary Movie 2 disappointing, I believe that David Zucker and Jim Abrams taking over from the Wayans brothers is the best thing that could have happened to this franchise. I was very impressed by Scary Movie 3 which was much funnier than I thought it was going to be and I looked forward to this movie with optimism. I wasn't disappointed.

This movie is 90 minutes of non-stop laughs and is just pure fun like Scary Movie 3. I won't spoil any of the jokes for you but I'll say the best spoofs are of Saw, Million Dollar Baby and War of the Worlds.

Check this hilarious movie out! 9/10",1 "The Fail Safe 2000 version simply does not match the 1964 film masterpiece's acting or drama.

I'm an USAF veteran who worked with the real Fail Safe system (not the correct name by the way) and the 1964 version rang all too true to me.

Henry Fonda's acting was right on target, so to speak, and brought back some memories of a very tense time in world history.

The 2000 version just seemed like a half-hearted remake without the compelling drama and performances of the 1964 original film.

Food for thought: The USAF command and control authority kept the largest arsenal of weapons in the history of mankind under perfect control for decades--without a glitch--until it was no longer needed after the Soviet Union's collapse. The movie dramatized the effects of accidental --or deliberate--use of nuclear weapons which is commendable. It is not a topic to be taken lightly.",0 "HARVEY (1996) *1/2

""Harvey"" is such a lost, mismatched comedy it hurts to see so many familiar faces on the big screen making fools of themselves. It isn't funny or touching. It has a firm first act: the problem is that a grown man, named Elwood P. Dowd, has an imaginary friend that is a six foot tall rabbit-similar to the Easter bunny-named Harvey. But the film doesn't know where to go from there. Where it takes us is though a series of coincidences and mistakes, all of which the plot is built upon, and throws consideration into the wind. Now, that's not to say the movie doesn't make us laugh, because there are several sequences in the film that are down right hysterical, proving that a movie can be successfully made about an imaginary six foot rabbit, but most of the funny scenes accrue during the first twenty minutes, for the one joke this film has gets stale after a while. And finally, after the laughs die down and the movie's insanity begins, it follows a steady path going down hill into ludicrous-ville.

The characters are cute and over-the-top, but too exaggerated. The character development is absent, as is the explanation of why Harvey exists, or where he logically came from (oh, come on, they don't actually think an audience is going to buy that ""found him at the bottom of a light post"" thing, do they)? There is a romantic sub-plot that is way out of place. And the actors are completely wasted. And get this: Leslie Nielsen, the Leslie Nielsen who stars in ""Wrongfully Accused,"" is made out to be a dead-serious psychiatrist. The slapstick king stars as a man whose pastime is daydreaming of a private island where he can go to have women feel sorry for him. This film is ridiculous in its use of him.

Geared toward a family audience, ""Harvey"" is slow moving and boring at times, assuring a loss of interest by children-and adults at that. I guess we're supposed to become involved with Elwood's defense, because people thin he his a nutcase. Well, I too thought he was a nutcase. I was thinking to myself that this man is disturbed in the greatest, and I think I was supposed to be wondering why other ""sane"" people would not except him. Gee. I dunno?

There is a particularly bad scene in ""Harvey"" that not only proves my point about how bad the film is, but also make's public an obvious flaw that the majority of an audience would miss the first time watching it. It consists of Elwood's mother explaining to someone about how Harvey is always in the way. The family has to make a place for him at the dinner table, buy him, tickets to movies, make room for him on the couch. Now those things are funny. But why, dear reader, why, did they explain the misadventures of having Harvey as a family member instead of showing them to us? Well, at least the filmmakers were aware of their mistakes. Otherwise, they would have not make them know to so many.

PS. See how a movie uses Leslie Nielsen in appropriate ways by reading my ""Wrongfully Accused,"" review @ http://comments.imdb.com/CommentsAuthor?Blake+French+(dlfspartan%40aol.com)/ us. Or by clicking on my name at the top of this review. I Think it will help you understand the failure of ""Harvey's"" use of him.

",0 "Chongkwai(Ray MacDonald) purchases a ""cursed"" book which depicts various methods of seeing and encountering ghosts from the spiritual world. He invites a group of friends from Hong Kong to his home in Thailand and they decide to see if the book can actually perform the tasks it represents. In doing so, one of the group, Kofei(Yu Gu)comes up missing during their forest hide-n-seek game using a cat thanks in part to a ghost who ""masks"" him from them. Haunted by his disappearance, upon returning to Hong Kong, May(Kate Yeung) & Teddy(Bo-lin Chen)begin experiencing ghostly apparitions popping up throughout the city with a grief-stricken April(Isabelle Leong)making a drastic decision in order to find Kofei, for whom she believes is dead. May & Teddy will accept a dangerous mission, entering the spirit world as if dead(..another method in the book is sleeping while dressed in burial clothes)to find Kofei..and April who has become missing as well.

The Pang Bros take the franchise into a completely different direction, sacrificing some genuine scares, adopting an almost entirely light-hearted approach to those scary spirits who walk amongst the living. Even the title opening credits are played out in a colorfully jokey manner. But, when the gang play around with the spiritual world, the tone shifts somewhat, but the Pang Brothers always implement some tongue-in-cheek gag that removes the sheer horror of the situation. An example being when Teddy is temporarily taken over by a spirit who has him break-dancing in a contest with a couple of clowns. It's hard to really be scared of an umbrella floating in the air, although May certainly is terrified. Who would've ever thought a basketball could be used as a scare device? And, most of the book's methods of contacting the spirit world are rather silly such as tapping on bowls at Midnight with chopsticks awaiting hungry spirits, or looking between your legs for a spirit. I did love this one developed sub-plot regarding a dead girl who had no idea she was deceased, discovering this only after finding her corpse video-recorded at a crime scene thanks to Teddy's morbid voyeurism;she even tries to stop the camcorder with her hand going through the object. The special effects are impressive. I thought the spirits were creepy enough when they expose themselves. I found the twist at the end regarding May and Teddy's fate rather amusing and it fits in with the overall mood of this film. If you are looking for an Asian terror tale, look elsewhere, because The Bros Pang just weren't in the mood this time around. I think the comedic tone will repel some viewers because the cover of the DVD I rented promised something terrifying. But, to be honest, the first two films were full of such despair and angst, it was refreshing to see the third film a bit more cheerful and playful.",1 "Forget Meg Ryan, forget Julia Roberts...This is romantic comedy at its best! Juliette Binoche and Jean Reno are outstanding. The plot is more than original and, better, convincing. I fell in love with the story but even more with the characters and their lives. Nothing in them seems ""plastic"". Although one knows that the end will be a happy one, the plot is so convincing that the end does not come as if was predicted. Each scene is so natural and revealing that it keeps you asking for more. I seriously do not understand the poor reviews it has gotten here. Could it be a little bit of jealousy because it is a foreign film from a country with no tradition in this genre but that nonetheless achieves what most American romantic comedies don't? I cannot explain it otherwise.",1 "Sorry folks, but I had some real problems with the movie. I thought the cinematography and audio were great. However, I was not happy with the writing and directing. I didn't find Bill Pullman's character very believable. They just tried too hard to make him look like a character and in the end, I only had disbelief (not suspended). The character of Bo Barrett was meant to be a sympathetic character, but didn't come across as one to me. The love triangle in the movie just seemed old fashioned. Why must the white guy always end up with the white girl? There was good reason to fall in love with Gustavo, he made good wine and he exhibited heart. But I saw little reason for her to fall in love with Bo. At one point she tells him (and us) that Bo has heart, but I didn't see much of it. Near the end, it looks like he's trying harder, but it just seemed so contrived. Bo came across as an empty-headed, blonde for the first half of the movie and it was hard to believe that he developed passion in the end.

In the end, I was also not happy about how the actual competition was portrayed. Why would any substantial French wine experts attend the first year of a competition setup by an ex-patriot Brit wine seller with no customers? If there was a good reason, it was never presented. It just didn't seem credible.

This is a movie that should be remade. I like the story and I'd like to see it done right.",0 "The Cartoon Channel scored big with this lovely little cartoon. The stories and characters are very wonderful. The macabre stories take their cues from earlier and equally good children's cartoons, such as ""The Real Ghostbusters"" and ""Ahh! Real Monsters,"" as well as from such eclectic sources as the stories of H.P. Lovecraft and Harry Potter and even from the Kustom Kulture artwork that featured Rat Fink. I've only seen a few episodes, but the cartoonists and voice actors have really made an enjoyable cartoon that mixes the supernatural with goofy comedy.

I do have some quibbles with this cartoon, and I'm sure that there are many people who agree with me. The animation style is part of a trend that focuses on deliberate crudity and outrageousness. The characters' personalities are manifest in the way they are drawn, which is surrealistic and crude, with thick lines and sharp edges; cartoonist Christopher Hart calls these types of 'toons ""edgy 'toons."" I know it's a hip style that the Cartoon Channel seems absolutely ape for, but, having been raised on the classic and complex styles of Disney and the Looney Toons, the crudeness of the animation style edgy 'toons doesn't quite win me over. I get the impression that the ""Grim and Evil"" cartoonists simply don't put in as much effort as their predecessors did in the days of yore. I also don't like that Cartoon Channel is marketing ""Grim and Evil"" towards young children, when the humor---again, much in the vein of the wild and crazy ""edgy 'toons""---- is gross enough to be considered adult. ""Grim and Evil"" out-Ren-and-Stimpys ""Ren and Stimpy"" with its constant and explicit discussions and demonstrations of bodily functions, like boogers and bathroom humor. One episode featured one of the children stating that his mother was undergoing menopause. I think this is a little too adult for the demographic the Cartoon Channel is looking for. This cartoon is great for teenagers and adults, though; they are also the ones who may actually understand the homages to horror writers or older cartoons that may go over the heads of little kids.

Overall, this is a decent cartoon. Be sure to watch it, but if you're a parent, exercise caution if you have young ones.",1 "Set in stunning scenery on the titular Tibetan plateau, ""Mountain Patrol: Kekexili"" recreates an extraordinary grassroots effort in the 1990's by supremely dedicated idealists to stop poaching of the Tibetan antelope -- mano to mano with no satellite phones or navigation equipment or much in the way of weapons.

For all the thrilling nobility of the volunteers and grueling challenges they face from man and nature, the film naggingly feels like a propaganda effort supported by the Chinese government to show how it supports Tibetan initiatives (including a somewhat smug statement at the end that they have now taken over the protection job from the volunteers). I felt complicit in the occupation even as I got caught up in the film.

Their struggle to save the antelope vividly recalls scenes of how the buffalo was decimated in ""Dances With Wolves"", though we get no inkling of the role of the antelopes in Tibetan culture, so saving them just seems either altruism about a rare animal, nationalism, obsession, stubbornness or macho independence.

While we meet several of the volunteers in their isolated monitoring stations and frustrating chases who have a range of personalities and relationships, it is a bit hard to differentiate them other than by the vehicles they are driving or jewelry they're wearing. The exceptions are the patrol's charismatic leader Ri Tai (Duobuji captures the screen) and our entrée to this world, a Beijing-based investigative journalist with Tibetan roots (Ga Ju played by Zhang Lei who effectively communicates his transformation by his experiences).

Whle the sense of swaggering male camaraderie is well captured in a military-like bonding of living, traveling and partying hard, they say the area's name translates to ""land of beautiful women"" and that's supported by the few we see during brief respites.

In addition to the breathtaking scenes of the Tibetan plateau, better seen on the wide screen than on TV, in a range of extremely challenging weather and geographic elements (one scene in quick sand is particularly harrowing), the views of Tibetan towns and quotidian life in the mountains are an intriguing sidelight.

The subtitles were only hard to read as white on white a few times, though a couple of times they lingered on the screen too long past a dialog, blocking views.

National Geographic co-produced the film and has additional information about the film and the cause at their Web site (though for some reason IMDb doesn't consider their's the official movie site).",0 "It was a fluke that I seen a preview for this show, I was watching the only show I tune into the CW for and they showed a preview for it. I was happy I tuned in! First off, Tyler Labine (Sock} is the main reason I decided to check out the first episode and I was really happy with what I seen. It is such a great change to see a new show on television that has nothing to do with ""reality"" or superheroes {even though I like one or two of them} It is refreshing to watch a show where the idea hasn't been done to death, I think the originality is one of the major things I like about this show. There isn't much flaw to the show other than the network, The CW. I really hope this show becomes a hit because I would hate to see it canceled. This is a real diamond among a sea of coal.",1 "Garrison Keillor has wildly overestimated his talent as a writer. I'm a HUGE fan of the APHC radio show, but this is a poorly-written, meandering, boring movie that seems to be created solely so that GK can rub elbows with Hollywood royalty. I'm a closet News from Lake Wobegon fan (I have listened to all of them) and most of the dialogue and jokes were lifted from old ""News from Lake Wobegon"" segments. Maybe that's okay & maybe that's what you're after, but I was looking to be entertained and during this movie it simply did not happen.

It had no story (a show being cancelled is not a story) and a weak, meaningless ending. The characters, while interesting, bear NO resemblance to the ones described on so many precious APHC broadcasts. These characters seem awash in a sea of bad dialogue as they search in vain for a story.

And the posters who talk about how if I don't like this movie, I must ""not be intelligent enough to understand it"" are just flat wrong. I am intelligent, I love the radio show, and I can't figure out why anyone would like this movie.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say, avoid this film.",0 "I'm not sure what it is but there seems to be some curse when it comes to films about the elusive Bigfoot. There has yet to be a film that intelligently approaches the subject, nor one that creates any real suspense. Both ""Legend of Boggy Creek"" (1972) and the first film entitled ""Sasquatch"" (1978) have become minor cult classics, but neither were very memorable. Both films were targeted at family friendly audiences, thus inhibiting themselves from actually trying to scare anyone. ""Harry & The Hendersons"" (1987) was the first big budgeted film to use Bigfoot, with a terrific creature design by Rick Baker. However, they too chose to aim for younger audiences, but this time as a comedy (as did ""Bigfoot"" in 1995). I've long awaited for someone to tackle the subject as a thriller, perhaps in the vein of ""Jaws"" or ""Predator"". When I saw this at my local video store I thought my dream had come true. Boy, was I wrong! Lance Henriksen plays a billionaire who leads an expedition into the pacific northwest in hopes of finding his daughter as she was on board a small plane when it crashed in the mountains. The premise is interesting and sounded promising. The truth is it never builds any real suspense. I never found myself at all interested in any of the characters as each of them were very two dimensional and rather bland. Even the always dependable Henriksen seems to be phoning in his performance. Every time he appears on screen he looks plain bored. He should be as there is no action to speak of for the first hour of the film. As for the creature, where do I start? I figured at the very least we would get a cool looking monster running around in the woods, but instead we get this bald (yes, I said ""bald!"") man with pitch black skin and patches of fur here and there. Picture a cross between ""Swamp Thing"" and Chaka from ""Land of the Lost"" and you'll get the idea. Nothing like the artwork on the cover box I assure you. Sloppy editing and careless direction also adds to the confusion as half the time everything seemed out of sequence, while the other half of the film was constantly used up with these long, slow fade outs (which made no sense or served any purpose). They even stole the whole infra-red vision P.O.V from the creature in ""Predator"", which just looked too silly and out of place to be effective. Maybe all this proves is that Hollywood should just forget about trying to make anymore Bigfoot films, as they have yet to make one that works. So far each one has been as scary as an episode of ""In Search Of"" 3/10",0 "Death Wish is a movie for all of the people who have to wade through the legends of scum that inhabit the streets of America's urban wasteland. Liberals hate this film because it appeals to a very real desire in many Americans to see the streets ""cleaned up."" It is often portrayed as horribly violent and as nothing more than an ""exploitation"" movie--I'm not so sure that it is either. Yes, the film ""exploits"" the very real feelings people have toward violent wanton crime, but this story could have been a lot more exploitive than it is. Rather than roaming the streets armed to the teeth, as we might see in a more modern film, Paul Kersey takes on the criminals of New York with a .32 revolver. This is not a ""gun nut"" blowing people away with a .44 magnum or a .308, rather it is a guy who knows so little about firearms that he uses a pathetically underpowered gun to defend himself. That's the point of the movie. Paul Kersey is not a Special Forces Vietnam vet returning home to clean up America with overwhelming firepower--he is an architect and a liberal--in other words, just a regular guy. That's what is so forceful about the movie. Most people hold liberal views about criminals and violent crime because they have never had it hit close enough to home to shake them out of their liberal, hypothetical, text-book way of thinking. This movie seeks to do just that. As difficult as the rape scene is to watch, it is absolutely crucial to the plot because it tries to put the audience in the place of an innocent victim of violent crime. Talk to people who have lost children or parents to violent offenders and see if they support liberal coddling of violent criminals--you'll find few that do. Death Wish makes a simple point: if the law can't or won't protect innocent people, then maybe someone else should. Is vigilantism scary? Yes, of course it is, but then so is the liberal tradition of accepting violent crime as a ""normal"" aspect of society. Death Wish is a good movie; it's many sequels are not. Don't confuse the original with the real exploitation movies that follow it.",1 "This is a slow moving drama with big name stars, but falls short of being memorable. Humphrey Bogart is an independent gunrunner in Damascus in 1925, when Syria is fighting off the occupation of French military invaders. Bogart is far from his best. Others in the cast are: Lee J. Cobb, Everett Sloane, Zero Mostel and Marta Toren.",0 "If you know anything about art or artists you won't like this film. To paraphrase the late Barry Took: there are thousands of films made, catering for all tastes, but most of them are for those who have absolutely no taste at all - and this is one of them. It is avowedly based on characters not events and most of the latter are invented: the film is after all a drama, not a documentary: the paucity of facts is acceptable, it is the lack of truth which is makes this film so shallow. The characters are Modigliani and his contemporaries, most notably Picasso. With a few exceptions, the acting is wooden where it is not mechanical (Andy Garcia); the exceptions include Louis Hilyer as Zborowski, Jim Carter as Achille Hébuterne, Michelle Newell as Eudoxie Hébuterne and Hippolyte Girardot as Uttrillo, who all try to convince. The rest were simply not believable as the artists they were impersonating: mostly even they themselves gave every impression of not believing in what they were doing. Andy Garcia is too fat for the role of Modigliani, who at the end of his life was wasted by excess (e.g. alcohol) and illness and living in squalor on a diet of brandy and tinned sardines. Omid Djalili as Picasso is even fatter. Elsa Zylberstein is just wet as Jeanne. The scenes of the artists painting are pure vaudeville - most of them seemingly getting more paint on themselves than on the canvas; this is not a total loss however since the paint looks decidedly better on them than on the finished paintings, which are dross. The picture of Jeanne which 'Modi' (his nickname and a pun on 'maudit') paints at the end is unbelievably bad and an insult to an artist who has pretensions to greatness: this is partly what I mean about lack of truth.

This is a film purporting to be about artists, made by someone who clearly knows nothing about art.",0 "This has been a favorite for years and years... it's touching, and basic, and about love and acceptance: multi-layered, it professes a simple lesson. Hollis Mc Laren is AMAZING in her role: she rips your heart out. Definitely should be part of any ""gay"" movie collection. (I question the label... this is 2006, after all, and personally I am tired of labels. Why can't we all just love? Let's have a Whatever Pride Parade!) Craig Russell demonstrates the bravery inherent in the early proclaimers of the gay movement, but his message speaks to everyone: be yourself, and society be damned! This is an unforgettable film, and highly worthy of your attention.",1 "Okay, I'll accept the fact that he can use all of these weapons without any prior knowledge of how to use them. I can accept the fact that this librarian will take him in, treat his wounds, and put herself in extreme amounts of danger even though he is a complete stranger and, probably, is the last person you should trust, all because he saved her life. I'll accept the fact that almost every character in this movie is a clone/rip off of the entire cast of El Mariachi. I'll even accept the horrendous sex scene which is just as bad as the abomination known as Ninja Scroll Resurrection, which by the way had tons and tons and tons of sex scenes bent on being violent and there for the sake of getting some sick and twisted individual horny as heck. But I left this movie after seeing the scene after the sex scene, where the Moco clone somehow managed to find out, with nothing but Selma Hyak's strange performance when he gets to her bookstore, that El Mariachi is in the book store being hidden by her character. I am not even going to bother seeing anymore of this stuff. I mean, seriously, what the heck? It's like he's assuming we'll buy anything he tries to sell. Almost as if he assumed that we wouldn't see El Mariachi, even though Columbia, according to Robert Rodriguez' diaries in Rebel Without a Crew, said they'd package both movies together when they were negotiating for the rights. I mean, for the love of God, why the heck would she automatically know how to become a surgeon just by reading a book? Are you kidding me? And, now correct me if I'm wrong, but at the end of El Mariachi, didn't he have more of a fake hand than a real one? Seemed like it was almost robotic to me when he drove off into the sunset. Yah, this is a bad way to start reviewing movies, and I'll attest that I thought El Mariachi and Once Upon a Time in Mexico were excellent movies for the lighting, special effects, and storytelling. But you couldn't pay me to see anymore of the dribble in Desperado. Not a single cent, I tell you now.",0 "This movie is absolutely haunting! I have never forgotten it and am still feeling the slowly growing horror it produced back then when I remember it now. I first saw this film as a little girl.

I need to get a copy of this wonderful film for my own. I searched filmographies of Arthur O'Connell to actually get the title for this film. It was spooky and so memorable to me even as a child. I remember the playhouse, I remember the sound of Barbara Stanwyck's voice, especially with key lines. What a film! I remember all the nuances. Add this to your collection as well, it will stay with you for sure. I can't say that many movies have remained with me the way this one did.",1 "The late Craig Russell is the star of Outrageous! It was a cult favorite here in the Boston area, playing for weeks at the late lamented Orson Welles Cinema. I had a bright red T-shirt with the movie logo on the front that I treasured for years.

First and foremost, the film is a document of his brilliant performances; he not only got the look and mannerisms of his subjects down cold, he also spoke and sung all the voices himself!

The plot, such as it is, is a tale about his attempts to become a successful performer, and about his schizophrenic friend and how he and she support and heal each other. It's not bad, but the performances are the heart and soul of the film.

Outrageous! was long out of print; happily for the world, it's available again. Get it while you can.",1 "Having never seen any VHS copies of this last Beatles movie and since it will probably be a very long time before it gets on DVD, I was stoked when I found out YouTube had this uploaded since the later part of summer 2007 and it was still there. All the things director Michael Lindsay-Hogg filmed were fascinating to me especially when Ringo played some piano with Paul or when John and Yoko danced or when Heather-a young pre-teen who's Paul's future wife Linda's daughter from a previous marriage-hung around the Apple Studios. (Oh, and while I did know of George's argument with Paul over George's guitar playing from an outtake that was used in ""The Beatles' Anthology"", only Paul's explanation to him about that is in here.) Then there's organ pianist Billy Preston who might have officially become the fifth Beatle had the group not split up some time after this film. The real exciting part was the legendary rooftop concert that caused some traffic and had Paul ad libbing some lines about getting arrested at the end of ""Get Back""! What a way to end the film and loved hearing mostly positive comments from the crowd below. So on that note, Let It Be is very essential viewing for all Beatles fans or just any that loves good music performed live on film.",1 "The Bad News Bears (1976) was a surprise hit of the seventies. It was also another starring vehicle for young and precocious Tatum O'Neal. Walter Matthau co-stars as the Bears' drunken and slovenly mannered manager. The ever shady Vic Morrow makes a guest star supporting role as the Bears' rival's manager. He's a pushy jerk who tries to relive his youth through his kid.

The movie is not a classic, it's just a fun film about youth baseball. Unlike the movies of today, the tone and mood is very realistic and it doesn't pull punches. The language is rough for the kiddies so be fore warned. I liked this movie when I was growing up and you know what? I still do. Take a chance and watch THE BAD NEWS BEARS. This film was so successful, it was followed by two sequels, a television series and a remake! Good cheesy family fun for all ages.

Highly recommended.",1 "I remember anticipating a really entertaining, fun movie after I read the VHS box describing the story and then read the list of actors in here. Wow, very impressive: Anthony Hopkins, John Cuscak, Matthew Broderick, Bridget Fonda, Dana Carvey, Colm Meaney, Michael Lerner, on and and on.

Wrong.

""Bathroom humor"" or discussing bowel movements, etc., didn't bother me. In fact, I can laugh at that. What disappointed me about this film was that (1) - it simply wasn't funny and (2) the acting - mainly by Cusack - was brutal (3) the story was not put together well; just a mess. Cusack's loud over-acting was extremely annoying. What was he thinking? Normally a fine actor, he was the worst part of this movie, just grating. As for the classy Hopkins to be in this picture....well, all I can say is look at his resume: this wasn't the first time he wasn't very discerning about roles to play. It is disappointing, though.

As for the crude humor, you make the lines funny if you're going that route or you'll just turn people off, which is what happened to this movie. I actually gave this movie two chances, thinking I missed something.

For those few elitist critics here who think the rest of the folks ""don't get it,"" well, maybe it's you who are full of crap, in addition the people in this movie.",0 "This comprehensive and moving documentary dealing with the hopes and aspirations of gay and lesbian couples to be able to be legally married raises a lot of issues that straight people have probably never considered. I know I never did. The points raised are very valid and moving, and the need to recognize and acknowledge them becomes very evident. I was very moved by some issues that I had never considered.

As a result of the new insights I have gained from watching this film, my ideas have certainly changed and my previous prejudices have been eliminated. No matter what a person's views may be regarding the issue of homosexual marriage, this film is well worth watching and thinking about. I wholeheartedly recommend it.",1 "Caught between the caustic humor of ""Titus"" and the bitter grumblings of ""Becker,"" I wondered where TV comedy had gone. A chance scan of TNN's weekday programming brought forth a ray of light: Two episodes of ""Newhart"" from Monday through Friday! (Once again, that immortal greeting: ""Hi, my name's Larry, and this is my brother Darryl, and my other brother Darryl."") The understated charm of Dick Loudon, as ""Brains"" of the Vermont former Youth Gang, the ""Hooligals"" getting ready to ""West Side Story"" with their rivals, the ""Puffians. The ""Gooney Walk"" of George Utley, Joanna riding herd on Stephanie as both head into the kitchen to clean a mess of Perch. The ""Little Stephanie"" Super Material Girl nightmare of Michael Harris (and the Soup Kitchen non-materialist doppelganger.) I won't miss Summer reruns at all!",1 "I stumbled onto this program on the Discovery Channel completely by accident and was struck by the incredible audacity of Les Straud to undertake such an enterprise. The inherent weakness of most television involves the ever-present camera crew and their entourage. Les does it all. When you are watching ""Survivor"", you are always aware there are several cameramen lurking about, and you know you are seeing an edited version of ""reality."" With Les and ""Survivorman"", you know the only footage you don't see is the endless footage of him selecting a vantage point for the tripod and camera so that he can effectively function as his own cameraman. This is a great program if you are at all interested in true survival of one man against the great wilderness of the world.",1 "I was nine when I saw this movie and fell in love with a then very young Kevin Bacon. Who stars as the lead Ren MacCormack, a Chicago teen who comes to Beaumont where drugs, alcohol, and dancing have been banned and his now divorced mother trying to find a job. Ren doesn't fit in with the ""wierdos"" of the town except he finds a friend in Willard played by the very missed Chris Penn, who was skinny at the time. A very young and unknown Sarah Jessica Parker and then Fame star Lori Singer stars in the movie. Singer plays Ariel, the rebellous preacher's daughter and her boyfriend is a jerk of a bully. As she wants to escape the town as she tells Ren, she even applied to colleges that her dad doesn't know about either. Great movie but predictable. Kick off those Sunday shoes indeed!!",1 "A trilogy of gay/lesbian stories tracing societal attitudes towards homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle from the 1950's to the present, this is the first ""legacy"" film for gays.

Superbly written, acted and produced, the three tales revolve around the themes of prejudice and acceptance, with the middle story of a young student's ""coming out"" as an impetus for his role model teacher's lifestyle disclosure, being the standout episode and should be seen by anyone wrestling with their sexual identity.

Bravo Paramount and Showtime for this outstanding and compassionate film.",1 "This is a rare example of an inner look at the Islamic sects and their organizations. Although the movie is a fiction, at times you may think you are watching a documentary of a Turkish Islamic sect and its rituals.

Tha main character, Muharrem is a devout and simple believer and a follower of the sect. He gets selected by his Efendi (sheikh of the sect) for collecting the rent money of the sect. This purely financial act affects Muharrem morally and psychologically.

Erkan Can plays an excellent Muharrem. Guven Kirac (Rauf the vice sheikh) and Meray Ulgen (the sheikh) are very very believable in their roles.

This probably one of the finest examples of the new Turkish cinema.",1 "High hopes turn into groaning frustration and confusion upon seeing the first (and unfortunately not the last) episode of the latest attempt to resurrect the popular hero.

One can forgive the poor acting given the see-and-say dialogue and poorly thought out story elements. However, if your expecting dazzling special effects and quality action to save the day, your better off watching a power point presentation at the office.

One more thing; Can Ming be any less intimidating? This version of Flash Gordon's nemesis has all the villainous charm of Bill Lumbergh from Office Space!",0 "A movie with the great Pierce Brosnan can't go wrong really, everything he does, he makes look effortlessly cool.

The story about the diamond heist though, seems secondary to the beautiful locations, and Brett Ratner's obcession with filming Miss Hayek's chest from all conceivable angles (not necessarily a bad thing). Although Hayek is SO botoxed that she can barely move her facial muscles to express any kind of emotion.

Woody Harrelson and Brosnan make a really funny team, and if they make a sequel, I hope it concentrates on their two characters, because they have a great screen chemistry.",1 "Another of the lost RKO films shown on TCM this month.

William Powell plays a playboy vaguely interested in Ann Harding, whose family crashed in the Depression. Harding is a woman who believes in marrying for love but gets pushed into trapping Powell into marriage (for his money).

Nice little story with two top stars who have great chemistry together. And the story isn't as dour as it sounds.

Lucille Browne is the odious sister. Henry Stephenson is the father. Lillian Bond is the gold digger. Kay Hammond is the friend. Reginald Owen is the butler.

Nice little film.",1 "This was my first Almodovar movie and I was impressed. Not only was the story satisfying- lots of twists and turns, the actor who played Victor was both sexy and vulnerable. The sub-plots of adultery and jealousy work well with the main plot of a man pursuing an impossible love. I liked the frantic pace of the first scene, the humor of his birth and the justice of the ending. Everyone in this ensemble adds something- from the troubled partner to the lovestarved wife. The only drawback is the video version destroys the beauty of the passionate love scene-- see it on big screen if you can.",1 "The Lost World is a wonderfully entertaining film which incorporates stop motion techniques to bring the dinosaurs of the movie to life in a manner that is really incredible for the time. This movie really is a showcase for special effects in the setting of a big monster adventure movie. With large outdoor sets and big monsters, this film feels more like King Kong or later films with effects by Ray Harryhausen than most of the contemporary silent films.

The story revolves around a group of adventurer-scientists who go on a mission to rescue a fellow scientist and prove that there are still dinosaurs living in the Amazon long after they are thought to have been extinct. Once there, they capture one of the dinosaurs and return to London with it, with results that might remind one of a much later dinosaur film. A side story of a romance adds to the plot.

But it is the dinosaurs that make this movie. The special effects are incredible and, in my view, hold up today as much as any computer generated imagery. This is a great adventure story, skillfully put on film and years ahead of its time.

I highly recommend it for anyone who likes dinosaurs and monsters.",1 "A young man (played by Peter Chang) watches his father die and grows up wanting to revenge. The story is pretty basic here. Its a bad movie for the most part, but luckily there are some incredible fight scenes.

Lung Fei makes a cameo at the start and takes on Cassanova Wong. Some nice kicking by Cassanova, and Lung Fei is defeated easily. Only a warmup of what's to come.

After like an hour of no good action, Cassanova gets to fight again. He fights Chan Wai Lau who has a good role as one of Peter Chang's 2 teachers. Chan Wai Lau is a great comedic actor with decent fighting skills, and he performs about as well as he can against Cassanova. He makes good use of a pipe as a weapon, but Cassanova is too much for him.

Next up is what I figured would be the highlight of the movie, Wong Wing Sang vs Chia Kai. I am a big fan of both actors, so I was expecting greatness, and that's exactly what I got. Chia Kai does an AMAZING stunt at the beginning where he jumps off of a wall and lands on a table. Awesome fight with good acrobatics and good fist work. Also look for the part where Chia Kai dodges a knife that Wong throws at him. For real.

Next Chia Kai takes on Cassanova. Its possibly even better than the Chia Kai Wong Wing Sang fight.

Just when I thought the action couldn't possibly get any better, they somehow turn the choreography up a few notches in the final fight. I have only seen Peter Chang in a few movies and this is the only one I have seen where he has a leading role. You may recognize him as the guy with the gun who fights with Wang Chung in Shanghai 13. His acrobatic skills are up there with just about anybody. Its a shame he was only in a handful of movies because he could have been a big star. Major talent completely wasted. Anyways, the final fight is 12 minutes long and one of the best fights I have seen in awhile. I have watched this movie every night for a week and I just can't get over how good the choreography is. Not only will Cassanova Wong fans love this movie, but any kung fu fan will be blown away by the final 30 minutes.

I have the Phoenix DVD and the picture quality is a bit above average and its partly widescreen. Sound is decent. English and Japanese tracks, no original language option. For some reason Chan Wai Man is on the cover of the DVD, but he isn't in the movie.",1 """The Schocking Miss Pilgrim"" a curiosity piece rarely seen these days. The film focus on the early women's right movement in the late 19th Century. Some of the ideas from that time still resonate these days, although there is no comparison. Director George Seaton delivers an entertainment movie that is enhanced by some unheard music by George and Ira Gershwin that is a delight to the ear.

Betty Grable, a charismatic actress, portrays Cynthia Pilgrim, who has just finished a sort of secretarial school in which the use of the typewriter by a female was a breakthrough. Ms. Pilgrim is assigned to Boston where she is the first woman employed by a solid old firm that only employs male personnel. Soon Cynthia changes the perception of the office about women in the work place, winning the heart of her boss John Pritchard.

The musical numbers are delightful without being flashy. Ms. Grable and Dick Haymes make some nice music together. Mr. Haymes with his melodic voice is one of the best things in the film. Also, Anne Revere and Gene Lockhart do excellent work in minor roles.

This film should be seen more often because of the charismatic Ms. Grable and her costar Dick Haymes.",1 "I just don't know what to say about this film, it was so bad on so many levels that at the end of the 90 minutes I feel a mixed emotion of disappointment at time wasted and a curious wonderment as to if I've actually seen what I think I've just seen.

Now, I don't know the movie Freaks however I wasn't expecting the story line to be particularly original but it was worse than that. A clichéd storyline only marginally bolstered by an unusual setting. It may have been carried by some reasonable acting, but if the word had been defined by the standard in this movie then I think actors would still be waiting tables as it bought in a higher salary.

The production values were awful as well, with an dire soundtrack and even more abysmal editing. I assume the sound and costume were supposed to give us a feel for the era of the film as in itself it did little to set the audience expectation. But the soundtrack did little more for me than want to smash the damn gramaphone to splinters (you'll see/hear what I mean).

So what then made this a horror? Well it was those last few minutes. Although the concept, the hook if you will, was quite gruesome and to some extent deserves a little merit. Now the imagination can create a disturbing empathy given the right nudges and it made me feel uncomfortable so job done! Right? But still, even though the idea was great in the end it was the ham fisted execution of the concept that will probably make any self respecting movie go-er recoil in horror the most.",0 "What could have been a great film was let down entirely by an appalling script that makes Shortland Street look Oscar worthy.

With a damn awful soundtrack (did they run out of money?), melodramatic silent screen era responses to unrealistic dialogue and a cast that looks the part but cant act to save themselves.....i struggled to make it to the end.

The saving grace of the film was the stunning NZ scenery and realistic visual atmosphere.

Unfortunately it just wasn't enough to save this incredibly disjointed film.",0 "This film is only 2 minutes long. Unfortunately, it's not even worth those two minutes. Adam Sandler sees a couch in a store. He walks in and sits on it. It falls over. He gets up and sits on a reclining. It folds up on him. Amazingly, that's the whole movie. Nothing really funny about it at all.",0 "Which era does Ravi Chopra belong?

BAGHBAN was scripted 40 years back and it was modified and it had some good emotional moments bt yet it was too oldfashioned

Here too the story sounds 2000 years old

Rani Mukherjee's role, her dress sense, her acting, her smiling is all too bad Don't know why she is boring to watch Seriously i loved her in YUVA, HUM TUM but nowdays she is just doing the same roles, same acting style, even her dress scenes are outrageous

I don't understand people praising her like hell here, she has no role just to cry after Salman dies and then get married because Amitabh says so

About the rest as i said the story is like PREM ROG(1982) and the handling is not at all convincing

The all hoopla done about the clash of titans between Amitabh and Om is just 5 minutes talk

Direction by Ravi Chopra is outdated Music is outdated

Amitabh once again demonstrates his acting skills and overshadows everyone but he is getting monotonous with such roles Salman does well in the first half, nothing new but he is more lively and less animated then in most of his films John looks sick(he was suffering from jaundice those days) but fails in his acting here Hema Malini is just there in the movie, her role lacks substance In fact the director doesn't at all care for women's wishes in the film supposedly based on women role improvement in society Rajpal comes does some usual gags and is forgotten Parmeet Sethi has no role Om Puri is too loud",0 "Sexy, wise-cracking Joan Blondell, who has accompanied her best friend back to her stately home to meet her father after many, many years, mysteriously is knifed after having traded rooms with Carole Landis - the intended victim. In true Topper fashion, her ghost finds the next-door neighbor who had given them both a lift earlier, one Cosmo Topper. He sees dead people all the time, way before it became quite so fashionable in The Sixth Sense. Topper Returns is the third and last of the Topper series, all of which starred Roland Young as the lead and Billie Burke as his annoying wife. Young plays the role to perfection again and Burke is equally up to the challenge. Lots of support in this one for Young and Burke as the old, spooky haunted house genre serves as primary backdrop when Topper goes to the scene of the crime and then we get mixed identities, hidden panels, scores of red herrings pointing out everyone's guilt except for the killer but generously dosed with lots of amusing quips from Young, wise-cracking one-liners from Blondell in ghostly form, by-play between Burke and her maid, the underrated Patsy Kelly, and chauffeur/fraidy cat Eddie ""Rochester"" Anderson basically playing himself and hamming it up as only he can. Anderson is easily the brightest spot in the film for me, even at one point making reference to former employer Jack Benny! But the cast also has the eerie likes of George Zucco, H. B. Warner, Donald MacBryde, and Rafaela Ottiano playing one creepy housekeeper. While definitely not as polished a production as the original Topper, Topper Returns is a whole lot more fun in Hal Roach fashion. It is my favourite of the three Topper films as it mixes comedy with horror rather well for its time.",1 "Yuck. What a terrible movie. I really can't phathom how combining a great actor like Sean Penn (Dead Man Walking, the Game), a good actor like John Travolta (Pulp Fiction) and an ok actress like Robin Wright Penn (Forrest Gump) can result in a monstrosity like this. The Penns play Maureen and Eddie with absolutely NO charm, with as result that the first half of the movie is almost unbearable. Travolta at least seems to try after that, but the sheer stupidity of the story is too large an obstacle for even him to overcome. Conclusion: a real waste of time, money and talent.",0 "I think this documentary is very good at showing how destructive the porn industry really can be, Annabel chong is show at times as intelligent as well as naive but the barons of the industry have no condolences to give to any of the young women like chong who lives they destroy whilst making huge sums of money. All I can say is, i'd like five minutes alone in a sound proof room with some of the men who manipulate and ruin the lives of obviously, innocent and vulnerable girls like Annabel. A good documentary, not award winningly shot but the message is clear to see from the makers 'Don't get scorn by porn' Not for the faint hearted, I saw this when it came out and every time i see it i still feel really bad for her and that i should do something about it, mainly to those directly responsible for corrupting her.",1 "Tirant lo Blanc is a brilliant satire on the conceits of European knighthood, as well as the absurdities of the Byzantine empire which were responsible for its paralysis and downfall. Many who have seen the film seem to have missed this point, probably due to the fact that the satire is entirely solemn and straight-faced, as it should be. The knights and the Byzantine court nobles do take themselves very seriously, but the audience gets to see them for what they are (just as readers of the book do.) It's a lush and lavish film full of surprises;Tirant's absurd courtly love for the shallow, vain Princess Camesina, the doddering old Emperor reduced to entrusting the defense of his country to a foreigner, the lusty cougar Empress who can't wait to bargain away her daughter, even to the infidel Turk, and the lover who is young enough to be her grandson!-these are some of the characters you'll meet. The ladies of the court are very active schemers and plotters in the course of events, culminating in the incredible sight of Tirant forced to lead his knights into battle when he has two broken legs suffered from a fall, attempting to breach the princess's bedchamber.",1 """Swimmers"" is an endearing movie. You can sympathize with the characters and understand their pain. I thought that it would be a ""regional"" movie but it really speaks to people everywhere. The lighting and sound are amazing. I didn't want the movie to end...I wanted to follow the family and their story. Even the dad who definitely had his faults, was a person you could relate to. I hope that this movie goes worldwide as everyone should see it and enjoy it! Doug has written a powerful story about love and anguish in a family and how they deal with their emotions. I'd like to see a sequel involving the ""troubled"" teen.",1 "Oh look, another comedy that throws together bits and pieces of other TV comedy sucesses, only to end up with soulless crap. The talentless John Lehr tries far too hard and seems entirely unaware of himself. In fact, The supporting cast pull their characters off better than he does. It's physically painful watching Lehr butcher what is already a weak script. Not only is it a struggle to find what could even be considered laugh lines, but Lehr ensures there's nothing funny about his basic character (unlike a show like The Office, for example, where Steve Carrel could stand motionless and still be hilarious). Ignore the first couple comments which are brutally obvious plants. Don't waste your time with this show, it won't be around much longer anyway.",0 "Firstly, this is a film that is really about more than just raising awareness of the need to vote.

It comes across as a film about the right to protest, the right to object, the right to meet, and the right to live in a democracy.

Whatever your political persuasion a good society needs its Michael Moore's, he's a voice of conscience, a voice that says what needs to be said when no-one else will do. He is doing what MLK and Bob Dylan did in the 1960s, what Democrates did in the Agora in Ancient Greece... Michael Moore is the voice of the underdog for a new generation - who genuinely cares that the excluded, the poor, the workers, and the unemployed are Americans too.

Even if you hate MM, and really disagree with everything he's ever made, you should still agree that his films are a voice that is allowed to be heard.

The documentary itself is without a doubt good propaganda for the Democratic vote, but it also pretty good entertainment - it is very funny, and very, very poignant in places...

....And the students love him.

Pretty stirring in places, with some good live music thrown in, MM is an excellent orator - let's just hope he never becomes a politician - even though he's got the chops for it - because he is the living proof that to hope is to be an American. And that one person can by getting off his or her slacker behind remind us what is means to care for We, the People rather than just Me...

Definitely worth the free download...",1 "Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. It is the Stone Age, 6000 years ago, and all men are forced to marry or work on the rock pile, but King Ferdinand orders all males over 13 and under 95 years must marry, or be banished, die, or both. We see an example of a marriage, in front of the law tablet, with the priest testing soul-mates, and bashing the couple's heads, literally. Arriving in the land is wizard Saxophonus (James Finlayson) with his daughter Blushing Rose (Viola Richard) and a long lasting toothache. Then along comes the Mighty Giant (Ollie) from the bogs, looking for anybody's wife, and after seeing the new law, he says he get any amount of women he wants. Trying to woo some women he gets constantly clunked on the head by a jealous man, and also a butt from a goat, so he think something doesn't want him to be with those women. Then along comes merry swain Little Twinkle Star (Stan) searching for romance, and hearing someone shout the new law, he giggles at the idea, and merrily jumping around he manages to tumble down a hill into a prickly cactus. After this Twinkle tries copying a caveman's technique for getting a girl, by picking her up and taking her away, but the girl he picks doesn't want it, and they have a kicking and tossing argument. Then Twinkle sees and chases Rose round a bush, and when he gets to her father, he will only allow a marriage if he proves himself as a provider of fish. While Twinkle goes to catch fish harpooning and using flies, Rose tries to ease her father's pain by pulling out the aching tooth with string tied to a rock. The father can't throw it, so the Giant comes along and does instead, but ends up throwing him over the cliff as well, but after tumbling, it seems it worked. Both Twinkle and Giant meet each other, and only one can have Rose with her father's permission, so they start squabbling, but Twinkle manages to send Giant off the near cliff with the help of goat's butt. After returning to Rose, Twinkle and she sit on what they think is a rock, but it turns out to be a brown bear that they wake, and running away in the cow and cart, they flip it upside down, and the film ends with the father and the couple with the bear joining them under the cart. Filled with some small slapstick and not too bad classic comedy, it isn't great, but it's a silent black and white film worth looking at. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!",1 "Parents, don't subject your kids to this cheaply made, poorly written crap!

This movie is just a commercial for Mystic, Connecticut in the guise of a GOONIES-type kids adventure movie. It will fail to entertain them. Why? How could a kids movie fail to entertain kids? By throwing in endless long shots of the town which try to make it appear beautiful (and fail).

One of the major characters is a kid who works on a fishing boat with his dad and befriends a new kid (named Jonah of all things) whose father works for the Navy. They discover a German water-mine and wind up hot on the trail to buried treasure. There's an evil archaeologist who wants the treasure too.

Kids have fun/adventure. Jonah must overcome a bully. There are light-weight family problems. It's all really lame and slow. Filmed in a Connecticut studio with obviously limited resources. The color quality is very poor (green is almost never shown). The story they tried to tell wasn't worth the pathetic effort put up to make it. I mean, the production quality is passable, but I've seen better stuff from bad TV-movies.

My vacation video from my trip to Mystic was more entertaining than this, so just don't bother. Show the kids WIZARD OF OZ, or any other kids movie made by professionals. This attempt belongs in the scrap heap.",0 "Factual errors: The film contains several background story scenes which are designed to make the audience care about the characters. However, it is not actually possible to care about any of these characters.

Continuity: David Carradine appeared in several movies which were good. Then, inexplicably, he's in this movie.

Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers): After being identified by multiple witnesses during a blatant murder in a small town filled with vigilantes, the main characters return the next day to rob the bank. This idea is, in fact, completely f**king retarded.

Anachronisms: Sequined chaps did not actually exist in the old west.

Miscellaneous: The credits for this film list a director and several actors. However, acting and directing do not appear in the film.

Audio/visual mismatch: Good western soundtrack was apparently accidentally replaced with generic hip-hop garbage.

Revealing mistakes: Movie exists.",0 "The previous well done assessment of this film needs little further comment, except why has it not been put back into the loop as a wide-screen DVD? This movie is not one which plays often on the TV; I cannot recall having seen it in the last 30 years. The film and cast are excellent. Perhaps the film's flaw is the fact that it is not very well know as compared to some of the nonsense served up by John Wayne. Gary Cooper has made some really great films, and this is certainly one of them. Susan Hayward is always a delight for the eyes, and the Mexican scenery is most imposing. The one image which remains strongest in the mind about this movie is how, when, and where the Indians, single out which members of the rescue party are to be killed (one by one). I hope the industry which provides us with new DVD's every Tuesday will finally wake up and put this fine piece of work out on the shelf for sale where it belongs.",1 "this movie is good i liked it. you learn a lot about girls who live in the rich live and see how they react when they have to work at a factory to make up for something they did wrong. in this case a cow factory. well these girls manage to pull it off and have some fun at the same time. making of the movie they were having a blast as they say. the girls said to me that in the making of the movie is was a blast and working with the cows were unexpected, but cool at the same time. from my perspective the girls had fun and well they were having fun they were making a great movie for the audiences. overall this movie will be a 10+ for audiences that are well any age!",1 "******MAY CONTAIN A SLIGHT SPOILER! MAY CONTAIN A SLIGHT SPOILER!***** I can't believe this! I grew up with Bo, Luke, and the General Lee (have to mention the car) and all the cast from the original series. I even watched Sonny Shroyer when he did his short-lived spin off and I enjoyed the ""Reunion"" TV movie done in 1997, but this title isn't even worth the paper the script was printed on! I realize that some of the original series' plot lines had lacked some ""development"" but this made-for-TV movie took the cake! It just was NOT believable! I found myself sighing with relief when I got through with it, and the sigh was that I was able to make it through without actually turning the movie off! Although it was nice to see some of the old characters once again, it is very hard to believe that Hollywood would actually have us believe that some backwoods country boy like Enos Strate is going to be so big in LA area that everyone knows him and the women falls all over him! And that was just for starters! I'm not about to ruin the plot! If you're a fan of the original series, stay that way and stay away from this movie!",0 "We expected the movie to be anti-Southern. But we did not expect the full throated polemic it turned out to be. Alternate history is entertaining and interesting to contemplate however there is little or no creativity shown here. The movie simply carried forward anti-black slogans and pejorative terms from the late 1800s and early 1900s which of course originated as a result of white disgust with freed slaves. There is little or no reason to assume that today,names like Mammy and Uncle would be used as nicknames for slaves 150 years later, if the Conferates had won. Also, think about this... European nations and most South American nations freed their slaves without a civil war. It would have spoiled the film's screed to imagine that the Confederate States of America would have done so, years after the war. But they probably would have, with the advent of modern agricultural technology (much of which was developed in the South, by the way.) On the plus side the world would probably not have the atomic bomb, and might not have wasted billions sending a man to the moon if the South had won the Civil War. The production quality was poor and the acting was straight out of an eighth grade drama class. We were looking at our watches 40 minutes into it. A very weak film.",0 "This is a compelling and oddly comforting drama. There is the setting and the time -- Hastings, on the southern coast of England during World War II. Hastings of course was the site of the last successful invasion of England, in 1066, and that threat seems real in the early days of the war. In the series, it is a provincial town where Deputy Chief Superintendent Foyle tries to solve local crimes of theft and murder, while dealing with wartime problems of black markets, sabotage and espionage. In addition to meddling from police superiors with their own agendas, Foyle must contend with bureaucratic and military interference from London as the war creates situations that lets criminals go free.

Then there are the scripts and the actors, not to mention the overall quality of the production -- lucid photography, theme music with echoes of Brideshead Revisited, period clothing, vehicles, etc. The writing is measured, intelligent, no wasted words. Honeysuckle Weeks and Anthony Howell in the supporting roles of Samantha Stewart and Paul Milner are excellent and play off each other well.

But the show belongs to Michael Kitchen and you wonder why you've never seen this actor before and when you will see him again. He conveys the competence and integrity you want in your hero, but the real attraction, I think, is that he is the ultimate father figure. He is concerned about people without wearing it on his sleeve; gruff, even curt, but letting us glimpse the tenderness behind it; and he is wise, not only a clever detective but wise in the ways of the human heart. He is a father not only to his son, Andrew, an RAF pilot, but also to Sam and Milner and to any number of characters in the various episodes, including his goddaughter in the last (final?) episode. Invariably, this father knows best. While he conveys a sense of vulnerability, you never have the feeling Foyle has really made a mistake. This is why I think the films are comforting. With all the chaos of war, and darkness of human behavior, Foyle moves through it all, self-possessed, caring, and ultimately, even when circumstances beyond his control keep him from actually incarcerating the wrongdoer, successful in protecting his charges from evil.",1 """A ship disappears during an ocean voyage and everyone is presumed lost. When evidence points towards a survivor of the wreck, the sailor's mother organizes an expedition to locate her missing son. When the explorers find the missing man living on n island, they take him against his will in order to return him to his home. The consequences of their actions prove very costly for the explorers, when the sailor sets about their downfall for taking him away from his island paradise,"" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

This ""edited version of a ten-year-old film, 'The Sea Fiend' (1936)"" is a curious choice for re-release. Perhaps, its generous footage of topless South Sea island native women was the alluring ingredient. Since they were animalistic ""natives"", they could be shown bare-chested. Non-native women, similarly displayed, would be considered pornographic. So, you have a big-screen movie turning the pages of the ""National Geographic"", while attempting to tell an adventure story. And, it's not even the original film.

* Devil Monster (1946) S. Edwin Graham ~ Barry Norton, Jack Del Rio, Terry Grey",0 "They can be an awful film more then this? I saw the promos i was interested especially the first promo but the last few promos gave away and i hoped the film won't be as bad but the film is worst

Abbas-Mustan tried to make a commercial potboiler instead just to appeal to the masses who like such nonsense films

The film starts off okay, 2 songs at the start itself and then slowly each characters are introduced but then the film gets boring because All characters are jerks

Paresh Rawal- Johny scenes are stupid and too loud and crass Shahid- Kareena scenes are worthless and boring They is little hope when Isha is murdered but the director is too involved with comedy, romance and nothing makes sense in the end

The Johny- Tanaaz finding a dead body in the briefcase is too childish and then the entire investigating scenes are not that great

But the end takes the cake, one of the worst climaxes ever Even the CID episodes have better culmination

Abbas-Mustan give their worst ever film Music is good

Shahid and Kareena who were a pair that time are truly wasted Shahid just keeps making big eyes trying to look funny and make weird noises while Kareena irritates Akshaye imitates his dad Vinod Khanna at places and is the only actor worth mentioning here Tanaaz and Johny overact Paresh Rawal overacts too while Payal Rohatgi and Isha are dismissal Upen Patel with a dubbed voice is painful rest are poor",0 "If you like to see a strange old man messing around with innocent young girls - which are even working for him - you're right! And you'll also see a lot of strange ""games"" with food - befor and after having been eaten...I know i didn't understand the deeper sense of this movie, but it just was to strange for me...Don't!",0 "An HBO original presentation directed by Norman Jewison deals with not so blissful marriage. Two couples(Dennis Quaid and Andie MacDowell, Greg Kinnear and Toni Collette)have been friends for a dozen years--sharing summer vacations, talking about their children and gourmet food. One couple decides to call it quits and the other is put in the crossfire trying not to take sides. On a whole, this movie gets real abrasive quick. Your attitude toward the characters gets to the point...who gives a s*^t. Collette is so pathetic it hurts to watch her. And I still don't know who ever told MacDowell she could act. People may consider this a triumph for Jewison and HBO; I'm sorry, I was really hoping for better.",0 "Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn is the sequel to the ultimate experience in grueling terror. Evil Dead II is the definitive cult flick and perhaps my favorite horror film (top five at least). Bruce Campbell takes on the role of Ash once again in this hilariously horrific sequel to a legendary movie. Few sequels live up to the original and fewer still surpass it. This is one of those rare instances. This movie is out of this world. Sam Raimi is a genius with a camera and has gone on to create some damn fine films. He deserves every amount of success he has gained. The script is inventive, highly original, and funny as all hell. It's a mix of horror, laughs, and gore; or splatstick as Campbell calls it. Once again, Campbell's facial expressions alone are worth the price of admission. If that doesn't get you the laughing deer head will. Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn is a true horror masterpiece. A completely original concept, some screwy camera angles, and one Bruce Campbell make for an entertaining combination. If you don't like it, ""I'll swallow your soul, I'll swallow your soul.""",1 "Buck Privates is a signature movie for Abbot and Costello. The more you love Lou the more you hate Bud, who seems to be always out to get Costello. This theme carried over in most of their movies. No wonder they hated each other in real life. It is almost as if there are three casts in the flick, The Andrews Sisters give the movie a real boost with their songs, especially one of the most popular of the World War II era, ""Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy."" Even thought Abbot and Costello are featured as the stars of the movie they seem to be only comic relief for the real plot. The real plot is the love triangle. But there is one question. Did men really act the way these guys do. If so how did we win the war?",0 "First and foremost: how can ""part 4"" of anything be an ""original""? This is actually closer to the book that Gary Brandner wrote that was the basis for the first movie, but being close to the book doesn't make this movie any good.

A real sleeping pill about a woman recovering from a trauma, sent to a wilderness retreat, finding that nearly everyone there is a werewolf. Nothing happens in this entire movie, just a lot of yawning from the audience ...

This looks like it could have been a TV movie ...

1/2 a star out of ****",0 "Let it be known that Jim Carrey is a comic madman. He may not be the smartest cat on the stage, but there's no question that his act, especially in ""Ace Ventura: Pet Detective,"" is the real deal.

Director Tom Shadyac saw fit to put the Man with the Rubber Face, later The Man on the Moon, in his own starring vehicle with this comedy hit from 1994. I've never laughed so hard in my life; that was from the first time I saw it. I saw ""Shaun of the Dead"" 10 years after Carrey's vehicle; that was another time when I laughed myself silly.

Sure, the humor is immature from time to time. But that's part of Carrey's act, as the colorful gumshoe of the title, who takes on the case of retrieving the Miami Dolphins' prized mascot, Snowflake, after it's stolen from its tank one night. Of course, as the title would lead you to believe, Ace Ventura is no ordinary detective. ""I don't do humans,"" he asserts to us. His specialty is pets. It's hard out there for pet detectives, since it's a field that nobody takes too seriously, except Ace, that is. So when he gets the call for duty, he's all over the case.

His investigation pairs him with Melissa Robinson (""Friends"" Courteney Cox), and the two uncover some startling details about the Miami team's history, and one of its most controversial players, who missed the field goal kick at the 1984 Super Bowl that would have won the game and blames Dan Marino for the whole thing. That player hasn't been seen since. Meanwhile, Ace runs afoul of Miami police department lieutenant Lois Einhorn (Sean Young), who seriously needs to take a chill pill and is hiding something more than just a gun under her skirt.

""Ace Ventura: Pet Detective"" is a comic tour de force. Of course Carrey has done plenty of better things since this flick, but for commercial purposes, so let's just leave that in the future. Ace Ventura is something that only he could have done, and made it work. Sure his methods are ""unusual,"" but hey, he gets the job done.

I wonder if this flick helped to spark interest in a new law enforcement field?

10/10",1 "Well acted light drama with talented young and mature actors that show excellent chemistry between them.

Robin Williams delivers an over the top (but justified) performance as the ""cool"" teacher that is against the rigid manners of a conservative college for rich and spoiled young men. His students love him because he teaches them to squeeze and suck the day, ""carpe diem"". Most of the students have little or absent right to choose what they want from life as their parents are more or less than dictators. In their philosophy class, they can dream and act they way they want and that's why they think Williams' character is a hero or something like that.

Sadly, one of these students as any other young optimistic men follows his dream and becomes an actor against his father's will. He has the talents and the optimistic point of view but soon after he makes his debut in a play, his father punishes him the hardest way a father can do.

Watch ""Dead Poets Society"" to witness how men at a young age can be very optimistic with their ideals. The movie also shows that learning methods don't necessary have to be rigid or antiquate. But the movie is truly more than that; it's a moving movie with the usual family humor.

Great performances by Williams and Hawke who demonstrated to be a promising actor.",1 "Petrified is about an artifact that turns out to be an alien who comes back to life and turns some people to stone while draining others of blood. Then there's the hand from the Adams Family that creeps around strangling people. The movie is meant to be full of puns and wacky, as it takes place in a nymph hospital with a weird doctor trying to cure death using hormone therapy. A few drinks will make this film much better. Some continuity and dialog breaks made on the cheapest of budgets. If you're looking for a good film with a serious plot and screenplay, skip this one. If you're looking for a C film that's corny as hell, this is for you.",0 "CONTAINS SPOILERS! Okay, all you people who know the director or work for the distributor, stop giving reviews. Because that's the only reason I can see for calling this film visionary.

Someone here lauds the mystery. Mystery? What mystery? This is the first time I have ever seen a serial killer film in which you don't find out who did it, and it doesn't really matter anyway (and really, guys, the first thing I thought of when the body had something cut out of its skin wasn't ""covering up bite marks,"" it was a tattoo)...

The film is really about Emmett and his situation. Fair enough. But that means a good portion of the film is superfluous. Which means we wasted our time.

Huh. I'm even bored giving a review of this film. Suffice it to say if I start reading car magazines and my husband starts playing games on his iPhone, the film has missed its mark.",0 "I hate almost everything about this film. What the hell were people thinking??? They actually cast an old fart and some kind of bird to play two teenage boys who want to go on a shag-athon in Ibiza!!! They look older than Kevin's bloody parents. All of this is made even worse by the 'kids' overdone mannerisms, talk and clothing which are not funny, but plain stupid. All in all I'd have to say that this makes films like Dude where is my car? and The naked gun resemble the works of an intelligent and funny person. The only thing in this film, that looks as if it had been done carefully is the selection of supreme birds that Kevin and Perry can drool over. I'm not sure this deserves a point, but hey…

1 out of 10

post scriptum: I realize that is sort of a prolonged sketch and that therefore a chick and an old fart play the teens, but as a film that sort of crap just don't work! Apart from that it just ain't funny.",0 "People, people, why does everyone judge this movie confection through the looking glasses of 2006?? There was probably some ""imitation of life"" to the movie when it was made, no matter how silly or stereotypical it might have been, even for its time. If anything, this movie at least attempted to show two women in business being rewarded for their efforts and hard work. Yes, the 20/80 split when the pan cake business went incorporated might seem unfair now, but it was better than the 1950's film where Annie just waits on Ms. Lora, dolling out wisdom with a spoon full of sugar. I was much more perplexed why Jessie would be interested in a fish scientist who said he was 37 but looked more like 57!",1 "I was telling my friends recently about a movie i saw in '92 or '93 that had Jim Carrey as first bill but he didn't show up until the last five minutes. No one knew what i was talking about and so i came here to find out what it was.

High strung is one of the worst comedies and thats why its unknown. it's marketing was poor if it had any and had to milk the success of an actor who was in it for five minutes to get it released.

I can describe this movie very easily, nothing happens but you as a viewer will be bitched at for the whole movie about some pathetic persons life. despite the wit to some of the ideas, its absolutely boring. Its been awhile since i saw it but the one repeated thing that comes to mind is the character's inability to accept that no matter how little milk he puts in his cereal there is always some left when he's done eating. It's so stupid even a real person would not bitch about it, in fact they would just drink it or not , Thats a simple solution but to bitch repeatedly about it is dumb.

It tries way too hard to be funny. Even Carrey is unfunny in his cameo. This is a movie that should of been shelved and never released.

I did see one person liked this movie, maybe that one person is enough to justify its existence, for me its not.

A BOMB",0 "Michael Winner's provocative film is slightly more intelligent and much more insidious than Richard Fleisher's 'Mr.Majestyk.'

Charles Bronson is a Manhattan middle-aged architect who was at work's one day, when three brutal punks invade his Riverside Drive apartment and attack his loving wife and happily wed daughter... The wife was beating to death and the daughter savagely sexually assaulted, and sent traumatized into a near-vegetable state...

To escape the oppressive urban environment, Bronson goes to Tucson, Arizona on business, and gets the gun code of the Old West imprinted on his mind... He was given a .32 pistol as a going away present by a gun-loving millionaire...

Back in New York, Bronson carries one night his gift, and kills the first mugger who was molesting him... The first one was the hardest!

Then he discovers he likes it... He begins deliberately to tempt muggers, whether in an alley, on a subway train, or in a park... and that he mechanically guns them down...

The police couldn't identify him... This made him the 'avenging angel,' a true phantom 'one-man crusade.' In the eyes of the public, Bronson became a national figure—the vigilante...

The authorities were worried sick about the example he was setting... His actions seemed to be giving others new attitudes toward crime in the streets...

When Inspector Ochoa (Vincent Gardenia) identifies the mysterious vigilante, he was immediately ordered to scare him off...

The police commissioner asks him to quit, to desist, to go away, to stop!

If you have never seen Bronson in action by sundown, 'Death Wish' is the one to see...

Final comment: Rarely have I found myself so caught between my own gut reactions and intellectual reservations... I wish (with many here) to touch an exposed nerve in fearful Mexico, particularly of its muggers, thugs, kidnappers, and rapists, who (as in this film) could be easily eliminated if every upright, middle-class, middle-aged citizen got himself a weapon and used it at least one time a week... We are tired of being frightened, endangered and ripped-off daily... If the law is fighting a losing battle against the criminal element and can't protect innocent people, then maybe someone else should... It is very important that we know how to protect ourselves within the law...",1 "Young innocent Jennifer Stewart (Lucy Marlow) goes to visit her cousin Eva Phillips (Joan Crawford). She meets Eva's alcoholic husband Avery (Barry Sullivan), brow beaten daughter Carol Lee (Betsy Palmer) and handyman Judson Prentice (John Ireland). She slowly comes to realize that Eva cruelly manipulates the lives of all around her.

Not well known Crawford film which is a shame because it's one of her best. Crawford pulls out all stops and goes full force as a totally evil vicious woman. She's quite obviously enjoying herself and her incredible performance saves what otherwise is a pretty routine drama. The plot is pretty predictable and all the other characters pale next to Crawford. Marlow isn't that good and Sullivan and Ireland are downright terrible but Palmer was very good and seeing her so young is pretty amusing (she's now best known as Jason's mother from the ""Friday the 13th"" movies). Worth seeing just for Crawford alone. I don't think she ever played such a cruel character before or after this one. Purportedly (according to Christina Crawford) she was playing herself! I give this an 8.",1 "is those episodes real or false.They seem to be so,well balanced.That i feel that.There has to be some truth to at least most of those great episodes.If there is truth to any of those,great shows.Is there any body a live to confirm this.Very curious to know. Is there any one out there,who has information on this.Is the host of the show still alive.Where do i find more episodes of this wonderful show.Is there a DVD collection out there.Is there ever going to be,another series like this one.Since that show was on i have never gotten a feeling of just wanting more,and more out of a show.So i hope.That there will be a show like that in the near future.That could give the same feelings that this show did.",1 "And this is why my will should be more highly regarded. What to say, other than that this is the kind of sappy, melodramatic garbage that's more fit for Sunday afternoon viewing on the Hallmark channel? Let's begin with the plot, which actually doesn't exist. The movie simply rambles aimlessly from one episode to the next, shamelessly invoking deus ex machina when needed. In some ways it feels like something Terry Gilliam might have made in his absolute nadir after downing bottles of fluoxetine.

I suppose you could call this movie character driven, but those characters are depressingly shallow. Some of them, such as the one played by Robin Williams, are severely irritating and detract from little the movie has going for it. There is no point in going into too much detail here, but this brings me to the Robin Williams corollary; the man hasn't been involved in an above-average movie in over a decade. It stands to mention that only a small minority of the past decades' films featuring Williams are even actually average.

So in summary; I want my money back. In fact, I want more than my money back; I considered my time watching this movie as working. It was a truly herculean effort not to walk out. Shouldn't I be rewarded for that?",0 "Documentaries are supposed to be recitations of fact, stripped of emotion and bias. Thankfully, the ""Magical Life of Long Tack Sam"" is a reverential and emotional examination of a fascinating man by a great-granddaughter who never knew him. This is a long-distance story of familial love; it doggedly transcends the mists of time that all too often obscure the life stories of the average man even from his own descendants.

Long Tack Sam, as he was known, should have ended up as the most obscure of the obscure -- a Chinese youth in a land riven with conflict, poverty and turmoil. But owing to his talent, drive, courage and a consuming entrepreneurial spirit, he became a world-renowned entertainer, parlaying the ancient Chinese acrobatic tradition into a magic act that toured the world.

Anne Marie Fleming reveals the history of an unusual family that, to her surprise, seems to have forgotten the great-grandfather they knew but she did not. She finds physical traces of Sam's legacy stored in museums around North America and in a cedar chest in Hawaii. One such artifact is a beautiful silk backdrop from his vaudeville days.

She also locates the spiritual remnants of her great grandfather in the memories of old magicians, vaudevillians and even a film clip paen to Sam delivered by none other than Hollywood's most famous prestidigitator, Orson Welles. With more irony than sadness, she notes that Sam is forgotten not only in Europe and America where he so frequently toured, but in China as well, noting that he incorporated so much of other cultures within his life that he perhaps became foreign to his own origins.

The family is strikingly interesting owing to its international character. Sam marries an Austrian woman and his children and grandchildren are spread throughout the world. (This during a time when Chinese were still treated poorly by most cultures and by officially repressed by immigration laws worldwide.) This cultural collision is deeply fascinating. We learn her great-uncle went to boarding school in England and Austria and is in a photograph standing behind Adolf Hitler during the Nazi leader's visit to his school. This fact would have undoubtedly disturbed the lunatic zealot of racial purity had he known it. This tradition of multiculturalism is an enduring factor in the life of this Sam's family: Director Ann Marie Fleming was born on Okinawa of Austrlian and Chinese heritage.

I never cease to be amazed at criticisms of films and documentaries by those who find a film ""too long"" or ""boring."" There is a difference between ""reel"" life and ""real"" life. Perhaps my own grandfather's accomplishments and zest for life against great odds makes me comprehend Fleming's appreciation of her forebear grandfather who understood the nature of drama and honed it to wow the public and carve out a modicum of success.

Comprehending Long Tack Sam's background, his narrow escape from a life of obscurity and poverty, his entrenched optimism, and his ability to bridge cultures while astutely producing a popular stage act, may be difficult for those addicted to special effects and the emotional manipulation of fictional contrivance. Life is more complicated, difficult and, ultimately interesting than anything Hollywood can conjure which is why documentaries can be so spellbinding.

Some who have criticized this documentary seem to believe Fleming is beating her own drum, or holding out her great-grandfather and her family as more interesting than they really are. What Fleming is doing, and we should be thankful she does so, is reminding all of us that we each have a fascinating history that should not be forgotten. This history is perhaps most important among our relatives who grew up in a time when a man had to wreck his body physically to make a living, or, in order to escape poverty, demonstrate extraordinary ability and courage to overcome stultifying physical and cultural boundaries. One cannot appreciate the Long Tack Sam's magical life unless one can grasp the circumstances of his times, which is part of Fleming's message.

The Magical Life of Long Tack Sam is a salutation to a remarkable family history driven by the accomplishments of a man who possessed courage and tenacity -- the true alchemic components of a ""magical"" life.",1 "This film has to be one of the most enjoyable films I have ever seen. The sincerity and wittiness of Jane Austen combined with the ridicule of a Shakespearean play, Cold Comfort Farm tells a clever, little story about a young, determined London-girl who is set on lifting the curse of the Starkadder family. Kate Beckinsale's Flora Poste is as unshaken and well-spoken as Austen's Emma (who Beckinsale has also starred as) but in a more cheerful and less hypocritical manner.

The names in the film do their best to describe the utter depravity of the Starkadder's: The horse Viper, the cows Aimless, Senseless, Heedless and Desireless and aunt Ada Doom. The acting in the film is flawless and Stephen Fry is just the icing on the cake.",1 "Phillip Kaufman's loving examination of Anais Nin's relationship with Henry and June Miller is an enthralling journey. In the film Anais is inspired by Henry and June to descend into a world of debauchery that fuels her erotic writing. We the audience see Henry and June through the eyes of Anais, which may mean it's not exactly as they really were, but rather a romanticised version of them. This is NOT a biopic of Henry Miller, which is the foolish mistake that some reviewers seemed to make on the films release.

The script tends to meander a bit, lacking any real plot. Each scene lives for itself, some more successfully than others. But in the torrid climax when Anais' wild ways have finally caught up with her, it all comes together nicely to leave a feeling of completion.

The cast is first rate. Maria de Medeiros, despite not having top billing, get's the bulk of the screen time as Anais. She has a captivating look, and embodies a sense of innocence throughout, despite displaying the most promiscuous nature. If at times she overdoes the melodrama, she should be commended for managing to purr out some rather flowery dialogue without sounding silly. Many lesser actresses would have faltered.

In what is undoubtably the highlight of his film career, Fred Ward instils Henry with some old styled charisma and gusto. While he gives us a throughly entertaining Henry, I still however have trouble seeing this character as a writer of erotic fiction. He seems too much like a man's man. The original casting choice of Alec Baldwin would make more sense in this case, but I doubt in the end he would have been as entertaining in the role as Ward.

Uma Thurman, as June, gives a memorable performance. It's the most showy character in the film, and Thurman gets the chance for plenty of legitimate scenery chewing. She uses the full scale of emotions and performs a transformation of the character from menacing seductress to pitiful emotional wreck. Despite the surprising comments of one of the other posters here, it really is one of the best performances of her young and promising career.

In support, Richard E. Grant is awkward (probably purposely) as Hugo, Anais' well-hung and faithful husband. Jean-Philippe Écoffey is adequate as Anais' cousin and brief lover. Kevin Spacey is amusing in what now looks like a cameo, but then was quite an important role for him.

Philippe Rousselot's cinematography is beautifully done. He creates an almost surreal feeling of Paris in the 1930's. The music is also well placed and adds to this mood. Kaufman and Rousselot make the numerous sex-scenes things of beauty rather than titillating, they get creative with them. In fact, the film is surprisingly unarousing considering the amount of sex occurring in it. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I guess you can decide for yourself. Why on earth it got an NC-17 rating I don't know. I doubt it would if released today.

Not everyone will like this film. It is 'arty farty' so to speak. It's maybe even a little pretentious. But I find it to be a fascinating and just plain absorbing trip. I have managed to find the time to watch it quite a few times, and it seems to improve with age. I recommend it to any thinking filmgoers.

9/10",1 "Simuland misses the point me thinks. 'K tries to add to the Bible' but fails! In an interview with Kieslowski, he tells a young student of film, that he wasn't trying to moralise but to ethicise, as moralism is too monolithic and closes down dialogue. He felt that to move to an ethical stance, it opened up a dialogue with the viewers. This I don't think is an attempt to add to the Bible, but in truth registers the fact that the trace of history - to allude to Ricoeur - is such that we have to realise that this is a different age. And Biblically of course a different dispensation, having moved from Law to Grace. Not that I'm a theologian, so hey shoot me before it happens! Nor do I think it peters out. It stands as a 'tour de force' in film-making, which rejects the temptation to moralise and tub-thump and is wonderfully aesthetic, allusive and after all gets us talking.

What more can you ask for, in a film or 10?",1 "Sean Bean returned to the role of Richard Sharpe, after a nine year absence from the small screen, this weekend on ITV1 in the two-part story ""Sharpe's Challenge"". Based on three of Bernard Cornwell's novels, this adventure is set in Jaipur one year on from Napoleon's demise at the Battle of Waterloo. It sees Sean reunited with director Tom Clegg and sparring partner Daragh O'Malley, as Sergeant Patrick Harper, whom he sets out to find on a mission to India, but on the pretext of looking for General Burroughs' daughter Celia who has been kidnapped and is held hostage against attack at Khande Rao's fort.

Sharpe's opposition on this occasion is a rogue East India Company officer, Colonel William Dodd, played by Toby Stephens, able to put his fencing skills to good use again after his appearance as the villain Gustav Graves in the James Bond movie ""Die Another Day""! The real power behind young maharajah Khande Rao, Dodd is aided and abetted against the English by the late maharajah's favourite consort, Madhuvanthi, played by Salman Rushdie's wife Padma Lakshmi. She tries to seduce Sharpe but, naturally, he's having none of it! And, not surprisingly, Sharpe has unfinished business with the Colonel! Dodd lays a trap for the troops of the East India Company who are coerced by General Sir Henry Simmerson into attacking the fort, regardless of the consequences to the indisposed General's daughter, and thus the stage is set for the final battle...

Watching the ""Behind the Scenes"" documentary after the concluding episode, on ITV3, it's a wonder the programme ever got made! The number of extras, and costumes required for them, hand-built rifles and cannons, learning how to become a soldier in ten days flat, not to mention Sean and Toby going down with Delhi belly both on the same day! But the finished product was a treat with a terrific cliffhanger at the end of episode one which wasn't immediately spoiled in the next time trailer! Having infiltrated the enemy, and unrecognised by Dodd, Sharpe has to prove his new found loyalty to the young maharajah when he is ordered by the Colonel to shoot his best friend...

If you missed it, and want to find out whether or not Harper survives, after all Sharpe is a good shot, the best, then the DVD is out at the beginning of May! It's worth seeing just for Peter-Hugo Daly's performance as Sergeant Shadrach Bickerstaff, a constant thorn in Sharpe's side, who steals every scene he is in with consummate ease!",1 "Not to be confused with a 2002 movie starring James Coburn.

This is an insult to him, and his last piece of work!!! Movies have to have unique names! Is that so difficult. I'm giving a bad rating just for this fact!

Aren't there enough words in our vocabulary?

It really does a disservice to the earlier film of the same title if it is not a remake.

It's confusing for the viewer and may take away potential income from the previous film.

SAG requires all actors to have unique names, why not the same with movie titles? Is it so difficult, Richard Dean Anderson had to stick the ""Dean"" in because of the existence of Richard Anderson, known by many as Oscar Goldman on Six Million Dollar Man. Let us not forget Bill Macy from ""Maude"" and ""The Jerk"", still a cut up in his 80's, , and William H. Macy frequent David Manet collaborator. Jeff Dranetz",0 """Nadja"" is a woefully pretentious music-video style gloss on the early Universal vampire films (it's even photographed in black-and-white) crossed with modern-day nihilism and a more-hip-than-thou attitude that's painful to watch. An experienced cast of indie-film veterans (including Martin Donovan and Peter Fonda) and David Lynch in the executive-producer's chair does little to help what is, at heart, a stylish yet poorly calculated gloss on an ages-old premise. The use of black-and-white film stock, combined with the utterly random inclusion of pixellated images, does nothing but accentuate ""Nadja""'s shallow, showy pretentiousness.",0 "I too caught this one on American Movie Classics and I have to say it's a modest little movie that does a lot of things right. The moment we hear of a movie about a boy and a dog, we expect a surfeit of sentimentality, a la ""Old Yeller"". This movie is rather understated, right down to being in black & white and having a single acoustic guitar do the background music. The movie does not opt for the cheap happy ending it might have, but gives us something sadder and more real. By doing so it makes for a much richer movie. This fine little film isn't going to be on anyone's ""ten greatest movies"" list, but it's worth a see.",1 "IMHO, this is a great movie. It's fun for the whole family and has some fantastic special effects, as well as a good old-fashioned love story where the hero overcomes the bad guys and winds up with his true love.",1 It was a nice movie in the beginning. It was teasing enough to keep watching Although it was a bit too dark; it was as if it was always night and the lights were off all the time. But when the end was approaching there were too many errors in the story to enjoy it any more. The ending was really unsatisfied because of the errors in the story.,0 "Videogames had never interested me before 1991, being a Transformers buff. However after seeing a rolling demo of the original Sonic on the Megadrive (aka Genesis)in Woolworths, I saw something special and pestered my parents into getting me THAT game. Once I had raced Sonic through that synonymous ochre and brown chequered landscape for the first time, I was hooked. My Optimus Prime action figure was never to see daylight again.

Nowadays I am a videogames enthusiast studying a degree in the subject at Teeside, and I only have that blue hedgehog to thank for getting me this far.

As the Sonic Series has easily been my favourite series of games, I was delighted when Sonic adventure was announced, promising a 3-D interpretation of Sonics 16-bit exploits as well as progressing the series gameplay and direction. Also, gaming gen Sonic creator Yuji Naka was to head development. After waiting an eternity for a proper 3-D Sonic game I was not dissapointed but was left thirsty for more.

Not suprisingly, Naka announced a sequal, aptly named 'Sonic Adventure 2'. Since the announcement, I had been counting the days until I got to play it. On June 23rd, I finally got to experience Naka's latest work.

A game to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Sonic, produced by the man who created him was going to have high expectations, and I believe this game has more than met up to them.

The first thing that struck me, as I believe would have been the same for anyone else playing the game for the first time was the astounding quality of the graphics. The first level, clearly inspired by San Francisco looks beautiful, running at 60 fps, not a hint of slowdown and speeding along faster than Sonics 2-D games, which I feel is some achievement in 3-D. The inspired design of the first level has been given the trademark sonic flavour with everything synonymous with the character- loops, ramps, speed boosts, vertigo inducing drops etc. Grinding, clearly intended to appeal to the currently developing youth sport movement is another neat touch that echo's throughout the entire game. Graphically the game gets more and more incredible as it progresses. Levels with egyptian influence contain texture mapping quality that I would go as far to say that it beats anything I have seen so far on any console or PC, including the supposedly superior PS2. Without revealing too much, the space themed levels towards the end are perhaps the most impressive graphically. Sonic levels have always been incredibly detailed with something constantly happening. Even in the first game on the Megadrive, Sonic Team (the developers) would strive to create an 'alive' gameworld, with sparkles in the water, moving clouds and tiny multi-coloured flashing lights in the floor. SA2 continues this awesome trend and avoids the dull, static look of many games in the genre. All of the levels in the game are also incredibly imaginative and fresh in gameplay ideas, whilst retaining a strong play structure in the scoring system and player objectives. One minor complaint I would have would be that I would have liked a little more harking back to the originals aesthetic routes, I think this game trys to be a little to gritty and realistic at times, forgetting Sonic is essentially a cartoon character. There are also a few ideas that that I don't believe fit into a Sonic game too well. The whole supernatural sub-theme with the ghosts and the 'king boom boo' boss all seem a bit of a mis-fit and a tad lame to be honest.

The soundtrack of the game is something I have mixed opinions about. As a soundtrack, it is fantastic. Jun Senoue (the composer) has produced an extremely high quality and varied range of music to suit all tastes, ranging from rock, hip-hop (Knuckles tune is particually good)to techno. However the soundtrack is not really Sonic. With a few notable exeptions, I wouldn't really associate this type of music with a Sonic game, it is generally too serious and is some way of the classic cartoony, bouncy tunes that were found in the earlier games. Sonic CD (1993) had the kind of music I would have liked to have heard in this game. However, the fast pace of the music that is here does suit the action on screen well.

Sonic Adventure 2 is a game that will last, not only because of the classic Sonic Team gameplay, in which they never fail, but the sheer size of the game impresses. 33 levels each with 5 separate challenges means that there is a lot of gameplay to be had. SA2 is also extremely difficult, and quite unforgiving at times. With many games today being critisised for having a short life, SA2 comes as a nice addition to anyones games library.

I don't have enough room to fully justify my admiration for this game, I havn't really talked about the gripping narrative or the brilliant gameplay, or the Chao- the incredible artificial life- sort of like tamagotchis only more advanced.

Naka, the man responsible for the entire Sonic series, NiGHTS, Phantasy Star Online among many other classic, and indeed pioneering games, has added another gem to his CV with Sonic Adventure 2. Although granted, there are some ideas that don't work, there is no doubt that Naka has managed to retain the magic and essence of Sonic in a 3-D world. Something that is often lost in the transition from a 2-D world. It is just a shame that the console that this game is representing will cease to exist in a years time. The potential this game shows, shows that the Dreamcast could compete technically with whats next with ease.

",1 "Haralambides, a beatnik-wannabe himself, has a first go at creating a film with beatnik connotations all around. Only it doesn't work out that well. The main character (you guessed it, Haralambides) takes a midnight stroll round the deserted streets of athens with a girl he meets by accident. In the process they hold a 'most mortifying cliche ever' contest by elaborating on matters of life, love, death, what have you, only to come to the conclusion that, well, she doesn't fancy him very much. All this is embellished with parallel storylines taken from the life of our hero (Haralambides, lest we forget) or nowhere in particular (as if anyone cares). The only (mildly) exciting bit in the entire film is Costas Tsakonas's performance (whose name by the way is not even mentioned in the credits). A terrible waste of time, money and talent (definitely not Haralambides's).",0 Good movie about a group of Italian American twentysomethings centering around two Nicky and Ralph and their criminal ways and relationships. The story is kind of borrowing from MEAN STREETS but it has its own little twists. Pretty good movie I recommend to fans of GOODFELLAS and MEANSTREETS.,1 "The latest installment of children's lit - turned movie is the weakest. The green-screen use is laughable: for example, when standing on a hilltop, next to an animal whose fur is blowing in the wind, we see a too-close shot of the children, whose improperly-lit hair is standing PERFECTLY still... on a hilltop. The CG backgrounds are not detailed and very plain (hill, trees, no movement).

Also, these children could not act, I hate to say it. Emotions, no. Excitement, no. Holding a sword like a human being, no.

The pacing was somehow both too slow AND too fast. There were plenty of dead-air moments that failed to create suspense (people in my theater were snoring, getting up a lot, getting restless), and slow-mo of poorly CG'd battle, but the storyline development (or total lack thereof) was skipped over, pushed ahead, and seemed to take a back seat to the action (as is the formula for modern CD-heavy kids movies).

The gore in the animal cruelty of sacrificing the Lion in a strangely pagan-esquire midnight ritual (I somehow didn't picture it like that as a kid reading the book) was beyond a PG depiction, (despite the cut away for the stab, and lack of blood anywhere) and gratuitous, smacking of The Passion of the Christ... but I guess that's exactly what they were going for.

I guess as long as a movie doesn't show blood, body parts, or swear words, it doesn't go over PG, despite graphic depictions of pagan sacrifice, animal abuse, creepy cyclops and other humanoids, large-scale warfare, stabbings, beatings, and such.

I'm no prude, it is a children's book -- but reading topics is less intense than seeing them graphically depicted on a big-screen, enough for maybe a 13?

The storyline is so very simple - find wonderland, set off human alarm, Savior sacrifices himself for you and resurrects, win war against evil Christmas-hating witch. 4 steps. 3 hours to tell? It just isn't as complex as LOTR or even the better Harry Potters. That's why the pacing felt so slow.

Had the characters been rounded out (one can interpret a book when making it into a movie, but nobody told Disney this) - it might have been better. If Judas, I mean Edmund, had been explored -- why was he so impudent? Did he really have fantasies of being King? Did he learn a lesson, or just go on/off from traitor to Witch-fighter? Any of these could've been explored instead of the dead-air treatment I watched.",0 "There is a scene early in DEAD POETS SOCIETY wherein Robin Williams, as a new literature teacher at an upscale boys prep school, tells his class that he wants them to learn to think for themselves. To this end, he orders them to tear out of their text books pages which feature commentary by the book's editor. ""Think"" he seems to be saying, ""but first, let me censor this book.""

Free thought through censorship? I can only assume the said literature book includes Orwell's ""1984.""

In Orwellian fashion, hypocrisy is the order of the day in DEAD POETS SOCIETY. It gives a rousing, inspirational sermon (""Seize the day!"" is the teacher's motto.), yet the story itself mocks the film's supposed intentions. DEAD POETS SOCIETY is about failure, but it won't admit it; worse, it seems to believe it's own inspirational PR. The film serves up a tacked on and utterly false moment of triumph at the end, but everything that proceeds that is a lesson in failure. Williams fails to teach the students to show moral courage. One student commits suicide rather than fight for his beliefs. When Williams is wrongly accused of something, his supposedly adoring students turn on him like a pack of weasels. The one student who stands up for his ideals is expelled from the school and forgotten by the film. A father fails his son. The school fails its students. And the film fails its audience.

Yet, for some inexplicable reason, people remember the film for its inspirational message: Seize the day! Carpe Diem! Fine words, but at no time are they supported by the empty pessimism that the film displays. The characters who do take chances are immediately and soundly punished. Those who knuckle under -- showy, petty acts of deviance aside -- plod along.

Williams is okay as the teacher, but all credibility is lost when he stops to toss in imitations of Marlon Brando and John Wayne. Robert Sean Leonard comes off best as the doomed student, though his suicide seems remarkably undermotivated. Kurtwood Smith offers up a wholly unconvincing stereotype as the doomed student's martinet father.

Thanks to Peter Weir's efficient direction and some nice cinematography, DEAD POETS SOCIETY has a facade of class; but only if you don't pay too close attention to Tom Schulman's dreadful (though Oscar-winning) script. The irony is that a film that begs you to think is best enjoyed if you don't.",0 "The premise of the movie is great. After a zombie epidemic, various video diaries are recovered. These video diaries tell the tales of survival of 3 groups of people whose stories eventually interweave.

Sadly, the acting is terrible. The best acting is done by the zombies. The special effects and makeup appear to have been done by students venturing into their first foray into gore. The best makeup/special effect is the clouded contacts and anybody with 20 dollars and Wal-Mart nearby can pull that off. Some zombies look downright comical, almost as if they are wearing cheap Halloween costumes.

This movie has some of the comedy that has come to be expected in the genre, but it's not intentional. In one scene, a shot from about 20 yards away with a rifle takes about two seconds before the zombies head is (poorly) blown apart.

The camera work is terrible. There is no sense of a ""diary"" in any of the 3 scenarios. Just groups filming their goings on and there's too much of a random feeling to it. And not random in the good way. More like ""Why in the world would they be filming THIS?"" There should have been more asides and narrating from the cameramen. Instead of having a sense of ""this is a diary that recorded their struggles for whoever may find it"", you had more of a sense of ""this is a bad class project done by middle school children"". The dialogue is forced. Whether it was written or improvised, it smacked of trying too hard to ""act"", and this totally destroyed the feel of ""this is real people reacting to real events"".

There are about 3 scenes that could have been very powerful. One of them has been done in almost every zombie movie before and the main difference this time around was the age of the ""victim"". The other two scenes were more confusing than anything. There's a difference between leaving things opened for interpretation and just totally dropping the ball.

All in all, I was very disappointed. A great concept was ruined.",0 "THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Silent

(Black and white - Short film)

Two jail birds (Laurel and Hardy) escape from custody and assume the identities of French dignitaries who turn out to be prison inspectors (Otto Fries and Bob O'Conor) on their way to the very jail from which L&H have just escaped! Havoc ensues.

One of the best of L&H's silent comedies, and certainly their best collaboration with director Fred Guiol. This one features a full range of amusing set-pieces, including an inspired sequence in which The Boys elude a nosey cop by pretending to be painters (only to end up painting everything in sight, including someone's car!), and the lengthy scene in which they're mistaken for visiting VIP's and received at the prison as guests of honor by warden James Finlayson, only to cause chaos at the dinner table. The escalation of comic incidents is entirely believable throughout. However, the film also contains an offensive sight gag, when L&H accidentally slap white paint all over the face of an African-American passer-by.",1 "I first saw MOST of this film on a flight from New Zealand to Australia, but missed the ending when the flight ended before the film. Because I was engrossed with the fine meal and service on NZAir I was suckered into this film up to my neck.

Hints abound throughout the film that things are not as they seem. The digital enhancement of the date on a newspaper is one of the early clues, but you get dragged along by the sheer magnitude and perfection of the deception. Director Jackson did not think small! His project, like Colin Mackenzie's, was of Biblical proportions!

The Lord of the Rings trilogy may make Jackson a household name the way Star Wars made George Lucas. But this will be my evil little secret, my IQ test for unwitting friends who think they are So Darn Smart.",1 "The Andromeda Clichés. Holy moly, just check them off: Govt conspiracy, heroic ""journalist"", evil military, arrogant humanity, do-gooder environmentalism, blah, blah, blah. This was such a piece of crap it's hard to believe Ridley Scott had anything to do with it. It's such a mishmash of half-assed developed stories, you'd think that it was written in 10 parts, with none of the writers knowing what the others wrote. They must have had some pretty compromising photos of Crichton doing a dead donkey to get him to agree to this abomination. Save your time and dime and just rent the original. It is a straight up presentation of what might actually occur in a ""Wildfire"" situation, not the sappy, crappy Lifetime special that A&E slapped together.",0 "The Beatles made 5 films during their rein of rock royalty, for my money this is by far the best, most intimate rock documentary ever made. It starts with one simple, haunting shot of Ringo`s drum kit and ends with an invigorating roof-top concert. In between we get to see run-throughs and rehearsals of some of their best music they ever recorded. We also see several arguments between John, Paul & George. Ringo is pretty even-tempered throughout the film. Oh yes, and we do see a lot of Yoko Ono (mostly by John`s side). Let it Be was released on video at the dawn of the home video market. It was quickly withdrawn for legal reasons. Hopefully, one day very soon, Paul and Ringo will grant a re-release on dvd so many generations of fans can see this great movie.",1 "I gave it 2 for some attempt at historical detail... To echo another reviewer, all the actors behave as in the 20th/21st centuries, not the Victorian 19th. The actors behave far too freely and with hardly any attempt at the formal dignity, stiff social restraint of the time, and no apparent attempt to represent the social mores and customs of the era. Watch the original version with Ralph Richardson to see what I'm driving at.

Or watch Zulu, Zulu Dawn, or Charge of the Light Brigade for more authentic historical recreation of how people were in those days.

The battle scenes in this version may have been 'fierce', but the pacing was far too 20th-21century. Even warfare was a more 'formal' and 'dignified' affair then than it is today. It took the First World War to change that.

IF you want 20th-21st century romance and military heroics transposed to the 19th century, this film is OK, for anything more historically 'real', best look elsewhere...",0 "I saw the movie last evening and I think it's a very competent thriller. Nicely shot without being too stylish. Crisp and to the point. The interest never flags down. The plot is realistic and the characterization has the existential overtones the French so much love: agents doomed to obey orders and never ask questions living a lonely life of lies without any friends(while blowing up ships and routinely jumping down planes). The film manages to find new ways to thrill and narrate the story; and that when the espionage thriller field has already been saturated with Hollywood super-productions; so for a French movie to succeed with half the budget and with a European sensibility is great going. Part of the action moves in Casablanca and Geneva but these locales are used in a refreshing way not the usual Hollywood exotica ""elsewhere""; if you see this movie try to compare it to say Bourne Identity and you will know what I mean. I love thrillers but for a long time hadn't seen a movie that really kept me glued, but this was it. There are minor gaffes like the makeup in places, the panicky way the agents are always looking around (why are they being so obvious in a crowd when they are supposed to be secret, eh) and some flat actors. But overall the movie is fun and well worth a visit.",1 "I saw this movie on Sci-Fi channel so I'm sure I missed out on the best of the nudity and gore but I was still fascinated by it. I couldn't figure out what was so unique about it until about halfway through. This is like a good porno but with no sex !

All the women are hot and while they appear in some provocative outfits and there are ""sexual situations"" nobody actually has sex. The acting is on the same cheesy level that is about the best that adult films can hope for. The story is bizarre and gimmicky enough ( but without the gory payoff that horror films should deliver ) to be a fetish-y porno. The main female characters ( The dominatrix, brainy wife behind the business tycoon, The all-girl rock band, The hot Asian lawyer) are all porn character staples played by adult-film caliber actresses ( no, wait - I mean that as a compliment ! )

Most of the male actors make no impression. The exceptions are the lead actor, playing Virgil Travis ( the actor somewhat handicapped by the fact that he's basically a walking special effect ) and the actor playing his right-hand man, Mr. Mascaro. Mascaro is a stone cold killer who wears clown makeup throughout the film, a deadpan expression on his face throughout. The only exception is one scene where he must go out ""in disguise"". After returning from this mission he reapplies his makeup and says "" I'm so glad to be out of that disguise "" ( meaning his bare face )

A weird, unique film, much more than I expect from Full Moon, and I can't help but think that the ""greatness"" is nothing that they could have planned on ( or achieved if they'd tried )",1 "Little Carlitos has a problem. He has been left home with his grandma because his mother, Rosario, has gone to Los Angeles to work. One thing though, Rosario never lets a Sunday go by without calling her son in Mexico at 10am. She also sends presents that make her son the envy of the town where he lives. Carlitos is much more mature than his nine years. He is savvy of how things work.

Carlitos has made friends with Dona Carmen, a lady that is in charge of the 'coyotes' that bring illegal Mexicans across the border, for a price. She is reluctant to let the little boy try to go North because of the dangers ahead. Carlitos grandma's sudden death gives him the opportunity to try his luck. Help comes in the shape of a Chicano couple that volunteer to take the boy through the border at El Paso. Unfortunately, they are detained because they show as being delinquent in the payment of traffic fines. Carlitos decides he must go on his own.

At this point, the film turns into a 'road picture' because along the way, Carlitos will encounter all kinds of people. In general, the Americans he meets are bad. He clings to another Mexican that started being unfriendly, but in the end he offers a sacrifice to the boy that was completely unexpected because of he sees in the boy the person he would like to be. A happy ending is in store for the boy and his mother.

""La misma luna"" is a well intentioned film that proved to be a crowd pleaser at Sundance, the year it was presented there. Directed by Patricia Riggen, and written by Ligiah Villalobos, the film aims to please the audiences which have been targeted to reach. America Ferrera, who appears in a small role, better known for her role in ""Ugly Betty"", is credited as one of the producers.

The best thing in the film are Adrian Alonso and Eugenio Derbez. As Enrique, talented Mexican actor Mr. Derbez, gives one of his excellent performances. Adrian Alonso, who is older than the boy in the picture wins the audience's heart because of his precociousness and determination to find his mother in a strange land. Wonderful Kate Del Castillo plays Rosario, the Mexican immigrant working as a domestic and being taken advantage by wealthy employers that only want to exploit her and pay nothing in return. Carmen Salinas, a good Mexican character actress is seen as Dona Carmen, the 'coyote' coordinating lady.

The cinematography by Checco Varese takes us from Mexico into the United States along the routes traveled by Carlitos and Enrique before landing in Los Angeles. The musical score is by Carlo Siliotto. The film will please the viewer because in spite of its implausible plot, it has its heart in the right place and sends a positive message about the bond between a boy and his mother.",1 "Marabunta is definitely a ""bad accident"" type movie. You see a scene and you think to yourself, ""this is terrible!"", ""What the heck were they (the writers, director, producers, actors, etc.) thinking?"", ""It must have been a continuity flaw."" , ""It can only get better.""

But as you continue to watch, it get progressively worse. The continuity flaws have their own continuity flaws, the movie spins around and around the drain, constantly circling but never quite going down, no matter how much you wish you could end it's miserable existence.........

I think the ""Horror"" categorization was also stretching it quite a bit. I was totally cracking up even without the mimosa breakfast.

In one scene, Dr. Jim Conrad & Laura Sills try to flee from the hungry ants by climbing into a rickety old canoe and paddling down a stream.

The stream becomes a series of rapids and small waterfalls that first damage the canoe, then the bow breaks off while Dr. Jim and Laura, respectively, continue to paddle and scream. Finally, the canoe disintegrates and we begin to thank the movie for ending that scene, but no! Dr. Jim & Laura now tumble down the waterfalls and jagged rocks for an other mile or two. We think to ourselves, ""well, no one could possibly survive the certain concussions our heroes must have."" All their limbs are sure to be broken now especially when the movie is showing this in slow motion! But No! Dr. Jim and Laura finally roll onto the shore, stand up without a broken bone or bruise, make-up still absolutely perfect. They straighten out their completely clean and untorn clothes, c0ck their hats (that somehow managed to stay on during this whole scene) in a fashionable way, and run towards some other c0ck-eyed scheme to thwart the ants. I must give the movie makers a little credit for ""misting"" Dr. Jim and Laura after they allegedly got out of the water. I seem to remember Laura even acting like she was squeezing the 'water' out of her hair. Both their faces were mighty dry-looking though, so they didn't completely disturb the movie's track record for anti-continuity. Incontinuity? I think that is the proper word as far as this movie is concerned.

The scooter chase that follows is priceless!

",0 "Think of this one as Back to the Future...except not very good.

The use of time travel and possible timelines gone askew does nothing to add to the film. Our lead guy is a David Koresh look-alike, but a lot less evil. I think he was trying to do justice to physics teachers who do aviation on the side, but have no time for grocery shopping. There's a romance angle here, but it's not really important. Characters meet themselves in other times and it gets really confusing like where did he get that gun after he jumped from the plane into the lake?? You have incompetent security guards and a CEO with a really funny accent (even funnier acting). There's a lot of running, biking, flying, and a really cool car stunt that took 4 takes. Due to limited budget, the future, past, and present look pretty bad which makes it more funny. Hey, if Lisa Kudrow is in this (even for a few milliseconds), it's worth checking out for kicks.

""Food courts of the future!""",0 "This movie could have been good if it hadn't already been made so many times before. The concept of a young girl who feels lost and finds a connection with an older man is hardly new.

The actors play well - as one would expect from professionals - and if one is a fan of either Alec Baldwin or Sarah Michella Gellar; one might consider watching the movie just for that.

Where it all goes wrong is in the narrative. The movie tries delivering something that it just can't deliver. While the actors as such play their roles fine, the viewer is never really caught by them. The roles are flat and one is left with a feeling of ""who cares"". There are a few elements in the movie that obviously entertains, but they all seem stereotypical in a way that gets boring very quickly.

This is a movie that you can watch if you are having some friends over and needs some background noise, or if you are baking bread and do not want to bother with pausing the movie every time you have to go to the kitchen.",0 "As a movie lover and social worker, I was really moved throughout this film - for most of this film - by the subject matter and by the powerful portrayal and production of these characters. Overall, this is a highly rated movie and one can only wonder at the mentality of persons in Australia who pushed for the banning of this film. This is a realistic account of the affects on the victims of child abuse and tells a compelling story of their plight. But don't expect a happy ending; there is some resolution but you know the battle continues and their struggle to overcome will go on. (I'm getting emotional again just thinking about the last scene.) I work with young people (15-25) who have been abused, often by their own parents, and placed into the care system. However, I have had clients who have then been abused in care as well. It is hard to reconcile such young people but gaining justice is quite central, as is a belief they are accepted and worthwhile human beings. Because they may have been sexually aroused during the abuse they can often feel guilty and to blame. They often internalise these feelings and depending on their personalities they will implode against themselves (drugs etc) and/or become de-sensitised to certain feelings and take risks. The boys in this film portray these two dichotomies and they do it very well. 10 stars.",1 "Oh where do I begin... It is possible for a cheesy movie to still be good. Some movies, while corny, are delightfully so. This movie has a cheese factor that could beat out the entire state of Wisconsin. Now don't get me wrong, this movie will hook you with the whole ""plight to save her dead sister's child from the husband who murdered her"" storyline, but that doesn't mean you should sit through it to find out who gets the kid. I happened upon this stereotypical Lifetime movie on a perfectly useful Saturday morning and by the time the film was over, so was the day. It's called a Lifetime movie because it takes a lifetime to watch... For a ""based on a true story"" movie, it was ridiculously unrealistic. The crime scene was so outrageous and the idea that relatives would be allowed to live in the house while it's under police investigation is so unbelievable it's almost laughable. Sitting down to watch this will mean at least four hours of your life that you will never get back.",0 "When one thinks of the cowboy Western names like John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Howard Hawks and John Huston might come to mind but Japanese new wave and cult director Miike Takashi would probably be the last person you would think of being on that list, that is until now. With his recent ""Sukiyaki Western Django"" Miike pays loving tribute to the western genre and infuses it with his own unique spin and a decidedly Japanese flair.

Set in what appears to be a dusty post-apocalyptic wasteland, the story deals with a bitter rivalry between two vicious clans - the brutal Heike (whose color emblem is a bloody scarlet red) and the flashy Genji (whose banners are a snow colored white). They have taken over a remote mountain village in a region oddly called ""Nevada"" (using Japanese Kanji equivalents).

Both factions have learned of a mythic gold depository in the surrounding area and have torn the village apart to find it but to no avail. The local inhabitants have long since fled and those that have stayed behind have been living in terror ever since.

A mysterious gun fighter with no name (Ito Hideaki) rides into town and offers his services to the clan who offers to pay him the most. While both clans make tempting bids, the gun fighter rejects both offers and is instead swayed to hold off joining either faction by the town's salon madam, Ruriko (Momoi Kaori).

Ruriko tells the stranger of how the town was taken over by the clans and how her son, Akira was killed by them. Akira was a former Heike clan member who had fallen in love with the beautiful Shizuka (Yoshino Kimura), a member of the rival clan. They had hoped that their union would help encourage peace between the two clans but instead Akira is murdered by the Heike's ruthless leader Kiyomori (Sato Koichi).

Devasted she returns to her clan with her young child Heihachi, where she is forced to become a harlot to the clan's charismatic and mercurial leader Yoshitsune.

As the conflict comes to an impasse both sides scheme at how to gain the upper-hand. Kiyomori tells his clansmen that it is divine destiny that they will win the conflict and sites Shakespeare's ""Henry VI"" and the English conflict of the ""War of the Roses"" (where the red side wins) as his bible. He is so sure of this that he adopts the name ""Henry"".

On the Genji side, Yoshitsune has found the location of a hidden cache of weapons including a functioning Gatling gun which he hopes will give his clan the advantage. He sends his chief henchman, Benkei (Ishibashi Takaaki) to retrieve the weapon.

The gun fighter learns of this plan from Shizuka and relays the information to the Heike clan.

For her betrayal Shizuka is brutally murdered by the Genji clan and the gun fighter is severely injured. Nursed back to health the gun fighter teams up with Ruriko, who reveals herself to be the legendary gun fighter ""B.B."" who was a protégé of one of the first western gunmen in Japan, ""Bingo"" (cameo by Quentin Tarantino) to destroy the clans and bring peace to the town.

Miike and screenwriter NAKA(Masa)MURA borrow liberally from other westerns particularly the landmark ""Italiano-Westerns"" of Sergio Leone (Fist Full of Dollars, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly"") and Sergio Corbucci (Django) as well as the so-called ""Acid-Westerns"" of Alejandro Jodorowsky (El Topo) but adds in his own unique aspects and New Wave flourishes to create a Japanese version of the classic western albeit with a decidedly Japanese look and feel. The name is both a play on ""spaghetti"" (Italian) westerns and an anecdote where ""sukiyaki"" (Japanese nabemono or ""stew"") combines various elements in a pot.

Much has been said of Miike's decision to script the dialog entirely in English but I think the cast should be commended for actually pulling off what might have turned into a comical disaster. It also helped that Miike had the good fortune of hiring actors who have either lived or studied extensively abroad.

Ito Hideaki (Crossfire, Limit of Love-Umizaru) plays the titular Clint Eastwood role as the ""man with no name""/gun fighter. His performance is good but one note as he doesn't really have much range and his lines are minimal. Sato Koichi (Cheerful Gang Turns The Earth, Tennen Kokekko) is pure evil as ""Taira No Kiyomori"" who fancies himself after Shakespeare's ""Henry VI"". His performance brings to mind Mifune Toshiro's Kikuchiyo in ""Seven Samurai"" (manic, bestial, and cocksure of himself).

Fashion model turned actor Iseya Yusuke (Casshern, Memories of Matsuko) turns in another fantastic performance as the vicious yet wickedly handsome ""Minamoto No Yoshitsune"", a man who fancies himself as the embodiment of the Japanese ""Samurai spirit"". Iseya is quickly making a name for himself playing quirky roles and whose intensity and presence reminds me a lot of the late Heath Ledger.

London born Yoshino Kimura (Sakuran, The Backdancers) brings much passion, dignity and raw sexuality to her part as the tragic Shizuka. Momoi Kaori (Bounce No Ko Gal, Memoirs of a Geisha), who was also educated in London, is clearly at home with the English dialog and turns in a terrific performance as Ruriko.

Ishibashi Takaaki (one half of 80s comedy duo ""Tunnels"")steals the spotlight as Yoshitsune's sexually ambiguous henchman as does Kagawa Teruyuki (HERO, Tokyo.Sora) as the cowardly and opportunistic sheriff who seems almost possessed at times.

Following the heals of great modern western-themed movies and remakes of late like ""No Country for Old Men"" and ""3:10 To Yuma"", Miike's ""Sukiyaki Western Django"" is a fun and unique take on the western and as it's name suggests offers a clever take with a Japanese bent. Like trendy Asian ""fusion"" cuisine, ""Sukiyaki"" takes the best of both worlds and offers up something new yet oddly familiar. Bon appetite!",1 "No one should except to see an Oscar worthy film here, but this movie simply ran with the standard ""white man learns to love Asian culture"" script, and it doesn't even pull that off well. Everything Scott Glen/""Rick"" learns to love about Japan is just a cliché. Instead of showing the American audience what there is to love about Japanese culture (which could fill 16 hours, easy), we're reduced to stereotyped figures and situations.

I love Toshiro Mifune, and it pained me to see him have to dull his acting and swordplay in this film to suit the rest of the cast. Scott Glen is about as good of an action hero here as Ben Aflect is in ""Dare Devil""... and that's bad. I normally like Mifune and Glen, even in his bad movies, but this time it was just painful.

""The Last Samurai"" was successful where this turkey flopped- it explored the differences between two cultures that were clashing. It did this by refusing to boil everything down to simple stereotypes, as ""Sword of the Ninja""/""The Challenge"" did.

By the way, where was the ninja? I counted a few Bushido warriors (samurai), but no ninja. Hmmmmm... ""Crap Storm"" is a nice title...",0 "this is by far, the scariest movie i have ever seen. and it even made me laugh. i saw this a very long time ago, in the theatres, and i had never heard of Sam Raimi at the time. this film is an example of what you can do with a bit of money and a brilliant mind. using cameras, sound,editing and anticipation, what we have here is an engrossing, raw horror movie with a uniquely charming eternal champion. and i loved the special effects, which includes his use of sound and camera work. they weren't up to the block-buster digital computerized seamless stuff we see now, but for me this only added to its' charm. the film also didn't take itself too seriously either, which is always appreciated. i really like the character of Ash, and his progression from ordinary guy to cocky, evil dead fighter. as for Sam Raimi, it didn't take long to see just how gifted he is as a director, and i couldn't wait to see what he could do with a bigger budget. i think his track record now speaks for itself. this is a hard-core, for horror fans movie. i'm only guessing but i think baby-boomers who want to be scared will love this film. i also like seeing Bruce Campbell show up in Raimi films, like the face in the crowd in the last shot in Dark Man, right on up to his television shows and the power-tripping gate-keeper in Spider Man 2. He uses his brother in his films too,(aarrgh Henrietta!) nice to see, as well as seeing his partner's wife in cameos in his other films( great punk look, xena). i understand that Bridget Fonda asked Sam to give her a small role in Army of Darkness because she is such a fan of the movies, and probably of Mr Raimi as well, whom she worked with in A Simple Plan. great film. my understanding is that he has written the screenplay for an Evil Dead 4. this is great news to me, and makes sense considering how Army of Darkness ended. Army didn't scare me, but i loved it all the same. i don't know what to expect from a fourth one....scarier than hell or campy fun, or both? i say, bring it on! he wont have any trouble getting real money for #4, which he didn't need in the first three to make them so truly great. so, trust me on this. if you love horror films, check out Evil Dead 2, dead by dawn. i wouldn't watch it alone either. i don't care how macho you are. it's an engaging roller-coaster,fun ride. not for the uninitiated and not for Sleepless in Seattle-type fans. this is pure, classic, camp with a great ending.",1 "Considering that this film was directed by the famed German director, Ernst Lubitsch, starred the great Emil Jannings AND it's title talks about Mummies, I was certain that I would love this film--especially since I love silent films. However, in this dreary film, you see none of the famed ""Lubitsch touch"", Jannings is just okay, the film is NOT about mummies at all and the print from Alpha Video was so fuzzy that it was a chore to watch the thing! The film is set in Egypt, though you really don't see any mummies. Instead, it's an odd tale about a weirdo (Jannings) who has kidnapped a lady (Pola Negri) and has kept her locked inside a temple. When she's rescued by a Brit, he's smitten with her and takes her back to the UK to live with him. She is worried, though, that the crazed Jannings will follow her and exact revenge. No mummies, no curse and not a whole lot of action or excitement.

I wonder. With a different title and different people responsible for the film, I would have had lower expectations and therefore liked the movie more. But, as it was, it was a HUGE disappointment in practically every way.

PS--I've seen quite a few films from Alpha Video. While some of their offerings are rare and hard to find, their DVDs are rather consistently of dubious quality and are rarely, if ever, restored. They are inexpensive, but they're also no bargain thanks to fuzzy or scratchy prints. If you can find other brands, you may want to try them first.",0 "Freddy leaves his pregnant girlfriend behind in Philadelphia. While on the road he meets up with Albert, a young kleptomaniac delinquent. Together they travel to see Freddy's uncle in a nursing home. Freddy learns from his uncle that the father who abandoned him has been let out of prison and has a job in Oklahoma City. Freddy finds his father working as a parking lot attendant, but his father doesn't recognize him. Freddy robs him, and lets him know who he is. Freddy and Albert then head towards Reno, where Albert says his mom has jobs waiting for them at a restaurant. Along the way the two stop at a carnival; there's an altercation and Freddy is hurt. They break into a church and spend the night. A Native American priest finds them the next morning and takes them to his home. The boys sit down for a meal with the priest's family. Freddy and Albert hit the road again, getting a ride with Katherine and her dog. Freddy soon realizes that Albert stole a dream catcher that had been hanging above a baby's crib in the priest's house. He gets angry and has a fight with Albert. When the two boys calm down, they all go to a motel. Katherine gives Albert some money to buy a gift for his mother, but he goes to an arcade instead. Back at the motel, Freddy shows Katherine a postcard sent to Albert by his mother. In it she tells Albert that she doesn't want to see him, and we (the viewers) learn that Albert's story about his mother waiting for him is a lie. Meanwhile, Albert steals a watch from a store. When employees attempt to stop him, he pulls a fake pistol on them and gets away. In the morning police show up at the motel; Katherine has already left. At the police station an officer tells Freddy that Albert will be put in the custody of Children's Services, and that he'll be charged with theft and assault. Freddy continues on alone to Reno to find Albert's mother at the restaurant where she works, but is told by the owner that she no longer works there. The owner asks him where's he's going, and he says, ""Philadelphia"". The film ends with Freddy riding in a van with a family.

A solid film with a good cast, especially the two leads. Throughout the film there are many beautiful exterior shots. The film also has a great soundtrack, with songs perfectly matching the moods of the scenes. Highly recommended.",1 "I can never wrap my head around the careers of Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant. On television, their work is some of the best comedy of the past couple of decades: The State, Viva Variety!, and, their triumph, Comedy Central's Reno 911. But when they write movies, the results are well nigh unwatchable. I had thought in the past that they were just defecating cheap movie scripts so that they could make money and continue producing fine work on television. I mean, The Pacifier, Herbie: Fully Loaded and Night at the Museum smack of the kind of audience-despising material you might expect from smart writers deliberately trying to dumb down their work for some cold hard cash. Add to that the fact that their movie version of Reno 911, which was released early in 2007, was pretty good. But then, later in the year, they made this film. It's a cheesy little comedy, and it has a lot of potential to be decent, if unremarkable, fun. This is their genre, unlike the children's flicks. There's no conceivable reason to hate your audience here, since presumably they'll be pretty close to the same audience that watches Reno 911. Dan Fogler plays a former child prodigy and Olympic table tennis player. Now he's a loser, but he's being recruited by the FBI to infiltrate an underground ping-pong tournament, hosted by an international criminal, played by Christopher Walken. The premise, reminiscent of other recent underground sports comedies like Dodgeball and Beerfest, doesn't have a lot of promise, it's true. But all a comedy really needs is some good jokes, and it'll fly. Or at least you'd think it would. The problem with Balls of Fury isn't exactly its jokes. They're funny enough, for the most part. It's the delivery. The actors have little ability in comic timing (what halfway decent comedic director would willfully hire George Lopez to be in their movie?), and Robert Ben Garant often fails to sell the jokes, even when they are potentially amusing. Even when the comic performances are good, as is the case with Walken and co-writer Thomas Lennon himself, the editing is so poor that the gags almost never hit. It's all quite maddening. Reno 911 is particularly brilliant in its editing. I really don't see how the same people could produce such a laughless comedy. I guess TV is just their medium, but I don't understand why film-making should prove so difficult for them.",0 "You would think that Project Greenlight would bring in talent that at the very least is different than the crap we already see. This movie represents the lack of imagination and ability to tell the same old coming of age story in a different way. The goofy kid comes of age without really experiencing a dam thing. It wasn't funny; it wasn't inspiring, it wasn't worth seeing.",0 "This movie is an unbelievable drag... first of all it has a very trashy look that is obvious from the opening of the movie. The acting is rather unrealistic, the characters couldn't make you care less and the plot evolves unbelievably slow. There are dialogs in this movie that take forever and make no point. When a Detective talks to the Surgeon I though the movie switched to slow motion or someone dropped downers in my drink. Besides these endless sequences with barely anything happening or people talking you get ridiculous over-acting. Watch out for the gay couple in the human meat bar or the epileptic stabbing of the surgeons young colleague. There's plenty of scenes that are beyond ridiculous and many don't push the plot at all.

So what do you get? A surgeon working in a beauty clinic gets obsessed with female meat, starts taking home fat and body parts and cooking them and obviously soon starts killing for fresh meat. Thats about it... he goes on a trip to Hongkong to search for human meat traders, ends up in a discotheque where he meets a girl who soon reveals she wants to be eaten. All this happens in a totally random fashion.. and after that Mr. Surgeon drives home and the plot continues.

Most of the movie is not really repulsive except for the fact that the cinematography is pretty ugly and tasteless throughout the movie. By the end you get a load of gore that looks unbelievably fake (best joke when heads fall out his closet and he beats a guy with one of the heads which is obviously just one of these plastic heads with a wig on. Its hard to say if ""Last supper"" was supposed to be funny or is unintentionally funny because the crass overacting and the over the top sound FX that remind me of one of those horror-sample CDs are laughable.

I have seen many Asian movies and know they can be pretty slow but this one takes it to the top and makes you wonder why the heck a dozen of scenes are stretched to the max. This movie is as entertaining was watching paint dry and horror fans should fast forward to the end to save 90 minutes of their precious lifetime.",0 "Well two out of three can kill you these days.But The Rose was set in the late sixty's or early seventy's where drugs were all she really had to worry about.She diden,t.If your a fan of Bette Midlers or Janis Joplin you should love The Rose.Bette Midler Gives an Oscar worthy performance (she was nominated,but Sally Field won for NormaRae)in her first major film role.Rose Foster is a major star in the rock and blues music world But being a great success with a voice that most of the world would kill for is not enough to fill her emptiness.Shes on the booze in the first few frames,the drugs soon follow.Recently relesed on DVD,The Rose is not the feel good movie of 79 or any year but Bette Midler,her voice and her acting talent make this film well worth watching.",1 "This is typical of a lot of modern pseudo-religious fiction, which unfortunately gets taken as gospel by a lot of ignorant people. Like the silly ""rapture"" books and Hal Lindsey's books about Revelations, it fans the flames of Christian fundamentalism.

People have been claiming that the end of the world is at hand beginning immediately with the followers of Jesus. His surviving disciples expected his return in their lifetime, and so it goes. Every hundred years and especially every 1000 years, there has been a huge upsurge in these beliefs.

If you can ignore the religious propaganda, the series is an OK mystery adventure story.",0 "This is it; this is THE classic movie I grew up adoring as a kid. It fueled my dreams of knights and ladies, made me fight battles against evil enemies in our backyard and inspired me to conclude my quest with honor, courage and romance.

""Robin Hood"" features all the criteria of a masterpiece: great actors, a great staff, a great plot and a great overall product. Plus, this movie contains elements which, as normal as they may seem today, were revolutionary back in the late 1930s: a full-scale blockbuster that finally triggered the success of Technicolor and color movies as such, production costs of an astonishing 2 million dollars, sophisticated sword-fighting and arrow-shooting that even the masters of today's action sequences respect, a great score used to underline the peculiar character of every scene, huge crowds of people fighting simultaneously and a romantic couple of Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland, who in their emotional harmony may be unrivaled to this day.

Even though this was a super-modern state-of-the-art blockbuster, ""Robin Hood"" has maintained a curious innocence which still strikes me today. Women are not raped; they are merely pushed around, but the message is loud and clear (""the mistreatment of our women""), and Prince John's soldiers can be knocked out by a wooden table instead of being martially hacked into pieces by the film's hero. In its entirety, ""Robin Hood"", though presenting so much hardship and violence, is as smooth and gentle as they come, just like a ferry-tale banned on celluloid.

Of course, some may say that no other than Douglas Fairbanks is the original Robin Hood, and they may be right, but this ""Robin Hood"" is far from being a mere remake: It is another, even greater original. Today, of course, ""Robin Hood"" may seem simple and outdated, but this movie possesses more atmosphere and character than any other film I have ever seen.

Sure, ""Robin Hood"" has its weaknesses, ranging from poorly-concealed Sherwood trampolines to crooked prop swords, and in some of the shots, the continuity is simply terrible, but much like with a beloved person, I cherish each and every one of those imperfections and would not have them changed for anything in the world.

I have decided to give this movie a 10 out of 10 score, which does not mean that it is perfect, but in my opinion, its status as a timeless masterpiece, to be enjoyed by people for generations to come, and its revolutionary approach and features, which I mentioned above, allow no other judgment.",1 "I was disappointed. I knew nothing of the film before I saw it, and I really did hope for something enjoyable, enlightening, what have you... but I was disappointed.

I know it was made on a low budget, but the hand-held camera-work (which seems typical of many Vancouver productions) just seemed lazy. Many films were made on miniscule budgets, but it doesn't mean that planning and thought can't go into the storyboard and shooting script. Think, El Mariachi, Do The Right Thing; highly entertaining, well-planned, well-shot movies done on fairly low budgets.

That having been said, the opening sequence was nice.

But the cinematography left something to be desired. I don't know if the lack of lighting was intentional, but it just became frustrating. It just felt amateur and felt like a lot more thought could have gone into it. It has been said that the camera-work serves this story. Perhaps, but it doesn't neglect the fact that virtually zero artistry seems to have gone into the visual compositions.

But the story seemed unduly melodramatic. Some of the acting was alright, especially Grace, the lead, the priest, Jenn Copping and Ben Ratner, who is quite a cameleon when it comes to acting (see: Dirty). But other characters seemed wooden; unbelievable. It doesn't help that the story felt forced and unbelievable in itself.

The movie seemed lacking in entertainment value. The story wasn't very interesting, the underlying Christian values and the bits about Jennifer Copping becoming Christian due to Grace's rantings just seemed ridiculous. Especially because Copping's character seemed so thoughtful and level-headed, that for her to simply switch and buy into all of the religious ramblings from somebody suffering from schizophrenia seemed a bit absurd.

I think Canadian film-making has potential. This film, despite my dissing, also seems like it could have had potential. I'm always intrigued by the films that come out of Canada, even if many tend to have a strange, dark vibe. Some really great movies have come out of Canada, such as The Sweet Hereafter and I heard the Mermaids Singing, Cronenberg's films and so on, but in order to a film to reach the point of greatness, it really takes a lot of time and thought and working and reworking the script and story until it truly resonates. I understand the film was the result of five years work. That seems pretty hard to believe, considering the result, and I don't see how a product like this could emerge after five years of thinking and planning. It seems like more thought should and could have gone into storyboard, acting choices, and the quality of the script in that time.

A film can have personal relevance for those involved and come from a passionate engagement with the material, but those elements have to translate to the screen. The audience should come away feeling enlightened AND entertained, if the film has succeeded at all. Many many films have accomplished that. Not that it's an easy task, but it is possible.",0 "This is the foulest Godzilla film in the series. It features an annoying kid. Attrocious songs and can only be watched with the buffer of the bots, Joel or Mike. Avoid at all costs.",0 "I've seen much worse- but at least those movies had the guts to try something new (even though they tanked doing it).

The Terror Within is a rip-off of Alien. Similarities include (but are not limited to: a homemade flamethrower, a chest-bursting monster, lots of drool, a pair of engineers- one black, one white, an aging male captain who is somewhat heroic, a tense scene in something resembling air ducts, Creature reproduction includes humans, and a pet that is orphaned when its owner is killed.

The most obvious ripoff is the scene when they are searching a storage room (cargo bay) for the creature. Even the camera angles and shot order are similar to Alien.

I'd like to give this movie a 2 but there are other movies I'd give a two...and this isn't as bad as those.",0 "Once again, ITV force upon us another hash and unwanted remake of a perfectly good predecessor. This episode may possibly be worse than the previous, The Body in the Library (equally dismal). The plot revolves around the murder of a hated local Judge, one Colonel Protheroe, in the vicarage study of St Mary Mead.

Whilst I don't like to keep repeating the comments of others, this is not a good interpretation of the book. Firstly, there is the tragic miscasting of Geraldine McEwan as Miss Marple. She performs the character as though she has never read a description of the woman, and fails in so many places where Hickson succeeded. Firstly, she has none of the subtlety that both the Miss Marple in the books and Hickson's portrayal still enduringly have. She is far too blatant and 'cheeky', which, invariably intended to add humour to the programme, does not come off at all well, a real example of over-egging the cake. Miss Marple was a spinsterish old lady, described as ""assiduous"" in the book upon which this particular programme is based, not some cheeky chappy as McEwan plays her. Also, whilst I don't like to be a pedant, the description Christie gives of Miss Marple does not match McEwan at all. For a start, she is described as a tall, prim, straight lady, because, as Miss Marple herself tells us in one of her books, ""I was taught to sit up properly"". Perhaps I am the only person who has observed this, but McEwan actually seems to positively slouch, and has not observed any of the mannerisms and fussy gestures that elderly ladies of Miss Marple's type notoriously committed - she is too laid back.

Also, the actually story is far too slow, despite having numerous sub-plots. The 1986 version went at a much faster pace, which gave an exciting and sinister edge to it, and didn't use half of the sub-plots used here, yet still managed to get a good hour and a half slot.

Thirdly, the direction and lighting is just awful. As I have already mentioned, the original version had a quite dark ands sinister edge to it, with low-key lighting and the rather brooding winter setting. In this version, however, the lighting is ridiculously bright, to the point that one feels as if one is watching an amateurish pantomime. It is quite revolting, and when coupled with the dire script, which is so saccharine one would not be berated for thinking it was laced with pixie dust and sugar, it gives a hideous effect of jolly-hockey-sticks village life, so stereotypical and contrived. It is as if the murder is a mere interlude between garden parties and afternoon tea.

Finally, the inclusion of a tedious throwaway plot, which sees Miss Marple in her younger days, embarking on an affair with a married man during WWI, is the final nail in the coffin for this series. It is so out of character that one is led to question if the writers have read a Miss Marple novel. She was simply not the kind of woman to do such a thing: she was a genteel, well brought up middle-class young woman in a strictly Victorian society, not some daring, romantic woman from a Jane Austen novel. She would never have done such a thing with a single man, let alone a married one, and mentions on many occasions that she has never had a romance, bar one young man by the name of Lionel, but ""mother nipped it in the bud"" before anything as mad as a fully-fledged affair could begin.

As another reviewer has already said, there is nothing wrong with remaking series, but in this instance it wasn't needed so soon after the Joan Hickson performance, generally regarded as the definitive. Maybe I am too purist, and too dedicated to the true canon of Christie, but this just doesn't ring true, and I hope this series is soon forgotten about.",0 "In the past few years i have rarely done reviews of films or TV on here for one simple reason, abuse, abuse from people who think you are wrong or are thinking you have been unfair on something they love/hate and i grew sick of it. BUT and it is a big BUT i decided for something this special i had to pull my head out of the sand, tonight i watched the season finale and i have to say i had my eye on the clock out of fear of when it would end.

This show has brought me nothing but happiness from the first episode to the last. Every character is written and cast to perfection, every shot is done brilliantly, ever episode is funny, clever and most of all enjoyable and will keep you baited until the next week.

In essence this is probably the greatest import from America i have seen in recent years. Now don't get me wrong, i love Friends/the Simpson's/family guy/Scrubs/South park/dirty sexy money/pushing daisies/west wing etcetc

but nothing quite compares to the originality or catch of this, certainly it is probably the best show i have seen in years in terms of enjoyment

the only negative thing i can dare say about it is the fact the first series is over

long live reaper!

for those that haven't seen it, it is truly a gem to behold, for those that have and arnt obsessed with it, shame on you!

i love this program so much. If you have a complaint with what i've said, go ahead and complain to me, i really don't care anymore, this show is too good to miss out on or miss the chance to explain how unbelievably good it is, so all you nay-sayers do your worst, this show is near perfection and i am more than happy to admit it. I rated it 10 out of 10 on here for a good reason and i stand by that decision completely.",1 "Although Patrick Swayze is at his best in the romantic and light humour films such as Fatherhood, To Wong Foo: Thanks For Everything; Julie Newmar, Dirty Dancing etc. 'Next of Kin' was definitely no disappointment for me. A would-be hillbilly-turn cop avenges his younger brother's murder in a lawful manner, while a third brother goes about it in typical redneck-hillbilly style, causing more problems and endangering them both, as well as the pregnant wife of Truman (Swayze). The best part has to be the graveyard scene, where Truman's whole family takes on the bad guys, but their brother's murderer ends up being shot by his own father! With an excellent twist to the end, this is nothing short of a good flick to have sitting around for a rainy day.",1 "I do agree that ""The General"" should have been on the top 100 list. Buster Keaton is the icon of the successful comedy writer/director/actors in the 1920's. It just so happens that ""The General"" is a history lesson as well, and scholars at the time felt that this movie was about as authentic looking as a Matthew Brady photograph of the Civil War. It contains the most expensive stunt done up to that time-the locomotive plunging into the river (not a model). The movie was a labor of love from Keaton and crew and deserves to find a place in movie history long after other silents of the era have disintegrated. After viewing this movie, go on to ""Our Relations"" and the other fine(and perhaps funnier) movies that Keaton made, and discover the two-reelers, especially ""Cops"". But this one is special. It is right out of your history book.",1 "Kirsten Dunst is a beautiful, talented actress. But even SHE could not save this dumb, plodding movie. Once again, Canadians prove conclusively that they can

NOT make good films. But Kirsten? My GOD, she looks sexy, even when she is

sweeping a porch!!! But, if you want to see her really do her thing, watch the movie Spiderman. The kissing scene in that movie is incredibly erotic.

Hey, I really like romantic movies. See ""Ten Things I Hate About You"" or ""French Kiss"" for romance. This movie? ""Deeply"" should have been buried, deeply, very deeply. It is pure dreck, except, of course, for the total Dunst fan, who will enjoy watching her beautiful features and amazing grace.",0 "About 10 minutes in to this movie, I actually thought it might be a bit of fun. I was expecting a low-budget version of THE THING (1951), as an unseen (due to budget restrictions) alien menace stalks and offs the stupid people in the snowbound cabin, starting with the annoying rich guy. (They are killed eventually, but it takes FAR TOO LONG.) Or maybe a killer virus flick like THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN or the made for TV flick WHERE HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE GONE? Oh, how naive I am.

First of all, the alien IS seen, but is a red flashlight beam shined on the wall. As another commentator said, ow. Better that NOTHING at all were seen; just ask anyone who saw THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. The disease IS represented by smoke bombs going off. So what's going on? Aliens or a killer virus? They decide after FAR too much sitting around and talking that aliens have launched the virus. Then more pseudo scientific theorizing and discussion about what they should do, with occasional acid flashback inserts.

The most crazed part that no one else seemed to comment upon were the interludes at the local radio stations, where the announcers seem FAR TOO LAID BACK. ""Oh well, hey a disease is killing thousands of people at once, oh well, back to the music..."" Then the TV news segment which, unbelievably, offers what I believe to be intentional comic relief as two dopplegangers for Ma and Pa Kettle are interviewed on TV at 2 o'clock in the morning about their sighting of a UFO and subsequent abduction. Then the comic relief scene with the drunk guy at the bar?? Save me, please.

As I said, I judged MANOS: THE HANDS OF FATE far too harshly. This sucker makes MANOS seem like a masterwork. And for that matter, director Bill Rebane's subsequent foray into Wisconsin film artistry, THE GIANT SPIDER INVASION, is a work of Eisenstein or Kurosawa compared to this lummage. At least GSI had real actors in it.

Oh, yeah, the music: BLOWS HARD. Really awful analog synthesizer music. Now, I like early synthesizer music. Give me a Perrey and Kingsley record and I'm a happy man. But this was awful stuff. Really piercing. And I recognized some of the music recycled to/from Giant Spider Invasion.

One more note: this plot could not be written today. ""Oh my God, we're isolated and cut off from the world! What's going on? Are thousands of people really dying? We have no possible way of knowing!"" ""No problem, I'll just look on the CNN web site...""

I can't give INVASION FROM INNER EARTH a 1 because I actually watched the whole movie. Like watching the aftermath of a brutal traffic accident, I JUST COULDN'T LOOK AWAY. But you may require the use of various liquid refreshments just to get through it. I warned ya.",0 "Lois and Clark was a fine attempt at bringing Superman to the small screen. Good story lines that were self contained so you did not have to see every single episode to follow the plot, and fantastic performances carried this show!!! Dean Cain was perfect in the role of Superman, and managed to perfectly contrast the nerdy Clark Kent with the courageous, brave Superman! The story lines were to die for - every week there would be some threat to Metropolis and only Superman could save the day. Lex Luther was perfectly cast, and even some of the shows weaker points, such as the budget special effects, did not mitigate the show severely. All in all, a great show and well worth watching.",1 "This was my first experience of Dennis Potter. Subsequently I find he used similar themes in other works, notably the Singing Detective. Though that work is terrific, I find Karaoke and its sequel Cold Lazarus to be the total package. I am yet to see anything on the small screen which comes close to them. The incomparable Albert Finney leading a strong supporting cast, tight direction and a fascinating story. The characters are so believable, and ironically (as Potter was dying when he wrote this) they are mostly likable despite their many flaws. It is hard to find anyone likable in the Singing Detective My only question is why has the Beeb Beeb Ceeb not released this on DVD?",1 "I feel sorry for Anna Friel, first the show that she is absolutely adorable in gets cancelled, then the final episode is almost as bad as the final episode of Seinfeld, then what could have been a great movie for her career - the only other real character in a major Will Ferrell comedy - turns out to be a terrible, stinking turd of a flick.

The jokes were not funny, i don't remember laughing. They were terrible, obvious and loooooooong. The Ferrell character was completely unlikable from start to finish. There is a Neanderthal as one of the major characters and at one point the question is asked ""why don't we let the monkey lead?"" a question the many writers, producers ad director of this stink-fest may have asked themselves repeatedly as the Neanderthal was more often than not the source of what passes for 'humor' and not Will Ferrell's overacting. The last point is a source of some concern to this moviegoer, WF can be funny, and he can be very funny and as seen in Stranger Than Fiction this pony has more than one trick but what I have been seeing more recently is a series of choices that leave me questioning how long until people stop paying him to be in their 'comedies.' I don't know if anyone ever bothered to watch the deleted scenes of Bruce Almighty but there are a few scenes in which Jim Carrey was given some props and told to do Jim Carrey-like things, shameless and uninspired directing which thankfully didn't make it in to what was an averagely fun movie, however Brad Silberling must've, as this film was one long series of bad set pieces designed to make Will Ferrell do Will Ferrell-like things and the terrible bits made the finished film rather than the extra features of the DVD.

Zero stars. MUST DO BETTER. PLEASE Hollywood, PLEASE!",0 "This is a horrible film. Its nothing like the Karate Kid except that it has a kid in it who knows Karate. The plot is paper thin, the acting is cardboard (Corey Feldman included) and character development consists of good guys in white, bad guys in red. The whole film takes itself far too seriously and this is especially evident anytime the overly dramatic soundtrack ques in (good example being the very serious sounding synth music being played during a food fight in a school cafeteria as students smile on). The way the film plays out it feels like they're making it up on the spot. Even the action is boring and safe feeling. Don't waste your time.",0 "I'm always in for a movie classic like this. Dustin Hoffmann one of the greatest actors ever (even if ""Rain Man"" was his last truly great film) shines in this biopic about controversial comedian Lenny Bruce. I don't really know why they shot it in black and white but after a while it didn't bother me anymore. If you liked ""Man On The Moon"" go and see ""Lenny"".",1 "Where should I start? this is probably the question when the people wrote the script. The story just goes nowhere. After the 'so called' comedy ""Down to you"", Freddie Prince Jr. tortures us with another uninspired, boring, ""I have to watch it through the ending just to bash it on IMDb""-Type movie, it's just terrible.

It rips off the cult film ""When Harry met Sally"". The two truly bad actors meet each other several times through the years and discuss every topic from A like relationships to Z like relationships. Nothing else happens in this movie and it's just painfully boring to watch Freddie Prince Jr. and Claire Forlani getting philosophical on each other. The directors actually thought this was entertaining and... funny. The comedy aspect is nowhere to be found. So they hired another terrible actor called Jason Biggs, you might heard of him, no what I'm talking about? Of course you heard of him, these days bad actors are more famous than good actors. He gets even more idiotic than in American Pie and leads to me shaking my head due to his clown behavior because I know there are many people who think that he's funny. Maybe I just haven't kept with the time and it's the new humor that I don't get, even though I'm only 20 years old.

It's very predictable how this movie ends, like all the other teen movies, so that the little girls can sleep well at night.

I suggest that you ignore this movie at all costs.",0 "Not impressed by Jenny Agutter - she seems to be there simply for the sake of providing a pretty female. BUT the Donald Sutherland character is simply dire. I assume that when a play or drama is cast the actors will be able to fit their parts. Sutherland however, is a total embarrassment in his part. His attempt at an Irish accent is quite simply a joke - pathetic and totally unrealistic. I love to hear regional accents if the actor is capable of doing the required accent. Sutherland is not - his attempt at an Irish accent is both puerile and embarrassing. There must be hundreds of as yet unknown Irish actors who could have played the part convincingly but we have to put up with an American ""star"" who insults our intelligence with his pathetic attempt at an Irish accent. I ask, and not for the first time: Where a part requires an actor to speak in a regional accent, can we please have an actor who is capable of delivering that accent accurately, even if the actor is hitherto unknown, rather than some ""big name"" actor who is happy to earn a large pay packet for insulting viewers with a puerile attempt at the accent. Mr Sutherland is not only dire, he insults our intelligence!",0 "A con named Vincent (Bogart) breaks out of prison to be befriended by a woman (Bacall) who sympathizes with his case which was akin to her father's. He gets a new face and tries to discover who really killed his wife and then his best friend. This is a rather tedious, unoriginal movie, with none of the snappy, quick dialogue that films of this era often display. It's slow-paced - lingering on humdrum scenes, repeating unimportant information such as Vincent's doctor's advice - and fairly predictable, even unintentionally comic (the silly anesthesia scene). The first half of the movie, we don't see Vincent; instead we see the action from his eyes. Perhaps that was interesting then, but I felt it added nothing to the movie. Morehead, as the dead wife's shewish friend (this is one of those movies where the good guys act predictably good, and the villains act only nasty) chews the scenery something awful in her confrontation scene with Bogie. Good acting by Bogie and Bacall, plus some scenes with a delightfully bullying thug, help save the film from being a total waste. 4/10.",0 "This film has got to be some attempt to get Mario Lopez back on the celebrity map. I don't think at this point he cares what kind of press he gets: he'll even settle to have a rumor that he's gay spread around to get him attention.

The Journey: Absolution begins with the destruction of life as we know it, compliments of a lame CGI meteor hitting a lame CGI model of Earth. Skip ahead a few decades, and Mario Lopez has recruited into a military installation in the Arctic to find his friend, who is male. Haha. Richard Grieco is the ruthless commandant who trains the recruits and periodically selects one the most elite of the troop to be a part of the Z-team.

Everything that can go wrong in a movie does here. Uninspired direction, cheap, flimsy sets, embarrassing sexist scenes, flat, dull performances, laughable dialogue, bargain-basement special effects, and cliches and plot holes in the script larger than the hole left by the meteor that hits Earth.

Richard Grieco's constant repetition of, ""For the sake of Pete,"" brings to mind John Travolta's mindless repetition of ""leverage"" in another sci-fi turkey, Battlefield Earth. Mario Lopez shows us exactly why he starred in Saved By The Bell and not much more.

The only truly decent thing about this flick is all the hot men prancing around in nothing but underwear and black combat boots. Otherwise, this awful, awful attempt at sci-fi falls flat on it's homo-erotic face.

2 out of 10",0 "With the name and the description, it's easy to mistake this as being another edge-of-your-seat, thrill-ride horror movie. It's anything but. Apart from having a supernatural aspect to it, it's pretty much an after-school special sort of film. Its PG-13 rating isn't even needed. The suicide element is so brief and tame, that this could still easily be rated G (remember, G doesn't have to mean kids, it just means General Audiences). The interesting thing is that, when the credits finally rolled, I was satisfied with what I'd seen. Imagine that, a movie that doesn't go for the kill and just wants to entertain you with a decent story for an hour or two. The script is...OK, the dialogue is... acceptable, the acting is good, for the most part (this movie is rife with underrated actors that are much more talented than they've ever been given credit for). What I find interesting is that everyone comes across as real people. Not ""good actors,"" just your regular, flawed bozos found on every street corner. When Julia Roberts or Tom Cruise are on a screen, you get drawn-in, but it's always ""them."" Marina Sirtis, on the other hand, makes you believe you're watching a typical house-mom type, not an actress, who's both kind and overbearing under different circumstances --just as a real person might be. There's a scene towards the end that'll have you wanting to give her a medal for realistically portraying someone in emotional agony, and not simply ""oh, the script says I'm supposed to scream here."" So, overall it's not a blockbuster, and it's not something you'll want to rush out and tell your friends about. Heck, some of the metaphysical/religious concepts used are so... well, let's just say I don't subscribe to them and politely leave it there, suffice to say they're a bit corny and detracting, in an amalgamated ""I've read a lot of spiritual books, but don't really know a thing about it"" sort of way. But, I gave this one an ""8"" score for one very good reason: It accomplished what it set out to do, and it did leave me happy that I'd watched it. With Hollywood pumping out multi-million dollar blockbusters with tons of FX and no story on a regular basis, how often can we really say that about a film these days?",1 "This is the most annoying, if not the worst movie I've ever seen. Miss it if you have low tolerance for annoying actors who overdo it, especially if very fake and inconsistent southern accents drive you batty. Tucci needs to hire a real southerner, or get a voice coach, if he intends to make his character plausible. That's not a Tennessee accent, Stanley, it's from Mississippi (and Mississipians should be insulted by his performance as well). The only decent actors in the movie were everyone BUT Holm and Tucci. (Sorry to disappoint their fans). The movie was so annoying I took an unnecessary bathroom break which I extended by gazing at the clock at the concession stand and looking at the movie posters in the lobby. Finally I plodded back to my date (who was also hating it but was determined to use up the $7) and let myself be tortured for the remaining hour. The only good things about the movie were Susan Sarandon and my box of popcorn.",0 "For anyone who's seen ""An Inconvenient Truth"", you'll recognize the same theories, evidence and message in this much earlier work. But there is sooooo much more. This program manages to include the entire environmental history of the world, but, coming from a future perspective, takes a good look at where we are now from a somewhat impersonal view.

Entertaining, enjoyable and packed FULL of information that's not dumbed down, but remains accessible. James Burke, as always, has a knack for making formidably complex issues understandable without talking down at you. Although an admirer of Al Gore's goals as an environmentalist, this is a far more intelligently organized and comprehensive piece of work.

If I was an earth science teacher, I'd require this for my classes.",1 "This movie was my choice for the kid's afternoon but the both of us regretted it afterward. I admit that I have dozed off watching it, which is maybe the first time it happens for me in a theater! This isn't a bad movie because you could find worse. Surely, the design is outstanding and the characters show their feelings as never before but they can't make a movie by themselves. Nevertheless, it's dull because it lacks a story. After a good start, it becomes a wrestle event with endless fights! With robots becoming berserk, it reminds me of the much-criticized Robocop 2, which offers a better script and thoughts than this one.",0 "one word to describe this movie: mediocre. sort of mad max (see the prisoners and the atlantean first cities ) meets sinbad (SFX would still be poor if dated 20 years earlier ) meets cable TV tripe, like those ""lost/treasure island"" short telepictures from the 1960-70s for a young audience. Acting is mediocre-to-poor. When gummy faced Mcclure plays the hot dud to impress the mad max belle, well...how corny can anything get? A superior race of martians defends itself using XIX century rifles and cannons? Do me a favor...lock the screenplay writer in a padded cell. They also try to add the victorian element, so well done and fitting in the earlier Dracula movies, yet with poor results here. All in all, rather than a real movie (yes, low budget and all ), it looked like an extended episode from some cable TV ""adventure"" series. They even try to add plot twists, but it gets even more laughable. Pathetic main actors; even ridiculous supporting cast. Perhaps Lea Brodie is the less pathetic one. Yes, you get monsters, but the Japanese ones decades older were much better. This tripe makes Harryhausen's SFX - a craftsman in his own right albeit very dated - look better than Matrix, Terminator II and Jurassic Park stitched together. Gummy faced Mcclure makes Arnold look like Laurence Olivier, and Gilmore makes Keanu Reeves better than Al Pacino, go figure.",0 "Well, I think this movie was great. I like de Niro movies but this was extremely good. When I was in the cinema, in every moment the audience could laugh on a good joke. The script is fine, the actors are very, very good and the text part is well done. I recommend everyone to see this one.",1 "This one is in a rare but important tradition of movies based on real storytelling. The characters are fleshed out and warm, and the story is satisfyingly complex.

You don't have to be from Hoboken to love this flick, but if you are from Hoboken, you will. I recommend this one heartily.",1 "OK -- i had to hide from my parents to watch this when I was 12 -- and I think it's why I have what my friend calls ""RSS"" Rock Star Syndrome!! ha! I'm 40, and still love these long haired musicians - geez, what's wrong with me? Actually, NOTHING. This was what I wish our girls these days could hope for.... I still do.... But seriously, these were simpler times, no internet, all that... I would love to go to the mall and see a fabulous guy like that. Always wished it could happen. What's funny is, I'm a librarian, and people will pay literally a fortune for the sequels to ""Sooner or Later"". Like $50!!! Embarrassingly enough, I probably would too. Well... what a great movie and book. It will always take me back to that time - seriously, felt like a 13 year old again. Yay!!!",1 "On an impulse, my roommate and I rented this from the local Hollywood video. We thought it might be funny or at least somewhat enjoyable to watch ninja cheerleaders chop off some people's heads or something. But no. No. This was not enjoyable. It was, I must say, the WORST Piece of trash I have ever seen. I sat through Gigli; I suffered through Cutthroat Island; I even made it all the way to the end of All the Pretty Horses. But none of those mockeries of film come close to the disaster that is Cheerleader Ninjas. I can't even put into words how disgusted I am that it will show up on my rental record that I saw this vile piece of human excrement. WHAT WERE WE THINKING? Save yourself. Do not, under any circumstances, rent, buy, or watch this...this...thing masquerading as a movie. Even the nudity is so horribly done that it is painful to watch. I hate this movie, so very very much, and wish I could burn every copy in existence. No wonder the terrorists hate us so much. They see movies like this and think, ""These people must all die!"" And in the context of this movie, I am forced to agree with them. Ugh.",0 "In a moment of self-vindication, Jamie Kennedy's love interest tells him that the most beautiful part about him is that he doesn't try to act like an adult. Therein lies the fault of Kickin' It Old School, its assumption that there is something virtuous in acting like a 13 year old, and an immature one at that, especially when it's writers are thirty something, and throwing their best material into the mix. To that end, Jamie Kennedy pulls out every trick in the book including fat jokes, gay jokes, racial slurs, bathroom humor, sex jokes, violence, Jewish jokes, retard jokes, a barrage of un-funny parodies of 80's wardrobe, dated colloquialisms, and over-played and un-original jokes resulting from a 20 year coma in a tragic attempt to mix back to the future, you got served, and some Adam Sandler movie. The abundant product placements and celebrity cameos makes it clear that Kennedy tried as hard to fund this film as he did to make it funny, calling in every favor and taking every opportunity to give a product unnecessary and often distracting camera time. For a film with so much corporate backing, one might expect camera and lighting work that was at least decent enough not to detract from an already lacking project. Luckily, the guest stars in the film didn't have much reputation to loose, since the product of their efforts is nothing short of a cataclysmic failure. Somewhere between a fat joke and a TiVo plug, there's an uninteresting and hackneyed plot about a desperate loser who has to do something big to win something back, imagine Happy Gilmore but with humor replaced with break dancing. This is what you'll get from Kennedy's Kickin' it Old School which features Kennedy as an adolescent boy in a 30-year-olds body who has just woken up from a 20 year coma to find out that the world has changed and has wholly passed him by. He must reunite his dance team and win a break dancing competition to pay off expensive medical bills and save his house, win the girl back from his evil nemesis, etc. etc. Perhaps Kennedy lost me when he started rubbing his fat best friends breasts, thankfully covered in a bra, but it seems that he often forgets which subplot he's working with, or rather what the main plot is altogether. If Kennedy seems convincing as a man with a 13-year-old mind, which he does not, it may be due to the fact that his humor never quite developed past a pubescent mentality. Maria Menunos seems oddly overwhelmed by a role that really should have been easy to pass off just on good looks. Kennedy himself is erratic, immature, and awkward with unkempt hair that parallels the movies and Kennedys lost sense of direction. Miguel Nunez Jr. revives the awkwardness that defeated Juana Man some years ago, a film with a plot and a performance about as disappointing as this one. Bobby Lee slips in and out of a stereotypical Asian parody that becomes MIT alum when he whips out his big vocabulary words, he is much more effective and funny in sketch comedy when he is no forced to extend his performance for more than five minutes. Michael Rosenbaum is refreshingly comedic in the light of his feeble co-stars. At one point in the film, Kennedy's character comments that his dancing crew is just a bunch of 30 year old guys acting like losers since they are stuck in a 13 year old mentality, This proves to be the most interesting moment in the film since the viewer is left to wonder whether the dialogue pertains to the plot only or is perhaps an introspective excursion for Kennedy himself. If it is, the 30 year old loser wins in the end, so Kenned can be seen as optimistic at best. If there seem to be too many suicide or death jokes in the movie, perhaps Kennedy is recognizing his failure and subtly suggesting something to the audience, were all ears. Ultimately, the audience is left wishing that Kennedy's character had not come out of a coma, or at least that they could be put into one for the remainder of the film.",0 "I had heard about the movie from my local newspaper and the critique was ""a nice movie to watch with friends after work"". This is exactly what we did.

After about 3 minutes I regretted watching wasting time and money on these 90 minutes of absolutely horrible ""stuff"". This was the first movie I was inclined to leave since ""Hoffa"" (I fell asleep in that one).

None of the characters are funny, the plot is terribly weak and way to easy to follow, the ""east German"" is horrible - I've heard better on B-Radio Shows and references to Matrix and Silence of the Lambs are futile attempts to make the movie funny.

The Butler Adolph Hatler, a weak impersonation of Hitler is funny the first time he shows up... and that's that.

Don't waste your time on this.",0 "Possibly one of the worst but also one of the funniest horrors I have ever seen and believe me I have seen allot. It starts off derivative and ends atrociously but I was hysterical all the way through. there is no motive for the awakening of these ""zombies"", there is no plot to speak of, it is tacky and crude but, shamefully hilarious. The dubbing is terrible as is the acting ( ""OH ................. ......................................God!!!!"") there is not much blood to speak of either although the version I watched is probably the cut one. The incest sub-plot is nasty but strangely amusing the list of complaints could go on and on I did not even speak of the zombies themselves! This is an extremely bad film. If you like that kind of thing (as I do) you should watch it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!",1 "I watched this movie last night and I am going to blockbuster today to demand that they remove it from their shelves.

I was seriously surprised that there were credits at the end, people were actually willing to admit they had something to do with the creation of this movie. At some point you think someone would've stopped and said, ""Hey, this is absolute crap, we should stop right now and quit movies forever."" Seriously, at some point during the filming, editing, screening or any number of junctions in movie making someone should have called it off.

The pinnacle of the awfulness was the scene at the stairs when the zombies broke through the ""barricade."" If you watch (not very) closely you can see one of the ""zombies"" flinch at a falling crate. Flinch as in, move fast to avoid something falling on your toe. I almost took the DVD out and broke it in half when, about 10 seconds later, pitchfork guy requests a bullet to the head before having even been touched by a zombie.

Good God.",0 "I watched most of this film only due the presence of Mary Ward who plays a waifish psych doc in this tedious excuse for a sci-fi mystery thriller. Not a moment of ""action"" nor a line of dialogue is of the slightest interest in this loser. The acting is painful to endure. TV (not even TV movie) quality production. 2/10",0 "The director John Mathew Mathan had gone into oblivion after his directorial debut 'Sarfarosh' that came in 1999. Everybody remembers the film simply because it was a fantastic film. As one watched the socio-political thriller unfold, not even once did the audience remind itself that this was a greenhorn director and perhaps if need be, not to be too harsh on him. So after 5 years when he decided to make Shikhar, it's not an exaggeration to say that the same audience expected the film to be if not more, at-last 5 times more powerful and impact making than Sarfarosh! But to make a film like 'Shikhar', seems nothing but a crude joke on the sensitivities and patience of the people. The memory of Sarfarosh is as fresh in the minds of people as it would have been after ten years, in other words, had Mathan taken even an eternity to bring to his loyal audience a quality film, they would have welcomed it with open arms. But Shikhar…just seems like an execution in Mathan's worst nightmares! There is nothing redeemable about the film, except Shahid Kapoor who has a reflection of youthful Shahrukh Khan when it comes to projecting honesty, passion and dedication. So when you take portions of 'Swades', 'Bas Itna Sa Khwab Hai' and possibly scrapes of 'Guide' or 'Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman' and churn them together, you would have manufactured Shikhar! Not produced, created or even re-created, purely manufactured! The film has not even an iota of pseudo-realism in its theme, plot, characterization and is exceedingly synthetic. The music is uninspiring, dialogues are sloppy and even the premise of the film seems insincere. Story: Shikhar revolves around the issue related to builders, landlords and their tenants who are being pressurized under the superior people of society. How far can greed take a man? Ajay Devgan portrays the character of 'Gaurav Gupta' (GG), who is highly ambitious builder (not to mention-dresses like an MTV star) who wants Guruji (Jawed Sheikh) to evacuate Rishivan-the orphanage to build a magna city called Golden Gate. This shall have multiplexes, golf course, housing, amusement park etc. Guruji actually is an industrial magnate and believes that wealth means nothing if not utilized for the betterment of the society. He wants his wealth to be utilized for the upliftment for the tribal in the area. In the tug-of-war between GG and Guruji, Jaidev Vardhan (Shahid kapur) a fresh graduate and the only son of Guruji, falls in the trap designed by GG and his girlfriend Natasha (Bipasha Basu). Madhavi (Amrita Rao), who genuinely loves Jaidev observes her love being carried away by the world of wealth, wine and women. Will GG succeed in his vicious plans? Will Jaidev discover the fiend behind the mask of friendship GG wears? Wait for the DVD release to find out, this one is definitely not for tarrying away your time at a theater.",0 "It is difficult to watch this film and not read fairly obvious political implications into almost everything that happens. But what is most striking is the role of terrorism at the heart of the story. All of the characters revolve in orbit around Vietnamese events that keep popping - or should I say, blowing - up in the most unexpected places. And nothing is ever really resolved. Not even the crime at the center of the story.

To read each character as a political paradigm is almost too easy, and if the film has a major flaw, it is that the characters are a bit too starkly drawn as representing their nationalities and not unique personalities. The American, who isn't very quiet at all, by the way, is brash and forward. He is the new kid who blunders around, intruding on murky relationships with the naiveté of the guileless, the Lone Ranger completely out of his element. Audie Murphy does a fine job portraying him, the lack of subtlety in his acting style perfectly complementing his character.

Michael Redgrave is wordy and unctuous as the British journalist, Fowler, who is having an affair with a beautiful but ultimately vacuous Vietnamese girl, Phuong (Giorgia Moll). He is duplicitous and double-dealing, but also naive in his own ways. Clearly worn out and trying to save something permanent from the wreckage of his time in Vietnam, Fowler keeps grasping for happiness without ever understanding that can never happen. The main difference between Fowler and the American is that Fowler has longstanding ties to people and places in Saigon. He has come as close to ""going native"" as he can without losing his identity completely. The energetic American has no such ties, but eagerly seeks to rupture the Old World ties and make them his own. Obviously, this sets up conflict that cannot be resolved amicably. The Old World vs. the New, battling to dominate a country that itself is beginning to find dominance disturbing. In essence, all three parties have an agenda, and only one can fulfill it.

The Old World Fowler lies to everyone, even to himself, to keep things as they are. The status quo is important to him because he realizes that the inevitable change he is denying will not be to his advantage. The American, on the other hand, is painfully honest in a charismatic but ultimately empty way. As Fowler remarks, it would be better for the American if he had a few faults of his own, then he might understand others better. Which is a very charitable view of the American. Fowler at least understands himself and his depravity, whereas the American just seems to understand empty concepts like self-determination and national longings without any hint of introspection or where those fine words ultimately must lead.

The film is talky, and if you are not engaged by Fowler's various moral dilemmas and conflicts, it can get tedious. The scenes of Saigon are the film's best part, it is quite incredible to see how advanced and almost elegant Saigon was before the American involvement and Communist takeover. Too bad the film was not shot in color. Very civilized settings are ravaged by terrorist bombs, which may have seemed novel and exotic in the 1950s, but unfortunately seems quite common now.

The story itself is incredibly far-sighted. Terrorism is a modern concept, and thinking that its practitioners always lose in the end is as naive as the Americans thinking they can pick a winner in Vietnam. Fowler, while full of profundity and fancy words, is used by the Communists to get out the story they want known. He dutifully complies, the perfect tool, without hindering their activities in the slightest. Meanwhile, his world collapses and he loses everything he had in the city. The American loses, too, but in quite a different way. But you know that others like him will be back. Who wins? Well, the answer to that should be obvious.

Worth seeing at least once. Not, as some claim, Graham Greene's best work, but still a fine meditation on Southeast Asian events before they actually occurred by someone who understood.",1 "This was probably one of the best in a long time. I like the miniature killer, but this was way more fun ... if one can say death can be fun. The Devil from Constantine makes a great Pimp. Don't know who the old Poet or the main Pleasure provider were but they did great. The voice over in the snake scene was very well done. I was touched personally by just a few moments of screen time, Wish I could remember who the actress was. Had a hard time with the ""madam,"" she did well with what she had, winking & all that, but I just didn't know quite what to make of her. When I see it again I am sure I will get a lot more out of her work, but the first time through it was tough. She was in probably the best scene in the movie, when they were sampling her DNA, the thing with the cigarette, Magnificent.

Over all I gotta say the boxer had a bad day.",1 "First I like to say that this was the worst movie I've ever seen, even for an Austria film! So don't waste your time and watch it.

As I mentioned above the story is nearly the as in ""I know what you did last summer"" only without tension.I can not understand the high user rating, here on IMDb, it seems that these people never have seen good movies. If you don't believe me watch this crappy movie yourself, if you can stand it till the end. Nearly half of the people left the cinema when I watched this film at a sneak preview in Germany!

Honestly I have to admit that the cinematography was well done and has some nice pictures.",0 "Every horror collector worth their salt will at least have heard of The Nail Gun Massacre. It's such a tempting title isn't it? I finally gave in and bought the special edition DVD. This film is one big mess from start to finish, but you already knew that. The most interesting thing in it was breasts, big huge breasts at that! One woman has breasts so big that they're all you (and the cameraman) can focus on. The biggest problem with Nail Gun Massacre is that you can't really hear what anyone is saying, making it hard to follow. Every time someone speaks there's a horrible noise that sounds like a passing train. Perhaps this was to cover the bad acting? If anything they should have removed it and let the actors do their thing, no matter how untalented they are. At least we can laugh at them then! The sound is atrocious, half the time the background noise is louder than what people are saying. You also can't hear the supposedly ""funny"" lines from the killer, as the voice is too distorted.

It does have it's good moments though. You can't help but laugh at such an inept film, with scenes such as a couple 'doing it' against a tree, where all you can see is the mans white ass jiggling around. The best part for me was when the killer says to the big breasted woman: ""Get inside, big tits!"" And there's another hilarious scene where a woman gets hysterical and says ""I'm gonna die, I know I'm gonna die!"" I would say the film was worth watching just for those two scenes!

For a low budget ""so bad it's good"" film, The Nail Gun Massacre is nothing special. There's other low budget films that are much funnier such as The Suckling and They Don't Cut The Grass Anymore (the acting is worse than Nail Gun Massacre, yet more hilarious).",1 "This was a hilarious cartoon short on the What a Cartoon Show. I particularly liked Willie the Xenophobic Scotsman. While it was not eventually made into a series, you can see it sort of set the stage for Family Guy later on.",1 "I'm generously giving this movie a 2 rating only because we laughed so hard we cried at several points during it. This film is absolutely awful! The dialogue is stupid, I'm pretty sure the casting was done by knocking on neighbor's doors asking them if they'd like to be in a movie and the ""special effects"" are completely laughable (hence the 'laughing until we cried' part). Of course, there are a couple of gratuitous nudity scenes for all you men out there. If you watch this purely out of curiosity, take notice of the horrible blood splatter effect and the sinking boat scene. We laughed so hard we had to rewind and watch them again just to laugh even harder! I can't believe someone out there actually funded the making of this atrocity! LOL",0 "You know a movie cannot be too good when the headliner is Ayre Gross. Best known for his role as 'Gordo' in the stinker ""Soul Man"", Gross doesn't impress here. Playing David Crowne opposite a rare pre-Friends cinematic appearance by Courtney Cox, Gross painstakingly delivers his dialogue to the audience. Kevin Pollock and Julie Brown are simply not funny.(this begs the question: when is Julie Brown ever funny.) The characters constantly pan to the camera as if to have conversations with the audience explaining their predicaments. Pollock's character, Eli, is a rote ""Ladies' Man"" while Julie Brown plays 'Zoe' thus accentuating her quirkiness. I ask myself was Judy Tenuta too busy during this shoot? Zoe's role in the movie is the zany-yet-supportive friend. Cheesy lines and generalisations about the Boston singles scene abound. Women are objects and men do not fare much better. The movie attempts to analyse all the phases of a relationship, and barely achieves its goal; I would recommend you turn the opposite way when you see ""The Opposite Sex"" on tv or the video rack.",0 "Embarrassingly inept propaganda film that seems to have been hidden away from the public for almost 60 years, since it's release back in 1942, until the miracle of the DVD disc brought it back to be seen by a new, and stunned, generation of movie goers.

It's the hight of WWII and the British want to start trouble for the Germans in occupied Norway by getting the Norwegian people to rise up against them. Sending a number of British agents into the country to try to rescue Norwegian General, and national hero, Heden lead to all of them getting captured and shot by the German Army.

Desperate the British send a trio of secret agents lead by Capt. Robert Owens together with radio and all around handyman Sgt. Harry Hall and Norwegian patriot Let. Eric Falken to finally get Gen. Hayden out of the country and have him used on the BBC to rally his fellow countrymen to revolt against the hated Germans.

Dropped into Norway by plane everything goes wrong for Owen's men almost as soon as they land. Eric's fiancée Inga spots him and, unknowing to Eric, being a German sympathizer reports him and his fellow agents to the local Gestapo. The feared and effective Gestapo act like a bunch of buffoons as their knocked out and disarmed by Eric & Co. after they first disarmed and arrested them.

Helped by undercover Norwegian Agent, the towns blind beggar, Spandling, Owens has the three Gestapo officers tied up. The British agents put on the Germans uniforms that are, miraculously, perfect fits for Owens Falken & Hall even though the three are different in hight weight pants and suite size. The Germans trying to untie themselves and not at all feeling threatened by a blind man, Sandling, sitting guard over them have the shock of their lives when Sandling becomes the worlds first suicide bomber! Sandling blows himself the Germans and the entire building up in a massive explosion with a top secret Brtish super hand grenade that Owens gave him. The rest of the movie is all too predictable with the Germans making complete fools of themselves trying to capture the three British agents and screwing up at every opportunity.

Owens and his men get to the prison camp where Gen. Haden is being held and have no trouble, being dressed in German Gestapo uniforms, in getting him out but need to get the general help for a broken arm he suffered during his rescue. Hiding in the cold Norwegian woods Owens sends Eric, who can speak Norwegian, into town to get help but he's again betrayed by Inga to the Gestapo. We later learn why Inga is so mad at her former lover Eric. Eric checked on her fathers sturdy and sea-bearing sailboat and held Eric responsible for her fathers death when he drowned in the dinky and water-logged dinghy that Eric left him when he tried to do the same thing, escape to freedom in England.

The Germans again capture Owens, as Sgt. Hall gets away with Gen. Heden, and unlike with poor Eric whom they tortured almost to death the Germans try kindness with him by offering him a smoke. All this in order to get Eric to open up and tell them not only where Gen Heden is but what else is being planned by his superiors back in London in regards to the planned allied invasion of Norway.

The ending of the movie makes you think that your watching a war movie about the D-Day invasion of France, with an armada of ships planes and thousands of allied troops storming the beaches, instead of a film about three commandos trying to get just one man out of Norway under the cover of darkness.

""They Raid by Night"" is worth watching only because it has actor Lyle Talbot as it's top star playing the head of the British rescue team Capt. Robert Owens. Fame would smile on Talbot ten years later when he met and became involved with legendary ""Bad Movie"" director Edward Wood Jr. and was cast in four of his cinematic classics; ""The Adventures of the Tucson Kid"" and ""Glen and Glenda"" in 1953 ""Jail Bait"" in 1954 and what many consider to be Wood's greatest masterpiece his ""Citizen Kane"" the superb immortal and unforgettable ""Plan Nine from Outer Space"".",0 "That Certain Summer must have been ground breaking for a 1972 audience. Today I saw the film for the first time, and am duly impressed. Too bad it's not available for sale on DVD, or video. Well done stories about homosexuality are difficult to find. This one is well worth seeing! As That Certain Summer was done before the intrusion of AIDS, the film can only focus on homosexuality itself, not on the complexities of gay people reacting to crisis.

Fortunately LOGO is showing That Certain Summer, and other similarly good films. That Certain Summer is comparable to the qualities found in Long Time Companion, and As Is.

I recommend it!",1 "The great thing about this movie is how honest it is. Even though some of the things you see may be a bit graphic, the movie dosen't hold back. The tag line ""when there was no hope, he invented it"" is very fitting for this movie. Doing the same type of thing he did as Adrian Chronhour in Good Morning Vietnam, Robin Williams shines. Personally, I think it is best performance yet. It was such an impacting movie. When Jacob(Robin Williams) does that first ""Radio broadcast"", you feel yourself laugh along with the little girl whom he befriends. I really liked this movie.(in case you didn't figure that out) The performances were very solid, the heartfelt moments were touching and the direction was solid. It was a visually engrossing movie. It makes you laugh, cry and at the end feel good about your life. If it's Friday night and you want a drama, take this one home.",1 "Talk about your tour-de-force. Ms Davis dominates a talented cast and expensive backdrops as the vainglorious Southern belle Julie / Jezebel of the piece, cowing her spiky fiancé Henry Fonda into allowing her to wear a scandalous red dress to the ball where the great and the good are all in attendance to pass judgement on her misplaced show of bravado. A mortified Fonda toughs it out in one of the most memorable scenes as the universally white - frocked female dancers vacate the floor, too affronted to share space with Davis, with the aftermath seeing Fonda move away and bring back a year later a Yankee wife. Davis's reaction to this and her ultimate sacrifice as redemption, when she later tends to fever - infected Fonda at the movie's climax encompass the main plot to this grand old piece of Hollywood costume drama. There are some disaffecting matters here though, particularly the patronising of the southern negro, all ""yes'm'"" and ""clap yo' hands"" - even if this is the way old Dixie treated its coloured inhabitants it's still painful to view the coarse stereotyping. Allowances made for this, this is a compelling showpiece for Davis, whose physical and emotional energy drive the film along. Watch out for the justly celebrated scene as Davis drops a magnificent curtsy to Fonda in a grand show of humility - in her huge white dress, you almost think she drops through a trapdoor.",1 "This series had a lot of potential and I sat through 3 episodes of it. The hosts completely ruined it as they are so ignorant of travel and have nothing interesting to say other than a place being ""incredible"" or ""awesome"". They keep trying to justify the fact they are now ""travellers"" as they get an all expenses paid TV series around the world, and clearly had never stepped outside of their state back in America.

For backpackers this series is a real turn off since everything they do is dependent on a guide and with 5 star luxuries from the hotels to the activities they do that most travellers would not afford (or care for). There is no sense of adventure or excitement here! They seriously need to go and do some travelling independently and really see the world!",0 "I love action movies. Die Hard, Lethal Wepon, you name it. I would have said exactly the same thing as the previous reviewer. The shootouts were a joke. Why would anyone take the time away from watching their prisoner to drag dead bodies into a helicopter, destroy it and try to get a helicopter to fly away in? He should have just left in the first place.

There must have been 10 million shots fired in this movie. They were all expert marksmen yet no one was ever hit by a bullet.

Not only was Eric shooting at the president who was shielding the bad guy, but he flew Tarzan style across the pool with a gun in one hand shooting as he swung. No aim. How dumb..dumb..dumb.

The actors seemed embarrassed to be in this movie. They should be.",0 "The late, great, sorely missed tough guy supreme Steve McQueen gives a typically cool, laconic and utterly engaging performance as rugged, but weary modern-day bounty hunter Ralph ""Papa"" Thorson, who goes after dangerous criminals who have skipped bail and has trouble adjusting to an ever-changing world he feels increasingly out of place in. Directed in a rather plain, yet still effective manner by TV show veteran Buzz Kulik, this movie has a certain rough look and gritty atmosphere to it that's gripping and believable. The pace is a bit slow, but fitfully steady just the same. The action sequences are very lively, riveting and exciting; two highlights are a stirring chase between a wheat thresher and a Trans Am in a corn field and a wild lengthy set piece towards the end which starts out as a foot chase and ultimately culminates into a car chase (the whole sequence on a speeding subway train totally smokes). Both Michel Legrand's rousing score and Fred Koenekamp's smooth photography are on the money fine. The topflight supporting cast constitutes as another substantial plus: Kathryn Harrold as Thorson's loving, but long-suffering pregnant school teacher girlfriend, Eli Wallach as a crusty bail bondsman, Levar Burton as a nice young guy who befriends Thorson, Ben Johnson as an ornery sheriff, and the ever-creepy Tracey Walter as a crazed, vengeful ex-con with a personal grudge against Thorson. McQueen's reliably strong, personable and charismatic screen presence really holds the picture together; McQueen brings a likability and vulnerability to Thorson that's refreshing and appealing in equal measure. Unjustly reviled by most critics during its theatrical release, ""The Hunter"" overall sizes up as an extremely solid and satisfying little ripper that's well worth checking out by both Steve McQueen fans and action movie buffs alike.",1 "This movie is fun from start to finish. The idea of a rescue team being trapped inside a top secret government research lab that has unleashed an alien creature from another dimension is fun. Paul Koslo from Omega Man, Tara Buckman from B.J. and the Bear and Jan-Michael Vincent from numerous b movies lead the cast as the scientists who developed the device that opens the doorway. Jan being brought back after being forced to retire because he destroyed the last facility that the device was used in and once again opened a doorway allowing alien creatures to escape!! Nicholas Lea is the young LT. of the rescue team, an early chance to see the man who would become Krycek on the X-Files. The cast continues to drop off trying to stop the creature from escaping. The effects are o.k. but there is one very good death of a rescue team member by the alien through a wall. Overall the story is entertaining.",1 "This was one of the best independent films I've seen to date, not to mention all the brothers were VERY easy on the eyes (laughing)! But seriously, I thought it was very well written, exciting and the performers were talented. Its a 10 hands down.

",1 "If I had to pay to see this alleged movie, I would have contacted a Lawyer for my money back. Any resemblance to the real Will Kane is purely a coincidence. Low Noon!, should be the title!",0 "I have seen true ULTRA-VIOLENCE in films many times in my life, but the last 10 minutes of this movie surpasses anything I have ever seen or imagined. BLOOD SPLATTERING every which way in frighteningly large volumes. This is the GORIEST movie I've ever seen. Make sure to get the German Director's Cut (81 minutes) ---FSK ab 18---, and you will love it!!! :-)

Gruß an: Tony, Andy and Tobi.",1 "Though it doesn't match the captivating staging of Vincente Minnelli's Meet Me in St Louis as a nostalgic period musical, both this charmer and its sequel By the Light of the Silvery Moon, based on Booth Tarkington's delightful Penrod stories, are very much in the same mold as the Minnelli classic; both films provide ideal vehicles for the multi-talented Doris Day, seen here at her most fetchingly tomboyish with her frequent on-screen partner at the time, Gordon MacRae. Their combined vocal talents bring genuine class to the turn of the (last) century tunes, providing a veritable cornucopia of some of the era's most recognizable standards. The pair create an easy chemistry mercifully free of the self-conscious projection so prevalent in many contemporary ""feel-good"" movies. Billy Gray, as Day's younger brother in his pre-Father Knows Best days was a likable and unspoiled child performer, who brought terrific comic timing in the delivery of his misplaced energies. Mary Wickes as the no-nonsense maid who acts as a kind of chorus to the action, is another notable scene-stealer, in a film which like so many of the early Doris Day musicals leaves this viewer with a warm glow.",1 "I just turned 18 and I've had a rough last two years and I've been kind of depressed. Anyway, i was never much of a reader and one day, about a week ago my mom bought me this old book. It was from when she was a kid from in 1974, a way long time ago, so i really didn't think much of it. It was one of those 50 cents things at the library. She went on to explain how it was such a good book and it was based on a true story and she had many memories of it from when she was about my age. But like everything else i own i tossed it on my bedroom floor, but one night i couldn't sleep, so i picked it up and gave it a shot. OH. MY. GOODNESS!!! This is the best book I've ever read, I'm just about finished it, but I really want to see the movie and I was very upset when i found out they never made a tape of it or anything and you cant find it anywhere, not on ebay, or amazon, or at blockbuster. All I found was reviews and this message thing. This book really touched me, a lot. Also there are so many things in the book which relates to my real life one of them that is less personal is how in the book the girls name is Kate, which is my name, and her daughters name is Jill, which is my moms name. Well anyway if anyone can find out a way to get this movie i would be so grateful to have just seen it once. Please, please let me know if there is a way i can get this movie!!!! Thanks!",1 "There is never any mention of a ""specter"" in this film. The creature we finally do see (other than Universal's Gill Man) is an ugly beast not unlike the She Creature. If it weren't for the ridiculous horror clichées, this film might have worked, as the set design is fascinating and some scenes are actually suspenseful, and the archaelogical dig is exciting. Unfortunately, a lot of it deals with stupid teenagers, gratuitous pop songs, sex, and topless scenes, and predictable junk make much of the film annoying. When wine bottles start spraying and catacombs are collapsing, it's interesting, but it has the cliché horror it's not really ending, no one survives by the main fornicating couple, and girls panicking from little mice. The blind man's beating heart getting ripped out is the ultimate in gratuity, since it lacks all the significance of Evan pulling out his own heart in Michele Soavi's _La Chiesa_. It could have been better than _Demoni_, but at least it's not worse, nor as disgusting.",0 "This is a tough one to describe, maybe noirsploitation? Maybe if Billy Wilder were to remake Preminger's Laura as an exploitation movie after dropping six tabs of acid and watching Eat The Schoolgirl, Arsenic & Old Lace, and a Joe D'Amato flick... and doing it in a mix of English, Greek, and French. Singapore Sling is a dark and twisted neo-noir black comedy about a mother and daughter with a special kind of relationship and the introduction of a new man into their lives. So we get some disembowelment, murder, sex, incest, bondage, puking, urinating, electro shock, a good helping of nudity, and lots of other fun stuff. It's been a while since I've seen a good bizarre flick like this, it's right up there with Visitor Q and Penetration Angst. Good stuff!",1 "The nature of totalitarian, ideologically driven regimes makes them good settings for drama and the presentation of the best and worst of human nature. This film makes clear how dreadful daily life was in Taliban ruled Afghanistan, particularly if you were a female (not that it's much fun in other Muslim countries) and we quickly sympathise with the central characters in their struggle for survival. That it was made only a year after the Taliban were ousted gives it an authentic documentary feel, but it would still be as effective if the events were years earlier. Part of the fascination is how the Taliban managed to be so primitive and backward (basically anything that didn't exist at the time the Koran was written was verboten, with the exception of weapons and vehicles for them to get around in) and the peculiarities of Islamic attitudes and practices that distinguished the Taliban from, for example, the Khymer Rouge in Cambodia or the Nazis in Germany, although there are also parallels.",1 "while the show certainly has a dated feel (it does have an annoying laugh track), the jokes were often clever and Joan Davis was brilliant. no, she was not stealing her schtick from Lucille ball (who i also love). Joan was a ditsy, goofy character long before she made it to television. i believe her physical comedy was actually better and more natural (see the movie HOLD THAT GHOST for a brilliant example.) did they steal plot lines from Lucy? well, having not seen this show in a while (i don't believe this show was ever on nick at nite. it was on cbn, of all places.) but i will say that Lucy's plots were not exactly original either, and being that both shows were on at the same time, it's difficult to say who came first (if it even matters). the thing is everyone has seen Lucy for years and just assumes she did it all first.

Joan Davis deserves her place in entertainment history along side Lucy, gale storm, Imogene coca and Gracie Allen.",1 "Being an aviation enthusiast, but not a jumper - I was drawn to this movie. Burt Lancaster plays ""Mike Rettig"" in the sort of role he is best at, plenty of action, with an eye for a pretty face. The pretty face in this case being Deborah Kerr. Miss Kerr was approaching 50 years of age when this movie was made, but was able to been seen close-up and naked with Burt Lancaster in what what must be one of the few (if the only) scenes where Miss Kerr reveals all. A far cry from the many Nuns she has played in her career. Compare her in this with ""Heaven knows, Mr Allison"" with Robert Mitchum. Gene Hackman provides good support as the reckless carefree ""Joe Browdy"", seeking out the local haunts for loose women. William Windom brilliantly plays Kerr's isolated and betrayed husband. A good film that happily TCM repeats regularly - thank goodness!",1 "I too saw this movie, possibly 6 times as a teenager at the movies, my friend had the Album soundtrack, which we listened to and cried. I've also been searching for this movie, if anyone knows how or where to get it, please let me know. I'd love to share this story with my daughter and nieces, I've recently lost my sister to cancer and this story brought back memories for us all. If only they would release this on DVD, I have a feeling there would be a lot of sales, perhaps someone could release it with the proceeds to go to the fight for cancer, there's a thought for someone. It's an inspirational movie that would be good not only for the cancer sufferer but for the family of the victim as well.",1 "A friend and former roommate and I just happened to be sitting around watching TV, not expecting anything special, when this came on. It was a pilot episode and NBC threw it on the air during the dead summer months. We were bowled over by the sense of humor, right in our ballpark. The stamp of O'Brien and Smigel, that we now are quite familiar with from over 10 years of watching them on Late Night, is all over this puppy.

Adam West plays an actor who played a 1970's TV detective, who thinks he's a real detective. That's about all you need to know, but the writing and acting really sell the show. One of the funniest ideas ever. My friend and I still talk about it from time to time. (Okay, fine, we're losers who have nothing else to talk about.)

It is one of the crimes of television history that NBC did not pick this up even for a 6 episode run. I've been thinking about trying to dig up a copy of this masterwork. When I try to describe it to people who haven't seen it, they just shrug and go ""whatever,"" but I assure them that they are missing out on comedy gold.

Okay, maybe I'm overhyping it, but it sure is one of my favorite undeservedly obscure TV nuggets of all time. I put it up there next to ""Quark"" with Richard Benjamin. At least that one had 6 episodes. Somebody dig this up and put it as a bonus on a DVD of Late Night or something, would ya?

NOTE: As of late 2006, the show is readily available on several different internet video sites for viewing. Apparently the show made an appearance on the late lamented Trio cable network within the past 5 years, and some people recorded it. Catch it if you can.",1 "This has been the worst movie that I have seen in quite a while! The acting was horrible, so was the editing, the script and everything else about this movie. It was as if whoever filmed this movie walked into a taqueria with a home video recorder and told the employees to""pretend"" that they were in a movie.Watch ""Doce Horas"" if you truly want to want to watch a funny movie with great actors!",0 "Once again, I'm sick and tired of seeing comments from people expecting a better storyline. This is a SOFTCORE PORN FLICK! Give me a list of softcore porn flicks with great writing! They don't exactly hire David Mamet to write these things! Besides, do you want (and this question is only for straight men or homosexual women) good writing in a film like this? What would be the use?

Of course, some people don't appreciate the simulated sex scenes. I think they look pretty realistic. All the guys and girls really look like they're getting into it. I personally find no enjoyment in watching a guy's hairy testicles bang against a woman's buttocks, which is why I most prefer this tasteful brand of porn. But if you like seeing the hardcore stuff, then hey that's your taste. The box for this movie wasn't labeled XXX. In fact, the one I rented was R-rated (despite the fact that the nudity and sex was pretty explicit and covered about 90-percent of the film's running time). So don't say you weren't warned.

I always love Surrender Cinema's movies, because they have some of the best-looking girls EVER! And I can honestly say, this movie has the most beautiful women out of all Surrender Cinema flicks. I didn't have to worry about having the urge to fast-forward to the next scene. Each woman stimulated me almost equally. Of course, the pinnacle of the film would have to be the sultry ""Asian massage"" between Jacqueline Lovell and that Asian chick. Hot, hot, hot!

If you ARE a fan of the Surrender Cinema flicks, you should have a great great great time with ""Virtual Encounters""! Damn, I can't wait to see the sequel!!!

My score: 10 (out of 10)",1 "This had to be one of the gabbiest movies I have ever seen. Talk, talk, talk....talk. This is then interspersed with over the top acting and characters that it is hard to give any care for because of how cold they seem.

If you are looking for something different in the serial killer/horror genre this is a good movie to view if you have some patience with ham acting and way too much dialog.

The actors and especially the lead actress is pleasant to look at except that she seemed more cast for those of us 35 and above and not those 20 and under like most mad slasher movies and the very buxom and often very underclad teens like in the Halloween, Jason, Scream, Freddy, Chucky, and other teen scream movies.",0 "Ever since I was a little boy, I was a big fan of the Three Stooges. I had seen every movie they ever made, except ""Kook's Tour."" When it was finally released on video in 1999, my jaw nearly hit the floor. Unfortunately, my hopes were too high for what I was about to see. Billed as ""Their last and funniest film,"" the Stooges simply take a camping trip and that's about it. Larry Fine suffered a stroke and was unable to complete the filming, so Norman Maurer filled the remaining time with scenery and narration by Moe Howard. ""Kook's Tour"" is indeed an important piece of Stooge history, but it is not a worthwhile film.",0 "Jack Black is the man, and Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller rock. This show was awesome. I really wish they would have made a few more episodes, though I doubt sincerely that it would have done well in the ratings. If no other reason, than this show is great because it featured a clip of Doctor Who, and played Metallica. These are a few of my favorite things. When the dog bites.... ahem, well, you get the idea. Funny, silly, and stupid. Can't ask for much more.",1 "Alec Guinness is wonderful in this movie. As the movie starts, he wanders around London with a reporter in tow, carrying a keg of rum. He walks into a bank and bangs on the counter, demanding drinking glasses. A stunned Donald Pleasance, playing a bank clerk, stares back and says ""we don't have glasses."" Alec Guinness looks around in disbelief and says ""No glasses? What do you do when famous people come in here?"" It's this kind of humor that permeates the film.

Guinness purchases a run-down resort pier and strolls through the place, which is filled with bored pensioners watching cheap stage shows. The pier has been falling apart for decades, but he breathes new life into it by creating a dance hall and offering spirits. The local politicians have other ideas, and Guiness finds out that they have hoodwinked him and, through the rights of eminent domain, plan to purchase the pier back at half the price. He outwits them by registering the pier as a ship, enraging the politicians, and offers ""cruises"" for people prone to seasickness. It's a cruise that never goes anywhere, but offers food, dancing, music, and even a radar screen for the more mature folks. It's all very proper and charming. Guinness shows off his dance moves, there's a climax involving a dredging boat, and then a bouncy little song at the end accompanied by the ghosts of Guinness's ancestors (all played by him, of course); the song goes on just long enough to make you laugh like hell at the weirdness of it.

This might not be one of Guinness's best roles, but it's still a fun movie.",1 "Written, directed, photographed, produced and edited by Don Coscarelli, this doesn't make much sense but it's still a great bit of fun to watch with the lights turned out. This kid named Mike convinces his older brother Jody that there is something weird going on at the local cemetery. So he and Jody break into the old mausoleum and find out that it's actually some kind of factory where people are killer by a flying metal ball, crushed down to a height of about 3'2"", dressed up like little monks and packaged up into round metal garbage cans and shipped off for use as slave labour in some other dimension. A dimension ruled and resided over by the mortician (known throughout the entire ordeal as just simply ""The Tall Man"") working at this cemetery. Then The Tall Man kills another friend of theirs, and they decide to put and end to him, or at least try to.

This movie has many different layered meanings, over the years some people have said that it's a reference to corporate America coming in (in the form of The Tall Man) and killing off everyone (by turning everything into a 'business') and some have said that this movie is also about a kid's loss of innocence and fears about everyone around him leaving (or in this case dying) Whatever the hell this movie is about it's still great fun followed by a couple of really disappointing (and belated) sequels.

***1/2 out of ****",1 "I assume this is a first-half of 1934 release (and, thus, technically a ""pre-Code"") as there is no Production Code certificate # displayed on the beginning credits. For a pre-Code, however, it is extremely tame and toothless. With Warren William and Ginger Rogers, this movie could've really been fun if only it had been a little more racy.

In brief, Warren William plays Alex Stream, a railroad magnate very much in love with his wife Heddy (Mary Astor) who is more interested in her social parties and dinners than in spending time alone with her husband. This leads Alex to start spending time with Lily Linda (Ginger Rogers), a burlesque dancer whom he happened to meet by chance when he was out in his boat and she was swimming in the river in distress.

Lily is the burlesque dancer with a heart of gold -- she has no interest whatsoever in squeezing the big bucks out of her rich new sugar daddy. Lily's boyfriend cum manager, Lou, has other ideas and steals Alex's love letters to Lily in an attempt to blackmail Alex. Before Lou can leave Lily's apartment with the letters, however, Alex comes in, there is a confrontation, Lou ends up shooting Lily, Alex ends up shooting Lou.

From there, the movie becomes a cat and mouse game with a policeman whom Alex recently had demoted doggedly determined to prove that Alex is the second murderer (the police found Lou's prints on one gun and an unknown person's (Alex's) prints on the second gun).

I expected more from a W.William/G.Rogers pre-code vehicle. For instance, when Alex has kept his secretary and chauffeur waiting on the street for more than an hour while he's been in Lily's apartment, the secretary finally goes upstairs to fetch Alex. What does the secretary see when he opens the apartment door? Warren William dressed in a feather hat and pig snout singing ""Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf"" while Ginger Rogers plays the tune on the piano. It doesn't get much more wholesome than that, folks. This should've been my clue to turn the danged movie off!

A couple of funny flubs - one big, one minor. Marcus the secretary is waiting in front of Lily's apartment for Alex. He announces it's 2:30, and Alex has a 1:00 meeting. Then up in the apartment Lily cooks a brunch for Alex, they eat it, clear the table, and start singing. Cut back to Marcus and he announces it's 2:45. How did Alex and Lily have time to cook a meal and eat it within a span of 15 minutes? Then, after fetching Alex and dragging him back to the car, the gang gets stopped by a policeman who gives the chauffeur a ticket. Finally, they are on their way again and make their way to the skyscraper ""Alexander Stream"" building. The camera pans to an upper floor, indicating this is where Alex is. We then see Alex walking past numerous employees who greet him. In the background there is a clock, which reads 2:45! How can it be 2:45 NOW when it was 2:45 back before Marcus ever went upstairs to Lily's apartment to fetch Alex. Then they drove, got stopped by a cop, given a ticket, drove further to the office building, rode the elevator to an upper floor, and it is STILL 2:45!

The tiny flub is Ginger Rogers's character's name is spelled ""Lily"" in the film -- on the marquee outside the theater where she's performing and in the newspaper headline after she's been killed. However, in the opening credits her name is spelled ""Lilly"".

I'm guessing the continuity person at Warners wasn't very good at their job. However, that's the least of this tame, tame film's problems.

I wouldn't waste my time with this if I were you. Unless you're a big G.Rogers fan and want to catch an early flick of hers. This one's not even worth it for Warren Williams's fans.

Good supporting roles by Andy Devine as Oscar the chauffeur, Ferdinand Gottschalk as Marcus the secretary, and Robert Greig as Caldwell the butler.",0 "It is a rarity for a film to be completely unsettling and yet unrelentingly gripping.

David Fincher's story takes place in a bleak and constantly raining city (never named) where urban decay and sleaze in all forms are rampant. Coming up to his retirement from the police force is Detective Lieutenant Somerset (Morgan Freeman) who is tasked with breaking in his replacement, Detective Sergeant Mills (Brad Pitt) before leaving. Somerset is world weary, under no illusions about the futility of the daily role he plays and (initially) wants nothing more than to escape the grime and violence of the city. Mills on the other hand is convinced that he is going to make a real difference having voluntarily transferred to this precinct, bringing his wife to the city with him. Before Somerset can move on, a homicide comes in which he and Mills are assigned to investigate. But its only the first of a string of ritual murders that will be committed by a killer who is basing his crimes on the seven deadly sins as depicted in Dante's ""The divine comedy"".

To begin with, Se7en appears to be a standard ""cops on the trail of a killer"" story which shouldn't be too difficult for the audience to get comfortable with. But as we descend along with the characters into the merciless, brutal world without hope that they inhabit, you are left reeling at the events that unfold.

The two detectives enjoy an uneasy relationship with no real friendship ever striking up between them. The older Somerset is educated, astute and gives the impression of being emotionally burnt out. Mills, who has no respect for Somersets methodical investigating methods gets excited at the thought of solving a murder and firmly believes that the good guys will win eventually. The further we get into the action, the might of the evil that they face pushes both men beyond their limits.

This film draws heavily on biblical themes and you can certainly see similarities with such films as ""The Seventh Seal"" (1957). Both films show the price that good men have to pay when they fight evil and the unsettling truth that the rule book goes straight out the window when you are dealing with something so diabolical that it has no boundaries or limits at all.

Se7en shows us a world which has been destroyed by its own sins, a wasteland in which values are minimal. The killer, having nothing but contempt for this world, sees it as his mission to expose the faults and show everyone what they have become. It is a fascinating twist that when the killers motives become clearer, Somerset with his greater understanding actually feels some degree of empathy with him. This is lost on Mills though, whose level of clarity never reaches the same level.

A previous reviewer mentioned that you begin to expect the unexpected whilst watching Se7en and i completely agree. Eventually if you think of the most obvious outcome in any situation and predict that the opposite will happen, it usually does. Even the finale itself became kind of predictable because by then you are conditioned not to have any hope. This is a minor flaw though because the story is so well and so shockingly told.

Director David Fincher didn't pick up another script for 18 months, such was his exhaustion and frustration following the completion of Alien 3. Apparently he agreed to direct se7en after one reading of Andrew Kevin Walkers screenplay because he was drawn to its hard hitting delivery about inhumanity. He stated: ""It's psychologically violent. It implies so much, not about why you did but how you did it"". For the camera work specially altered film stock was used to make the visuals look as dark and unsettling as possible which is complemented well by Howard Shores music score.

The Most disturbing message that Se7en puts across, is that the fight against evil is destined to be a Pyrrhic victory. But regardless the only thing we can do is fight on whatever the cost. We have no other choice.

""The World is a fine place and worth fighting for."" I agree with the second part.",1 "In a nutshell - the movie is bad. For example: M.Bison is a Blondie and not even a menacing one - i still wonder who has been hired as the casting director of that crappy movie. I'm talking about Transporter 3 bad. Chris Klein is even more annoying than that red haired chick from T3. From the very first scene you see him you either think he is drunk or in the ""zone"". This movie is not even worth watching on DVD, let alone on basic cable. To give you an idea how awful it is - i rather watch a movie with Paris Hilton.

plot - bad, screenplay - really bad, acting - contender for all Razzie Awards...overall i'd like to give it 0 out of 10 stars. Unless they get John Woo or Tsui Hark behind the camera don't bother producing another Street Fighter movie.",0 "i was astounded at the rash of negative comments. in my view this was a great class b movie. while it might not rank with the Cagney genre of gangster movies, for a crime drama, it catches the angst a decent detective trying to find the logic in the irrational might feel.

meet Lt. Megan Paige (Eliza Dushku). she's the detective with the brain. why she asks herself would a deranged killer murder a little girl with the initials cc in Christs Church? The percentage of the population with identical initials is small. What is the perverted logic behind the irrational act? She pours into the case but can find no answers. As she is steadily driving herself crazy with trying to second guess the irrational mind, her finance Capt. Kenneth Shine (Cary Elwes) orders her off the case. Hr attempt at suicide lands her in the funny farm where in group she discusses her overreaching toward a solution.

Zoom ahead to her discharge. A benevolent ex-fiancé restores her to uniform in the records department, but with a recurrence of the alphabet murders she is allowed to tag along with the investigating detective through a series of dead ends until a nearby small town force pins the incident on a hostage taker shot in the act.

Can former LT Megan Paige retain her sanity long enough to find the killer? See the movie.

The cast is not composed of world class actors but the acting is credible.",1 "I'm not a movie expert but I know when there's something to watch, and something to just pass by, and this movie here, after reading the comments peaked my interest, but once I got the movie playing it was a totally different thought. 5 minutes in, I had already made up my mind whether or not to continue watching this butcher of a movie, It was extremely late here where I live so I decided to give it a shot, but like I said above I could of let this one pass by, about 40 minutes into it, I couldn't watch anymore, sad display of effects, writing, and poor acting couldn't of made this any worse to watch, It was quite painful actually, I cant be disappointed to much considering I spent money to watch this, but I am disappointed that someone would say that this movie was worth watching. On my list of movies that I have watched this one ranks a 1 time watch, and no recommendation to any of my friends. This was 40 minutes I will never get back, so take it from me, when facing the chance to watch something else vs. this movie, then take something else.",0 "I hate this movie!!! Why do they use the good name of Stephen King just to sell some bad movies like this one. What does this have to do with the other great movies??? Rename it to Sometimes They Come Back... For No Reasons At All, Sometimes They Come Back... When Their Heads Should Be Buried In The Ground!!!!",0 "Comedy GOLD. I don't want to give any false notions by assigning a higher rating because this movie is truly bad. But it's bad in a good way! A few Dare-You-Not-To-Laugh moments: 1) When the guy in the pig mask shows up. 2) When the female lead does her little dance in front our hero while he works out. 3) The fight in the parking garage where the hero takes out a whole group of guys with what looks like a plastic broom handle.

Rest assured there are plenty more moments of unintentional hilarity, but these you must discover for yourself. The only thing more hilarious is the fact that there is apparently a sequel. I'll have to track that one down. Bad movie fans rejoice!",1 "Ignore those who suggest that this is nothing but retread for DePalma. On

some levels, it surpasses his greatest films and is uniquely original. There isn't a performance in the film that's weak and the storytelling (both through script and camerawork) unfolds like a dream. Bloody where it needs to be and tragic in places you don't expect, ""the Fury"" is one of my all-time favorites. I saw it as a young kid in the theater and hope one day to see it again on the big screen.",1 "Yesterday in local DVD-store I saw let's say an attractive poster with Glenn Ford. Now when I saw the film I am totally disappointed. First: the part of the tough bounty hunter definitely don't fit to old Glenn Ford. Second: he lets the son of the guy he just killed follow him around, then eventually gives him a job and home.Finally Jody accepts Santee as his own father(OMG!).One of the most ""tragic"" and funniest things is that Jody was practicing to become bounty hunter and he couldn't hit target from couple of meters , but in the one of the final scenes he kills three members of the Banner's gang. Now you probably think there is no need to see this film. But actually there is a few light things: Jody's father (Robert J. Wilke) and John Crow (Jay Silverheels). And that's all I'm afraid. If you are not western fan there is no reason to watch this film.

4\10 totally deserved",0 "I would only recommend seeing this show if you have a liking for kung-fu movies. The point is that it makes fun of low budget, classic kung fu shows. If you don't laugh and enjoy the bad acting and cheapness of martial arts movies, you won't enjoy this show. In the first 15 minutes of the movie, I was starting to wonder about where James Lew was going with this show, and if he could pull it off successfully. Once you figure out his style of humour, it's enjoyable. Maybe it's just because I have a big kung fu movie collection and I'm of Chinese descent... If you're a true martial arts movie lover, rent this movie.",1 The movie remined me of a group that got together one weekend and decided to make a spoof movie. The acting was so bad that I doubted if there was any scene retakes. The cast was OK but acted as though they had just read their lines 5 minutes before and wanted to call it a day as soon as possible. The only way it could have been worse was to be in B&W. Even as a silent film it would have been an improvement.,0 "I saw it 20 years ago and liked it. I was 15. It was fun because it was a cartoon with violence, gore, aliens getting high and naked chicks with big boobs. I saw it again this year and I thought it sucked. First of all, there has been a lot of adult cartoons in the past 20 years so the shock effect just wasn't there. It is also very uneven. It is basically a collection of 10 minutes not-really-related sketches put together by different persons, and it shows. The animation quality of many of the sketches is below the average Saturday morning cartoon. Pretty bad. 3/10.",0 "The only reason I actually sat through this entire movie is because I happened to be an extra in it and was curious to see myself on the big screen. They shot some of the scenes in South Africa, in and around an old mine dump just outside my home town (Benoni). As poor students, my buddy and I thought it would be a fun way to make extra money being extras in movies during vacations, and it kinda was. We made a load of spare cash too, since the movie makers were exploiting the currency exchange rate at the time and paid pretty well (for us at the time anyway).

Anyway, the movie was laughable, and even during filming I could tell that it was going to be. If you ever happen to see this movie, there is a fight scene where the hero kills his attacker with a big (wooden) sword by clearly stabbing the ground next to his chest. Do I need to say more?",0 "Wall Street Executive Burt Hughes (Peter Weller) recently bought a sleek Mathattan brown house for his family and thinking that he is the king of his household. Suddenly his castle is under siege by a huge female rat. Bart takes a stand against the rat, after Bart accidentally killed the rat's babies.

Directed by George P. Cosmatos (Rambo:First Blood Part 2, Cobra, Tombstone) made a clever, technically well made thriller that has it shares of unintentional humor. The film has become a Cult Classic over the years, it is obviously One of the Best Rats films ever made. Weller is surprisingly convincing as the Wall Street Executive going though a nervous breakdown. The film takes place in New York City but it was actually filmed in Montréal. Actor:Weller and Director:Cosmatos work together again in the underrated but familiar science-fiction/horror/thriller ""Leviathan"".

DVD has an clean anamorphic Widescreen (1.78:1) transfer and an good-Dolby Digital 1.0 Mono Sound. The DVD does feature an entertaining commentary track by the actor:Weller and Director:Cosmatos. Although you can tell, they were not in the same recording session during the commentary but they put the highlights comments by Weller and Cosmatos. DVD also has the original theatrical trailer. This is Based on a Book by Chauncey G. Parker the Third, the book is titled ""The Visitor"". Screenplay by Brian Taggert (Poltergiest 3). Executive Produced by Pierre David (The Scanner Series). (****/*****).",1 "A women is murdered in her bath by a sinister individual dressed in black. In a manor-house near the scene of the crime, Baroness Karlstein wakes up with a start. She is gravely ill and is only awaiting the arrival of her granddaughter Luisa before dying. When Luisa arrives, her grandmother tells her of the curse that has haunted the family for generations, revealing that the first Baron Karlstein was a vampire, and gives her the key to the chapel. Luisa decides to move into the manor with her uncle Baron Max Karlstein and her cousin, Karine. The only fly in the ointment is the presence of the highly intelligent caretaker, Cyril Jefferson...

This movie was more improvised than well done. It is a very curious film and also very boring. Howard Vernon, as a sort of count Dracula, is only here to justify the title of the film. His scenes are too short, just lying in his coffin, eyes open are showing off his teeth.. Fun in a way...

Britt Nichols is very beautiful as always, and her lesbian scenes with Anne Libert are the best you can get from LA FILLE DE Dracula. But, there are too many tight close-ups to really enjoy it! Some captivating unreal atmosphere kept me watching from beginning to end... But, as always with most of Jess Franco films, you must be a bit of a masochist to enjoy these piece of...cinema!",0 "When Peter Sellers died in 1980 he was planning on another Clouseau film. He probably hated the idea, although he was writing the script. Sellers knew that his signature role for all time would be the stumble-bum French Inspector, but he hated how it hid his performances in, say, DR. STRANGELOVE or BEING THERE from the memory of the public. For as other actors caught in repeat performances of the same part (think of Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes or Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates) have said, those repeat roles are just going through the same paces again and again, and don't help stretch the performers talents.

What is odd about TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER is that it is a posthumous resurrection of Sellers due to Blake Edwards, who should have known far better than to do this. Some dead actors have managed to reappear after they died in films, like Jean Harlow in SARATOGA, but usually they were shooting the film when they got sick and died. In TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER Edwards decided to use outtakes and some cut sequences to build up a plot for a new film.

Supposedly, for the third time in the series, the actual ""Pink Panther"", the stone that Claudia Cardinale was struggling to hold onto in the first film, is the center of a robbery - a successful one. Clousseau is sent to solve the robbery. But his plane apparently crashes into the sea. Is the great detective dead or not?

Joanne Lumley plays French television journalist Marie Jouvet. She is assigned to investigate the disappearance of Clousseau and who might be behind it. There are many potential characters: Chief Inspector Dreyfus (Herbert Lom, twitching again), the head of the French Mafia (Robert Loggia) - still struggling from their defeat by Clousseau in 1978, and even Sir Charles and now Lady Lytton (David Niven and Capuchine, reunited for this second film). Cato (Burt Kwouk) and Clousseau's old assistant Hercule Lajoy (Graham Stark) are interviewed. And the clips and outtakes are added in a sad attempt to give unity to the mess.

For it was a real mess.

Basically, Sellers was (in 1982) seemingly irreplaceable in the role. The public identified him with the French detective who mispronounced the English pronunciation of ""monkey"" as ""minkey"". The public watching the film could only consider it a curiosity at best. They might stretch it into an attempt at honoring a great comic actor. But they probably also thought it shabby, which it was. The other films preceding it had benefited from the energy of Sellers characterization (rather subtle one, by the way: people tend to forget that clumsy and arrogant as Clousseau was, he was a brilliant detective - listen to his conversation with Lajoy in a sequence from A SHOT IN THE DARK regarding the suspect Maria Gambrelli - we know Clousseau is in love with her, but he points out very sharply she had no motive for the murder she has been accused of). The sequences with Sellers at work had his energy, but the gaps appeared when Lumley or rest of the cast struggled with the vapid plot.

The actors are not doing badly. Best is Richard Mulligan as the elderly father of Clousseau (who would like to make time with the reporter), and Lom of course. Stark is an old scene stealing pro (look at his subsequent work in VICTOR/VICTORIA as a snide and suspicious waiter). Here he is Lajoy enjoying his retirement. He shares an easy sequence with Lumley (one wishes there was more to it). She is quite good too, but her role is confused by the script (her best sequence is not with Loggia - a sad lost opportunity by two good performers - but just before when she realizes her taxi driver is being forced to kidnap her). She also has a moment confronting Lom (who can't give a damn about finding Clousseau) where she mimics his twitching eye.

But why they trotted out Niven again is beyond me. He was within a year or so of his death, from Lou Gehrig's disease. He no longer had that wonderful gentleman's voice of his, so Rich Little was dubbing for him. You listen and you realize it is not Niven. That is just doubly sad.

It could have been different in two ways. In 1982 the roles of both Clousseau and Sir Charles Lytton were not totally sewed up by Sellers and Niven. A film called INSPECTOR CLOUSSEAU had been made in the middle 1960s starring Alan Arkin, who might have been available to attempt the role again. And in the early 1970s, the third Pink Panther film had resurrected Sir Charles and Lady Lytton with the jewel robber being played by Christopher Plummer. A bit of recasting would have been needed. If they had done it (presumably if the performers were available or when they were) more time might have been spent on the script. Sadly that was not the case here.

Edwards would make another ""Pink Panther"" film after this, which did less box office than this one did. Then, wisely, he went onto other projects. They never did find Jacques Clousseau in these last two films. The last two films were so terrible they did not deserve to merit the recovery of Insp. Clousseau. Now, aside from an occasional viewing on television both are forgotten (as is Arkin's one attempt at the role). However, Steve Martin took over the role a few years ago, with Kevin Klein taking over Lom's role as Dreyfus. Martin will shortly be seen in a sequel to his first ""Pink Panther"" film. Good luck to him - he has big shoes to fill.",0 "Written by a Nobel Prize winner (Naguib Mahfouz for his life work, including this story). Midaq Alley is a remake of the 1963 movie listed on IMDb as: Zouqâq al-Midaqq (1963)...aka Alley of the Pestle (1963) (International: English title) Which was itself an excellent movie.

VERY MINOR SPOILERS GOING FORWARD:

The characters in both movie stick closely to the story, the Mexican version benefits from freedom of expression in many shots while the Egyptian version had to hint behaviours (homosexuality for example) to avoid censors scissors.

It amazes me how a story about characters in Cairo in the 40's could fit so closely in Mexico city half a world away.... tells you something about the similarities in human nature and behaviours...

Very minor details had to be changed to suite historical facts. As an example, when the two boys run away to collaborate with the occupying British forces in the Egyptian film, they try to cross the border illegally to the US in the Mexican version. Both give the same effect as socially unacceptable behaviours within their perspective societies.

All actors put convincing performances and beautiful Salma Hayek dazzles as usual.",1 "I knew when I saw the woman's naked back scrawled with Votes For Women in what appeared to be red lipstick that this would be yet another stinker from HBO. We know this network is capable of good efforts, such as Band of Brothers, but more often than not, they produce anachronistic potboilers masquerading as history. While some of these characters lived, others were created to suit the mawkish tendencies of the producer, writer and director. I could find no evidence of the Leightons in the history sources I consulted. I didn't do an exhaustive search, but their story also felt contrived. Suffragettes in general were single-minded, serious women, not pouty little twits who mooned about on swings with leaves swirling all over them while hip-hop blasted. What was up with that hideous soundtrack? I taught college for years, and my students often amazed me with their capacity to appreciate stories from other eras. Hip-hop has no place in a historical film. No wonder American students suffer from brain atrophy. If you never challenge people, then they cannot learn and grow. When I watched the brilliant Shoulder to Shoulder (the British tale of their suffrage movement) during the 70s, I never expected to hear Led Zeppelin or the Who in the soundtrack. I wouldn't have wanted to. Period music is necessary to create mood and tone. Likewise, those disgusting costumes, which were just plain wrong. The sets looked anachronistic, as well, no less as soundstagey as all get out. Whenever the characters went outside to stand in the cold, no condensation emerged with their breaths. I can't abide cheap, phony productions, and that is what we too often get in these American pieces. Many of the songs were rather lascivious, as were the gratuitous scenes of the homely Swank (she is a decent actress, but she is hardly attractive) masturbating in the bathtub, complete with too many shots of her over-collagened lips. Ben Weissman, the so-called cartoonist/love interest, was a fictional creation. This sort of fictionalized love story in the midst of a biopic seems nothing short of insulting to the viewers, as well as to the historical women who suffered greatly for their cause. With just a few exceptions, women were only just emerging as public femme-fatales at this point, but many of these songs had a slutty tone. In addition to these flaws, the film definitely dragged in many places. Watch Shoulder to Shoulder instead. American suffragettes deserve better treatment than this aimless mess.",0 "Incredible to only seeing it now! VHS from the library. Can watch the ""confrontation"" scene between Chuck and Keith over and over! It's like minutes 33-37 with Chuck serious mind-fudging' with Keith over this cool riff in ""Carol"" Just over and over and over. That guitar should have gone directly over Chuck Berry's head with a bigger bang! Though maybe there is a subtle different from the first try to the final approval. Beats me, but teaching Keith? Never thought I'd see that!

What a fun movie and SO well done! Chuck Berry is just a genius, but a total lunatic and not what you'd call a people person! Just wildly good history. Glad it will be there as documentation.",1 "This was to be the least successful of Lucy's series but yet is not a big loss from the Lucy Show. It actually kind of spun in from the old show with almost no break. The difference is Lucy is finally considered more mature in her role here.

A lot of the same folks who worked on her previous series as writers and guest stars (Milton Berle for example) are here too. Lucie Arnez and Desi Jr. came on board here with mom. Some of us teens thought Lucie Arnez was pretty attractive when we saw her. She never got the chance to try as much comedy as mom was still the star.

While this is not quite as strong as the earlier series, it still has some great moments. The divorced mom character struck a cord as in real life this woman was becoming more common. The only thing is most divorced moms in real life were bitter while Lucy was funny. I take funny over bitter myself, but that is why this show like many situation comedies put a little realty in, but still were living in a never-never land.",1 "The film, ""Contagion"" by John Murkowski is a hilarious, stereotypical low budget product. The quality of acting was laughable to say the least. The actresses and actors' invariable use of cliché lines from past films made the plot turn sour real fast. The flow of the movie was quite choppy and irregular. It wasn't difficult to follow the movie per se, but there were numerous times in which the average viewer questioned the legitimacy and purpose of certain scenes. The movie itself had the potential to become an endearing film such as ""Out Break""; however the film fell real short of making the impression the subject matter should have had on its viewers. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that you should be taking off your bio gear before leaving the quarantine room with contagious pathogens running a-muck. Similarly, it was also hard to believe that the supposed antagonist of the movie could be disposed of by a flying bungee tunnel off the roof. As creative as the ending was, it made the movie even more unbelievable and made a serious subject a very comedic one.",0 "Frank (Walter Matthau) has just lost his beloved wife of 40 years. His son Robert (John Stamos), always closer to his father than the other two sons, is there to help him through the hard moments. However, Robert is very distrustful of marriage and has remained a bachelor, despite having a way with the ladies. This changes when a beautiful woman is transferred to work in the same NY accounting firm as Robert. Susan (Teri Polo) has just been separated from her husband in Wisconsin but, nevertheless, responds to Robert's advances. At the same time, Frank goes to a Hawaiian-themed party for the over 60 crowd and meets a wonderful woman named Florence (Carol Burnett). Florence is such an attractive and nice lady that Frank, despite his initial hesitation, decides to get close to her. Robert is thrown for a loop, not only because of his own need for Susan, but because he thinks his father is rushing things. Can Robert allow Frank to live his own life? This is a lovely film, very honest and true to life. Matthau, in one of his last roles, is great as the widower trying to navigate in very strange waters. Burnett, too, gives a nice performance as a woman with a very big heart. As for Stamos and Polo, they are two very attractive people who give their characters the needed depth suitable for two souls who have been unlucky in love and are uncertain which way to turn. If you have lost a parent and are struggling with the idea of your mother or dad finding a new partner, this is definitely the film for you. It has some great messages about the brevity of life and the importance of living every day to the fullest. But, even if you are not dealing with the loss of a loved one, this movie is an entertaining couple of hours. Don't be foolish and pass this film by.",1 "If the purpose of this documentary was to evoke an emotional response and foster dialogue, it succeeded on both counts. I left a comment to articulate my visceral response to this film, and a few people found it offensive. But what should I say? As a human being, much less a documentarian who has to been to Thailand, I was offended by this film. I don't think ""Bangkok Girl"" ever really got to tell her story. All I heard was the filmmaker. So I'm going to repost my comment, and preface it with a disclaimer: for any who came surfing here with the intent of posting their tearful heartfelt applause, you might find the following comment to be unpleasantly sardonic.

""I'm a good citizen! That's why I'm going to a bowling alley in Virginia, US. I'll interview the first girl willing to talk to me. Maybe she's been beaten by her husband but remains in her marriage. I'll ask her lots of personal questions: why did she get an abortion when she was 15? Why doesn't she leave her job as an underpaid waitress, quit drinking and go back to school? Then I'll lay in a voice over, wondering if there's really any hope for her, or any remedy for the tragedy of her situation. I'll call it: Richmond Girl. Because everyone has a story. As for the men in the bowling alley, they don't really have a story so I won't ask them personal questions - but together, we can feel better than them. I'll wave goodbye to the first girl in Richmond who talked to me, and feel good - knowing that I could have slept with her if that's what I wanted. Because that's what caring is.

If you're amazed or ashamed that hypocrisy like this still has an audience, try to understand that it's basically a rite-of-passage for lazy film students everywhere. College students love to ""investigate"" prostitution, but they don't do it at home because they'd have to see and hear from their subjects again and that's too much commitment. So students: ask around the quad and you'll hear about some places you can shoot (coincidentally, your own country's GNP will be higher - go team!). ""I hear Paraguay is like, really bad. Like you can buy any girl you want and stuff."" You'll come back from vacation feeling better about yourself, as if you've tackled some kind of social problem. And better still, you'll get an ""A""!

I challenge you to learn *ONE SINGLE THING* about Thailand from this indulgent film. This comes from a long embarrassing tradition of backward, self-serving, patronizing colonialist-explorer films. Kidlat Tahimik please... let me hold you and cry.""",0 "Cyclone's plot features a group of people stranded at sea after a cyclone rolls through leaving them with little water or food. The movie examines the lengths these people will go through to survive. I have now seen three films directed by Rene Cardona, Jr. and Cyclone is easily my least favorite. While it has its moments of weirdness, overall it is neither as sleazy as Tintorera nor as bizarre as The Treasure of the Amazon. For the most part, it's just plain dull and nowhere near as fun as the other two Cardona movies I mentioned. Add to that some bad acting, bad special effects, bad gore, and a bad script and you've got the makings for a bad movie.

Animal lovers beware. Cyclone features one scene in particular that is as cruel a scene as I've ever seen. I realize that the animal probably wasn't hurt, but I found it repulsive nonetheless.",0 "Peter did with BANG BOOM BANG a very good and very funny movie - maybe the best German comedy in a new-style ever. But in his second movie you can see, that there is no substance in his art and talent. Maybe it is the same problem of Thomas Jahn, the director of Knocking On Heavens Door - no ideas and no talent for really good scripts. The look and the coolness of the business is more interesting then a good script and really good ideas.

And there is also for Peter as for Thomas nothing more as a filmmaker then their very funny first movies.

It is a typical situation for the German movies. One or two movies are really good, the rest is nothing but nonsenses and overacting as a movie-maker. Peter seems to be a wanna-be (and who watched his audio-commentary to Bang Boom Bang knows the he is a notorious wanna-be). The typical amateur-movie-setting (the all-time-local-hero feeling in his movies) makes him a good director for his town and friends. But for a good movie it needs more the then privacy of a local-hero.

So it is a professional amateur-movie.",0 "This movie was made over 70 years ago and shows its age. Everything is dated. The story, which is childish. The acting, which is stagy. The cinematography, which is staid. What is good, however, the fight between Carole Lombard and Frederic March and when March and Lombard are in the water. And what makes this movie special is Ms. Lomabrd's presence. Carole Lombard was born thirty years too early. She was meant for television. She would have been the queen of the sitcoms. She would have easily out-Lucyed Lucille Ball. That is, she was hot. And she was talented and wonderful ... and married to Clark Gable. She had it all and then she was gone. This vivacious babe, a precursor to your modern TV sitcom star, was the epitome of a movie comedienne. If only ...",1 "This show has so many things we have all been waiting so long for, but most of all, it has gut busting comedy. I found myself constantly cracking up each time i watch this. Its like I have already connected with the characters, which are all funny.

The episodes so far have been hilarious, smart, and well acted. After watching 10 minutes of this you will find yourself wanting to work at a supermarket. You cant like this show, you love it. I pretty much have no idea what the characters names are but I know their personalities. Probably more than I should. do yourself a favor and glue yourself to your TV and tivo watching 10 items or less.",1 "This is an excellent sequel that's very entertaining. It's loaded with great humor, lots of laughs, exciting action, and it had 3 excellent main leads but it can't quite match the original. The 2 main villains are very menacing, even though we hardly see Jurgen Prochnow, he was still very menacing when on screen. It's somewhat of a rehash of the 1st, but that's okay Murphy is still funny as hell, and The finale is excellent. One of the funniest parts in the film is, Reinhold's sudden obsession with huge guns, and it had some pretty powerful moments, especially when Capt Bogomil gets shot. The Direction is very good. Tony Scott does a very good job here, keeping the film at an exciting pace, injecting lots of great humor, good camera angles, and doing a great job overall!. There is some blood. but lots of very bloody gunshot wounds is all we get. The Acting is awesome!. Eddie Murphy is wonderful here, once again he is HILARIOUS, very likable, had great chemistry with, Ashton and Reinhold, and was lots of fun to watch!. Judge Reinhold, is also wonderful here, he is also HILARIOUS, seemed to be having a lot of fun, plus he he had a lot more to do this time around, and was very likable. John Ashton is excellent here once again, he is also quite funny at times, and very likable, and also had more to do. Jürgen Prochnow does good as one of the main villains, but didn't really have that much screen time. Ronny Cox is fine here again, but also didn't have that much screen time. Brigitte Nielsen is good looking, and did excellent here as one of the main villains, and man was she big!, she was also very menacing. Allen Garfield is very good here, but he was EXTREMELY unlikable,, and yelled to much and i just wanted to slap him!, he did his job well though. Dean Stockwell, has a small role here, and did fine with it.Paul Reiser is good here, once again. Gilbert R. Hill is great again as the tough inspector. Robert Ridgely is decent as the mayor. and Alice Adair is okay as Bogomil's daughter. And look out for a cameo by a very young Chris Rock!. Overall a must see! **** out of 5",1 "The original Fletch was kinda silly but fresh and different. This is old, not original and - if possible in something this tired - offensive. Fletch goes South to family homestead only to get tangled in local shenanigans. Nothing special from the supporting cast, no memorable lines, no reason to watch, and no explanation for the horde of Imdb reviewers that actually praise this movie.",0 "I watch a lot of indie horror films especially the ones that are released by lions gate films and I am disappointed a lot of times too by the low budget and predictable story. This one didn't have a predictable story entirely but it did drag out for the first hour and it failed to have enough excitement to wake me back up towards the final 42 minutes. I have seen much worse from lions gate, but then again I have seen much better. I really wouldn't recommend this to anyone because it really bored me a lot and the ending was really cheesy. I mean I didn't see it coming or anything but it was still stupid and the acting isn't very good in the film either but I don't look at that as much if its a good story but this movie was just a plain old sleeper compared to the awesome horror films I have seen in the past.

So anyways this movie isn't worth your 3 dollars to rent it and surprisingly its not made by Ulli Lommel. In case no one knows him thats reading this, he is a complete idiot that wouldn't know directing if it smacked him in the face. Anyways I give this movie a 3 out of 10.",0 "This is kind of an ""Alien""-set-in-a-prison type movie. A very attractive prison guard (Jennifer Wiggins) is trapped in lockup with some bad-boys and a guy who turns into a four-fingered monster with horns on the back of his head and the worst case of back hair you've ever seen. He spends the whole movie switching from monster to prisoner and back again. The movie starts off with a bang -- the movie's before-the-credits-roll sequence features the prisoner/monster escapes and kills a guy getting serviced by a prostitute, so you're on the hook immediately. Unfortunately, the movie gets a little slow at times. The producers spend too much time developing characters that you're just not interesting in getting to know better. But Wiggins is very enjoyable to look at, and unlike most SciFi movies (this was a SciFi Premier they bought the rights to, not a SciFi original) she makes it to the end. For the reason alone, this movie gets upgraded to a 4.",1 "As the only film Mitchell & Petrillo did together, this was an obvious attempt to duplicate the feel and tempo of a 1952 Paramount Martin & Lewis movie in virtually every detail. One wonders if there wasn't legal action against the producers of this picture for the obvious cloning of Martin & Lewis!

Sammy Petrillo has the Jerry Lewis of 1952 nailed down perfectly and even above that--as a caricature! Duke Mitchell wasn't as good a Dean Martin, though, but a passable leading man and singer. Lugosi fans will like the big role he has in this picture. Too bad they weren't given other picture offers. The female and supporting players are all quite good. For a cheapie that was shot on a budget of $50,000, it has good production values--even the gorilla transformation scenes! Since this film is in the public domain, it turns up often in dollar DVD displays at many discount stores.",1 "Having read many of the reviews on this site I have noticed that numerous people claim that one either understands and loves the movie, or hates it. I happen to fall into the latter category as this movie is not only unorigonal, but fails to be funny in almost every way possible. The fact that this film could even use the line ""Mime's a wasting"" shows the low class of the film. Personally, I love dumb comedy movies (Adam Sandler and Chris Farley included) but this film failed to be funny on almost every level. I did not laugh once, and didn't even appreciate any of the jokes' attempts to be funny. The only scenes worth watching are the ones mentioned previously by RedDevil, whom I happened to view the film with.

Many have commented that this is a dark comedy that deals with alcoholism, however I have two major points to make contrary to this. First of all, this film is by no means a comedy if you use the standard definition of comedy. This definition of course is something that is funny. Secondly, this film does not deal with alcoholism well at all. After seeing this I felt no need to stop drinking, unlike the scenes in Requiem for a Dream. Overall, this project not only lacks polish, but ambition as well. The plot is useless and I couldn't help feeling that the movie made no point. I would like the 87 minutes of my life back, but seeing as that is impossible, I would like to keep anyone else from viewing this shoddy workmanship.",0 "Being a devoted Michael Caine fan I was horrified after watching ""Shadow Run"" that I indeed had spent money on the DVD. Usually even if Michael Caine stars in a bad movie he himself is still a pleasure to watch. Somehow this doesn´t seem to be the case here. I don´t know who to blame first.",0 "If you're like me and don't want to waste your time on brainless comedies, you might have very well missed this nice little film. Why? Because it sure looks brainless at first. If I had had anything better to do during the first five or ten minutes of ""Screwed"", I'd have turned off the TV.

But I watched it long enough to realize it was actually very funny. However, it is so unashamedly and deliberately superficial that you can very easily miss its charm if you see only a couple of scenes. Each element (actors, script, direction) is weak by itself. But when they are combined, they somehow manage to conjure that rare magic which we call a good comedy.

Unfortunately, at the two-thirds mark, the film develops an additional plot which is just boring. Your cue: stop watching when DeVito starts ripping off posters from lampposts. From that moment on, the frequency of good jokes decreases dramatically.

Still, the first part of the film is a laugh fest. I recommend it to anyone looking for a good light-hearted (and slightly vulgar) comedy.",1 "I have really enjoyed Deadwood, so much I bought the three seasons on DVD and I don't buy many DVDs. I do believe it to be the best made series ever, all aspects are spot on, and the attention to detail is fantastic. The use of language of the period is amazing, being Dickensian at moments. The acting is superb and the sets are fantastic. I don't think I have seen busier streets anywhere. It is all enthralling - BUT it just stops.

Two more feature length shows are 'talked about' but HBO don't seem to be doing anything other than saying 'they will not be easy or cheap to make'. If you are a fan of the show please see http://savedeadwood.net/ for info on how and where to apply pressure.",1 "OK, hands down, The Final Sacrifice is the best Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. I'm still laughing every time I think of this movie, it's just, how do movies like this get green lighted? Or did the director ever stop and wonder if he was making a good movie? The acting and characters were just so unintentionally laughable, it's insane. I can't believe they gave the ""hero"" a name like Zap Rasdower, that's such a stupid name, but it made for a good laugh, that's for sure. The kid, Troy, looked like such a Lord of the Rings type of dork(no offense to the LOTR fans, it's cool that you like it)that you couldn't help but wanna get inside the film and knock the books out of his hands. The villain or Canadian villain Garth Vador had this ridicules voice, and were did Mike Piper get his voice? Was Yo Sammity Sam like his inspiration? This is just such a ridicules story.

Troy is looking for who caused the death of his father, he finds a map that is supposed to lead him to a lost world. But this cult lead by Garth Vador is after him and wants him dead and wants the map, but Troy outsmarts them by getting on his ten speed bike to out run them. He gets off his bike and hitches a ride with Zap Rowsdower and together they go to find out what this is all about and why Troy's father died. Maybe they can also find out why Rowswer is a... hopeless drunk.

The Final Sacrifice is one of those movies you'll never believe got made, it's just so laughable. I highly recommend the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version, it's just beyond funny, I loved every moment in that episode. But I hope the director watched that episode because I wanna see a Zap and Troy spin off, that would be an awesome show with an occasional guest appearance of Mike Pipper. I smell the Emmy's coming for best new show, lol.

1/10",1 "Let me start by saying ""I love Vinnie Jones."" That being said, this movie is not up to his regular standards. The bog histories, if they were true, were interesting. The concept of people from thousands of years ago being killed and buried in the bogs was interesting. Them reanimating just out of the blue and seeking out a specific kind of person, that's a little iffy. Also the fact that all of these people just happen to converge on this same cottage on the same day is just too much coincidence as is not having phone service when they were apparently only about three miles from a road. I did not like the little love connection they felt needed to be in the movie. It added nothing to the story. This is in no way a horror movie. It is more something that is based on a false lore that has been told for years. Seeing Vinnie Jones was it's only redeeming feature.",0 "This movie was excellent. I have seen lots of sad movies, and movies to invoke the human spirit, but this was one of the best. The tragedy these boys feel is so powerful. The loss that is felt at the end can be shared by millions of people who have lots someone that close to them. I think they did a great job writing staring and producing this movie. I know it is like 6 years old I have just finished watching and plan to add it to my collection to watch again. If there is anything that I would like is maybe more history, not only on their characters but maybe their mother as well.No matter what any one has to say about this movie I believe it should be a classic for all times.",1 "Battlestar Galactica did have a heavy impact on my childhood. I remember all of my friends trying to rebuild Battlestars and Vipers in various designs out of our LEGO space edition tiles. And how much fun it was to blast the other's ships into pieces! LEGO must have earned millions through us. Never ever has there been another spacecraft as illustrious in design as the Galactica (forget Star Trek's clumsy saucers). Unfortunately, the special effects appeared a little simple, because they were persistently reused. And YES, another commentator was right: Maren Jenson is THE reason to watch the show! Of course, there are one or two things about the story which are quite dubious. For one, the praised military leadership being better than a civilian one is a little hard-core cold-war belief. And in the series, those partially overemphasized religious elements sometimes got a little annoying in the otherwise splendid science-fantasy plot. But after all, those elements formed a heterogeneous mix promoting tolerance and gave the show its uniqueness. Definitely worth watching!",1 "Twaddle, Badly scripted, Badly acted And badly directed. A badly thought out attempt to cash in on a successful series. The Characters are wrong, both staff and pupils and the plot line is none existent. The driving force seems to have been the desire to dress women in cartoon school uniforms and leer at them. None of the feigned naive innocence and fun of the other four films is present Every one involved in it should be thoroughly ashamed. Millicent Fritton must be spinning in her grave.

P.S. It is enough to say that when the St. Trinian's films were released as a box set of DVDs this one was not included. Even the distributors at Studio canal cannot of thought it an actual St. Trinian's film.",0 "A film so bad that halfway through I found myself wondering if the production company could have gotten away with paying the actors who portrayed Henry less for a non-speaking role (the character is mute) rather than following the story.

Perhaps you think it will be different for you, maybe you're too cool for the room and able to appreciate the finer aspects of the struggling low budget film that still respects the art man. Well let me ruin it for you. Henry kills a kid and brother Travis kills some other kids, then they don't but then Travis does and Henry doesn't then I turned it off and thought how I could have better spent my time.",0 "Olivia de Havilland is really attractive here, fresh faced and brunette with big dark eyes. She looks so thoroughly American. Any normal man would want to throw himself at her feet, show her his bankbook and genealogical tree, and beg her to marry him. Marry -- not simply cohabit, because she's not that kind of girl. It's strange too that she look like an ex prom queen when in fact she was born in, where, Tokyo? And into a famous British family, responsible for the design of the superb DeHavilland ""Mosquito"" of World War Two fame.

Errol Flynn came from a professional family too. His father was a marine biologist and a professor in Tasmania. But you'd never know it from Flynn's personal history. His autobiography, ""My Wicked Wicked Ways,"" is full of humorous anecdotes, although the best revelations must have been edited out.

(Eg., he owned a house on Mulholland Drive with a glass ceiling in the guest bedroom so that he and his friends could creep into the attic and laugh at the goings on.) He's an Irishman here with a brawling and rebellious past. It was the last movie in which they tried to explain his Brit accent to the audience.

The rest of the cast will look familiar to any Warners aficionado -- Frank McHugh, Ward Bond, Alan Hale, Big Boy Williams. There is a great fight scene, outrageously overdone, resulting in the near total destruction of a barn-like saloon. The brawlers smash through the wall into the meeting of the Lady's Temperance Society next door. And nobody even gets a bloody nose, no matter how many chairs have been smashed over his head. It isn't as comic as the saloon fight in ""She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,"" but it's a big one and it IS funny.

The movie features Frank McHugh as an honest and courageous newspaper editor who is about to expose the chief heavy, who is by the way a complete stereotype with not a decent bone in his body. Victor Jory, a slimy henchman, comes into the office, threatens McHugh, and smashes him across the face with a small heavy whip. I wonder if Ford saw this before making ""The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.""

Come to think of it, before the fight scene, some ex-Union soldiers begin singing ""Marching Through Georgia,"" which annoys the Confederate veterans who strike up, ""Dixie."" The two groups face off and sing at one another. The same sort of competition reappears in ""Casablanca,"" under the same director, Michael Curtiz.

Flynn wears a broad-brimmed flat-topped cowboy hat. This must have been a liminal period for cowboy hats. Before then, cowboy hats were huge and round topped with a slight crease down the middle. Tom Mix wore such a hat in the 20s and John Wayne made a couple of Gower Gulch masterpieces wearing a fifty-gallon corker. Ten years after ""Dodge City,"" cowboy hats came to resemble ordinary fedoras with smaller brims, sometimes twisted upward in odd ways, like a vaudeville comic's. A little bit of hat iconography there.

The plot's entirely conventional. The good guys versus the bad guys, with nothing in between. Well -- that's how the world is really put together, isn't it?

One bothersome thing. A careful historiographical search reveals that, the cast of characters in this movie notwithstanding, absolutely no cowboy has ever been named Wade, Matt, Cole, or Yancey. The historical record not only shows no evidence of the use of such names, but goes out of its way to emphatically deny their existence in the Old West.

Hadn't seen this for years but was able to relax and get a kick out of it.",1 "Three soldiers back from Iraq team up and rent a car to drive to their respective destinations. Things happen to them along the way. When they get to their destinations, what they find is not what they expected.

That's ""The Lucky Ones"" in a nutshell. But it doesn't do justice to this quirky, touching and funny film.

Tim Robbins and Michael Pena give sturdy, soldierly performances, but the real story here is Rachel McAdams, who is mesmerizing as the blunt talking, somewhat naive, wounded (literally, in her thigh), deeply religious, sexually open minded and perpetually optimistic Pvt. Colee Dunn. She is a ray of pure southern sunshine and steals every scene she is in.

Some highlights: A furious McAdams throws her soda on Pena when he insults her boyfriend, killed in Iraq, by saying he was unfit to be a soldier because he supposedly did armed robbery.

McAdams lashes out in a bar when some valley girl-types mock her limp. ""Good thing I didn't have my weapon,"" she says after.

All three end up at an evangelical service and McAdams stands up to testify, blithely telling embarrassing secrets about her companions while they cringe.

After locking their keys in the car, they trudge off for help and end up at a Hummer dealership. On the way back in a luxury Hummer, they compare this one with what they're more used to.

When McAdams arrives at her dead boyfriend's family, she finds out his colorful depiction of them was somewhat embellished. What she decides to tell them about him is even more embellished to spare their feelings. In fact, this scene is so moving it is probably the highlight of McAdams acting career.

Robbins is at a rich man's party and meets a beautiful woman who begins flirting with him. He asks if she's married and she says, ""Umm."" They both start laughing hysterically.

This movie has many such moments.

One lowlight: A contrived, cheap-looking tornado scene that's just in the movie to give Pena and McAdams a chance to huddle in a drainpipe, allowing a certain delightful discovery to be made. Afterward, the twister has blown the landscape to pieces, but their vehicle is untouched.

Final thought: This is not an Iraq movie. This is an America movie.",1 "Did the makers get sued by Ridley Scott or the production company behind Alien? It's impossible to spoil this movie but I hate to mention the many times it blatantly rips-off Alien, a far superior film. Maybe it was done as a kind of tribute, either that or it was done with contempt. They duplicate dialogue, plot lines and weapons/tactics to the point it's ridiculous. They even have a 'chest-burster', except it's a 'fetus' that bursts from the mother's belly. Even the banter between the crew is directly from Alien, with very minor changes. The acting is vastly inferior, along with effects and sets, I'm sure I've seen the same rubber suited creature in at least one other low-budget film.

Oh, sorry, I did notice one major difference. Instead of a cat that gets in the way of the hunt, it's a dog. This was one of the few times I actively cheered for the 'alien' to devour all the crew members (and hopefully the producer and director).",0 "This movie has everything to be an excellent movie for young people (but also enjoyable for older people). There is loads of political statement made which should make everyone think even if u don't share the opinion. I mean, how many movies are there which talk about politics at all? The movie is full of emotions acted pretty well. The camera which makes u feel to be very close to the scenes and the music support these emotions successfully.

Even if you are not that kind of anarchist, there are still some scenes which are just so familiar to yourself. It's a movie about youth itself I suppose.

The movie is a must-see",1 "I saw the original on TV years ago when I was a kid. The movie had to be edited down for TV viewing, because some of it was too graphic. The film was dark, noir and a bit Avant garde. Caine's acting was creepy and strangely sadistic and evil. Yet it was a bit hard to accept Caine as a tough guy.

Stallone rebounds in this thoughtful remake. He's a different kind of actor than Caine, perhaps not as eloquent, but definitely more convincingly tough. Sly's Carter has a heart, soft spot so to speak. Caine's Carter was a sadistic pig with barely any redeeming quality. Both versions work in their own way, however. But I'm glad Sly chose this project. See both versions for yourself and decide.",1 "Joan Crawford's least likable character could be the one she played in this film, as a controlling and vindictive woman of wealth who runs and ruins (or nearly ruins) the lives of all those whom she has relationships with in her large southern plantation mansion. Apparently the relationships come out of her money and their lack of it, as well as the level of her misdirected intelligence and lack of empathy for others, none of which gets explained very fully. Even to her own children, the product of her marriage to heavy drinking philosophizing character played by Barry Sullivan, she shows a cold disregard, especially the choice of a nanny, who's even meaner than Joan. Into this dysfunction comes Jennifer Stewart as a young cousin from Chicago who upsets the strange family chemistry that has been developing over the years, befriending the poor kids, and catching a lot of eyes. John Ireland seems a natural as the one guy who can and does (in some well done scenes) stand up to Queen Bee Joan, presenting his usual suppressed aversion to injustice while also straddling the fence. It's worth sticking with for the ending.",0 "There are two ways to get a huge number of A-list faces on the big screen and where the first is usually a biblical or wartime epic, the other is a grand concept comedy such as Cannonball run. Essentially the film seems to have been shot on the fly whilst an actual cross-America car race took place. Hal Needham's picture was the first to use the outtakes in the end credits but sometimes its difficult to distinguish a blooper from the craziness that had gone before.

Still, Burt Reynolds' charisma drives (ahem) the film, along with his stooge, the hilariously cranky Dom DeLuise as Victor. Or Captain Chaos. Hmm. The rest of the cast have roles but they're essentially playing themselves - having said that Roger Moore's moniker of Seymour Goldfarb Jr. is a work of art. The fun benefits from money being spent on some inventive stunts and a police department with a sense of humour. 3/10",0 "The cast (except for Paul Bailey) was excellent, especially Steven Mackintosh, who did a wonderful job portraying John Harmon. I have never been disappointed by this top-rate actor. Anna Friel, David Morrissey, Timothy Spall, Dominic Mafham, and David Bradley also were wonderful.

The adaptation was also excellent. There were whole chunks of dialogue taken from the novel, and the story followed very closely to the novel as well. All in all an excellent film.

I am giving this a ten out of ten for the acting and the adaptation for film. Not the plot. I was disappointed with the ending of the plot of the book, and naturally, the film follows that plot. The ending is very lame, and I am sure Dickens could have thought up a much better closure. Still, a very high quality film all around. To any one who reads this, see the film in question! Especially to see Steven Mackintosh act...",1 "I loved this picture because it has beautiful cinematography and settings of Paris. But that's not all, Uma Thurman has so damn beautiful as the wife of Fred Ward who charms the young, naive, but tricky Anais Nin played superbly by Maria de Mardieos. Fred Ward as a little weird as the American writer who charms Anais. Uma was great with her thick New York accent and her beauty. I think the rating should have been R instead of NC-17.I have seen R rated movies much worse than this picture.Rent this movie right away! It will astonish you!This picture is an epic which should not be overlooked at the video store! Have Fun!

10/10",1 It's 2009 and I have just watched the best television drama I have ever seen and it's called 'The Corner'. Having been a late comer to 'The Wire' series on the FX channel in Britain then when that finished they advertised 'The Corner'. I expected the standard ghetto junkie story but 'The Corner' has an emotional pull that hits you right in the guts. I watched the show with friends and everybody was glued to the screen and the room was in total silence during this drama. The acting was incredible and the characters stay with you forever. I can't remember the last time that I genuinely couldn't wait to see the next episode of a programme. In my opinion this show is a lot better than 'The Wire' because it has heart in almost every character and you are desperate to see life improve for them. The Corner deserves a DVD release & I'll be the first in line to buy it. The cast & crew should be very proud of making a modern masterpiece.,1 "After watching the first fifteen minutes of this ""festering bowl of dog snot,"" I longingly wished that I'd been hit by a truck on the way to the video store. After suffering with fading hope through several excruciating minutes of a movie none of which was even 0.1% as cool as the videocassette box cover art, I watched the last 4/5 on fast forward, and it was *still* the most bash-your-own-head-in-with-a-brick, brain-numbingly, agonizingly *awful* piece of trash I've ever seen. (I make a special exception for Alien3 [WARNING: SPOILERS of series-spoiling elements in Alien3 & 4 FOLLOW], which, though not bad overall, will forever be my choice for worst movie because of the GLARING PLOT HOLE and contrived, character-killing plot devices at the start of the movie that COMPLETELY DISREGARD the plot, characters, and story lines that Cameron et al. developed in Aliens. I mean, really. There's an EGG on the Sulaco? How did *that* get there? The escape pod ... *broke* on landing, killing two of the most important characters? Everybody Dies? Argh!!! *sigh*) (And don't get me started on Alien4 and the whole Ripley-clone-automagically-recovers-the-dead-Ripley's-brain-contents thing. Sheesh.)

Anyway, back to ROTOR (but why bother?!): Completely devoid of ""acting"" - it was more like watching those animatronic dummies on the stage at Chuck E. Cheese writhe and jerk around after they're 1,000 hours overdue for their scheduled maintenance. As for dialog, imagine the same jerkiness translated into speech. Now conceive of a ""plot"" written by selecting random snippets from twenty seconds of Gumby dialog (a la Monty Python), and you'd still be imagining a less torturous movie than ROTOR. Even the ""special"" effects (think ""special"" as in ""the short yellow school bus"") were worse than the worst special effects on television. Transitions into ""robot view"" or ""design view"" or whatever they were trying to do were abrupt, discontinuous, and more amateurish than showing a spaceship waving around on the end of a stick. I'm still trying to figure out how to collect compensation from the production company for the hour of my life they wasted... and concurrently how to involve them in some appropriate form of torture. The existence of ROTOR makes a solid case for adding the ""0"" rating, and perhaps negative numbers, for movies at imdb.com.

But hey, I could be wrong! :-).",0 "I could not wait for this film to be over. The film did not give you a reason to want to keep watching it. I don't understand what the director was trying to accomplish with this movie. What a waste of money. The movie was really predictable. The acting was not bad. The objective is clear, but the director failed at making the journey interesting and there was not enough rooting interest where you were eager to keep watching. It is a shame that African American actors have to be reduced to having to make such poor quality films. It is better to pass on these types of films, and wait or develop projects that are entertaining and meaningful.",0 "When a young lower class black fellow from the ghetto,who aspires to be a journalist,wants to meet his idol,a black tv newsman while that tv news reporter is at a crime scene,and then when that same older classy black tv reporter,who turns down the young man's offer to see a video of the young man's work,gets killed in an accident while at the crime scene,the young black fellow takes his place reporting from the crime scene and becomes a hit with local viewers and the tv station and its' news producer.Such is the story of Dexter Jackson in the 1991 film Livin'Large,about a young black man who learns that despite the rewards of fame and money to never forget where you come.

That lesson would be decent enough to take in except that in the case of Livin'Large,the lesson becomes heavy handed.Dexter,played by Terrence Carter,changes more and more and becomes more remote from his ghetto neighborhood roots as he becomes successful.When a realtor shows him around a new townhouse he is going to buy,and his girlfriend tells Dexter that she can see the old neighborhood from the townhouse and Dexter replies,to his girlfriend's dismay,""and that is the way I prefer to see them from"",the movie shows how much he is changing because of success and not for the better.

As with most films centered around black people,these days,the politics concerning blacks and white come into play.Blanche Baker plays her role as the manipulative sleezy news producer very well.Her character,Kate,mentions to Dexter that they,white woman and black men,together must work to keep the white man from keeping them from reaching the top.It is a horrid message from a trashy character and yet it is a message the film itself doesn't distance itself too far from.

Livin' Large tries to tell blacks,in a nutshell,that having too much success,being too refined in speech,dress,education,and manner,makes you white.It is a message that is somewhat clumsy to present to the audience.There is nothing wrong with success.There is nothing wrong is doing the best you can and having dreams far from one's position in life.Livin'Large would wish to sell the idea that if you are black,and trying to improve your lot in life,in being different than how blacks are usually seen and portrayed by the American entertainment media,is an idea filled with compromise,or ""selling out"",or ""acting white"".The film's makers,in this case,could not be more than wrong.One would not hate the film,there are some funny moments in it,but it is not quite the film one should reccomend to the general audience at large.

",0 "The great about Tarkovskij films is the poetry in the pictures, the melancholic beauty which is almost too hard to bear. A lot of it is in this one: the water, the garbage, strange, haunting sounds in the background, the dogs, the empty rooms with metal beds and rotten walls, the rain, the warmth of pure, shy love, the static, photography-like pictures (sometimes even filmed pictures), the poems, the philosophical discussions.

The failure of ""Nostalghia"" shows the fragility by which these ingredients are held together in films like ""Solaris"" or ""Stalker"". The thin plot line is torn apart, there is no connection between the plots of exile (what a great plot for Tarkovskij this could have been!) and the plot of saving the world by sacrifying yourself. Domenico the lunatic is just not fascinating. You feel that Andrej cannot understand Eugenia, just as Andrej the director can't. The dialogues are awfully pseudo-intellectual, the fixation on Christian faith just penetrant (compare ""Stalker"" which is all about faith, but without the churches) - even God himself speaks. The story of carrying a burning candle through a pool and thereby saving the world can hardly be told without exposing it to ridiculousness. Andrej's death is hardly prepared, as young and healthy as he looks this just feels like a deus ex machina. In a word, ""Nostalghia"" is boring and self-indulgent. Maybe it is not a good idea to name your protagonist like yourself (although there was no problem in ""Andrej Rubljow"") and letting him read your brother's poems. What could have been great scenes in great films look here like mere self-plagiarisms. And there are scenes where Tarkovskij's genius rises: drinking wodka in the bath arches and talking to a child (one of the few scenes where Andrej comes to life); the final scene with the candle; the scene in Domenico's house. If you have never seen a film by Tarkovskij before, don't watch this - it might keep you from seeing his masterpieces. Three stars for a blundered film in respect of the artist.",0 "The cats who made this movie are burning in hell for eternity. And God bless their li'l hearts for producing a film so stunningly offensive that even I was forced to say, ""That's just mean."" I have seen a half dozen or so of these ""Naziploitation"" flicks but this bad boy takes the cream of the cake of the crop. If you have never been entertained by Naziploitation before, let me clue you in--this movie is all about the JEWS. Say the word JEW a few times to get yourself used to it. You will be hearing the word JEW used in some pretty crazy-ass dialogue if you watch this film. This is such a great movie.

The Nazis here are completely inhuman in this concentration camp sexploitation mutant. The first scene that told me that this was going to be a white-knuckle thrill ride is one where a roomful of naked German troops are shown some weird sexually violent scheisse films and then are loosed on a number of nude Jewish women to violate. Then there's the girl who is thrown in with the dogs. Then a bunch of other Jewish girls are picked out for torture and sexual slavery, including our heroine Lise. Then there's the Nazi dinner party where they eat Jews. ""Much tenderer than veal!"" grins the sicko prison camp commandant Starker. One guy even holds his meat-laden fork in the air and admires it--""There's nothing better than a pot roast of unborn Jew!""

Then there's the flambée scene--let me talk about this for a little bit. First off, when the notion of burning a naked women alive and eating her hits Starker, he is absolutely beaming. He starts everyone sweeping the dishes off the banquet table so's they can fire up the old gal. The attendants of the Nazi dinner pour cognac on the naked girl and the creepiest-looking of them lights up and drops a match with his hands all aquiver. The Nazis watch the girl burn out and you can see in their faces that they are drunk with power and reveling in their sadistic glory. And then we see them all bloated and trashed on the floor with the charred remains of their feast on the table.

And that scene is only halfway through the movie--there is a bunch more off-the-wall shenanigans to go till the end! This flick really delivers, man. Beyond the sheer jaw-dropping brazenness of it, it is actually a very well-made film that could succeed even without the pervasive rape and other horrific visuals. Take that as a recommendation. 10 outta 10.",1 "As a member of the ""Baby Boom"" generation I lived as a child with the specter of nuclear war hanging over me. As I type this I remember how, at 12 years of age just how frightened I was during the Cuban missile crisis. Just before this global crisis occurred a book was created which was so well written that I do not believe it will ever be improved upon in ANY medium. That book was 'Fail Safe' by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler.

The movie version released in 1964 faithfully represented the book as it was written and you felt the coldness of what I believe is the best third person narrative description I have ever read. The third person narrative of the book was almost like a character in the story and it was palpable, cold, and horrible in it's indifference and was captured in the 1964 movie perfectly.

I was very very disappointed with the liberties taken with the TV version, not only did they change parts of the story (an unforgivable crime when presenting a masterpiece), but to my taste the casting was WAY off the mark. For instance, Henry Fonda played an excellent portrayal of the president in the movie version .... Richard Drefuss wasn't even on the same planet with Fonda's performance and his over-acting ruined the seriousness of the situation - Fonda's cool disposition in his performance (like the book) was like fingers on a chalkboard that increased the nervous intensity of the '64 movie to the sublime.

I think the TV version was a desperate attempt to remake the movie and employ the same effects .... but it didn't work. I cannot in good conscience recommend the TV version as much as I would the 1964 movie version or better yet - the book, but I feel the TV version did score one home run ... it made people aware of this little gem . I feel sorry for those who had never read the book or seen the 1964 movie before because as you know (without including spoilers) you can't experience this story twice the same way.",1 "Syfy has done it again! Combing intense horror scenes and gripping plot that will keep you on the edge of your seat!

I am almost certain that the Matrix was based entirely off of this movie. You have Jack La Roca the chosen savior to bring peace to the zombies and the humans (ring a bell Neo?). His sexy partner Steph who Trintiy is obviously based on, and the fat Hawaiian seems to the original Oracle.

Not only do you have these great characters you also get the one and only Martin Lawrence with his best performance since Remember the Titans. His one-liners are classic and will have you laughing uncontrollably and there is nothing like handcuffing a black guy over and over.

Also the electric guitar riffs and the cameraman with Michael J Fox syndrome completely fit the mood of the gripping zombie sequences.

Only one minor question goes unanswered throughout this movie.... Why don't they just stay off the road?",1 "Can you imagine the nerve of some people? What director dares to call his film ""Monster from GREEN Hell"" and then deliver a black & white movie? How we are even supposed to recognize this hell in between the rest of the colorless locations and scenery? Anyway, the basic premise of this movie is fairly simply: an American space rocket crash-lands somewhere in the middle of the African jungle and causes a plain ordinary wasp to mutate into a gigantic buzzing monster. Yes, of course, that's exactly what the radiation of a whole rocket does to the fauna & flora of a jungle … it mutates ONE … SINGLE … WASP! And this critter must look truly petrifying because even the animals in the stock footage run away. Have you ever wondered what a giant wasp looks like when appearing in a zero-budgeted 50's movie? Indeed it looks ridiculous, pitiable and funny and there's a good reason why they keep it off-screen for so long. Back to the story. Responsible as they are, the Americans send a team to Central Africa and destroy the monster. This is where ""Monster from Green Hell"" turns into a dreadfully boring movie for an even more dreadfully boring reason. Before the expedition reaches the monster's turf, they first have to undertake a 27 day long safari during which they encounter primitive tribes (primitive tribes big enough in number to fill the entire Chicago Cubs baseball stadium, by the way) and suffer human losses through lion attacks. They're even faced with poisoned drinking wells! Why the hell are there poisoned drinking wells? !? The environmental conditions are harsh as well. The expedition first struggles through weeks of drought and dehydration and then subsequently weeks of unceasing rainfall. I swear, at a certain point I even feared there would come a volcano eruption as well. People don't care about that in this sort of movies; they want to see the giant wasp eat obnoxious characters, damned! Anyway, all this just to illustrate that the mission is half dead by the time they reach the monster and YOU just sat and watched an hour of wilderness documentary footage even though you counted on seeing a Sci-Fi monster movie. There's a funny name for this sort of thing and it's ""shenanigans!"" The Americans haven't got an idea of how big the wasp monster is and all through their journey they keep guessing its size, unaware that it's about a hundred times bigger than they expect. ""Monster from Green Hell"" is a hopeless film. I used to think all monster flicks from the 1950's were solid gold, but lately I've seen a few titles that altered this impression; like this one and ""Beast from Haunted Cave"". The cast is politically correct enough, though. There's an American, a Latin American, an Arab, a black guy and a woman! Too bad there wasn't an Asian and an Eskimo; otherwise this would have been the ideal ""United Colors of Benetton"" campaign.",0 "Scientist Ray Milland believes he's seeing and speaking to his late young daughter in ""Daughter of the Mind,"" also starring Gene Tierney and Don Murray. I suspect this was a pilot for a series on psychic phenomenon that was to star Murray; hence the ""guest starring"" credits for Tierney and Milland.

This is an intriguing drama. Milland is a scientist involved in sensitive government work, and our side is convinced that the messages he's getting from his daughter to quit what he's doing - bringing into play the possibility of defection - are a conjurer's trick by the other side. George MacCready, who plays Murray's boss, asks him to investigate. There are some sticking points for Murray. He sees the girl's image, he hears her voice - and then, during a séance, a wax replica of her hand appears in water, with verifiable fingerprints yet! If these things aren't true, how are they being accomplished? John Carradine, who plays an expert in the field of séances and mediums, advises him, ""You're going about it the wrong way. Don't ask if it was a trick. Ask yourself, if you were going to do it, how would you?"" Gene Tierney plays Milland's wife. 1969 was the last year she worked with the exception of one appearance in 1980. Though not Laura any longer, the blue eyes are still beautiful and vibrant, her smile is still lovely, and though illness has taken its toll, she is still beautiful. Ray Milland is fine as the devastated father though his bad hairpiece is distracting. He lost his hair after a permanent he received for ""Reap the Wild Wind,"" and eventually embraced baldness. Pamelyn Ferdin, a popular child actress of the day, plays the daughter. All in all, a very interesting story.",1 "I've seen a few movies about ""magical reality"" -- that fantasy zone where fairy tales and the real world cross, forcing jaded adults and child-like idealists to war over the relevance of imagination in a world full of disappointment. Most recently, ""Big Fish,"" ""Finding Neverland"" and ""Gods and Monsters"" spring to mind. Then there's ""Neverwas,"" a film so full of unnecessary flash and ""magical reality"" clichés that it shames the stories from which it pilfered its name... namely J.M. Barie's tales of Neverland and Neil Gaiman's ""Neverwhere."" And while ""Neverwas"" never will be remembered as fondly as those tales, it does manage to skim off the top of their inspiration and come up with a flimsy, smug movie that mimics much better movies.

""Neverwas"" gives us the jaded adult, the insightful madman, the understanding girlfriend, flashes of light, rain storms of glitter and... nothing else. It's a hollow movie that has seen other, better movies and is trying, in vain, to ape them. And it's written by a writer who's read lots of fairy tales but can't seem to create a convincing one himself. It's a wonder that so many good actors were coaxed into this production. I can think of at least six good fantasy films starring Ian McKellen. And ""Neverwas"" is definitely not one of them.

""Neverwas"" is a flashy shell of a movie... like a karaoke singer who knows the words but not the music.",0 "The title characters in this film are writer Henry Miller and his wife June. Two friends of Anais Nin. And more. The fact is she is frankly obsessed with both of them. A writer of erotica, she wants to experience sensuality in bold and daring ways. She gets the chance when her husband Hugo brings Henry to stay with them while he works on his novel. After June arrives Anais finds herself secretly thrilled at the hidden lascivious feelings the couple seem to bring out in her. Before long she is acting them out in abandon. This takes place in 1930s Paris and scenes of sex are are everywhere. They are as casually shown as if walking through different rooms. There is a richness and matter-of- fact manner about this film. Even though it is NC-17 I don't see it as ""dirty"" just boldly erotic. There are terrific performances by all involved. Actress Maria de Medeiros looks like a beautiful wide-eyed waif and is emotionally perfect as Anais. Fred Ward gives an unforgettable portrait of gruff and down to earth Henry Miller. Uma Thurman in an early role as June is beautiful and tragic.",1 "GREAT NEWS! Someone is selling DVDs of the entire series on sell.com ($55 plus shipping) and I bought the series. She obviously spent a lot of time on them, since the discs are really well done. My husband & I had forgotten lots of details of various episodes and it's like seeing old friends again. It's hard to believe that 10+ years have elapsed since the show ended....

We love(d) various other police shows such as Homicide and we're also devoted viewers of Law & Order and Law & Order: SVU, but *nothing* can compare to High Incident. We've remarked that not only was the acting superb (and very *natural*, which was rather amazing when considering that many of the actors were relative ""unknowns"" at that time), but also the *action*; it's like we're literally right there with the officers. There's not one fake moment in that series and every episode is terrific, with one exception; the foggy highway episode, which we thought really dragged. But all is forgiven when we consider the other episodes. :)",1 "IMHO the best film Fields ever made (and that's saying something). I have been looking for a copy of it for 15 years, but I can't find one. I hope it is not permanently unavailable.",1 "I always wondered about George C. Scott. He won the Academy Award for Patton (1970) and then he made many proclamations about how Hollyood sucked. Instead of banking his success into some better roles, he did several crappy horror movies and some odd films and never saw the light of stardom again. Patton II could have been a decent movie in the hands of a studio if it had been done shortly after the original. Instead, it was done as a TV mini-series back in 1986. Even though Patton was killed shortly after the end of WWII, it is hard not to notice that in The Last Days of Patton, G.C. Scott looks like he is about 70 years old and has aged 16 years since Patton (1970). The Last Days of Patton shows a moody, insecure person who was hoping Eisenhower would give him another command. It is kind of creepy. If you have read Patton's autobiography and some books about him; it is easy to see where someone could portray him as a neurotic. However, considering the career that Patton was in, and the life that he led; it would stand to reason that if Patton were such a soft-touch that he would not have reached the levels of success that he achieved. The Last Days of Patton seems to have been written by Eisenhower and the people that did not really like Patton. It is almost the antithesis of Patton (1970). After seeing The Last Days of Patton, I analyzed the poor man's life based on what I had read and seen; and General Patton dropped several notches down on the list of Statesmen and anti-heroes. The message of The Last Days of Patton seems to be: ""He was not a flamboyant, rebellious, politically incorrect leader; he was a sad, sick old man.""",0 "For all of those who play DND and have played DND throughout the years... you may have seen a movie that came out in 2000 that you may have hated or maybe even liked what was called Dungeons and Dragons The Movie. Well in my opinion it was a flop... Well recently they actually made a Dungeons and Dragons 2. I watched it last night even though it has not been released yet (it plays on the Sci Fi channel on Oct 8th) and well... it was great! I was totally surprised with the production. It wasn't cheesy (except a few of the special effects) acting wise or production wise. The movie played out like it was a regular adventure that a DM would make up, the spells were cast properly, the ""core"" rules were not broken, and most importantly the characters were interesting and were not INVINCIBLE... they are just like us PC's (getting arms eaten or chopped off or getting eaten whole by a purple worm!). So trust me... it was great. Even though it was obviously lower budget than say... Battlestar Galactica. But what DND game isn't low budget.",1 "Very dull. Maybe you have to be familiar with ""progressive"" parenting and an ""I'm OK, you're OK, we're not your parents, we're your pals"" bland suburban childhood to get into this, I don't know. Which is fine to make a statement about, but I didn't BELIEVE the characters in the movie; it rang false. They could have done something more interesting with this. I didn't find any moments of poignancy, illumination or any sort of reason for me to be watching this. I watched ""Me and You and Everyone We Know"" after this, and that is more along the lines of something I like to see in an indie film and films in general- an alternative point of view, some subversive humor and symbolism you're not beaten over the head with. It isn't the ultimate masterpiece, but good, and I enjoyed it. This film is no ""Donnie Darko,"" either. Just based upon its own merits, though, this film was a crashing bore and waste of my time.",0 "Over the top drama. A very boring movie, where every one has way too much grief and sorrow. Keep it small and do not overdo it man. This film is way too far-fetched and unbelievable. Speaking of incredibility: consider the implausible coincidences. Olivia is dreaming of images of which she makes drawings that look exactly like her lost daughter's sculptures. By accident, she then sees this daughter in a very staged television interview. The woman who just made a photo shoot for Time magazine in Angola happens to stumble upon an Angolan woman at the local market. Yeah right. Just to make the story-telling easier I guess.

None of the actors really outshines here. Famous names, low profiles. The fact that half of the cast is not native English-speaking adds to the very slow-paced, troubled effort in natural acting.

No irony, no humour, this movie takes itself far too serious. If you're still not sure, just watch the very stupid ending and all that I've said becomes clear. If you would like to watch an intelligent, well-acted parallel lives women's drama, check out 'Things you can tell just by looking at her'.",0 "I enjoyed high school musical 2 it is even better then the first one which sometimes doesn't work and the whole thing nose dives. The acting between Vanessa and Zak is 101% you could almost believe that they are head over heels in love when singing ""you are the music in me"" and ""I gotta go my own way"" Every member of the cast in fact gave a 100% for me. I loved it who said you have to be a child/teenager to watch and enjoy, Im 42 and I already cant wait for high school musical 3, its so nice to see young people enjoying life instead of all the hate and violence in society today and they managed to get their first kiss ""cheers for them"" maybe some young girls will be a bit disappointed with this or wish to be Vanessa or the boys wish to be Zak, ah the young, I was smiling remember my younger days too lol. Anyway don't take my word for it watch the film and see for yourself byeee",1 "I'm sure somewhere in ""She Hate Me"" lies a good story that would make for an entertaining movie. What we have, however, is a convoluted mess that tries too hard to be a social satire.

The premise: Jack Armstrong (Anthony Mackie), a hotshot VP at a pharmaceutical company, suddenly finds himself unemployed and in need of money. When his ex-fiancée-turned-lesbian Fatima Goodrich (Kerry Washington) offers him $10,000 to impregnate her and her lover Alex (the sexy Dania Ramirez), Jack realizes he could be a sexual cash cow. Next thing he knows, he's in high demand from wealthy lesbians who want children.

The problem is that Lee doesn't know what he wants his film to be. Or, what the story should be. He tackles way too many issues and never tackles any of them very well.

The film opens with a novel title sequence that ends with a broadside against President George W. Bush. Fair enough. Lee's bit actually works. The story then turns into some sort of diatribe against corporate greed, against the blatant excesses of the Enrons and WorldComs of corporate America. OK. Then there's also all this stuff about lesbians and impregnating them. And Jack's conscience about whether he's doing the right thing.

But the film then suddenly turns into a defense of Frank Wills, the black security guard who uncovered the Watergate burglary. Lee makes a valid point that while all the players involved in the burglary and subsequent cover-up went on to have lucrative careers as statesmen, authors, speakers and radio personalities, Wills died in obscurity. A tribute to Wills is long overdue. The man was a hero. But what the heck's his story doing in this film? And in a moment that seems completely arbitrary, Lee also throws in Oliver North into the mix of Watergate figures.

For a satire to work, it needs to satirize something. Frankly, I didn't know what exactly Lee was trying to send up. And, after a while, I didn't care. His movie's neither a sex comedy nor stinging social commentary. In fact, at times ""She Hates Me"" plays more like some sort of unbridled male fantasy. Not only are all the lesbians attractive, but also they want to get impregnated the old-fashioned way. The one lesbian who chooses artificial insemination fails and so has to plead with Jack to have sex with her.

Subtlety has never been Lee's forte. But in films such as ""Do the Right Thing"" (1989) and ""Jungle Fever"" (1991), he somehow found a good balance between satire and social comment. Here, he does no such thing. In ""She Hate Me,"" Lee's about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

What's ultimately disappointing about ""She Hate Me"" is the often-inane writing. When Fatima tells Jack she always was a lesbian, even when she was dating him, and was merely in denial, she adds, ""And I don't mean a river in Egypt."" That's how lame the dialogue is. It gets even worse, when Lee and co-writer Michael Genet give Brian Dennehy positively laughable dialogue later.

The corrupt business practices of Enron and its ties to the Bush administration deserve to be told. As does a satire, if you must, of white collar crooks who get off relatively easy and wind up having hugely successful lives as a result of their crimes. But this isn't the film that does it.

Lee's clever, talented and certainly socially conscious, but just seems to be tossing in every idea he had into ""She Hate Me."" Instead of being bitingly satirical about society's lopsided values, this is a mishmash of a film that is never as funny as it wants to be or as provocative as it should be.",0 "This movie sucked. I cannot say anything good about this Finlandia movie. If the style was not done intentionally the director, Aki Kaurismaki, needs to be prevented from ever making another film in his life. And if his kids ever want to make a movie they should be prevented as well just on the principle of who their father is. All through this, thankfully, short movie I kept wondering if this was being done on purpose. It wasn't sure if he wasn't trying to be funny. I'm almost interested in finding a few other Finnish movies to see if this is the norm. I've heard that Finland has the most depressed people with the highest suicide rate. Watch this movie and you'll want to kill yourself too.",0 "Ever since the frog jumped ship, it took some class with it. Finally the CW made a smart move and signed a Charmed/Buffy/Angel style show.

Just enough evil to have a serious side, yet just enough ""Sock"" for its lighter side. This show was unexpectedly recommended by my father-in-law and I was instantly hooked. No extra super special effects but enough to make believable. Casting could not have been better. The ""Dead Like Me"" feel helps too. I didn't think it was possible to make a show of this genre without copycat characters, plot lines or even locations. I can't say enough good without spoilers. Only thing is you really get the most from the show from watching in order from 1 to 18.

Can't WAIT for next season!!!",1 "Two English girls on a biking holiday ride through a rural portion of France, populated exclusively by sinister people. Somewhat too cleverly plotted film, with a huge red herring: one of the main characters acts in a completely irrational way simply to create confusion for the audience and lead into a kind of trick ending. Perhaps Cathy's extreme reticence is meant to be typical British reserve, but she eventually seems too self-possessed to be credible. And why bother to move the victim, when the entire location is so remote? Granted, it's well-directed and suspenseful throughout, but once it's over, the irrationalities undercut the accomplishment.",0 "Maybe I'm not even the right person to be reviewing this documentary, seeing as to how I was born long after the '60s were over. But still, ""Woodstock"" transports you back to the era, and everything associated with it. Too bad that they didn't show Janis Joplin's performance, though. I understand that she was so messed up that she could barely perform, but she was still part of the gig. Of course, Jimi Hendrix playing ""The Star-Spangled Banner"" is beyond electrifying. Richie Havens, Arlo Guthrie, The Who, Country Joe & the Fish, and the other performers all combine to create something that can never be equalled. Perfect.",1 "Minority Report is a fine example of well told science fiction. The Sci-Fi genre has often been ridiculed because of the great number of hacks that have infested it, but fortunately there are often refreshingly intelligent and well-related stories like this one is.

It deals with some time travel paradoxes, which is always a strong cornerstone that provides an enormous amount of creative license for the writer. This movie taps those resources with ingenuity and vision, and takes the viewer to a futuristic world where a crime is punished before it's committed. This unique premise gives the writer room to explore social issues and implications of this practice. Certainly a metaphor for our current justice system is hidden just below the surface.

As far as plain entertainment value goes, it delivers here also. The action never stops, the plot unfolds with precision, and innovative camera shots are utilized for both stark and surreal imagery.

The only beef here is a weakness in the casting. Most of the cast are up to their roles, well enough to make the hackting of Tom Cruise less of a distraction than it might have been, considering he plays the lead. It seems in most of his movies, the director makes sure to have accomplished actors to counter balance the Cruiser's dramatic shortcomings. He has almost become invisible in his own movies, which can only be a good thing for the movie makers and audience.

In spite of the poor lead actor, this is an outstanding film. Highly recommended.",1 "Stay the hell away from anything that William Victor Shotten has done, not because it's cheesy, or because the stories are terrible, or because the cast's performance makes you physically ill, but because he makes even the worst YouTube directors look like Peter Jackson, hell, he even makes Uwe Boll look like Peter Jackson.

There was nothing good about this movie what so ever. I was bored, the entire time. I want to see an indie movie at least match the original Night of The Living Dead. Nowadays, the ease of making a NoTLD-type movie have significantly decreased. Jesus William, buy some meat from your local butcher or something, don't waste our time.

Oh, and apparently William Victor Shotten has a new movie out, Sabbath (www.sabbaththemovie.com). Just finished watching it, just realized that it was his movie. Stay away, incredibly boring.",0 "Aileen Wuornos grew up in a financially, and emotionally, deprived family. She later killed seven men in cold blood (she may have been defending herself from attack in some cases, but that remains unclear). She showed little remorse thereafter. She was intelligent, articulate, and although towards the end of her spell on death row appeared wildly deluded, was arguably not insane: her view of the world may have been wrong, but it did make sense. The story of her final year, told in this film by Nick Broomfield (who had made another film earlier during her journey through the U.S. legal system), makes highly disturbing viewing. Wuornos does not come across as a ""monster"" (the name of a subsequent fictionalised account of her case) but as very human; and yet she seems incapable of comprehending the significance of death, even her own at the hands of the state. The system treated her badly, and I personally oppose the death penalty in all cases; and yet it's hard to imagine how anyone in her position could generate less sympathy than Wuornos does. In some respects, 'Aileen' is a ghoulish film, peeping through the window of a house of pure horror.

Broomfield's earlier film centred on the grotesque way almost everyone involved in the case tried to sell their story to the media. But Broomfield himself is part of that media, and notwithstanding the fact that he gained Wuornos' trust, this film seems almost out of it's depth. Broomfield's style, first practised on South African white supremacist Eugene Terreblanche, is based on turning up, turning on the camera and letting people damn themselves. In his film of Terreblanche, the tactic worked, brilliantly deflating alarmist rumours of an Afrikaaner coup in it's portrait of it's pathetic subject. But in 'Aileen', it's unclear who Broomfield is trying to damn, or whether anyone is well served by the putting of the story on camera. In one of the most chilling moments, we see the awful television coverage of Wuornos' execution (sample sound-bite: ""Date with Death""), but at one remove, through Broomfield's own lens. Does this make the film an expose, or merely an exploitation of (and contributor to) our collective and irrational fear of that tiny proportion of humanity who kill for apparently no reason? It might do us more value to look at the (socially licensed) serial killers on both sides of the war in Iraq. Instead we play ""watch the monster"". At least 'Aileen' makes you think. But don't expect to understand.",0 "I'll give this a 10 out of 10 just to counterbalance the low voters a bit. It's worth at least 6 out of 10.

Are those votes low because of the nudity? It's a soft-core porno movie, what did you expect? Same for anyone expecting an action movie or something like that. I wonder how many of the voters actually saw the movie.

This movie is an extremely humorous Lord of the Rings spoof with nudity in it. Nothing more but also nothing less. The dialogs are better than a lot of regular comedies, let alone the average porno. Sure they did not have a huge special effects budget, but they used what they had the best they could, and they came up with a very entertaining script.",1 "It just didn't work.

Alien nun? WTF? Alien taxi driver? And he tries to kill his passenger for what reason? They live in Mexico? Where where they the rest of the time? So why are they suddenly just killing people when Ben Cross and the Blonde chick come into town? Wasn't good...wasn't scary, wasn't science fiction...just wasn't workable.

The writers could have come up with something more creative for the paycheck...and the locations could have been chosen better too.

Basically, it all could have been better.

Yeah...as far as sequels go...it should be written by the same people - especially if the script was big enough to have a sequel.",0 "Thoroughly entertaining performances from Richards, Theron, and Torn can't save this movie from its sub-par direction and formulaic predictability. Richards delivers his lines with the same quirky mannerisms that I found hilarious in Seinfeld, but if you didn't like it there, you won't like it here. Theron shows promise though she has to create her performance as she is given nothing by the material. Perhaps the funniest moment in the film comes when Torn tells his sob story after he puts himself on the stand. I got the impression Jeff Daniels wasn't trying very hard in this film, but you can't blame him given the tired storyline and studio-oriented vision. The script was most likely written by a computer, or more likely a desperate, soulless, sellout of a hack with a talent for gag suppression. For diehard Michael Richards fans only.",0 "A historical note: Although tons of pictures of Vikings with horned helmets have been produced over the years, this is actually a myth. They never, to our knowledge, wore such helmets. And, if you think about it, this makes sense, as the horns would make such a helmet unwieldy and difficult to wear. Plus, you might get stuck going through doorways! This traditional view of Vikings is more the Wagnerian view of the people. In fact, the wonderful movie ""The Vikings"" is so wonderful, in part, because it gets this point correct. Also, while this might disappoint you, most historians don't believe King Arthur ever lived or if he did, the stories about him are all false. The stories you read about him were often written as much as 1000-1300 years after he was to have lived and vary tremendously--and they are essentially myths. Sorry to spoil this for you, but I was a history teacher--and I love debunking myths.

The film begins with Valiant (Robert Wagner) being sent by his daddy the king (Donald Crisp) to the court of King Arthur to become a knight. Crisp's friend, hidden under all that makeup and hair, is Victor McLaglen, by the way. It seems that Crisp has had his kingdom stolen from him and why he would then choose to send his son away is a bit of a mystery. What also is a mystery is why a Viking would go to the UK and serve Arthur. Oh well, it's no worse than a film I saw years ago where a Saracen (who were from the Middle East) was also in Arthur's court! At least Scandinavia is kind of near Britain! On his way there, he stumbles upon a Viking making a dirty deal with a Brit--and accidentally stumbles into the midst of the traitors. He manages to escape(!) but is now a man pursued by many who wish to bash in his skull! In addition to avoid getting killed, much of the film concerns Valiant's new career as a squire. While he hates to have such a lowly job, such is the way to career advancement in the knighthood game. Oh, and by the way, knights were NOT the noble dudes you see in the film. Mostly, they were used to beat up the peasants for their lords and fight various wars. They were an incredibly violent and non-chivalrous group and I'd love to see a film portray them like they really were--often, a bunch of raping, murdering scalawags. Now THAT would make for an interesting film! So, as you can tell, I hate this film for its many, many inaccuracies. However, I can enjoy such a film on purely an entertainment level. So is it entertaining and worth seeing? Well at least on a aesthetic level, it's a nice film. It has the wonderful touches that you'd expect from an A-picture from Twentieth-Century Fox. Great music, lovely period costumes, wonderful locations and nifty castles--it sure looked wonderful (though the castles used were all built much too late for the time period in the film--gosh, that history teacher in me is rearing up its ugly head again).

As for the writing, dialog and acting, it's not a film that impresses. Much of the dialog seems strangely anachronistic and dull. Some is even rather dumb (such as when Janet Leigh confronts Valiant at the 50 minute mark). The characters all seem a bit flat and dull. The actors, though often accomplished, are not at their best here. Sterling Hayden, a wonderful actor, just seems out of place as does James Mason. The biggest problem, however, is Robert Wagner. In this period in the 1950s he was very much an up and coming actor--having starred in quite a few plum roles. However, Hollywood often didn't seem to know how to use this handsome man--putting him in films that simply didn't seem to fit him. Here, he plays a Viking and in ""Broken Lance"" (also 1954), they cast him as a macho cattle rancher!! I mean no disrespect, but he was not the action hero sort of guy. He would have been better in romances or such films as ""A Kiss Before Dying""--where he very effectively played a guy who romanced and then murdered women. You can't blame Wagner for these roles--he was young and the studios paid well...and they were starring roles. Too bad he just wasn't right for them--and his accent and manner seemed to have NOTHING to do with Vikings. I would have much preferred to see some rugged ruffian in the role instead (such as Ernest Borgnine or Victor Mature).

As far as action goes, for an adventure film it is strangely static and filled with dialog. I would have loved a good castle siege or sacking here and there throughout the film...and I kept waiting and waiting and it only came too late--after I was pretty bored with the film. Sure, there were a few nice attempted murders here and there (cool) but not enough to make the film seem ""actiony""--instead, it was much too much like a stuffy costume drama much of the time.

Now if I wanted to watch a rousing and completely historically inaccurate film, there are a lot of dandy ones out there. ""Ivanhoe"" and ""The Adventures of Robin Hood"" are fantastic costume dramas and are first-class entertainment. And, if you are some sort of weirdo and want to actually see something with more realism and accuracy (but with tons of really, really cool action), try ""The Vikings""--a rousing and wonderful bit of entertainment that actually touches on some of the themes seen in ""Prince Valiant"". It isn't that this film is terrible (it isn't), but there just are a lot better and more entertaining films out there to see first. Heck, now that I think of it, ""Monty Python and the Holy Grail"" would definitely be my choice as the best Arthurian film out there!",0 "I have seen a lot of movies and this is by FAR the worst I ever seen. My wife and I couldn't stop watching it out of disbelief. I must admit we laughed a lot because it was so bad. If your looking for nudity, there is plenty but I've seen a lot better. The computer geeks are portrayed by having guys wear Star Trek uniforms. As far as I could tell, the ""star"" Kira Reed doesn't even play a character, just a body double in a fantasy scene.

Once in a while I like to look for the worst looking title I can find because bad movies make you appreciate everything else in life more. If you ever feel like watching a grade C movie, this is a must see. Also try and find ""Hillbillies In A Haunted House"".",0 "I saw this movie back in Hungary, when I myself was also in high school, and absolutely loved it. Today I had a chance to see it again, and was a little worried that being 20 years older, and having seen so many more movies since then, I may end up being disappointed. But fortunately it didn't happen! I still found the jokes, the kids and the faculty hilariously funny. The movie successfully transpired that distinct CUTE goofiness we liked so much in other French movies (most notably in those of Louis de Funes), but is completely missing from otherwise brilliant flicks like American Pie. I wish I could find this movie in English, at least with subtitles; I'm sure the American education system could relate to it real good...

Ps.: Our hard-working people will be victorious! ;-)",1 "I am the only surviving female-impersonator who played in ""The Rose"". I was the only one who had a talking-scene with Midler and Forest. I was approached to be Bette's impersonator in a drag-club, because I was/am a live performer. Midler's manager, Aaron Russo - who had come to check me out - called-out that I was doing Bette's ""jokes"" during a live performance in the world-famous ""The Queen Mary"", a night club in Studio City, CA - now sadly closed after 42 years. However, I do not do impersonations of other performers. What the manager didn't know is that most of her material came from drag-queens. I also had appeared in The 82 Club in New York City - a mafia-run establishment, and wonderful to work for, also closed - and was hired originally by Rydell as a consultant for the physical attributes in a long-closed speakeasy in downtown Los Angeles......it was larger, but perfect. After a conversation with Mark Rydell and a singing audition for an unseen Ms. Midler, I was told ""bring an outfit - we've written a role for you"". I was hesitant to accept - there was no contract for a speaking-role, I was paid only scale. I attended the first day of shooting on location, but did not go for the second day - they came to get me, I suppose because they liked what they saw in the ""dailies"" - There was a third day of shooting, all of which were totally miserable for me - I had no aspirations to be a ""movie-star"" - I was an established drag-act with a large following and loved my work. My drag-appearance was outrageous, as you'll know if you saw the film ""The Rose"" - I planned it that way, because that's the act I was doing at the time the film was shot. The role I did in the film actually was an impersonation of someone's identity I cannot divulge - I'm sure many New Yorkers picked-up on it immediately. All of the hair-dressers on location were shocked with my hairpiece - they could not have combed it. On the final day of shooting, it became very quiet after the ""wrap"". Ms. Midler very quietly called me over to speak with her before the entire company, thanking me for being so quiet during the shooting, not constantly calling ""make-up"", ""hair"" as the other impersonators did. I was highly complimented.

I've seen the film only once in a theater, and became so engrossed with the story, I completely forgot I was in it. Like 90% of the audience, when I saw myself I gasped. I heard people call-out my name, as I sunk deeper into my seat. It was only then I became extremely gratified to have been in the film. Ms. Midler and I never stuck to the script, because it did not bring-out that her character had once been down-and-out when she lived above ""The 777 Club"", and I supplied her with drugs. There is enough unused film from that shoot to make another film. What a waste of money ! It was and is my opinion the entire scene could have been left-out, it was so poorly, ruthlessly edited.

I worked for many years in ""The Queen Mary"" after the film was released. I never made a big deal that I was in the film. People asked if I were in ""The Rose"" during my performances - and do still today wherever I happen to be - and I tell them I was, but it was only another job - as it was just that. I'm much better known for performances at ""The Queen Mary"" than having appeared in ""The Rose"". I've turned-down opportunities to appear in other films, because I have no real interest, unless the money is good. Scale.....peanuts. Making movies is not fun !! All that standing-around, shooting the same scene 50 times-a-day.

If you are familiar with ""The Queen Mary"", you'll know my name. Otherwise, you'll have to look at this sensational film to discover my identity. I call myself ""The Oldest Drag-Queen in Captivity"", because I'm 82-going-on 30.

As other posters have stated, ""The Rose"" IS NOT A BIOP OF JANIS JOPLIN. If it's true the story was just a film for Ms. Midler to perform in to show her talent, it is a fabulous testament to that fact. Is she an actress? Indeed! She could not have done the body of work she accomplished without being one. Viva Midler ! The appearance of the film is exactly as it was intended to be - criticize all you want, this is a major film - and will become a classic.",1 "This was the biggest steaming pile of a movie I've seen in a long time. Awful writing, awful directing, tedious and contrived plot, and poor acting efforts from an A-list cast. In fact, this is one of those movies that's hard to turn away from because the awfulness is so compelling -- this is a movie with serious Oscar pretensions that comes up short in so many ways. The plot can be more or less summed up as a melodramatic mix of the worst parts of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest & Gorillas in the Mist. Man loves Gorillas, Gorillas get killed, man goes berserk (this is the big secret he's keeping mute over in the nuthouse?) Hopkins wades through the dreadful script as well as possible, but Gooding as usual hams it up to the max all movie long with his favorite screwed-up-Popeye-indignant face. A couple of choice scenes to demonstrate the cheeziness of this movie -- First, the scene in which Gooding gets all the inmates to tear up their playing cards while the inspirational music swells and you half-expect the cast to start the slow-unison clap from those awful highschool sports movies. Second, when Gooding gets out of his car in the end after quitting the asylum, he climbs out of the car and with more sappy music swelling does the Tim Robbins Shawshank-escape Jesus pose in the driving rain... unbelievable syrupy tripe. Don't waste your time with this stinker, unless you like the unique awfulness of the Heaven's Gate-type of train-wrecks; you're better off jabbing a salad fork in your eye for 2 hours.",0 "City of Ember isn't perfect, but I personally enjoyed it, and so did my family. I admit I haven't read the book, but I am the sort of person who likes to judge adaptations on their own merits. The film does look phenomenal, the set design is intricately crafted and the costumes are beautiful. And the special effects are mind-blowing, not the best special effects ever but not the worst, far from it. The soundtrack is also rousing and fun, the story is intriguing, the script is decent and the acting is very well done. Both Harry Treadaway and Saoirse Ronan(the better of the two) give appealing lead performances while Amy/Catherine Quinn is very cute as Lina's little sister Poppy. Bill Murray is deviously obnoxious as the slob of a mayor if there ever was one. However, despite the impressive visuals and performances, there are some problems. One is that while Tim Robbins is a good actor, he is given little to do as Doon's father. Second, the ending felt rather abrupt, the film could've done with a more rounded finish. Thirdly, the pacing is rather slow and drawn out at times particularly in the middle half. This is probably not helped by the occasionally sluggish direction. Despite these flaws, I liked City of Ember. 8/10 Bethany Cox",1 "This is unfortunately the last film Fulci would direct and it is a decent film but if you are expecting typical Fulci, this is not your kind of film.

John Savage plays the part of Melvin Devereux. On his way home he is stopped by a funeral and meets a very strange lady. Upon driving away from the funeral, Melvin gets behind a slow moving hearse who he tries to pass. The man driving the hearse will not let him pass and things suddenly get very strange and turn into a car chase. Melvin then notices his name on the coffin in the back of the hearse and begins to really freak out. The movie then goes on like this until the finale.

This is a very hard film to review. First off, it plays like a 90 minute Twilight Zone episode which isn't a good thing. This story could have easily have been a 40 to 45 minute short film and that would have been more appropriate. Instead, the film has a lot of random scenes that don't make much sense and even when the finale comes, still does not make any sense. It seems like Fulci was trying to take his film writing in another direction and if he had lived longer may have succeeded.

All in all, this is not a bad film, but for Fulci fans of the late 70's and early 80's, you might be disappointed. For real hardcore Fulci fans, I would say this is a must see. 7/10",1 The previous poster commented that this movie was not available in Widescreen.

There's at least 2 ways to get this in Widescreen. I've got one on the 'Quality' label - it's a 2 movie set on one disc. The other movie is some William Shatner film. I was pretty shocked to see it in widescreen considering the package was only $5.00.

The 2nd way is on the 'Legends of the West' 8 Movie Collection. I'm pretty sure that's widescreen as well.

Slow movie that drags on.

The theme song repeats all the way throughout the movie. Don't remember if there was more than one actual song played throughout it's entirety.

This movie is really only for Blaxploitation/Fred Williamson completests.,0 "Excellent screenplay, music, singing and acting. The subject matter was difficult, but the screenwriter and actors pulled it off. An excellent film, minus the stereotypes, which were a necessary evil in the 1930s. A film well worth the risk by a major studio.",1 "By now you already know the essentials. This is like scores of other movies that mix the competition genre — success in life as dedication to some competitive sport — with the black kids redeemed by tough dedicated teacher. Its a predictable grind.

There are other distractions: the patronizing tone is heavier than usual, Banderas, usually charming, has some syrupy lines that might have been forgiven if he had actually danced. I guess it wasn't in his contract. The final peculiarity comes if you saw ""Mad Hot Ballroom."" The competition is in actually learning the graces of ballroom dancing, but this movie wants it both ways and ends with a hop hop sequence. It is as if he talked them into entering a polo context and they won it by playing basketball.

Well, I forgive all this, because the dance is handled cinematically, and that's good enough for me. Forget all the tepid excuses and bozo morality and just look at this as an episode in the long love affair between movies and dance.

This particular thread started with Fred Astair I suppose. The problem was that movies were trying to become something more than stage shows. So they had to figure some way to merge dance that would appear in the story. Astair combined ballroom dancing with the kind of stage dancing from the old era.

This way, it made sense in a subtle but important way and we ended up with a whole class of dance folding in what followed.

This movie is essentially about hip hop dance merged with ""whitebread"" ballroom dancing. The fold is ordinary: at the end we have an audience on-screen engaged in their sometimes nice business of polite dancing, sometimes with a representation of passion but not real passion.

And what gets folded in is ""real"" life, real passion (supposedly, though who believes kids can know anything about passion?).

So if you are going to judge this, there are only two things to watch for:

—Is the passionate dance passionate? Is it real? Do you feel that you are taking risks with it; that you are seeing the dancers at the edge? Is it Jazz? Does it hurt?

No it doesn't. You never escape the reality that these are professional dancers picked to match the required stereotypes and who are moving clumsily by design. Then when they bust out you know you are watching something choreographed.

secondly:

—Does the camera dance? After all, the whole thing is about enfolding us into the energy of the thing. And it is possible to place the camera amid the dance and animate it as if we were ourselves busting out.

And this does reward a bit, especially in the editing until the end. That end I guess is too important to the producers, so it abruptly shifts into conventional camera mode. It may have been shot first with a different creating crew.

But earlier, the camera does engage. And the lighting is subtly edgy.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.",0 "For somebody who has seen the French original with Pierre Richard and Gerard Depardieu, this is the worst remake of a movie for all times. Martin Short might be a good comedian and Danny Glover is a good actor, but as a team they are not even close to be as funny as the original team. I don't know, why American filmmakers always try to make remakes of French movies and fail on the attempt.",0 "I've seen & heard aged Nazis (or their witnesses) - speak on film. However dry, actual Nazi talk and operations data is more POTENT than this gushing ""feelings about Hitler"" production.

""Our Hitler..."" is the extreme example of 1970's

too much talk too little action self absorption (every word we blather out should be preserved- every idea however tangential and unfocused - is precious to preserve ...) film work - but there are still nuggets of visual and verbal power in this way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way too long film.

Near the end (for one of a zillion examples of This Film wandering far far far far off the main point - i.e. Hitler & co) you hear a diatribe about the camera,and its ability to communicate, including a quote from early 20th century film star...they then quote Mary Pickford!!!

Mary Pickford (who has nothing to do with Naziism that I ever heard of) ....and you wonder - Mary Pickford??? mentioned in a film which is supposed to be about ""our Hitler"".

This film has the grotesque tone/imagery also seen in - CABARET. But the host of Cabaret (played by Joel Grey), tho corrupt, ...doesn't commit the sin in this film of - boring you to death.

The second half of this 7 hour - film cure for insomnia - is slightly more interesting than the first half. ...tho the large Hitler puppet, the stuffed dog doll with a Hitler face, and ""Tales of Hoffman"" type of scenery .........................are distracting. (Makes me wonder if someone was smoking an illegal substance while writing this script!)

But the second half has some potent quotes from some key Nazis themselves. The quote about Himmler's desire to MILITANTLY enforce his animal protection legislation caught me for a bit, anyway. THAT would have been a potent spot for grotesque images...!

EDIT IT! CUT IT IN HALF!",0 "Oh god.

This movie butchered the magic of the book. I seriously wasn't sure if this was the same movie... Why didn't Dumbledore pick Harry up from the Dursleys and give them a piece of his mind? Where was the Slug Club? Why didn't Harry know that Sirius' house was now his? not to mention Kreacher? It plays a big part in the next movies! Why weren't the lessons with Dumbledore fully developed? You find out almost NOTHING about Voldemort's past. Where were Bill and Fleur? Where was the twins' shop? (Blink and you miss it) Where was Hagrid? Where was Neville? Where was Quiditch? Where was Tonks' and Lupin's relationship??? What, am I just supposed to believe that they get married out of nowhere in the next book? Where was Madam Rosmerta's role? Where were apparition lessons? How are the trio meant to move from place to place in the next books? Magic Carpet?!?!?! Where was Dumbledore's funeral? Where was Harry's and Ginny's relationship and break-up? Where was Scrimgeour? Where was the big fight at the end? Where was the set up with the diadem? Where was Fenrir Greyback? WHY for the love of all that's holy, did Harry just STAND there while Snape murdered Dumbledore before his very eyes? He was meant to be PETRIFIED (literally)!!! And not only that, but Snape actually SEES Harry, and does nothing about it. Won't Harry find it kinda odd that a Death Eater sees him, practically defenceless, and doesn't do anything about it? Harry is meant to believe that Snape is a full fledged Death Eater, yet he lets Harry get off scott free? That is a SERIOUS oversight in the plot of the book! All these things listed above, the major plot points, weren't there! I couldn't find them!

What I COULD find however was: The burning down of the burrow...?!? Dumbledore seeming to only JUST realize that Voldemort used Horcruxes even though he was meant to have already destroyed one... and not only that but I also explicitly heard Dumbledore say: ""They could be anything""!!! In the book, he clearly points out that they WOULDN'T be just anything, that Riddle liked collecting things. In the movie, he makes out as if it could be any old thing, a shoe, a can, a piece of paper... (better get searching then Harry, I found the ring, because ""Magic leaves traces"", but when I die, you're screwed!!!) Some random waitress in some random diner... A rock concert tribute to Dumbledore... A revealing of Hermione's love for Ron... and i DEFINITELY found Ron's and Lavender's relationship and... sexual innuendo?? OK, the Ron and Lavender subplot in the book was quite nice and funny but in the movie, it completely shadowed the ACTUAL story! they were snogging all over the place! it was impossible to focus on anything else with them popping up everywhere! It turned the movie into some sickly rom-com! and then I was shocked to find sexual innuendo! yup, believe it or not. And i know I wasn't the only one because i heard laughs and hoots all around the theater. The scene where Ginny bends down to tie Harry's shoelaces... what is up with that? Hey hang on a minute, isn't Harry's cloak meant to be a hallow? Good thing Luna CHARMED it off him then!!!

MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD

So, not only did they destroy the capodopera that this movie could have been, but they also didn't set up the next movie/s. How are Harry, Ron and Hermione going to start looking for the Horcruxes if they don't even know what they COULD be? How are the contents of Dumbledore's will going to be passed along if Scrimgeour doesn't even exist? How is Harry going to remember that Xenophilius was wearing the symbol of the Hallows at the wedding if the WEDDING CAN'T EXIST??? And HOW is Voldemort going to get the wand from Dumbledore's tomb if 1. the TOMB Isn't THERE and 2. THE WAND Isn't IN THE TOMB ANYWAY!!! How is Harry meant to remember where the diadem was if he NEVER BLOODY SAW IT!!!! How are they going to use Grimmauld Place and Kreacher, not to mention Dobby if there was never even a whisper about what happened to them???

This movie was thoroughly disappointing, and I really think they should... remake it basically!!! Because not only was THIS movie bad, but it's set to ruin the next ones as well. The only slim ray of hope (because hope springs eternal) left for the next movies is that they include what they missed out in HBP at the start of the first seventh one. They've got like 5 hours for the rest of the Harry Potter story so they could fit it in.",0 "I expected a lot from this director and the screenwriter, their previous cooperation on 'Cloaca' led to a masterpiece. This film however is a big disaster. It contains too many dramatic events spread over too many characters. Everybody in this film is totally wasted, the dialog is purely psychological jadajada and serves no function in telling a story that connects the different characters in a plot. As a viewer it is impossible to connect to one of the characters for longer than 2 minutes, their problems are merely unbelievable entertainment that just goes in with your popcorn but does not have any meaning. What also puzzles me is why they did not work with the same Director of Photography as in Cloaca, as it looked fantastic. Leef! however has a bleached out look, Using very hard light on the faces of the characters, I guess the idea was to enlarge their mental status by making them look more tormented, not very interesting to look at though.",0 "Sody pop and hot rods and teen lingo. This is definitely a movie out of the 50s.

No snakes or dinosaurs or alligators, but a giant gila monster snaking on delicious people.

Sheriff Jeff (Fred Graham) is at a loss and the town bigwig (Bob Thompson) is on his case. But, there is one teen (Don Sullivan) around that seems to have the knowledge and gumption to do something.

For his first two films Ken Curtis (""Gunsmoke"") calls on special effects whiz Ray Kellogg (The Green Berets, The Killer Shrews) to direct his own story.

Not a bad tale for the time.",1 "I hate Ed Burns. I think Rosario Dawson could go back to acting school. I have always felt a nervous twitch come on whenever Brittany Murphy speaks (like fingernails on a chalkboard). Then, alas, Heather Graham is only worth watching when directed by either PT Anderson or by early David Lynch. So, with a line up like this, I thought this would be a simple, and rather disappointing, film to view. I couldn't have been more wrong. Sidewalks of New York captured my attention with its unique storytelling ability, the quickness of the character development, and the underused talent that Stanley Tucci brought to this project. I also believe that what me enjoy this film further than I have other Edward Burns films (i.e. I HATED The Brothers McMullen) is that it wasn't your typical Ed Burns film. It was obvious, from the opening scene that he was the center focus, but it just didn't have the typical Ed Burns feel to it. This film felt fresh, not so ""in your New York face"" or centered on ethnicity as the others have, but instead about romance, sex, relationships, and personal responsibility. For me, Sidewalks worked because the characters worked together. This wasn't just Ed Burns focusing the camera on himself, but allowing others to speak around him. It felt like a conversation with Ed Burns and his friends, not just Ed Burns. Also, how can you disrespect a film where Stanley Tucci gives a phenomenal performance (completely taking away the Burns spotlight)!

Pulled from an earlier release date because of 9/11, this film couldn't have made you feel more at home in New York than actually being there in person. I mentioned before that Burns fantastically takes the viewer away from you typical New York scenery and plants you IN New York (if that makes sense). He doesn't overpower you with the cliché images of the Empire State building, the Statue of Liberty, or other overblown New York images, but instead makes you feel like you actually live there. Burns, surprisingly, didn't develop the city as I assumed he would, but instead developed our characters. Burns' decision to make this film into a half-documentary, half-feature film was brilliant. New York is a fast pace town, and Burns captures that with his choice of direction. He jumps us quickly between characters, witnessing how fast a relationship can blossom in the city that never sleeps. One would normally think that this would be confusing, but for me, it kept me glued to the screen. Cylindrical story lines? Wasn't this technique so … yesterday? Perhaps, but Burns is able to keep the flow moving and the characters fun, which cannot be found in most of the knock-offs post-Magnolia. I believe that for one of the first times, Burns demonstrated his directing chops extremely well. He went outside of his norm, while keeping with the patented Burns seal of approval.

When I first began this film I was upset with the choice of actors. It was obvious that Burns chose his friends to star in this film. Budget was tight and time was short, so why not. I have no trouble with this. My trouble is that his friends do not appeal to me as a film watcher. I have not seen (outside of Sin City in which Rosario and Brittany were animated) a worth wile film with a majority of our lead characters. Heather Graham flip-flops between decent and poor, while Brittany just seems like she isn't acting, but instead just playing ""herself"". I wasn't interested in the characters when I started this film, I just wanted to see how Burns would handle mediocre talent. I must admit, he surprised me. While Murphy, Graham, and Dawson were not ""jump-for-joy"" amazing, they worked well together. The script worked with these characters. There wasn't big shoes to fill, and I think even the low rung of the Hollywood ladder could handle this story, which kept me at ease. What really impressed me was that Tucci was jaw dropping. It was nothing that he would in an award for, but definitely the stand out talent of the film. For some very strange reason, he captivated me in this movie. I wasn't expecting the performance to be that good. I know, many of you think that this was a poor film, how could anyone's talent be that good? My thought is that Tucci stood out because nobody else was reaching the bar. The acting wasn't bad, it just felt sterile, but with Tucci that all changed. He kept Sidewalks of New York from sinking deep into the cinephile lagoon.

Was this a movie about sex or relationships? That is the ultimate question to ask yourself as you watch Burns' comedy/drama. It is a question I asked myself as I watched it, so I want you to ask it as well. Sex is the topic of choice, but I think what makes Burns' film stand aside of the others is that it deals with honest relationships. This isn't just your typical boy falls for girl, but girl doesn't want boy relationships. This film is more about the truthfulness of individuals and the passion they evoke. I liked the stories that Burns wove together for me. This wasn't top shelf cinema, but it did entertain. Burns stories that he wrote were comical, yet exciting at the same time. We felt for these characters (even if they were not played well by the actors … outside of Tucci) and loved the city that they inhabited. This film reminded me of watching Sex & the City. That television program was exciting to me because of the city and because you believe anything can happen in that city. Love can be found in video stores, coffee shops, and real-estate visits.

Call me genuinely sappy, but Sidewalks of New York deserves a second viewing.

Grade: **** out of *****",1 "In their heyday, Bud Abbot and Lou Costello were so often sought after for personal appearances by adoring fans, studio executives and a host of worthwhile organizations. It's of little wonder as they gave the 40's the much needed laughter of their era. In the movies, they provided audiences with many memorable skits, vaudeville routines and standard films. This movie is one of the least known of all their successful runs. It's called "" The Noose Hangs High. "" The story is of a couple of window washers, (Bud Abbott and Lou Costello) who are mistaken for a delivery service, entrusted to deliver $50,000 to Nick Craig, a dangerous bookmaker (Joseph Calleia). The tasks goes awry when they inadvertently lose it. The female lead (Cathy Downs) who accidentally receives the money goes on a spending spree and explains she no longer has their money. When the mob boss promises to harms the boys, they all go on a mad quest to find someway to repay the debt. Although the movie does not contain their most memorable routines, it nevertheless has a few like 'better dress, no don't dress!' and 'Here's one for me, one for you, two for me, One, TWO for you.' The film also features big Mike Mazurki and Fritz Feld. This is one film which definitely belongs with anyone's Abbot and Costello collection. Good fun. ****",1 "Early in the movie, Wong Chia Chi (Tang Wei) gets asked to act in a patriotic play, in a time when China was threatened by the Japanese Invasion during the late 30s/early 40s. Little does she know that she's got to carry on acting the rest of her life, together with her group of idealistic young dramatists, as stage feelings stirred up real emotions that calls for the sacrificial of self for the greater good, for the country. What they lack in experience, they make up with their youthful passion and exuberance. And their rawness shows in the way they clumsily set up their traps for the coming of the prey, and fumbling even with their first blood.

Welcome to Lee Ang's world of espionage. It's not glam, and gets draped in many real world sense and sensibilities. We enter a world where Trust and Loyalty are difficult to come by, and with shadows lurking in every corner, waiting to pounce at the slightest of mistakes. But the darkness is beautifully captured, and like its endless rounds of mahjong, you're waiting for that perfect tile to come your way, for the opportune to present itself, for the East Wind to come about. That's how this movie's espionage theme is played out, with plenty of waiting. Instant results and instant gratification do not come easy, and even the finale I found to be less than satisfying, though it provided subtle avenues to keep your imagination running as to how the turn of events have greatly affected the usually cautious Mr Yee (Tony Leung).

Like the movie, Leung's Mr Yee remains an enigma we are trying to have a crack at, trying to, like the rest, understand his secret life. He sneaks around from fort to fort, always with protection, and has this solid wall build around his personal life, that even his wife (Joan Chen) finds hard to break, and letting it be anyway, enjoying luxurious life as a tai-tai. All we know about Yee, is that he's a Chinese traitor in the employment of the Japanese, while enjoying immense power under the protection of his master, readily bolts like a running dog that he is in the first signs of trouble.

Enter Tang Wei's Chia Chi, in a strategy hundreds of years old, and that is to use the lure of the beauty to provide the downfall of powerful generals. As a fresh faced ingénue, she enters the dangerous cat and mouse game at great personal sacrifice, probing cautiously (that's the word again) into the life of Mr Yee, and casting those come hither eyes as bait to lure her prey, relying on others to provide the finishing blow and save her from his evil roaming clutches. In order to enter his circle of trust, she has to play to the sadistic sexual fantasies (you see, I don't think he gets any from Mrs Yee anyway) of a repressed man using her as an avenue to release those pent up rage and frustrations from work, where his job as we know is to interrogate fellow countrymen. It's not a glam job, especially when you're casting your lot with the underdogs.

Lust, Caution is a tale of two lonely people, forced by circumstances to do what they have to. One, to fulfill her ideology and get rid of possibly one of the most dangerous man to the Chinese, while the other, looking for honest companionship. It's falling for and sleeping with the enemy both ways, and in a time where trust is hard pressed, this makes everything more complex, especially when it comes to irrational emotions that overrule logic and guard. It's layered with plenty of betrayals whichever way you look at it, and the narrative kept pace by unfolding each

layer intricately. Which makes it ultimately a very sad love that couldn't be story, the perennial fib to reality.

Tony being Tony, I can't help but think that with his hair slicked back, and his stoic demeanor in well pressed suits, look the more vengeful version of his Mr Chow from In the Mood for Love, though this time round he really gets it on with another married woman Mrs Mak, Chia Chi's alter-ego. He might be sleepwalking through his role here, as he speaks very little and does even less, but comes alive in his scenes toward the end. LeeHom is rather wooden though as the de-factor youth leader, and his romantic moments with Tang Wei just falls flat given that it's not fully developed here, if not for the focus of love between Mr Yee and Mrs Mak.

Like how Lee Ang shot Zhang Ziyi to prominence with her role in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as a headstrong young woman who comes of age, Tang Wei snags a role as such and it wouldn't be much of a surprise should she gain acclaim and recognition for her role here. She switches between the greenhorn student and one who's living a lie quite easily, and she exhibits linguistic skills (English, Cantonese, Mandarin and even Shanghainese) and even talent for song. Watch those eyes of hers, and her rant during breaking point, excellent stuff.

Lust, Caution is an espionage story that works, and being set in a tumultuous era helped loads in the eagerness and sense of urgency required, and how patience in getting everything set up for that one shot one kill opportunity makes it a constant tussle, both for the characters, and how events get played out.",1 "I've just come back from watching ""the Edukators"" in a cinema in Ipswich, England. From the reviews I was expecting a light comedy. The film isn't like that at all: still, I'm very happy that I went to see it. The start of ""the Edukators"" reminded me of J. G. Ballard's novel Cocaine Nights, which features a man who breaks into high security luxury complexes not so much as to damage and steal property, but to shake the residents up. Ballard's protagonist intends to make the affluent but complacent and isolated residents bind together in crimewatch activities that will lead to a reawakened sense of community. The young men who call themselves ""the Edukators"" want to stir the villa residents of Berlin into hearing whispers that they have too much money: to remind them of the other half of the world and how the other half lives. Or rather, can't live, because of low wages and debt.

I was a little annoyed that the film couches the world into the haves and the have nots, with nothing in-between. Although Jule, the heroine, is crippled by a 100, 000 Euro debt due to a car accident in which she totalled a Mercedes, her boyfriend and his friend Jan drive cars, have cell phones,live in Berlin, and fly to Barcelona (Jule's boyfriend apparently travels to Barcelona for his career but it's never exactly clear what his work is). In their arguments with the business tycoon who Jule is enslaved to (it's revealed that he has three cars in his huge garage, so he hardly misses the Mercedes Jule has to pay for) the two young men clearly place themselves in the same position as the oppressed workers of the third world. Jule, however, sees that their demonstrations against sweatshop labour aren't going to really change the situation for the developing countries' child labourers.

That said, I was delighted to see a film that tackles the consciences of both the young not seeing places for themselves in the all-persuasive consumerist society and those who once had ideals, who once tried to change society, and have awakened to find themselves middle aged and voting conservative. The tycoon defends himself, saying he works 14 hour days: at first he wanted to be able to provide security and good education for his children, now he thinks buying new things makes people happy. I don't think he manipulates his kidnappers: I saw real pleasure in his being able to get away from his mobile phone, boss, wife, cleaning lady and job pressures, and being able to touch base with the recollections of his youth. I see his commune experiences as genuine and a reminder of attempts to change society one relationship at a time. And in the end the 60s generation did change society by making the personal political, even if the communes are now only rose-tinged memories in the back of the minds of fat cats now running conglomerates.

What I enjoyed most about ""the Edukators"" is the question it raises about its three young major characters, and how their generation can make a difference to the world of the 21st century.

SPOILER SPACE

Maybe in the end the tycoon called the police: it didn't look like an easy decision for him at any rate. I'd like to see the last shot of the satellite dishes as an indication that the trio made it to the island and blacked out all the TVs across Europe, cancelling the force that controls society from within. Ballard's hero would applaud them.

By the way, didn't it strike anyone else as ironic that so much of the film takes place in Berlin, which only 15 years ago was divided into two societies, one which welcome the tycoon, and one which would encourage the debate about how to bring out the revolution? As Marx said, ""The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.""",1 "Although I didn't identify myself on this movie, I've identified some friends in trouble and, why not? some issues that happens to my marriage. This movie, although extremely realistic and sometimes strong, shows optimism when two persons realize that above the problems, they still love each other and then decide to fix this marriage. The final dialogue (or monologue) of Michelle Pfeifer worths for the rest of the movie....",1 "The film starts off with a rich landlord's attempt to evict a lot of poor people from a low-income apartment building that he owns, and they rebel against him, threatening him with violence should he go through with the eviction. There is a great scene where we see the landlord's wife showing him that in order to calm down all those people, all that he has to do is get rid of the strong ones that keep starting the trouble. There's a great bit of symbolism here as she cuts the heads off the tallest of the flowers in her flowerpot, leaving only the crowd of smaller, weaker ones. Take out the strong ones, and the rest will subordinate.

Thus the movie does not set out dealing very directly with the unenviable role in relationships that women played in the 1950s, not under Franco in Spain, but in the Mexican society in which Bunuel lived at this point in his career. Instead, the movie makes a more specific comment on the state of the union as a whole, as is suggested in the line to Don Andres (the rich landlord who is throwing all of his poor tenants into the street), `Thank you, Don Andres. You're the pride of a country without people.'

At this point in the movie, one begins to try to make ties between Don Andres and Franco, Spain's oppressive dictator at the time the film was made (and also the reason that the movie could not have been made in Spain in 1952). Franco is something of a rich and oppressive landlord himself, although the movie does not spend much time on the idea of an all-powerful and enormously wealthy landowner.

As was the case in A Woman Without Love, the Brute very soon goes into the story of a woman who is constantly brought suffering by the men in her life, even if only indirectly. The movie starts off making a strong comment about the suffering of many at the hands of a small elite, and then it quickly explores an individual situation within the population. These are a typical group of poor people, and their efforts to prevent themselves from being thrown on the street and, more importantly, the efforts of their landlord to evict them, provide the conflict focused on in the rest of the film.

Don Andres hires a huge man from the slaughterhouse, a man who adores him since he has been a mentor for his entire life, and the man he hires is determined to strike fear into the hearts of anyone who would dare to stand against this wonderful man. There is a lot going on here that deals with superficial impressions, since Pedro, the Brute (played by Pedro Armendáriz, who, as an unfortunate side note, committed suicide in 1963), is completely determined to help Don Andres but then changes his mind entirely once he gets close to the people that he is sent out to scare into submission.

Pedro is a brute of a man, hence the title of the movie, but he faces the reality of what he is doing when he becomes close to the daughter of the man that he accidentally killed under his assignment from Don Andres. This bit of irony is the confliction of the martial law enforced by the powerful elite as it conflicts with the larger population, the humanity of which is too often overlooked. He was determined at the beginning to set the troublemakers straight, but it is not until he is forced to take shelter among them that he realizes who the real troublemakers are (`I may have done something wrong but I didn't know you then.').

It would seem that this portion of the film presents the harshness of an authoritarian regime as misdirected and even naïve rather than inherently evil, although it is equally likely (and, indeed, probably more so) that it is a message to those very regimes (specifically that of Franco) of the reality of their form of government. Brute is a strongman for the rich elite and then ends up getting help from them and even falling in love with one of them, at which point he changes his mind, no longer wanting Don Andres to have his way and for all of these people to be evicted. He has, in effect, been separated from his brutish side by his intermingling with the very people that he was sent out to oppress.

There is a great scene during the chase, by the way, that I just have to mention. At one point, when Pedro is running through the alleyways, there is a shot of him running in one direction, and his shadow, through trick lighting, clearly runs in a completely different direction, going down a different alleyway. At this point in the movie, Pedro separates from his darker side, turning toward helping the poor people that are being evicted. Just a little bit of trick lighting (a VERY common technique in black and white filmmaking) that really stood out to me.",1 "All-too-typical erotic thriller that doesn't generate much heat or suspense. The plot (complete with minor ""twists"") is, most of the time, devoid of interest, and the sex scenes, although frequent, don't last too long (OK, I probably didn't see the unrated version). Andrew Stevens is not a dislikable actor, he's actually pretty competent - but that Tanya Roberts proves again (after ""Inner Sanctum"") that she's remarkably untalented. (*1/2)",0 "At a time in my life when everything seems to be going wrong, I have caught myself being detached from my children and spending way too much time stressing over life and responsibilities. This was a wonderful reminder to remember what is really important in this life! I have found that going back to the time of imagination and innocents with my little girl has given me some relief from my many stresses. I know they are still there, but I need to take more time outs from them, like I did this weekend, and spend REAL quality time with the most important little people in my whole world! Apparently IMDb did not think that I had said quite enough about how much I loved this movie and loved watching it with my little girl - so I will just reiterate that this was the best Eddie Murphy movie I think I have ever seen!",1 "This film is a heavy one. The acting is intense and the suspense carries through the whole movie. As Kiera Knightly's first leading role, I must say it goes against the glam sexy characters she so often chooses now. Thora Birch is also noteworthy although her British accent is inconsistent at the best of times. On the whole it was too intense for me, but I guess that just shows that it pulls no punches. The scenes with the trapped teenagers succeed in conveying a sense of claustrophobia and panic leading to despair. Some scenes actually made me a bit nauseous. Daring undertaking for the young cast and shows that monsters, cheap shot scares and gratuitous special effects are not necessary to scare you. I don't think I could watch this again.",1 "Claude Chabrol had directed about 50 movies since 1957. Sometimes, he's very good, but when he's bad, he's really boring. This movie is boring, despite the good efforts of asking the spectators who had killing the little girl and the writer. It's too long, too low key. But the biggest problem of the movie is Valeria Bruni Tedeschi. I never saw such a weak actress. She don't have any credibility in the role of the police inspector. She's inexpressive and had an horrible voice. She can't articulate and most of the time, we don't understand or hear what's she's saying! Sandrine Bonnaire seems to be anywhere except in her role, but Jacques Gamblin is good. Too bad for Chabrol's fans!",0 "I love all three of these women, they are stunning actresses, just beyond beautiful. But this series has no story anyone could possibly want to watch. Their lives have no more relation to the real world than fairy tales do. It is not just that frequent contrivances jar the viewer, it is that every aspect of their lives and every situation they face is contrived. This show cannot replicate the success of Sex in the City because part of what made that series work was its originality, and you can't repeat originality.

The show makes the mistake of carrying over Sex and the City's obsession with wealth and fame, but taking it up several notches. What the producers missed is that this obsession was never one of S&C's draws; it was not the reason people tuned in. Every time some new boyfriend on S&C was described at the most famous blabla or the leading blabla or the most powerful blabla in the widget industry the show lost its footing, but for the obliviousness of its audience of American women who cannot discern logic from nonsense.

In LJ, it is not only the boyfriends of the week who are plutonian overlords, it is the women themselves. I have no objection to a story about the most wealthy, powerful women on earth, but I don't think such a story can work as a series. I don't think you can do an entire series about them, and you can't put them in those roles and still try to make them just nice, hard-working underdogs just trying to get by.",0 "I've never been a fan of short films for their 'art-school' and 'experimental' qualities. Simply being a product of those two is not enough. They are almost always too personal, too opaque, and too much obviously serving as 'stepping-stones'.

I was therefore happy to see Lynne Ramsay's short films as the chrysalis for her superb feature films. I was also impressed to learn that she won the Cannes short-film prize, *twice*. And now I can see what others saw in her, for _Gasman_ is the best short film I have ever seen.

Available on the Criterion DVD with _Small Deaths_ and the less good _Kill the Day_, _Gasman_ is a fully-fledged, visionary film that translates directly into the skill and grace of _Ratcatcher_.

_Gasman_ moves directly from the first piece of _Short Deaths_, with the distant father and Lynne Ramsay Jr. again taking centre screen. But _Gasman_ comes to a kind a fruition--a full story with many of the same themes and techniques of _Ratcatcher_: closely observed yet elliptical human behaviour, housing projects, slum-beauty, children's natures, a jumbled impressionistic world caught in partial body closeups and shots from behind people.

The film 'tells' nothing, but the story is dead clear and builds slowly to an emotional pitch that is almost unbearable.

This is a film of jaw-dropping beauty. Sounds trite, but that's how I feel. When the Da and two kids walk on the tracks, the camera is set to a partially closed iris which intensifies the available light and colour in an otherworldly sheen--one that is gone when they return on the same tracks at night, in disappointment. Beauty in service of story is the key.

This *is* the best short film I have ever seen.",1 "Some seventy-odd years after its release in 1932, GRAND HOTEL today holds an interesting attraction more for the presence of its two leading ladies than from its cinematic power, although there will be some purists who will state that because the images of Joan Crawford and Greta Garbo have been immortalized in their own respective canons, that in itself is cinematic power. I personally won't argue, preferring to stick to my own personal views instead of following the herd.

I've seen GRAND HOTEL twice now, and I'll grant it that despite its soap-opera like story lines, there seems to be something a little deeper going on which is only alluded to in the sidelines: the delicate tightrope which Flammchen (Joan Crawford) walks on as she is courted by Presyling (Wallace Beery) and later on decides to stay by Otto Kringelein's (Lionel Barrymore) side. This was most probably unintentional since sources state that the screenplay follows the story closely, but today's values would have Flammchen behave much differently. I find her character to be the moral opposite of Barbara Stanwyck's amoral Lily Powers in BABY FACE, another woman who uses her sexuality to advance to the top. Joan Crawford's Flammchen doesn't actively use her charms as sort of glide by while positively glowing and stealing all of the light from Garbo, and one can sense that were she of a much different nature, all of the men in GRAND HOTEL would have a dangerous young woman to deal with, and Barrymore's end would be similar to J. Howard Marshall's demise in the hands of (a much smarter, less coked-up) Anna Nicole Smith. She'd more than likely wind up owning the hotel herself in no time.

But not to digress. The plot moves along in a nice pace thanks to Goulding's direction; never does it linger on too much on one specific character, though at least for me, anytime Garbo was on screen the story came to a crashing halt. I'm going to get a lot of flack from rabid Garbo fans, but I don't get ""her allure, her mystery,"" the essence that made her so intriguing. At twenty-seven, she already looks ten years older thanks to her severe nature. Her face is constantly in a frown, moody, full of angst reflected in her throaty voice. Her performance is so atrociously mannered I can see Jennifer Jason Leigh easily out-doing her, but better, more authentic (anyone who recalls her exacting yet eccentric portrayal of Dorothy Parker can easily see her becoming and improving Garbo). I never got to see what her character with the unpronounceable name was all about; no true trauma, just this death-wish to be ""left alone."" Then she capriciously takes on with the Baron von Geigern (a dashing yet shady John Barrymore) who is more interested in her jewels but tells her he could love her; he out-acts her at every turn with subtlety and genuine charm even when his part seems underwritten. In short, Garbo, for all her ""mystique"" is the sore thumb of GRAND HOTEL.

I much prefer the events surrounding Crawford and the older Barrymore. Lionel Barrymore, the horrible villain from IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, plays a meek former bookkeeper who is at the end of his life and wants to enjoy his stay at the hotel. His wish is quite simple: he wants to enjoy his last days, a diametric opposite to Garbo who wants to be alone (and she says it three times). He teams up with Crawford, enjoys a dance with her and falls for her even though she's much too young. All the time I got the sensation he knew the character of Kringelein, a man who has been pushed around by Preysling and is still not quite free of his micromanaging shadow. There is not a shed of ego in his performance. One can imagine seeing Crawford reach out to the older gentleman and actually making his days happier and is a fitting ending to her own storyline as she is lecherously pursued by Wallace Beery and romanced by John Barrymore. If anything, her character is the most sympathetic of the five main characters and the symbol of the emerging modern woman of the Thirties: ambitious but girlish, efficient but not a workaholic, smart and independent despite struggling to make ends meet.

GRAND HOTEL hasn't aged well. Its values were the thing back in the Depression era, showing glossy characters who were all looking for some form of security while surrounded by the exuberance of the hotel and who were not given much depth in their characterizations. The characters are more or less archetypes and are predicted to act in a certain way, and when their fates collide, it's (now) not a surprise. Now, what it did do was set the standard for lavish productions involving a roster of well-known actors and stars in a perfect balance of talent and star-power, most notably seen today in the films of Woody Allen and Robert Altman, but closer to the less intellectually challenging type of high-profile film seen in the 50s and throughout the 70s. I enjoyed it then and now and regard it as a classic film set in a pre-Code Hollywood that has its own ancient beauty, for more reasons than Garbo's mannered face.",1 "A double free pass to Tulpan accompanied tickets I'd won to another film. The previews of Tulpan I'd seen weeks before looked interesting enough but sadly the film failed to excite or satisfy. The location is dull, drab and dusty to the extreme. Liked the main characters sister, disliked her Ghenghis Khan like husband. The friend who drove the tractor wore very thin, very quickly. So for me this part film, part documentary labored to make it's point. For me it was like going around in circles and was really 2 hours I'll never see again.

When so many good films of many origins fail to get commercial release I'm at a bit of a loss why this film did. Or why it's won as many awards as it has.

2009 motto ""beware of PR agencies bearing unasked for free movie tickets""

Postscript... nearly 2 weeks I'll make an early nomination this will be my worst film of 2009. 2nd worst Easy Virtue also another preview freebie. But back to Tulpan it was a excruciating..excruciatingly laboured and slow.",0 Containing none of the chills and thrills of the first this lame movie goes nowhere slowly.The final act is poor too.The cast look as bored as i was.im suprised this ever got to a third movie.a very bad sequal.avoid.1 out of 10,0 "This is the worst film I have ever seen since The Blair Witch Project. Words to describe my feelings for this film, PATHETIC, STUPID, PREDICTABLE, PEDANTIC, TRAGICALLY FUNNY WHEN IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE, ETC ETC ETC ETC. The only highlight of the film was Gary Busey's hill-billy character in an otherwise complete waste of film.

On the technical aspect of the film I suspect that there was no lighting director involved. I completely lost track of the continuity errors as they were so numerous. The night time shots were made worse by the dark clothing that the costume designer had chosen for the characters.

In summary, I would not recommend anybody from this crew be allowed to work in the film industry ever again.",0 "I got interested in this movie after watching Oscar nominations, getting recommendations from friends, and listening to an NPR interview with Viggo Mortensen. Well, the interview was much more interesting that this parody of a movie. I struggled through the first 30-40 minutes, and then could not bring myself to watching it to the end, so whatever I say here is based only on the first part.

The only good thing I can say: I liked Naomi Watt's performance; it seemed genuine. Everything else was so fake: fake villains (Russian, Turkish), fake accents, fake story... I mean this was a cartoonish performance. I guess it's what Western people assume Russian gangsters should look like, and the majority of Western viewers will probably buy this crap. Being Russian, I don't. No way. I understand that actors are not Russian, so it's a challenge, but some similar movies (OK, very few movies) manage to address the authenticity part much better (e.g. ""Little Odessa"" seemed more genuine to me). Viggo Mortensen does not look like Russian. He may be a good actor, but he cannot play a Russian (OK, his Russian is not the worst, but it's far from genuine). BTW, were Mashkov already booked? What about Mironov? Could Cronenberg give Menshikov a call?

Anyway, if you are familiar with Russian culture and value authenticity in movies, you will probably be disappointed; otherwise, give it a try: a lot of people seem to like it.",0 "Let me start by saying I have never had the urge to make a comment on IMDb yet - not for a great movie, and certainly not for a bad one. But this movie was so horrible I HAD to warn people.

I thought Pauly Shore was reasonably funny until this. Half of this movie isn't even trying to be humorous. It's Pauly Shore's desperate attempt at saving his career.

Yes there are tons of celebrity ""cameos"", but they are all so short, and I'd say maybe two of them are slightly funny. This movie plays as if it was written and directed by a no-talent former MTV ""VJ"". And it is.",0 "Evil mob boss Frank Buchanan (a perfectly nasty Michael Granger) has ex-Nazi scientist Dr. Wilhelm Steigg (a nice turn by Gregory Gaye) reanimate the bodies of recently deceased criminals so Buchanan can get revenge on his enemies. Shrewd, hard-boiled police investigator Dr. Chet Walker (an excellent and engaging performance by Richard Denning) becomes determined to stop Buchanan. Capably directed by Edward L. Cahn, with a clever and compelling script by Curt Siodmak, a brisk pace, sharp, moody black and white cinematography by Fred Jackman, Jr., genuinely creepy zombies, a spooky, rousing score by Mischa Bakaleinikoff, a tight 69 minute running time, and a thrilling conclusion, this nifty little quickie provides an inspired and entertaining blend of snappy straightforward horror and gritty film noirish crime thriller. The fine supporting cast includes S. John Launer as Walker's amiable partner Captain Dave Harris, Angela Stevens as Walker's lovely, concerned wife Angela, Pierre Watkin as the irritable Mayor Bremer, Lane Chandler as the ramrod General Saunders, and Tristram Coffin as the ill-fated District Attorney MacGraw. A fun flick.",1 "What a scream!

Oliver Platt reinforced his greatness with me, perfecting his role as a neurotic Mafia man, and there were so many classic lines in this movie (""I can't even go to the bathroom without getting in a pissing contest."") that I will have to add this to my personal movie collection soon.

I would think that this is a love/hate movie with most people, but I can't imagine anyone not laughing during the newspaper theft scene (with Oliver Platt and his neighbor). I am glad my eye caught this movie at the movie rental place!!",1 I think that Kevin Bacon was the best Actor to play Ren Mcormick in the movie which now I OWN LOL. But really I love this movie and everybody they picked for the parts for the movie were perfect. The only thing I have to say is that it is so SAD that Chris Penn Died who played Willerd in the movie when I found that out I almost cried because he was found some were in Hollywood and it was i heart attack and he did gained a lot of weight since the movie footloose it you got to his name on this site you will get all the info about his death. When it happened and what exactly what happened. Just so y'all know. But this still is the best movie of almost all time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,1 "From beginning to end, this movie is a dark portrayal of youth of today. It opens with the perfect introductions to our characters; the loner, anti-authority focus of our lead's fascination and the obviously small world of Ben, for whom the story is told. From the moment he lays eyes on Grant, you can see the longing in Ben's eyes. The very need to watch every movement is reminiscent of those crushes that most gay men go through as teenagers. Even as his friends warn him from the path he's following, Ben cannot help himself. It was up until this point that the movie was perfect. I felt it lost a point for the ending, which even though I had a feeling was coming to some extent, was still disappointing. I had hoped that it would only end up with Ben falling in with Grant's crowd of under-achieving slackers, but instead it brought us back in time to when all stories about gay people ended in misery. Over-all, it is still a great movie, which is why I wasn't willing to dock too many points for my own disappointment.",1 "I had really been looking forward to this one but it turned out to be a complete train wreck.

The casting of Dustfinger, Capricorn, Meggie and Farid was pretty much perfect, though. Mo was unremarkable, but then that's just how I remember him from the first book. Elinor matched the spirit of the character in the books quite well but the looks were quite off. Fenoglio was so-so.

Basta and Capricorn's mother were ridiculous laughing stock and not inherently fear-inducing as they should have been. Roxane (who is never even fleetingly mentioned in the first book IIRC) had black hair!

The script just rushed through the first 80% of the book in what barely seemed like half an hour, skipping anything that would have helped in either understanding the characters (or even the plot) or building up atmosphere, just to close with a completely tacked-on, contrived new ending that killed any hope for a (better) sequel. It's quite obvious from this that they're not intending to film the other two books or at least not in a way that will have anything at all to do with them.

As rushed as it all felt it was really painful to sit through from quite early on. If I was that type I might have left the theatre half-way through it.

Don't see this if the books meant anything to you!",0 "This may very well be the worst movie ever made with the possible exception of Man's Best Friend. The story is idiotic, the acting is unbelievably bad and the special effects look like a 7 year-old made them on a PC. For example, at one point the shark, which looks like a cardboard cut-out (and probably is!), smashes the plate glass to the viewing area as Sea World and then, as the water rushes through the broken panel, the shark just sits there! All in all, a hilarious movie. I wouldn't have believed that it was possible for anyone to make such a bad movie in this day and age. What amazes me is why Dennis Quaid consented to be in this travesty since he is not that bad of an actor. But I guess to be consistent with the rest of the film, he acted horribly himself. What were they thinking when they made this movie? That is the mystery.",0 "The best part about this movie is that we can now all use the movie's title as a clever nickname for fat people. For example, when playing a pick-up softball game back in 1996 Orens stepped to the plate and Baumann yelled from his first base position, ""hey, it's King Ralph."" This brought great joy to everyone who was lucky enough to hear the comment. That I feel is the greatest contribution of this clearly pathetic movie. I'll admit, I think I rented it when it came out on video, although I was very young so I will assume my mom rented it for me. Anyway, I remember little form the movie, maybe a part where some people get electrocuted during a photo, a potential fox hunt gone sour and a scene with a leader of an African country. I also recall King Ralph being a serious bowler. I do not recommend that you see this movie, however, I do recommend that you call fat people King Ralph for comedic purposes.",0 "Bette Davis always had a unique way of really making her character. Gabby Maple (Bette Davis) is a beautiful diner waitress with big dreams of moving to France to be an artist. She works with a football player named Nick (Eddie Acuff), who is taken with her. Gabby Maple makes a statement early on about always wanting to be free. Not married, not tied down. You can see that part of her means it, and the other part of her is begging to fall in love. An ""intellectual"" named Alan Squier (Leslie Howard) flies in and falls in love with complicated Gabrielle Maple, who falls in love with him, and within 10 minutes of the start of the movie you see the tension and drama of a classic love triangle. It doesn't last because Alan Squier is a wanderer with no money, and hitches a ride with a wealthy couple, Mr. and Mrs. Chisholm (Genevieve Tobin & Paul Harvey). The fact that Mr. Squier has no money seems only to make Gabby love him more! Gabby and Alan clearly adore one another. Each seems to be jealous of the other's life. There's a perfection about this movie that's hard to put into words. It's romantic in the word's native definition. Once Alan leaves, their car is hijacked by 3 gangsters who are on a killing spree. Duke Mantee (Humphrey Bogart) is the chief gangster. Humphrey Bogart's performance in this movie is fantastic. He's brought great depth to this character. He's not a heartless gangster, nor will he hesitate to kill you. He calls the women ""ma'am"" and you can clearly see his respect for them. As you also see his respect for the elderly in one moment where he chastises Alan for speaking poorly to Gabby's grandfather. Alan is a failed author with a failed marriage which he stole from his publisher. He remains that Gabby is the only one he's ever truly been in love with. Classic movies have a way of making a 5 minutes relationship seem like true love, despite the relationships they each had prior. The Petrified Forest is an example of this. It briefly discusses the meaning of life, and death. Death is glorified, and you see the deeper theme of a person being enlightened upon death.",1 "I was shocked to see the viewers at rated this as 6.6 or something. If this is a 6, Gone With the Wind is a 4. A moral conflict that all should be able to identify with. Edward plays the role beautifully, he makes the call or rather has someone else make the call to preserve the status quo but it does anything but that. Anyone else playing the lead it might have been a lesser movie.

I was disappointed that it was not on the best 100 movies list in last years pole.",1 "This is a beautifully crafted version of the play adapted from John Steinbeck's novel, and while there are fine things in it, I also find glaring faults worth pointing out as well. This story of the smart little guy and the very dumb big guy, set against the backdrop of the California of the Depression period, has all the makings of a classic, yet somehow it falls a little short. Not by a million miles, but there are problems with it, especially where the Steinbeck-as-biologist philosophy of life comes into play, and we realize that the author, for all his compassion and love for living things, also views all animals as the same. Men and dogs, rabbits and mice, are equally worthwhile in his view, and he continually (and the script is sedulous to a fault in this regard) emphasizes this here and elsewhere in his writings, and the result is a kind of pantheistic regard for everything that lives, which is wonderful and idealistic, but alas impractical. It's also bad psychology. The continual parallels between, for instance, big stupid Lenny and Candy's sick old dog, which might work in a purely poetic context, seem too manufactured for drama. Steinbeck shows here and there a great latent insight into the human condition in general; his empathy his real, and one truly senses that he at times truly loves his characters; but when it comes to particulars he falls down, and in the end has little to say. The human condition interests him alright, but people are almost interchangeable in his world, but for their size or brains, and their inner lives hold no interest for him.

The movie, once one accepts the limits imposed on it by the book, is a fine piece of work. I wish that John Ford could have had a crack at this, yet director Lewis Milestone does an excellent job with the material; he is at all times sensitive and observant, letting each actor strut his stuff. His feeling for nature, so central to the book, is not so great, yet this could have been imposed on him by budgetary restraints. Producer Hal Roach was a notorious skinflint.

Lon Chaney, Jr. as Lennie is excellent. I wish that the character had been fleshed out more. He's almost too good to be true. The only harm he does others comes from his not knowing his own strength. Fair enough. Yet at times he seems too saintly. The mentally impaired can be lovable, as indeed Lennie is in many ways, but even they have bad hair days, and I wish that just for once Lennie had showed a petty or venal side. When he defies George, his ""keeper"", he always feels contrite in the end. For once it would have been nice for him to have done a bad thing, not told George about it, just for kicks, and felt good as a result of his little ""rebellion"". But this would have revealed Lennie an an authentic, evolving, genuine human being, and Steinbeck wasn't interested in this, so Lennie remains a symbol. It is to Chaney's great credit that he never seems like one.

Burgess Meredith, as the brainy little George, looks out of place among the rugged ranch-workers. He was an inherently urban type, and though he could play small-town midwesterners with great relish at times, there was always that impish glint in his eye that suggested that he knew much, much more about life than his character did. In this film he is quite young and rather delicate looking, and while one can imagine that Lennie would admire him for his brains, he has no air of authority about him, no real life gravitas to ground him in reality. He basically comes off like what he is: a finely trained classical actor essaying a modern role. That there's no trace of chemistry between Meredith and Chaney is a serious flaw in the film.

In smaller roles, Roman Bohnen and Charles Bickford do solid work, the former especially has a lot of emoting to do, and is very credible. As the bored ranchwife Mae, Betty Field does not give her best performance. This fine stage actress had yet to learn to act for the camera. Only in her final scene with Lennie does she come to life; sadly, it's too late. Leigh Whipper as Crooks, the black man who can't stay in the bunkhouse with the rest, shows a nicely malevolent side, and comes near to creating the one fully-rounded character in the film, but goes sentimental in the end. Too bad. Cowboy actor Bob Steele brings a nice touch of the Old West to the swaggering Curly, and I wish that he, rather, than Meredith, had been cast as George.

Aaron Copland's music is used intelligently, and its soaring near the end seems appropriate to the effect the film was trying to create, which was one of tragic humanity rather than tragic human beings. Meredith rises to the occasion when the dialogue goes poetic, redeeming himself somewhat in the process.

The best things in the movie are incidental, such as the ongoing fantasy George and Lennie share about buying a little farmhouse for themselves, where no one can tell them what to do, and if they want to go to the circus there's no boss around to tell them otherwise. When Candy joins in and becomes a partner in their little dreamworld the film begins to hum, and one wishes that in these moments it could have gone off-track and become another movie altogether, about little guys finding a place for themselves in the world. But Steinbeck was hunting bigger game than this, and the tragedy he imposed on the story, while believable enough, is an awful letdown, for the viewer as much as for George.

",0 "Tyrone Power forsakes his ""handsome man"" image to star in this film, skillfully made (on a limited budget, I'm sure). The b&w photography is among the best I've ever seen. Supporting characters are slightly over-the-top, but solidly entertaining. The one drawback is when the drama shifts abruptly into documentary-style at the very end. So two points off for the sudden and unwarranted mood change. Could easily have had a sequel -- glad it didn't. An 8!",1 "**SPOILERS** Brain-numbing film that's a movie within a movie with a number of confusing dream sequences added on as well.

Beautiful but unstable motion picture actress Rebecca Fairbanks, Elizabeth Hurley,had been off the silver and big screen for three years. Rebecca is now attempting to make her big comeback in the movie role as turn of the century serial murderess Belle Gunness ""known as the Black Widow of the the America Heartland"" who killed 42 people in he early 1900's.

Determined to make her comeback in the movies a smashing success Rebecca trying to get into the role, using method acting techniques, lives on the set where the film's being made in off all places Romania! the home of serial blood-sucker Darcula. Later she even becomes a murderous fanatic to get the ""feel"" and ""state of mind"" of what Belle Gunness was in at the time she murdered her victims.

Pushed by her stage mother Mona, Carmen Du Sautoy, and having her co-star movie leading man and heart-throb Jake Fields,Jeremy Sisto,who had an affair with Rebecca three years ago that lead to her getting pregnant having an abortion. Jacks affair almost had him lose his wife Bethany, Hanna Yellard, because of it putting her, Rebecca, into such a deep depression over the whole mess that she hadn't made a movie since. Jake promising his wife Bethany who's there to make sure that he keeps he feeling, as well as pants on, for Rebecca in check and that he's only in love with her and no-one else. Bethany also wants to make sure that the hot and heavy work Jack's doing in his love scenes with Rebecca on the set are strictly professional and nothing more, ha ha ha.

On the set Rebecca is more then in her role as the psycho-killer Belle Gunness by overdoing some of the murder scenes that's she's, using axes and knives, in. Rebecca's method acting techniques cause a number of actors in them with her to get medical treatment. There's also a number of people in and around the movie set that end up getting brutally murdered including both Rebbeca's mom and Jake's wife. Rebecca early in the movie drives out to a nearby town and picks up the local bar/saloon stud who also ends up dead with his throat slashed, was this her way of perfecting her acting as a serial murderess?

With the exception of one of the actors in the movie, who Rebbeca smashed his head in with her new found method-acting skills, we don't know for sure if she's really responsible for all the murders off the set. Even when the movie is over her involvement in them is still up in the air and unexplained to the audience by the director and writer of the movie ""Method"".

We also see the ghost of the real Belle Gunness, Loana Prvelescu, pop up every now and then in the movie giving Rebecca tips and advice in killing off her cast members in the film. ""Method"" looks as if it wasn't finished and just slapped together to get it released as if it's some kind of abstract art-film that only those who are really ""hip"" and ""with it"" could understand what it's all about.

Even the scenes in the movie that Rebecca is staring in come across more convincing and realistic, then those that are supposed to be not before the camera, with Rebbecca and Jake having their affair rekindled after three years.In fact the love scenes that take place in the movie with Rebecca and Jake, playing their roles of Belle and her lover Ray, are far more hotter and convincing then the ones where their in bed and getting it on as Rebecca and Jake.

The movie ends with a really out-of-this-world dream sequence that gives you the impression that Rebecca either kills herself or Jake or both with the encouragement of the ghost of the evil Belle Gunness. It's then that it switches to Rebecca playing Belle as if that scene was put in by mistake with the film editors not knowing that she was either dead or imprisoned for what happened in the previous scene!",0 "There's a not bad little thriller here trying to get out, unfortunately the leads aren't strong enough. Perrine is just awful and Majors is adequate but just not good enough, all through it I kept thinking 'this an Elliot Gould part'. The 'secret' that people are willing to kill for is so blindingly obvious from about the third edit into the film. There are a couple of nice moments (which I will not spoil for you) but be warned, it does contain the cat jumping out cliché.

I will be grateful to this film for one thing though. About half-way through I cottoned on to one of those weirdnesses that has bugged me for years about so many of the odd little thriller type films of this period. Why are they always seem to be set at Christmas? In this movie there is only one little touch of Christmas but it was enough for the penny to drop. There is a scene in a mall in which Perrine character escapes from the bad guys by pretending to be heavily pregnant and falling to the floor, one of the people who rush to help her, and get in the baddies' way, is wearing a Santa suit. That's it, the only mention, or hint of Christmas in the whole thing - but it was enough. This film was shot in Canada and it was snowing, and all the extras in street scenes are wearing heavy winter clothing! In Hollywoodland Snow = Christmas. Doh!",0 "As usual the cast and crew have written the first few reviews! I wonder why they bother when surely everybody by now knows that anything with a decent rating and a low number of votes must just be being pimped by the people who made it.

Please don't waste your time watching this total garbage. It looks like it was made by schoolkids. The violence is laughably badly done (think 8 year olds pretending to play war or something - punches that don't connect, blood out of a ketchup bottle, etc. etc.). The endless 'thoughtful' silences at least have the decency to let you know the film is going to be boring as hell within the first 10 minutes.

The camera work is awful, with the usual shaky-cam work trying to give it a gritty feel (I would suggest changing the sheets on your bed Mr Director - bound to be some grit floating about there), sometimes the main subject of a shot is out of focus while, for instance, a bus window frame is in focus... poor poor poor. If they can't even get the basic mechanics of film-making right it's no wonder the end result is a total waste of film, money, effort and more importantly the viewer's time.

Watching Battlefield Earth is a better use of your time.",0 "Where the whole world is holding its breath because of the upcoming 2004 election, it is refreshing to watch this TV series. Not only because of the superb acting of Pamela Reed & Michael Murphy and each and every one of the ensemble (something we almost take for granted with Altman pictures, which always give sublime acting) and the great writing, but also because it gives non-Americans some insight in Political USA.

Inspiring and clarifying, it makes one wonder first of all why it's always the wrong movie people that get elected in politics. Wouldn't we all be much more relaxed if USA politics had a bit of the Altman-touch to it...

Unfortunately, the inspiration of this Maverick doesn't seem to reach the oligarchy in power. Altman DOES show us that TV can be fascinating and uplifting, even though he got curtailed, which will keep us wondering how that 12th episode that was never shot would be like.

Does this TV-series, which is over before one knows it and doesn't seem to take the 12x 30 minutes it says on the DVD jewelbox, draw a true picture of political USA ? Being from Europe I sincerely hope not, but I'm afraid it is even worse than Tanner is showing us. 'Let's not tell too much and focus on the face'.

And even worse, after globalization and sugarfrosted horrors for breakfast, the 'old world' is quickly picking up on this terrible excrescence too...",1 "**********THE BEACH**********

The Plot: Richard (Leonardo DiCaprio), a young American backpacker, is willing to risk his life for just one thing: that mind-blowing rush you can only get from braving the ultimate adventure. But on a secret, deceptively perfect beach, he'll soon discover that, as the level of intensity rises and the stakes climb higher, desire grows stronger...and danger grows deeper. 73%

The Acting: Leonardo DiCaprio pulls off another winner, his performance is electrifying and powerful. Newcomers Virgine Ledoyen and Guillaume Canet also put in amazing efforts for their debut feature films. Tilda Swinton and Robert Carlyle are among the more known people of this movie, and they are ultimately impressive. 79%

The Screenplay/Directing: John Hodge, who directed Trainspotting, has obviously decided to take a turn for writing. His screenplay is well-adapted from Alex Gardland's novel, and although it weakens near the end, he still keeps you wrapped up in all the brilliantly confusing plot twists. Danny Boyle, director, went to amazing hights to make this film successful, and he deserves praise. 80%

Other: Some chilling sound and mind-blowing cinematography. 70%

Overall: The Beach is an interesting, intriguing and different film, and although it is as times deeply flawed, it is still an immensly powerful and watchable film. Recommended. 74%

**********THE BEACH 74%**********

",1 "Ghajini Just because Amir Khan – the superstar of Bollywood is attempting to make this Tamil re-make in Hindi, I was interested to see this original (which itself is a rip-off of Hollywood movie Memento).

The story is very much similar to the original Hollywood movie Memento. The hero (Surya) – who is suffering short term memory loss - revenges his girl friend's (Asin) murder through the help of notes, photographs and in the end – another heroine (Nayantara) to track the killer Lakshman and his brother (both played by Pradeep Singh Rawat).

The movie is told in typical Indian (Tamil) style. The big part of the story is told in flash back – in two episodes, each in first and second half. As the flash back is a love story between Surya and Asin – there are lots of songs thrown in. Whenever there is no flashback, the hero fights and kills the goons.

I hear that this was a hit movie in Tamil when it was released – so explains the taste of Indian audiences. There is typical and cliché of everything and most things are over the top – presented unconvincingly. So if you are seeing this movie, see with a perspective of an Indian audience – may be you will enjoy.

I think all actors and actress have overacted a bit throughout the movie. Surya is above average. Asin looks beautiful.

Let me make it clear here – that for me, this movie even though not so good, was better than the original Memento. Seeing two movies of similar stories and both made poorly by the Director, I am interested to see what Amir Khan Productions is up to? Will he really change the script and treatment of Ghajini or present the same absurdities! Let's wait and watch! (Stars 4.5 out of 10)",0 "I couldn't wait for this movie to end (the other two people I was with liked it better so I couldn't leave). In the words of Jay Sherman: ""It stinks"". It has a few funny moments. Most of the humor is cheap sexual humor - watch any TV sitcom and you'll get the same results. Save your money at the theatre and the video store - if you're looking for funny from this Shandling flick, try Albert Brooks or Woody Allen instead.",0 "ONE HELL OF A Christmas (1 outta 5 stars) And 1 out of 5 stars is being GENEROUS! Dismal low budget hodge-podge of a zillion horror movie clichés... and even some Latino gang movie clichés added in for good measure. Our ""hero"" Carlitos (Tolo Montana... trust me, you are never gonna have a reason to remember this guy's name) is a just-released convict doing a bad imitation of Al Pacino from ""Carlito's Way"". (Maybe his name is some sort of ""homage""? Oh, who cares already!) Anyway, he meets up with his pal Mike (Thure Lindhardt... a bargain basement version of Jason Mewes), who has just gotten hold of some kind of stolen talisman that gives the owner incredible power (except, I guess, the power to not have his talisman stolen... which seems to happen with great frequency). Carlito says he wants to go straight and lead a clean life and win back his estranged wife and child... but insofar as Mike and Carlitos are back into the drugs and whores on his first day out of prison... I don't think that's gonna happen. So, there is also some kind of mysterious body-switching guardian who goes after whoever has the talisman to kill, maim, hurt, whatever. Terrible acting, terrible special effects, terrible story, terrible plot. This one dead prostitute who comes back to life to fight Carlitos is almost scary-looking... but the effect is outdone by this terrible cartoony voice they dubbed in for her. Another winner from the people at Fangoria Magazine (whose mag is almost as bad as the movies they endorse... almost). Avoid this trash (located in a Wal-Mart bargain bin near you).",0 "From the writer/director of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT Daniel Myrick, who spins a tale influenced by a Scandinavian thriller MIDSUMMER. SOLSTICE is a haunting yarn about a group of high school friends getting together for one last blow out before heading to college. Less than a year after losing her twin sister to suicide, Megan(Elisabeth Harnois)joins her friends on a trip to the family summer home on the Louisiana bayou. Things get real bizarre when Megan thinks she is being contacted by her sister from beyond the grave. A local hunk(Tyler Hoechlin)comes to dinner and teaches the group a Creole spell of the summer solstice. They actually try and raise Megan's sister from the dead...not without casualties. Flashbacks tend to disjoint the whole story and gets tiresome quickly. Also in the cast: Shawn Ashmore, Hilarie Burton, R. Lee Ermey and Matt O'Leary.",0 "Super gay Stephen joins forces with catholic schoolgirl ninjas to fight dumb as rock cheerleaders because they didn't let him be a cheerleader in this beyond retarded little waste of celluloid. The word subtle is seemingly not in the vocabulary of writer/ director Kevin Capbell as the humor is deathly obvious and painfully unfunny. At 96 minutes long, the only few people that will be able to sit through this steaming pile of excrement are avowed masochists. Awful with a capital A, if anyone actually derives any entertainment in the least from this (and I'm very hesitant to use this next word) film, I'd NEVER want to meet them during my travels, if only for the reason that they'd in all likelihood end up drooling all over my shoes.

My Grade: F-

Eye Candy: Kira Reed, Angela Brubaker, and Alissa Shanley get topless",0 "If IMDb ever needed a ZERO category for a film, this is it. Voting ONE is to heap unwarranted praise on this trite and pretentious effort. The silver wasted in the emulsion would have gone to far better use in dental fillings. Oh, it undoubtedly was a hit at the Toronto Film Festival as the beautiful people oohed and aahed at its daring innovation and creative groundbreaking. Yeah. Right. Acceptable words fail me. Would the BRAVO channel have shown this were it not required to meet Canadian content regulations? Would it even have been made if its perpetrators had not been able to feed at the public trough. We do some things very well in this odd country of ours. Making movies is not one of them!",0 "I saw GO after reading a number of very good reviews for the movie, and I cannot begin to express how disappointed I was. It left me with many unanswered questions: 1. What was the point of this film? If the film-makers were trying to make some sort of statement about contemporary society, their point certainly eluded me. 2. Why did I have to spend almost 2 hours with these characters? I did not like or care about any of the people in this film. They were presented without a shred of humanity, and I didn't BELIEVE any of them. 3. Why did the movie makers try to imitate so much of the style and structure and atmosphere of PULP FICTION? Tarantino's film hit all the right notes, and his characters - in spite of their amorality - all had a certain charisma. The characters in GO were loud and shrill and charmless. 4. Why can't the US film industry make films that tell intelligent, interesting stories with some appeal to people over the age of 17?",0 "(1)Couldn't watch it for very long. I tried because the cinematography was so wonderful but one doesn't want to walk out of the theater whistling the camera work.

(2)Not quite bad enough dialogue to make it unintentionally funny and watchable. (3)Not bad enough acting too: ditto the above. Actually Maria de Medeiros was quite good; the combination of her appearing to be naive while having an erotic mind was very well done. But Uma! Oh poor thing! Was that a Brooklyn accent she was failing to make real? Fred Ward too, wise-guying his way through which made his shallowness the character. A celebrity impersonator.....wonder if he can do Jimmy Cagney or Robert De Niro? 4)Quite often an author is not well served in a movie and in this case the very honest reporter of nitty-gritty life, Henry Miller, was desecrated. Would anyone who had never read him be motivated by this movie to do so? I think not.",0 "I actually enjoyed this movie's portrayal of life with a severely autistic child. I loved the mom's mouthy way of dealing with her life and her reality. I could easily relate to her life and the way she was handling things. I could also understand her amazement at finding that her son could do more than she thought he could.

But having the movie end with her putting her child into an institution and walking out the door.... and her final speech to her son where she tells him that she has been holding him back... that spoiled it for me a bit.

This movie's very unfortunate message seems to be that it is the mother's fault that her child is autistic and the best thing for autistic children is to go live in an institution and the best thing for moms of autistic children is to put their children in an institution and get out and have a life. There is also a point made that moms who don't want to put their children into an institution are just using their kids to make themselves feel special.

I believe that this movie is a very good representation of 1994. Kirstie Alley did a fantastic job of conveying the complex emotions involved in raising a child who simultaneously needs her desperately and barely acknowledges her existence.

The speech that she gave when her husband was leaving her was exactly right. We do what we have to do no matter how hard it is to do. And the unfortunate truth is that most fathers of special needs kids do leave. They can't handle it and they give up, leaving it all to the mother to handle on her own. And by the time some actually nice man comes along who wants to accept and help and be part of the family the mother is so worn out she cannot feel anything except what must be done. The complex combination of hope and despair was beautifully portrayed here.

I would love to see this movie made again with the same cast but with a different ending. I would like to see the mom find a school that was during the day only to take care of and teach her son and then she could have her days free to pursue her own interests. She could see her son's progress and learn how to help him learn life skills at home. As she begins to relax and have more hope and less despair on a daily basis she becomes able to reconnect with her own self again.

Of course I love Kirstie Alley, Stockard Channing and Sam Waterston so much I would watch those three do just about anything. It was such a treat to see all three of them together and doing a show about a subject so close to my heart.",1 "Yet another nazi-prison movie, that followed after Ilses success. This one has the usual stuff;lesbian warden, sadistic guards, forced co-workers and lotsa young women in shower/softcore sex scenes. The only highlight in this movie, is when the hero has his testicles removed, so the Kommandant can have them implanted (he lost them on the front, to a russian girl). Rather predictable and the torture scenes are kindda boring - for anyone who have seen this type of movie before.",0 "It's a very good and rare old style kungfu movie with a slightly slow start after the first fight scene with Lau, but gets a lot better very quickly. Lau Kar is a real kungfu practitioner for many years with knowledge and experience in this particular style of kungfu, so you will see rare footage of fight scenes you've never seen before and more realistic than a lot of other good movies. With funny bits that actually make you laugh, and a variety of scenes all splashed together to make a very good movie, But most of all, everyones in it for the fighting scenes if you like kungfu movies I guess, and thats the reason why it's one of my favorite's. it's more traditional and I would recommend it to any persons collection.",1 "God this is terrible journalism. I can't see the point of discrediting actual issues by mixing them up with spiritual goofs and use eccentric fanatics as front figures for let's say global warming. When you get so many hurricanes in one year that you run out of names, there's something going on. The last show I saw, they tried to wave away the dangers of passive smoking. I'm curious about who's really paying for this show. I get the feeling that there is some hidden lobbyism in this program.

I used to consider Penn & Teller two funny magicians (except for the lousy acting in ""Sabrina""). Nowadays I think they are sellouts who's obviously not doing well with the magic business (cause then they wouldn't have to take part of this crap, would they?). I mean, who listens to a magician when it comes to global warming and long term problems with genetic manipulation?",0 "i wasn't too impressed with this movie.it is in the style of both the Conan movies,but i didn't like it anywhere near as much.there was lots of action,but i still found it to be slow and boring.it becomes a bit more interesting from the halfway point on,but barely.i didn't find the acting very good,although Kevin Sorbo was good as the title character.but it was Tia Carrere who i thought was very impressive as the evil Queen.however,the only real reason i stuck it out was i noticed that the beginning credits listed Harvey Fierstein in the movie.he doesn't show up until about halfway through,but i liked him in his role.otherwise,the movie is tedious and very hard to get through.for me,Kull the Conqueror is a 4/10.",0 "OK...a sad collection of extremely unsophisticated 'sketch' jokes, often repeated several times, and none of them original. Embarrassing.

Plus...racism! A clumsy wordplay on the similarity between the sounds of 'Jaeger' (hunter) and 'Neger' (insulting word for a dark skinned person).

Also...violence towards women! One of the 'dwarfs' has a 'problem', later overcome, in that he **can't hit women**. Hilarious. Women are repeatedly referred to as (translation)'cold-hearted bitches'. The person who wrote this trash is the one with the problem.

Speech impediments! This is supposed to be funny??

Otto Waalke's character - I hope it is a character - is annoying beyond belief, as are the lisping dwarf and the cooking dwarf.

The only enjoyable moments were provided by the fabulous Nina Hagen, playing the wicked queen, the Mirror - Ruediger Hoffmann, and the miserable dwarf played by a wonderfully dead-pan Boris Aljinovic.

Having said all that, the thing that I found really disturbing was that I was sitting in a packed cinema full of people laughing their heads off. This disaster actually got a considerable round of applause when the credits came up!!! A sad day for Deutschland.

See it if you have to, or you want to experience what, believe it or not, actually passes for comedy in Germany, but avoid it if you can.",0 "The DC comic book heroes are so naturally interesting that it seems it would be very easy to make a good film here. However, they failed terribly. I found the film a little painful to watch. If I had another DVD on the coffee table I would have ended this one early.

If you had to look for good things about this movie you can find a few. The actress paying Supergirl was very good. She really came across as a teenager with super powers – a little awkward at times, not always very self-assured. She was really good and had great schoolgirl good looks.

However, it ends there. The dialog was strained. The story drug on, almost endlessly, with lack of action. The special effects were terrible even by 1984 standards (I often felt like I was watching the old Batman TV show). Someone else commented that they thought Faye Dunnaway was good. Sorry, I have to disagree. I felt the villains were just average, everyday, bad people – not the scheming, diabolical, evil but fascinating, super-villains typical in DC comics.

If you want a good super-hero movie you need a great villain and a riveting plot that moves at a fast pace. You won't find that here. If someone would have warned me off seeing this they would have done me a favor. Hopefully I am doing that for you.",0 "Even though when I buy a film like this I don't really expect good acting, story, or quality I buy them anyway just in case there is some good fighting / scenes in there. Unfortunately this one was a dud and a total waste of money. It is so bad that it is actually quite amusing in places so it gets a 2 out of 10. It is deffo frisby material but before you wang it out of the window it is worth one watch because you don't want to miss out on : What is going on with Bolo? The lead guy is a joke and is meant to be some kind of tough guy but looks like a mixture of Charles Bronson/Don Johnson/Columbo or whatever you cannot take this guy seriously.",0 "This movie is good old-fashioned silly fun. I will gladly admit that this isn't one of the deeper or more sophisticated films Cary Grant ever made, but boy is it cute and enjoyable. In other words, if you're looking for a film with a message or something that will change your life, this isn't it.

Cary plays his part very broadly--and is, at times, very immature and goofy. And, it is in these moments that the film is at it's best. Well, anyways, Cary is forced into helping Myrna Loy with her younger sister (Shirley Temple--who is way too young to be Loy's sister). And, although it's pretty easy to anticipate where the movie will end, the journey there is so funny and difficult to predict that it is clearly one of Grant's better comedies. Not as good as ARSENIC AND OLD LACE, but what is?",1 "While browsing through the DVDs at my video store, this one caught my eye for three reasons: 1) The cover art closely resembles an awesome French flick called ""Inside"" (""A l'interieur"")-- which I recommend to any extreme horror fan 2) The Dimension EXTREME logo at the top, which has delivered some awesome titles (""Eden Lake"", the aforementioned ""Inside"", and ""Storm Warning"") 3) The glowing reviews written all over the box which claim it makes ""Saw"" look like child's play and that it had won several awards at film fests ...

Well, let me say, as the box compares it to ""Saw"", it's as if ""Broken"" writer/director took EVERYTHING that made ""Saw"" a quality movie, did the opposite of it, and crafted possibly one of the worst horror films I have ever seen. I can't even qualify as fully seeing it. It was so abhorrent I couldn't watch it passed the 50-minute mark. I doubt I missed anything ground-breaking.

The acting is some of the most dreadful, desperate attempts I've ever seen. It's no wonder both the actress (Nadja Brand) who played Hope and the nameless torturer (Eric Colvin) have never had any work after the production of this abomination. Hope is our story's protagonist, and during the oh-so tame ""torture"" scenes we're supposed to root for her, but literally all she does is whimper and bitch throughout the whole movie, and there is about three minutes of character development before she is captured so we don't even know her character to sympatheize with. Needless to say I was hoping she would die the most brutal way possible. I couldn't even bear to follow through to see if she got away or not. Here's to hoping she was burned alive or something.

The antagonist says about 30 words throughout the film, and it's usually two- or three-word demands at Hope to 'wash this' or 'clean that'. I guess he lives in the woods that he holds Hope captive? We don't really know. We basically know nothing at all. Including who he is, why he tortures people, why he chose Hope, how he captured her, what the point of sewing a razor into her stomach was, and why the hell he insists on wearing this ugly hat. It really isn't menacing at all. In fact, there's nothing menacing about him. He is contrived, utterly cheesy, generic and completely baseless. If Hope were to get away in the movie, the only good thing that would come of it would be she would probably kill this guy. It's too bad they both weren't being tortured.

The gore that there is is nice, I will give it that. The setting is pretty nice-looking as well. But the camera work is about as lacklustre as the characters' acting so the nice surrounding is rendered pointless.

Pointless like this movie.

Please, please, PLEASE don't buy this. Don't even rent it. Don't contribute any of your money towards these people so they can think they did a quality job, or even worse, make another film.

.5/10",0 "Jean Renoir's homage to the Paris of the late 19th century is beautiful in many ways. Not only does it appear to have been photographed by Toulouse-Lautrec and Mucha, it portrays the geographic Paris; the streets accessible only by staircases, the unpleasant end of fleeting popularity, and the sexual opportunism of men with a product to sell, in an uncompromising picture of show business that is in stark contrast with the picture painted by Hollywood. There is an obvious comparison to be made with Lloyd Bacon's ""42nd Street,"" which had been made about 20 years before, featuring Ruby Keeler as a dancing sensation, a fresh-faced kid from the sticks who had come to New York to get into show business, who saves the show when the star fails--""You're going out there a kid from the chorus, but you've got to come back a STAR!!"" Warner Baxter's ""Julian Marsh"" is a director who suffers for his art and is unappreciated. Jean Gabin's ""Danglard"" keeps running afoul of genital politics, but when he talks about the show he is more like Knute Rockne than like Julian Marsh. He's all about the game, except--for his pointy thing. He has a profitable new venture sewed up until his mistress become jealous of the woman whom she recognizes as his next mistress. His prospects rise and fall with every coital journey he takes.

Danglard takes Mistress 1 (Lola de Castro, played by Maria Felix) slumming to a dive, where he sees ""Nini,"" (Françoise Arnoul) with her boyfriend and first lover, Paulo the baker, and discovers that she is a spirited dancer. He uses his charm and the prospect of money to lure Nini to studying dancing so that she may go on the stage. The prospect of money and fame charms Nini, and she become Danglard's next mistress, as well as an apt student of the cancan, which Danglard has dubbed ""French Cancan,"" to cater to the current Anglophile tendency in the dance.

Both ""42nd St"" and ""French Cancan"" are tributes to show business--to modern entertainment--that has is own iconography and its own conceit. ""42nd St."" is centered around Julian Marsh, a great director of Broadway shows, which he organizes with great personal energy and dubious sexual involvement. The male juvenile is a middle-aged twit with lumbago, replaced by Dick Powell, the pretty tenor with secret wealth to hide. Danglard, on the other hand, goes from woman to woman, seducing them with the promise of fame, hooking them with what must have been a very persuasive endowment. One has no doubt that he is heterosexual and quite active. Postcoital scenes abound.

Days after seducing Nini away from Paulo, he has discovered Esther, a Piaf type, and begun to prepare her for her job of singing the film's theme song while he plays it on her fiddle. That of course arouses Nini's jealousy just as she has aroused the jealousy of Lola. (And of course Nini had already forsworn the privilege of being a Czarina!) The whole movie is about how Danglard's concupiscence has cost him money but how even his troublesome horniness is subordinate to his love for the show--how the audience demands devotion--and it is this potent combination of phallic persuasion and tempting fame that makes Danglard the hero, while asserting that a true lover of the show will never profit as much as the money men. At the movie's conclusion, Danglard, having outfoxed the creditors and the jealous babes, approaches a new attraction watching the incredible (and believe me, it IS incredible) performance of the cancan. ""Have you ever thought about being on the stage?"" he asks, and the curtain descends. Meanwhile, poor Julian is sitting of the fire escape of the theatre listening to Peggy Sawyer's new fans disparage his contribution to the show's success. (I won't even go into ""42nd Street""'s central line, ""Oh, Guy, it was GRAND of you to COME!"")

Furthermore, I won't go into the glimpse one gets of legendary Parisian entertainers, including a brief vision of Piaf, nor of the vision of a Paris both urban and rural. Certainly there is a sample of the styles that engendered Trenet and Aznavour. But it is the memoir of an assertive and welcome masculinity, something unseen in any Hollywood musical with which it might be compared, is a pleasant relief from the androgynes of 30's Hollywood musicals (including my beloved Fred Astaire, not to mention Dick Powell), let alone the barf promulgated by MGM in movies like the repulsive ""American in Paris."" All those fountains! We'll save our comparison of that turkey to ""Breakfast at Tiffany's"" and its deconstruction of the American male for another day.

That Danglard may have been a hopeful vision, in postwar France, of a kind of hyper-masculine mec that may or may not have ever existed, is practically beside the point. That he is a man's man, neither John Wayne nor Edward Everett Horton, is perhaps more on target. That he is a man who likes the ladies is never in question. I, for one, wouldn't mind living his life at all. I wonder if Gabin was that lucky.

At the beginning of this comment I wanted to talk about Baz Luhrman and what Sinclair Lewis called ""boloney"". I never got that far. Baz's Moulin Rouge... well, Paris doesn't put that kind of stuff in the Seine anymore.",1 "This movie is by far the worst thing to come out since cats and dogs. I felt confused and disgusted throughout the whole bee experience. the dialect was dry and uninteresting. I was disturb by the fact a grown woman left her husband for a bee. Not only did this movie not have a plot , but it lacked any humor. seriously anyone who gives this movie any credit needs to get a life. obviously if you think bees flying planes or talking to humans is cute. the humans didn't even acknowledge the fact that they were talking to bees. they just went to court with them. yea thats really lame. know one wants to watch a movie about a girl and a bee in court making honey? my only question is how did this movie make theaters. I'm truly sorry for the people who have lost 8$. next time when you see a movie about bees and humans. Don't WATCH!",0 "Chronicles of Riddick, which I just got back from seeing was perhaps one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and this is coming from someone who loves Science Fiction a great deal. This movie was horrible, it made no sense, and then when things started to make a little sense it didn't make the plot any better. Vin Disel can act... as himself, which means the way he always acts-- as the near silent tough guy. I found him much more believable in the Fast and the Furious, and much more laughable in this movie.

There were more cheesy lines in this movie than an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie and Matrix: Revolutions put together. It made me realize why, exactly, we accompany other people to the movies for... to groan together when a movie becomes too unbearable to stand. The characters, all of them, were wooden and cardboard and talked in stilted monosyllable sentences. It was like watching a cruel parody of a great epic like ""Lord of the Rings"" gone horribly wrong.

The special effects and camera work of the movie does little to save it, but it was at least something to focus on when I couldn't stand the acting (or lack of acting) anymore. There were some really disorientating fight scenes where the use of strobe lights was way overdone and headache inducing.

Any feminist who watches this movie will be blown away by the absurd amount of machismo in this... men posture and posture more, while the women cower in fear and wait to be saved. A minor exception is a bounty hunter girl who is featured along with the rest of her nameless crew. Dame Vaako is put in her place early by a man saying exactly that, but proves herself to be, well, a little more than a sex object as she starts to convince Vaako to overthrow the throne with her. Yay, stereotypical evil woman in tightfitting clothing. That look like they hurt for that matter. Kyra made even less sense, as in the beautiful long haired acrobatic girl who can apparently take care of herself, then still needs Riddick to come save her at least three times in the movie. Was there anything in this movie that wasn't stereotypical? *yawns*

The ending, which was an ending I actually quite enjoyed, I was already so jaded by the rest of the movie to care much.

In conclusion this is a horribly written, horribly constructed, disjointed light show with stilted dialogue and wooden performances. If you must watch this movie watch it for the few times that the cinematography breaks out of headache inducing mode and actually shines, as well as some of the special effects, because you aren't going to get much else out of Chronicles of Riddick.",0 "This film is by one of the worst movies I have seen this year. It is so quick to play the slapstick, immature humor that it doesn't allow the humor to really build. It tries to follow in the same breath of the likes of ""Office Space"" and ""Clerks"", but it falls well short. I admit, I did chuckle here and there, but overall I was the only person in the theater laughing the least. I cannot recommend this film.

I'm sure people who have worked in the restaurant business might be able to relate to this film more, though I have worked in the customer service business before and I know how it is to deal with difficult people. With ""Clerks"" and ""Office Space"", I was able to relate to the humor of the workplace because it was clever and smart. ""Waiting..."" does not take that approach and is one lame gag after the next. The writers of this film should have taken more time to mold the humor in this one.",0 "I don't know why they do this direct-to-video sequels. Like recent ""Wishmaster 2"", this sequel to the very enjoyable ""Candyman"" and ""Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh"" only intends to offend the fans. It reashes the ideas from the originals, and its plot setups. It has twists like the leading woman discovering she is the great grand daughter of the Candyman. Well, I'm the great great great grand son of those guys from ""The 13th Warrior"", so let's make a sequels. Bad visual and gore effects, worst direction and lousy acting, specially from Tony Todd. The dramatic ending is pathetic, ridiculous.

This ""thing"" humiliates its original. It's the kind of sequel no movie should haver had to have.",0 "I Love this show (although I was a baby when the second series was aired) All the characters are so cool especially Tucker, Garvey, Nancy and Donna. The show so deserved the awards it got it is amazing how the stories in the lives of loads of individuals in army life can be portrayed in such amazing detail. I also like Ultimate Force which is also about army life, but Soldier Soldier tells the stories of the lives of the wives and girlfriends as well as the stories of the actual soldiers. This was an amazing TV Show, is is a shame that i couldn't watch it when it was first televised. (Does anyone know if it is TV on a Sky/ cable channel?)",1 "Usually animated movies are simply fun to watch, they rarely touch deeply in our feelings. But in this case, the animation is so perfect that the characters seems to be real people. In one of the first scenes I really got thrilled by the horse racing, although they were just two cartoons ""risking their lifes"", I felt as if that scene needed a stunt!!! What I mean is that the animation is so realistic that it entertains us as a regular shot movie.

The story is really interesting, and the epic songs gives it a special thrill. Even to those who have already watched billions of movies on this story, this particular movie is really worth watching! Unlike most animated movies it's a really dynamic one, with no such ""crying songs"" all the time!!!",1 "In ""American Graffiti"", director George Lucas follows the misadventures of four Californian teenagers one late summer night in 1962 as the focal point for an audience trip back to the last innocent year of the 60's, before the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam and revolting students. It is also a trip back to the last days of childhood, when everything was cool and easy, but we reluctantly started to realise that it would not stay like that forever.

The film lacks a straight plot in the conventional sense, it just cruises along, relaxes, and then cruises some more, as do the characters: sensitive Curt has to decide whether he is the competitive type (and runs into a street gang while he's at it), All-American Steve contemplates life with or without his girlfriend, dragster John manages to breach some of his untouchable daredevil image by baby-sitting the twerpy Carol, and Terry the Toad finally gets himself a girl (and what a girl she is). At the end of the night, they all had a great time.

Of course, the main protagonist is the rock'n'roll station, which broadcasts not only some of the greatest singles ever heard, but also the sum and substance of a way of life. Not the burgeoning hippie counter-culture lifestyle that would make headlines later on, but the frenzied materialist, frantically silly and boldly consumerist lifestyle of the 50's, with all its artefacts: fast food and drag racing, high school prom nights and acne remedies.

""American Graffiti"" is the cinematic equivalent and homage to that easy-going yet troubled universe, superficial and profound, funny and deeply nostalgic. Both the acting and directing are fresh, energetic and sparkling, accompanied be a doo-wop soundtrack that would have made Frank Zappa proud; all adds up to a living and breathing world of a movie.

It could have been a masterpiece if George Lucas had tinted his romanticism with a bit more irony, but then, ""absurdity"" is not a word commonly found in the blockbuster dictionaries. Everyone who was ever young will love ""American Graffiti"" anyway.

Overall rating: 7 (inspired) out of 10",1 "I thought that the film, despite its low budget, was better than I initially expected, but still poor. The acting was okay and the CGI was not particularly great, but what do you expect from such a low budget film? One of the major downsides to the DVD version of the film (I purchased it for about 50p) is that in the trailer to the film gives away the ending - a woman blasting a giant spider with a bazooka - which is one of the, if not the, most important part. However, this was not really too big a deal, as the film is predictable enough anyway. The film was followed by a sequel, which involves even more spiders and is just as good (or should I say bad).",0 "This animated version of Dickens' ""A Christmas Carol"" was directed by the legendary Chuck Jones, though the film doesn't at all appear like any of his typical work. This is NOT the Chuck Jones of Looney Tunes or Tom & Jerry!! For this nice rendition of the classic story, the film received the Oscar for Best Animated Short.

In many ways the film seems a bit ordinary today, though for 1971 it was a rather extraordinary film. In other words, at that time, low frame rates and cheap animation was the norm and compared to the rest of the animated films it was lovely--particularly the painstakingly drawn backgrounds. While the characters lack some smoothness in animation, it isn't that bad--especially for the day.

The only real problems I see with the film aren't really the animation but the story itself and its presentation--it is a bit on the dull side. That's because much of the film is word-for-word Dickens and is like so many, many other versions. Plus, a few places where it could have been more dramatic or warm, it wasn't. But, this is a minor quibble and some of the scenes in the film were very, very good--such as the old ladies talking about the haul they got off the corpse--the voice work was excellent here. And, speaking of voice talent, some of the voices were weak--with too little energy--especially Scrooge himself. Marley and the old ladies, however, were very good.

Overall, I'd give this film a 7--though it's almost good enough to get an 8. It's well worth seeing--just don't expect anything particularly better (or worse) than most of the other 247392 versions of the tale. However, if you are looking to see perhaps the best version of the story, the George C. Scott version is terrific--and really emphasizes the social commentary aspects of the story. In other words, the film makers realized it's less a film about Christmas and more a tale of greed and concern for your fellow man.",1 "A story of messed up real life people trying to find a happy hollywood ending, almost real life for a change.

Nicholson is fantastic getting all the quick witted replies and comments that he deserves, and Hunt provides a fantastic lead opposite him and the pair blend beautifully together in their scenes.

Gooding and Kinnear provide strong support, but it's Kinnear who outshines Gooding, why haven't we seen him in more prominent roles before?

The film can get a bit sappy in places, but it always brings it back to reality with a bang.

Definately a go see, for all those Victor Meldrew types.",1 "Strange Illusion is a movie I tried to watch, but just couldn't make it all the way through. It comes off as an extremely poor attempt at a Hitchcock type movie.

The storyline itself is kind of interesting, but several factors really overwhelm that and drag the movie down:

1) the bad acting of the lead character and his teenage friends 2) the unrealistic old fashioned gee-whiz dialogue 3) simplistic camerawork 4) inappropriate and dated music in a number of scenes

There were some scenes where the music was appropriate and added a lot of tension of the situation. However, too often you were subjected to some very annoying violin music that was not needed and detracted from the experience.

I gave it an honest try, but never bothered watching it all the way through. It really was that bad...",0 "After years of sitcoms about dysfunctional families, Fox came up with a winner in The Bernie Mac Show. Even though it's a one camera comedy with no studio audience or laugh track, it's a sitcom I really enjoyed since the episodes usually featured Bernie talking to the home audience from his easy chair, referring to the people watching at home as ""America."" But Fox kept moving this sitcom around to different slots and Bernie Mac's movie career began taking off which is why I thought led to the show's cancellation after five seasons.

The supporting cast was outstanding, including Kelita Smith as his wife Wanda and the young actors who play Vanessa, Jordan and ""Baby Girl"" added a lot to the show. One line I'll always remember was Bernie's declamation of tough love ""I'm gonna bust your head until the white meat shows!"" It's a shame that Bernie Mac died suddenly at 50. America, his show will live on in reruns.",1 "All I can say is WOW! This movie has it all. There is action, comedy, drama, suspense. I have never seen a movie combine all elements as well as this one. I've seen about 10,000 movies in my life and this one rates in the top 5. It is that great! Chow Yun Fat is brilliant and certainly would have deserved an Oscar if this film had a proper US release. His comic genius is present in all aspects of his character. The supporting cast does a fine job, but he is the God of Actors and not just the God of Gamblers. The direction is superb as well. The timing, the camera angles and the music make this movie an absolute pleasure to watch. I just finished watching the DVD and will order the remainder of the series as soon as I'm finished typing here. WATCH THIS FILM!",1 "Sadly, this film didn't deliver on its promise or premise. On paper, it sounds great - in execution, not so much. It starts off well enough, introducing us to our leads: a juvenile delinquent, and a grizzled old ex-policeman working for some secret CIA-esquire unit. But then it stops making sense fairly quickly. Why is it that our heroine, able to single-handedly fight off a roomful of cops, is easily taken down by a few thugs? And why is it that later in the film she's able to take down the same group of thugs without breaking a sweat? The villains aren't particularly well fleshed out. No explanation is given as to why the head thug has amazing seductive powers over women, without even saying a word, yet it seems every female character falls madly in love with him. A sub-plot about websites for tormented teens, is convoluted and nonsensical. Ridiculousness abounds, and not in a good/funny way: at one point, for example, a ten-minute monologue takes place entirely by text messaging. Really? They couldn't just, say, call? But the main problem with Yo-Yo Girl Cop is simple: not enough yo-yo-ing! The yo-yo weapon is introduced early on, and then only teased at until the last reel. Even then, it's not terribly exciting to watch in action.

For those hoping this would be non-stop cute Japanese girls kicking ass with yo-yos, prepare yourselves for disappointment.

3/10 for the cute girls. The lack of yo-yo action left me feeling a little ripped off, though.",0 "It's been a really long time since I've wanted to stop a movie mid-way through and bring it to the store to demand my money back. This movie made me want to do that. The repetition of random lines from scene to scene was probably supposed to be poignant, but it didn't even make sense. This movie is a disjointed mess. Obviously whoever made this movie has some friends in high places because I have no idea who would think making this movie was a good idea. And how in the heck did they get so many decent actors in this movie? Also, the preview was totally misleading and made it seem as though the movie was actually going to be interesting and not a snail-paced confusion. Maybe you have to be a smoker to understand this movie? It's only redemption was the Cate Blanchette vignette.",0 "Local radio station gave away free sneak preview tickets. Went with friends. We all agreed it's easily the worst film we've seen in a long time. Sure, we got in free, but we still want to bill Eddie Murphy for wasting our evening. What a turkey!",0 "David is charged with murder and Matt Murdock (aka The Daredevil) is the lawyer who's handling his case. Then the big green dude and the blind justice seeker join forces to fight The Kingpin.

Ahhhhh, if you thought The Incredible Hulk Returns was a bit on the silly side, you won't think that so much after watching this. The Daredevil scenes are just painful to watch. Rex Smith isn't bad as Murdock/Daredevil but he's just too damn silly when he's fighting the good fight. John Rhys Davies is horrible as The Kingpin who here comes off even worse than Daredevil.

What's worst here is that The Hulk plays second fiddle to the blind lawyer, not even appearing in the (overly silly) climax. This was originally an attempt to launch a series for Daredevil and it's obvious why it didn't take off.

Bill Bixby for the first and only time looks disinterested in the proceedings. This movie has ""half hearted"" written all over it. The Hulk action is unspectacular (apart from one dream sequence) but Ferrigno nevertheless looks great.

I just hope this was something Bixby had to do before venturing into the last installment which ended the Hulk saga on a high note.",0 "One star is being generous.

I can't even express in words how bad this movie was. There is no sense to the plot what-so-ever. Why is her father kept alive? What are those ""energy balls"" Gen show her? How does she learn to perform such things? Why did I spend 90 minutes watching this terrible film?

This is a RIP OFF. They used the title ""street fighter"" to attract fans, in order to make money. I really hope the production & publishing cost more than the lame &12 mil it earned (12?? really???).

The worst part of the movie, is the hot detective / ""cool"" interpool guy plot. Seriously, what are they doing? What are they donating to the movie? Nothing.

Seriously, don't watch this movie. You're better off watching youtube - whatever you'll see there is better than this movie.

And I'm not joking.",0 "I was prepared to love this Hepburn-Tracy pairing, but the movie doesn't date well. In 1952, it was probably a proto-feminist statement to have Hepburn leave a conventional but dull romance to fulfill her career potential as an athlete. And it was probably nothing unusual for a 1952 heroine to tell her true love that she needed someone to watch over her. But even from a 1970's perspective, much less a 21st-century's viewpoint, it's clear that Hepburn needed people to get out of her way, not watch over her.

Tracy wears his blue collar uncomfortably. His pugnaciousness seems genuine, but it's a labored effort for him to keep his intelligence under wraps.

As always with Hepburn and Tracy, there is the potential for great chemistry, but the script throws a blanket over it for much of the film, unable to find a natural, gradual way to show the increasing attraction between these two people from opposite sides of the tracks. Only in Tracy's last line of the film, which feels ad-libbed, does the relationship feel unforced.",0 "I saw this film on a wet day on the Gold Coast in Australia. If it wasn't for the fact that it was pouring down outside and there was absolutely nothing else to do in this tiny town we were stuck in(already had 2 lunches to waste time) we'd have left. Everything about this film is unspeakably bad, the plot, the script, the performances are risible. Whoever thought Alec Baldwin could play leading man in a comic book caper needs their head examining. Just awful!",0 "This movie is great in sense of a sad story, but believe me I spent my 1 hour in hell while watching it really in hell and I just want to say that some stories should remain untold, My body was shaking and sometimes I cried like a girl but I will not forgive my self that why I have seen it. There was a guy who stopped me but why I don't listened to him, so guys listened to me please don't watch it. This movie is great in sense of a sad story, but believe me I spent my 1 hour in hell while watching it really in hell and I just want to say that some stories should remain untold, My body was shaking and sometimes I cried like a girl but I will not forgive my self that why I have seen it. There was a guy who stopped me but why I don't listened to him, so guys listened to me please don't watch it",0 "After the very good, wacky comedy 'Foul Play (1978)', two years later Goldie Hawn and Chevy Chase would pair up again in this pleasant, light-headed farcical comedy 'Seems like Old Times'. Chase plays it dry and Hawn is a loose pin, but it's the crackling chemistry between them that really works wonders… and the third party of Charles Grodin caps it off nicely. And not forgetting the ever reliable T.K Carter ('Southern Comfort', 'The Thing' and 'Runaway Train') who drops in with an amusing performance.

Director Jay Sandrich is responsible for a lot TV shows and TV movies, but his crack at a feature length film displays bounce with the comical bravura and timing. The witty script (magnificently penned by Neil Simon) is well placed with its gags that it never out stays its welcome, but maybe it gets lost amongst its laconic talky spots. The eventual kayos that occurs is rather structured in its episodic layouts that come and go, but it's done in a wry style than intentional clumsiness even throwing some slapstick moments aside.

A highly entertaining comedy enterprise by two stars who were at their peaks.",1 "It's hard to believe this film was (re)made in 2006. OK, it's a low-budget production shot on video for TV, but the production values aren't really the problem - plenty of shot-for-TV-on-a-shoestring stuff is watchable without cringing embarrassment. Nor is the plot, per-se, the problem - as Sci-Fi goes it's a respectable enough premise, and it ought to have been possible to make a decently entertaining film out of it.

No, what staggered me was the incredible way in which even the most basic appreciation of contemporary science and technology seems to have eluded the writers, script editors and director.

I know this is a common complaint about sci-fi adaptations, and sometimes seen in artistic circles a churlish and unfair criticism - after all, these are ""creative people"", not ""cold-fish scientists"" (as the stereotypes go) - but this film is scarily Luddite to the point, as I said, of embarrassment. The most self-consciously ""arty"" of my friends and acquaintances have a better grasp of basic technology than the writers involved in this turkey. I have to wonder if the makers of this film are the ones featured in all those myths you encounter: Folk who think covers on their wall sockets stop the electricity dribbling out; people who use their computer CD ROM trays as cup holders; those who try to copy floppy discs on a photocopier or staple documents to their computer screen by way of e-mail attachments.

Here, it seems a real pride has been taken in ensuring that most of this film's potential audience, who in 2006 might be assumed to be vaguely technically literate, would suffer tooth-gnashing agony every three to five minutes.

So given the above, I hope it's meant to be a parody.

Taken as a parody of the genre it fares a bit better, but it's still deficient insofar as it's not so much funny as painful, and badly paced at that.

To steal a phrase, this movie fills a much-needed gap.",0 "Allen plays Emmanuelle. The beautiful woman who meets and falls for Haffron (PAUL MICHAEL ROBINSON). He is one good looking guy. And She is one hot babe. They hit it off well and continue to have great sex through the 7 part series. I think it will be a tragedy if this show doesn't come to america. They tried to rope the 7 episodes in an hour and a half tape. It didn't work out. I want to see all 7 episodes uncut. The sex scene choreography is great. And Kudos to Paul Michael Robinson and Krista Allen for being so great with nudity. They ARE NOT shy. Allen is already a rising star and we should start hearing more about her soon. As for Paul Michael Robinson he has the potential to become a great actor. He can act, he's great looking, and will show nudity (how many actors can you say that about). I read someone said that the leads lack charisma. It's the best charisma I've seen in these kind of movies. ATTENTION!!: LET'S START A GROUP STATING WE WANT EMMANUELLE IN SPACE BROUGHT TO VIDEO IN 7 PARTS UNEDITED!!!!

KRISTA ALLEN RULES!!!

PAUL MICHAEL ROBINSON!!!!!---YOU RULE!!!!",1 "Who would have thought an 8-minute cartoon could produce such emotions? At first I was sad and really felt the depression when sweet little Porky's heart is broken. Porky takes some drastic measures, and ends up dreaming about his life with the girl he wants to marry, but doesn't want to marry him. It is funny, and then heartbreaking if anyone's life would turn out like his dream. Porky then wakes up to decide whether he still wants his dream girl. I truly felt sad for Porky and understood his decisions. I was angry at the girl, Petunia Pig, for she was only using Porky and breaking his fragile heart. The cartoon, in only 8 minutes, makes the viewer think about his/her own life and suggests that you think about big decisions in your life before making them. Perhaps the sweetest moment in cartoon/film history is when Porky goes to see his dream girl and she laughs at him. He walks off her front porch only to first turn around and kiss a plate with her name written on it that is displayed by her front door. Porky then walks off heartbroken. What a greatly sad moment.",1 "I used to watch this movie as a kid and occasionally when I was in my teens but I watched it again now (im 24) and I must say its an excellent movie, which also has a very good story line, and one you can relate to if you have been in a relationship where your asking yourself many questions about the person your with and things that do which don't make sense! Not that we are dating mermaids, but it is a movie that has Alan (Tom Hanks) in a very real situation of been in love with someone who he is trying to figure out who she is but she wont give the answers or really open up. Its a movie of great comedy also!! John Candy and Eugene Levy are hilarious!!!! As is Tom Hanks! Some of the one liners and scenes in this movie will have you in stitches!!! This for me is a movie that could have been released today and still do very very well. A great movie which I can watch over and over!",1 "This movie knocked me off of my feet. It is truly a masterpiece. Incredibly entertaining and will delight anyone with an adventurous spirit. This movie is about souls and emotions and the twisted splendor of the imagination. Although I wouldn't recommend it for anyone who is faint of heart or square. Those who are judgmental will never be able to be open enough to understand and be moved by this amazing film. It is truly one that I will always keep in my collection and never forget what it meant to me when I first watched it. I could watch it a million times and never be bored. It is as great as the person watching it's interpretation of it and willingness to see people and love for what it is, without all the structure and stereotypes that society attaches.",1 This was the worst independent film I've seen since Clerks. That's pretty bad film-making. It was a waste of celluloid and the filmmakers should have burned the negative and collected the insurance--because it doesn't even belong on the American market.

Have you ever seen those crappy European movies about lifestyles that you know for a fact doesn't exist in this part of the world? It's kind of like that--but on a larger scale. The content revolves around homosexual behavior among children and old guys--not to mention a boy who screws his sister just about every single day. This was obviously the director's personal wet-dream--turned real.

I give this piece of junk a solid two thumbs down. And if I could I'd give the director a big kick to the head.,0 "I wasn't expecting THEY LIVE BY NIGHT. I wasn't even expecting REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. But considering (or perhaps not even considering) the fact that the subject matter (juvenile delinquents, rebels, anti-conformity) was close to Nicholas Ray's heart, this is an unfortunately stale effort by one of the best and most important American film directors of the 20th century.

Pretty Boy (a.k.a. Nick Romano, played by the perpetually puppy-dog eyed John Derek) grows up hardened and tough in a bad neighborhood on the Columbia Studios backlot. After years of jail terms and a stretch in a reform school, he returns home and falls for Pretty Girl (a.k.a. Emma, played to almost intoxicating sweetness by Allene Roberts). When he can't quit the life of crime, his pregnant wife commits suicide and Romano is put on trial for killing (or perhaps not killing) a cop. Most of his hardship is overseen by attorney Andrew Morton (Humphrey Bogart, the only lead actor who gives his role at least some intrigue and is therefore the only one who doesn't get the nickname treatment from yours truly), also from the wrong side of the tracks. He doesn't always quite believe that Romano is telling the truth and doesn't approve of his self-pitying ways (neither do I), but nonetheless he takes Romano's case and the battle is fought in the courtroom.

I believe that films should stand on their own two feet and not be compared to previous works, but since Nicholas Ray was so clearly trying to recapture the magic of his astonishing debut THEY LIVE BY NIGHT, it's hard not to compare the two; after all the love story between Pretty Boy and Pretty Girl directly parallels Bowie and Keechie's relationship. Both stories involve two young adults from the wrong side of the tracks, a criminal hardened by his tough life and the angelic girl who he marries and briefly finds inner peace with. I never thought that anyone could give a bad performance under Ray's direction, but while Farley Granger was no Montgomery Clift, John Derek is a dime-store version of Granger; at least Granger was able to give a sensitive and genuinely compelling performance under Ray's fatherly direction. Derek goes through the motions but not the emotions that Granger did so effortlessly. And even the ethereal Cathy O'Donnell was smart enough to allude to the toughness earned from years of living in the wrong place; Allenne Roberts captures none of that, only the unbelievable angelic nature. These characters don't echo the complexity of Ray's debut; they are whiny caricatures of people we're supposed to feel sorry for.

It's admirable that Humphrey Bogart would want to make a film about social injustice for his first project as a producer (this film was financed by his independent production company Santana), and he even lets most of the light shine on Pretty Boy. However, given Derek's poor performance and Bogart's coy cynicism, his golden integrity just hidden beneath the surface, and his brooding on-screen presence (as preachy as his closing argument is, it is well acted by Bogart), I wished the movie had been more about him, I wished the script not been as black-and-white as Burnett Guffey's cinematography. In trying to cry out for justice, the film just annoyed me with its condescending attitude and simplified message my six-year-old cousin could've caught.

I recommend two Nicholas Ray films that are a much more stimulating and thought- provoking experience: the first is THEY LIVE BY NIGHT for reasons already stated. The second is his masterful IN A LONELY PLACE, his second film with Humphrey Bogart--and in this one he *is* in the center stage, featuring probably the most complex and darkest role of his career. I guess one good thing came out of KNOCK ON ANY DOOR: Bogart and Ray, who came from different ways of approaching their jobs, needed one film to get to know each other, how the other one worked. Ray once said that during this film he ""took the gun away from Bogart's hands,"" and by the time they re-teamed for the second and last time, their professional relationship had ripened to friendship. Bogart trusted Ray enough to give a nakedly vulnerable performance in a film which you *SHOULD* look into.",0 "If you love the ever burgeoning list of computer animated flicks, it's worth seeing ""Robots"" just for the superb visual design. In fact, that's the only reason to see it.

This is a ""schtick"" movie, like the classic Warner Brothers cartoons of the 40's & 50's. I can handle that for 3 or 4 minutes, but not for the 91 minute running time of this movie. The folks at Blue Sky have failed to learn what Pixar has always known: Story. Story. Story.

""Robots"" treats us to a pastiche of set pieces stuck together by a plot that is so clichéd it's virtually impossible to put a spoiler in here because you've already seen it all before: Evil corporation, valiant naive hero, funny sidekick, ""you're okay just as you are"" theme. And it's really too bad because ""Robots"" is a visual treat. The gleaming surfaces and rounded designs remind me nostalgically of my parents 1955 Chevy Bel Air. But even there it doesn't always make sense. Whether something is a robot or not depends not on the story, but on whether they can get a joke out of it.

See it for the visuals. Skip it for the story. It's one of those ""near miss"""" movies that will frustrate you, because it could have been great.",0 "The MTM Show was a damn good comedy, but some of the comments here comparing it with the superior Dick Van Dyke Show are a little silly.

First of all, on the Van Dyke show Moore actually had a larger role, and got to do more comedy, than on the MTM show. On MTM she mostly played straight woman, and while the show more or less revolved around her, Valerie Harper or Ed Asner or another actor were the larger sources of humor. On DVD, while Rose Marie was originally planned to be the comedic center of the show, Moore took over more and more of that focus as the show developed. She wasn't just saying ""Oh Rob!"" and playing the dutiful wife, as someone (who never saw the DVD show?) has said.

Also, on the DVD Show Moore got to sing, dance, and use far more of her considerable talents.

Now, in comparing the shows-someone here wrote that MTM was the first great ensemble comedy. Really? In no way is the MTM ensemble superior to the DVD ensemble. It's a smaller cast, no doubt, but the characters are much more human. There are no cardboard people like the Ted Baxter character on Van Dyke.

Again, I like the MTM show. It was a well-written and well-acted program. But it's hardly the equal of several comedies from the 70's, especially the early years of MASH, or Bob Newhart, let alone classic earlier shows like Van Dyke or Andy Griffith.",1 "This was the biggest steaming pile of offal I have seen in a very long time--and I've seen my fair share of bad movies. There was zero chemistry between the two leads and, although I am a big fan of Russell Crowe's, I could not for the life of me figure out what Colin and Midori, the main characters, saw in each other. I suppose the filmmakers believed that a series of contrived ""dangerous situations"" would be enough to establish an attraction between the protagonists (and I use this term loosely). Well it isn't. I believed in their romance about as much as I believed Midori's faked orgasm. The movie meanders and has no aim because the filmmakers have no idea what sort of story they want to tell. It's as if they rewrote the script before each shooting day, and a Magic 8 Ball was consulted to govern the tone of each scene. There are moments in this film that are perfectly set up for satire yet the scenes are played straight, effectively ""dumbing down"" the movie. It's a shame, really, since they had such a fine cast and crew to work with (with the exception of the overzealous boom operator who seems to have a predilection for seeing his/her handiwork on celluloid). There are some interesting scenic work, but you can see the same sort of scenery in a better movie of the same genre, Kiss or Kill.",0 "Troll 2 makes Troll 1 look like Citizen Kane. In other words it's bad. Really bad. This movie is so bad that after watching it you'll want to run out and rent Ghoulies to get the taste out of your mouth.

The opening scene has trolls chasing someone through a misty field to the tune of 80's techno music and it only gets better after that.

*********I'm ashamed to say this about such a stupid movie, but this review contains SPOILERS******************

The movie involves a family moving to a town named Nilbog (that's right it's goblin spelled backwards even though the movie is called Troll, not Goblin) and swapping houses with some hillbillies. When watching this movie it's best if you go into it prepared to not ask any questions. Why a family would move into another family's furnished, food-stocked house is better left unexplained. Also why a family would proceed to eat the other family's green icing covered dinner is also better just accepted as normal.

The green icing on the food is a repetitive theme throughout the uhhh...film. It's apparently some sort of troll dna juice that turns the digester into a troll. Although that is never really explained. Another tool the clever goblins..err trolls have come up with is Nilbog milk which also turns the person who drinks it into a troll. If it's that easy, it seems like they could turn the entire world into trolls by mass producing Nilbog milk, but maybe that's not their intention. What the trolls get from turning other people into trolls is never explained like in so many monster takeover movies. The monsters/zombies/trolls/aliens always want to turn humans into their likeness and that's universally accepted, but why? What benefit do they get from making people like them?

Anyways, I digress. The good news for the family is the young boy has an ally in the form of the ghost of his deceased grandfather. The old man has the ability to appear to the boy to provide convenient warnings regarding the trolls just because he hates them that much.

One of the strangest scenes in the movie (there are a lot of them) is when the kid receives a vision from grandpa that he must pee on the green icing covered dinner his family is about to eat to keep them from becoming trolls. Luckily he does this right before his sister unknowingly is about to eat some tainted GREEN ICING COVERED CORN ON THE COB. That's not out of the ordinary at all right?

Another wonderfully horrible scene is when two guys venture into the weird troll witch's lair and one of them is turned into a plant, which doesn't really seem to bother him too much.

This movie is so horrible that every adult should be required by law to see it at least once. Newer DVD players are actually being coded to reject this movie upon reading it. Maybe next time a family will move to a town named Llort and the adventures will start all over again. Oh yeah, and maybe next time they'll throw in some gratuitous nudity to transition the scenes. The R rating the nudity would have provided would have actually been a public service because it would have kept impressionable children from watching this mess.",0 "What a great film! i cant believe that it wasn't released in the cinema as the whole story is brought to life by the amazing acting of Maura Tierney and Adrien Brody. If it wasn't for the talent of these two actors the story would have fallen flat. Tierney is truly believable as a struggling cop, and Brody is just so smug as the kidnapper, that the whole film is unpredictable. I saw this film on TV and i couldn't take my eyes off it, completely riveting throughout and you really feel like you know the characters. Despite good performances by other members of the cast, its the two leads that make the movie. An excellent film i completely recommend.

10 out of 10!! Excellent!!!",1 "It's very simple, if you enjoyed Urotsukidoji: Legend of the Overfiend, you should enjoy this Urotsukidoji outing. It has more Demon and Man-beast action....action meaning rape and gore. That's right! Monster Rape and bloody gore! Throw in the characters from the first one like Megumi and that little flying gimp monkey thing, and you're right back at home.

My only gripe with this flick was that it ended way too abruptly. It did set up for the next outing, but it made it feel like a TV series....but it was 84 minutes long. Eh, whatever. I'm still gonna find it, watch it and love it. Urotsukidoji forever!!",1 "Pure and simple, as a computer nerd this movie is crap.

It is totally 100% unbelievable, thats about it. It plays on every single hacker stereotype that exists and it makes up laws of technology.

""HEY! I bet I can guess the password to the FBI in 3 tries! I bet it's sex secret or god!""

Thats the level of technology they expect us to believe the FBI uses.

They ALSO expect us to believe that the FBI keeps its top secret files ONLINE in the first place!!

Crap, all the way through, plain and simple.

",0 "I helped make this movie.. It was a very fun film for those interested in darker side of magic and the devil... And.. What lusts life has to give to create the devil's child.. What things you could have happen if you really were in a cult.. Who would save you?? Or would you fall to the evil within yourself?? I feel truly inspired by David's work... He has a brilliant and dignifying diabolical ideas that really set your mind to thinking! I hope I can work with him again!! I have many many more great ideas..

Right now I'm helping put together another film on magic and I'm going to be in this one!!

If ya don't like the 18th Angel, then you never understood it in the 1st place. You never know maybe some of the movie has some truths in it... Maybe you'll get it after you see it a few more times..

Syncerely, 18th angel Antichrist",1 "I am a hardcore John Waters fan, but this is not my favorite film of his. I can't really think of anything I would want to change about it, however, other than maybe setting it in the 50's or 60's so Van Smith could have worked his costume magic. I personally consider this film and Pecker to be his weakest. However, even my least favorite Waters film beats most movies. If another director, say Robert Zemeckis or someone had directed this, then based on the subject matter, I probably wouldn't have had any interest in seeing it. But hey, any movie containing the credits ""Written and Directed by John Waters"" (in this case, the credit is superimposed over an image of a pulverized fly who has just been swatted by the title character...he always picks the best shots for his credit, doesn't he?) well, I'm there, no matter what the premise is. Waters' films often center on 'troubled' but lovable female characters, and this one is no exception. Kathleen Turner does a great job portraying Beverly Sutphin, a June Cleaver-esque, devoted happy homemaker who doesn't even allow gum in her house, but has a short fuse and keeps a secret scrapbook (I wonder if it was from Waters personal collection) of clippings about serial killers. We don't know how long she's been killing, but the first half of the film follows a week in her life and the various neighbors and acquaintances she dispatches simply because they pi$$ her off. Ever momentarily had an urge to kill someone when they stole a parking spot from you, badmouthed a member of your family, or committed an obvious fashion violation? We don't act on it (well, *I* don't anyway, maybe some of you have and I just don't know about it) but Serial Mom sure does.

Again, only Waters could have pulled this movie and subject matter off. If you're a Waters devotee, then you are well aware that criminal behavior, trials, and serial killers are subjects near and dear to his heart-this is a man who is a self-confessed ""trial groupie"". With any other filmmaker, it could have been boring. Many probably would have been extremely offended by a movie about a lovable serial killer played for laughs (especially those who knew the victim of a violent crime) but the tone of the movie is so light and over-the-top that only people with no sense of humor could think it might condone murder. Who else but Waters could think of a victim being bludgeoned to death with a slab of pork chop (because she made the mistake of not rewinding a movie before she returns it to the video store) while watching a videotape of ""Annie""? This is not the funniest Waters movie I've seen, but it has its moments. Among the funniest are the scenes where Beverly torments her neighbor Mink Stole with hilariously obscene phone calls to drive her over the edge. Also very amusing are scenes where Beverly's whitebread manner (""oh honey, the only ""serial"" I know anything about is Rice Krispies!"") contrasts with the horrified stares of her family and neighbors. Turner is best in the moments when she goes from a harmless Donna Reed to Charles Manson within seconds when someone makes the mistake of annoying her- just watch her face. Waters fans should also watch for cameos /small roles by Alan Wendel, Traci Lords, Susan Lowe, Mary Vivian Pearce (I only recognized her from her distinctive voice) and though he doesn't appear in the credits, Waters manages to work in Don Knotts.

This is one of the few Waters films that I rent from time to time rather than own, but it's still lots of fun. I'll take one of Waters less memorable films over a teen slasher flick or anything starring Jean-Claude Van Damme any day of the week.",1 "Actually, considering that this is the *only* show about geniuses to my knowledge, it could certainly use a few on the writing staff... and one or two in the directing, acting, and casting pools wouldn't hurt.

Seriously, how could someone take such a cool idea and screw it up so royally, and with such effort? I couldn't even make it through the heavily computer-animated pilot. ""Dark Angel"" had more believable character dynamics. And why is it that every single genius is an idiot, perpetually annoyed/annoying, and/or a hot chick? Give me a break. The constant ""sound library"" cheese-music was also a nice touch.

I suppose the biggest morons are the folks at Sci-Fi. Seriously, someone's blown a gasket over there...",0 "Sometimes you don't need frantic action or buckets of blood to have a movie that scares you out of your seat.

Like the character in I am Legend, there are few people left on Earth at the end of this movie. Tokyo is a ghost town. Where did they all go? That is left for you to argue. Good film for a discussion group.

Is there a finite space where all the souls of the departed go? What happens when that space fills? Interesting questions that are addressed in a very creepy manner by this movie.

But isn't the universe expanding? Do we have to worry now. Is death preferable to living, if you are lonely? You are constantly thinking while you experience this film, and you are never sure of the answers. Call it ""adult horror,"" if you will. It is definitely one to see.",1 "The director and the producers of this film must think the audience is stupid. I took my acting class which is made of mostly children to watch Josh in action and talk about character development. Well the only thing they were able to talk about is the boom coming into view more than two dozen times plus seeing the top of the camera several times. I can not believe any distributor actually paid money to have this film produced, it is poor quality and everyone involved in it from the director to the DP & the editor should be embarrassed and ashamed to have worked on this project. I think everyone involved in this project owes the audience and the actors a huge apology. This movie's production value is worse than watching student films , at least student filmmakers know never to have the boom ever show in a shot or a movie let alone a movie that has more than 2 dozen boom shots. Save your money because the boom/mic coming into the scene every five minutes will drive you crazy, what a waste of good talent from Bruce Greenwood and some other veteran actors.",0 "A few nights ago, I was in a mild state of insomnia and found that Fox was airing HIGHWAY. I began to watch. The movie is about two insane men, Jack Hayes (Jared Leto) and Pilot Kelson (Jake Gyllenhaal). They flee to Seattle one day after Jack sleeps with the owner of a pool he cleans and her husband's friends (""Miranda's Pandas,"" Jack and Pilot call them) come after him. Along the way, they encounter Cassie (Selma Blair) being abused by her friend (or more), and decide to pick her up and bring her along for the trip. Meanwhile, Miranda's Pandas learn from Jack and Pilot's stoner friends where they are headed and set off after Jack, intent to break his feet. Johnny the Fox (John C. McGinley), Pilot's stoner friend, comes along for the ride to attend Kurt Cobain's memorial. Will Jack evade Miranda's Pandas?

Usually I would go into more detail about the plot, but I really don't know what a lot of it is about. There were several scenes that were absolutely lost upon me (the scene where Johnny the Fox and Pilot are spinning around, high on drugs, and there's some nonsense being muttered, in particular). And above all, I really don't know what to make of this movie. I wouldn't call it a drama by any means, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a comedy either. I would call it a mixed bag.

There are a few scenes that are pretty funny--the beginning, mainly, and some of the part about the sideshow feature the Alligator Boy. But most of the scenes are just incredibly weird. It's a pretty entertaining movie for the most part, although by the end I found myself not really caring what happened to the characters (though that could have been sleep calling to me).

The oddest thing about this movie was the characters and the actors who played them. All of the characters were insane in their own way, though Pilot is a definite standout as the weirdest. The main thing I wondered while watching HIGHWAY was what possessed Jared Leto and Jake Gyllenhaal to do this movie. They were both in versatile and great projects prior to this--why this movie? The fact that they were in it was quite a shock to me, to say the least.

All in all, HIGHWAY left me completely baffled. The story's pretty entertaining, but the characters and the majority of the scenes are completely insane. This is, without a doubt, one of the weirdest movies I've ever seen. 4/10.",0 "Like I had said many times, I was shocked, surprised and flabbergasted by the negativity I heard on Keyframe.com; I've watched this show, and frankly I find it AWESOME! Based on the characters created by Tobin ""Ted"" Wolf, the series is set in the far distant future (I don't know how far) and follows the adventures of a team of heroes: cat-like humanoid aliens from the planet of Thundera.

The series begins with the dying Thundera meeting its end, forcing the ThunderCats (a sort of like Thunderean nobility) to flee their homeworld. The fleet is attacked by the Thundereans' enemies, the Mutants from the planet Plun-Darr, who destroy all the starships in the ""ThunderFleet,"" but spare the flagship hoping to capture the legendary Sword of Omens they believe is onboard. The sword holds the mystical Eye of Thundera, the source of the ThunderCats' power, embedded in the hilt. Though the Mutants damage the flagship, the power of the Eye drives them back, and Lion-O's elderly guardian, Jaga, pilots the ship to the safety of the world of ""Third Earth;"" however, he dies in the process, as there are insufficient cryo-stasis pods aboard the ship, and the journey to Third Earth takes several decades even with advanced interstellar spacecraft. The flagship contains the young Lord of the ThunderCats, Lion-O, as well as the ThunderCats - Cheetara, Panthro, Tygra, the ThunderKittens WilyKit and WilyKat, and Snarf. Upon reaching Third Earth, the ThunderCats made friends with various creatures of the planet and they designed a fortress. But Mumm-Ra the centuries-old embodiment of evil, along with the mutants that destroyed the rest of the Thunderans are a constant threat. But Lion-O, the new leader of the ThunderCats, now grown man due a malfunction in his cryo-stasis pod, with the Sword of Omens will help the ThunderCats to have a standing chance on their adopted home.

I love Cheetara,Tygra, the ThunderKittens WilyKit and WilyKat, and Snarf; OH! and Snarfer too. So all I could said is that this is one of the best animated series from one of my favorite animation studios - Rankin/Bass; with plenty of fantasy, adventure, humor and beautiful animation, I loved it. And one thing: Anyone who watched the episode ""Dimension Doom"" ever notice that near the end, Cheetara & Wizz-Ra took a moment to have a sentimental farewell; like anyone's thinking of doing a fan-shipping of the couple; I might.",1 "Beyond moral judgement, I liked this portray of a girl who decided to break a barrier that had never been broken and therefore become as unique as one can be. Of course, stepping in the Guinness book of world records is not exactly enough to create a memorable destiny, and choosing the pornographic field attracts heaps of hungry viewers that cannot exactly be called reputable admirers, and yet...I think movie managed to show us in Annabella a pretty unique and sympathetic character, at the same time excessive, provocative but also sincere and fragile.

I specially liked the episode of her return to Singapore, which depicts so well the gap that has been experienced by this proud, ingenuous nature, hypnotised by the freedom of America - as far as to forget all moral barriers and follow her single pleasure till the extreme - and then crash down on reality when going back to her family roots - probably in search of a recomfort she was starting to miss in the vain and stupid environment of those cynical sex filmmakers.

There is really an Annabel Chong story, that has nothing to do with peeping pornography and condemning judgments.",1 "This horrifying flick seems to do its best in blurring and romanticizing events so much that way things actually happened becomes romanticed and messed. Which is of course the main reason of the movie. Characters doesn't show most anything from real people, the events are of course 'based on actual guideline', but there's just that something(a lot) which doesn't fit in (too much uncorrectness to mention).

Somehow, the Indian characters seem more white that they should (as most are played by Indian) and somehow white characters seem more like bureacrates than actual officers and congressmen. And of course in most conversations them (w.a.s.p.) get the last word. And of course them victims (massacred) weren't saints themselves, and of course them religious movement was actually hoax, and of course all of it happened in more romantic times in distant past. And besides of all these things, the film is actually quite boring.

Some credit goes to guidelines in the end of the movie, which at least seem to be correct.",0 "I was hesitant to see this because I figured it would be a patriotic appeal for war. What I found was very surprising. First of all, I commend the writer and filmmaker for having a Native American as one of the main characters. Navajo codetalkers were instrumental in our success, but few movies have even mentioned them. In fact, the John Woo film focused more on Nicolas Cage's character than the always excellent Adam Beach. In Flags of Our Fathers, we see how the war has impacted the lives of three men. The most touching story was Ira Hayes, played by Beach. I think he should win an Oscar for his portrayal. He conveyed much more warmth and had much more depth than the other ""leads."" Even though the narrative was indeed disjointed, if you have the attention span, you can figure it out. Even though the film was two and one-half hours, it didn't feel like it. I found the story very compelling, and a refreshing antidote to a lot of the war films we see. No matter which side you fight on, war is not kind, and Eastwood depicts that well. Overall, a fine effort from all involved.",1 "This movie despite all the strange violence, deviant sex, and the sadness of the main character.... i actually feel kinda warm and fuzzy after i watch it. James Duval character Dark is so lovable and so easy to identify with even if you aren't a lonely teenager. I think this movie contains great commentary on todays fast and twisted society. It is genius. Even though it has shocking and sometimes stomach turning scenes, it can still be funny and make you laugh. I think a good movie is about sending you through a wide range of emotions and this movie meets that criteria. My friends and myself have assembled our own cult following for this Gregg Araki trilogy (inculding Doom Generation and Totally F***ed Up). If you like this movie i suggest you watch the other two. For sure this movie isn't for everyone but if you watched it once and hated it for its graphic nature i suggest you watch it again a pay attention to the lessons and social commentary.",1 "David Dhawan in 1999 after the superhit BIWI NO.1 with Salman repeated Salman and Karisma for the 4th time in his film with this film which released 2 months after the not so successful DHLJ

The movie is the same formula Salman, Karisma and Dutt have done for ages Similar to SAAJAN minus there Sanjay was the lead and he had a great role here he is just the typical no nonsense kinda boss who falls in love Even the music is ordinary here and also the romance

It's like 9 years after SAAJAN you make a diluted version which looks like a rehash of several other films

The film is nothing different and is actually boring to watch Remember DILLAGI, Remember SAAJAN.etc

Direction by DD is bad Music is nothing special

Amongst actors Salman does his usual stuff he did mostly those days though he was more lively and natural compared to today's comedies of his where he is bad Sanju seems bored Karisma does her part very well Dalip Tahil is okay Shakti Kapoor, Himani are routine Sushma Seth is good",0 "1997. Was the year when first Starship Troopers came out... Man, when I watch it now, it is strong as it was then... Good story, good CGI, good acting... That film was entirely good.

Then 2004. came out second Starship Troopers... and I thought to myself "" This is some lame try to make more money on the fame of first movie."" And I wasn't wrong. Now 2008. and third installment comes. And its even worse.

I don't know why did I watch this movie for 1 hour and 30 minutes. Maybe because I was so bored and tired to get up from my comfortable sofa and change DVD. It starts, as you all know, like previous ones, with some news, etc. And the action! But believe me, the action you don't want to see. Casper Van Dien is horrible, text lines, acting. The other actors sucked as well, the whole plot sucks!

Maybe this review is to harsh, but I am angry when someone tries to make more money on fame of the previous installment. And this movie is all about it.

I just can't remember the last movie where van Dien didn't sucked. The movie like first Starship Troopers where he did a decent job. After that movie, he went to record such amount of stupid ones. Including this one.

My opinion: Avoid it! Avoid second Starship Trooper and the third. Its all just lame try to make more money. To lame...",0 "This is without A doubt the best Kevin Smith film yet.Considering that it started with An assassination plot,I believe it turned out wonderful.Jason Lee is spot on perfect in this.There is not anyone else alive that could play Brodie better.The acting is great for A mid ninties comedy.Smith has not made A movie as funny since.No sophmore slump here.If you watch the flick again and not expecting Clerks you may just enjoy it.",1 "The above expression is a literal quote from the standard-work of film theory ""Theorie Des Films"" by Siegfried Kracauer (Frankfurt Am Main 1973, p. 12). In order to reveal its application to ""The Paradine Case"" (1947), I have to disclose some key points of the story. Roughly speaking, it goes like that: Mrs. Paradine is arrested for the suspect of having poisoned her husband. Soon, it becomes clear that only two persons could have done the crime: she and the valet of the killed man. Hitchcock should never have accepted this lethal restriction given by the novel on which the movie is based, because from now on the movie spins around in trivialities. For example: When the police comes to arrest her, Mrs. Paradine calls her family-attorney. When he arrives, he tells her not to loose words but to come to the core of the defense immediately, since it is clear to him that she did not kill her husband. For the audience, this means: The valet did it. When the old attorney gives the case to a young specialist, this one follows of course the line of the other, but simply because he earns his money by being a defense attorney and not a state prosecutor. For him as well as for the audience it is clear again: Since he must defend Mrs. Paradine, he must try to prove that the valet is the murderer. However, the audience asks itself: Would this not be clear to Mrs. Paradine as well? She, most of all, knows that at the time of the killing only her and the valet have been in the house and are thus suspects for the crime. So, the audience does not understand that Mrs. Paradine, after having attended the first trial day, is shocked that her attorney tried to put the whole guilt on the valet. She makes him a gigantic scene, telling him, that his business is to defend herself, but not at the cost of accusing the valet. What a nonsense! Did Hitchcock really not see that there is not even a chance for a Deus Ex Machina in the form of a third, hitherto unknown person in the story? The deplorable rest of the story goes as follows: When Mrs. Paradine sees that the valet gets more and more under suspect of being the killer, she starts slowly to make confessions, first in the form of suggestive remarks. Meanwhile, the court is informed that the valet, desperate under the burden of accusations, has committed suicide. When Mrs. Paradine hears that, she turns from hints to a full confession of having killed her husband because she was in love with the valet and wanted to start a new life with him. Unfortunately, the incredible nonsense of the plot line is not at the end, at that point. From a discussion in the private house between the judge and his wife we hear that he plans to hang Mrs. Paradine as soon as possible. But from a plea by the wife of her attorney we hear that he should do everything in order to safe her life. Well understood: the life of the same Mrs. Paradine who has by herself ruined her case, delivered false information to her attorney and, most of all, told him in the court house that he is responsible for the suicide of the valet. I cannot even imagine that there is any movie on this world whose story is more inconsistent, paradoxical and unprofessional. Why Hitchcock filmed it unchanged, this must be considered a true mystery of film history. Besides that, ""The Paradine Case"" is a masterpiece in order to show what Kracauer called ""the illiterate effects of a Hitchcock-thriller"".",0 "OK. I have seen this movie I don't know how many times. I think it is one of the best movies. Yes, some people might say it's retarded. but you gotta laugh though. It's freaking great! My friend and I, basically have this whole movie memorized. If you are ever in a bad mood. Just watch this movie! Yes, some of the lines might be rather lame. but it is awesome! granted I may be repeating myself. but you just don't understand. I have only had the movie for a little over a year and I have probably seen it almost 100 times. but the thing is, there are actually people like this out there. ha ha. but it's great though. The whole trying to scare your son white. Is kinda messed up. but I think it's a great movie, myself. and so do my friends. So try to not dis this movie! For real!",1 "SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE CASE OF THE SILK STOCKING

Aspect ratio: 1.78:1

Sound format: Stereo

London, 1902: During a period of heavy fog, Sherlock Holmes (Rupert Everett) and Dr. Watson (Ian Hart) go on the trail of a serial killer who targets attractive young débutantes.

Simon Cellan Jones' atmospheric chiller uses the standard trappings of Holmesian lore in this all-new adventure, but Allan Cubitt's script seems as much inspired by the likes of MESSIAH and SE7EN as anything by Arthur Conan Doyle. The decision to locate proceedings within an era of deadly 'pea-soupers' adds an element of Gothic horror whilst simultaneously obscuring a multitude of budgetary deficiencies, and several crucial set-pieces unfold in a swirl of impenetrable fog. Holmes is depicted as an isolated figure, rendered separate from the general run of humanity by his ego and intelligence, who finds solace in drug use and the minutiae of criminal investigations, though his antipathy toward women is challenged here by Watson's American fiancée (Helen McCrory), a trained psychologist who shares many of his preoccupations and refuses to be cowed by her position within society. Everett and Hart never really connect as a team, and an early sequence in which Watson appropriates a number of Holmes' investigative techniques to query the details of a crime scene promises plot developments which never really come to fruition. The killer's identity is fairly obvious, too, but there are further twists - many of them linked to the hypocrisy and corruption of upper-class Edwardian society - which should satisfy most armchair mystery buffs. Watchable, but plodding; typical BBC fodder.",0 "Due to boredom one night and the encouragement of having watched a string of quite interesting though often unusual Korean films i found myself a fan of Korean entertainment.

Until i came across this, Lets start with the plot Basically you have a perhaps bright college student with a potential future, a ""Bad boy"" in all sense of the word...literally, and a brothel. The young girl unfortunately for her steals some money from a man (Which turns out to be a setup by the main character"" and is forced to pay it off, Not by getting a loan from the bank, family, friends like a normal woman, but by prostitution.

Hence beginning a ""tale of life at the brothel"". Basically, the skeleton of the film from here on end is this, She gets raped, over and over, and over, tries to escape the brothel, The ""Main Character"" catches her, brings her back to the brothel so she can get raped some more by random horny guys, while he watches from the other side of a glass, Why? heres the twist - He's in love with her, and telling her simply wouldn't have done.

As the film literally drags on, with the constant pounding of the girls miseries it gets to the point where when he gets into a fight, or gets stabbed, which as it turns out he does, you smile and think to yourself ""Finally it ends! he got what he deserved in the end, Go Karma"", sadly yet humorously He stands up, and shrugs it off, literally just walking away with no medical assistance what so ever.

He's fairytale reality does not end there, he somehow as a crown to all he's crimes, and violent nature ends up getting the girl whose life he inherently destroys throughout the length of the movie to reprocate he's love, and so concluding this ""Reality of how life in the directors underworld is like"" they walk of into the sunset.

From this fiasco of an imitation of life in an ""Underworld society"" we learn that If you want a woman to love you, fellows flowers and candy simply won't do.

I had to watch Daisy, to get the bad taste of this film out of my mind. It's sad to see a film like this get rated higher than a 3.1, for the only truth; If the Male leads character depicted in the movie was in fact was brought before the public in a real life scenario, we'd gather our pitch forks, and throw him to the jury yelling the sweet sounds of life imprisonment. Yet he's portrayed behind the lens of a camera and suddenly,...He's simply misunderstood.",0 "Oh dear. I watched this film because a colleague recommended it. I will have serious words with her next time I see her. Here's why...

A good film can be let down by a moment in the film when you, the viewer, don't believe (or buy) the characters' decisions or actions. This happened in The Wrestler, when the main character 'forgot' to attend the dinner date that he had managed to arrange with his estranged daughter. However, I would say on balance that The Wrestler is a good film, as other aspects of the film compensated for this 'moment'.

Right At Your Door, on the other hand is literally riddled with moments which made me question the characters' actions and decisions to the point that I was saying out loud, phrases beginning with ""Why did he just...?"" or ""Why doesn't she...?"" This kind of spoilt the viewing experience for me.

Also, I can't say that on balance, in spite of these numerous confusing/irritating moments, that RAYD is a good film. As many have said, the idea is good, but the script is really weak. The 'twist' at the end of the film left me furious. I really did feel like I had wasted 90 minutes of my life. I wanted all the characters to die of the poison - along with anyone who had anything to do with the relaxation of this cinematic sludge.

And yet, there are people and critics who rate this film quite highly. Perhaps you should see it for yourself, but by no means do that under my recommendation.",0 "Disney entered the direct-to-video arena for the very first time in 1994 with ""The Return of Jafar,"" the sequel to the 1992 theatrical animated release ""Aladdin."" In it, we thought in our last movie that Jafar would be gone forever!!!!! But NOOOO, Jafar has returned once again, and he wanted revenge!!!!!

This time, Jafar became an evil genie. This was an awesome film, and I especially liked the ending scene where, as the lamp melted, the Jafar Genie was all flashing like static and stuff!!!!! Now THAT was awesome!!!!!

And so, after that, all went back to normal. I liked this movie; it was fun and exciting, and don't forget: that short, fat bad guy was caught in the tree, wondering why he didn't get his third wish!!!!! LOL

If you liked ""Aladdin,"" then you'll LOVE ""The Return of Jafar!!!!!""

10 stars",1 Candyman Day of the Dead was really good. The movie was based a Myth and Legends. The Candyman played by Tony Todd was really neat because you would never know where he was going to pop up. And Caroline played by Donna D'errico which who is the great granddaughter of the Candyman. And the neat thing about her part is every time she would dream the Candyman would be there in her dreams. And by the way what good acting by Tony Todd and Donna D'errico. I give the movie 7 Stars. It's the best out of them all. *******,1 "

... And this film is good for only that. At an amuzement park a little girl falls from one of the attractions, and dies. This shots down the park, but some year later a boy goes out to the shut down amuzement park. Who he is, or why he really wants to go there, noone knows. He goes missing. Who takes him or why, noone knows. Then his annoying sister wakes up, and decides to go find him. Why noone knows, he´s been missing for quite some time. Who she is? Well she´s the sister ofcourse. She teams up with some friends, and from here on the movie steals from every single film, that the writer could think of. Small kids with dolls, themepark built on cemetary, DV cameras that can record what isn´t there, evil clowns, and a mutant and his son, who´s just basicly up to no good. Oh yeah. It even has a ""Surprising ending"".

What a piece of garbage. This and ""Mutant Dog"" must be the worst I´ve ever seen. 1 out of 10.",0 "To say the only positive about the film first: the interior of the space station looks impressingly claustrophobic and some of the details in it are well thought. You will find nothing else positive in this film.

The prisoners do not have any relevant characters, you will most likely mix them up. It doesn't help in this case that all wear yellow prison uniforms and all have their hair cut off. They all have ridiculous names after historical persons. Who ever came along to name a character who likes to eat and is very chubby ""Moloch"" ? Is that supposed to be original or what? Their leader is named Cesar, oh come on!

The space stations personnel isn't modeled any better. Just cut-out cardboard characters.

Moreover, there is almost no real story. The pace of the film is painfully slow. The new prisoner ""heals"" some of his fellows in a way that doesn't make sense at all (you have to call that ""mystical""). Every time he does it, it looks exactly the same.

The most annoying thing about this film is that it tortures you with obvious religious symbols and gestures until even the dumbest viewer will notice it.

Avoid this film at any cost.",0 "I must say I was not expecting to like this movie but I did. My husband buys low budget films all the time and I don't like them. I was busy on my pc and halfway through the movie became drawn into it. The end was the best, it actually struck a cord with me. No other film has spoken to me in this way. It has helped me to feel comfortable in my space of being an educated-accomplished-determined at-home-mom. My biggest critique is that the film does seem incredibly slow at moments, and some of the actors were not good. Boris was great of course! Overall its soo worth sitting through for all you educated broke entrepreneur spirit filled moms out there waiting for your big break and not existing fully in the moment. Good soundtrack. Yellow Teeth. People with an older baby that can't change a diaper. Close shots. Great story. Real people. Excellent message.",1 "Commissioner Betti (Maurizio Merli) has been sent to Naples to help clean up the city. Armed robbery, rape, extortion, and murder are everyday occurrences in Naples. Betti soon realizes there are two crime bosses behind most of the mayhem - Capunao (John Saxon) and the Commandante (Barry Sullivan). The two are at war and Betti's caught in the middle. Betti is a no nonsense kind of cop who is perfectly comfortable using whatever tactics necessary to get the job done. But how far is Betti willing to go to get his man?

Trying to do a short summary of a movie Violent Naples is almost impossible. The movie is in reality little more than a series of action-packed set-pieces strung together with an all but invisible plot thread. Intricate plot details are hardly the point of a film like Violent Naples. Instead, it's about the action and the pacing. And Lenzi was as good at this as anyone who ever made a Poliziotteschi. Violent Naples moves from fire bombings to beatings to bank hold-ups to gunfights to rape without missing a beat. Lenzi doesn't give you time to catch your breath before your off to the next action set-piece. I was impressed and found memorable the very same moments noted in almost every other review or article written on Violent Naples – the vicious bowling scene and the amazing camera work of the motorcycle chase scene. As good a moments as I've yet run across in a Poliziotteschi.

Along the same lines as Violent Naples' paper-thin plot, if you're looking for character insight and development, look elsewhere. Merli's Betti is as two dimensional a leading character as you'll find. We know almost nothing of the man. Similarly, we know next to nothing about the baddies played by Saxon and Sullivan. In fact, sitting here writing this, I can't even remember what their disagreement was about. Like I wrote before, details like character motivation are secondary to the action. And honestly, I wouldn't want it any other way.",1 "Leave it to the French to make an artsy-fartsy vampire flick. A heavy emphasis on atmosphere, decor and sex while devoid of any substance. Pretentious acting, weak direction and a mediocre script. On the plus side, the score is kinda groovy and the naked babes (it's a French film, after all) make it easier on the eyes, though not enough to recommend.",0 "Well, let me start off by saying this was the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. My friends and I went to see this movie BECAUSE this movie had been awarded a full zero stars in the Chicago Tribune (and several other places).

The good things about this movie, is perhaps that the producers must have spent a lot of money hiring people and buying a lot of clothes. Some of the clothes were sure pretty cool, and if I were a girl, I'd probably wear them. One thing, is that I never understood when the phrase ""Brat"" ever became a good thing and how a high school teenager hitting on a 11 year old was ever a good thing.

The movie included such insensitive material, and the idea is very unoriginal. This is not to mention that the other Bratz movie that came out on the 8th of August now number 1 on the bottom 100 of the IMDb list. I don't understand how the Asian girl, becomes the mathlete/science team superstar; the Latino bratz girl has tons of Latino people in her house all the time, INCLUDING a Mariachi band and she and her mom start singing that very popular song that... ""la coucou-ra-cha""... you know what I mean... song. Oh, also the girl who is awarded the scholarship at the end of the movie... because she ""needs it""... can afford to go shopping all the time and has a big house as well? I actually only enjoyed it BECAUSE it was so bad, and because some of the scenes in the movie were just so awkward and hilarious. negative 3 stars for being that awful.",0 "For many of us growing up 30 years ago when ""The Bad News Bears"" first came out, this is the film that peeled back the suburban sheen of middle-class American life and used that anchor of conformity, Little League Baseball, to lay it all bare: the false values, the fear of mediocrity, coming to grips with the hard truths of life. Like many gut-punch films, like ""Great Dictator"" and ""The Graduate,"" it takes the form of a comedy, a pretty funny one that dares to show kids swearing and being themselves.

The Bears' arrival is bad news for the West Valley League of southern California, forcing them to accept kids deemed not up to their high standard. There's a shrimp named Tanner Boyle with plenty of fight but no coordination, a fat kid named Engelberg who smears chocolate on the ball when throwing it back to the pitcher, a pair of Mexicans no one understands, a bookworm who keeps track of foul balls but can't hit for beans, and Timmy Lupus, a painfully shy small fry who Boyle calls a ""booger-eating spaz."" Coaching the team is ex-minor league pitcher Morris Buttermaker (Walter Matthau), now reduced to cleaning pools and drinking himself into semi-consciousness.

Making no bones about telling Buttermaker he's not wanted is the manager of the West Valley powerhouse Yankees, Roy Turner (Vic Morrow): ""It's not us. It's the boys. The boys themselves want it that way, and that's the way they want to keep it."" Buttermaker just wants his check, but he finds himself regaining a fighting spirit as others shove their arrogance down his throat and those of the boys he is charged to look after.

When the team tries to quit after getting pasted by the Yankees in their first game, 26-0, Buttermaker delivers a line that resonates, like so much in this movie, down through the years: ""This quitting thing, it's a hard habit to break once you start."" Matthau is terrific, creating a wisecracking but poignant center. Director Michael Ritchie and screenwriter Bill Lancaster knew what they were after and deliver it, a pitch-perfect social satire dressed as a sports film with a cast of mostly unknown kids who lack for professional finesse but seem to lay their souls bare to the camera.

It's not perfect. ""The Bad News Bears"" struggles at times to keep things funny as Buttermaker's self-loathing and the falsity of the other adults threatens to overwhelm the thin comic casing. Buttermaker's solution to overcoming the Bears' respect problems also feels a bit of a dodge: He brings in a couple of ringers, Amanda Whurlitzer (Tatum O'Neal) and Kelly Leak (Jackie Earle Haley), both of whom add to the film, but water it down some, too, diluting the connection between Buttermaker and the original Bears.

But there's a lot of depth to the film, depth of a dark but compelling kind. Buttermaker and Amanda try and fail to patch up their long-ago relationship as substitute father and daughter. Roy Turner, a fundamentally decent man who just lost sight of what's important, deals with the realization he has probably lost his son to his all-or-nothing winner's mentality. Timmy Lupus tries to melt into every background God gives him until called upon to do something special like mixing a martini for Buttermaker. Baseball may be treated as a joke in this film, but there is something vital to it, too, a rite of passage very different to the kids themselves than to the adults, who like Turner look at the scoreboard and miss the bigger picture.

""You didn't come into this world to sit in a dugout all your life,"" is the way Buttermaker puts it to Timmy Lupus. I identified with Lupus, which is probably why I winced through the movie watching it in a theater in 1976 and embrace it now. It's a real slice-of-life film with all the discomfort that implies. You may go in thinking you are going to see a nostalgic, foul-mouthed spectacle of spunk and charm, and you are, but you may well leave like I did wondering if there's a little of you still lying on that baseball field, too.",1 "I've seen other Olsen Twins movies, and most of them were ok, (It Takes Two) And one, 'Our Lips Are Sealed', was probably the best, so I had high hopes when I saw this on TV. This movie is an endless string of overused material.This movie is basically the same as 'Our Lips are Sealed', but with a LOT less charm. It's very predictable, no suprises anywhere to be found here.The only good thing that might come out of this mess is that it's a perfect movie to MST with you and your friends.",0 "A couple of years back when this movie was still fresh on the market, I had the interest of obtaining it and watching it. Controversy sells, as everybody knows, and a movie about a school shooting sticks out, as far as plot descriptions go.

However, back then, the only way to get hold of the movie was by purchasing bootleg VHS copies for outrageously expensive prices. I would never pay more than ten bucks for a dubbed copy of a film, and still, even that seems like too much. So I held off, until recently, when I happened to see this movie on DVD on ebay. I placed my bid and got it for about 10 dollars including shipping. I was the only bidder.

Knowing that this film was low budget, I didn't expect top notch cinematography, acting, or effects. I went into this film with low expectations as it was. Yet, for some reason, I was STILL let down.

First of all, the acting, like everybody else has noticed and pointed out, is the worst I've ever seen in any movie, EVER. I've seen better acting in a kindergarten play. All of the characters, including William Hellfire and Joey Smack (the leads) were incredibly dull and emotionless. It honestly seemed like nobody was even trying. Not a single actor was believable with their characters, and I'd highly recommend to every single one of them to exclude this title from their resume's if they plan on getting other film work. Seems like the only other roles these people are getting are in other William Hellfire movies, as he obviously doesn't mind terrible acting.

The story is lame, redundant, and goes on for way too long. Let's not kid ourselves, Hellfire and Smack. The only reason people will watch this movie is because of the anticipation of the massacre scene itself. Everything leading up to the ending is boring, trying excessively too hard to be funny (which it isn't), and is very painful to watch. Easily, much of this movie should have been cut from the final release. Like, for example, the entire movie before the school massacre. Hell, even the shooting itself was incredibly lackluster, featuring some of the worst gunshot wounds I've ever seen, and don't even get me started on the ""bombs"". Or the ""rocket"", for that matter.

I think the directors wanted us to sympathize with the two killers by showing the film from their POV. Derick, who bares an odd resemblance to Napoleon Dynamite, has alcoholic parents and gets the front cover ripped off of his book. Derwin has... well, weird parents, and gets beat up at school (with the worst fight choreography I've ever seen). So, now, we're supposed to fall in love with these characters and believe that their massacre was fully justified. Oh, no, the only people I feel sorry for are all of the people who have had to pay for this movie, and even worse, watch it. Especially those poor souls who were paying 40 bucks or more for a bootleg back in the day.

There is not one redeeming quality about this movie. It is merely a lame attempt of a few sad young men to capitalize on recent controversy. When I won this on ebay, I was the only bidder (and there were multiple listings). I guess after the controversy wears off, this film has absolutely nothing to lean on. For anybody reading this who hasn't yet seen the movie, I strongly suggest for you to save your money and stay away. You've been warned.",0 "There really are two parts to any movie. First, the obvious (plot, character development, setting, etc.) and second, that which is subtle... underlying. This film is filled with the latter. In fact, it would be a great disservice to the film to focus on just the plot without describing the feeling Winterbottom relays. On the surface, it's a film about three sisters and the very different choices they've made in their lives. The first, a single mom who pawns her son off to her anything-but-worthy ex-husband so she can go out and party. The second, a pregnant woman who's husband seems to be getting more and more spooked as the idea of a child coming into their home becomes closer to a reality. And finally, the youngest, a woman who simply longs to have someone -- anyone in her life. She takes to the personal ads and sleeping with men that will obviously not give her the emotional support she so desperately seeks.

Obviously, these women have all taken different paths in their lives. But it's not their paths that make the movie so interesting, it's their motivation. We need only look at the loveless marriage of the parents that begot these women to understand why they've all come to love and/or long for emotionally inaccessible men.

Winterbottom does a superb job of making us feel the grimy desperation in each of these women's lives. Cramped apartments give a sense of claustrophobia. The incessant barking of dogs begin to grate on not only the nerves of the characters, but on those of the audience as well. And throughout the movie, natural lighting is used giving us a sense that not all is polished and produced in the lives of the characters. All of these factors that have left the characters in the story with a quiet desperation, also pull the audience into a world of imbalance.

The score was absolutely brilliant -- one of the best matched soundtracks to a movie I've yet come across. Sublime at some points, triumphant at others, it was the final piece that made this film a joy to watch. Not because it makes you feel good... but simply because it makes you feel. Something. Real.",1 "In the updated reversed version of ""Guess who's coming to dinner"" Ashton Kutcher is the white man that his black girl brings home to her parents. Her father Percy Jones (Bernie Mac) is off put that she brought home this honky ass cracker, and precedes to goad Aston into telling off color jokes, go cart racing, and other things. This film was rather unfunny, didn't have anything profound to say like the previous version, in matter of fact, it doesn't do much of anything well at all. A better updated version of ""Guess Who"" would be to keep Ashton as the boyfriend, but replace the parents with Demi Moore & Bruce Willis (get rid of the girlfriend part). THAT I'd pay to see ( this I just caught on Encore). Yea i know, my hypothetical film as great as it would be would NEVER be made.. However with the success of ""Brokedown Mountain"" (critical NOT financial), I think I know what the next version of ""Guess Who"" is going to be and may god help us all. But I digress, back to this movie. This film is best summed up in two words: SUPREMELY forgettable.

My Grade: D",0 "**Possible Spoilers** How do you make a funny movie using a morgue and prostitution as subject matter? Leave it to screenwriters Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel, who put a rollicking script in the hands of director Ron Howard, who ran with it and ended up scoring a minor comedy classic with `Night Shift.' Chuck Lumley (Henry Winkler) is in something of a funk; he's been relegated to the night shift at the morgue where he's worked for years, thanks to the nepotism of his boss, who has installed a nephew into Chuck's day shift. Now Chuck has to train the new man, one Bill Blazejowski (Michael Keaton) a real `idea man' who can't sit still and never seems to quit talking, much to the chagrin of the conservative Chuck, who likes to keep things quiet and simple. When Chuck befriends Belinda (Shelley Long), a neighbor in his apartment who just happens to be a prostitute, Bill gets wind of it and has an idea. Belinda and her friends are in a dangerous business, and they could use some help and protection. Nights at the morgue are slow, and they have a limo at their disposal (Sure, it's a hearse, but slap a sign on the door, and you're in business). Bill convinces Chuck that they could make a fortune as `love brokers,' working right out of the morgue. And soon Chuck's life will never be the same. Keaton is absolutely spectacular as Bill (`Call me ‘Billy Blaze'), in whom he has created a totally off-the-wall, quirky, uniquely nuanced and endearing character you're never going to forget. He pulls out all the stops and never quits, playing perfectly off of Winkler's reserved and cautious-to-a-fault Chuck, the perfect foil for Bill. The timing between these two is right on the mark, and Howard keeps the pace steady and the laughs coming. Wisely, the story avoids any moralizing or delving into the murky waters of the subject matter; after all, this is a comedy, not `Taxi Driver,' and Howard never lets it slip even close to leaving the laugh track. He keeps it light and funny and makes sure the characters are real people; there's no buffoonery or slapstick here, and it keeps the real humor centered and at the heart of the story. Shelley Long, too, adds a nice touch with her spin on Belinda, the hooker with the heart-of-gold. The supporting cast includes Gina Hecht (Charlotte), Pat Corley (Edward), Bobby Di Cicco (Leonard), Nita Talbot (Vivian), Clint Howard (Jefferey) and Joe Spinell (Manetti); and look closely for Kevin Costner as a frat boy in the party scene at the morgue. Howard gets high marks for making `Night Shift' a memorable comedy, and for keeping the dynamic Keaton on track to deliver one of the most singular performances of his career. This is a movie with heart, and most importantly, plenty of laughs. You'll be glad you didn't let this one pass you by. I rate this one 8/10.",1 "There are bad movies, then there are truly bad movies. Then there is a lower level of cinematic excrement to which Cold Fish belongs. This pitiful excuse of a film is primarily let down by the actors. The lead played by Jon-Paul Gates (no - I have never heard of him either!) has the charisma and screen presence of a house brick. His dismal wooden acting is not the only thing to make you squirm in this film - wait till you have to endure the 'baddies'! Two more names we've never heard of (I can't imagine why) Conrad Asquith and Nadia Straham play a couple of performance artists who like to shock their audience by showing footage of executions. This in turn gave the director of Cold Fish the excuse to show us the self-same footage. This was cheap and exploitative. I don't think it's the place of popular cinema to use real newsreel footage of executions to titillate the audience. But back to Nadia Straham, who obviously based her performance on the ""Rocky Horror Show"" as she clearly was from Transylvania, if her accent was anything to go by. This is for British audiences only - but if I tell you that this film also stars Christopher Biggins - and he gives an almost academy award winning performance compared to the leads in this film - then I think you will start to comprehend that this is a complete waste of 91 minutes of your life. There is a reviewer on this page who has given 3 glowing reviews of this film. I can only imagine that he has invested in the film or is related to one of the actors. British cinema is capable of outstanding work - sadly this sorry fare makes the UK a laughing stock.",0 "WARNING DISBELIEVERS Now i know the scary movie franchises aren't perfect but they are still the only thing i see in the cinema even close to being funny like this. Maybe scary movie 3 lacked the split you side in a roar of laughter factor but it was still decent enough for the franchise.I hope though that the franchise ends at 5 as i don't want it to go on and start to get boring.Whenever i watch these films i cant help but kill myself laughing and really i don't know how people can find these films even the slightest bit unfunny.

As i said these films are not the perfection of its kind and they are not the most....Polite, of their genre but i still stand by that these are great films with the help of the one and only Leslie Nielson and Anna Farris with some extra help from Charlie Sheen and Bill Pullman you cant go wrong",1 "The airport runway finale was the most romantic movie farewell since "" Casablanca"". A don't miss movie,,,Ben Matlock would have been locked up for life for contempt of court.",1 "I watched this mini-series because I had seen Paul Gross in Due South and Slings and Arrows. I don't have to be a ""spoiler"" to say that this was a truly inane mini-series. The issue of Canada withholding water from the USA was an interesting one that was quickly and completely drowned. There was good acting but only in scenes meant to show off good acting rather than to move the plot in any understandable direction (watch the interminable ""mother of the prime minister"" scenes). Dissecting this misconceived film is hardly worthwhile. Canada has a fine talent in Mr. Gross, but that talent doesn't extent to script writing. H20 does not hold water.",0 "The movie is pretty funny but it feels to much like Naked Gun, and especialy when Leslie himself is in it.

The story didn't feel much worked out and fell like old jokes in it.

3 out of 10",0 "That's right, one of a kind. When I first watched this show back a couple of years ago, it just caught me like no other had ever done before. The characters, the settings, the stories, all just magnificent.

One thing a lot of people pick on is the writing. I, myself, do not have a problem with it at all. In fact, I find that the stories make this show one of the most unique sci-fi's ever done. The 12 Colonies of Man all decimated by the Cylon Empire and the struggle of the refugees to survive, all escaping in some 220 refugee ships all being protected by the Galactica herself in search of the planet earth. And let's not forget the other memorable stories, such as the discovery of Commander Cain & the Battlestar Pegasus and when the Galactica found Kobol and discovered some of the origins of men. There's also the stories involving the Ship of Lights, Terra, and other ships from within the rag-tag fleet.

Another highlight of the show is the characters, especially Adama, Apollo, and Starbuck. One could say that Adama was the father figure, the wisest of the group. Then there's Apollo, just one of them good ole boys. And then we have Starbuck, probably the most memorable character from the entire series. And let's not forget the others: Boomer, Jolly, Athena, Cassiopeia, Boxey, Muffit, and last, but definitely not least, Baltar. Yes, this menacing figure is probably the 2nd most memorable face in the series.

And let's not forget the Cylons. These guys were probably one of the biggest money makers of the series back then. Menacing and powerful, they will stop at nothing until the destruction of the human race is complete.

One of the biggest highlights of this production is the music. Who can forget the opening theme? No doubt one of the greatest in all of sci-fi. We also have the Cylon music, very dark and menacing. In this production, Stu Phillips was a genius and he should definitely be commended.

Now, the special effects are something to be admired as well. Created by Star Wars' own John Dykstra, the effects in Battlestar Galactica greatly outshined the rest at that time. Though, the biggest drawback is the constant reuse of special effects footage over and over and over and over again. But it was done to save money, so it's understandable.

Another memorable aspect of the show are the ships themselves. The Galactica, herself, is a huge and powerful vessel, while retaining a charm that few other ships can keep. Probably the most popular ship was the Colonial Viper. While they may resemble the X-Wing Starfighters of Star Wars, the Vipers are unique and special in their own way. Probably the most unique ship in the show was the Cylon Raider. Bat-like in appearance, it was a fierce competitor for the Viper. Then there's the Cylon Basestar, just plain menacing is all that can be said about it. Then there are the other ships: The Rising Star, The Colonial Movers ship, The Celestra, The Prison Barge, The Livery ship, The Gemini Freighter, etc. They all were memorable in their own way.

This show is VERY underrated. A work of art, in my very honest opinion. I give it a 10/10. Extremely brilliant.",1 "My God !!!!!!! It's the worst film I've ever seen in ages !!! Sue Price was sooooo bad !!!!!! She just showed us a naked body. Please do not see this one !!!!!!!!!! No plot,bad actors,bad blackground & terrible series !!!!!! We don't need a Nemesis 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!",0 "_The Lodger_ is a competent thriller that demonstrates that the touch of the master, Alfred Hitchcock, was developing even early in his career. There are narrative and cinematographic elements present here that appear in his later works in much more refined form.

Two shots in particular demonstrate a willingness to experiment with special effects. One shows the title character pacing in his room from beneath through a transparent floor. The second shows the memories of a police detective by means of a flashback that takes place within the confines of a footprint in the dirt. Interestingly, during a kissing scene there is a breach of the 180 degree rule; it is difficult to determine if this was intended, or merely a goof.

Aside from the major narrative, which concerns the search for the serial killer, the Avenger, there is an interesting subtext that involves the romantic attachments of the daughter of the lodger's landlords, who vacillates between the ""safe"" but strait-laced police detective and the ""dangerous"" but exciting lodger.",1 "This seldom seen, nearly forgotten gem stands out as a precursor to many movie motifs now taken for granted. A deranged young man, Gunther Wyckoff (whacko with a gun, played menacingly by Marshall Thompson in perhaps his best performance), shoots a city bus driver with the driver's own pistol, then holds up in a local bar using the patrons as hostages. In those long ago days when such occurrences were rare, there were no professional police negotiators. Ironically, Wyckoff does his own negotiating with the law, demanding to see the psychiatrist that is in charge of treating him.

What a crew of hostages: A barfly willing to bed anyone who buys her a drink, an old married fool making arrangements for a weekend tryst with a sweet young thing, a young man whose wife is in delivery at the hospital, a zealous reporter whose newspaper editor thinks he's a joke, and Chuckles, the bartender, played by the dour William Conrad of radio's ""Gunsmoke"" and later TV's ""Cannon"" fame. Maybe he got his moniker for being the opposite of chuckles, such as calling a big guy, Tiny. The interaction of this motley crew with each other and with the criminally insane killer makes up the biggest part of the flick. An alternate title was ""The Violent Hour,"" which basically describes the plot of the film, approximately an hour's standoff between the psycho and the police who work to free the hostages unharmed. A young André Previn provides the appropriate atmospheric music.

What a splendid cast. Even workhorse Charles Lane, who is today 101 and says he is still available to do a show, is seen briefly on the tube in a man-on-the-street interview. And don't blink and miss June Cleaver (Barbara Billingsley) in a walk on part.

Items you don't see around anymore: A cigarette machine, a weight scale on the sidewalk, a pay telephone that costs a nickle to dial 1119 (no push buttons). Items that were curiosities at the time but are now part of everyday life: A flat-panel big screen TV, TV news hype, and, alas, crazies that for no reason shoot patrons who are total strangers.

The chosen title, ""Dial 1119,"" which today reminds the viewer of ""Call 911,"" is a fitting one. Labeling the location Terminal City, however, is a bit much.",1 This is one of the funniest films I've ever seen. A local station in Houston used to run this show on new year's eve and I would watch it every year. Few comics can top Benny and his deadpan delivery but Pa Kettle came close in this one as he played the slow motion yard man.,1 "Hideo Nakata's follow-up to ""Ring"" is terrifying stuff. Building on the events of the first film and following the dreadful video curse through to the next level, it is a very worthy successor to the original classic.

In terms of filmmaking style, very little has changed. ""Ring 2"" is high quality horror filmmaking, including excellent music, a couple of nasty shocks (used sparingly, making them all the more effective) and some really frightening images which stay in your mind long after the film is over. We also learn more about Sadako and the circumstances leading up to her imprisonment and death, which deepens the horror by making the audience more compassionate towards the object of fear. This is the sort of thing that classic Western horror USED to do, but now it is more concerned with shock tactics and tongue-in-cheek self-referencing (see ""Scream"") to bother with good old-fashioned empathy.

This is not to say that we grow to love Sadako any more in this film than in the first. She is still very much the epitome of evil. ""Ring 2"" also makes less sense than its predecessor and demands more leaps of the imagination than the first film did. That said, the irrationality leads to some truly terrifying moments: the way the curse marks all media (photos, videos, any TV in range); the whole sequence with the well; the flashback sequence at the Inn where Sadako was raised. By not trying to be too logical about the plot here, Nakata actually taps into a deeper vein of horror, although it makes ""Ring 2"" slightly less satisfying than its predecessor.

Everything about this production is so good that it barely even needs to be mentioned. The acting is terrific, particularly Miki Nakatini as Mai, burdened with a psychic capacity she doesn't want and drawn into the mystery against her will. Rikiya Otaka also deserves a mention as Yoichi (the little boy from the first film) - his expressions of blank terror and occasional moments of rage are very effective indeed.

Don't watch ""Ring 2"" alone and don't expect to sleep easy afterwards. This is good quality horror the way it hasn't been made in Hollywood for a good few years now - go with a friend!",1 "A poorly written, directed, and acted fluff with a couple of laughs. Kirstie Alley supplies the film's only electricity. It follows a rich New York couple evading the IRS, as they hide out in the home of an Amish family (a la Witness).

The humor sprouts from your basic clash of cultures fare. The forced sentimentality is dredged up as the New Yorkers realize they may have something to learn from the Amish. Actually, a fairer treatment of the Amish than most films. However, why one of them has a French accent is beyond me.",0 "Ring and Ring 2's ability to terrify an audience relied strongly on the fact that the TV you were watching them on was a possible portal for the video-curse and even Sadako herself. Not that anyone would really believe Sadako would come out of your TV, but subconsciously it must have an effect. In Ring 0 - Birthday, there are no cursed videos and no televisions. Instead, '0' takes us back 30 years before the original Ring, to where Sadako is an apprentice for a theatre company. What we quickly learn is that Sadako is not a monstrous psychic-killer that springs from household appliances but a shy, troubled young woman with a secret past. Those familiar with the Ring films will know that Sadako 'killed' a mocking reporter at her mother's para-psychological demonstration after he accused the psychic of being a fraud. The fiancé of this reporter sets about investigating what went on and tracks down Sadako at the theatre, convinced that she is responsible in some way for her fiancé's death.

The theatre troupe has a bad feeling about Sadako, as most of them have been experiencing the same disturbing dream about her, where they see her next to a well, and a certain air of doom has clouded the theatre since her arrival. When the lead actress in the play dies, killed by a younger Sadako (who is more like the ghoul from the first two films - it's confusing, but things are explained later), Sadako is given her role, much to the distress and suspicion of her fellow actors. The appearance of the 'dark' Sadako coincides with a strange noise played from a reel-to-reel tape recorder used by the theatre to play music. This, it seems, is how Sadako's dark power is unleashed, much like the videotape of the originals. But the older Sadako does not initiate any of the terror unleashed, and it is only a matter of time before the troupe accuses her of being a killer, whereas in reality she possesses the power to heal. Questions arise throughout the film, and are frequently answered, like why are two Sadako's, of different ages, walking around in the theatre? Yes, this question is answered, but not here in this review. Ring 0 is much more character based than the two previous films, getting into the head of the tragic Sadako by means of flashbacks and a subtle love story that shows she is a decent, vulnerable human being. At first it is slightly confusing as you are not sure whether you are watching the Sadako that will turn into the deformed, freakish ghoul that crawls out of TV screens to scare people to death. But it is knowing who she ends up to be that gives the film an air of tragedy as this misunderstood and innocent girl is hunted like a beast and forced to become one with her evil side. To say any more about the story would inevitably spoil it so I'll go no further, but for those worried about a lack of an 'evil' Sadako, don't worry. She's there too.

Visually, Ring 0 is a much more lavish, expensive-looking production than its predecessors that relied on dark, gritty camera-work and realistic lighting to enhance the 'normal' and make the story more believable. With '0' the style is more polished, with swooping camera moves and clearer, more stylised lighting. This works, as the film is more layered than Ring, whose visuals suited its single-minded determination to scare you witless. Instead here we have a production just as interested in characterisation and story whilst also being very, very scary in places, which is helped by the excellent photography and set design.

The acting is first rate, especially from Yukie Nakama who gives a subtle performance as Sadako, and everyone else is on form. The only let down is some of the terrible screaming going on here - remember the castle of 'Aaarrrrggggghhhhhh' from Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Well, people die whilst omitting these terrible, comedy death-groans that really do steal from the tension and give you a mental picture of Graham Chapman in chain mail. Apart from that, I don't think '0' could be a better film.

Director Norio Tsuruta delivers a consistent, suspenseful shocker with plenty of visual flourishes and interesting ideas. It's easy to think that, in the wrong hands, Sadako could have been turned into a Freddy/Jason-style stalker walking amongst the shadows willing people to death, but instead we have an entertaining character piece with plenty of frights and chills spliced in for good measure.

Ring 0 surprised me. It is a more solid film than the original, more layered and ultimately more rewarding. But what it lacks is the pure, raw fear of the original that made it so memorable, and it wouldn't work without seeing the original first. Better and scarier than 2, quite possibly on a par with the first. And if you thought Sadako couldn't be scarier than when she crawled out of the TV in Ring, sit tight - because Sadako's still got a few tricks up her elongated sleeve, including a finale that will have people of a nervous disposition reaching for the 'off' button on their remote control.

If you're a Ring fan, you've got to see this. If you've never seen them you won't get it. If you've seen them and didn't like them, still give this one a try as it's a completely different experience altogether.",1 "Somewhere inside the overlong, 114-minute Bullitt there is a brisk 90-minute long film desperate to get out. But as it is, it's seriously overlong with nothing to sustain it. Many pointless scenes come and go with loads of long, indulgent tracking shots goose-up the running time. I almost nodded-off a few times, I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about regarding this film.

The paper-thin story has Detective Bullitt trying to determine how a Mob informant in Police custody managed to be killed (he's not actually killed until about an hour later though). A local politician (Robery Vaughn, who didn't really want to do the film) acts as the token bureaucrat, standing in the way of getting things done. But getting WHAT done exactly? In 114 minutes almost NOTHING happens in this damn movie! Instead of mystery, clues, police procedure, shoot-outs and problem-solving we're treated to scene after scene of...not much. Bullitt eats food at the hospital, he goes shopping for celery and TV dinners, he hangs around with his girlfriend (a completely pointless character played by Jaqueline Bissett) and sometimes takes a passing interest in the case. About 80-minutes into this bore he is FINALLY involved in a car chase (THE car chase that everyone raves about) that 'tears up' the streets of San Francisco.

I don't understand why this film has so much adoration or why all the fans proclaim it's 'the original and best', 'the one that started it all' or any other generic soundbite you can think of. There were cop movies before this, there were car chases before this. What exactly is Bullitt credited with 'starting'?

A sense of being cool, calm and collected doesn't turn water into wine. Bullitt is plain, repetitive, agonizingly slow and almost completely without a plot. Don't consider me a philistine or someone who has been brainwashed by the over-edited nature of modern films where we're guaranteed and explosion every five minutes. I appreciate films from all eras and from all backgrounds. But Bullitt is just way, way overrated certainly does not deserve the high regard it's been lauded with. A real disappointment.",0 "Why would an intelligent, well-educated, middle-aged woman like this movie? It's inexplicable, but I did. I don't know if it's because I watched it an hour after slamming my finger in the car door and I had cried myself into heaves and needed something to laugh at. Or perhaps it was because I am a fan of the majority of the movies that Scary 4 spoofs and I took them a little too seriously at the time. Whatever the reason, I laughed a lot during this movie, and while I'm ashamed to tell any of my friends that I liked it, I'm telling you.

The great thing about the Scary movies franchise is that they do an exceptional job of copying the original, with some very good special effects that I'm sure cost a fraction of the real ones. They also draw on some great comedic acting talents, which always strikes me as a bit bizarre, but then maybe someone on the producer's team is a great salesman. Whatever the tricks behind the scenes, it works on screen. Are the jokes dumb and predictable? Yes. Is there more potty humour than necessary? Absolutely. Still, it's fun low-brow humour.",1 "Which means when I got to a museum and see a blotch on the wall I don't pretend it's art and say a bunch of meaningless, pseudo-intellectual prattle. By the same token, I don't have to pretend that a film lacking in continuity, a plot, good camera work and interesting characters is anything but an annoying and pretentious waste of time.

Gale, as always, is compelling to watch and draws you in....but he his work is wasted in this piece of tripe. Gale - read the script first and look for a good story.

At this point, I need a shower...and can someone smack that annoying and self-absorbed main character?",0 "I saw ""Metropolitan"" around the early nineties. Reviews were very good comparing it to Woody Allen's work. I found it talky and the characters irritating. I then saw it around ten years on and found it truly captivating. It is a very intelligent piece of writing with a slightly Chekhovian feel. You warm to the characters gradually and by the end I really connected with the 'will they won't they' scenario of Audrey and Tom. Most of the actors in this film are making their debut and they are all surprisingly strong especially Chris Eigmann as Nick -- he is very funny and really energises the scenes he is in. Whit Stillman's screenplay is warm, witty, sensitive and memorable -- a gem!",1 "I'd heard a lot about this film, 99% of it good. So I picked the film up to take a gander, and was terribly disappointed. It took me two tries to even finish the film! Michael Angelis was actually quite good in the main role, and Elvis Costello was amusing in his cameo appearance as a daft magician. But the good ended there. The jokes were dated, the sound was horrid, the plot was garbled and *much* too long. Was only 1 hour 40 but felt like more than two hours... There were some very funny moments (including the band, which was hilarious, and an attempted mugging of a blind man, the results of which also had me laughing) but most of the humour was lost in the drag of this plodding film. And when the end came it was a horrid finish! I'd give it a 1/10 if I hadn't actually enjoyed any part of it, but as it stands I can rate it no higher than a three. 3/10.",0 "I didn't know what the movie was all about, I thought it was just some plain racing like The Fast and the Furious, and if I am not mistaken, this was released by Universal or something. The movie starts with some one liners, but you don't really see any action pertaining to street racing. The only action you are going to see is the action between a male and a female character. I wish they categorized this more clearly. Having had watched porn before (who hasn't?) I can easily notice that the settings weren't exactly ""cheap"" but porn settings nonetheless. The lighting was good and the acting wasn't all that bad. There are no close up s of the genital areas and no ""cum shots"". Kind of annoying really, but at the same time, it is also entertaining.",0 "This is the equivalent to Turkey a la King. You know, what your mother used to scrap together from Thanksgiving leftovers using gravy, the parts of the turkey no one wanted to eat and some rice. Well, enough about my childhood.

Anyway, what you have here are some actors who used to be name actors doing throwaway scenes so the directors can put their names on the cover, making you think that this is a better film than it actually is, mixed in with the usual vampire movie clichés.

What you have are some college kids who get mixed up in a fight between factions of vampires, and vampire hunters who have resisted the taste for blood, but are equally immortal. (No, I couldn't figure it out, either.) Lots of scenes with the head chick vampire trying to seduce the hero into the ""dark side'.

Oh, yeah, and then there was the sound. It didn't sync up with the action, it seemed to be off by about a half second, so you see people keep talking after their lips have stopped moving. More annoying where the cutaways from the sex scenes. ""Hey, you aren't paying me enough to actually take my clothes off, buster. That'll cost you extra!"" You can imagine the lead actress saying before she goes back to her day-job as a stripper.

JoeB- watching bad movies so you don't have to.",0 "I kept trying to figure out if ""Lake Placid 2"" was supposed to take place in Maine, like the sequel was, because everyone in this movie has that Southern drawl. Then I see signs for Maine, Arostook County, etc. etc. and I'm like, apparently the directors think a Maine accent and a Southern accent are one and the same. It's an insult to the great state of Maine. Also, the one girl says she's going to Boston College and will be moving to Newton, which she describes as ""south of Boston."" No, it's not. Newton is west of Boston. So, apparently the folks who did this movie have no concept for geography. As for the movie itself, it's like ""Lake Placid"" except not nearly as good. The Betty White role of the weird old lady is taken over by Cloris Leachman, who is not nearly as hilarious. The crocodile stomp-a-thon was entertaining, but there wasn't enough of it. And that's the silly love-interest plot line that nobody cares about. Overall, there are worse crocodile movies (i.e., ""Blood Surf""), but you could do better.",0 "Les Stroud is an extraordinary man of 45 highly experienced years as of this writing. His life's journey so far has taken him deep into the world of music for which his ""blues harp"" talents and compositional skills have established a solid reputation in a realm that both coexists and sublimely contrasts with his unique brand of outdoor adventures which are as informative as they are uniformly grueling.

Les circumnavigates the globe at the behest of his own production team, always seeking new and disparate locations from which to both tackle and parlay his survivalist experiences to those of us willing or wanting to watch him endure his self-inflicted ordeals. It appears that as far as Les is concerned, sometimes his greatest trial is in having to be his own expert cinematographer on site...and the technical hardware doesn't always tolerate the elements as well as Survivorman.

In fact, Mr. Stroud, aside from his incredible courage and skill, is a funny and amusing teacher of how to sensibly spend a week in an unpredictable and often non-sensible (for humans) environment. The viewer is oft awarded a brief respite in the form of comic relief. To that end, and to the Survivorman's considerable credit, Les is willing to lapse into good natured self-deprecation if he becomes frustrated by having mishandled a task or judgment call. Conversely, he's not shy to cheer himself on camera for scoring small successes. The end result of his edited filming is always as full of momentary surprises as it is with the kind of awe-inspiring beauty over which nature reigns supreme, for better or for worse.

As folks from New England are prone to say, if you don't like the weather, then wait a little...and so it is with Les, who's circumstances change as quickly as Mt. Washington's (New Hampshire) atmospheric conditions. And weather can be just one of a plethora of unpleasantries to contend with. Ultimately, Les Stroud is a master of extreme teaching. He perhaps goes to conventionally unreasonable lengths to film himself in all manner of temporarily glorious moments which are usually just the other side of an impending predicament...and he's fully aware of that aspect too.

Mr. Stroud is not a daredevil, nor a thrill-seeker for its own sake, but rather a dedicated outdoors-man and supremely accomplished survivalist among his other complimentary talents. With his production crew often stationed somewhere in the general vicinity, Les does his own thing, alone, with his trusty multi-tool and harmonica for comfort wherever there might be none otherwise. As we quietly slip into his journey, Les enriches our knowledge and entertains our senses. It's a photographic treat to follow his intrepid endeavors from the safety of our personal viewing zone. In the spotty world of reality television, ""Survivorman"" is as flawless as it is fascinating.",1 "What bugs me is how people are talking about how funny this is, and its just encouraging the producers and film companies to continue making garbage like this (i.e. the Scary Movie franchise with its 'Epic' & 'Date' movie spin-offs.) I went to this movie not expecting a whole lot, and same with my buddy. Its not so much that I cant get my money back for my ticket, its that I cant get the 1h 45 minutes back that was wasted from my life.

This movie was and is easily the worst movie I have ever seen.

*And its sad that not even the great Chris Walken could save a disaster like this.

If any of you are contemplating and seeing this, I strongly suggest you to not waste your time. Im not one take in the perspective of other peoples opinions, but please... trust me on this one... I have seen a lot of movies, and this one isn't even worth downloading.",0 "My advice is..Don't spend your time and money on this movie if you have any another way to do this. First part was good and i enjoyed it. It was typical ""better than average"" Hollywood movie for me, someway interesting and entertaining . Unfortunately can't say this for the second one. Boring and unconvincing acting,""Made in toilet"" storyline.. and so on. It looks like the only mission of this film is a ""continuation of financially successful idea"". Well as I said don't try this at home until you have one of those ""nothing to do"" evenings or you are hungry for any hollowman-based action...and sorry for my English if it too bad :)",0 "Bollywood sucks the big one. It's like a malfunctioning machine that keeps spitting out these ridiculous musical romantic comedies, that always end the same way, have generally the same plot, same characters, and same music. They're not original, or brilliant in anyway whatsoever. It's like they don't realize it's bad and they keep wasting money on the same crap. Of course it does appeal to Indians, because these are their films, but I mean can't you at least come up with something better. I mean Bollywood comes out with more movies than Hollywood every year, and they seem to only generally get attention in India, and even in India, International films seem to be more popular than their own (judging by their box office results)I am not a racist in any way whatsoever, in fact I have at least 7 friends who were born in India and came to America during their childhood. I am just a harsh critic, and I certainly hope some writer, or producer finds this and realizes that a change is in need, and not all films have to be musical comedies where a girl and guy serenade each other throughout the film. THERE IS OTHER MATERIAL OUT THERE AND India IS A VERY INSPIRATIONAL COUNTRY!",0 "The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team!

This is one of My favorite Three Stooges shorts with Shemp! All Appearing in this short are Vernon Dent, Kenneth MacDonald, Emil Sitka, Heinie Conklin, Dudley Dickerson, Blackie Whiteford, and Curly Howard! This one is so hilarious! Shemp has a great performance here and in My opinion its one of his best. Culry has a great cameo! There is a similar one like this called Booty and the Beast and I strongly recommend both of these Three Stooges shorts!",1 "A device is invented know as the transcoder. It can reform human DNA in order to cure a disease or to kill them. But it has fatal results for everyone who uses if except it's creator. The story centers around Michelle an assassin who is trying to maintain a stable life in a corrupt world, and her gambling brother Jackie who is in denial of his problems and thinks they can be quickly fixed. Solemn (the villain)wants the Transcoder for himself to save his wife and will use deadly force if need be. Not knowing what it is Jackie steals the Transcoder from Christian. Yada yada yada... The Transcode changes hands a couple of times. Then the plot gets a little confusing, but stays entertaining.

this movie is gem among those low budget straight to video sci-fi flicks. The acting is good and so is the directing. Although the cgi, production and camera work is the same as other straight to video films, i.e. ten years behind. The look is awesome and heavily influenced by H.R. Giger art. Many think it's suppose to be set in the future, but it is actual set in an alternate reality since there are no advances in technology except the DNA hacking. Bai Ling's out fits are unconventional and look great. She really kicks ass in this movie.

The plot is a little confusing and has a few plot holes. This movie is not for everyone. If you like techno punk futuristic waste land sci-fi movies then you will like this.

I give this film a 7 out of 10. The movie was entertaining by need work on the plot.

Get Your Body Beats, Let Your Blood Flow",1 "They sure gave this thing a good write up on the DVD box but sadly it was no surprise at all when this movie turned out to be a major piece of junk.I was pretty drunk when I watched this thing so I may not get all the details exactly right BUT it was bad ,that much I do remember.

A bunch of friends set out on their annual trip together.This year they decided to go camping and hiking and dope smoking ,the stuff a bunch of 20 year olds in a horror flick usually do.They get lost and end at an old deserted cabin out in the middle of nowhere.Unknown to them a weirdo lives beneath the cabin in a cellar.

It sounds like it might be a cool horror film but it wasn't.A few good scenes early in the films were pretty cool.Rance Howard and Gary Busey played a couple of weirdo local yokels but they were used too little and never seen again after these early scenes.Why Im not sure,cause none of the youngsters in this film were good actors at all.They were a dull and uninspired bunch.Mario Lopez was really really bad.I mean really bad.

Bo Hopkins played the local sheriff and he was good as always.But damn was he ever fat.He sure packed on the weight in his last years.

This film had very little gore and what there was was clunky and badly done.The weirdo under the floor wasn't developed much at all and therefore didn't never seem that scary.There was some brief side boob shots of a pretty large pair but once again it never developed into that glorious full blown nudity that would have made this mess a whole lot better.

I never understood how this guy survived laying underneath the cellar out in the middle of nowhere.As I said the villain was never fleshed out and never really even seen that much so I didn't develop that much dread of him.

In fact it was sort of a relief when he would kill one of these bad acting idiots.This was a totally lame and totally forgettable piece of junk that isn't worth your time.",0 "Scrappy pool-cleaner (and former ballplayer) in Southern California gets talked into coaching Little League to a bunch of no-talent boys. I don't think I've ever seen another movie that captured this bit of Americana so vividly: you can almost smell the freshly-cut grass and the cigar smoke in the air! One of Walter Matthau's many triumphs, and Tatum O'Neal as the pitching ace is also terrific (especially in the dug-out scene where she tries involving Matthau in her life and he cracks, sending her away in tears: ""You don't wanna go, fine, no big deal.""). The young boys are mostly all wonderful: Alfred Lutter, from ""Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore"", as the nerdy brain; Jackie Earle Haley as the cool kid with shades and motorcycle; Brandon Cruz, from ""The Courtship of Eddie's Father"", as the pitcher for the enemy-team. The film has some overacting and is occasionally sloppy (with the boom-mike showing, as well as O'Neal's stand-in in a wig), but is otherwise extremely well-written and designed and directed. In 1976, this had kids and adults lining up to see it, so I wouldn't consider the picture a 'sleeper' or an underrated film. It was a big commercial box-office hit and there is an audience for it wherever there's a DVD player and a screen. ***1/2 from ****",1 "I'm a big fan of the movie serials. I never watch even the best of them with the same critical eye as I do ""real"" movies. But even by those lowered standards, this film is a big bore-fest. People commenting on this list seem eager to use ""worst movie of all time"" to describe anything they happen to dislike, but I hesitate to use the phrase here, even though I am sorely tempted. I'm certain that there are other films that are worse than this, but I'm just as certain that I don't want to see them.

The movie is clunky and stereotypical, rather demeaning of Asians and women. That's actually par for the course for an action film of this vintage and is understandable even if not really forgivable. What is not really understandable is why an action thriller has only sporadic, stilted action, a cliffhanger has no real cliffhangers and something designed to bring you back to the theater week after week only makes you want to hurry ahead to the comedy. The plot--trying to keep the tourists out of Chinatown--is a ludicrous as the Monty-Pythonesque spike in the telephone gag used in the film. I saw the film on two DVDs; I bought the second part by accident and was confused a bit by it. I figured that starting at the beginning would help.

It didn't.

Try not to watch the film alone. It screams for MST3 treatment!",0 "The performances by Billy Crudup and Claire Danes are nothing short of brilliant in 'Stage Beauty'. Why this film or their acting was ignored when this film came out is baffling. This is a better film than 'Shakespeare in Love', although not as clever; and it's astonishing to me why films so close in quality and subject matter were treated so differently by the public.

All the performances in this movie are top notch really; with special mention being worthy for Rupert Everett - who steals every scene he is in. But the overall focus of this film is Billy Crudup, who never strikes a false note in a role which appears exhausting even to describe. His every nuance, every gesture, and every line is expertly delivered in this film; and he is adequately complemented by a wonderful supporting cast.",1 "I was working a film festival this past weekend and got to see this movie where it was playing at and I so loved it. Me and my friend loved it very much. We hope for it to get into theaters and on DVD. Jensen and everyone are great in it. Its funny and very real. LOVED IT!!!! I loved how every time we saw his character his shirt said something funny. There where also a lot of things in that movie I could relate too as well along with making me laugh. Sometimes with a movie its hard to be real serious and mix it with comedy with out ruining it, it was done very well. I thought each character in this movie was casted very well. Me and my friend loved it so much we watched it twice at the festival. I seriously hope this makes it to the theaters and especially...especially on DVD. If it goes on DVD me and my friend will be buying the day it comes out. If anyone reading this is going to a film festival and see this on the list, it is very much a MUST SEE!!!!!! Everyone is great in it and Jensen is so funny in it. If your a big Supernatural fan, you will love Jensen in it, it shows his comedy side as well:)",1 "I had never heard of popples or this show when I was a kid. Thinking real hard about it I might have had one of the toys though, not knowing what it was called, but I'm not quite sure. Anyhow after recently watching a few eps I was reminded vaguely of the ""care bears"" cartoon. But while I really liked the DIC care bears I did not like this at all. Considering that they had the same style of animation, company - American greetings and the same aim - be cute and sell toys. Yet in the absence of a villain or any lessons to be learned for that matter it was nothing but one long bore. The live action prequel was halfway decent but even it was way too cheesy too me.",0 "Very predictable, but entertaining. Dr. Van Tasset(Barry Livingston)is an American expert on chemical weapons, who is kidnapped following a military coup in Iran. An elite squad of the Navy Seals called the ""Steel Sharks"" are assigned to rescue him. The ""Sharks"" are led by Lt. Zambroski(David Roberson)and last minute new member Bob Rogers(Billy Warlock), who has doubts of living up to the Seals standards. Capt. McKay(Gary Busey), commander of the submarine the USS Oakland, draws the assignment from Admiral Perry(Billy Dee Williams)to take the ""Sharks"" to Iran. Van Tasset is rescued, but along with the ""Sharks"" are captured and held prisoner on an Iranian submarine. Thus comes the expected underwater duel. Very few surprises. I still don't get the prudence of a gun battle on a submerged submarine. Also in the cast: Anthony Griffith, Tim Lounibos and Matthew R. Anderson. I have always been a sucker for submarine flicks.",0 "I absolutely love Hook. I can't find any part of this movie that I don't like. I don't understand the negative reviews. Yes, this is a kids movie.I'm 18 years old now and that would be prime age to hate a kids movie, yet I love it as much as I did as a youngster.

This is a unique take on the Peter Pan story and it proposes an interesting question; What if Peter Pan grew up? From there the movie takes you on a great mystical adventure in Neverland of Peter Pan re-finding himself and his youthful spirit, remembering his past, and rescuing his kids from the sinister Captain Hook. It is a wonderful story.

The casting of Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman was great. Bob Hoskins is perfect for the role of Hook's right hand man Smee. John Williams of course conducts a masterful score. The child actors play their part very well. Steven Spielberg made this movie people, I don't see why you need to compare this movie's success to say 'Jaws' or 'ET'. Because Spielberg makes many great movies I understand that he has set a standard for himself, but just because this movie wasn't groundbreaking doesn't make it bad. It is a great movie in my opinion.

This is my favorite movie of all time. I give it 10/10 without any reservations.",1 "Batman is a detective; he wouldn't make a mistake by thinking the punk was part of the gang that he had busted. and batman couldn't be taken down by a tazer. it wouldn't work on his suit, plus bruce wayne is prepared for eventualities. batman/bruce wayne isn't cocky(""I hate it when they put up a fight""). even if a tazer had some effect, it wouldn't make him unable to make a move against the punk. bruce blames himself for his parents death so he wouldn't kill himself because a punk took his own life, or kill himself because he was raped/got aids. and he certainly wouldn't OD. he wouldn't lower himself to that level. the film's story is dark(the only good point), but too dark to the point of lame in how it portrayed batman. the person who made the film obviously hates batman and wants to discredit the character(and is probably more of a marvel fan). it should not have been made.",0 "Awesome movie, especially if you love musicals..you will enjoy this movie. This movie has everything you need if you seek comedy, high-school, musical, cars..it has absolutely everything it needs of a memorable high-school fun.

I have watched this movie over and over ever since i was a little girl and i still cant forget this movie, its so enjoyable. I remembered i

even acted as one of the Pink-Ladies at school..pretended to be one of them..it was so much fun. Me and my friends laughed and having fun, i cant forget those times. This is absolutely the best classic ever made and Olivia Newton John was so fantastic in this movie. She was like my idol in life before. And John Travolta was really sexy in this movie. i loved the comedy of the T-Birds and especially the teachers ..lol.

Greeat especially for family and teenagers:D",1 "WOW! I have never ever seen such spoilt brats like these girls. Don't their parents do anything about it? And they are only child's so they don't know what it is like to have the attention on other people i think. This show totally disappointed me. That is what is wrong with the world, people like those girl think they are large and in charge because their parents are super-rich and own a couple cars and a pool. They think that the world revolves around them (as a matter of fact it revolves around the sun!) and it is just annoying. Why do they have to act so B*t*y? Those girls AND their parents deserve a big a** kicking!! From everyone on the earth!! This show just shows how awful people can get. I am glad that there ARE some people in the world who are not self centred and so selfish. People like the people i know, not the people i see on My Super Sweet 16. It is quite weird how everything just gets better by the end of the party! This show just annoys me so much! Cant they have just a little small party or go to a restaurant? NO they have to make a name of themselves. I hope they will get taught a life lesson!!",0 "San Francisco International (SFI for the rest of this) follows what I've started calling a Love Boat style of plot development. You know – a movie or television show with an ensemble cast where each character has their own storyline that may or may not have anything to do with the other characters. One plot line is deadly serious, another is romantically charged, the next is played for laughs, and on and on it goes. I don't know where the Love Boat plot style first originated, but SFI follows this to a ""T"". The story lines in SFI include: a boy, upset over his parents divorce, climbs into an abandoned plane and takes off; a band of crooks robs a shipment of cash going through the airport; seeking additional funding for the airport, airport head honcho Jim Conrad (Pernell Roberts) fakes an emergency landing with a planeload of government officials; a businessman and a hippie get into an altercation; etc. But being a 70s made-for-TV movie, you know everything is going to work out fine in the end – not that you really care or anything.

There are several reasons why SFI never made it to our television sets as a regular series. And chief among them as far as I'm concerned is Pernell Roberts. Being self-assured is one thing, but Roberts' character comes off as one of the smuggest in history. He's too unlikable to care about any of his problems and whether they get resolved or not. You can't build a series around a horses rear-end like Jim Conrad and expect anyone to watch.

As with a lot of the ""bad"" movies I've been watching lately, I saw SFI courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. And as far as a MST3K episode goes, SFI is a keeper. A laugh at every turn. If you're a fan of the show, do yourself a favor and seek it out. This one gets a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.",0 "In 1870 Philadelphia, faint-hearted Don Knotts (as Jesse W. Heywood) obtains a license in dentistry, and decides to spread ""dental health through the west like a plague."" After his stagecoach is held up, Mr. Knotts joins a wagon train. He plays horsey with buxom Barbara Rhoades (as Penelope Cushings) and dresses up as a fetching Indian squaw. Is Knotts' character bisexual? The ending leaves the question unanswered. Gun smugglers Jackie ""Uncle Fester"" Coogan and Don ""Red Ryder"" Barry head off an able supporting cast. Vic Mizzy's wild, wild western music resembles his own ""Green Acres"". All in all, this is a tedious, uncalled for re-make of Bob Hope's ""The Paleface"" (1948).

** The Shakiest Gun in the West (7/10/68) Alan Rafkin ~ Don Knotts, Barbara Rhoades, Jackie Coogan",0 "I can imagine every kid who ever saw this film begged, and I mean BEGGED their parents for a Mogwai for Xmas!!! I probably did, I can't remember. And even if I did, I wouldn't admit to it!!!

This film is great. Spielberg had a hand in this film somewhere, you can feel it. Yep, this one appeals to both kids and adults.

A nice plot, some great SFX and animatronics, and some good acting make this a film for nearly everyone.

The initial story, about a boy who gets a cute, fluffy pet for Christmas, is known to everyone. The Mogwai itself is sooooooo cute, and the way it speaks and sings furthers it's cute appeal. So it comes as a shock when the boy who owns him ends up breaking the three important rules that he must abide by, and all hell breaks loose!!!

Don't feed them after midnight. Don't get water on them. Don't ever expose them to sunlight!

All of these rules are broken, and what ensues is comic/horror chaos.

The Gremlins themselves are nasty little things. Grrrrrr!!! They can either be out-and-out menacing, funny and stupid, or both at the same time. It was nice to see the mixture of comedy and horror in this film, and it works all the better for it.

The music plays a pivotal role in letting us know when we should be scared or when we should laugh. It's a weird kinda sound that is made and works well enough to suit the mood of the film.

The one-on-one between Billy and the Stripe, is actually very tense, and violent. I mean Chainsaw's, razor sharp blades? Phew!

My review has so far been a mixture of comments in no particular order, so without more time being wasted, go and watch this film.

9/10

Enjoy!",1 "Good characters and a well written script always left me wondering where the plot was heading next. I love non-obvious storytelling something you don't often see in movies these days - where it all seems to be about the formula that they think will draw audiences.

Bill Murray has hit a stride in recent years. He's found the perfect characters for his personality. Another stellar job.

And once again Wes Anderson joins a few other recent directors in weaving great music into his movies. Why is it when (commericial) radio seems to have sunk to new lows in quality and originality, movies seem to be soaring to new heights in choosing good creative music.",1 "If you don't try to read too much meaning into some of the scenes in this film, you might find that it contains more truth about a 21st century society than anyone cares to admit. I saw this movie on it's original release and thought that it was just an exciting and hilarious ground breaking film ( I believe it had an X rating for a while ), and after seeing it again on DVD - I think it's a masterpiece.",1 "I had the misfortune of viewing this film on the first day of a course on ""Media and Democracy."" Based on the fact that the professor accepted everything portrayed in it as fact, I dropped the course that afternoon. I have never seen such a hopelessly biased film in my life. As a 19-year veteran of the US Army, I can tell you that the atrocities alleged in this film did not occur. Our troops do not shoot bound prisoners in the back of the head. We do not indiscriminately shell civilian residential areas. The film's most absurd claims, such as that US forces used some sort of laser weapons against Panamanian civilians, don't even bear refuting. The fact that such a blatant piece of anti-military propaganda won an Academy Award says far more about the makeup of the Academy than it does about the film.",0 "I had the good fortune of catching Subway Stories, by accident, trying to get away from the Astronauts Wife. What a wonderful grouping of shorts. I have to say, I couldn't leave the room. Some were better than others, but they all kept my interest. Don't let this Subway pass you by.",1 "Whether or not you agree with the political views of George McGovern or those espoused by the talented director of this film, Stephen Vittoria, this film should be mandatory viewing for all Americans. The old saying is true - in order to know our future we must know our past. This film shines a bright light on the life of George McGovern and his failed attempt to win the 1972 Presidential election.

Not necessarily a household name for today's generation, McGovern represented the idealism of American politics and it's fair to say we haven't seen anyone like him since.

McGovern's victory in the Democratic primary was nothing short of astonishing. A Senator from South Dakota running against 16 other candidates for the Democtratic nomination, he amazingly won and set off to battle against Nixon in the Presidential election. After a series of unfortunate events (the shooting of George Wallace) and self-described campaign errors, Nixon won in a landslide.

The film uses archival footage, interviews with political historians, influential political activities from the time period (e.g. Dick Gregory, Gloria Steinam, Warren Beatty, Gary Hart) and candid interviews with Senator McGovern. Blended with an excellent musical score, the film is not to be taken lightly.

With obvious parallels between Nixon and today's Bush Administration, it's hard not to get wrapped up in the idealism of ""what if?"", had McGovern won the election.

Senator McGovern is a spry 83 years old at the time of this review, with an intellect as sharp as ever. On the sad day when he passes, this film will serve as a tribute to his idealism and accomplishments during one of the blackest hours of American history.

Here's hoping the film will indeed be used as a teaching tool in high schools and colleges around the country.

ebhp",1 "i was interested in this one since i dont' know a lot about John Lennon's early life, and now that the Beatles are all hype again, i made it a point to see this. i was amazed at how little i really did know about John Lennon's life. i didn't entirely know how he treated his wife Cynthia and the birth of his son Julian. i didn't know about Paul McCartney's role in the band from the beginning and how he was actually stuck on drums first. i didn't know they actually started out pretty much in Germany. i didn't know John Lennon was such a homophobe too!

anyway the scenes with him and his mother are just so sweet that i don't know how he was able to pull himself so together after she died. he was definitely the man with the plan. i just wish now there is a continuing story! it ends just when the Beatles finally go to the States.

i loved the actors - philip mcquillan, christine kavanagh, gillian kearney, daniel mcgowan...make the continuing story! :)",1 "Poor Cary Grant has he got a problem here. An adolescent girl played by Shirley Temple has developed a king size crush on him. And she's the sister of Judge Myrna Loy who Grant had just appeared before. Judge Myrna already has a low opinion of fast living artist Cary who's got a line for every woman and every situation.

But when Shirley goes to his apartment because Grant fed her a line about modeling for him and Myrna catches them there however innocent, it's big troubles ahead.

However Grant gets a chance to get out of trouble if he can disillusion Shirley about himself. And that's what he has to do in the rest of the Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer.

This film comes from the fertile mind of Sidney Sheldon who also had another bachelor/bobby soxer film in Susan Slept Here. But this one is far superior to Susan Slept Here. Let's just say Grant ends up with the right girl in this one.

Cary Grant does a lot of physical comedy here, almost as much as he does in Arsenic and Old Lace. In some of his films the secret of the comedy is that the sophisticated Cary does a lot of out of character physical comedy that's a couple steps up from the Keystone Kops. The whole scene involving the town picnic with Grant in a three legged race, a potato spoon race, a potato sack race, and finally an obstacle course is funny in and of itself because it's Cary Grant doing it.

Myrna Loy in this film is Nora Charles with a career. And that's a good change for her. She's always a woman with a head on her shoulders and a good brain. But it always seems to be second fiddle to her leading man's intelligence whoever it was. I liked seeing her as a professional career woman here.

Rudy Vallee also carries on in the tradition established for him by Preston Sturges's comedies. He's the District Attorney here, a snooty District Attorney as only Rudy Vallee can be snooty.

Also giving good performances are Ray Collins and Harry Davenport as Loy and Temple's uncles, Johnny Sands as Temple's would be boy friend and the one and only Veda Ann Borg as a brassy dame as only she can be brassy.

One of Cary Grant's best comedies from the Forties.",1 "I read a lot of positive press about this Canadian-shot film, first when it was being made (in Vancouver) and soon after its release. Apparently the movie has been sold to every country in the world. Not bad for a modest little cop movie, featuring dependable names like Marc Singer (an 'iconic' actor as the earth-hero in the 1980's alien TV-series ""V""), twitchy Michael Madsen (no doubt nabbing his spot in the new Bond film, due to all the hype surrounding his appearance here), good ol' Charles Durning, and venerable Dennis Hopper.

Hopper weaves in and out throughout ""LAPD"" as an LAPD Division commanding officer. Singer is your basic good cop and Durning plays his Dad. Madsen plays a dirty cop (naturally).

I give kudos to Marc Singer for delivering a modest, yet impressive performance.

The movie is based on real life events, and there is more than enough blood 'n guts gun-play action here, coupled to numerous gorgeous (and gorgeously nude) women, to provide many entertaining diversions.

I always get a kick out of the films produced by 'Maurice Smith Productions' and this show is no exception. Whether its 1969's ""Cycle Savages"" (with Bruce Dern), or Smith's 1980's (Roger Corman co-produced) teen comedies like ""Screwballs"" or ""Recruits"" (a hell of a lot funnier than any of the ""Police Academys""), his films have always had a unique stamp of 'eccentricity' to them, usually to compensate for the budgetary constraints that most independent films (ie. non-studio films) have to deal with.

If Smith can make a movie (that really DOES look like a movie) with the small budgets that he usually has to work with, then I am looking forward to see what he can do with some reel money. I hear he has a western, a sci-fi action piece and a supernatural mystery already lined up.

The best is yet to come, I'm sure ...

",1 "A Concorde with a terrible paint job and a passenger list of half-wits begins to have trouble in the air.

I didn't care that Mike Brady was the captain. I didn't care that Ben Cartwright was one of the airport big-shots. I didn't even care that when the plane wrecked and burst into a giant fireball, everybody on board would die a bloody screaming death. As a matter of fact, I was hoping for the plane to explode. Yeah, that would be good, because then I could see every one of these dildoes fry and watch them float down to earth in a shower of bacon bits.

Thank you for burning beyond recognition with Dumbbell Airlines.",0 "It is no surprise who the killer is in this movie of the disturbing murder of a sweet teenage girl raised by Patty Duke Astin, who tries to be a friend as well as a mother. There are lots of preachy/teachy speeches at first, before the murder, and then a full obsession into finding the killers. As obvious as the storyline was, and as overwrought the acting was, I was sucked in nonetheless, to see how it ended, even though you could see it coming from miles and miles away. It was just awful. The female detective looks like a poor man's Michelle Lee in egg-and-pancake makeup. This is a cast of nobodies, with the exception of Ms. Duke and the young woman who would become Tiffany-Amber Thiessen of 90120 fame. I gave it two stars because the bad acting sufficiently pulled me in to watch the whole",0 "This army comedy, a favorite milieu with star comedians, is one of the better Three Stooges shorts I've watched. Its plot – starting in WWI and then moving on to the present (1935, in this case) – anticipates one of Laurel & Hardy's best feature-films, BLOCKHEADS (1938). The boys are layabouts during the war (they even manage to sleep through combat!) who fall foul of their sergeant; years later, we find them as tramps willing to do any work. They're eventually directed to an office building which, unbeknownst to them, is the city's army recruiting post: there they meet again their old sergeant, who's naturally keen to get even with them! During the film's surreal climax, where they're assigned to cannon-fire practice, The Stooges contrive to sink a visiting Admiral's ship and demolish a number of buildings in the vicinity – for which they're soon facing the firing squad…only the weapon turns out to be the cannon itself and the executor of the sentence is none other than their vindictive sergeant!",1 "The POV of Lady the In The Lake experiment hides the fact that Robert Montgomery wasn't up to the task of being Philip Marlowe. Oh he had the tough talk down pat, but as someone said earlier he was better in Ride The Pink Horse. In this movie he doesn't feel like Marlowe, a Marlowe who can take and give a hard punch. The first confrontation he takes a punch that results in a black eye but it leaves him unconscious! Dick Powell- the surprise Philip Marlowe of all time-and Humphery Bogart-one of the best Marlowes of all time-would've required a shot from Moose Malloy or a sap to the head by some strong arm thugs to go down from one blow like that. Perhaps it was her reaction to a camera instead of an actor that made Audrey Totter seem chilled in their ""scenes"" together rather than Claire Trevor's cold hearted user and Lauren Bacall's cool cynic in the earlier Marlowe incantations. And MGM was never at that time at least a studio known for hardboiled,gritty crime dramas. The Christmas carols though were a nice touch and Lloyd Nolan who should have played the lead was good as usual in his role as the crooked cop. Nolan had played a PI in some Michael Shayne Bs before the noir cycle began so he knew the mannerisms and Philip Marlowe a tarnished knight with principles would've been a perfect fit. All in all Lady In The Lake is noteworthy for it's groundbreaking experiment, the appeasement of a fading leading man's ego (not the last time either)and some vision into the world of Chandler's alter ego. George Montgomery as Philip Marlowe? Blasphemy! James Garner- a 60s laidback version suitable but also a precursor to Jim Rockford who had his Chandler moments. Roert Mitchum was Philip Marlowe both in looks and world weariness a perfect match only Bogart equals him. Mr. Montgomery would ride a pink carousel horse to better success.",0 "This movie is definitely NOT the Cinderella so many of us grew up with...it's a continuation. It adds more to the story to keep the interest of the newer generations and is a good lesson of how sometimes things can be taken away without a moments notice, and you have to work to get them back. This story builds Cinderella into a determined young woman instead of a poor house maid and gives Anastasia a chance to do what is right. Cinderella III also gives the character of the Prince a chance to develop (even though they still don't give him a name!) All in all, Cinderella III is full of good morals, great new songs, a few subtle jokes for the parents, and of course, a famous Disney Happily Ever After ending.",1 "I've never read the manga, but since Death Note was so hyped in Japan I thought I'd give it a chance. After all the concept of the movie is quite interesting. However, I was completely disappointed. Maybe I should have read the manga after all, because after reading other reviews I think a lot of blame for this poor film goes to the director and screen writer of the film. There is lack of character development in many of the minor yet important characters. The main characters don't provoke much feeling as well. Luke (aka death) is an annoying character created to be comic relief (doesn't work) and an excuse for adding computer graphics, but instead becomes an eye sore. After having read that the girlfriend doesn't exist in the manga I don't really see the need to have added her to the movie since her character is completely insipid. The climax scene in which she is in would have been more engaging if I actually cared for her character. Furthermore, the scenes are predictable and cliché as well, which is frustrating. The acting was mediocre, but I place blame on the director for that since the directing is just plain bad. There is a lot that happens in this movie that has little or poorly thought out explanation (like the climax), making most of it unbelievable. The biggest disappointment is that there was so much potential for this movie. However, just wanting to make a quick buck off the manga is the obvious purpose for making the film.",0 "9 is a very ""Turkish"" film as it is based on dialogues/monologues mostly, so it makes it difficult for a ""foreigner"" to get the film. The characters use proverbs and idioms a lot in their speech; this provides a beautiful expression and perfect and natural atmosphere but unluckily these talks did not translate well.

The film is about ""nothing is what it seems"". It starts with a picture of perfect and happy district. A homeless young girl was raped and murdered there and some people of the district who are being interrogated in a dark room by the police insist that they are all good citizens, are loved by their neighbours, have a quiet life and have no relation with the girl and the murder. All say that such a criminal cannot be from the neighbourhood.

But as the gilded upper layer of their lives is scratched by questions of the police and the contradictory testimonies of themselves, we face something surprising: the ugly truth. But the question is ""what is the truth?"" Salim, one of the main characters, says it is such a story that your interpretation of it is the ""truth"".

""The film offers a critique not just of State fascism but fascism in daily life - in the lives of ordinary people..."" suggests Umit Unal,the writer-director of 9 and his well-knitted script(which is a masterpiece of the Turkish script expert) tells us all murderers used to be ordinary people before.

To me, the film was awesome; smart retorts, very good actors, lots of metaphors, amazing music of ZeN, touching Yiddish song of Spiky and the frantic editing...I specially appreciate the performance of Cezmi Baskin(Salim), i think that it is the best in his career.

",1 "I came because I heard it was a cross between Buffy the Vampire Slayer (The Seried) and Charmed, I stayed because it was something so very different.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid BtVS fan, and a former fan of Charmed, and I was aching for some new dark fantasy / supernatural material. I've only seen the two episodes, but you can be sure I'll watch more.

Where BtVS and Charmed may have dealt with some dark issues, they were in general light shows. Hex is a dark with light moments. From the very beginning, this show made it self stand out from the current supernatural shows simply because it's so dark. This is not a funny show, but a dramatic one that draws you in to watch the journey that Cassie must face. Though, I must say that as I saw the end of the episode, I declared a pure Joss Whedon moment - even if he had nothing to do directly with this show.

I highly recommend this show, if you like British dramas and dark fantasies.",1 "Disappointing follow-up to the phenomenal Scream Greats Vol 1 eschews the planned focus on esteemed contemporary horror film figures, instead embracing sensationalist examination of and commentary on, you guessed it, satanism and witchcraft.

Of little interest to rational Fangoria or Starlog readers, it consequently killed the series dead.

Originally, bearded filmmaker Tobe Hooper was to be the focus of this installment. What went wrong?

Recommended for superstitious adolescents and gullible adults, only.

Otherwise, don't bother.",0 Okay.. I never really liked her until I saw her Bravo Special a year ago.. now I love her and think she is unbelievably funny. Her DVD is well worth whatever it costs you.. if you like to laugh from deep inside and smile till it hurts.. this is for you.. go .. go now.. get it. She covers a lot of celebrity turf and manages to keep her show moving rapidly.. a challenge most celeb comics cant do.. if you like her reality show you will love the DVD.. and I recently saw her at the DC improv and she killed for 2 hours straight.. I think it runs 86 minutes in length and costs like 10 bucks at tower records..or best buy. Also.. you should watch her reality show on bravo. I never.. NEVER write reviews for IMDb.. but i loved her so much on this DVD.. i actually created an account to do so! Happy Viewing!,1 "This movie had the potential to present the Bible, at least in a neutral manner, but succeeds only in demeaning Christians and making them out to be crazy, or cultists. I do appreciate the message that God will accept anyone who repents, but I wish there had been more example of Christians who are not demented. The movie does have some redeeming qualities, but they tend to be lost in the general destructiveness of the material. Mimi Rogers gave a grand performance as did David Decovney, but I spent the entire movie wondering if it was coming from a Christian perspective, or if it was just an ill conceved thriller, and in the end that question was not answered. In the beginning, I looked beyond the Christian cliché', to the possibilities.",0 "Yeah, I love this film. Ever since I saw it at a preview screening, this has been one of my favorites. I said then Gary Oldman should get nominated for Best Supporting Actor and he should have been, except nobody saw this movie, probably because Orion didn't promote this movie at all. All of the leads are awesome. Sean Penn is so messed up and confused, and the hints that he's having trouble with all the drinking are a nice touch. Ed Harris does so much with so little. There's one scene where you can almost see him literally blow his top. By the end, the effects of each different subplot can be seen on each other, all coming together for one climactic moment. And the ending--I get chills from the music. See this movie. Then tell everyone you know.",1 "A great movie, the sci-fi Goonies, if you will. Maybe it's because ""Explorers"" only sports three main characters, and ""The Goonies"" has seven (plus Sloth) ... but I'd hold this movie up with that one any day.

The humor comes from strange places, and truly lands in bizarro world during the last act, but it captured my imagination seamlessly when I first saw it at the age of eleven. I'm older now, so maybe it's just nostalgia, but if you're into the whole 1980's retro thing, this belongs in your collection with the rest of the Disney-ish buddy movies. Clever idea, and one of the last good movies Joe Dante made. Having a cast like that, though, sure doesn't hurt.",1 "The Spanish cinema is often overlooked and under-appreciated. Yet a tradition of Spanish cinema has brought to us so much wimsycal treatment of traditional subjects, including religion (a reaction to a strict religious conservative tradition). A truly great film in the post-apocolyptic setting in the modern-day Madrid. As a student of Almodovar, De Iglesias has done his homework.",1 "During WW II everyone in America joined forces to fight against Japan and Germany. This film clearly portrays the great efforts of the Military Nurses who helped the wounded and even gave their lives in order to bring Victory for the USA. Claudette Colbert,(Lt. Janet Davidson),""It Happened One Night"",'34, spread herself very thin trying to support the nurses and the soldiers in the hospitals. Paulette Goddard,(Lt. Joan O'Doul),""Reap the Wild Wind"",'42 gave an outstanding supporting role while under constant bombing from the Japanese Zero planes. Veronica Lake,(Lt. Oliva D'Arcy),"" I Married a Witch"",42 surprised everyone in the Nurses Unit with her great act of love and service to her country. Veronica Lake in real life had a short lived career and was not truly appreciated for her great acting abilities. This 1943 War picture clearly shows the horror of War and the results which live forever in our hearts and souls, especially the Veterans who are wounded and living in the Veteran's hospitals even TODAY.",1 "This movie Is bad. In the movie they never explained why the killer was killing. I mean, granted he was a psycho but even psychos need reasons, rational or not. and i think that they had john doe and her boss act too creepy. I never trusted their motives. Throughout the movie i am trying to figure out the plot, I was reading too much into it. This movie is way shallow but it has potential if they ever re-did it. it seems like the editors, in haste, cut the plot to fit the time slot. but it is very edgy. i think someone should re-do it.",0 "Not really sure what exactly it was that writer/director Ivan Zuccon tried to accomplish with ""The Shunned House"", to be honest. Admittedly the concept of intertwining three separate H.P. Lovecraft stories into one horror anthology, entirely taking place in one and the same house setting, is definitely ambitious and original, but at the same time also hazardous and unrewarding. The wicked and ultra-sinister imagination of H.P. Lovecraft is incredibly difficult to translate into a movie – only gifted directors like Stuart Gordon and Lucio Fulci occasionally succeeded – and his devoted fans are very finicky when it comes to adaptations. The script tackles the wondrously atmospheric and nightmarish tales ""Dreams in the Witch House"", ""The Shunned House"" and ""The Music of Erich Zahn""; all mingled together through the wraparound story of a young couple investigating the dark history of a house where tragic events occurred spread over three centuries. Beforehand, I was prepared to witness some really bad acting and perhaps some inferior production values, but the absolute last thing I expected from this film was boredom! The story material is great and the ambiance is thoroughly ominous, but Zuccon's narrative structure simply isn't compelling enough. The stories, and thus also the suspense, are too often abruptly cut off to return to the present day main characters and their continuous uninteresting bickering. Ivan Zuccon doesn't achieve to grab the viewer's full attention and hold it, and that is something quite important in Lovecraft adaptations, as his morbid stories are habitually confusing and tangled already. What ""The Shunned House"" does have to offer are numerous grisly images (like a girl repeatedly banging her head against a wall for reasons unknown) and multiple downright gruesome make-up effects (like a woman biting through her own wrist). Although not the goriest film of its kind, some of the footage here is definitely nightmare inducing. The acting performances are quite bad and, call me shallow if you must, but I was quite disappointed that lead actress Federica Quaglieri didn't have any nude sequences. All through the film, she's parading around in an incredibly sexy yellow top and her beautiful voluptuous boobs are constantly on the point of popping out … yet they never do.",0 "Dana Carvey is an extremely talented comedian,which makes it a shame that his efforts since his Saturday Night Live days have fallen,at least for the most part,miserably flat.The latest effort,The Master of Disguise,is no exception.This film is horrid from top to bottom.It is a poor execution of what was a poor story idea to begin with.Executive Producer Adam Sandler's ideas about comedy may work when Sandler himself is in the film,but he has yet to produce a good effort when solely behind the camera.Carvey's efforts to make this a good film are indeed valiant,but he can't do it alone.Even the character names (Pistachio Disguisey?) are evidence that not a lot thought were given to them.The supporting cast seems lost to the point where they don't give good support at all.Don't waste your time or your money.Here's hoping that Dana Carvey will strike creative gold in the near future.He deserves it.",0 "I have just watched the movie with my 7 year old. We both liked the movie. I tried to explain her couple of points about the story. She got little scared, but I told her that we get scared from the things we don't know. In my opinion, the movie is about saving the future. The people on the future are suffering from the pollution and their generation is about to come to an end. To save themselves, they are wearing the protective cloths. Emma's struggle and her one precious teardrop sent with Mimzy to the future, saved the future. Al they needed was a pure, unpolluted memorabilia (the teardrop) from the past that will help them save the earth from the pollution. At the end of the movie, we are given small toys of Mimzy, and we will cherish them to remind us about the future. We all have the job to save the future. Every little try will count, like every disrespect about the earth will harm. This movie was a very good source for me to teach my daughter the importance of being earth friendly. Thanks.",1 "'Papillon' is the forceful portrait of a defiant man, who survives harrowing years of his life in small solitary cells, suffering the worst type of brutality and despair... It is the amazing true life story of a man of character called Henri Charriere, a Frenchman sentenced to life at Devil's island for a murder he did not commit... Henri gains his nick name 'Papillon' for the large butterfly (symbolic of freedom) tattooed on his chest...

The film recounts Papillon's tenacity and indomitable spirit, planning and executing a series of failed attempts of escape over many years... We watch his multiple adventures through hundreds of miles of swamp, reaching an encounter with a kind leper colony, a friendly tribe of Indians, and a traitorous nun... Papillon is seen pursued by Indian trustees, and harassed by brutal guards... The power of the movie lies on Papillon's triumph over oppression, his continual perseverance, humanity, honesty, his quiet dignity, and sheer spirit...

Guided this time by one of the most creative directors who offered handsomely 'Planet of the Apes' and 'Patton,' Steve McQueen—as Papillon— exhibits a raw vitality, a complete spectrum of emotions, and a sure command of his technical acting-resources that are breathtaking in their impact..

Dustin Hoffman—in perfect rapport with his role, perceptively invading its every nuance and implication— portrays a quality of character exhibited in the face of impossible adversity... His last scene with McQueen attempting to convince his friend not to leave the island, represents one of the film's most moving, and effective sequence...

Schaffner gives a stirring picture of forsaken men, and takes up the challenge and proceeding to 'beat the system' against incalculable odds... He certainly gives rise to some of the great epics of human courage and fortitude...",1 "I've seen a lot of bad movies in my time, but nowhere else have I seen such an incompetent mob movie. Can you imagine a mobster movie - these things involve lots of shootings and lots of catch lines by definition - where a)No shooting happens at all until the end, and b)The whole movie is built around $10,000. That's how much the characters seek, and probably the total production cost of the movie. Lots of pointless chatter, but has neither muscle (listed above) or brains. Watch it if you want to see the worst mobster flick of all time, or if you need a cure for insomnia.

",0 "I love Kate & Allie but I really love Allison Smith. Not only as Jennie Lowell, but anything the girl does! I would really love to see Kate & Allie put back on the air so that I can enjoy more Allison! You gotta admit...she can not only sing but she's great all the way around! And the episodes where she sings...melt my heart! My favorite episode is where she sings ""Goodbye To You"" to Howard. Remember that one? She can sing to me anytime! And the one where Allie works for that TV station and Allison sings ""Tomorrow"" 150 times! Loved every last one! Laughed so hard and then fell apart when Allison started to sing. WOW! Anyway, just wanted to not only express my love for Kate & Allie but especially Allison Smith. Love ya, Allison! NHFOTOFREAK!",1 "seriously. swallows a hornet? that, mind you, landed in his cereal. only to be followed up with a shower scene? what am i watching? i had to write this after having viewed no more than 15.5 minutes of this. i hope it gets better. it won't. oh wait. there's a 7 on the steamy mirror. watch this in a dark room alone. as long as you're not in the room. and as long as there's something else on. probably with commercials. and you're doing something better. like having an enema or perhaps experimenting on the strength of the enamel of your teeth with a toenail clipper or testing the limits of your hearing on flea farts or listening to a gulp of water make its way from your mouth to your bladder, or to your anus, depending on what you ate earlier that day. and one must not neglect the amount of alcohol one drank that day, as well as the acidity level of any foods eaten in the period before the water was taken. it might not even be the water at all, seeing as how such conditions can be a result of a lack of water. these conditions may not be a function of water at all, but maybe poor nutritional choices at large. one cannot comment on the elections of others without knowing the motivation behind such decisions, but it can be safely assumed that the viewing of this film could not possibly be attributed to the aforementioned ailments/symptoms, but rather a morbid curiosity begat by boredom and the senseless desire to subject oneself to the efforts of a hungry director and the economic needs of actors that said, ""Hmmm. Seven days until The Ring 'gets' me. Sorry, i got confused. I see. So, there's a child and a--doesn't matter. You're going to pay me for this? Right then. And the danish is free? Very well. Hmm. Well, there it is then. I'm on board. And we'll be done by Thursday? Super. I can get back to whatever i was up to before you bothered me. I believe i was thinking about purple or where i left my hat. Did you see it? Not my hat, but purple. It really is quite lovely. You know, my mother loves...."" So...this is what this film is. Nonsense. Except this assessment was far more involved. Sorry for those who enjoyed this. Really. I am sorry for those who enjoyed this. And your families. And pets. Herumph.",0 A decent plot ruined by a bad script and lousy acting: That's basically what you have with this S&S turd. Was this thing made to cause Leonardo di Vinci to roll over in his grave? Because that's what he would do if he saw the mama's boy portrayal of him in this piece of crap. I gave this a 2 only because of the one guy who keeps yelling 'I'm Comiiiiiinnnnng!' Now that is laugh out loud funny!,0 "OK. so i liked some of the films that Star Cinema has produced.... and i thought, why not go see this movie Milan. The crux of the matter is... this is a bad movie. The lead character(Piolo Pascual)is so confused about his existence that his existentialist angst comes as an ABBA song (you know... can you hear the drums, Fernando?) Not only that! This movie offers a picturesque glimpse of italy (oh my god! is that why the movie was entitled Milan?) but that's it. Expect no more. What you'll get from the beginning of the film until the end is pure drivel! A guy loses his wife... he searches her out in Milan... (for the life of me i don't get this, how can you just jump the boat and just sink, sink, sink, happily sink?) and then he finds the loving arms of another Filipina who (surprise!)falls in love with him too and then just when things cannot go on any murkier, he finds his wife who is (another surprise!) a rape victim(!) and is too ashamed to go home so she rejects him and they all live miserably all together! The same goes for the audience.

I just want to puke after seeing this film.

Bad! Teribly bad!",0 "I'm a recent convert to IMDb and have been writing and posting these comments since late November and they've mostly been about films. No television show has really motivated and impressed me enough to compose a love letter in it's honour so far. Until I decided this little (only in ratings) wonder deserved the distinction of becoming the first program I'd praise to the skies.

I checked the chronological filter in reverse to find out just who was the very first soul to write here about ""Freaks and Geeks"". I wanted to give them a tip of the hat by name. And guess what? The comment from 19 July 1999 (love the way those numbers flow together) was listed as ""anonymous""! Oh, well. Thanks anyway, whoever you are.

I assumed by now there would be over 1000 people on this subject and was shocked there are less than 200 so far! Where are all you ""freaks"" and ""geeks""? Write something and tell the world out there that this show is easily one of the greatest of the medium's history.

Paul Feig still is active in comedy and has been overshadowed somewhat unfairly because of the juggernaut that is Judd Apatow's career. Let's not forget Mr. Feig was a huge part of this experience and if he's not involved with some film and/or television, the world is a less friendly place. His pain and refusal to gloss over the real, heartbreaking trials of adolescence are what makes this show have a great big heart that ticks. God bless you, Paul Feig!

I'll maintain no matter how good some of Judd Apatow's films are, his best work always has and will be on the box. If you're going to create another show, Judd, please put it somewhere like HBO this time and get some newer faces who grew up with ""Freaks"".

And have Linda Cardellini appear in some role worthy of her talents. Honestly, is there another young, popular actress this well liked? I've never seen a negative mention of her in the tabloids. And I hope it stays that way. Her ability to take almost any kind of material and not just make it work, but thrive is on full display in ""Freaks"". The role she returned to NBC for, Samantha Taggart on ""ER"", was only worth watching because she made often silly plots truly believable with her brave and intelligent acting style.

There are so many wonderful actors on this roster, I'd like to tell each of them how much this whole 18 episode arc means to me and millions of other young adults. At 36, maybe I'm not a ""young adult"" in the technical sense, but I have watched an awful lot of television in my life and can say this program is as good as TV has ever been.

NBC used to have the best stuff around and now...I don't make a point of setting an hour aside anymore because one thing in the lineup is that worth the time. No more ""Homicide"", no more ""Seinfeld"" and no more ""Freaks and Geeks"". It makes you feel like you are at a wake and remembering how great we once had it.",1 "Whale of a Tale is basically a story about a kid who visits a marine park and forms an attachment to a killer whale there. Not much else happens. It's very cheap looking and totally inoffensive, even by 1970's standards. It plays like an average episode of The Wonderful World of Walt Disney. In fact the star, Scott Kolden, appeared in many Disney productions, which seems odd as he's an actor of little talent. What really makes the film interesting is the appearance of William Shatner who plays a marine biologist at the park! The clothes he wears is enough to make watching the movie worthwhile. The box says that the film came out in 1976 but judging from the fashions worn by the characters, I'd say it was more like 1972. Oh yes, Shatner also has a totally forced romance with the boy's mom (naturally, Kolden plays a fatherless child) Whale of a Tale is actually pretty funny if you can accept it as tongue in cheek. It may well have inspired Free Willy twenty years later! One wonders how Shatner feels about it.",1 "I gave this movie an excellent rating because of the story line, the excellent adaptation from the book to the movie, and a truly exceptional cast. Even the incidental music was excellent. I've never heard of the composer but he truly embraced and enhanced the overall mood of the movie. The other thing that impressed me was how there was such careful attention to make sure that it remained true to the period, since this was set in England at the turn of the 20th century. Kate Maberly and Maggie Smith gave absolutely outstanding performances, they truly embodied their roles and it showed. It is a real shame that Kate has decided not to pursue acting as an adult because if she was this good in this movie as an 11 year old she would be a phenomenal adult actress. This movie is high on my list of one of the best ever made.",1 What Can I say about this movie that hasn't been said other then it's one of the best movies ever. Then I would be lying to you all. The Camera angles and the lighting were well.....you already know. The acting was down right humor. Who thought of this idea anyway?,1 "I have to admit that i was always in to Transformers and He-man more than Thundercats but it didn't stop me from enjoying it every week after school on TV. Never bought any of the toys but i think it was because i was just slightly too old for it when the toys and TV show came out in the UK. One of the stupid things i noticed in it though was the mutants. They were the most useless bunch of bad guys ever, they always messed everything up from start to finish instead of just messing it up at the end (like most other villains do) and thank god for Mumm-ra who is a pretty decent bad guy. Thundercats is not as preachy as He-man either but it has its similarities with it. A great cartoon which is my 3rd best cartoon show from the 80's. Nice.",1 "Here is another rarely-seen anime film I had watched online, and after I did I love it. it's a beautifully-animated fantasy about two star-crossed lovers from opposite sides : Fire & Water. You know, I didn't know Sanrio, creator of Hello Kitty (and all the other cuddley characters we love) maded this film; but now I do.

The feud between Fire and Water started along time ago, when the two siblings, Oceanus - God of Water (Sirius' father), and Hyperia - Goddess of Fire (Malta's mother), lived in peace and dearly loved each other. However, the God of Wind, Algaroc, become jealous of the pair's happiness, and spread lies and deceit between them until their hatred for each other brought about war. Finally, Algaroc was imprisoned by the King of Gods himself, but after that time, the brother and sister still despised each other, so the Children of Fire and Water forever remained apart. Years later, Prince Syrius of the Water and Princess Malta of the Fire meet and fall in love, and they meet in secret.",1 "Ruthless streetwise tough guy Tom Powers (a terrific and electrifying performance by James Cagney in his star-making breakthrough role) and his loyal partner Matt Doyle (well played by Edward Woods) rise to the top of the criminal heap selling bootleg alcohol for the smooth, hard-nosed Paddy Ryan (a fine portrayal by Robert Emmett O'Connor) during the Prohibition era. Ably directed with real style and fierce economy by William A. Wellman, with a gritty script by Harvey Thew, crisp black and white cinematography by Devereaux Jennings, a vivid and flavorsome evocation of the period, startling outbursts of raw violence (watch out for the infamous grapefruit scene!), a tight 84 minute running time, and an uncompromisingly dark and depressing ending, this extremely hard-edged film still packs one hell of a potent punch even today. Of course, the movie's success is largely because of Cagney's vibrant and mesmerizing acting: Cagney brings a certain irresistibly devilish charm to the role of Tom Powers which in turn makes the little nasty sociopath more of a strangely appealing anti-hero than a totally hateful full-blown villain. Whether he's shooting a racehorse or collapsing on a rain-soaked street after rubbing out a bunch of rival mobsters (""I ain't so tough""), Cagney is nothing short of amazing in the lead. Wellman's assured direction is equally impressive; note how almost all of the violence occurs off-screen, which actually enhances instead of lessons the shocking impact of said violence. Moreover, there are sturdy supporting contributions by Jean Harlow as sassy dame Gwen Allen, Donald Cook as Tom's disapproving straight-arrow brother Mike, Joan Blondell as Matt's sweet girlfriend Mamie, Mae Clarke as nagging moll Kitty, Beryl Mercer as Tom's loving mother, Leslie Fenton as cocky, flashy gangster ""Nails"" Nathan, and Murray Kinnell as Tom's untrustworthy mentor Putty Nose. Essential viewing.",1 "NCIS had been on TV a while when I got into the series. I used to see it while flicking through the channels, I quickly flicked over to another channel, just because I didn't think I'd like it but one night when there wasn't much of the TV, I had no choice but to watch it and as soon as the episode finished, I was so blown away by it and I have been engrossed it in ever since.

Being in the UK, I had never heard of NCIS so I didn't know what it stood for and as I watched the show I found my knowledge of the organisation growing the longer I watched it.

This show works on so many great levels. Number one is the actors, I just love the way they interact with each other, they are like a family and act like one too. Mark Harmon plays Leroy Jethro Gibbs (what a stroke of genius, giving him that name), he is a former gunnery sergeant who is the boss of a group of investigators. He is the father, who can be strict and unbending but he clearly cares for his team and goes to bat for them when they are in trouble. Lauren Holly plays the director of NCIS (Jenny Shepard) who has a past with Gibbs and they act like a married couple at times, arguing about cases. I do like the relationship between Gibbs and Tony, I always laugh when Tony says the wrong thing and gets a slap across the back of the head, that has me in fits of hysterics as the situation is never sent up in the same way. Michael Weatherly (Anthony DiNozzo), he used to be a former homicide detective before he joined NCIS. He is like a small boy who has never grown up, he is into his movies, he loves the women and likes to make fun of McGee, much to McGee's annoyance. McGee (Sean Murray) is the probie who is a MIT graduate and a whizz with computers. He is like the little brother who wants to be so much like Tony and yet at times not so such. Pauley Perrette (Abby Sciuto) is the goth forensics specialist who is the fun and exciting sister that mothers warn their sons about. Cote de Pablo (Ziva David) is a former Moussad agent, she is the big sister who everyone is wary of. She is just as wary of forming attachments as she has lost a lot of people in her life and she can defend herself which seems to bond her with Gibbs. She if finding it hard to adjust to a different environment that she is not used to. Finally, there is the brilliant David McCallum who plays Donald 'Ducky' Mallard, he is the medical examiner. He is a kind grandfather who the others go to for advice. One of the best things about Ducky is he likes to stray from a subject into his many entertaining stories. I sometimes wish Gibbs would let him tell us the end of the stories as they sound truly fascinating.

I like that NCIS investigates a wide range of crimes involving the Navy and Marines such as murder, espionage, terrorism. It is interesting to see the different procedures, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has compared to the police.

This series is not just one type of genre, it has many layers to it. There is comedy, drama, action, tension, twists and turns in one programme. The writing just manages to show it all in a good way and the writers are able to switch between the genres to carry the plot along. They clearly have good advisers because the episodes are sensibly concluded and there is never any thought that this wouldn't happen in real life.

It is created by Donald P. Bellisario who brought the world Jag, Quantum Leap, Airwolf, Magnum P.I who seems interested in Military themes as this features in his shows in some form or another.

I do hope there are more seasons of this programme to come because now I am really hooked and it has become another of my favourite shows on TV.",1 "Retired British couple in 1900 Newborough purchase a large estate at a low price and hire a live-in lady companion, who quickly comes under the influence of the previous resident: a young girl who some say was murdered. Osbert Sitwell's book turned into stuffy costume drama with divergent accents. In 1945, many professional critics found themselves enraptured with the plot, but time has not been kind to it. Other, later pictures mining this territory have improved upon the ghostly basics. James Mason, too young for his role and heavily made-up, keeps shouting as if everyone else had gone deaf, while the supporting players are equally colorless. *1/2 from ****",0 "Jonathan Sanger directed this murky film written by David E. Peckinpah. I found it very predictable and often tedious. Watching William Devane, looking well his age and a bit older, make love to a young thing was what I found silly and not real. The young thing, played by Shannen Doherty, was infatuated with him. You gotta be kidding. Okay, maybe he had the money. But his money isn't what she wanted. This I found hard to believe. I did like Clare Carey, who played Devane's daughter, the only real value in the picture. I felt the two leads deserved each other. Both losers. As to the acting, well, I'd give them a so-so, except for Carey, whom I liked. There are better films on this subject of obsession.",0 "This is my favorite of all the John Waters movies. The script alone is priceless. It is really amazing to hear David Lochary, Mink Stole and Divine spout out lines of harsh, cutting dialogue...but to appreciate it, you really need to see the other wonderful movies he has done, especially Pink Flamingos, Female Trouble...well, just about anything! I highly recommend it to anyone with a sharp sense of humor. If you don't, you will not appreciate it.",1 "School's Out was only a good movie because it was the Degrassi people. I don't think Joey was very convincing as a superstud, and I wanted to shoot Caitlin. Her character used to be all cool and feminist, but in this movie she was a big wimp. But it is definitely worth seeing.",0 "Well i liked the first one Bring it on, I mean, Kirsten Dunst, Eliza Dushku and Gabrielle Union..at least we know who they are and they rock on that movie..! Great music, great moves! Bring it on again..well one hour and a half, small, the story : cliché, some funny parts..really nothing special. It's a good movie to watch on a Sunday afternoon with your grandparents :)! Just kidding.. I'm just trying to say that this sequel is not very good. Makes me wanna say maybe they should just stop on the first one and everybody would be wow nice movie, know what i mean? I haven't seen the third one. But if it's something like this one, i rather not.. I liked the last performance by the renegades. I mean, trough the movie they suck, but in two days..wow awesome! Go renegades :P!",0 "But not in a good way. I would consider myself fairly well-versed in ""Girls in Prison"" films, and this one set a new standard. As with all of these films, there were naked women, shower scenes, lesbian guards, etc. However, half-way through the film, there was a definite switch in direction, involving a genuine plot twist, but unfortunately, the direction the film took was a poor one. The movie had a lot of nudity, including the body of Stephanie Ann Smith which is worth a look in and of itself, but no real sex scenes. Disappointing. In a ""girls in prison"" movie, the only real reason to watch is for the lesbian sex scenes. No dice. The acting in the movie wasn't terrible, at least between the three main characters (Tina, Danielle, Sarah), but the rest of the cast, especially Vega, lacked greatly. Whoever wrote the story, however, should be strung up by their toes. The plot makes no sense. Apparently, there are no consequences in this world. Plot summary (Warning: spoilers....) The main character (Danielle) is an undercover FBI agent in a women's prison, trying to befriend the girlfriend (Sarah) of a gangster, who the FBI is trying to bust. They become friends (had they become more than friends, it would've been a better movie), and eventually get transferred to a different prison. Surprise. On the way there, they get ambushed by agents of Sarah's boyfriend (Vega). Danielle (undercover as a prisoner) gets ahold of a dropped gun and returns fire, killing some of the attackers. They get away, but not before Sarah is shot and killed (a genuine surprise, although I can't help but wonder if she just refused to do any more nude scenes unless they changed her contract, so they got rid of her. Unfortunately, since she had the best body, the rest of the movie sucks even worse). The one surviving prison guard (Tina, the most attractive correctional facility guard I've ever seen) and Danielle run into the woods and somehow end up back at FBI HQ, where Danielle's boss tells her that her daughter's been kidnapped. After some more horrible plot development, Danielle gets suspended by the FBI. So, naturally, Danielle, Tina and a European supermodel/secret agent break into Vega's mansion, kill some people, capture Vega, and get Danielle's daughter back. Conveniently, the FBI shows up about now and praises Danielle for B&E, murder, defying her suspension, and bringing two non-FBI agents into an FBI investigation. So she gets promoted and Tina (who never did get naked, damnit) gets accepted into the FBI. Like I said, the movie seems to have no redeeming quality other than Smith's body. If you are looking for a truly horrible movie to show at a bachelor party or some such, this wouldn't actually be bad. Other than that, steer clear. Pick up ""Ishtar"", ""Showgirls"", or some other quality flick.",0 "The idea of making a film about the secrets and wonders of inside the Earth sounds like good idea for a movie but this movie just can't seem to deliver.The actors are bareable(well sort of)except for the main charecter who is just as way to smug.As far as special effects and set the crew did a okay job.And the plot would be better if there were more creatures and stuff and less of a boring,tedious buildup.",0 "A Great Film, the visuals, the music, the times. I was 8 years old when the film came out, but oddly enough I can relate to it, more so on a subconscious level as I hardly remember being eight. The visuals affect me deeply, as well as the music. Someone pointed out it being haunting, I definitely got the same feeling. The movie made me cry, but I don't know why, at least not on a conscious level. The story line does remind me of when I was a kid, a time when kids played outdoors using nothing more than their imagination and whatever they could find to play with and being content. Also it reminded me of a carefree time of boys being boys. A must to watch and enjoy!",1 "In XVth century church group of nuns committed a religion blasphemy. All women preformed satanic rituals and wild orgies with strangers, who later vanished in a mysterious circumstances. Of course it had an effect. One of the nuns gave birth to a child, which was immediately burn. People who lived nearby church had enough and decided to crucify wicked nuns. A few centuries later group of archeologists started to do the research nearby ruins of church. This fact made locals very suspicious and unfriendly, because of superstition of murdered nun's revenge. It's question of time when sinner's ghosts came back to get their death toll.

Fulci always goes from one extreme to another. Once his movies were full of suspense [""Murder to the Tune of the Seven Black Notes ""] or gore [""Zombie Flesh Eaters""]. Demonia is a try to mix these two. But, it's failed. Fulci tries all of his suspense tricks such as eye close-up, sudden zooms and creating orinirique atmosphere. But it makes this film worse. Close-up looks really poor and zooms are very annoying. Oh, we can't forget about music. Sometimes it honestly can build atmosphere but it's only one scene. In other ones, especially in ruins where we hear drunk organist's symphony it's driving insane. Gore also lets down. There are only two scenes, of which one is typical for Lucio (eyes scratched out by a cat)but second one - tearing man apart - really satisfied me. The biggest flop is main character and strictly speaking acting. Her looks brought me a lot of fun. For example, in scene where Paul (leader of archeologists) says to her that they must leave her look is wonderful! It's similar to kid's look when they are forbidden to eat sweets/play computer games/whatever. But all of these are nothing when we compare it to the ending! I have seen many bad movies, but it's first really PA-THE-TIC ending in my life. There is nothing better than view of burning nun in company of soap opera's music! As for me, it's probably top bottom of Lucio Fulci's movies and it's a little pity, because the plot is quite good.",0 "Simply put, this show can be summarized in these short examples:

DAD, YOU DIDN'T GET JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE TO PERFORM AT MY PARTY? WAHHHH!!!! YOU ONLY RENTED A 45 ROOM MANSION FOR MY PARTY? I WISH I WAS NEVER BORN!! WAHHH!!! A LEXUS SUV????? I WANTED A LEXUS CONVERTIBLE SPORTS CAR!! WHY DO YOU HATE ME MOM AND DAD!!! WAHHHH! WHY WON'T YOU GET ME A DRESS LACED WITH 1/10 KARAT GOLD THREADING AND OUTLINED IN DIAMONDS AND EMERALDS???? MY PARTY WILL BE RUINED! WAHHH!!

""My Super Sweet 16"" is basically 30 minutes of nothing but that. No matter how much money is spent on their 16th Birthday Party, the person turning 16 will complain.

What is so special about turning 16 anyway? I remember my 16th birthday. I only had a get together with my close friends at my house. That was it. And the presents I got? Not much. Some money from relatives, a video game or two, and some other minor things. I didn't get a car, I had to pay for mine straight up with money I earned. So basically, if I got 1% of the stuff these kids get in ""My Super Sweet 16"" I would be very grateful.

This show could have been something. MTV could have had this show revolve around 15 year olds from unpriveledged families and/or areas of the country who otherwise would not have had enough resources/money to throw a decent 16th birthday party. But instead, MTV decides to have the show revolve around extremely privileged and rich kids; whose parents probably make 6 figure incomes; and live in upscale, high end neighborhoods; in houses which the real estate value is probably over 1 million dollars. It's a real shame, because these kids are very ungrateful, even though their family has more money than just about most other families in the entire world.

These kids will likely never understand what its like to be unpriveledged and have to earn or work for something. Instead, they will just cry to mommy and daddy whenever they want something and they will get it. And once they turn 18 and leave for college(which their parents will likely pay for all), they will just continue to live off of some trust fund for the rest of their lives without having to earn anything.

The most telling thing about my review is that I am a conservative republican who gets tired of people complaining about the rich people in our country and think that the wealth should be spread around. I feel that rich people are rich because they work hard. With all that being said, I am still disgusted by the people and money spending in this show.

This is a bad show. Only watch if you want to watch spoiled 15 year olds cry, kick, whine, moan, and make total fools of themselves, so you can feel good about yourself not being on the low level these kids are.

MTV, Drugs, and Alcohol - The 3 brain rotting resources in the world",0 "I liked the script, but some of the actors are not so good. The battle scienes weren't good at all. And one more thing: in the book Athos was very quiet, but in this movie he is very talkative. Anyway I recomand you to see this movie for fun.",0 "The Idol is an interesting mix that comes together into a stunning film. An Australian director working in France for the first time (in French language) with two American lead actors (one of whom apparently didn't speak any French when cast) and a script worked on by veteran scriptwriter Gerard Brach (Jean De Florette, The Name Of The Rose) could have been a mess but instead Samantha Lang has crafted a beautifully moving and delicate drama.

Brief plot outline, no spoilers: The lives of the residents of a French apartment block are disrupted by the arrival of a young Australian woman (Sobieski), a struggling theatre actress. Her neighbour is an elderly Chinese man respected by the other residents, who is considering moving into a retirement community.

The two are drawn together through their loneliness and a touching grandfather-granddaughter sort of relationship develops between them, reminiscent of that in Kieslowski's Three Colours:

Red.

The triumph of the film is the performances of the two lead actors. James Hong, given the chance to shine in a rare lead role, tackles the character and the language with an expert pitch, embuing Mr Zao with an almost mystical quality. He is both a man you wish you knew and a tragic figure that you want to comfort and care for.

Equally impressive is Sobieski displaying an acting talent that she has rarely demonstrated in her recent poor choices of role in generic American thrillers like The Glass House. At first all smouldering eyes and wry smiles she also grows over the course of the film into a sympathetic and tragic figure, allowing the audience to truly care what happens to both these characters and understand the deep core of loneliness that brings them together despite their differences.

The supporting actors also flesh out strong characters. Veteran French actor Jean-Paul Roussillon provides humour as the drunken upstairs neighbour who must sneak cigarettes from Mr Zao so that his interfering wife doesn't know he is smoking. While Marie Loboda as Caroline, a little girl who lives in the building (and bears a striking resemblance to Emmanuelle Beart) exudes innocence and charm. Both these characters also undergo changes as their jealousy of the relationship formed between Zao and Sarah (Sobieski) overcomes them.

The only negative, and it is a small one, is that the score by Oscar winning composer Gabriel Yared (The English Patient, Betty Blue), while a lovely Woody-Allenesque jazz style, seems a little out of place with this film which often seems to be creating emotions that are in conflict to those the music suggests.

The photography matches the story in its quiet mood and, along with the set design and locations adds a sense of loneliness to the film that draws you to the characters for comfort as well and therefore makes their lives all the more important to you. A particularly well played and haunting dream sequence will stay with you long after your first viewing of the film.

I say first viewing because you will want to revisit these characters and return to see this expertly measured film all over again. A tender tale of loneliness and the gentle love that can exist between two people this is a must see for anybody who wants to be moved or appreciate fine acting and a delicate unrushed story. Truly wonderful film-making.",1 "This movie's poster shows a great white shark with its mouth wide open. Thus when I entered the theater, I expected something spine-tingling. On this point the movie did not deliver.

It was, in fact, a story about a scientific team searching for a great white to study. Most of the movie is spent searching rather than studying. To my way of thinking the movie was not a total waste of my time. There is footage of sharks (none of them great whites) feeding on a whale carcass. In addition some of the researchers leave the safety of the shark cages and swim among these unjustly maligned fish.

Eventually they find a great white which they study from the ship and in shark cages. Huge and formidable these sharks certainly are, but anyone expecting ""Jaws"" type of excitement will be be disappointed. Ditto to those who would have preferred more information about great whites than was offered. Such is my reason to call ""Blue Water, White Death"" 'interesting but unsatisfying'.",0 "This is just a rotten 100% commercial sequel. The only point of is to make money out of the fact that young children enjoy to see new movies with characters they already know. Unfortunately, in this case, the main characters were originally meant to just go along with the flow of their destiny, and they are so completely devoid of personality that they just don't ""fit in"" as heroes who take their lives in their own hands! Worse: there isn't even a ""real"" villain to make the story interesting, the evil stepmother stays pretty much in the background, and Anastasia... well, she's not much of a villain, is she? All that happens in the film comes down to much ado about nothing, it's boring and pointless. A total waste of time and money (that will probably leave your kids completely brainwashed on top of it).",0 "So there I was, enjoying this weird and weirdly detailed movie with weird animation and a weird mix of styles (including real faces photographed for the expressions), and the credits start rolling when I think, ""Wait a minute, is this music Joanna Newsom?"" Not long afterwards, I discovered, ""It is, it is Joanna Newsom!"" Well, music isn't what makes a movie, even a short animation like this one, but anyone who knows who Joanna Newsom is (and many should considering the critical acclaim her album ""Ys"" received last year) will immediately understand the mood and tone of this short, which is about a Japanese in New York trying to learn and adapt to a new environment.

It's not the story that's the point, or the relative clarity in the moments (in Newsom's work, the lyrics, in this movie, moments like when the heroine tries to learn music), it's the saturated tone of it all. ""City Paradise"" is more than an animation, it's a fever dream. It's at times mythical, poignant, and yet disturbingly absurd.

Not that it needs Newsom's music to make it so. The animation alone is like suffering a bad acid trip. But when things like this come together so well and involve so many different styles and talents, it stands out as a beacon for deranged creativity, the chance that one person's unique taste will find other muses to create new expression.

--PolarisDiB",1 "Made at the time when video shops were appearing by the dozen in high streets all over the UK ""Gregory's Girl"" was a definite ""must hire"" for any schoolboy who had ever gazed longingly and hopelessly at some unattainable figure in the playground whilst she totally blanks him and chats unconcernedly to her mates,not knowing she carries his heart in her hands.It is at the same time an evocation of the sweet pain and joy of adolescent love and a grand comedy of young manners. I can see no fault in it despite repeated viewings over a quarter of a century.It is a perfect movie. John Gordon Sinclair,like Henry Thomas in the near - contemporary ""E.T."" created a nonpareil character,and like Master Thomas,will never be able to escape from it. That great droll Mr Chic Murray gives one of then great British movie performances as the Headmaster whose school,like some huge new - fangled machine,seems to have mastered perpetual motion. ""Gregory's Girl"" is awash with fine performances,full of the optimism and enthusiasm and joie de vivre of youth and,merely by watching it you can recapture that heady brew for 90 minutes or so.Any movie that can do that for a 66year old is a considerable work indeed.Please watch it.",1 "Lifeboat is another fine film from it's director Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcok received the second nomination in his career for Best Director at the Academy Awards for 1944. The film was also nominated for Best Cinematography from Glen Macwilliams and Original Motion Picture Story for John Steinbeck. It's a great character study and is basically a stage play set at sea with a fine cast including Tallulah Bankhead, William Bendix, Walter Slezak, Hume Cronyn, John Hodiak and Canada Lee. I've always enjoyed this film and have seen it many times. It's a well acted script adapted from a good Steinbeck story by Jo Swerling and Ben Hecht. All Hitchcock films are good and offer something different in each one. This is a little stage restricted and has no performances to absolutely wow you but it's worth checking out if you've never seen it. I would give it an 8.5 out of 10 and recommend it.",1 "This is another Chan period film with a ""revenge for killing my master"" plot. Chan has more of a central role in this film than in his previous films. There are several fights in the film involving Chan, but most of them are limited in scope until the final six or seven minutes in the showdown sequence. Then we see one of the better Chan fights amongst all his earlier films. The dubbing isn't the best and the plot is nothing new, nor is its execution. This is a good chance to see Chan in one of his earlier efforts where he has a central role, unlike many of the films where he has a smaller supporting role. There is no sense of humor here either, as Chan's later films have. Overall, typical of its kind, not up to later Chan efforts. *1/2 of 4 stars.",0 "Experiencing the ship firsthand and her mysteries, histories, details respected and moralities still teaching, it's a love, an awe inspiring and sad tale of Bibilical proportions.

The mystery and history of the Titanic is fascinating and evocative; nearly Biblical. The largest liner, the ignorance to think it could never sink and the arrogance of not putting on enough lifeboats due to aesthetics, I'm just glad in this day and age we have life rafts which take up so much less space we will never run into a shortage of life rafts problem ever again.

Paxton is great as always, and a documentary setting brings out the explorer within, and is respectfully and well made. Learning about the stairway floating out allowing for easier access to the interior of the ship for example I did not know about.

Good movie.

QUESTION: Anyone know why they were not supposed to go into C deck? They seemed to have a very good, albeit unspoken reason for this.

I see nothing wrong with Cameron's love for the Titanic story, it's a near mythical experience and I find it truly a learning experience and a marvel.

Soon the sea will claim the ship utterly, and the Titanic is a teacher of morality, of a past, and the failings of modern man, and the mystery of history in heart of exploration and awe.

The Titanic will always have something to teach us, and that is important.

The museum pieces are important because it allows for the memory to be respected and a teacher to future generations.

That we can put a name to artifacts assures their memory lives on.

There was no disrespect, in fact quite the opposite.",1 "So, who else noticed that Jennifer has had a nose job? She actually looked Greek when she was younger! ""Leprechaun"" dances on the screen, a courageously terrible little horror jig that could have only come out in 1993, when movies this bad actually got halfway decent actors.

The movie starts out with some promise as an elderly couple is tortured by a fiesty lil leprechaun who has been robbed of his pot of gold. We are treated to an old lady falling down some stairs and an angry husband who proceeds to lock the lil fella inside of a crate in his basement. Fast forward ten years and a young Jennifer Aniston and her father happen to move into the house. A half-wit accidentally releases the leprechaun from the crate and all hell breaks loose. By all hell breaking loose, I mean not much really breaks loose at all.

The highlight of this film for me was seeing the leprechaun rip a dude's face to shreds and snap a guy's neck then ride a go-cart.

Watch for the 'retarded' guy who played Francis in ""Pee Wee's Big Adeventure."" Boy, whatever happened to that fine actor? 3 out of 10, kids.",0 "My husband and I took our ten-year-old grandson to see this movie, assuming it would be a delight. It was not. My grandson laughed two or three times; same for me. My husband fell asleep. Boring is the best word I can think of to describe the movie. I will say that some of the writing directed at adults was clever, but it wasn't enough to carry the film. I'm a fan of Jerry Seinfeld, but even he couldn't make this movie something worth seeing. Many children's movies have lovely animation and cute little characters ... that just isn't enough ... they must be entertaining and interesting. Lots of children's movies have succeeded, but this one doesn't. Wait for the DVD rental.",0 "Battle in Heaven stops being interesting to watch every time the director decided to put in a scene or shot that doesn't add up to the hard-to-be-found storyline.

The tragic life and the somewhat perverse feelings of belonging that Marco has is clear from the beginning of the film. And in the first few scenes this state of being is depicted very clear and immersing.

Yet as soon as the film starts developing towards the point that Marco's unclear conscious starts to conflict, and his desire for Ana get's more troublesome. The movie loses track of a storyline and every time you think you grasp what is going on, the director put's in another shot that absolutely doesn't make sense and raises questions. (Why o why did they put in the close up of Ana's vagina, it was pretty though).

The problem of this movie is not that it lacks constituents for a storyline, but that it has to many undetermined parts that explain the ""why?"" especially in relation to Marcos. Too much is left to the viewers interpretation resulting in me not really knowing what was going on.",0 "It is sad when critics reach the point where the name of the director automatically insures a positive review. Genius that he is or was, the last 2 films are by any standard poor. Here again despite the appeal of Cruise, is a movie that lacks any cohesion, sensitivity, vision, or logic. There is no ""minority report"". Rather there is an echo. There is no sympathetic character, only a world devoid of any redeeming characteristics. Craft maybe high but the story is totally lacking. Why is Spielberg so fascinated by the loss of children? How do you justify motivations covering 6 years? Why do the plots have to be transparent? Why does the movie drag on? Watch it without the thought that this was done by the same man who gave us Jaws, ET, Indie etc. Even the best directors often run dry, Kubrick for one. Here is another.",0 "OK for starters the movie entertains me lots, but i still think that, between all the silly dialog of this characters and their morality problems resides just a silly movie full of clichés and a beautiful cinematography.

The movie, based on a famous bestseller from the 50s, is full of rape, misogyny, murder, abortion ... a lot of topics for a trashy exploitation movie. This is not exploitation, even if all the topics are included here. The thing is that are so, but really so outdated, that you cant avoid the jiggle.

Still, the performances are very good, the Cinemascope photography is gorgeous, and, at the end, the direction takes for more thank two hours of material like this. So, it's trashy but catchy.

A 7.",1 "I hate movies where you know the answer after 10 minutes. Why couldn't the director leave something for the imagination? The movie could have been interesting, but it is completely destroyed by some weird need to underline all of the character's actions, so you are never left to think and wonder, just fed with 1 hour and 50 minutes of boring psychological drama.

",0 "Tom the cat is golfing quite horrible, in my humble opinion, and when he finally does manage to miraculously actually get the ball in the hole Jerry the mouse is there to continually pop it out again. This of course infuriates the poor cat. So Tom captures him and uses him as a tee hoping to improve his game. Of course wacky madcap hijinx ensue. This was a fairly amusing short and it was great to see Tom getting some rather good hits in on Jerry, which it seems seldom happened. This great short cartoon can be found on disc one of the Spotlight collection DVD of ""Tom & Jerry""

My Grade: A-",1 "I think trashiness is a form of art, seriously. But trashy cinema is the kind of thing that needs to be done by someone who truly understands that this sub-genre requires hard work and great imagination. I'm convinced director Deodato has no clue of what I'm talking about. He wants to shock the audience but he commits a series of unpardonable mistakes that ruin material perfectly suited for what is fondly known as exploitation cinema. ""House On The Edge Of The Park"" has a strong cult following, but I found the film silly and boring. Sure, there is plenty of gratuitous nudity and violence here, but Deodato forgot a crucial element in the creation of trash: you have to be able to force the viewer to love their own feelings of inadequacy. The film simply never made me feel anything, negative or positive. I think the reason I found this movie so uninteresting is because you are never asked to identify with either the hunters or the prey. It is all so bland, so insipid, and seriously devoid of energy. Even the usually animated cult figure David Hess (who was better utilized by Wes Craven in the sleaze classic ""The Last House on the Left""), looks bored. Don't be fooled by its reputation, this film is a big snooze.",0 "I enjoyed this movie from beginning to end. It was funny and heartwarming and the little kids costumes at some points were adorable. It is the story of a dance school called Mr. Jonathons dance studio that is trying to win the most prestigious of Australian dance group awards. The story winds together a tough dance teacher who has won the award every year called Ms. Elizabeth, a competitive mum who can't stand to watch her child lose (played superbly by Kerry Armstrong) and the children who are just trying to have fun. Its a touching Australian dance movie that reminds us of Strictly Ballroom. All in all I was very impressed and happy with the film and would recommend it to any family who is thinking about entering a dance competition.",1 "There is nothing worse than a movie everybody in it knows will suck. No one acts, no one writes anything decent in the script, the sounds are bad, the editing is bad, the camera work is bad. This film is just bad. Forget about horror. There is nothing horrorful about it, only the horrible production that one can hardly name a movie.

Let me emphasize this: this is so bad, you can't even laugh at it. There are no ridiculous scenes, because they are too bad to actually laugh at them. This will never be a cult movie, nor will it be something taken seriously by anyone. The budget is so low, that film students wouldn't touch it, so i guess a ""film company"" tried to sell this piece of crap as a video rental money maker.

Horrible! Awful! And average in its awfulness.",0 "Ugh... horrible. In an earlier review I remarked how the worlds of Carry On and On The Buses were poles apart. But then I hadn't seen Carry On Behind, which makes ""Buses"" seem the height of sophistication.

Opening with a cheesy cartoon of animated bottoms, the meaningless title (""Camping"" had already been done six years earlier) is illustrated in the most literal way. The direction and timing of the jokes are so off it's untrue. In fact, I'd guessed every single joke before I'd even seen the film - that's how predictable they are. Occasional lines get a laugh, such as a scene where Windsor Davies's beach ball lands on a bonfire. ""Me ball's burning!"" he cries, obviously a cue for a cheap testicle-related pun. However, the uninspired ""Well don't stand so close to the fire!"" is made amusing by the delivery of the very funny Peter Butterworth.

Generally, though, none of the actors do well, with even the usually hilarious Kenneth Williams struggling with the feeble script. Bernard Bresslaw also flounders with a film that has a ""comedy whistle"" sound effect as he sits on a cactus (twice). Rarely has visual humour been so witlessly contrived. Windsor Davies (so-so) and Jack Douglas (desperately unfunny) are on a fishing holiday, leading to much lame innuendo around the words ""tackle"" and ""flies"".

Williams is an archaeological Professor, teamed with Elke Sommer as Professor Vooshka. A pidgin English-speaking ""foreigner"" who seems to be a prerequisite for cheap 70s comedies, the character exists only to mistakenly say such phrases as ""having it off"" and ""making oats"". The only time this dated stereotype produces a laugh is when she exclaims to Windsor Davies that an injured Ken is ""bleeding terrible."" ""Never mind his qualifications,"" Davies replies, ""is he hurt badly?"" Yes, that's one of the better ones.

The thing about great comedy is that it arises naturally out of the situation. This is not great comedy. How two grown men and women could get embarrassed from the implications of ""stuffing"" being on a menu is beyond me. Davies and Douglas are middle-aged schoolboys, waiting between the pauses until someone says the word ""bit"" so they can fall into helpless laughter once more. It's this relentless scraping for the lowest common denominator of laughs that drags Behind down into the depths.

The female cast is even worse, and the movie sorely misses a Sid James or a Barbara Windsor. Joan Sims is wasted in an underwritten role, and its non-star heavy status gives the impression of a pared-down production. The small setting also concedes the lack of ambition present. It's entries like this that give Carry On its poor reputation in some circles. If you learn that a subplot involves a large hungry dog and a Minor bird that swears and says ""show us yer knickers"" then you'll see the level of the ""humour"". Mixed showers, falling into cesspits, lousy incidental music, it's all truly, terribly unfunny.

Where the 60s had seen the series try out constant experiments (Carry On Spying, not very funny but innovative) and expand its scope (Cowboy, Screaming, Khyber), the 70s saw it happy to rest on its laurels. While the last three movies of the 60s were a step down from Khyber, they generally held the era in good stead. Things weren't so bad to begin with, with the first entry of a new decade the fairly standard Up The Jungle. While at times messy and underdeveloped, it's possibly the rudest Carry On, with bestiality making an incongruous appearance during its lunchtime screenings. Loving was underrated, and descended into slapstick homage, while Convenience was also an amusing exploration of the coarseness of the series. However, Henry was a one-joke movie, Abroad had potential squandered and Matron (qv) was possibly the weakest of the overrated medical excursions. Girls was also overlooked, however, and Dick earned its reputation as ""the last decent Carry On movie"". Post-Behind, England was a laugh vacuum, though the rumours of Emmannuelle being pornographic are, of course, a myth. The other rumour - that it's abysmal - is, sadly, completely true. Though then again, the warning signs should show when it opens with a theme song by Kenny Lynch. Lance Peters's script seems to be a formula of what people think a Carry On is about, rather than a film in its own right, while the overlong scenes and flat direction justify why this one killed the series off. After this low point, it was down to woeful 90s revival Columbus to hammer the final nail in the coffin.

At date of writing a new Carry On for the 21st century is being planned - Carry On London. Will it be able to reverse the downward slope that began right here, with Carry On Behind, the first truly bad entry in the series?",0 "This movie heralded the ""introduction"" of bona fide Australian adonis Antony Hamilton, though he had done television and a low budget cult film, ""Nocturna"" previously. Hamilton in various stages of undress is the only reason to watch this film -- which is a good enough one -- though in the version I saw some of the body parts were vaselined out. The dialogue is 20th century American dreck; Victor Mature, the movie star Samson, gives an embarrassing performance eating a chicken leg; and Belinda Bauer is no Hedy Lamarr and let's face it, Hedy Lamarr was not the most exciting actress to hit the screen, even if she was one of the most beautiful. This movie concentrates on bodies making out in the pool, a near-naked Samson getting tossed into the lake by his buddies, love-making between nearly naked Samson and nearly naked Delilah and good looks at Samson's muscles throughout. As far as I'm concerned, this is a no miss, having nothing whatsoever to do with the story. It is depressing, however, to realize that Hamilton died at such a young age and, all kidding aside, that is a very sad loss.",1 "If your a fan of lifetime, you will probably find this movie ""touching"", ""inspirational"", and ""realistic"". If you are a teenager like myself who once and awhile stumbles across a movie such as this one, you will find it utterly phony and predictable.

The part that really annoyed me about this movie was the fact that when they would talk about girls doing slutty things in high school, or dress code violations, the girls would stand up and show themselves off while the guys whistle. Excuse me???? At least from my personal experience, that has never been the case. Yes the girls want to express themselves through clothes, but every time someone said ""You look slutty in that outfit."", the girl who it was being directed to would blush or try to shrug it off.

The whole film was predictable, and I found myself saying ""How much longer till she gives the baby to the blonde teacher and her husband?"" The only part remotely enjoyable about it was the actress who played Jacey (awful name by the way). For some reason, I could not stop staring at her. Perhaps its because of her deep performance or perhaps the striking resemblance to Lindsay Lohan ala Freaky Friday. Those were the good IL' days...",0 "Well I must say that I have to add my two cents in on this one. I hate to be one to jump on the bandwagon, but in this case I just have to. This movie was horrendous!!!! So bad to the point where I actually laughed during parts where it should have been terrifying. No wonder Joan Collins has refused to even discuss this dreadful picture when asked about it. The storyline...BAD, the acting.....BAD, the direction....BAD, the special effects....REALLY BAD. I was surprised to see Robert Lansing in this film. He is a fine actor and I guess even great actors fall victim to insipidly idiotic pictures. This was made during the 70's, when disaster films and giant animal horror flicks reigned supreme. Can't find any redeemable quality about it whatsoever. My overall rating: 2. That's being generous, because I would have rated it a 1 if it weren't so hilarious.",0 "The dull, gray story of a Dutch girl(with no accent, mind you)who gets lost in the jungles of Bachman's floral..err..Tanzania. She is found and taken in by the most multi-ethnic 'native tribe' that I've ever seen, including a woman who looks like she put on too much bronzer before she went on set. These people seem to think that she's some kind of 'White Goddess', which is weird since they call the two meaty, wooden white guys who appear to rescue her white devils. These dopes crash in the jungle while looking for this girl, because there's a reward for finding her. One of them, a psychotic with a stupid pencil moustache, pulls out a gun and starts shooting. He kills one of the warriors, and is promptly condemned to death. Which he deserves, but that wouldn't further the plot, would it?

Not that much does. There are long, dry conversations and some tepid flirting between the Goddess and the less looney of the two men, although he manages to patronize her like crazy. Actually, she had managed to hold off the tribe doing her in by keeping up the white goddess front for over six years, plus she learned their language and kept a witch doctor at bay. Sounds like a pretty strong, smart girl, which is why Chunky McWhitey's smug condescension is even more annoying.

They finally all run away together, although why they didn't leave the psycho Snidely Whiplash wannabee behind is beyond me. He eventually tries to kill both of them, and gets stabbed by a warrior after he kills yet another of the tribesmen by 'accident'. The two protagonists get in the plane and fly away, and the woman makes dreamy comments about how when she gets back to civilization she immediately wants to buy a hat. A hat!? Gimme a break, lady!",0 "A magnificent adaptation of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, enhanced by the splendor of Rome at its full glory under Julius Caesar. Charlton Heston is at his best as Marc Anthony and makes you feel as if Shakespeare wrote the part for him. I have mixed feelings about the choice of John Gielgud as Caesar. There are times in the movie that he portrays Caesar well as the aloof dictator and others when he overacts as he does in most of his roles. Jason Robards is a fine actor, but not as Brutus, unless Stuart Burge intended to experiment with this role as a Spaghetti Western. Robard's dialogue is wooden. Robert Vaughn shines as Casca as does Richard Johnson as Cassius. Richard Chamberlain portrays well a self opinionated Octavius Caesar. The opening of the movie is a masterpiece of imagery and impact and one is plunged into the involvement of the triumphal entry of Julius Caesar into Rome and the aftermath. Why on earth there has been no DVD release of this movie beggar's belief.",1 "I am so tired of people applauding films just because they are old. This film out & out sucked. Not scary, not funny, not clever or good for 1 minute! Absolutely awful. An utter waste of time & I can not stand when people say to please not remake this. Why not? Worst case scenario it won't be as awful. I've heard about them remaking this and took advice to rent the original. To hear it was nominated at one time is unacceptable. Geesh. The same year Giant came out this actually graced that stage. I recommend you do not waste your time. save your money.Stay home and watch American Idol. The girl on that show would be more interesting.",0 "Wow, this movie was REALLY bad. I only wish I had seen it more recently so I could write down everything that bothered me. I think the biggest problem was Light. He's supposed to be tall, handsome and a complete sociopath. Something that Shuya can't manage to pull off- he's short, whiny, and seems to have an acne problem. I don't think I've ever seen a character so miscast in my life. On the plus side the actor who played L was excellent, certainly the only enjoyable thing in this movie. Also the CGI for Ryuk was very good, which means a lot because CGI always pisses me off (it always looks too fake for me). Basically, this movie raped the manga. Although it would still be a terrible movie even if you have no idea what Death Note is. You'd be much better off seeing the anime (which is excellent) or maybe watching ""L"" when it comes out next year, because the same actor is in it. And because Shuya isn't.",0 "The author of the excellent 'All Heads Turn As The Hunt Goes By', John Farris, wrote his version of 'Carrie' after that novel's success as book and film; it was called 'The Fury'. It also explored the subject of telekinesis (moving objects with the mind), but he stretched it over a broader, international canvas and threw a terrorism subplot, a fractured love story, an Argento-inspired school for cute, gifted girls, telekinetic rivalry, and John Cassavetes as an evil puppetmaster of troubled psychic warriors into the brew. Assisted immeasurably by John William's devastating, baroque score, Brian De Palma's film of Farris's screenplay is another example of stunning visual storytelling. Losing the direct Hitchcockian references, De Palma applies a harder, leaner style to the storytelling and creates a powerful work that is less fun than his later films, but no less compelling. As always, there are a number of stand-out sequences, and the stand-out sequence in this is Amy Irving's escape from the institute where she is being groomed for ""evil"" by the charming but twisted Cassavetes. Irving's flight into the street, shot in slow motion, is cinema at its purest, most transporting and erotic (Irving is wearing a nightie). William's scoring of this sequence is stunning. A carousel accident, orchestrated by ""evil"" psychic Andrew Stevens (in a chilling performance), has great entertainment value, and the liberal use of blood and bulging prosthetic facial veins goes a long way towards elevating this film to cult status. The finale, which features an exploding head (a pre-""Scanners"" exploding head, mind you) is simply bloody great.",1 "I found this movie to be of good light entertainment value, but it is a little below the standards I had come to expect of both Cary Grant and Irene Dunne. However, their characters are portrayed with natural ease and charm.

The movie is told with Dunne's character, a woman contemplating divorce, reminiscing on happier times with the record she first listened to with her husband spinning. I found this puzzling at the start, but I was merely irritated by the end.

There were a few bright moments of comedy, notably the first night of parenting their adopted child. But with elements of drama combined, I was confused when the movie continually lapsed into comedy, then back to tragedy.

Comedy was something, described in the words of Dunne herself as ""Too easy"". This is the first comedy performance of hers I have watched. However, I still prefer her dramatic performances in ""I Remember Mama"" and ""Anna and the King of Siam"". As for Grant, ""Bringing Up Baby"", ""The Philadelphia Story"", ""Holiday"" and ""His Girl Friday"" are much better value for your time.

I'd recommend this movie to audiences who appreciate good old fashioned romance. Just start with ""An Affair to Remember"" first. Rating: 7/10",0 "This was one of the runners-up for the audience award at the 30th Cleveland Int'l Film Festival. A really good story, excellent young actors and a good Indie ending leave you hanging and glad for the tension.

The story, told in a nearly complete flashback goes back to a pivotal summer in Erik's life. Many clichéd (and I don't say this to be mean) elements are brought into play, although since this is Sweden the ""forbidden"" pleasures are more in the perception of the American movie goer. The story holds together very well, with the various elements of the drama each contributing nicely to the plot and able to be the scrutiny of the viewer.

There's no chance taken in catching this movie. The screenplay is well-written and well-executed.

Oh, and watch out for the hammer!",1 """The Black Dahlia"" is a long, bloated, confusing, self-important, self-consciously artsy movie undermined by miscasting, absurd plot turns, naive symbolism, an utter disdain for history and laughable overacting that make Robert Towne's ponderous, plodding ""Chinatown"" sequel, ""Two Jakes"" (1990), look like a taut thriller.

The most marked difference between ""Dahlia"" and other classics of the more recent genre is that although ""L.A. Confidential"" is firmly planted in the 1950s and ""Chinatown"" takes place in the 1930s, De Palma's film has shallow roots ""once upon a time in Los Angeles."" Clearly, a movie nominally set in 1943-47 in which the lead characters attend a silent movie (""The Man Who Laughs, "" 1928--note that the characters are sitting in the balcony, which was reserved for blacks back in the ugly days of segregation. Oops!) has nothing but contempt for the past, which is reflected in a thousand ways, from male actors' scruffy haircuts and inability to wear hats properly to a laughable lesbian nightclub scene featuring K.D. Lang in top hat and tails singing ""Love for Sale,"" which rather than depicting the classic film noir era is most evocative of ""Bugsy Malone,"" a far more accurate film.

One can find fatal flaws in virtually every area of this movie with little effort—in fact the most difficult task in critiquing the film is remembering everything that's wrong with it.

First, there's Josh Friedman's dialog: ""She looks like that dead girl! How sick are you?""—not quite ""She's my sister and my daughter,"" is it? Then there's miscasting (at 31, Kirshner is much too old to play the 22-year-old Black Dahlia), opulent production design by Dante Ferretti (police officers lived like this on LAPD pay? Who knew?), music (Mark Isham in the entirely predictable ""cue mournful trumpet"" genre), odd costuming—Friday casual for the men, fall collection for the women—(Jenny Beavan), down to the crowd scenes, which are busy to the point of distraction. And I wish I had the cigarette holder franchise on this film. I would be a rich man.

Even special effects are misused, with an earthquake that serves no purpose except to underline an obvious plot turn. Granted, the overly complex story is almost impossible to follow, but in this instance, De Palma must assume the audience has an IQ of about 50. And unlike the shocking and painfully realistic nose-slitting scene in ""Chinatown,"" the far worse violence inflicted on the Black Dahlia is amusingly fake. If De Palma was hoping to make a slasher flick, he failed badly.

Nor does Vilmos Zsigmond's cinematography escape a rap on the knuckles for a ridiculous lesbian stag film (presumably made at a cost surpassing the combined budgets of all blue movies produced from the 1920s to the 1950s), and a self-conscious and overly elaborate shot in which partners Blanchard (Eckhart) and Bleichert (Josh Hartnett) engage in a shootout, followed by the camera slowly rising up floor by floor of an entire apartment building, proceeding to a befuddling shot of the building's roof before it at last discovers the Black Dahlia's body in a vacant lot in the adjoining block. As visual storytelling, this is a grandiose and miserable failure.

And then there's Fiona Shaw, who chews so much scenery that she must have been rushed to an oral surgeon to have the splinters removed.

For that matter—and perhaps this is what makes the heart of the film beat so faintly—there is very little of the Black Dahlia in ""The Black Dahlia,"" who only surfaces far into the picture.

In fact, the first 30 or 40 minutes are devoted to boxing matches between the two detectives, nicknamed ""Fire"" and ""Ice"" from the Symbolism 101 school of writing. (I know it's in the book, but that's no excuse).

So where is the Black Dahlia in this confusing mess? She exists entirely on film. Of course in real life, Elizabeth Short never got a screen test or even appeared in a school play, but De Palma gives her one and Kirshner, trying her best at the impossible task of acting 22, makes it as pitiful as possible with an intentionally miserable reading of Vivian Leigh's famous monologue from ""Gone With the Wind.""

The handling of the crime scene? Ridiculous even by Hollywood's lax standards. Vintage black-and-white police cars swarming the streets and detectives bellowing instructions like some shark-jumping 1970s cop show that any good investigator would already know. Ditto the morgue.

Then there's the contrasting love/sex scenes, and it's obvious De Palma hasn't a clue how to stage either one. The sex scene, between Harnett and Johansson, occurs in the dining room, when, overcome with passion, Bleichert rips away the tablecloth, sending dishes everywhere, and has his way with Lake. Isham's score is lushly romantic, an oddly contrasting choice of music, and amour like this is sure tough on the Havilland china and the Baccarat crystal.

The love scene, between Swank and Harnett, is just as amusing with Bleichert and Linscott having a little pillow talk while she's wearing nothing but huge pearl earrings and a long matching necklace with pearls the size of small onions, ensuring, I would imagine, a rather bumpy ride.

And about those crazy Linscotts. Bleichert knows exactly how to make rich people confess to murder: Use their valuable antiques for target practice. The last time I checked, police revolvers hold six rounds, so unless Bleichert was planning to fight off one of them as he reloaded I can't imagine what he thought he would do after his sixth question. Then again, not everybody can send a crystal chandelier crashing to the floor with one shot—some of us need two.

And while you're at it, Bucky, take out a couple of those clown paintings, please.",0 "The Public Enemy, along with Little Caesar and Scarface, set the standard for the gangster film. Though films about crime had been done in the silent era, sound was what really ushered in this particular genre. I've always maintained that musicals and gangster films are the only two movie genres that date from the sound era.

Of course this film about a young man's rise to prominence in the bootleg liquor business during Prohibition made James Cagney a star. Interestingly enough Edward Woods was originally supposed to be Tom Powers and Cagney was cast as best friend Matt Doyle. After some footage had been shot, Director William Wellman scrapped it and had Cagney and Woods exchange roles. Stars get born in many and strange ways.

Some critics have complained about Beryl Mercer's part as Cagney's mother, saying she's overacts the ditziness. I disagree with that completely. In the prologue section with Cagney and Woods as juveniles, there is a two parent household. The boys have a stern Irish father and a mom who'd spoil them if she could. The older kid who is later played by Donald Cook has more the benefit of the two family home and both influences. That and the fact that World War I leaves him partially disabled prevents him from thinking about the gangster trade. Cagney misses the war and is spoiled by mom.

I knew a woman like Beryl, in her own world with a stream of nonsensical chatter to keep out the reality of things. Her portrayal for me rings true.

Oddly enough in The Roaring Twenties Cagney is a veteran who enters the rackets because he can't get a legitimate job and its easy money.

Both The Public Enemy and Little Caesar are short films, edited down to the essentials so the viewer ain't bored for a minute. Warner Brothers sure knew how to do those gangster flicks.",1 "Stop me if you've already heard this one before: Six extremely annoying and unappealing college kids -- sassy blonde Rachel (Catherine Wreford), obnoxious, insensitive, and spineless musclehead Mark (a supremely terrible and insufferable performance by Alan Ritchson), sexy libidinous lesbians Atlanta (cute blonde Ashley Hawkins) and Liz (foxy brunette Tiffany Kristensen, who at least bares her breasts prior to getting bumped off first), bumbling nice guy Adam (decently played by Tom Nagel), and token black Sophie (Myiea Coy) -- on a cross country road trip run afoul of a vicious family of deadly and demented hicks after they get a flat tire in the middle of some nowheresville sticks. Gee, isn't that a remarkably fresh and inspired premise for a fright flick? Of course not, man! Director Edward Gorsuch, working from a pitifully trite and by-the-numbers cookie cutter script by Michael Hurst, manages to maintain a fairly brisk pace and delivers a handy helping of nasty gore, but crucially fails to create any suspense or spooky atmosphere. Worse yet, the main protagonists are so uniformly cardboard, irritating, and underdeveloped that one simply doesn't care whether they live or die. April Lang as deranged hag Ms. Mayhew, Bill Jacobson as hulking disfigured brute Franklyn Mayhew, and Annie MacKay as tongueless daughter Angel are reasonably creepy, but they still aren't anywhere near as scary and disturbing as the cannibal clan in ""The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"" (a horror classic that this crud shamelessly copies to the grating ninth degree). Dennis Smith's generic shivery'n'shuddery score, the headache-inducing blaring alternative soundtrack, the variable acting from an attractive, but charmless and unlikable cast, and one of those always unwelcome groan-worthy ""it ain't over yet!"" (non)endings all add further abject insult to already appalling injury. Hank Baumert, Jr.'s slick cinematography makes this schlock look much better than it deserves. A real dud.",0 "Yea sorry folks, but this movie did absolutely nothing for me. A friend of mine told me it wasn't half bad and I expected a good story and figured these actors would not have taken the role if it were bad. I was wrong on all accounts because the story left a lot to be desired, I mean If I had cared about the characters a bit more perhaps I would've like it.

Paltrow plays this girl who has taken care of her father for the last few years. Her father (played by Hopkins) was a one time mathematical genius who went crazy. Taking care of her father has made her give up on a lot of her dreams including dropping out of college and she becomes a bit of a headcase herself. One of her father's admirers (Gyllenhaal) wants to go through his memoirs and writing in hopes of finding some sort of amazing proof.

Going through his work he finds himself getting closer to the truth and closer to proof that the craziness his teacher had was heretic and that insanity and genius are separated by a very fine line.

This movie was a nice change of pace from everything being spoon-fed to us in the theaters these days. I watched it and didn't hate it, but it was rather boring and even for a drama it still was a major let down. I cannot recommend it to anyone, the actors were great and that's about the nicest thing I can say about it, but these actors should've picked better roles and spared us all the load of crap that this movie is.",0 "This is my all-time favorite drama! The OST is absolutely amazing. The plot is captivating, the acting is outstanding, and the actors are well fit for their roles! This drama is so colorful and inspiring in every aspect, and it represents, especially to me a different Korea, a different way of life. The storyline displays Korean way of living in the 16th century, and emphasize an ancient culture. The culture of royal court cuisine, traditional medicine and outfits. Dae Jang Geum's determination, courage and kindness make her a model for imitation. A girl that becomes a woman, a chef, a first female royal physician and a mother despite all hardships. Min Jung Ho's devotion and faithfulness throughout the whole drama, make this to be one the best love stories ever!

If you have yet to watch this drama, make sure you do so!",1 I wanted to see this movie because I had read the book on which it is based and found the book impressive. I thought this was a great film and a great adaptation of the book. Its exploration of the almost entirely different worlds occupied by those fighting a war and those watching from a distance grabbed me from the first moment and kept me totally absorbed until the end of the final credits. I found it moving and thought-provoking in a way that nothing else has since I saw 'Molokai: The Story of Father Damien' a few years ago. It got me thinking deeply about what is really important in life and I can't ask for anything more from a movie than that.,1 "I don't know if this has a spoiler in it or not but I'm not taking any chances. I am probably wearing my feelings on my sleeve with this movie, too, as I am an adopted person myself. Don't know why I have watched this film more than once because I always get so mad~~~which is pretty silly. I hated that Gail's parents couldn't bring themselves to tell her she was adopted, how Gail's adopted mother told the birthmother that her other two children ""were their own"", Gail's look of icky disgust when her birthmother was lower-middle-class (Gail looked at the woman as if she had leprosy), the fact that the birthmother was portrayed as common, and the snippiness of both the adoptive mother and the 16-year-old sister. Of course, the father was a complete idiot. Had I been the housekeeper, I'd have poisoned the whole bunch of them except, well, cute little Natalie Wood.

Okay, so I'm a tad sensitive, so sue me. I know that few adoptees are as fortunate as I am to have found my birthparents and that they are wonderful people, and my half-siblings (well, most of them) are sweet and accepting. I have an adoptive mother I adore and who never kept my adoption secret; she is nearly 90 now and I worship the ground she floats above.

Anyway, movie plots back then were a bit different (gross understatement). For those not adopted, I guess it's a cutesy-pie little trip, but I hate this movie and this is the LAST time I will ever watch it!",0 "Aspen Extreme falls into the rare class of movies that gets worse with every scene. Literally, the first scene of this movie is the best one and it just falls off a cliff from there. Be warned though, that first scene really isn't very good. The dialogue and plot are poor. The acting belongs on the lifetime channel. If this movie is what extreme skiers do, then I'll stick to my day job. This looks to be good material for a 'bad movie' night with the guys, but its bad is boring. Also, how in the world can two skiers from 'hills' in Michigan be pro skiers on terrain they have never skied before arriving to try out to be ski instructors. I'm not an expert skier, but I know the hills here in Arizona are more extreme than those in Michigan.",0 "This film is utterly emotionally draining whilst being rewarding at the same time.

The animation is both realistic and stylized but that's not the point, the main focus of this film is the character development of the brother and sister protagonists. Their relationship is nothing short of beautiful and touching.

And without spoiling anything I have to say that this film touched me in a way no other film has ever touched me in my adult life. One or two films have upset me and reduced me to watery eyes but Grave of the Fireflies had me in fits of sobbing despair. I was a mess! I'm talking total emotional breakdown. Couldn't talk without sobbing! One of the best films I have EVER seen, animated or not.",1 "

Apparently, Disney has the technology and the money to make the most digitally enhanced movie we have ever seen. In the first five minutes of ""Dinosaur,"" Disney tries to impress us by showing everything they can do with their computer generated effects. And let's face it, that's the only reason we saw this movie in the first place (at least those of us without kids).

But it's not the special effects that make a great ""special effects"" movie, and in the long run, ""Dinosaur"" will be forgotten among such landmark films as ""2001: A Space Odyssey,"" ""Star Wars,"" ""Jurassic Park,"" and ""Toy Story."" These movies combined creative ideas with special effects, and are now lodged in our cultural memory.

""Dinosaur"" exhibits no creative thought. It's pretty much the same story as ""The Land Before Time,"" only this go-round we're dealing with digital dinosaurs. Beyond being unoriginal, the story is weak: it's about a herd of dinosaurs trying to find their ""nesting area."" Everything that happens along the way has been done before and done better. Even the celebrity voices suck (D.B. Sweeney?). Particularly bad is the comic relief, which comes in the form of horny, yet unattractive monkey (I know it sounds funny, but it never is). The movie is oddly short (about 75-80 minutes), for which I suppose we should be thankful.

One comment about the special effects: they're great, but are they any more ""realistic"" than ""Jurassic Park's"" dinosaurs? Spielberg wanted to show us what dinosaurs actually looked like millions of years ago. In ""Dinosaur,"" we see a bunch of generic dinosaurs who make ridiculous facial expressions. The monkeys also make crazy faces from time to time. My point here is that while the animals certainly don't look like cartoons, they don't look ""realistic"" either.

Bottom line: ""Dinosaur"" is as interesting and creative as its title. Most people won't like it, with the exception of kids who get caught up in the craziness. Parents should note that this is not a traditional family movie (it's rated PG for violence). Hopefully, in the next couple of years, studios will use the technology of ""Dinosaur"" to make quality movies that we'll enjoy after the first five minutes.",0 "One of the very best boxing films of the 1930's and early 1940's and very definitely much better than the 1947 remake with Mickey Roony as ""Killer"" McCoy. Robert Ryan looks like a light heavyweight and it looks like he can actually throw a punch. As a boxing fan I look for a sense of reality in the fights, and this film has it.

However, the best part of the film are the performances, especially Frank Morgan (the wizard in the 1939, Judy Garland version of ""The Wizard of Oz""). Other notable performances are turned in by a young Lionel Stander as the killer's trainer (TV fans will remember him from Hart to Hart). Young and handsome Eddy Arnold is excellent as the gambler/manager. Maureen O'Sullivan carries off the role of the young, college girl love interest with the same innocence she displayed when she broke into films 9 years and 39 films earlier. It's quite a contrast to the more adult roles she was playing at the time.

Director Richard Thorpe captures the atmosphere of the boxing ring and the gambling world quite convincingly. His attention to detail and experience (this is his 120th film) are quite evident, though necessarily the most imaginative. While the film IS superior to the 1947 remake, the director of that film, Roy Rowland, does a much better job of showing the crowd's blood lust in the 8th round of the final fight.",1 Excellent film. Shows the realities of abortion and the trials and tribulations of the women who had to endure these situations. True to life and accurate depiction. Hopefully will help others to understand why some women choose to abort. It is not a decision made lightly or without conscious. And the film depicts how important it is for abortion to be legal. How even when it is illegal it still happens.

Very educational. A definite must see. Especially for those unsure of how they feel on this issue.

Excellent casting. Very emotional plots.,1 "From the opening music, I was engaged. By the first song, I was loving it. By 'Be Our Guest' I was dancing. By 'Beauty and the Beast' I was crying, and by the end reprise I was happy again. I challenge anyone who dares say that this film doesn't contain everything a musical needs: a touching romance, an evil villain prepared to ruin her romance, fantastic songs and an award winning score (very deservedly), believable characters with no wooden voicing (Angela Lansbury singing absolutely beautifully) and how many decent films have been made into a successful Broadway musical? Only with Alan Menken, Howard Ashman (and a little help from Tim Rice). It is also a dawning, as this is the only villain in any film that I have fallen in love with. Gaston rocks, and if he was real, I would marry him without a doubt. I don't care if he is an animated character: Gaston is a very, very, VERY sexy tenor, and if no one else is attracted, then you can go to hell!",1 "PRC was just about the last studio on poverty row. Expectations for one of its productions were about rock bottom, and for the most part this exploitation quickie lives down to that well-earned reputation. The sets are cheap and few, the script darn near incoherent, the lighting and camera work fit for a bat's cave, and the acting wildly variable. Actually, some of the performances are pretty good-- Dawson and Loring are believable toughies, while Carlson and her swain come across as genuinely nice kids. However, D'Orsay's French accent is about as good as mine, at the same time Bovard's silliness is enough to make you reach for a stick.

One reason to check out a dead-ender like this is for its glimpse of teenagers past, that is, of how Hollywood framed teens during the stressed-out war year of 1944. Note how much of wanton teen behavior is blamed on the parents. Much of that behavior is obviously hyped for exploitation purposes (the gun battle, the stick-up), but the question of responsibility remains valid. What surprises me is that there is no mention of the war that was still raging in 1944. Youth Runs Wild, a more serious RKO teen film from that same year, shed a lot of light on how gas rationing and 24-hour factory shifts, for example, affected young people's behavior. None of that here. These youths and their parents appear to exist in an historical vacuum, and I'm not sure why. Maybe the producers thought war concerns would complicate the titillating plot. Whatever the reason, the only value to scoping out this ultra-cheapie is curiosity for curiosity's sake.",0 "Disturbia tells the story of a teenage boy named Kale who is sentenced to three months house arrest after punching a teacher in the face for making a comment about his recently deceased father. When his mother takes away his TV and his computer, he resorts to spying on the houses surrounding him. Things begin to get frightening when he begins to suspect one of his neighbours is a serial killer. He gets his friends involved with his impromptu investigation, and soon the neighbour realizes he's being watched...And he's not too happy about it. Disturbia is loosely based off the 1954 Alfred Hitchcock classic Rear Window, but it is still a film all in itself, and it is the best thriller I've seen in a while.

What makes this movie better than most horror movies that are released today is that is doesn't rely on excessive gore and gross out tactics to frighten you. It relies on mood and suspense, and that works so much better. As the film went on, the tension got so high that I was literally on the edge of my seat rubbing my hands together because I was so anxious to see what was going to happen next. I actually felt the adrenaline rush that the characters in the film must have been feeling when they were snooping around in the neighbour's garage. The movie has a realistic feel of how creepy it would be to have a serial killer living across the street from you and you had no way to prove it. Everything in this movie is done well. The writing, the directing, the way it all pans out. I was actually shocked when I left the theatre over how good this movie really was.

The acting was very good from everybody involved. Shia LaBeouf has come a long way from Even Stevens. Something tells me that he has a nice career ahead of him. David Morse is perfectly sinister as the neighbour. He's just one of those actors that you might not know who he is to hear his name, but he pops up here and there and you always say, ""Cool, it's that guy."" Overall, this was an amazing thriller, and I'm glad I went to see it because I really wasn't expecting that much. It leads me to wonder why Hollywood continues to pump out absolute garbage like the Saw trilogy, Hostel, and Dead Silence when they could be making movies like this instead.

8/10",1 "This movie seemed a lot more like an episode of the x-files than anything that would compare to the first film. This film lacks the emotional conflicts of the first and the direction, lighting, and special effects are lacking in comparison and in general. Pumkinhead II is a mediocre movie whose flaws are accentuated by comparing it to the original.",0 "The fact that anyone would honor that traitor is preposterous. This woman visited servicemen being held prisoner in Vietnam.

The following is an excerpt from a popular urban myth website:

In July 1972, Jane Fonda visited Hanoi, North Vietnam, and began a 2-week tour of the country conducted by uniformed military hosts. Aside from visiting villages, hospitals, schools, and factories, Fonda also posed for pictures in which she was shown applauding North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, was photographed peering into the sights of an NVA anti-aircraft artillery launcher, and made ten propagandistic Tokyo Rose-like radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as ""war criminals"". She also spoke with 8 American POWs at a carefully arranged ""press conference,"" POWs who had been beaten by their North Vietnamese captors to force them to meet with Fonda, deny they had been tortured, and decry the American war effort. Fonda apparently didn't notice (or care) that the POWs were delivering their lines under duress or find it unusual that she was not allowed to visit the POW camp itself. She merely went home and told the world that ""(the POWs) assured me they were in good health. When I asked them if they were brainwashed, they all laughed. Without exception, they expressed shame at what they had done."" She did, however, charge that North Vietnamese POWs were systematically tortured in American POW camps.

When American POWs finally began to return home and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should ""not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars."" Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was ""laughable,"" claiming: ""These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed."" The POWs who said they had been tortured were ""exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest,"" she asserted. She told audiences that ""Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers"" who are ""trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to the law.""",0 "I still like this film. It has some grievous over-acting by Garbo as a ballerina on the skids. But the film works for all that. Grushinskaya has passed her prime as a ballerina, and her world weariness masks her awareness that her days of international greatness are over. She has nothing to look forward to - in fact her position is not that different from Anne Bancroft in THE TURNING POINT, who can teach ballet, but has no family life to comfort her like her old friend/rival Shirley MacLaine does.

She momentarily does get a shot for happiness in retirement: she meets Baron Geiger (John Barrymore) and finds he would be able to satisfy her. And he finds she would be fine for him. But his problem is he is broke, and owes his criminal partners for the money that set him up in this great hotel in Berlin. He has to pay them back - he was going to steal Grushinskaya's jewels, but he won't do that now.

GRAND HOTEL is like that, every time you watch it. It was written in the aftermath of World War I, and keeping that in mind you see the fractured bodies and lives that are colliding in the hotel. Lewis Stone, for example, is the man who makes the famous statement about ""nothing ever happens"" at the conclusion of the film. His Doctor Otternschlag is the hotel doctor, and is not very observant (by the time he makes the comment a murder has occurred in the hotel, and he is unaware of it). His face is scarred by a gas attack in the war. The war has probably made the doctor relatively quiet - and seeking quiet as much as possible. Hence his blindness. Wallace Beery is Preysling the textile manufacturer who is there for a big business conference and is facing bankruptcy - as was all of Germany (which had terrible inflation in 1923, due to war reparation and debt). Geiger's Pre-war cushion of wealth and position were swept away with the Hohenzollern dynasty in 1918. He was unlucky enough to survive his world, and most of his friends. And the small fry in the film: Kringelein (Lionel Barrymore) and Flaemchen (Joan Crawford) find their futures in considerable doubt too. Lionel is dying (we are never quite sure of what, but it sounds like it's industrial related - he works for Preysling's firm), and Crawford is aware that secretaries are a dime a dozen and needs to better herself - even if it means sleeping with the likes of Preysling. One can also add Senf (Jean Hersholt) who has to stay at his hotel job, while his wife is facing a dangerous childbirth which is worrying him to death.

The collisions between the characters is fascinating too, as the Pre-war standards of social class is up in the air now. Preysling is aware of his feet of clay but he is still known as a big textile manufacturer to the public. So he is not deeply impressed by John Barrymore's Baron, but every time they confront each other, the Baron's superior breeding outshines Preysling's pompous bluster. Kringelein too is confronted by Preysling who thinks the bookkeeper's appearance at that expensive hostelry suggests embezzlement. Kringelein not only shows that he is not in a position to be threatened by police or discharge, but adds that Preysling's blunders are such as to have merited being fired if he hadn't been boss. Preysling does make a kind of headway with Flaemchen but it is only on a cash basis - she really is far friendlier to the Baron and Kringelein.

GRAND HOTEL had been a major Broadway stage success when it was acquired by MGM. Preysling was originally played by Siegfried Ruman (later Sig Ruman) and the Baron by Albert Van Dekker (later Albert Dekker). Neither ended up in the MGM production, though both had distinguished film careers later on. The producer of the film was Paul Bern, who would be found dead in his home in 1932 just before the final cut was made on the movie. This is not the spot to analyze whether Bern was a suicide (officially he was) or was murdered by his wife (Jean Harlow) or some other person (a previous wife who killed herself a day or so afterward), but it led to Bern's friend and mentor Irving Thalberg completing the film as producer. Neither man's name is on the credits. However, Bern's hand is on the film - including the casting. He would have been facing a great producing career if he had lived.

The most notable thing about the leads is that (except for Garbo's Swedish accent - here as a Russian ballerina) only Beery tries a German accent. It comes and goes, unfortunately, but Beery's lost bull in the china shop performance is good enough not to be harmed by it. Preysling is a weak man, who married the boss's daughter to get ahead but lacked the brains to keep the firm going. In the end he has to lie to try to survive his conference with rival Tully Marshall. Unfortunately he cannot control his passions and anger.

It is said on this thread that Buster Keaton was supposed to play Kringelien. Presumably his alcoholism prevented it. But Lionel Barrymore gives a good accounting as the dying man. Yet Buster actually liked the idea. He tried to create interest in a comedy to star himself, Edward Everett Horton, and Marie Dressler called GRAND MILLS HOTEL, set in the ""infamous"" flop house in Manhattan. The same blending of the film's plots would have occurred. It never got beyond the drawing board. Laurel & Hardy would have been in the Tully Marshall and Wallace Beery roles, as button manufacturers who are trying to make a contract. Pity, it might have been a good comedy.",1 "In 2001, this made for TV movie aired on Lifetime (naturally). It stars Harry Hamlin (from Clash of the Titans and LA Law fame) and his real life spouse Lisa Rinna as a couple dealing with sex addiction and how it is destroying the family. Cameron Thomas is a family man who is hiding a big secret- he's obsessed with sex. During the course of the movie, he shamelessly indulges in phone sex, picking up prostitutes and sex with strangers he just met at the airport. Now, in today's society, sex is everywhere. It's on television, it's in the movies, it's in the lyrics to songs. It's very hard to accept or believe that a love for sex is a major problem or a severe disorder. But it is. It's nymphomania and it's not good for you since anything in excess doses is not good for you- whether it's food consumption, drugs, alcohol etc. In the case of Cameron Thomas, he finds that his addiction to sex, pornography, etc, is destroying his marriage and even his life. Perhaps this is Lifetime's way of making a point about married men and sex addiction. It's ultimately more fatal and destructive for a married man to be addicted to sex while he is supporting a family. But I think it can also be argued that single men are in danger too. AIDS, and even if protection is used, the dehumanizing effect of sex, the detachment from any real feelings. The hardest part to watch is how distant the couple is getting. His selfishness, and it is selfish to be a sex addict while being married with kids, is consuming him and further tearing down the ties of family bond. He doesn't spend time with his son, or daughter, and he is neglecting his wife, who, if anything, ought to be the object of his obsession.Harry Hamlin makes a fine performance, getting so deeply into the character that one thinks maybe Harry Hamlin himself knows first hand about the problem. LOL He is married to Lisa Rinna, who plays his wife in the movie, and it was also their idea to present this film to other couples to enlighten them on the subject. They make a fine team, Lisa Rinna and Harry Hamlin and it's great to know Harry Hamlin is a faithful husband and great dad. Lifetime makes good films, really, but if it gets too over-dramatic its only to prove a point, this time being that sex addiction/nymphomania is just as bad as any major disease of the mind.",1 "Bruce and Michelle play the part of almost everyone who has been married. The tug and pull of everyday life separates them from each other, but mostly from their true feelings about each other.

The truth is, based on the Hollywood mythical marriage created for oh so many years now, everyones marriage is terrible. What our couple are able to sort out at the end is that no one is perfect and by looking at yourself through your partners eyes can be a revealing and frightening thing. If you can face it, there is a future in your relationship. If you can not, you may have to move on.

This movie will be mostly lost on the younger crowd, simply because they have not experienced the problems the forty something and above audience have been through. However, it is a film they may go back and see once they have been there and down that. When I think about it, Rob Reiner (aka Meathead) has been expressing the thoughts and concerns of our generation for a number of years now. He is very good at it.",1 "BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is one of the greatest Disney films to ever grace audiences. A personal favorite, the story of Beauty and her growing love for the Beast is one that people have enjoyed through the years, from the theater to Broadway.

I first saw Beauty and the Beast when I was a little girl, around the time that I watched the other Disney classics. And, like I did with the others, I fell in love. The stunning animation and soundtrack coupled with the captivating story kept me in my seat till the very end.

This movie is thrilling, with it's message of how love can happen even if the people in question aren't incredibly beautiful. Although the idea of the Beast changing to a prince doesn't sit well with me-- Beauty fell in love with the animal, not the man-- the film is a treasure from Disney.",1 "I know a lot of people on here gave this movie a bad review, but when I read those the only words going through my head are ""What the f**k???"" Geez, people. Don't you get it? The point of this movie is to be a spoof of all the other lame ones, but to be enjoyable because it's not really one of those at all. I mean, it is (but only because it's spoofing...SPOOF-ING!), but it has a good sense of humor and tone to it. I couldn't get enough of the dog. I taped it back in...probably 6th grade, and I'm planning on watching it tonight!!! I really enjoy this movie because, who can't love a dog with such a human-like character to him? Hmm??? And the people he meets along the way too, haha. It's great. It's a great comedy, I love the part where the crooks are trapped by the police and they realize all the hostages are gone, so they look at Bingo and in the next scene they grab the dog and say ""one move and the dog gets it!""...well, it's funnier in the movie. But it's definitely worth the watch. I mean, if you keep an open mind and don't act like the rest of these dufuses who probably started the movie with a negative response and kept with it not even WANTING to enjoy it. Geez, give it a chance. And even if you don't like it, I think it was worth the experience. Either way there are funny parts in the movie. Has Lassie ever gone to jail? Has Willy ever been to a place where they serve killer whale meat on the menu?????? Well, have they?! No. So watch it because it's a SPOOF, not just ""another"" one of those movies. It's great for everyone...except for angry men, and bitchy women.",1 Man this movie was so great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I laughed the entire movie and after 4 times of seeing it i keep laughing. Even though it's a comedy movie the story line is pretty good.

Very Highly Recommended!!!!!,1 "This movie starts off OK. The book it is based on is a classic, the design work is interesting, the special effects are pedestrian by today's standards but perfectly adequate. Then they started changing things in nonsensical ways. Extra plots and sub plots are added, Verne's original novel emphasising exploration is set aside in a convoluted story that involves revenge, father/son conflicts, bionic limbs, and an attempt to make all the fault lines on the planet go off at once.

I stuck through with it to the end, but I wish I hadn't. Avoid this one.",0 "I saw this movie when it came out. A great story about 3 surfers growing up in California. When it made the rounds on HBO back in the early 80's, I made it a point to watch it every time. There is nothing like sitting on your board waiting for the perfect wave.......A cult favorite of mine!",1 "Just the name of Dr. Bones in the title gave me a shutter, but not in the direction of being scared but of the movie being a complete waste of time. Believe me, if you watch this sad example of a movie, it is a total waste of time. Some of the worst makeup on actors/actresses and I use that term jokingly. The worst effect of someone being electrocuted that I have ever seen. A plot of dead zombies and living zombies which are controlled because of music? I guess the movie was about the dead, and there is no doubt that even the living in the movie were just as dead as this movie is. Skip it and watch another bad movie, ""Plan Nine from Outer Space."" At least in Plan Nine it is funny!",0 """Plan 9 From Outer Space"" is a brilliant accomplishment compared to this piece of crap. Whatever possesses some people to write reviews saying this movie has merit is beyond me. Whenever the discussion of the worst movie of all time comes up, I immediately think of this film ""Suture"". Some movies are so bad, they leave a vestigial imprint on your memory cells which one wishes could be obliterated. This is such a film. The visual imagery of having two individuals exchange identities, and then no one notices, is absurd. Nothing hangs together throughout the film. The script is preposterous. The miracle is the fact that funding was obtained, a greater miracle that the film was produced, unbelievable that copies are out there for you to rent, and mind-boggling that some people like it.",0 "At film festivals there are times when one is forced to watch absolutely bad films.This happens as a particular time slot is booked for a bad film.If there are no other films on other slots,one is inevitably forced to experience a lousy film.This is also the case with British film called ""Rag Tale"".I encountered this film in 2006 at Women's International Film Festival Film de Femmes Creteil,France. There are many reasons why Irish director Mary McGukian must be blamed for making an absolutely bad film.This is a film which does not make any sense.No one knows for sure whether it is a thriller or a drama.The acting is so horrible that one can claim that at any given day amateur theater actors would give better performances.Malcolm Mcdowell has been wasted in this film.He appears as an actor who is forced to work beyond his glorious days.American films would be a great choice if somebody has to watch better films about print journalism.Rag tale is a silly story which has neither head nor tail.",0 "I've been a fan of Crash since I was 7 and when I was 13 and saw this game I thought it was going to be a breath of fresh air ever since Naughty Dog no longer was in production of this game. When I started playing this game I (at first) liked it but as I continued onward I realized I was wrong. The game-play is common sense like, not challenging but can be at times aggravating because it can get hard and repetitive. The music was catchy the first two or three times you listen to it but can also be repetitive and annoying after a while. The plot is stupid, I learned that Corty and bandiman should NEVER work together. This game is really not for kids due to the adult references it make sometimes but most of the dialogue is stupid tedious retarded bathroom and cheesy pop culture references which you sometimes HAVE to sit watch since they won't let you click off it. Another thing that annoyed me was the fact that Aku Aku SUX at protecting you he's says he will but when you walk into those TNT/Nitro boxes (even if you have three masks) you will DIE!!! Which is stupid, I don't ever recall any Crash game doing that. In other words you can EASILY die in this game!!!! The Characters suck!! Crash-Nothing more than a silent retarded unaware idiot Cortex-He really convinced me that he was some scary cross-dressing gay idiot! The Niece-They seriously jumped the shark when they introduced her to the game!! I hate her that stupid creepy emo brat!!! That's as far as I want to go into these characters I don't want to talk about the rest!! The only thing I like about the game is the graphics. That's IT!!!

People if you come across this game avoid it and walk away.... R.I.P. Crash Bandicoot 1996-?2001/2004(by the way the crash series may be dead again once they release Crash of the Titans!)",0 This is without a doubt the worst film i have ever seen. It is so pants. The story makes no sense. The characters have no emotion. The acting is the worst i have ever ever seen. The main character is a muppet. Why does he constantly have to have a bloody shirt on? What the dickens is that muskeeter lizard thing. I hate this film i hate it HATE HATE HATE.

give this film a well desrved 1/10,0 "This movie has a slew of great adult stars but fails to get you interested in a way an adult film should. Among all the stars you couldn't get your kicks from any of the scenes. The movie is shot in a dream like middle age set which is embarrassingly cheesy. The acting is worse than Keanu Reeves, the sex scenes are as exciting as listening to your neighbor talk about their kid in college, and the dialogue is the worse I have seen in a movie. The plot also was worse by ten fold. I'd stick to the amateur route. The audio commentary was useless since it's a skin flick but even then that was bad too. Unless your a diehard Jenna Jameson fan there is little here. 4/10",0 "Great fun for adults and children alike. I wore out my video copy by pausing during the stop motion animations to find the hidden subliminal messages in most of them. No satanic messages, just feel-good thoughts.",1 "Worst. Movie. EVER!!

Nothing much more to say really. Just bad. This is my personal opinion of course, and I really did try to see god things in it. I just couldn't find them.

The plot stinks. The actors don't even try. The special effects are so bad they would make any decent grandma cry. The music has as much of a mood making in it as a fridge.

My advice? DON'T BOTHER!!!

Go rent or buy another movie. And if you're here to see if the TV movie of the night is for you, and it's called KILLER ANTS, then just turn off the TV and find a good book. Or go visit a friend.",0 "I just have to say that this movie SUCKS!!!!!! The storyline is stupid. The effects are bad. Bad. The 'scary' shadow looks like the spray paint you can use on the simple computer drawing program Microsoft Paint. Wow.... I don't particularly like scary movies, that's true. I was kind of nervous about seeing this, but it wasn't creepy at all!! I simply didn't believe in it for one second. Yes, the story is meant to be surreal, but it needs a certain credibility anyway! The only creepy part was actually 'hero' or whatever Vassey. Not the shadow builder or crazy man or anything.",0 "I have to say this because I almost made the fatal mistake of classifying this movie with the sentimental, depressing, and whiny ones, based on the little I'd heard about it. Call me prejudiced, which I am (and thank goodness, this wonderful film cured me of some of those symptoms), but at first, the idea of watching a movie about a girl and a pair of Siamese twins was not that appealing. It took some recommendation from friends whose opinions I value highly to overcome those inhibitions and to decide to brave whatever disappointment might come out of this venture. I now thank those friends for the good and true word.

The beautiful Penny (Michele Hicks) tells her friend that somehow the Falls twins were not ugly, and I couldn't agree more with her: the Falls brothers, with their neat dress and meek manners, are simply adorable. The strong bond uniting them is another attraction (anyone on especially close terms with their sibling(s) would understand this). I found it shocking that Penny's lawyer should think it rude that the twins should whisper constantly to each other; for me, it showed an intimacy that couldn't be imitated by anyone else, and beyond the reach of any convention.

The Polish brothers have done an inimitable job; some of the details would never have occurred to one who has grown up on her/his own. And it was nice to see quite distinct personalities developed for each of the Falls twins that went beyond their talents/interests.

Focusing on this kind of specific peculiarity might be what gives this story such an expressive power, to make us think about the various kinds of being ""different"" or relationship in general. On this other hand, it is a shame that the subtler overtones of the story can easily get buried because of this very focus, and scare some ""fun""-loving people away.

I later read an interview about the movie and the creators' account of some of the imagery and the design of the movie, but such explicit detailing has taken away some of the charm I had felt for what I had believed were natural/innocent things, rather than improve my opinion of the movie. So take this advice (although it might already be too late if you're reading this) and go see it for yourself, before exposing yourself to anything that could disenchant you! I promise that you won't be disappointed.",1 "Based on a book by Bret Easton Ellis, this film deals with exactly what one word expect from Ellis: the 'decadent' 1980's. We follow various members of the (mostly) upper-crest socialite establishment as they engage in (unprotected) sex, drugs & rock and roll. On the other side of the spectrum is Peter, a low-life hit-man (Mickey Rourke, fresh from his award winning turn in ""The Wrestler"")

The biggest flaw is the film's trying (in vain) to make the movie adaptation (somewhat) cohesive when the book was anything but. It doesn't help matters that none of the characters are sympathetic or even relatable in any way, shape or form. They're are pretty much empty vessels, which I guess is the point, but the film just comes off as a bland retread of similarly narcissistic vacant slice-of-(decedent)life fare. It's all style and no real substance to speak of (except of those taken by the various characters obviously)

Eye Candy: Amber Heard & Valentina Garcia bothshow T&A (Amber multiple times); an extra shows T&A and a quick shot of muff

Eye Candy for the ladies:Austin Nichols bares his bottom; Mel Raido shows his ass & goes full frontal as does Jon Foster; and a couple extras show ass

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: Director & cast commentary; 'Human Intersections: Making the Informers' featurette; an ad for Blu-Ray; and trailers for Assassination of a High School President, Dark Country, Blood and Bone, Fire flies in the Garden, The Maiden Heist, Fragments, Dark Streets, The Human Contract, What Goes Up, Tyson, Rudo Y Cursi, Adoration, and Season Sets for Rescue Me & The Shield",0 "This one has quite an interesting cast -- Giancarlo Giannini of Lina Wertmueller fame plus loads of seventies dolls -- and nice decors, but it doesn't help. The script is bland, predictable and wouldn't have been accepted for any substandard TV show; the pacing is lame, and even the killings are boring -- a capital sin in a so-called ""giallo"", and another proof that director Paolo Cavara wasn't quite on a par with, let's say, Sergio ""Torso"" Martino. However, the opening scene is cool, clever and supersexy, including Ennio Morricone's perhaps most lascivious score: three minutes of style and foot fetishism that are unsurpassed in ""giallo"" history. After that, get ready for a huge disappointment.",0 "The concept behind this show is good, but the crappy writing, actors and sorry excuses for jokes threw it all away.

I just don't understand how things like this even make it on the air. Why are wonderful shows like ""Freaks and Geeks"" and ""Arrested Development"" even considered for cancellation? The acting is bad. Just plain bad. The ""jokes"" are a slap on the face for its viewers. The only reason I tuned in was for Liam Sullivan, whom I assumed would have more common sense than signing up for this. I hope he finds better work, because this show can not go pass its fourth episode.

And our protagonist, is just HORRIBLE.",0 "What an under-rated movie. Coneheads actually proves to be one of the funnier SNL sketch spin-offs. Not as humorous as the Wayne's World movies, but a far cry from the dreadful Night at the Rocksbury and other Lorne Micheals productions. Coneheads is full of cameos including Adam Sandler, Jon Lovitz and Tom Arnold and great small parts by David Spade and Chris Farley. The characters are truly likeable and the Conehead family is genuine. The ending partly tarnishes the rest of the movie, possibly a reason for low ratings amongst critics. However, with a majority of past SNL characters, Coneheads lives up to the the original sketches with Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin. Forget the critics and give Coneheads a second chance.",1 "Steve McQueen's The Hunter did not receive great criticism, but who cares!!! It was McQueen's last film. It was all about him. It was all about him doing what he does best(acting real, tough, and yet vulnerable) McQueen is one of the last old school action movie star who possessed such a qualities. Look at those modern action movie stars today, they have no character what so ever, and they are just superficial iron pumping bodybuilders who is not even athletic in actions. McQueen was perfectly cast as real life bounty hunter, Ralph, papa, Thorson. It was the perfectly portrayed as what real tough guy used to be like. It is sad for America that they just don't make them like McQueen anymore, I can only imagine/dream about how he would be developed as an actor if he didn't pass, and yet making The Hunter would be greatest thing for his last standing...... This move also features Old cowboys like Ben Johnson, Eli Wallach (co-star of The Magnificent Seven), beautiful Kathryn Harrold, and TV Roots, LeVar Burton. I really don't think McQueen could not ask anyone better than them.",1 "You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).

And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for ""Bushy Bill"" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.

What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking ""pay-dirt"" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of ""Aqua Velva"" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe ""Leaves"" the ""Island"" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!",0 "Blood Lake is, I'm sad to say a really quite bad film. In fact, were it not for the fact that I have seen some really, powerfully wretched films in my time I might be inclined to say that Blood Lake is one of the worst out there. Sadly though, I have suffered through some absolute abominations and so I actually found Blood Lake to be comparably watchable, its myriad flaws not proving as bothersome as they might. The first trouble that is instantly apparent is the weak, weak acting. I don't expect Royal Shakespeare Company standard work from a film like this but pretty well all the characters show the very barest minimum of commitment to their roles. Apart from the kid who plays young Tony that is, some young fellow called Travis Krasser or somesuch. Now Tony is (insert drumroll) perhaps the most teeth grindingly obnoxious, infuriating, angry making characters ever in one of these sort of films. He's a sex obsessed, lewd, crude and tedious little brat whose every word makes you want to reach into the movie and smack him in the face. Its hard to figure why he's even in the film with his equally young girlfriend, given that everyone else there is notably older and he stinks up the joint in spectacular fashion. He's so noxious its almost funny and his quest to get laid is more disturbing than any of th so called horror in this film. Speaking of which, the killing doesn't start properly till 50 minutes in or so and the lighting doesn't allow for any significant nastiness, though a couple of the kills are mildly satisfying in a rock bottom kind of cheapo style. Before that there is water skiing, card playing, occasional use of a typical but fun slasher score and some relatively rocking tunes by a group called Voyager. Most of which is redundant, but the sheer ineptitude and lack of point is somewhat comic in effect. There really is little going for this film, even by the occasionally barrel scraping standards of Eighties slasher films this is remarkably shoddy, about as accomplished as a cheap old home movie, but for enthusiasts of terrible films there are some bright spots. Not really recommended unless like me, your'e passionate about dreck.",0 "From half the team that gave us classics of the hippie and drug era, comes this suprisingly good comedy. Some sentiment, some romance, but al in all a lot of laughs. Cheech Marin puts in a solid performance as Rudy who gets accidentally deported. Daniel Stern is frighteningly good as the sleezy con-man who works just south of the border, and hires Rudy to do whatever little tasks he could come up with (and pocketing most of the earnings, and a share of Rudy's). Kamala Lopez is simply gorgeous as the El Salvadorian who becomes the romantic part of Rudy's stay in Mexico.

And what can be said about the Red Headed Girl in a Green Dress that you can't see in the opening scene.",1 "The worst horror(?) movie ever...AWFUL,AWFUL,AWFUL,AWFUL,AWFUL...I lost 2 hours of my life watching this unbelievably bad movie...A 5 year old kid could have directed it better,wrote it better,acted better...Avoid it at all costs...",0 "for the performance of James Cagney, and Dorothy Malone, alone. It is a trite saying, but they really don't make movies like this nowadays...Which is probably why everyone who has any interest in any decent film MUST have cable (or TCM, at least); This film was made in 1957, and has that un-pretentious quality to it, the sadness in Lon Chaney's real life, and his determination to be a Hollywood film actor.

While a previous reviewer has aptly pointed out, the make-up is amateurish, the details of Cagney's life are left out(especially with reference to his son, Creighton) this is still a good film which manifests the life of a struggling actor, and there is an amusing cameo with a young Robert Evans as Irving Thalberg, studio genius.

When I watch films like this, I wish we could go back in time to these days, the times of our parents and grandparents, it reminded of the premise behind Redford's ""Quiz Show""-there is a genuine feeling to it; The Hollywood studios were money-oriented, but the public was not bombarded with PR and tabloid trash; it seemed a romantic era where film stars would never consider doing TV commercials for Geritol or McDonald's.",1 "I must confess I am a huge Kim Ki-Duk fan, and have loved every one of his films. In my opinion Ki-Duk has directed 4 absolute masterpieces of modern cinema, Bad Guy, 3 Iron, The Isle, and Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring. Each of these films has gone some way to changing the shape, scope, style or accepted boundaries of modern cinema.

The Bow, however does not go to these lengths, but instead falls into the category of Ki-Duk's more eclectic and arguably more mainstream works like the Birdcage Inn or Samaria. This is by no means a bad thing as these are also great films in their own right.

Much like 3 Iron, the Bow has very little dialog, and much of the emotion is conveyed solely by glances, gestures or actions. This makes the film both more and less commercially acceptable to western audiences.

The Bow has re-confirmed Kim Ki-Duk as a modern cinematic maverick, an uncompromisingly original and visionary director.",1 This movie starts out that there is a maniac at a drive-in movie theatre that sneaks around and kills all these people while they are at a drive in. These detectives try to find the killer but only have one too many suspects. There are so many actors in this movie that can not act and are so terrible at acting their parts in this movie that it's hard to figure out who the killer is. So the detectives try to disquise themselves as a couple in order to catch the killer and don't do a good job at it. This movie is so stupid it wouldn't even be catagorized as a B-rated cheap budget classic. It's down right terrible!!! Avoid it!!!,0 "Here are ten reasons 2 watch this movie 1) You have done EVERYTHING in life so u are basically jobless.

2) You are an IMMESNSE fan of Hulk Hogan from his earliest days of wrestling n before u die u have 2 see whatever movie he's been in.

3) You want 2 know what is the meaning of 'gay'.

4) You always wanted see what a movie would look like if it was made by a 2 year old.

5) You have permanent brain damage n can swallow even the most disgusting piece of crap put in front of you.

6) You want 2 be a director and after watching this movie you have hope that if this piece of crap makes it , U have a better chance.

7) You hate yourself ( warning :After watching you'll hate urself more)

8) You love 2 point n curse at the TV

9) If you have the habit of crying at something funny n laughing at something serious.

10) If you're on he brink of suicide watching this movie will speed it up.",0 "If I had to describe The Haunting of Julia in one word, the word I would choose is 'boring'. The film is of the slow build variety, but that isn't the problem in itself - the problem is that there is never enough going on to keep the audience wanting to see what happens next, and therefore the film does drag on far too often. The story is rather derivative of many other films and focuses on a woman who has moved to London after losing her child. However, in her new home she is haunted by the ghost of another child. Mia Farrow takes the lead role and while she is undoubtedly an excellent actress; she isn't able to elevate this drab material much above the bottom of the barrel. The film could be said to be 'horror' because of the ghostly plot, but aside from a séance sequence, there aren't many shocks and scares and I'd say it's more of a supernatural drama. The Haunting of Julia does not benefit from an interesting atmosphere either, as while some attempt is made to build one with a musical score; it never really comes off. Overall, I'm not surprised at all that this film is not better known and gathering dust on an old video shelf is really where it belongs. I would not recommend anyone going out of their way for this!",0 "This movie hardly qualifies as a werewolf movie. You could take the werewolf out of the picture and basically be left with ""Clue"" as different character types (the actress, the doctor, and even the professor!) try to figure out who is killing the other guests within the castle...or in this case, who the werewolf is. I think one element pivotal to werewolf films is ""the transformation"" scene, and this movie robs its audience of this payoff. You don't really even need a budget to pull off some type of effect, but all this movie provides is a costume seen in close-up or in shadow, further removing the presence of the werewolf from this film. Even when the werewolf's identity is revealed, we don't get so much as a nifty contact lens effect or wry-fanged smile. Additionally distancing itself from the werewolf genre, the film isn't even scary. It lacks any real thrill or even gore. It's hard to stay interested as the film goes along because the characters we begin to sympathize with are each killed off in turn...which is fine as an element of surprise the first time it happens, but when it continually happens throughout the movie, the end result is that it distances the viewer and you're not left with much to care about. It really is, then, like a game of Clue, with about the same amount of depth, where characters are gradually eliminated one by one, merely for the sake of finding out who the killer really is, and not for suspense.

I will say that it's nicely shot, the acting is above par for a low-budget video release, and for what it is--a somewhat awkward mystery--I guess it's OK. But a werewolf movie, it's not.",0 "Few films i would describe as being a joy from start to finish. Maybe this is the only one. When things go bad they're never that bad for Gregory, okay he loses his place in the football team, but he's in love - who cares? And when he finally gets his dream date with Dorothy and is lead from pillar to post, by first one girl then another he takes it all in his stride. And why not...he's young, it's a lovely Summer's day in Cumbernauld...it's all there for the taking.

If this film doesn't make you smile, you either have no heart or the Scottish accents are put you off. Give them a chance, us Scot's folks flock, like the rest of the world to see films from the US - it's not that difficult. So go on, search this movie out...the esteemed critic Barry Norman has this great movie in his top 100 films of the century, furthermore it's the only post 70's UK film...so check it out.",1 "A movie that is truly a blemish on Bollywood. I saw it on the next day I saw ""Gulaam"" on TV. I kept wondering as to what prompted Vikram Bhatt to make a movie that made no sense at all. The opening sequence are straight rip-off from ""Matrix"" and ""Crouching Tiger...."". Once that is over, the picture takes turn for worse. The story line makes no sense, none of the actors seems to committed to the movie, comedy is crude and vulgar, music is torture to ears, and one can't help shutting of the VCR. I wonder what trash is imposed these days in name of entertainment.",0 "A great, absorbing silent film about a boy and girl who meet as adults and are attracted to each other. The man (Teh-en) is of a higher station than Miss Lim, played by the beautiful, gone way too soon Lily Yuen. You see the sweetness in her eyes and fall in love with her. His mom does not approve, since she is just a country girl, so the love becomes forbidden love. To be sure, films like this have been done since film began, but this is a great one. You just want these two to be happy. It is tragic, but also sweet and so well put together that it is absorbing and eminently watchable. If you thought you couldn't watch a silent film (much less one with subtitles), try this out. I saw it on TCM, but it is available on DVD. Really, its great.",1 "Having viewed ""The Lost World"" today for the first time, the predominant thing that struck me was the number of scenes that bore a similarity to ones in the original screen version of ""King Kong"". However Kong was released almost eight years later in 1933, which makes me curious as to how much an influence ""The Lost World"" might have been on one of my favorite movies of all time.

For starters, you've got the principal character Professor Challenger (Wallace Beery), who's convinced prehistoric dinosaurs exist in a section of the Amazon based on a notebook left behind by another adventurer, Maple White. White's daughter Paula (Bessie Love) survived an expedition there, though her father never returned. Challenger seeks funding to locate the missing White and prove that such creatures exist, but it would help if he wasn't such a nut. He goes completely berserk while making a presentation at the university when Edward Malone (Lloyd Hughes) reveals his identity as a newspaper reporter. Later he engages Malone in fisticuffs when the young man appears at his home to inquire about joining the expedition. Fortunately Malone has an agenda that appeals to Challenger, offering the financial backing of the London Record Journal in return for exclusive rights to the story.

Other members of the Amazon bound group include Miss White, Sir John Roxton (Lewis Stone), and Professor Summerlee (Arthur Hoyt). Roxton fancies himself a love match for Miss Paula, but the age disparity makes that more than a long shot as the young lady's reaction suggests.

The early stages of the trip offer a nice look at Amazonian wildlife, ranging from a jaguar and boa to a tree traveling sloth and a pair of adult spectacle bears that look more like cubs than the full grown animals they're said to be. Soon enough though upon arrival at the plateau where the original expedition traveled, dinosaurs make their appearance in quick succession. Heralded by a pterodactyl's appearance first, we're soon treated to brontosaurus, allosaurus and triceratops. For it's early use in movie history, the stop motion photography employed offers surprisingly adequate results. Considering that the film is eighty years old, it earns my appreciation for pioneering such a landmark technology.

For me, the movie offers what I'm sure are some unintentionally funny moments. There's a scene when a brontosaurus prepares to do battle with an allosaur, and curls it's upper lip in a manner that would do Elvis Presley proud. Somewhat later, one of the camp orderlies throws a flaming branch at an allosaur making a night time raid, catching it in his mouth to resemble it's smoking a cigar. And is it just me, or did reporter Malone bear an uncanny resemblance to Charlie Sheen?

It's my understanding that versions of the movie exist in varying lengths; the one I saw came in at just under an hour. As other posters have noted, there is a disjointed feel between scenes that cut quickly from expedition members to those of dinosaurs. My copy also offered an incessant upbeat piano soundtrack that didn't change tempo throughout the entire movie, somewhat disconcerting for those intervals of intense drama requiring a more somber or even a threatening tone.

King Kong fans will sit up and take notice of some amazing similarities between the films. A log bridge connecting sections of the Amazon plateau is knocked down, this time by a brontosaurus. Later, when another bronto falls off a cliff into a mud pool, Professor Challenger has the bright idea of capturing it and bringing it back to London. Once there, the animal escapes to create havoc in the city as fleeing crowds run for their lives. Too big and bulky to climb anything resembling the Empire State Building, it does the next best thing by falling through and collapsing the Tower Bridge.",1 "Little Britain is perhaps the biggest British comedy of the past five years, and rightfully so. The hilarious writing, tremendous variety of characters, talented actors and memorable catchphrases elevate this from a fun night in to a must see comedy show. Little Britain Series 1 was great, Series 2 was also great, but the usual comedy formula that third series screw the whole thing up (as it did to ""The Fast Show"") works on Little Britain, and we were let down by a rather disappointing Series 3 last year. The peeing lady (Mrs Emery) was about as welcome to the show as an assassin, and about as effective as a catflap in an elephant house. Neighbourhood Watch Leader Sid Pegg was just forgettable, and Desiree DeVere's (Bubbles' new rival) fat suit looked generally fake. However, there were some hilarious sketches, and Desiree was probably the best new character of Series 3. However, the third series will never be as loved by all as either of the others, but was better than The Fast Show's Series 3 by a long shot.

On the whole, Little Britain is a great comedy, and should be seen by all as a taste of how comedy should be. No series or even episode is completely bad, and beats Catherine Tate hands down. A must see! 10/10",1 "Cinderella III is by far the best Disney movie to be the final chapter in a trilogy. Most of the sequels and ""final chapters"" never have the chance to hold their own and try to be at least as good as the first, but this movie does it. We see the Stepmother turn more wicked than she was in the first film after she gets the wand. We see which step-sister is actually ugly and wicked. Anastasia's character really shines in this film. Though watching and dealing with Cinderella's newest problem, you also watch, laugh, and cry with Anastasia. You truly see what's in her heart and how she feels. I love the way she progresses and shows that though someone may come from a family of cold black hearts, that one person can still be warm and caring on the inside if given the chance. The Prince is given a new look on how sweet and kind he actually is and why he's ""Prince Charming"". The mice are lovable as always and almost even more and of course, Cinderella our Heroin... this movie deserves to be watched with an open mind. Yes, go and remember how the original story goes, but do not expect it to be as sugar coated, Cinderella III is for one that everyone will enjoy. When magic's involved... all bets are off.",1 This boring british video is long on talk and is really hard to figure out. It has something to do with experiments on mentally ill people and a drug that opens the mind to parasites from another dimension( I think). There are some bloody scenes that liven it up a bit but this movie is so slow and disjointed they don't help. Maybe a bigger budget and script rewrite would have helped.,0 "When le Dernier Tunnel failed to get important nominations at le Gala des Jutra ( Quebec's own Oscars ) Éric Canuel, director of Le Dernier Tunnel, said that the genre movies ( horror, thriller, etc. ) were not appreciated as more serious movies like The Barbarian Invasions. Well maybe so, but what Canuel is forgetting to mention is that his movie, genre movie or not, is one of the most uninspired thriller in years. I'm from Quebec so I already know all the actors in Le Dernier Tunnel and they are usually among the best ( like Michel Côté ) but Canuel's movie manages to make them look pretty stupid and artificial. Besides that the omni-present music is absolutely annoying, the camera work tries to be cool but only look clumsy and, worst of all, the ultra-conventional script and pretends-to-be-tough dialogues. So unless you've seen less than 10 movies in your life or if you are a teacher who wants to show an example of a bad bad movie stay away from Le Dernier Tunnel. One more thing: Quebec's critics rarely say bad things of Quebec's own movies because of the small market and that they want to protect themselves but even Le Dernier Tunnel got bad reviews so believe me when I say it's worst than bad !",0 "This movie was good nonetheless, but why wait 13 years to make another one? After waiting for about 5 years for a third movie after seeing parts one and two, I was kind of disappointed that I would probably not see another one, but after a 13 year wait, I finally got my wish. This movie didn't have the plot-structure as the first one which would probably hint as to why it was no where near as successful. It was good to see Dundee (Hogan) in a different venue other then the played out scene of New York. It was also good to see Hogan in another theatre release, since he really hadn't appeared in one since he starred with Elijah Wood in 1996's Flipper. Another person I was happy to see again was Sue's character played by Hogan's real-life wife, Linda Kozlowski. Even after 13 years she is still a very beautiful and attractive woman. With the release of this, I wouldn't be surprised if Paul Hogan tried to stay in the spotlight again by releasing a sequel to another one his movies. Lightning Jack 2 or maybe even a Flipper 2. That would be entertaining. Nevertheless, Paul Hogan remains my favorite Aussie actor.",1 "Yesterday I re-watched ""The Wedding Night"" (1935), this time with my wife who had never seen it before. For me it was like watching it all over again for the first time. I think that this happens with great pictures, like this one. She also loved the film and I felt so gratified by that, because sadly this type of quiet, sensitive films is not the kind of film which you can watch with anybody and can be fully appreciated as it should be.

I'm a fan of ""the Gary Cooper"" of the late '20s and 1930s, in my opinion some his best films were made around this time, before his definitive screen persona was established, especially in the early thirties. He gives a sensitive, balanced, nuanced, performance in a film that looks like a slice of life. His character is so unarchetypical, so honestly portrayed by him, that you get immersed totally in this beautiful love story. And this is no by chance, because the film was directed by the masterful King Vidor.

Praise must also go to the two actresses that vividly portray the two women in Cooper's life: the unjustly forgotten and underrated Russian actress Anna Sten and the equally unfairly forgotten actress Helen Vinson. Miss Vinson portrays without falling in the caricature, a shallow, but at the same time likable society woman, who thinks that life is a never-ending party and does not take marriage as seriously as it should be taken, realizing it too late. Miss Sten plays the naïve but strong-willed Polish woman who reluctantly at first, begins to fall for the writer portrayed by Cooper. The scene in which Cooper reads to her the first chapters of the new (autobiographical) book he is writing, is most telling in this aspect; because Miss Sten does not fall for the dashing, tall, handsome Cooper, but for his character's sensitiveness, feelings and emotions which she apprehends by means of this book in progress.

In short, none of the three principals of this story incur in stereotypical portrayals, which helped me to connect with their characters' emotions, with its virtues and flaws.

A wonderful experience, which with no doubt I'll repeat in the future, because this film deserves many viewings and is just my kind of film; a simple love story, unpretentiously directed, that does not aim at over sentimentality and does not fall into the maudlin which can ruin a movie, with superb, unaffected performances by the leads.",1 "Broken starts as single mother Hope (producer Nadja Brand) returns home after a date to her young six year old daughter Jennifer (Megan Van Kerro), after making sure Jennifer is alright Hope goes to sleep herself. Suddenly Hope wakes up to find herself in a wooden coffin, a day later a man (Eric Colvin) lets her out but then ties a rope around her neck to a tree & balances her on a log, inside a deep wound in her stomach is a razor blade to cut through the rope & save herself from choking, Hope manages to reach inside her own body to find the blade & cut the rope. After this first test the man then chains her to a tree & makes her clean his pots & pans & tend a little vegetable patch in the middle of a forest, as you would. Hope tries to escape but the man punishes every attempt. Is Jennifer still alive & will Hope be able to find help?

This British production was written & directed by Simon Boyes & Adam Mason who also edited it & it's a bit of an odd film, it's supposed to be a stark horror thriller but it just feels like something is missing. Available in the US in both 'R' rated & 'Unrated' cuts I will be basing my comments on the longer version although a few extra gore shots doesn't significantly alter the film overall. Broken is a strange film & hard to categorise, it starts off feeling like a Saw (2004) imitator with a gruesome trap of some sort but then it settles down into a bizarre imprisonment film as this seemingly random man keeps Hope chained to a tree in a forest so she can wash his dirty pans & grow vegetable's for him. Nothing is ever revealed about the man, his name, his origins or why he is doing what he is or how he even managed to kidnap Hope in the first place or why he choose her & the list just goes on. The two barely speak a word to each other & even then it's just short sentences, there's no idle chit-chat here as Hope develops a strong bond with a flower & the opportunity for a conversation with a flower is limited to say the least. You know, to be honest I was sitting there watching Broken & I was just thinking to myself when Hope slashed the back of that guy's leg but he still had her back didn't he realise things were not going to work out? I mean if he wanted a woman to cook & clean for you (who doesn't?) maybe he should try the lonely hearts ads in the local paper, & this time it might not be a bad idea to not actually kidnap & mutilate said woman, you know because that sort of thing generally doesn't help fledgling relationships does it? There's also a strange twist ending which makes little or no sense, why did that guy keep Jennifer in a run down shed? Surely that's an extra mouth to feed? Also when Hope was trying to break the door down why didn't Jennifer say anything? You know something like 'don't open the door mum or you will get a face full of nails' would have been helpful, wouldn't it?

Personally I felt the film was lacking something after an OK start & a fairly intriguing premise it goes nowhere & never gives any sort of reason for anything that happens or even where the action takes place. There's a bit of gore but not that much, there's a couple of scenes of people reaching inside stomach wounds, someone pulls some stitches out, there's a broken leg, someones head gets bashed in & a tongue is pulled out which begs the question how do none of these extreme wounds not become infected without proper medical treatment & they quite frankly live like tramps? Considering that Hope has been living wild in the middle of a dirty forest exposed to the elements her white shirt is remarkably clean at the end after forty odd days isn't it? Just off topic for a moment I have no idea why this film is called Broken but a quick IMDb search brings up at least another 38 films with exactly the same title.

With a supposed budget of about £500,000 this is well made & has decent production values but I didn't find it scary as much as a little unsettling. Filmed in some wood here in the UK in Cambridge somewhere although it could have been shot anywhere since one tree looks much like another. The acting didn't do much for me & that woman who screamed constantly got on my nerves, sure in that situation in real life you might scream that much but it's no less irritating to have to listen to.

Broken is a film that may grip & disturb some but the lack of story or logic behind anything that happens meant I couldn't get into it at all, that's just my opinion so treat it as such but Broken didn't do much for me & ultimately felt a bit pointless.",0 "I've seen this movie at the Rotterdam Film Festival. A man is searching for a women he has met six years ago. Her name is Sylvia. For this purpose he returns to the city of Strasbourg. The movie ranges over a period of 3 days. The man, while searching through the city, visits known places, sits in a cafè, observes his environment. He listens to the people, watches at them, almost staring at them, so that the audience even gets the feeling of being a voyeur. And people he is starring at even don't notice that he did so or just ignore him. I did not like this film. There is almost no dialog in this film. And the story line is very slow, too slow. It had the effect of a sleeping pill on me. I would not recommend it.",0 "OK just to get it out of the way I play D&D. Also I liked the First D&D movie (know well that it was going to be a bad ""B"" Movie)

That being said, THIS is what I was hoping for in the first one. This is a very good fantasy movie with good plot, acceptable acting and good FXs.

One thing that I really liked was that the writers actually looked into the game and took spells, gods and history right out of the books AND got it right.

There is cheese as there will be in any sword and spell movie but it was funny and fit the characters.

All in all I really enjoyed this file.

If your looking for a fantasy Sword and magic with Dragons movie this is for you.",1 "My friend and I saw Eddie Macon's Run at the theater when it was first released. I remember really liking it back then and I bought the video tape of it a year or so ago. I enjoyed it as much as I did when I was in my late teens. It contained action that had me on the edge of my seat with the good cop chasing the bad guy scenes, with a twist. It had some flirtatiousness, and was also a love story. There were parts where it kept you wondering what would happen next. It gave me so many different feelings throughout the movie; anywhere from being scared, sad, and angered to happy and relieved, etc. You can never go wrong with Kirk Douglas and John Schneider in the key roles.",1 "This is, as promoted, simply a nice story about a really good guy: a deaf mute who helps some people and, in the end, desperately needed someone to help him.

Alan Arkin is memorable as the deaf mute and Sondra Locke, in her first screen role, also shines as the second lead. A pity Locke was never given roles this meaty since then. Percy Rodriguez also is memorable here.

Since this is good storytelling, from a best-selling book by Carson McCullers, all the characters here stand out. It's not a fast-moving film yet it is an involving story in which the viewer winds up caring about these people. Yes, the ending is sad and shocking but, in this case, a good ending because it makes you reflect more on what perhaps you and I neglect to do: to remember that everyone needs encouragement from time to time, even the encouragers.

This movie a throwback to some of the nice films of the 1940s, except that, despite being rated ""G,"" there were several instances of profanity in here, including one usage of the Lord's name in vain. Still one for the whole family.",1 "I've had my fair share of experience with Jackie Chan films, and have come to learn that the stories in his movies do not make or break them. Rather, they're merely a backdrop upon which countless hand-to-hand fights and slapstick humor are placed, and while they're not necessarily thought-provoking, they are by no means a waste of time to individuals who enjoy more intellectual entertainment.

But with ""Twin Dragons,"" it appears as though the story did indeed destroy the movie, to the point where even the action scenes couldn't salvage the film from its inherent ennui.

The film's worst traits are perhaps its predictability and repetition. For example, in the beginning we are introduced to the two single elements which will play out implacably for the remainder of the film: confusion in regards to which of the twins is who, and how when one of the twins performs one action, the other is psychically affected and carries it out as well. The film apparently thrives on this to the point where it becomes tiresome after about half an hour, and the manner in which it does it leads one to seriously question the mental capacity of the individuals involved. Never in a movie have I seen women portrayed to be such imbeciles.

A couple of the action scenes are worth mention, but the unfortunate aspect of the matter is that unless one watches them separately from the rest of the film, there really isn't much to attract attention. That is, by the time that we have been subjected to the asininity of all the supporting characters in the dialogue sections of the film, we really do not want to see them partake in the fights--and more than once I found myself wishing that the screenwriters had done away with these characters earlier in the story so as to not involve them in any but one or two of the action sequences.

For the casual movie watcher, I would consider this to be poison--stay away at any cost, even if you're paid to watch this film. Die-hard Jackie Chan fans may enjoy a couple of scenes, which display a little wit as to how to incorporate Chan's natural charm into the eccentricity of the situations, and some of the stunts are somewhat impressing, though nowhere near the caliber of some of those that he has performed in the latter half of the '90s.",0 "The movie is too predictable, after watching the half of it, you know by 90% how it will end. The quality of actors (especially the Chinese girl) could not be worse. She tries to act scary and mysterious, but it didn't go further than an attempt. There is an attempt to bring some humor in the movie, and I must say some lines were funny, as much it can be funny in such kind of films. That would be probably the single positive thing, I can mention about the film. You would expect, that they will link all events at the end together. Sadly it was not like that.

I wish I wouldn't have spent my time by watching this film. Nothing new, nothing special, nothing...",0 "Ahhhhh, ""Phantasm""! Quite a scary flick...I was first exposed to this little horror about 15 years ago by my Pop. I doubt that I will ever give a ""horror"" movie a 10, but this is as close as I have ever gotten. Tall Man is absolutely frightening and the ""ball"" is as fearsome an accessory as ever has appeared on screen. 10 times the fear factor of any hockey mask, hatchet or claw!

You could argue for days about why this film is scary; the acting is mediocre at best, the scenes can be confusing and the resolution isn't exactly spectacular--however, this movie gets under your skin! Although never heavy-handed, it forces your head back and twists it's way deep into your psyche, sure to rear it's ugly mug after the lights go out. The inexplicable appeal is probably somewhere to be found within the setting (funeral home), spooky music (gruesome sound-effects) and style. It's subtle eerie-ness is totally unnerving and the fact that your imagination is given just enough information to be dangerous doesn't help.

I spent weeks of my childhood, alone in bed, writhing beneath the blade of it's cold imagery. This is one that stays with you...whether you want it to or not. It's actually better on a second or third viewing, but I wouldn't recommend watching it very often. 9/10 for provoking my imagination in a way no other ""horror"" film ever has...",1 """Keetje Tippel"" is one of Verhoeven's lesser known movies but it really deserves to be seen and better known, all over the world. Reason why it isn't known better is I think because of ""Turks fruit"" from 1973. After that movie people expected this movie to be a sort of ""Turks fruit 2"", also because it was once again directed by Verhoeven and had Monique van de Ven and Rutger Hauer as the two main leads. ""Turks fruit"" and ""Keetje Tippel"" (and in a way also Verhoeven's earlier movie ""Wat zien ik"") show some similarities in the way the story is told but it are in fact of course two totally different movies.

The movie provides a pretty good and insightful view of life in late 19th century Amsterdam. The atmosphere of the old Amsterdam is perfectly captured by Jan de Bont's cinematography and by the costume design and art direction.

What makes ""Keetje Tippel"" better than the average period drama is the directness of the story telling. This is of course thanks to Verhoeven's typical style of directing that always is very direct and straight to the point. Once more the movie features quite some nudity and confronting scene's. But it all works well because it serves a purpose in the movie and it's obviously not only put in it to simply shock the viewer in a cheap way. The movie however is quite short and it didn't feel that the movie covered the entire story and the ending is abrupt and not entirely satisfying because it still leaves a bunch of questions unanswered.

The acting isn't always top-class but this is more because of the simple dialog, rather than its the actors their fault. Rutger Hauer however deserves credit for his role and he plays his character in a very believable way. Monique van de Ven is good for about 70% of the time but her acting really pushes it at times and her character at times goes a bit too much over-the-top. The movie further more features a good supporting cast.

The story is always interesting and you never know what is going to happen next, thanks to the unpredictable and realistic characters that are being portrayed in this movie. The movie is based on the real life of Neel Doff, which gives the movie an even more realistic and confronting feeling.

Better than your average period drama's. See this movie if you get the chance.

8/10",1 "I just saw this movie yesterday - running on one of the Starz channels and didn't really know it was directed by MNS until the titles scrolled by. After that, there was surely no getting up from the couch! I think it is subtle and understated and somewhat contemplative. We all have similar questions, is there a God? If so, what does he/she look like? This was done without any special effects but with some basically simple yet tight screenplay. With excellent performances by almost everyone involved, including Rosie *gulp*.

I particularly liked the performances by the kids. Just comparing the characters here to the first two Potter films, where IMHO the kids are relatively flat, you'll see some genuine emotions ranging from sadness to satisfaction to fear to uncertainty but most of all a sense of doubt in something almost everyone else seems to take for granted. Highly recommend watching it in a silent environment at home!",1 "Every fantasy/horror fan should check out this 1-minute short from pioneering French director Georges Méliès. Made the year after what many consider Méliès' masterpiece LE VOYAGE DANS LA LUNE (A TRIP TO THE MOON) and not nearly as elaborate or impressive as that work, this is still a great piece of film history no film fan will have a problem spending 60 seconds of their time viewing. Unlike most other shorts from the filmmaker, this one was also hand-tinted a variety of bold colors, which gives it a different look and feel than others from the same era. It starts with two green, pitchfork-holding demons in horned headdresses luring a woman into their castle, wrapping her in a sheet and then throwing her into a cauldron, which then erupts in flames. They then throw two others in. The second demon stirs the pot and then the lead demon (played by the director himself) summons each of the three individual spirits. Smoke and fire erupt from the cauldron as each spirit emerges and then floats around overhead. The painted castle backdrop is a simple but effective Gothic design, with just a few thrones and a couple of red demon masks on the walls, and the special effects are very good and have held up surprisingly well over time. Other than a few choppy jumps toward the end of this short as the spirits catch fire and turn to ash, it's a very cool and interesting short.",1 "The only show that we definitely make it a point not to miss right now is Meerkat Manor. It is super! I am also glad that they have begun to rerun it occasionally on Sunday nights, so that when we do miss a show, we can catch up. (It is also fun to watch them all over again.)

I am normally reluctant to watch animal shows as bad things always seem to happen to the animals. The Whiskers family does experience some tragic moments, to be sure, but these are infrequent and watching the family dynamics is fascinating. You get lots of drama and comedy, and all of the actors are incredibly cute. You really do get caught up in it - I am sure that Yosarian's moving the pups episode had a lot of viewers yelling at the screen.

It is so nice to have a show to watch that isn't so drearily predictable - you never know what Flower, Mozart, Tosca and company will be up to or up against next. (I am really concerned about Tosca right now!) Too bad the reality shows involving people aren't half as entertaining as this.",1 "This globally acclaimed and masterful film was definitely one of the most risky and dared projects in cinema history and thus it also easily could have been one of the biggest failures ever. A cheerful musical about...Nazis?!? Especially during an era when films began to be very spectacular and explicit (""The French Connection"", ""Deliverance"", ""The Godfather""), a love-story set amidst the rising Nasism seemed like a very bad idea. And yet ""Cabaret"" is still standing as one of the most crucial films of the 70's, although it has to be said that the actual love story is secondary to the immortal songs and – especially – the portrayal of frustrated Germany during the years prior to WWII. Bob Fosse stylishly and appropriately alternates footage from inside the moody bar with scenes from the romantic life of variety star Sally Rowles (Liza Minelli). Sally is involved in a slightly peculiar triangular relationship with German industrialist Maximilian and English language teacher Brian. Meanwhile and all around them, supporters of the Nazi ideas become more and more numerous and their presence soon begins to have a direct impact on the lives of everyone. The acting performances are fabulous, especially Minelli and Joel Grey who plays the sleazy master of ceremonies who pretty much indirectly narrates the whole story. The songs are downright magnificent and masterfully choreographed, with great costumes, make-up and sound effects. The sequence in which Brian and Maximillian are in a public park where the majority of German citizens there seem to permanently turn to Hitler's ideas in intensely disturbing and powerfully highlighted trough an ambiguous song. A lot of film fans, especially around this website, will surely disagree, but Bob Fosse's ""Cabaret"" righteously stole some important Oscars from ""The Godfather""...Maybe not even enough.",1 "It is not true that invisible men have to blind. It it true that light passes through the retina of an invisible man, but in most ""invisible man"" movies I've seen one way of locating an invisible man is using night-vision goggles witch show the sub-red part of electromagnetic spectrum. This fact suggests that whatever turned him invisible, it rendered him hollow only to so called visible part of electromagnetic spectrum with wavelenght between 380 and 780 nm. Shifting the range of wavelenght sight to sub-red (780nm to 1mm) during the process of making invisible could produce a proper seeing (or even better) invisible man.

And last but not least the invisibility in James Bond ""Die Another Day"" works only from a long distance and uniform background. Otherwise changing the point of view will uncover hidden object.",0 "Yor is the hunter from the future. He's a simple tribesman/He-man warrior who leads a village of displaced tribes people to the promise land. Along the way Yor slays a dinosaur,fights evil Morlocks, glides on a Giant bat, fights some alien goons who get in his way and matches wits with Darth Vader's brother. Bad film that none of the actors take seriously (except Yor). Will Yor lead the people to the promise land and find out the meaning behind that funky gold medallion that he wears around his neck? Go out and Get Yor!! I wish I could see the original eight hour version shot for European television. When will this Drive-In gem ever be released on video? Who knows.

Recommended for lovers of bad movies.",1 "A tough rough sea captain named Thorne Sherman (James Best), love interest Ann Craigis (Ingrid Goude), hot-headed boyfriend Jerry (Ken Curtis), two scientists and a token black and token Latino guy are stuck on an island during a hurricane with large killer shrews running loose. The scientists developed them to deal with overpopulation (!!!) but they escaped. There is a boat offshore...but how will they get to it with the shrews running around? You won't really care.

Pretty silly with a stupid script (come on--large killer shrews???) and laughable dialogue. The shrews themselves look like what they are--either puppets or dogs with extra fur on them and fake fangs. Nothing is shown when the shrews attack someone and the first ones to die are (of course) the black guy then the Latino. If this were a good movie I would find that offensive. The sets are cheap (it shows) and the ending is howlingly bad.

Acting isn't that good. Best is terrible--he just stands around with a blank look on his face and yells orders. Goude is certainly beautiful but no actress. She tries but it's no go. However her wavering Swedish accent was amusing. Curtis is stuck with the stock villain role and he's not half bad. Everybody else are stuck in clichéd roles and play them out as best as they can.

This played constantly on a local TV station back in the 1970s. I was in high school then and thought it was silly but fun. Now it comes across as VERY silly and more than a little campy. If you're in the mood you might enjoy this for laughs. Otherwise stay far away.",0 "Sadly, the movie was bad. That about covers it. All the developments can be seen from a mile away, all the jokes are kinda in-your-face and even the special effects weren't so special - actually, the movie could've done without'em. One of my favourite actresses - Renee Zellweger - does a poor job. Hope she did/does it better with Mr. Carrey. Bottom line - the $2 i paid for admission could have been put to better use. If you have to see it - rent it. Pointless to go to a cinema to see it.",0 "This movie who is supposed to be about the Jewish issue, is really nothing more than an absolute waste of time, except for one or two scenes. ""The Believer"" is just extremely poor. The scenes with his girlfriend are perfectly superflous and should not have been there at all. The so-called fascist family are incredibly bad casted and impossible to believe that these people are fascists, or should be in a movie with this theme at all. The main character too has absolutely no credibility. I suggest you see a documentary like ""Hotel Terminus: Life and Times of Klaus Barbie"" or some decent fictional movie which does not exploit its audience with superflous and hard-to-watch scenes of some actor trying to appear like something from reality.



",0 "Not so much a picturisation of Ellery Queen's 1934 The Chinese Orange Mystery, this flick is a take on Paramount's 1933 Alice in Wonderland, with Miss Henry snugly and smugly repeating her part as the innocent abroad, while Eddie Quillan makes impotent if cheeky woo as the bungling knight. Alas, although the knight's role is little more than a cameo in Alice, the writers here have mercilessly expanded the part, even though it meant treading on the lines of more capable players like break-your-heart Rita La Roy (a most engaging and super-attractively regal young duchess) and Kay Hughes' pleasing Cheshire Cat who, as we might expect, disappears from the action, alas, for long spells. We are left too often with Wade Boteler's far too bellicose Mad Hatter, and are also forced to suffer far too much tiresome comic relief from Tweedledum's Franklin Pangborn, although admittedly William Newell's occasional input as Tweedledee is just about right.

Worse still, Ralph Staub (who squeezed maybe a dozen feature assignments in between his excruciating ""Screen Snapshots"" series) has handled TMM in a mercilessly heavy-handed and thoroughly routine style that totally smothers every latent spark of wit in a screenplay that was none too promising to begin with.

Miserable production values don't help either. Even the sound recording was way below par in the DVD I viewed recently. It was so muffled, I missed half the dialogue. But after all, maybe that was an asset!",0 "Several years ago, when I first saw this movie, I felt that it was melodramatic with awkward dialogue and clumsy direction, and not worth my time, except for the dancing segment with Moira Shearer and James Mason (""Jealous Lover""). After this recent viewing, I have a better appreciation of the finished product and wonder at the curious division of directors, Minnelli and Reinhardt, and committee of script writers, which may account for the structural and dialogue flaws in the film. Throughout the movie I had the curious feeling that the influence of the great team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger was haunting the producion. Both script and direction fall short of their work, such as ""The Red Shoes"" or Stairway to Heaven."" Yet on this second viewing I still felt it worth my time.

First, the casts are well chosen and the camera loves them, especially the three female leads: Shearer, Caron and Angeli. One cannot find three more gorgeously photogenic and sensitive faces captured by Hollywood and its lenses than these -- and without excessive makeup. Being English, French and Italian (in that order), they also embody the international strength of post-war Hollywood, and are strong complements for the male leads, Mason, Granger and Douglas, all of whom made their careers in America (Mason was born English, I believe). These three leading ladies were certainly chosen for their youthful radiance and sensitivity, and the luminous close-ups plus the saturated color and lush music by the great Rozsa (who appears as the conductor in the first segment) lend a baroque richness to each of the segments reminiscent of Visconti's ""Senso,"" or possibly even ""Il Gattopardo.""

Second, the camera work and lighting are excellent, both subtle and dramatic at the same time, fully enhancing the flashback aspect and sense of fantasy in all of the stories and revealing the delicacy and individuality of the three women, not to mention the great Agnes Moorehead in the first segment. The delicacy of Shearer, Caron and Angeli with the differences in each of their coloring and bone structure, contrasts dramatically with their respective male leads, the forceful articulateness of Mason (given an incredibly weak script stilted and overwrought when compared to P & P's dialogue for Lermentov in ""Red Shoes""), the boyish tenderness of Granger in the second segment, and the snappy personality of Douglas in the high wire segment.

In the latter, which other reviewers seemed to like the least, I found Angeli's combination of vulnerability and inner strength very moving, all of the emotion held back, but pouring out of those great expressive eyes. Her subtlety provided the proper foil for Douglas's aggressive, almost animal energy and line delivery. I am not by any means a fan of

Douglas (except for his ""Lust for Life""), but I liked him in ""Equilibrium,"" and was impressed that most of the aerial stunts seemed to have been done by him. Certainly the circumstances of the war that led to Angeli's suicide attempt in the story lent a depth to the plot that was very much of the time and may be difficult for Americans to understand today. However, Europeans were still deeply affected by the war even in the mid-fifties (see ""Act of Love,"" another film of Douglas's).

What each of the female stars gave to the film, as the focus of the ""three loves"" of the title -- Shearer in her role as a ballerina with the exquisite choreography by Frederick Ashton (celebrating the centennial of his birth this year); Caron, in an early non-dancing part actually using her French in the dialogue if not in the poems by Verlaine; and in Angeli cast as a victim of the war-- was a sense of authenticity and genuineness. I find these qualities very much lacking in the majority of American films, certainly those made by recent directors.

One final thing I liked about ""Equilibrium"" was showing how Douglas trained Angeli step by step in the high wire act to build up her strength and courage. One doesn't usually see this in a film. It also looked as if Angeli did her own stuntwork. Even if she didn't, it was effectively shot.

In all, a film worthy of renewed viewing. Of four ****, I give three and a half

",1 "You'd have to be a truly unscrupulous and slightly decadent Mexican trash-director in order to take a real-life human tragedy, like that of the plane crash in the Andes, and maximally exploit its storyline and horrific elements. René Cardona Sr. already directed a fairly truthful and impressive re-enactment of the real disaster in 1976 (""Survive!), but apparently his own son was jealous at the money-making concept and decided to make pretty much exactly the same film, only set in a *slightly* warmer climate and with a handful of sharks thrown in for additional menace. The result is a preposterous and severely unpleasant film that falsely aspires to be an intense drama, but actually it's just shameless excuse to depict the mental downfall of people and slowly build up towards cannibalism for the sake of survival. ""Cyclone"" opens with cheerful postcard images of a sunny holiday resort where tourists make boat excursions near the coastline. Then the calamity displayed in the title brutally interrupts the holiday spirit and, for several long minutes, Cardona Jr. simply edits together a compilation of random National Geographic documentary images to illustrate the harshness of the cyclone. Castaways from a tourist excursion and a fisherman's boat, as well as survivors of a sea-crashed plane gather together in a tiny sloop and face several long days of hunger, mental & physical exhaustion, desiccation, hopelessness and of course the inevitably increasing feelings of mutual hatred and competition. If all this painful human suffering isn't enough yet, the waters are also infested with bloodthirsty tiger sharks. After nearly a dozen days of despair, some of the survivors see no other option than to feed on the flesh of the deceased, but this socially sensitive suggestion really tears the group apart. Like I said, ""Cyclone"" is an incredibly unpleasant viewing experience and it hardly appeals to any cinematic target group. The film is far too heavy-toned for horror fanatics but simultaneously it's too uneven to please disaster-film freaks and too repulsive for admirers of dramas. The characters are bleak and the script draws their personalities rather inconsistently. Carroll Baker's character, for example, is initially portrayed as a real bitch that protects her poodle from the burning sun rather than to rescue fellow human beings, but when the climax approaches she suddenly transformed into one of the most amiable people on board. Same problem with Arthur Kennedy's priest character! At first he's comprehensive and helpful, but later it actually seems as if he wants to prevent people from saving themselves. Do not, repeat NOT, raise your expectations too much regarding the shark sub plot. The exact same shark footage is shown no less than four times and, if my memory serves me well, these scenes also already featured in Cardona's other sea-adventure ""Tintorera"". The last half hour of this extremely overlong (120minutes) exploitation ordeal is literally disgusting and actually discouraging for those who were still expecting a happy ending. The gore and bloodshed is shocking, indeed, but you can't possibly neglect the many moments of boredom and the overall execution of ""Cyclone"" is downright tasteless and sick.",0 "The eighties were notorious for great and goof-ball movies! This being a funnier story than a lot of others that I had seen, it's in league with ""The Secret of My Success"" ""Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure"" a lesser talented ""Tootsie"" but still very much a fun and wacky teenage tale of ' investigative mischief '. This is an Arizona filmed 'gem' movie. There are many shot in California and other places but, since I have lived here it's great to see familiar territory. Arizona is a great place to shoot certain films anyway. This being one of them.

I hadn't seen the lead female or Sherilyn Fenn before, much less Billy, and barely knew Clayton Rohner the love interest of our lead fem-reporter, 'Terry'. Despite any of this, who cares? They did a fairly wonderful job as teenage curious trouble makers and one aspiring for 'greatness' in reporting. This won't take home any awards but it will entertain most viewers. William Zabka was the only one that I truly was familiar with since ""The Karate Kid "" (1984) which of course hit big at the Box-Office!

With so many new comers in this, it is kind of cool to be in the story because it seems more real to me. I think, due to the fact that they are not famous-famous, yet. This wasn't a huge story line or amazing plot with twits and turns, it was an uncomplicated story of high school interaction and of those that are just starting to figure out a life path and begin the coming of age process.

This is fun and will be loved by some liked by others and not thought of still by some more. Any way you slice it though, it will come out amusing. The one little thing that I wish the director would have done is have the two 'alien' nerds from homeroom, standing on the curb as they all ride off (Teri and boyfriend & younger brother with biker-gal)and the mother ship 'arrives' and the two nerds look up, smile, a light shines down on them and both turn to glittering matter swirling upward to the ship and then head back into the cosmos.(**)",1 "At first glance, you start watching this movie and wonder if you accidentally turned to the Idiot Channel, because you can't possibly imagine someone actually getting PAID so much to act so poorly. Is this what it has come to? Cheap hacks of real actors like Tom Arnold, and kid actors that made McCauley Culkin in ""Home Alone 2: Lost in New York"" ALMOST a pleasure to watch.

If this is the kind of movie to which our children turn for entertainment, then I'm scheduling an appoint with my urologist first thing tomorrow morning for a VASECTOMY!

The only ENDEARING quality I can give the movie is that Colleen Rennison makes the Olsen twins look like something out of a Wal-Mart circular, but it's not worth seeing the movie when you can see her cameos in great T.V. series like Stargate SG-1. I'm being sarcastic, of course.",0 "When I first saw this movie(Vampire) on TV some years ago, and have looked for it ever since, I was enthralled with Richard Lynch, his portrayal is 'right on' in this role..............now some of you may not agree with me, but I also put Rutger Hauer in a similar category, delightful to watch, downright scary in some of his roles,(Nighthawks) but the ultimate romantic, if given half a chance...........of course, my all-time favorite love story movie is Ladyhawke, so I admit to being a tad prejudiced.......I have seen Richard Lynch in a number of TV movies, series, etc, but have lost track of him over the recent years......

there are also websites for Rutger Hauer where his fans can go to keep up with his movie roles, etc........He also is the founder of an organization that helps AIDS victims, mostly children, i believe.....called STARFISH. Its always nice to know that some of the actors today at least have some compassion for others less fortunate than themselves.",1 "I just happen to own the VHS version of this film - and I purchased it during the same time I purchased ""Spetters"". Again, my introduction to foreign films came from the Los Angeles Based ""Z"" Channel - even with the hundreds of premium channels out there in 2005, I still miss Z for I haven't seen in on American TV since! Quite sad, actually.

The well-older guy falling in love with his 14 year old step-daughter theme began as a very disturbing theme to me. So...why did I view this film? As with 'Pandora' (yes, the Greek myth), I just had to know and the ""Z"" channel provided the choice. In watching, the film didn't go where I thought it would. It was funny. This film does take into account many sensibilities, and the unveiling of feelings that are quite into the ""You can't help who you fall in love with"" bit. Who's cruising whom - is the ultimate question and it may not be as clear cut as you may think.

This is a well made, adult oriented themed foreign film somewhat on the Lolita theme. Hits everything, makes you wonder and provides a story...maybe not one for everyone, but one that has many sides and you be the judge.",1 "i saw this movie on October 28 of 2005 and i have to

say that its a very great movie because it was 10

years older and its most impressive than others ""when i saw this movie i think was real because

was SO real that i have change the channel to CNN

and other news ,i want to buy this movie or recorder

from TV but i cant but unless a question a have only say that this is that type of movies that you

need to see because the simplicity is the best

this is a drama movie but i have to say that this

movie scared me a lot more than other how scream or that type of movies",1 "Girl Shy is phenomenal. It really has it all. It is a fantastically funny movie about an innocent ""girl shy"" everyman who ends up at the end with the big break and, of course, the beautiful girl. The romance is absolutely breathtaking. The pathos is inspiring--practically had me in tears. The comedy is genuine-indeed, the fantasy sequences are very, very interesting to say the least. The ending chase scene is cinematic genius. Its similarity to the ending of The Graduate is eerie. Released 82 years ago, this film had me on the edge of my seat throughout. One of the greatest movies I have ever seen. Harold Lloyd is a forgotten Hollywood icon. With the 2005 DVD release of his greatest films (including Girl Shy), that will undoubtedly soon change.",1 "When a movie opens with an execution style murder the last thing you might expect is that this is going to be a bloodless tease-fest. Sisters of Death is just that.

Contrary to some of the reviews here, Liz Clybourn is not killed from a Russian roulette initiation ceremony. That would involve a single bullet loaded into a single chamber of a revolver. Liz is shot when a live round is loaded into a single-shot derringer instead of, one assumes, a blank. The purpose of this ceremony remains a mystery but somehow the sisters are not charged with murder.

Fast forward seven years and the remaining five members, Judy, Sylvia, Diana, Francie, and Penny, are invited to a reunion by a mysterious individual somewhere in the southwest. The women meet and are escorted by two men, Paul and Joe, who are hired to transport the ladies to the mystery location. Once they arrive at a private estate the ladies begin to unwind a little and enjoy the pool complete with new bathing suits for each of them. Paul and Joe sneak back into the estate because, well, they're men and that's exactly what I'd do, and soon the seven of them party into the next day.

Not is all as it seems as the mystery guest abruptly introduces himself amongst most assuredly many hangovers as Liz's father, Edmond Clybourn. Suffice to say he has not gotten over his daughter's murder and intends to expose her death as not a mistake but rather the evil machinations of one of the sisters. They become trapped inside the estate as it is surround by an activated electric fence. Panic ensues and intelligence drops as the guests are knocked off one by one.

How do you cast a playboy playmate, the beautiful Claudia Jennings, and not show off some skin? All of the women are attractive and are constantly clad in either a bikini or negligee. I have to admit that nudity would really have helped me enjoy this movie more since the first forty minutes is boring as hell. Once the women realize that they are each being hunted down by a crazed father bent on revenge they immediately lose any and all common sense like sleeping in separate rooms. Stupid! The deaths are as bland as you would expect of a PG rating. I do give credit to the ending. I liked it and it made perfect sense to me. Too mild for me. I wouldn't be surprised if they showed this on the Disney channel.",0 "I must have seen 'Splash' a dozen or more times as a child of 8 or 9 and not since. It's been my pleasure tonight to watch it with my 8 year old boy, all the scenes I remembered and some of those I didn't came flooding back and we had a real hoot.

Howard manages to create a whimsical comedy/fantasy but it's not without depth too. Hanks, in one of his earliest roles is superb as 'unlucky in love' Allen, who in the end shows that love has no boundaries. Daryl Hannah was even more beautiful than I remember and, particularly in the early scenes where she doesn't speak English shows why she was perfectly cast for the role. Eugene Levy and John Candy add the humour and make it an all round joyous watch.

I won't pretend it hasn't got 'flaws'. I mean why doesn't she just climb out of the tank, dry herself off and walk outta there, but this isn't and doesn't pretend to be some kind of statement film. I simply can't judge it that way For me, it was a childhood classic, and now is simply a classic in its own right",1 "The last part of the Blackadder series, this is almost my favourite, due to the brilliant performances of all the actors (especially Stephen Fry, Tim McInnerny and Hugh Laurie), the hilarious jokes and the plots of each episode (even the last one - which is rather dire). Like all the Blackadder parts, this series has a very good intro and credits, in this the intro is the best. The World War I theme works very well with the three companions. All in all, a very entertaining finish to the Blackadder series.

This has a rather grim World War I theme, but luckily there are brilliant jokes and plots to brighten up each episode. Blackadder is cynical and grumpy as usual, Baldrick is his stupid self and George is still very stupid and positive in this terrible war. General Hogmanay is also rather stupid and keeps making sure they are on the right track and doing what he wants. Captain Darling always has something sensible to say but the General never lets him. He has very strong opinions but is not very strong himself.

The cast:

The cynical, intelligent Blackadder: Rowan Atkinson. The lovable, stupid, hopeful Baldrick: Tony Robinson. The stupid, jolly General Hogmanay: Stephen Fry. The weak but strong-minded Captain Darling in the background: Tim McInnerny.

Recommended to anyone who enjoyed the previous Blackadder parts, anyone who likes British humour and anyone who likes good grown-up humour. Enjoy! :-)",1 "Candyman was a creative horror masterpiece with a fantastic premise, Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh had the stupidest, most overused and pathetic premise. It held the foul stench of cheap knock offs. Stealing plots from Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street and every other slasher film. It was so intolerable and stupid that it brings the term sequel to a new low.",0 "Joan Crawford is ""Harriet Craig,"" a manipulative, insecure woman who has to control everything around her in this 1950 film also starring Wendell Corey, K.T. Stevens, Lucile Watson, Allyn Joslyn and Viola Roche.

The director, Vincent Sherman, knew how to get a good performance out of Crawford and did so several times, in ""Goodbye, My Fancy"" and ""The Damned Don't Cry."" He described her as a very bright, knowledgeable woman when it came to every aspect of filming. Here, Crawford is a cold, manipulative bitch married to hapless Walter (Corey), and as is implied, the sex is great. Pretty soon, he forgets that he's uncomfortable in his own house and that Harriet has isolated him from his friends and things he used to enjoy, and also that she can't have children - so she says. Harriet is unfortunately stuck with the old Craig family housekeeper, Mrs. Howard, who continues to be a burr in her saddle. Mrs. Howard sees through Harriet, as does his boss' wife (Watson). She recommends a promotion which will require Walter to spend some time away from dear Harriet in China. When Harriet finds out, she has a fit and makes sure the boss decides against sending him. Wouldn't want Walter gambling away the company money while drunk, now, would we? Harriet's niece Clare (Stevens) is made to feel extremely grateful by Harriet, so she works for Harriet for free. When Harriet finds out a worker at Walter's lab is interested in Clare, she tells Clare he's a womanizer who brags about it. Harriet is a piece of work.

The saddest part of all of this is that I know someone like Harriet and believe me, this portrait is only slightly exaggerated! They are sad cases. They make the lives of everyone around them miserable. And they aren't happy people.

Crawford is great in the role and has been said, she plays this type of part very well. She has the regal looks, the voice, and the requisite chilly delivery. For those who say this was the real Crawford, no one knows for sure. I don't think anyone deals with the woman herself at this point, only a plastic persona. She had to have been a lot more charming than Harriet and also, unlike Harriet, capable of letting down her hair once in a while and having a good time. Crawford the actress had many more sides to her than the ""Queen Bee"" and ""Harriet Craig"" persona. I think she was at her best in ""A Woman's Face"" and ""Possessed"" (the second one) which show what she could really do. I never felt she was great in comedy, but she was a hard worker who could do drama well.

Wendell Corey does a good job as a man who loves his wife, his work and his friends and has to walk a thin line. The rest of the cast is uniformly very good, and the Craig house is gorgeous, if you like living in a museum. I'm really talking about the layout.

As a spoiler, I think it would have been a riot if, after what we see in the film, Walter ended up with the widow next door. Who knows? Maybe he did.",1 "I have to say, I was initially not looking forward to this movie based on the lose plot line I had seen, but having seen in, I'm glad I did. While there were a few rough spots, there were a lot of redeeming qualities for this which makes this movie worth seeing.

For example, the historical look at an assassination in is done very indirectly by examining the life of one family. There is suspense, some interesting flashbacks, as well as some plot development which moves on reasonably nicely, with fairly good acting.

I think there were definitely points in the acting or possibly editing that would smooth out the transitions and increase the believability of the movie, but it is fairly easy to look beyond this after the plot line pulls you in.

The courage in telling this story is what is the most important part of this movie. This was good general knowledge information for me on a slice of Indian history as well as an entertaining tale on surrounding an important historical event.",1 "I have seen almost all episodes of the generally great ""Masters Of Horror"" series, and the episodes sure differ in quality. Some episodes (such as ""Pelts"", ""Imprint"", ""The Black Cat"" or ""The Washingtonians"") are downright brilliant, most others are highly entertaining, and some episodes disappoint. Tom Holland's ""We All Scream For Ice Cream"" is one of the disappointing episodes, or, more precisely, pretty much the worst episode after Ernest R. Dickerson's terrible ""V-Word"". Holland deserves respect for ""Child's Play"" and ""Fright Night"", but his MoH episode is sadly quite a failure. It is not necessarily the director's fault that ""We All Scream For Ice Cream"" doesn't work, however, since the script and the whole idea are just so plain stupid that only a genius could have made something decent out of it. I usually don't mind movies being silly, since I can enjoy them as long as they're entertaining. Horror movies furthermore don't necessarily have to be ""realistic"", but they should have a certain logic. ""We All Scream For Ice Cream"" is just a bit too flat to be enjoyable. I am a fan of odd ideas in Horror films, but this one's premise is just too stupid to be scary or entertaining. At least the V-Word had Michael Ironside.

- SPOILERS! - The vengeful ghost of an ice cream selling clown comes back from the dead. He doesn't simply haunt or murder those who have once done him wrong, however. No, this villainous guy sells some mysterious Ice Cream to the kids of those he means to punish. Then, when the kids eat the ice cream, the parents melt - like ice cream. Wow! The idiocy of this storyline has yet to find an equal. One of the evil Clown's victims-to-be, is wise enough to tell his wife to get the kids out of town. It's quite unfortunate that his wife is an idiot who doesn't get the kids out of town because she thinks it's 'crazy' (in spite of the fact that people constantly melt in her lovely hometown)...

""We All Scream For Ice Cream"" may have some qualities (very few, to be honest). The performances are OK. William Forsythe delivers a decent performance as Buster, the Clown who comes back as an evil ghost. It must also be appreciated when a child actor manages to seem evil or cruel, and it must therefore be mentioned that Samuel Patrick Chu does a very good job being a truly sadistic little bastard in a flashback sequence. Other than acceptable performances and decent CGI (sigh), ""We All Scream For Ice Cream"" has little to offer. It's simply too flat, too silly, and (at least in my opinion) it was not scary at all. My advice: Switch this one (as well as ""The V-Word), and watch the other episodes.",0 "I had the dubious honor of being a part of my high school's production of HELLO DOLLY a zillion years ago, so there was a time when I was intimately familiar with both the play and the film. It's been a long time and truthfully, I had my reservations about the show even then. Watching the film again this past Saturday on Reel 13, I was reminded how lame the show really is and the film version, as directed by Gene Kelly, is even worse.

I suspect the popularity of Jerry Herman's original production during the 60's had more to do with the Carol Channing persona than the story. If that's true, then the film was handicapped before it even began by bypassing Channing in favor of a very young Barbra Streisand, playing a character fifteen or twenty years older than she actually was. This is not to say that Streisand is bad in the role. Her strongest assets – her voice and her comic timing – are on prime display here and she imbues the character with an engaging energy and vitality. She puts forth extraordinary effort, but one has a hard time believing that a) she is a widowed matchmaker and has been out of the public scene for a decade and b) she would be a good match for Walter Matthau's Horace Vandergelder character. This is the primary plot of the film and the film suffers because it never once seems plausible. Gosh – Streisand seems even younger than the ingénue Irene Malloy character (Marianne McAndrew).

Unfortunately, the rest of the cast, who were at least age-appropriate, were horribly off-the-mark in their performances. On the whole, I blame Kelly, who seems to have directed all of them (except maybe Streisand and Matthau) to be ridiculously over-the-top. This includes a baby-faced Michael Crawford as Cornelius Hackl and a I-don't-believe-he's-straight-for-a-second Tommy Tune, both of which went on to have wonderful stage careers. On film, they come off as silly and cartoonish. What's interesting to me is that as an actor, Kelly was always so smooth, sincere and understated. I'm bewildered as to why he wasn't able to bring that style to the table when he's behind the camera. It could have done wonders for the plot. It's hard enough to believe that all these people fall in love (there are four couples in the film) within a twenty-four hour period. The wide-eyed, loud and juvenile performance styles make it impossible, but I wonder what it would have been like if the characters had the opportunity to establish real connections with each other – make us care and root for them to get together. It could have made for an entirely different experience.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)",0 "Okay, so here's your premise. A bunch of nubile Japanese girls running around in the stereotypical schoolgirl outfits with lots of potential for violence and teen sex: how could you screw this idea up?!

Well, look no further than Stacy, a movie built more around odd voice overs rather than the typical tenants that drive the zombie film genre. The idea was there: girls turning into flesh-eating creatures coupled with dark sinister overtones of Fascism and pre-apocalyptic tension. Unfortunately, the production had the budget of a film school short and relied heavily on ridiculous single-shot scenes that dragged on forever. The production looked shabby at best, and the acting was hammy even for a foreign film.

To make matters worse, the ending absolutely made no sense, and the bad gore scenes couldn't make up for all of the downfalls to the film.",0 "This is an absolute piece of junk. No doubt it was the WORST John Candy flick the late actor made. Even 'Uncle Buck', made the same year, was an improvement on this idiotic waste. This movie just isn't funny at all. Although it wasn't meant to be taken seriously (it is, after all, a comedy) the laughs are few and far between, and most definitely NOT original. Unfortunately this was made on the downhill slope that Candy's career became, after 'Planes, Trains & Automobiles'. It was simply NOT funny and a major disappointment considering Candy's performance in movies like 'Stripes'.

Someone who wants a good John Candy movie should try 'Only the Lonely' or 'Stripes'. Avoid this piece of crap at all costs.",0 "This first screenplay by Robert Desiderio is very commendable,

He is from TV & so are all of the other actors.

Judith Light & Stephen Lang are devout Christians, They run Genesis House, a home to help homosexuals be saved by the love of Jesus. A few years back her own son killed himself because he was gay, & this one of the reasons they run Genesis House, We are concerned with 2 of the guys. Robert Gant (he was Ben in Queer as Folk) & Chad Allen (many TV shows) Judith Light & Stephen Lang are TV Veterans of many years,

Miss Lights role is not that of a bigot,it is one of a devout Christian misguided but definitely not a true bigot.

This excellent performance & the roles done by Allen & Gant, make this a love story to be seen & discussed.

It does have many clichés as one would expect, they are well handled

This is another film made in New Mexico & the scenery is superb.

It had a few month run in only a handful of theatres this fall.It should of had a better run.

There is only one very short sex scene at the beginning & a few uses of the 'F' word.

I recommend SAVE MR for lovers of good love stories.

I am glad I saw this film.

Ratings *** (out of 4) 87points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)",1 "Rated M for Strong Violence,Blood,Gore and Some Language.

The most recent game I got was Evil Dead Regeneration which was about a week ago.This is the newest game in the Evil Dead series of games which were based on the films.I have never seen the films.This game is not bad.Its pretty fun especially when you have the little midget sidekick named Ssam who you can kick around.He also makes funny comments.At first the game is pretty hard especially when you have hoards of zombies coming at you but after you get Sam it gets easier.This game is a horror/action game with comedy.Bruce Campbell who was ash in the movies is the voice of ash in the game and he has really funny one-liners.So does Sam Ash's half deadite sidekick.The game is about a man who must kill all the zombies.Evil Dead Regeneration is an alright game but I suggest buying it at a cheap price.

7/10",1 "Well, I have myself to blame. I should have read about the movie and should NOT have rented it. But I did. :-(

I like Steven Seagal. He is usually in entertaining movies with very good fight scenes. Be advised ! This is no ordinary Seagal movie. The little fighting he does is in the end of the movie and it is so bad that you wonder if he has gained so much weight that he can't move anymore.

Well. What more can you say: This is a REALLY bad movie. The copy I rented had DTS sound. For what ? So that the explosions can sound good ? The other parts of the movie has really bad sound.

SPOILERS: And the clock. What about it ? Was it some kind of trigger or what ? Not to mention the car that explodes without the ground even turning black. And ... ... Well actually there were so many bad things in this movie I could go on and on and on ...",0 "Let me say first thanks to BMW. Though the original idea for The Hire movie series was inspired by commercial purposes (of course, they must sell cars), all movies are oriented to a real artistical approach more than to a market strategy. It's not just a matter of publicity... well done! This short by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu is the best of the series. Alejandro is clearly one among the most talented directors of the new generation. His own powerful and dramatic way of shooting gives no way to compromises. Alejandro's language is made of cold lights, cameras never standing still, zooming and moving like it was a video reporter filming a battle. Take a look to his first (and of course, awarded and successful) movie Amores Perros and you will understand what I mean. Hope he will never give up his style for easier ways to make money. Great!!!",1 "Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms.. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country, but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam

The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot

The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat.

In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison the 'Hanoi Hilton.'

Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American 'Peace Activist' the 'lenient and humane treatment' he'd received.

He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed and was dragged away. During the subsequent beating, he fell forward on to the camp Commandant 's feet which sent that officer berserk

In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying career) from the Commandant's frenzied application of a wooden baton. From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the 'Hanoi Hilton',,, the first three of which his family only knew he was 'missing in action'. His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and clothed routine in preparation for a 'peace delegation' visit. They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they were alive and st ill survi ved.. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his Social Security Number on it, in the palm of his hand...

When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: 'Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?' and 'Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?' Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper. She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him all the little pieces of paper.

Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Colonel Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know of her actions that day.",0 "After watching this movie, one can only wonder how Hollywood had the gall to make the ""Monster"" movie. It's clear from this - and Nick's previous docu on Aileen - that Hollywood's only concern was to make money out of Aileen's misery. Negotiating with the police officials involved in the case and with her former lover for the inside story before judgment had even been passed. Shame on Hollywood. Shame on law enforcement. And shame on her ex. A sickening and a sad reflection on society in general.

Aileen was mad. Mad as a hatter if her performance in this docu is to be believed - and I have no reason to doubt its authenticity. Clearly, she should have been locked up - not murdered. And if life imprisonment actually meant ""life"" then the pro-capital punishment lobby would not have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't. And so they do.

There were times when Aileen came across as likable. Genuinely likable. And one could fully understand why the film maker felt a rapport with his subject. When she was lucid she made sense. She knew she had been stitched up by the media. The validity of her argument must be obvious to anyone with a brain.

Not everyone who is abused becomes a serial killer. In fact virtually NOBODY who is does. Contributing factor, Yes. Justification, No. Indeed, there is no justification in the final analysis. She killed people.

No justification for ""Monster"" either. I for one will NOT be watching it.",0 "This is a serial that has it all! The leads,Herman Brix[Bruce Bennett],Charles Quigley,and David Sharpe are top notch.Carole Landis is fine as the herione,and Charles Middleton does his usual fne work as the master villian.Sharpe shows that he can act as well as perform those great stunts!Location filming adds to the scenic values,good story line,music score,and special effects from the Lydecker brothers. It all adds up to 12 chapters of non-stop action.One of my top ten serials from Republic.",1 "Based on the movie's director Michael Criton's book about the real life events surrounding the world's first train robbery on May 15, 1855, where thousands of dollars worth of gold was stolen.

""Edward Pierce"" (Sean Connery), along with his sidekick, ""Robert Agar"" (Donald Sutherland) and ""Pierce's"" lover (Lesley-Ann Down), plan to heist a moving train of gold meant to finance a war. First, the three must gain four keys, which have been separated for safety.

Now, the three have to get the keys, and get on board the moving train to get their prize.

The first thing you'll notice is the costumes worn by everybody on screen. They appear to be quite accurate, and some outfits appear to be thick and heavy. The outfits also appeared to me to be brand new on everybody. Not one outfit had that worn look.

The performances from the main cast is pretty good, as is the chemistry between the cast members. Connery is near perfect as the lead scoundrel who charms every one who comes across him, not knowing his true intentions. Sutherland is fairly laid back in his role, and can come across as boring at times.

The pace of the movie is real slow and deliberate. For many, it might be a bit too slow. I found it to be a nice, steady pace. It only picked up a little bit when the heist goes down.

If you are looking for a lot of action, there really isn't much in this film. The action kicks in a bit as the heist goes down, and you are rooting for the villains in this film.

Overall, this is not a bad movie. However, I wouldn't go out and rent it. Check it out if you come across it on television, or on Hulu.com.",1 "Straw Dog is another excellent film from Kurosawa. It deals with the guilt, and obsessive search, by a young detective, for his missing revolver. With this search Kurosawa explores the post WWII environment in Japan. This is a terrific multi-layered film well worth watching.",1 "I enjoyed the movie very much. I thought Lee Majors captured the essence of Will Kane better than Gary Cooper. David Carradine was great as a likable, not so bad, not so good, down on his luck guy, who wasn't real particular about the letter of the law. Bonanza's ""Adam"" was a particularly unlikable bad guy as the law officer who conducted himself and the duties of his office to satisfy his own personal greed and needs. The theme of a wrong, for which the good guy seeks recompense, was good and evident throughout the movie, as it evolved into a theme of ""standing up to evil."" Lee Majors was great as Will Kane, just trying to do right and finally not being able to walk away from evil, knowing he had what it takes to fight it.",1 "You know Henry Fonda was a good actor when he can play a priest, and actually look pious. It was an odd sight to see him in this role, the patriarch of one of Hollywood's most liberal families giving the sign of the cross and other such playing-against-type Fonda gestures. It must have pained him to play this role and, with his reputation, made his character in here - watching this film for the first time in the 1990s - have no credibility. In 1947, before his kids became famous Left Wingers, Henry's role in here was more believable to audiences.

Nonetheless, the main problem with this movie isn't Fonda - it's the script. This is a boring film. It's too slow-moving. The only worthwhile aspect is seeing John Ford's direction and the cinematography by Gabriel Figueroa. It was filmed in Mexico and there are some nice photographic touches in here.

Maybe I am just not a fan of Graham Greene's overly melodramatic writing but not many other people liked this depressing tale, either. This bombed at the box office, and it's easy to see why. It's just too depressing",0 I don't waste my words for this movie. I knew the Comics the movies and the novel. The first from Bota was good. Better then INFERNO. I make it short. Bad acting. Bad Pinhead. Bad Light. Bad music. Bad writing. Bad. bad. Bad. Bad DIRECTOR. The Horror in this movie is very small. The actors plays like bored first time actors. And this modern editing with Rockmusic and speeder velocity is out. And why teens. Why not older People? Please Mr. Bota. Stop to direct the Hellraiser movies. Every Hellraiser fan would make a better Hellraiser movie. A bad 3 from a bad 10. I couldn't believe it how bad and uninspiring that movie is.

I hope Barker never see this. ;),0 "So you signed up to do a sequel, but you just really don't feel like it. What to do? Don't worry, just shove some footage from the first movie in a new box and someone will actually see it. The plot, and I use that term loosely, is about the little brother from the first movie (played by a distractingly horrible Eric Freeman) sitting in a room telling his life story through flashbacks. Which include the beginning, ending and every single death scene from the original. He wasn't actually you know, there, but those are details. Then there's new footage of him taking his girl to the movies and the movie playing is you've guessed it, ""Silent Night Deadly Night"". At last he goes crazy and kills a bunch of people while moving his eyebrows a lot, because apparently that's what crazy people do. The final fifteen minutes of this movie are entertaining, sadly this thing is much longer than that.",0 "Lets get real, people, there is no good reason for a filmmaker to force some kind of point on someone. Do you watch films to get lectured for 2 hours, or because you enjoy films? When you look at a bed of roses, do you try to figure out what they mean? No, you enjoy them for what they are. Why should it be any different for any other visual or aural experience? If you want a lecture, go watch an episode of 7th Heaven.

With that said, ""Texas Chainsaw Massacre"" is a film without much of a point, and rightfully so. It is shocking not because of graphic violence, but because how the violence is handled - we are left unaware of the full extent of the murders, forcing us to use that wonderful thing called imagination. These days many films have forgotten that lost art of giving the audience the credit it deserves by allowing the viewer to imagine what may or may not be. As Fritz Lang once said ""It is best not to show acts of violence on screen because the viewers will imagine the worst"". ""Texas Chainsaw Massacre"" had an interesting approach to this method: the violence was implied, sometimes vaguely shown, and its after-affect celebrated in its full and splendid glory. The result is an unfinished painting, yet enough evidence is provided so that anyone with some imaginative sense can paint in the missing parts. Of course, it's an unfortunate fact that not all of us are blessed with this gift of imagination, and those poor individuals are unlikely to appreciate what they see here. So, if you like horror and gore, but lack imagination, please feel free to check out those lame Scream movies, or the 945867987 episodes of Friday The 13th, or EvilDead. But if you're able to use your brain, then you should be able to recognize ""Texas Chainsaw Massacre"" for the important work of art that it really is.

Highly recommended jolly-good family fun for all!!",1 "Another Barbie movie. And guess what? Kelly Sheridan is also in this film. Before I ever ran across the Barbie movies, I would have never heard this name, but that is the miracle for being willing to watch any movie out there.

Anyway, its just a Barbie version of the ""Prince and the Pauper"" that has been done so many times before. Except this is a GGI Barbie version with a twist: somebody is trying to take over the 'Barbie kingdom'. Yes, very exciting.

Overall, except for the two couples at the end, the story followed the traditional format. Not much to see here. ""D-""",0 "I am completely shocked at the extremely high rating that this movie received. Expecting it to be pretty good, with some decent humour. I think i might have laughed once throughout the entire movie. However, I not very fond of any movie Adam Sanlder does, so i wasn't too surprised at the poor quality. The movie started out alright, the concept was okay, but then it just began to get much much worse. They should not have had the part where he starts losing control of the remote (basically the whole movie), and when you learn that Christopher Walken's character is really death, I lost all hope. That's where it got seemingly as ridiculous as it could get. Unfortunately, they decided to throw in him dying, and then waking up. WAKING UP? That really is the worst way to end a movie ever. It just means that the writers didn't want the audience leaving depressed so they tell you it never really happened. Lovely. Overall, i give this movie 3 out of 10 for boring me to death and not giving it a proper ending.",0 "*** MUST READ BEFORE PAYING REAL MONEY *** John Carpenter was once a really good filmmaker, well at least a good director. Just think of the 1982 classic ""The Thing"", which is simply excellent. He didn't write that movie, but the cinematography is very good. Unfortunately he DID write ""John Carpenter's Vampires"" a few years back, and it sucked. It sucked bad. He also wrote ""Ghosts of Mars"" (referred to as GOM from now on), which sucks even more. I'm a fan of horror, sci-fi, monster movies and dramas.

This movie is none of the above, but it tries to be a horror movie against a sci-fi setting. It's quite tragic because all it becomes is a lame monster movie on Mars. Or wait... this movie is actually just a western in space...with monsters.

SO WHAT'S BAD ABOUT IT? Well, lots of things. To begin with the movie is set in the year 2176 or something. About 170 years from now. One of the first things one notices is the fashion of 2176. Remember ""Star Trek"" the original series with Kirk? Everything looked like a space-up:ed 1970s, right? Same here, but late 90s. What about technology then? Embaressing. Almost nothing has improved. Many things are ridiculous to be set 170 years from now. Sure, it's the early colonisation of Mars and tech isn't really high in the colonies. But some of the things you'll see are just silly.

What about guns? There are alot of guns in the movie, seing how it's a western and all. Well for starters how do Berettas and SPAS-12s sound? No? Don't have a place in 2176? That's right, they won't have a role at all, they'll be 200 year old antiquities. There's also an automatic rifle, which I've forgotten the name of. I think it's a FN model, about 10 years old. What is it doing there? Oh well, in the absolute ending sequence a pair of

SMGs appear that are unidentifiable, as they're tailor-made for the movie (finally). But I must say they're some of the shiniest guns I've ever seen. The design is bad, I'll accept that. But why are they so shiny? Ridiculous.

***WARNING ""SPOILER"" BELOW***

The opening scene of GOM is a really bad attempt at copying the Ripley investigations scenes from the all-time brilliant movie ""Aliens"". Natasha is being questioned about the recent events on Mars, where she starts recanting the movie. So after about 4 minutes into the movie, we already know that she's the only survivor. Great...nice spoiler. So the whole ""who's gonna make it"" is off, now what? That is often the only thing movies like GOM and ""Pitch Black"" have going for them, But GOM gives it away in the opening sequence. Very poor.

What also bothers me are flashback scenes that aren't called for. When a person starts to explain something, we are taken back to a scene we've seen and are shown it again, just to know what the conversation refers to. It seems John Carpenter must've known we'd be sleeping ourselves through this movie.

Again the western style is apparent, the law enforcers (read Sheriff and his deputies) have shotguns and the sheriff has a long coat typical of western movies. There's an old style iron bar jail, the railroad (Mars express or whatever) and a bunch of outlaws (the ghosts).

So what about the bad guys in the movie? I almost s**t a brick when I saw them. They suck bad. They are simple miners than have been possessed by the ghosts and suddenly start piercing and painting and sickly decorating themselves. It's explained as something the ghosts used to do when they were alive....*sigh*....

Oh well, they have this leader guy and he looks like a devil or something, in the gothiest outfit I've ever seen in a sci-fi. It's leather, it's black, it has rings and stuff, bla, bla. The funniest part is when this guy issues commands or preaches to his flock. It's like he only can say one word and that word is something like ""waah"" or perhaps ""raah"". And he wants to say these complicated sentences of about 8-14 words each. But all that comes out is ""waah, waah, raah, raah, waah, waah, raah, waaaaaah"". I almost swallowed my icecream scoop when I first heard him, then I just laughed myself into a coma. And he's REALLY p***ed all through the movie. He's supposed to be mad because invaders (the humans) have set foot on his planet. But I'd say his rage is so immense that he's got a personal issue of some kind. He's just sooo mad. Maybe it's because he can't say any other words than ""waah"" and ""raah"". I know that would p**s me off.

The religious manner in which his subordinates worship him, with this whole ""primitive caveman meets Jehova's witness bent on Nazi occultism"" style is pathetic.

THE ACTORS Natasha Henstridge (ze girrrl from Schpecies) can do better, she's no actress, nor a model, but even she can do better. Ice Cube actually isn't all that bad, he proved that in ""Boyz 'n' the Hood"" among other films, this must be the worst performance from him that I've ever seen, much due to the script.

This movie so badly wants to be a good SCI-FI, but it can't be that, because it so badly wants to be a good WESTERN, but it can't be that, because it so badly wants to be a good MONSTER MOVIE, but it can't because the script and props suck.

OK, what about budget? Well ""John Carpenter"" is a name that should allow for some money to pour in. Hm...but not if the sponsors saw ""John Carpenter's Vampires"". I believe most of the money went into making the train that traffics Mars. The design is bad, humans would never build anything like that train. It looks OK though, in being actually there I mean. It's OK...nothing more. Explosions are plentiful (the ghosts have dynamite) and bad. Everyone's on a springboard and fly in a predictable trajectory in order to not hurt themselves. Typical ""A-Team"" action complete with tons of clichés and lame Wesley Snipes-like comments.

Do I sound a tad irritated? That is because I payed good money to view this movie. I feel people have the right to know what to expect as I have the right to be upset about what I saw. This review contains no profanity so there should be no reason to not post it.

Overall : I gave it a 1 in my vote. When disc 1 had finished I had to think for approx 10 seconds if I wanted to load disc 2. Or as my Japanese female friend would say : ""Sucky-sucky"".

/Medusa 2001

",0 "I wanted to watch this one sense I am a fan of films such as ""Last House on the Left"" and ""Maniac"". This film follows in this same gener only less satisfying to watch than those above. This movie is about a garage worker who leads a double life as a serial rapeist, watching young women and taking advantage of them at the apropriate moment. He stutters when he's with a girl and starts to feel nervous which I felt was unapprpriate for the movie. Then we see him making his move towards the victim and them the movie switches to a different scene and then later on in the movie like when we see the killer watching TV or drinking a beer or scratching his rabbit which is his only friend we see flashbacks of what happened between the killer and the unfortunate victim which we should have seen while he was killing the victim. This I also found unnecisary in the movie. The part that I did like in the movie as compared to ""Maniac"" was the fact that we get to see what the killers thinking and just why he commits these murders and I liked that. Always wanted to know just what made those serial killers tick. But this one didn't tick to much for me, I gave it a 4.",0 "Asked to give his assessment of Umberto Nobile's leadership in the Italia airship disaster of 1927, his friend and colleague, Samoilovich, offers this sage advice, ""Men are judged by their actions and their actions by their success"". What exactly are the qualities needed for leadership? ""The Red Tent"" is a wonderful meditation on that question. At the time Nobile was disgraced, he was accused of abandoning his men, and made a scapegoat for the disaster by Benito Mussolini's Fascist government. Forty years after the event his rest is still disturbed by doubts he has about the leadership he exercised. Could the tragedy have been averted? Was it his vanity to be the first to cross the pole by air, that led to the calamity? These and other questions are tackled in this thoughtful film.

The entire film actually takes place in the General's mind. He calls back various participants to the event, to re-live what happened, and ultimately to pass judgment on him. It is this framing device that makes the film unique, for it examines Nobile's leadership from a divergent points of view, allowing the viewers to make their own judgment as well. It is a theatrical device to be sure, but it works in this film. In time we come to learn that truth often walks on two legs and has a left and right hand. ""Yet we must have judgment"", says one of the participants, and so they do. These scenes which all take place in Nobile's apartment in Rome with it's warmth and comfort, provide a wonderful contrast to the stark reality of the struggle for survival at the Arctic Pole.

The film is beautifully written and the acting is of a high level throughout. Sean Connery, ridding himself of his Bond image, plays Roald Amundsen, the great Arctic explorer at the end of his days. It is Amundsen who exemplifies the qualities a great leader should have. It is the first and in some ways still the best of Connery's wise old man performances. He is also the one participant Nobile has most conspicuously not brought back. After intruding on the proceedings like some force of nature, he describes how he had reached the wreak of the Italia, only to crash land and be stranded. With nothing to do but wait to freeze to death he finds solace in his final moments of life with a book he has found strewn among the wreckage. The cynical Lundborg scornfully rejects this ""final touch"" as ""theatrical"" ""But who would I be acting for?"" Amundsen asks. ""Yourself"" Lundborg replies. ""But that isn't acting,"" Connery wisely replies, ""That's necessary. The trick is to choose the right part."" The film is filled with great lines like this. Claudia Cardinale, as Nurse Valaria, provides the emotional center of the film. She resents the good people of King's Bay capitalizing on the disaster, yet she has no misgivings whatever in playing on Amundsen's sense of guilt to get him to mount a rescue attempt. After all he had introduced her lover, the Meteorologist, Finn Malgrem to Arctic exploration. She is also willing to offer herself to Lundborg if he will risk his life to fly in unsafe weather conditions. It is her bitter confrontation with Nobile after he has been safely brought back to King's Bay while the others were left freezing on the ice, that is the beginning of his sleepless nights. His inability to stop Zampi, his ambitious second in command from leaving the red tent with Mariano and Malgrem in a vain attempt to reach help, would result in the Meteorologist being lost on the ice. ""You cracked like the ice."" she tells the General. ""We shall never meet again I hope. And I hope you never forget."" He doesn't.

Peter Finch as Nobile carries the film, and he is in every way up to the task. He manages to convey the intelligence, courage, vanity and despair of this self-doubting individual. He is a man who both admires Amundsen and resents always being compared with him. Hardy Kruger plays the dashing Aviator Lundborg with a nice blend of charm and hard edge cynicism. He is the first to reach the survivors. His motives for rescuing the Nobile over the General's objections that he take the other members of his expedition first, some of whom are badly injured, may have been less than admirable, but it is this act that will ultimately save the others. Lundborg finally persuades the General to go with a combination of threats,(he will leave him and the others behind), reassurance,(six quick trips and it will be over), and finally reason, (the General is badly needed at King's Bay to organize the rescue). The others also agree the General must go. It is only when he is safely back at King's Bay, that he realizes his actions have been badly misconstrued as an act of desertion. By that time weather conditions have changed again and it is impossible to go back and rescue the others by air. ""What do they think I've done?"" he asks Captain Romagna, the ineffectual rescue coordinator, after reading a cable from Rome placing him under arrest. ""They think you have done what you have done, I suppose."" Romagna lamely replies. While aboard ship, Nobile radios his friend Samoilovitch to use the icebreaker Krassin to rescue the others. This he does. ""Men are judged by their actions and their actions by their success."" The General's decision to leave his men led to his being able to radio the Krassin which in turn led to the rescue of his men. ""His actions, therefor were correct.""

Lastly, Ennio Morricone's lush score captures both the romance of a great endeavor being undertaken and the desolate, ethereal beauty of the Arctic. This film deserves to be seen and heard, and one can only hope that one day it will be restored.",1 "The only reason it didn't get a 1 out of 10 is because you get to see Randy Travis do about a minute's worth of trick gun handling.

The plot was completely expected, you can see every dumb move that someone's going to make at least a minute or two before they make it, and you're left with this horrible feeling that you've wasted time that could have been spent...well, sleeping, if nothing else.

Who do I see about getting the 90 minutes or so of my life back? I watched it for ""free"" on a cable movie channel. I would have been very unhappy if I had paid money for it.

If you haven't started watching it yet, don't. If you already did, yes, I know. You feel used and stupid. You're not alone, if that's any comfort to you.",0 "This movie is a prime example of how the simplest things can mushroom out of control. Architect Marc (Vincent Lindon) has had a moustache since he was knee high to a blueprint and it is, he feels, part of him, then he takes it into his head to speculate on just how much he is identified via the moustache. He starts by asking his live-in lover Agnes (Manu Devos) whether she would still fancy him sans moustache; since she's only known him with it she can't answer. So, out comes the razor and THEN comes the uneasiness that segues into genuine fright. Not only does Devos not notice the difference but neither do their friends and his colleagues at work. We are now on the fringes of a Kafkaesque scenario which isn't really resolved satisfactorily. For reasons that eluded me Marc, by now convinced that Devos has some hidden agenda he can't fathom, lights out for Hong Kong literally in just the clothes he stands up in and spends a few days - weeks, months? - riding the ferry before Devos shows up, or does she? For one thing how did she know where he was and/or track him down to the fleabag where's he's taken a room. Lots of food for thought here and the acting is out of the right bottle if anybody asks you.",1 "Ever since Something Awful went from funny but financially unsound to lazy, unfunny, and bloated by the contributions of cliquish forum nerds desperate to join some ""elitist"" society of half a million other nerds, SA's contributions to mainstream wit have become crippled half-thoughts not worthy of attention.

There's a reason there's an inordinate number of 10 votes, the forum goofs from Something Awful coming along and voting it up despite its lack of anything redeeming. The movie is as painfully unfunny and unintelligent as the front page and the forums, with as banal a ""wit"".

Give this one a pass, as it'll just line Richard Kyanka's already fat pockets.",0 "Olsen & Johnson go to Universal Studios to film their successor to Hellzapoppin', while everyone at the studio runs for cover. Since no one at the studio will back them, O&J decide to return to Miracle Pictures to get their film started. Since O&J can get no bankable stars, they decide to do the novel approach of having a film w/ new faces including singer Marjorie Nelson (who happens to catch the eye of director Ed MacLean). When films creditors find out that O&J's backer is an eccentric sort who thinks he's a millionaire broker, they put an injunction on the film, and its up to Olsen & Johnson to prove their case in court to save the film. Probably this film was on the same page w/ the WC Fields film, Never Give a Sucker an Even Break with the plot of the comedian(s) trying to film the movie. Olsen & Johnson are up to their same antics again, but after the opening scene of the Universal lot running for cover, the film can't maintain the pace of that scene or what made Hellzapoppin a laugh riot. The musical numbers are nice, but there just seems to be so many in the film, that this is a jukebox film more than a comedy. Still the film has many funny moments and is a sure treat. Rating, 7.",1 "I'd like to make an appeal to everyone out there who has ever been involved in polluting the environment.

Godzilla returns to save the world once again, this time battling a blob with eyes. Hedora, as its known, starts off tiny but is soon growing as a result of feasting on all the toxic waste and suchlike. This entry into the seemingly never-ending Godzilla series includes an irritating little boy who says 'Papaaaaaaa' a lot, a storyline that feels as though it was put together with very little thought, occasional silly cartoon sequences showing Hedora doing nasty things, slabs of tedium and two almost identical endings, one after the other.

So please, stop polluting the environment. Because in a pollution-free environment, there'll be no need for movie-makers to come up with this kind of trash.",0 "Werewolf Hunter is an elegant Gothic horror film that hearkens back to the days of Hammer, but with the production capabilities of today. The film is not an action packed mixture of violence and CGI transformations like many werewolf films of today have degenerated into but an actual leisurely paced film that takes the time to develop its characters. At no time during the film is the viewer ever told that yes this is real or no it is not. It is up to the viewer to make their own decision. The film deals with the true story of Manuel Blanco Romasanta, a man arrested in 1851 for the murder of more than 13 people in rural Spain. He became known as the Werewolf Of Allariz because his defense against these charges was that he could not control his animal urges since he was in fact a werewolf. Some liberties are taken with the case. One character in the film, Antonio, was never actually proved to have existed since he was never found. Also, the ending merely provides a possible explanation since the truth of the matter is unknown to anyone. Paco Plaza has crafted a truly special film that is unfortunately hampered with a dreadful direct to video title but you should get past that and give this one a shot.",1 "A huge roll of the dice that wiped out Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope studio and saw him spending the next decade churning out pictures to pay off the debts the $28m flop left him with, One From the Heart is one of those films I really want to like – to love, even – but which just won't let me. Visually it's a triumph, but the Tom Waits suicide blues score rarely works as a screen musical and as a human drama its kept firmly on the ground by the fact these characters just aren't likable. Coppola seems more interested in his lavish studio settings than what's happening in them, with even the most mundane sequences shot like an imaginatively staged theatrical musical with intricate shifts of lighting and colour, dissolving walls and neon dreams. But perhaps the biggest problem of all is that Coppola doesn't seem to have made this film for the audience but for himself, and so it probably never connects with anyone not on his personal wavelength. The trailers give away a big part of the problem: the 1982 release stresses the Godfather and Apocalypse Now as evidence of Coppola's genius while the 2003 reissue trailer runs off a list of critical superlatives in a sternly unemotional voice: joy isn't on the menu here.

That the story is so simple as to be almost invisible – a couple split up over the 4th July weekend and become involved with new partners – needn't be a problem: after all, three sailors on furlough looking for Miss Turnstiles or a backwoodsman convincing his six bachelors to kidnap six local girls to marry aren't exactly complex. With good casting, good writing and good musical numbers, there's no real reason it shouldn't work. Unfortunately it doesn't get them. The argument that kicks off the split is atrociously written and just as badly acted – you've seen more vicious spats on The Dick Van Dyke Show – and because we never buy it for a moment the film is handicapped almost from the start. The fact that either lead can carry a movie, is even more of a problem, leaving you with a film without any heart at its centre: Raul Julia is the only member of the cast who really shines, and he probably has the least screen time of anyone in the picture. The constant crosscutting doesn't help, with Coppola cutting away as soon as one scene starts to gel to focus on an awkward one that never does. Despite input from Gene Kelly (barely noticeable) and Michael Powell (visually very noticeable), it's not even quite a musical – aside from a couple of fantasy numbers it opts Yentl-like to keep the singing as an invisible chorus/underscore not so much commenting as setting the melancholy tone that counterpoints the bright, garish visuals. The film's one promising musical number, where Julia's serenade of Teri Garr spills out onto the streets of Las Vegas, is never allowed to play uninterrupted without meandering shots of Frederic Forrest wandering through the neon streets.

Coppola's 2003 re-edit of the film does nothing to improve matters. The revised opening is a little smoother but at the expense of Forrest's character, removing all remaining traces of colour to make him even more of a boring homebody. It's an excellent DVD, however, with everything you could want to know and more and offering some fairly frank insights into the failure of Coppola's attempt to ally the expertise of the old studio contract system with the modern advances of electronic cinema, not to mention the constant financing problems. It's just a shame that the film itself is so damn hard to love.",0 "I ticked 'spoilers' but I think any depiction of a spoiler here would enhance this bomb. I kept waiting for a script to happen and wondered why I was so irritated ALL THE TIME. Diane Keaton ( I honestly can't believe she got a Golden Globe award for her performance) acts as if there is always a third party in the room. She keeps glancing sideways and laughing flirtatiously at NOTHING. Jack just phones his performance in, enough said.....and speaking of laughing, I, for one, hate those scenes where the main characters are on a beach, over dinner, in bed, and they are laughing, laughing, but you the viewer are not privy to the stream of jokes. And believe me there are so much of these giggling no-script scenes as to make you NAUSEOUS. You are on the outside, paying your decent money to be part of the movie/play but you are left guessing as to what is actually being said. RIP-OFF. Seems to me as if the writer just ran out of script. Speaking of which, there is NONE, no script, in this sodden wreck of a film. It is rocking with clichés (the sobbing, crying, has to be the very worst ever captured on film). And what was Keanu Reeves doing in it? Here's a young doctor madly in love with the older woman playwright, has seen all her plays and absolutely worships her, is kind, considerate and fresh (vs jarringly jaded), but the older woman just hankers after moronic old Jack who treats her incredibly badly. And in the end, unbelievably - Keanu, her new fiancé, gives her up without a fight or a word. He is just deleted from the script. I for one would have chosen Keanu any day. Gagometer soaring skywards I find it hard to believe that some of my friends LIKED this. The Hamptons looked lovely, so 2 out of 10 for that, but AVOID this trashcan bomb.",0 "If you like it raw and fresh then check out this comic masterwork by a legend and icon among his peers. People who never try foods because they are'nt the strict ""meat and potatoes"" they are used to will never know the wonderous flavors available beyond their meager appetite. Try some Leguizamo or catch some ""slam jam"" poetry or old ""Robin"" (or new ""Old Robin"") and don't worry, we won't tell your mom that you laughed your _ _ _- off even though ""that language"" was used. ""Felt like a wet Q-tip."" still makes me grin to just say it. Funny, funny, stuff. Made my jaws sore, almost gagged and lost my popcorn when I saw it in the theater. Bought it as soon as I could find it.",1 "I have never felt moved to write a movie review before... but this was so bad and such a total waste of time that I feel obligated to warn others... just as I would if I knew the plague was headed our way...

The plot (well, what plot, really?) was insipid, the acting was horrid, the dialogue inane... And it wasn't in the least bit scary, save for a few (very few) momentary snatches of startle reflex. About the only good thing I can say about this movie (and it is a stretch) is that there are parts that are so bad that the campiness of the scene or character sticks in one's mind... but unfortunately rather like a fish bone in one's throat! The only reason I even finished watching the movie is that I have some issues with OCD in certain venues, and one of the weirder (and in this case maddeningly inconvenient) manifestations of this is that once I start a movie, I feel compelled to finish it... although, on this one I almost threw in the towel. My wife had the good sense to roll over and fall asleep after the first 15 minutes, the fact of which I am certainly envious.

Avoid this movie! Seriously, it has nothing remotely worth your time to offer... My wife and I wanted to see it in part because we just returned from our yearly vacation in Maine, and we hoped to see some Maine scenes in addition to watching a good New England horror flick around Halloween. But dear reader, trust me when I tell you that this movie is one fat BUST and if you decide to waste your time and dollars on it, you can't say you haven't been forewarned!",0 "I think as long as we agree that 99.9% of the ""movies"" that are shown on the Lifetime Movie Network (LMN) are broad brush cinema cousins to paperback trash novels, everything's fine.

""For My Daughter's Honor"" is no exception. As usual, it's ""based on a true story""; there's little real character development, but there are plenty of implausible actions. Amy succumbs so easily to the coach's advances that her character should have been made to be six years old instead of thirteen, and even then, a 6 yr old would've run like crazy.

As is LMN's credo, all men must be either idiots or perverts, so Amy's Dad is too wrapped up in his struggling business to notice anything amiss...too bad, Amy! Amy's moronic friends think the coach is great since he buys them wine and lets them drive his truck...too bad, Amy! The principal of Amy's school can't/won't do anything, since he's a limp noodle who doesn't want to get crosswise with the popular coach, and since the football team is more important than any girl who's being traumatized by a teacher....too bad, Amy!

The coach's wife must sleep like a hibernating bear, since the coach wanders his house at midnight and leads poor Amy off to some empty bedroom for some ""extra credit"". Really too simple-minded to be taken seriously.

Oh yes, eventually the coach goes to the slammer. But who gets blamed? Yikes, it's Amy!

LMN movies are like salted peanuts: tasty, bad for you, and somewhat addictive. I admit I'll watch one now and then just to see how far the story will wander off into the surreal. But LMN truly believes it's performing some sort of service by running these preachy, poorly written monstrosities. They do take on serious subjects, but always bail out when it comes to quality acting and directing, and then go for the ""Men are Evil"" conclusion.

This movie could have been A LOT better, since the subject deserves a better rendering.",0 "I am a huge horror buff and found myself looking around my local Blockbuster the other night. After a short while I stumbled on to the DVD entitled ""Freak Show"". Immediately I was drawn to it because the cover art states ""Banned in 43 Countries""! Also, the back cover art reads ""one of the most horrific movies of the last few years"" or something of that sort. Well let me be the first to tell you --- This is a complete SHAM.

The movie starts off very slow and bored me to sleep in the first 30 minutes. Because I am a huge fan of B-rate horror movies, I managed to down (3) of my favorite energy drinks in hopes of pulling through to the end. I will not ruin this awful movie for you, but I will let you know that I will NOT rent or buy anymore Asylum movies after this rip-off. How can this movie be banned in 43 countries, yet have ZERO amount of gore until the last 10 minutes? Not only was there no gore, the movie lacks anything that resembles something suspenseful or scary! The last 10 minutes of this film is the high point, and that falls very short of the films potential.

If your interested in seeing a low budget version of HBO's series Carnivale, then this is the one. If your a horror fan and want to be completely ripped off by false advertising then go ahead and rent this one. You too will be as irritated as I am. The production value of this film was excellent, but the plot was very boring and there is absolutely nothing scary about this one. This was a complete waste of time. It amazes me how they can write that this film was the most ""horrific and disturbing film in years"" and ""banned in 43 countries"" yet give no sources or credits. Total BS!

You won't be getting my money anymore if you continue to mislead the public. Even the low budget horror fans can say enough is enough and shop elsewhere. There are too many other fine films to see, than to be ripped off by flashy cover art and totally false and misleading claims. TWO THUMBS DOWN!",0 "Firstly, some reviewer has claimed the events of the movie are dated to 1789. It is wrong. By that time Diderot was already dead (1713-1784). The year 1789 appears in the beginning of the movie as a date of French revolution to which Diderot was a kind of forerunner. The right dating seems to be 1750's, when Diderot should have been about his 40, as it comes also from his daughter age and from Boucher's painting, which the company views during the sideshow in the end of the movie. This painting was executed in about 1752.

Now despite all these historical correspondences, the viewer must understand - this movie is not about Diderot's real life, it is a fantasy, which includes personage named Denis Diderot, who in some instances has some common features with historical person Denis Diderot.

Now, when you come to see the movie, try to forget all you know (if you do) about the real Diderot and just enjoy the jokes, the funny situations and delightful absurdities of the movie. If you'll do this, you will really love the film. To some sever judges I would suggest reading Rabelais. Humor is a special genre, with its special rules and demands, and most important, with a lot of very diverse faces. You can not evaluate it departing from your personal ideology, philosophy or whatever, you should concern it in its own terms and believe me, such are exist.

Le Libertin is a light and wonderfully filmed comedy. It leaves you with a kind smile on your lips when the last frame makes its place to titles and a strong wish to watch it again immediately.

The cast is incredible, especially Fanny Ardant who (as she always do) manages to create truly complex personage.

Nudity is natural, not hidden, not shaming - in a painful contrast with puritan Hollywood. The same is true regarding the matters of sexuality.

Gabriel Aghion made a good job, and thanks to Le Libertin, Pédale Douce and Belle Maman I am ready to forget his disastrous Pédale Dure.

Really recommended to anyone who is ready to open his mind to things that may be not exactly of his style.",1 City boy moves to small town and doesn't fit in. A film based on the same old story that follows the same old lines yet somehow manages to make you enjoy. Nothing new happens in this movie but you will watch with a smile on your face (especially during Kev's big drinking/dancing scene.) A great representation of what an 80s flick is all about.,1 "In 1967, there were three television stations, and at 9:30pm on Saturday nights, the weekend movies would start, and my mom and I would watch whatever was on. ""So Proudly We Hail"" was playing on a cold December night in New Mexico, and I was transfixed watching this black and white classic. Claudette Colbert, Paulette Goddard, and Veronica Lake. I didn't know any of these actresses, but they became my idols, not the actresses themselves, but the women they portrayed. I always hoped there would be a war movie playing on those Saturday nights. I ask myself now, why I wanted to see these movies. When I turned 18, I talked to a recruiter, with dreams of serving in the Army, dressing in uniform, and playing soldier. My dream was not realized in the military, but in the civilian sector, and I ""served"" almost 30 years in ER's across this country. I know it's corny to say a movie influenced my life, but ""So Proudly We Hail,"" did influence mine, profoundly. When Veronica Lake realized her comrades were in danger, and she made the choice to give her life for theirs, and her country, I realize that our daughters in the military are armed, and are making those decisions on a daily basis. So much has changed in 61 years, and yet they remain the same. I'm proud of this movie, and am grateful for the influence it had on my life on a Saturday night so long ago.",1 "Although he seemed to be somewhat disappointed by his movie, and from what I gather so did most of the reviewers and audiences, I found this to be one of Kevin's better movies. Maybe it was because I saw this one after I had already seen Dogma and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, but now I got some of those great ""in-jokes"" that were included in those movies. Of course the running gags and themes that present themselves from one movie to the next make this a real gem. Anyone who doesn't appreciate these films and this writer and director needs serious therapy....And no, I am not related to the guy....",1 "Don't get me wrong. I am a huge fan of ""Police Squad! (In Color)"". It's just that what made that great is exactly what is missing from this movie. In the Police Squad! series, Leslie Nielsen played a straight dead-pan character, very serious. Very little mugging to the camera, and reacted to the silliness around him with a dryness that only Jack Webb could muster.

In Spy Hard, we have a cartoonish character whose a buffoon. He mugs to the camera at every turn. He's trying to have fun with the audience. Sadly it just makes him look sad. The best thing about this movie (the 5 star moment) was the opening credits sung by Wierd Al. After that, to say it's ok is pushing it. It's bad, but not bad enough to be good. It's more like a poor-man's ""3 stooges"" style slapstick than anything, and I do mean totally destitute type of poor.

You would be better off seeing Airplane or Police Squad! (and the Naked Gun movies that followed) 20 times in a row. You will find the 20th showing of any of these movies more enjoyable than the first viewing of Spy Hard.",0 "I just watched this film for the first time in many years (thanks TCM), and it's still very funny. It's also touching, as the portrayal of early-adolescent personalities is often quite moving, between gut-busting guffaws. The stereotyped ""Little-League parents"" are drawn very realistically as well, and Joyce VanPatten's turn as the bitch of an equipment manager is superb.

Having been unathletic as a child, I still get damp around the eyes every time Timmy Lupus catches that fly ball. Even though I would've hated him if I'd known him in school, I now admire the spunk and tenacity of Tanner. There are lots of great lines in this script, and I look forward to seeing the film many more times. Bears rule!",1 "I used to like Shannon when she was younger, but she seems to become a worse actress as she has gotten older (something I thought was impossible for anyone).

This woman is now totally unbelievable as an actress and casting her as some girl next door character just doesn't work anymore (especially when you see how difficult it was for the makeup people to hide the bags under her eyes).

The plot was totally unbelievable too and how this film ever got funded is beyond me.

I must say that I actually fell asleep watching this and decided to watch the bits I missed simply because I wanted to warn people to stay away from this film.

Do yourself a favour and go watch paint dry.",0 "The Wraith is a fairly typical mid-1980s teen movie, with the twist of a revenge-seeking ghost. It's kinda neat seeing the bad guys get their due, and it has a nice happy ending.

But who really cares about any of this...? The movie has Sherilyn Fenn in it - - 'nuff said. She's great (as usual), and Charlie Sheen is alright as well. Highly recommended, but mostly just for Fenn fans.

Score: 7",1 """Son of Dracula"" is another fine movie from the Universal Studio horror series. Although I wouldn't rate this as high as ""Dracula's Daughter"", the film does have it's moments. It has a good cast, including Lon Chaney, Jr. as Dracula. Yeah, he seems miscast but he portrays a menacing vampire. J. Edward Bromberg and Frank Craven also stand out as they hunt down Dracula.This was the first vampire film to use Alucard as an anagram of Dracula. I thought it was pretty cool. There are some good scenes where Dracula and his bride turn into mist and the bat transformations were also well done. The story has Dracula being invited to a plantation. He really is securing a home to start to bleed our country dry. An interesting touch was Dracula's coffin floating to the top of a swamp and Dracula coming out as a mist and transforming into his form as a man. This was really original. His destruction is typical vampire stuff. The ending where Dracula's bride is killed is very touching. A nice film to add to your vampire collection.",1 "Spacey, soon-to-be-divorced cop John Sullivan (Jim Caviezel) is toying with his deceased fathers old HAM radio one night, when, through some odd twist of fate so common in sci-fi films, he contacts his father Frank (Dennis Quaid) 30 years in the past.

Hold on, it gets much better.

Frank, who is a firefighter, died in a flaming building when John was 6. So, John helps him change the past so he doesn't die. There's one problem - now John's mother has been murdered by a killer John has been tracking in the present day. They must now race against time 30 years apart to stop this killer before he can kill John's mother/Frank's wife, and several other women.

A lot of people think this sounds cheesy, but this is actually one of the best film's of the early 21st century. The film is plot driven, and what a good plot it is. I couldn't say any more without spoiling it. Quaid is great, as is Caviezel. Some people thought he slept-walked through the movie, but that actually seemed right for the character. Honorable mention to Andre Braugher. I've never seen him turn in even an average performance.",1 "Despite being based on a novel ('Blood On The Moon') by prolific and acclaimed crime writer James Ellroy (probably best known for writing the novel L.A. Confidential, which was later turned into the Oscar winning film of the same name) Cop is a crime thriller that just lacks, well thrills and crime in large doses. It's more a drama than anything else, only the drama isn't that well handled or particularly interesting.

Despite some good ideas the script (by James B. Harris) lacks any real cohesion and is for the most part rather contrived, worse than that the dialogue is also pretty flat and uninteresting, with the characters all painted as rather one dimensional. In fact is seems as though writer Harris didn't really have any room for any of the characters except for Woods central cop, with the rest all pretty much falling by the wayside. As such most of the characters are lacking any real...character.

As for the direction, also by James B. Harris, it's workmanlike but hardly inspiring, the nature of the story requiring a certain edge and grit to the direction that Harris just doesn't manage to deliver. That's not to say that either the script or direction are outright bad, they aren't, it's just that neither has the impact, style or strength to carry off this type of film or story, and because of this it all just comes off as rather flat and unexciting.

Performance wise James Woods is very good in the title role, which is good because it's basically down to him to carry the whole film, a feat that he almost, but not quite manages to do. He does receive some assistance, with both Charles Durning and Charles Haid giving good, solid performances despite their rather underwritten roles.

However the other actors aren't so lucky, with Randi Brooks, Raymond J. Barry and Steven Lambert merely passable in their roles, while Lesley Ann Warren's performance borders on schitzophrenic, with neither her radical mood swings nor motivations ringing true. Jan McGill as Wood's wife meanwhile is just so outright bad that it's no wonder that Wood's character doesn't seem all that effected when she (thankfully) leaves him not long after the film begins (I'd be relieved too).

All in all Cop isn't a bad film, it's just not a particularly good one either. It has it's moments and is a good showpiece role for the always entertaining (and underrated) Woods, it's just that the story and the film itself doesn't stand up to his fine performance. If it had spent more time detailing the characters and concentrating on the plot then it may well have been quite an effective little thriller, however as it stands it's merely just a passable one with a strong central performance.

7/10 One Man's Opinion.",0 "Today I have watched ""Identity"" for the second time in less than two months, now on DVD. Again, I found it an excellent and intriguing film. There are two versions in the DVD, and I selected the one with scenes that were cut in the final edition (the other option was the theatrical version). Now I paid more attention on the details of the plot, trying to identify flaws in the screenplay, but the story is very tight. There are many extras in the DVD, including deleted scenes, making of, filmography, comments etc. It is amazing the filmography of John Cusack, composed mainly of good movies. I keep my initial vote (nine).

Title (Brazil): `Identidade' (`Identity')",1 "I was absolutely disappointed with this remake. The only reason it didn't get a '1' was that I couldn't bring myself to call it completely 'awful.' There were a couple of relatively decent scenes (Heat Miser -- Snow Miser, and Snow in South Town.) Overall, it was way too long. Santa was too bland, Mrs. Claus too whiny. Mother Nature reminded me of a bad Bride of Frankenstein. There seemed to be hundreds of extraneous characters without any real point (look at the cast list.) It was crude and rude without reason. Why must the animal control officer slam beer on the job and burp in a child's face, then show tattooed sayings on his fat belly about being lazy?? Heat Miser couldn't sing, and ALL the other songs are missing -- no ""I Believe in Santa Claus"", no ""I'll Have a Blue Christmas Without You"", no ""I Could Be Santa Claus."" I kept waiting for songs that never came. The last 15 minutes or so are somewhat redeeming, but good luck getting to that point. I toughed it out, but it was a sadly wasted two hours. Since it was televised so late, I recorded it for my kids, but I'm not letting them watch it. Only the classic for them. I can see one good thing about watching it on DVD -- it would be over that much faster without the commercials!",0 "When the film ""DeLovely"" recently rekindled my love for Cole Porter's music, I encountered this DVD on sale and thought it would make a great addition to my collection. It didn't. For the most part, what a clunker.

I realize that as great as the music is, ""Anything Goes"" is a bit dated as a musical, but this story, which has nothing to do with the original, is just dreadful.

In addition to the uninspired plot, the songs that were added by Sammy Cahn and James Van Heusen are remarkably banal. Even more so, when one compares them to the Porter originals left in. It's sad that anybody watching might actually think they were Porter's own.

Additionally, because of the prudishness of Hollywood, Porter's originals get censored too. An example of the lunacy is when, in a lyric, ""4-letter word"" becomes ""3 letter-word."" How trite can Hollywood be? 2 Porter songs in the beginning that get transformed into '50s-style jazz-dance numbers for the female leads lose all their charm from the butchery. The song ""Anything Goes"" has never been given a worse rendition.

Bing Crosby, in his last Paramount picture, sleepwalks through it. Jeanmaire is not much better (especially her acting). It is no surprise that her career gravitated back to France after this.

Mitzi Gaynor was her usual perky self, but the film gets saved somewhat by Donald O'Connor's presence and energy. The one Porter song that seems to have kept its charm is a nice Gaynor/O'Connor duet on ""De-Lovely.""

While Porter purists will retch over this film (which was probably what his reaction was after seeing it, especially the added songs), it does offer up a period glimpse of Hollywood choreography from the mid-50s, along with the previously mentioned duet.

Otherwise, it's the bottom, not the top.",0 "This is one of my favorite movies. I'm a little younger than Mr. Lucas but I find myself taken back to high school when I see this. Each of the main characters is struggling with the idea of their futures and what they ultimately value in life. In this movie you have all the usual suspects, Mr. Prom ,Mr. Gearhead, Ms. Easy. Ms. Perfect, Mr. Troubled, but somehow the fear and uncertainty of the future seems to connect them and they become stronger. There is a wonderful sense of community which is illustrated so well through the music and the almost fatherly figure of Wolfman Jack. My two sons just graduated from High school in '03 and '05. It doesn't seem as though they feel as connected to each other, everyone has their own personal reality. In this movie they all share this bittersweet night for better or worse and struggle with elusive dreams.",1 "The first thing one notices about this film is that Michael Pitt speaks in a verrrrry slow monotone. Then you realize that it is right in keeping with this dull, plodding, endlessly pretentious film. This movie is not only boring, it's exhausting. You're in Europe, then China, then Europe, then China. Someone's reading a letter, someone's playing billiards, then letter then billiards then flowers. STOP! Who is this film made for? The male lead is totally uninteresting. Even Keira Knightly suffers from the ennui of the script.It would seems that Mr. Pitt has a name and even a following. One can't imagine why. He looks like a thousand other Hans Brinker-type actors, has no discernible charisma and couldn't provide a single moment of depth to this character. But then everyone else was equally tiresome. I suspect that the director, not speaking English very well, encouraged all the actors to say their lines as slowly as possible. That's the only possible explanation for this synthetic fabrication.",0 "Another day, another bad movie from the ""Chilling Classics"" boxed set... ""Haunts"" has a somewhat interesting premise (as other reviewers have stated, overtones of ""Repulsion"" abound): Ingrid (May Britt) is haunted by the repressed memory of her mother's suicide; she lives on a farm with her hulking uncle (Cameron Mitchell, who once again lends his seal of badness); there's a masked assailant killing local girls with a pair of scissors (in one hilarious moment, he attacks in full view of 2 policemen), and she's just met a poor-postured creep at choir practice. You see, she's a Puritanical girl who shudders at the notion of having her womanly plane violated by a sinister male (""Repulsion"" again). There is a ghost-story twist to the whole thing, explained in about as heavy-handed a way as the filmmakers can muster (but still manages to make little sense). By the end of ""Haunts,"" I was confused and apathetic...this might have had something to do with my lulling in and out of sleep while watching. The score by the usually-reliable Pino Donaggio is undistinguished and unmemorable, which is indicative of the film overall.",0 "For the love of God Ron... 122M € for this... Probably the worsts Blockbuster of the year, and maybe the decade.

2.30 minutes of suffering. Bad construction of the plot, there are times in the movie that u are filled with info and others that u are thinking what u will eat tomorrow for lunch...

The caracthers are median... Tom go away... Audrey not bad and Sir Ian probably only the good cause for a 5€ ticket...

I really don't like the changes that the production made to the book, specially in the end of the movie. And for God sake, the end with a praying Tom above Louvre's piramid... Simply hillarius.

I'd like to see wath a good director would do with something like this.",0 I enjoyed this more than most Almodovar films and was especially impressed by the power and deftness of the plot. It was not a surprise at the end to see that it was based on a book by Ruth Rendell. Can anyone tell me which?,1 "Jeff Goldblum plays a Jewish clown who survives the Holocaust by pretending to be Nazi officer Willem Dafoe's dog. Sounds like a tasteless, cheesy Italian movie from the '70s, right? Oh, if only. This cringe-worthy material could have been magic, an easy-made cult classic. Unfortunately, Paul Schraeder directs. I'm sure he's directed a few good films. I've seen one or two okay ones. But he's so boring. He's so literal-minded and unambitious. Adam Resurrected is a first rate bore. Goldblum and Dafoe try to make it ""fun"", but Schraeder's only interested in making a dire Holocaust picture. We just don't need another one of those. For the record, the Holocaust plot line is really only the flashback sequences. The present-day sequences (set in 1960s Tel Aviv) have Goldblum in a mental hospital, complete with the ultra-lame mental hospital clichés (one woman thinks she's holding up the sky from falling - how wonderful!). He is ""resurrected"" when he finds a young boy who was raised as a dog and he attempts to cure him.",0 "This film is extremely well-done and conveys a sense of suspense (maybe a better word is dread) better than most movies could ever dream of. The cinematography captures life in an Afghan village and the excellent performances by the cast seem true to life and The story is set in pre-democracy Afghanistan when the Taliban were cracking down with a force and brutal efficiency that would have shocked Hitler's SS. Their extremist version of Islam is forced upon the populace without regard to the effect on their lives or the necessity of an already impoverished and struggling people.

Women are not allowed outside their homes and require a male escort. In addition they are required to wear a Burka It is a source of constant amazement to me that the same compassionate liberal folks who rightly condemn the third Reich would defend, excuse or rationalize similar atrocities when committed by those in the Middle East. It's really a sort of subtle racism if you think about it.

This movie should put the myths to rest and should serve as a sort of ""Diary of Anne Frank"" for a new generation.

The atrocities of the Taliban and other extremist Islamic fundamentalists must be revealed to the resistant and skeptical west and ""Osama"", the first film to come out of Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, does just that.",1 "I know there are a lot of people out there looking for terrible movies to watch, because they have great comedic value...this is not one of them. This goes way beyond awful into the realm of what the hell is going on; I considered vomiting. There is a limit to the amount of masturbation jokes that a person can stand. Making fun of trekkies is fine by me, but it wasn't even funny in this movie...and the girls are truly hideous, the acting is terrible, the plot is...nonexistent. Plus it's pretty much porn (but poorer quality), which is certainly not obvious from the movie case. I love bad movies, I really do, but don't watch this with the expectation that ""it's so bad it'll be good."" Because it isn't. End of story. I'd rather sit through 'Gigli' 100 times.",0 "The only non famous movie on my top 25 list is Queens logic. I dont know why I relate to this movie. Its got a little of everything I like in a movie- comedy, male bonding or whatever you call it, good music, romance, fighting, pain, and a host of other things. Not to mention the incredible cast.",1 "This movie is a complete turd, a goddamn pastiche for snobs. How can you make a movie with no budget for actors, landscapes, car pursuits or explosions? take a couple, put them into a room for the entire run, and keep them saying topics on every topic from ""look, mommy, I have no Willy"" to ""this is the meaning of life and death"". Let have balls and instead of kitsch theology talk about Heidegger the next time. And the special mention goes to it's spectacular ""I would be able to make MTV videos if I wanted to, but i don't"" montage.

Whatta poor French cinema imitation!!Pure rubbish!!!!!!

I'll add a couple comments more since IMDb asks me to do so... although I think that it's boring and unnecessary to say that the actors are as charming as a brick is; that the movie is interrupted by a stupid ""amateur home musical video clip"" in order to promote the latest (Chilean maybe?)radio hit; and that it's pretentious sensibility is absolutely laughable",0 "After watching 3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain I have become a changed man. Before I was lost in a fog of listlessness and melancholy. I was in a state of deep depression that for all intents and purposes was inescapable. But then like a toaster dropped into the bathtub of my life, 3 Ninjas: High Ninja Mountains Hyper, changed it all. From the tight and clever writing to the on point set and lighting design everything was solid.

A real stand out here was Terry ""Hulk"" Hogan as Dave ""The Dragon"" Dragon a semi washed up television star who is performing his final show at Mega Mountain. In what can be seen as art mimicking life in a sick form of jurisdiction.

The only weak point here is the basic plan of the terrorists. For a group of highly trained mercs, lead by Lothar Zogg no less, it was lacking in forethought. Everyone knows you need to take into account ninjas being the monkey in your wrench.

All in all 3 Ninjas: Mega Assault on Hyper Mountain is a fine film. I'd give it a shot if it happens to come on cable or the like.",1 "College student members of the ""dare club"" break into an abandoned asylum to have a scavenger hunt using their own underwear. No one has as much as a backpack on them, but suddenly about five thousand candles appear all over the house to illuminate their fun and games and right when you get into double digits counting the fake slap-on-the-shoulder scares, a psycho pops up to plant lethal booby traps everywhere.

**SPOILERS** (If you've never seen a horror film before)

The victims turn out to be the children of lynch mob members who hung a man outside the asylum 15 years earlier, who've been lured there and trapped inside. Meanwhile, name value stars Corbin Bernsen and Dee Wallace Stone sit around a lot and talk about the deed to the place, the murder and other things. Attempts at characterization include a black guy who dies first and a sexy/tough lesbian who masturbates while watching another couple have kinky sex through one-way glass.

One interesting touch has all the women outliving the men, but that's probably only because they're slightly better actors and willing to go topless once in awhile to relieve several boring stretches where nothing of plot relevance is happening. I give this film a little credit because it DOES pick up a bit by the end, but otherwise it's typical slasher nonsense, done with little creativity and flair.",0 "Being a Rosario Dawson fan it was only a matter of time before I would get around to seeing this film. After being disappointed with ""Down With Love,"" more so with the script than with her character development I was not expecting much from this movie. I got a lot more than I bargined for. This is an excellet film with and excellent cast that really is a joy to watch.

Although this is a great movie, there were a couple of things that I would have changed. The subject matter can get a bit redundant and and also the interviews can to. But that is just nit-picking. This is a great film that is worth renting whether you are a girl or a guy. This film really sparked my interest and even though I did not agree with some choices that were made in the end, I really liked this movie.",1 "A kids' film about the origin of the infamous Loch Ness Monster has the potential for all kinds of fun and wild adventures, given the monster's rich legend and reported shennaigans.

Alas, this film's unimaginative creators exploit very little of the potential excitement.

OK, so the animation of the baby sea creature is cute and believable. And, there are some fun chase scenes, and a brief bit of lighthearted relief from two shocked fishermen.

But once Nessie grows up we only get a few final and very dark glimpses before it abruptly sails off into the sunset. The filmmakers manage to squeeze in a gratuitous boy-rides- monster scene. But, it is too late, and too little for this fractured fairy tale.

The contrived presence of soldiers that maniacally shoot rounds of shells into the lake is utterly ridiculous and undercuts the film. The premise is absurd. Loch Ness does not directly link to the ocean. This is exactly the mystique about Loch Ness: it is the isolated home of an isolated creature.

That location has no military relevance to WWII. Did the soldiers get lost the way to Dunkirk? One might as well crafted a yarn about deployed soldiers at Niagara Falls.

Once again, the producers got preoccupied with the animation and beautiful setting, but let the story flounder miserably.",0 "Soap opera starring Barbara Stanwyck as Lora Hart, nurse in training who rooms and works at a big hospital under a stern head nurse, a real stickler for the rules who punishes nurses who stay out past curfew by putting them on night shift in the emergency ward. Lora's roommate is a wisecracking blonde, played by - who else - Joan Blondell, who advises her friend to stay away from the interns and find herself a patient with dough. Well, Lora meets a handsome, injured bootlegger while working in emergency, who plays in this film later as she gets involved working duty caring for two sick little girls (who actually looked quite healthy to me!) who are dying of starvation in a wealthy household that is occupied by an assemblage of real shady characters including a mean chauffeur in black, an abrasive housekeeper, a bad doctor with a weird eye twitch, and the mother who proudly proclaims she's a ""dipsomaniac"".

This is a pretty weird movie - it's really comprised of two separate halves. The first half is the reasonably normal, and interesting story of a young nurse learning her trade and dealing with typical hospital stuff - the only slightly odd thing being the constant focus on showing these nurses in their lingerie as they change from street clothes into uniform several different times. The second half of this film is just a real shift in the focus of this story to the very oddball starvation/murder plot. The saving grace of this film is seeing Barbara Stanwyck acting up a storm and Clark Gable, who's fun to watch playing the evil chauffeur. Worth seeing for a bit of campy fun.",1 "Personally I loved ""Supernatural"" ever since the pilot, but it's still very encouraging and stimulating to see how the show gets better with each and every episode! By the time of this eighth episode, the two young brothers evolved into convincing & heroic crime battlers, the suspense increases every week, the scripts refer more and more to older horror classics and the stories provide new and creative types of supernatural menace every time! I feel like labeling every new episode I see as the best one thus far, but the truth is all episodes pretty much are of equally high quality. ""Bugs"" is definitely a personal favorite, as it combines the tension of supernatural horror with the old-fashioned fun of nature-revolting creature features. When two lethal accidents are caused by seemly harmless insects on a location where estate agents are building a new housing complex, it simply looks like a bizarre coincidence at first. Sam and Dean are nevertheless investigating the case, because the state of the victims' bodies indicate that the little critters weren't behaving normally when they attacked. After a third casualty died from spider bites, the brothers – together with a bug-obsessed teenager – discover that the insects are revolting against humanity because of an ancient Indian curse. This installment in Eric Kripke's fabulous show features some of the best special effects ever shown on TV. Especially the humongous swarms of bees and cockroaches are staggering. The revelation of the Indian curse is fascinating and another brilliant detail is how every episode enlightens us a little more about Sam & Dean's backgrounds. For the avid & experienced horror fans among us, there's a lovely mentioning of the classic 70's rat-shocker ""Willard"".",1 "The acting was so-so at best, the direction plodding and the songs sounded like an off key version of ""You light up my life."" In fact, I thought some of the score was a rip off of that song until learned it was written by the same guy. Perhaps the worst part was the ""romantic time together"" montage...we see them running, walking on the beach, riding horses on the beach (can you rent horses in LA?), eating, going to the park, etc. etc. It reminded me of a similar scene in the first ""Naked Gun"" only this was supposed to be serious. It came across as a movie designed to sell a soundtrack...and too often, the soundtrack won.",0 "THe film was overly sentimental and over dramatic. Moreover, in spite of the lavish attention to period baseball with the appearance of CGI stadiums along with period uniforms and gloves, it seems to me that they failed to understand a simple fact of baseball. In the final game of the World Series, played in Detroit, the main character, Joe, runs out on the field to play defense for the visiting Pittsburgh Pirates to start the game. The visiting team always bats first and the home team takes the field first. A gross error of judgment. I also agree with the other poster about the huge numbers of homers and long balls being out of place in the game of that era.",0 "When I saw this in the theaters when I was 9 in 1993 (you do the math) and honestly, as a kid, I thought it was OK. But then I saw it again recently (a few years ago), and it made Batman and Robin seem uplifting by comparison. This film is crappy when compared to the first (which was a masterpiece) and the second (which was OK) combined. Maybe kids will like it, but me, I found that just sitting alone with my own thoughts are more creative than watching this sad, pathetic excuse for a TMNT movie. By the way, don't the turtles seem more plastic now than ever before? C-",0 "Awful, tedious and utterly ridiculous action flick starring the very beautiful and talented Michelle Yeoh and Ben Chaplin. A script beyond salvation, uninteresting action scenes and terrible CGI make ""The Touch"" a complete waste with little to offer the spectator. The story makes no sense even though its very obviously inspired (stolen) by other famous movies and uses the same clichés all over again. Even the actors seem as bored as the audience. Not even Yeoh can do anything with such poor material. Chaplin is miscast and Richard Roxburgh is just another stupid villain. Why three talented actors such as these accept such a flawed project may only be explained by a hefty paycheck at the end of the day. It truly is a shame. The Touch is unoriginal, bland and even embarrassing. Stay away.",0 "I am a great fan of director Antonio Margheriti, whose impressive repertoire includes brilliant Horror as well as great Spaghetti Westerns. His doubtlessly greatest film is the Gothic masterpiece ""Danza Macabra"" aka. ""Castle of Blood"" of 1964, starring the great Barbara Steele, followed by the brilliant revenge Western ""E Dio disse A Caino"" (""And God said to Cain"", 1970) with Klaus Kinski, and ""La Vergine Di Norimberga"" (""Castle of Terror"", 1963""). Even though not one of his masterpieces, ""Apocalypse Domani"" aka. ""Cannibal Apocalypse"" of 1980 is an original and highly entertaining film. This is quite different to other Italian Cannibal movies that are set in the jungle, as it takes place in the city almost entirely (only the first five minutes take place in the Vietnamese jungle). This film was banned in several countries after its release, but it is not nearly as gruesome as one might expect. It is full of nauseating gore, no doubt, but compared to other contemporary Cannibal-films such as ""Cannibal Holocaust"" (1980), ""Cannibal Ferox (1981) ore ""Eaten Alive"" (1980), ""Cannibal Apocalypse"" is actually quite tame.

""Cannibal Apocalypse"" is about a mysterious virus that gives people an irresitible hunger for human flesh. American soldiers have been infected with the virus in Vietnam, and have brought it back home with them... The greatest aspect of ""Cannibal Apocalypse"" is arguably the brilliant casting of John Saxon and Giovanni Lombardo Radice. Saxon is, as always, great in his typical stoic manner. The best performance, however, comes from Radice who is once again excellent in his role here. Giovanni Lombardo Radice enjoys a deserved cult-status among fans of Italian Horror/Gore films and his role here perfectly illustrates why - his character (of the name Charles Bukowski!) is one of the first infected with the cannibal virus, and Radice excellently portrays the Vietnam veteran's blood-lust and insanity. The film often resembles a Zombie-flick more than the Cannibal-flicks of the time. The people infected, however, are not brain-dead flesh-eaters, but intelligent, thinking people - only with the unconquerable hunger for human flesh... One of the greatest elements of Italian Cannibal flicks were their scores, and even not quite typical, Alexander Blonkensteiner's score is great. ""Cannibal Apocalypse"" may not be one of the greatest Italian Cannibal films, but it is definitely highly original. Lovers of Italian Horror/Gore cinema can not afford to miss this!",1 "What? I think not. I thought this show was pretty damn good. And it had more than three episodes. The actual number was closer to thirteen. While the Matrix connection was an unfortunate coincidence, the setting was very intriguing and I loved both D.B. Sweeney and Terry O'Quinn. It's the show that could'a, would'a, should'a been great. Even now'a'days for some reason I still imitate Sweeney's little mutter of ""Santiago!"" You gotta hate that Santiago guy. It's been a long time since I saw the show, but I'm just a sucker for the kind of universe the Harsh Realm was. It was like Lord of the Flies, but instead of children everybody was Special Forces! How cool is that?

The world of Harsh Realm would make a sweet massively multi-player online game, anybody else agree?",1 "This ""disaster"" flick was just that: a disaster. It features too much talk and not enough actual ""disaster"" footage and too much profanity for a family to watch an action film. This reminded me of the old ""Airport"" films in which the life stories of the people took up most of the movie, not the airplane crash or near-crash. In this movie, it takes an hour and 45 minutes before the dreaded comet hits Earth. When it does, however, there are some awesome sights. The sound was great on the DVD and the picture very sharp.

Tea Leoni, the main character, an MSNBC reporter (this network must have funded the movie with all the publicity it got in here), is flat in her delivery. She speaks in a monotone most of the time. Pretty pathetic to have her in the lead when you also have actors the caliber of Morgan Freeman and Robert Duvall. Both of them are fine, as always. Also in the cast worth noting are pre-Lord Of The Rings star Elijah Wood and veterans Maximlian Schell and Vanessa Redgrave.",0 "********** Many Spoilers, Many Flaws *************** The premise of the movie is a Border Patrol agent, Norton, isn't too fond of illegal aliens and kills one. Pete, the title character's slaughtered friend, finds out its Norton and takes him and the body on a journey to bury him in Estrada's home village.

Problem: The killing was just a bad accident. Its pretty apparent the agent had remorse but panicked and hid the deed along with his Border Agent buddies. The Border Patrol are portrayed as two dimensional bumbling racists while the Mexicans are kindhearted, trying to survive. Although Hollywood wants you to believe in the dignity of their fellow man there is none for the Border Patrol. Norton is never really given a chance to explain what happened to Pete.

Problem: The promise that Estrada makes Pete keep in the event of his death is based on a lie that cheapens the characters involved and doesn't make sense. My guess it pushes the movie over the 1:30 mark.

Problem: There is multiple POV versions of a couple of scenes that don't really differ. I'm tired of this cinema trick and its useless here except to push the movie over 1:30.

Best Part: Levon Helm as the blind hermit. This is BY FAR the best and most ""insightful"" part of the movie. Dwight Yoakum's performance is also good but Levon steals the movie.

BIG Problem: Tommy Lee Jones has no range. He has an unsympathetic constant deadpan delivery. Shouldn't be allowed to carry a movie.

Wait for it to come out on video. Finally, for those who hype the ""new Western"" such as this film and Brokeback Mountain, rent ""The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance."" This shows real conflict, heroism, friendship and sacrifice. Also, ""Shane"" for the breathtaking scenery.",0 "One of the most common eulogies today for Lenny Bruce is that he died for our sins. Perhaps one of the strongest points of ""Lenny"" is that it does not overtly proclaim the truth of this sentiment, one way or the other - the overdose sequence comes, naturally, after the crescendo of Lenny's legal losses and might therefore lead one to believe that his death was caused by his struggle for freedom of speech. However we are also treated to multiple examples of Lenny's hedonism and the choices (perhaps poor, perhaps misguided) that are also to blame for his death. Did he die for our sins? Or did he die because he overdosed on heroin when he should have known better? A little bit of both, but both Fosse and Hoffman leave it open.

Hoffman is simply wonderful. I have never seen footage of a Bruce concert/performance, but I have several as music files and have listened to them many times (particularly the Berkeley and Carnegie Hall performances that are also undoubtedly CDs now); Hoffman captures his verbal mannerisms perfectly. The pauses, the stutters, the sly laugh - close your eyes and Lenny Bruce is right there. Much of the material will be familiar to anyone who has listened to Bruce's work, but there is also much that I have never heard. The last performance in which Lenny is on stage in nothing except a raincoat, in particular, is eye opening - according to the trivia it actually occurred and was sent in by a student who was at the show.

The black and white look lends the film a very raw feel, which is fitting given Lenny's comic mannerisms and subjects. I don't know much about cinematography, but I do know that it worked well.

The film also makes it very clear that Bruce was far more than tit jokes and profanity. It's easy for some to see and hear Lenny Bruce and think him unoriginal, boring and simply not that big of a deal especially in comparison to the comedy of today. My personal opinion is that Bruce is just as funny today as he was when he was alive: a dangerous kind of funny, a ha-ha funny in which you're not sure if you should be laughing but you do it anyway, a funny unafraid of anything, any boundary and any social more. Yes he is shocking, and yes sometimes some of the comedy is derived from obscenity in the way that some of the comedy of many an otherwise ""highbrow"" movie is derived from the obscene, but ultimately Lenny's value was that he laughed at his (and our) faults and made it seem okay to join him. The scene where he very dramatically segue ways from a successful bit to him calling for ""niggers"" is an example of this; it holds its value even today. The audience is shocked, sure that he has finally stepped over the line, and Lenny reels them in with his skill and acuity, going around pointing out the ""kykes"", ""spic"", ""wops"", etc. and noting that if JFK used the word ""nigger"" everyday in his public speech it might one day mean that the word no longer had the power to make a twelve year old black kid cry. It is just one more example of the power of words and of Lenny Bruce's awareness of this.

The clear dilemma of the movie is that Bruce is crass, rude, selfish, often annoying, highly unlikable... and ultimately right. I have always gotten the sense that Lenny was most undoubtedly an asshole, and that the case for martyrdom has a little too much revisionism going for it. I don't think he did his comedy to empower the rest of us, per se, nor to make a sacrifice for freedom of speech and, by inference, the soul of America. I think that Lenny Bruce was just being Lenny Bruce, that he could no more NOT get up in front of an audience and speak frankly of what was on his mind than you or I could stop breathing on purpose. That he did so was right and natural for him, and to do otherwise would probably have driven him mad or at least mediocre; it does not diminish his impact nor his contribution to American comedy, American society and America.

Hoffman and Fosse have brought all of this out. See this movie - especially if you're easily offended, because you need it the most.",1 "Though lacking in character development, Tom Clancy novels are superb for their plot intricacies and fervent attention to detail. The Hunt for Red October -- the best film adaptation of the Jack Ryan series thus far -- still stands as my favorite film of all time.

Like any writer sensing opportunity, Clancy decided to franchise his name to such series as Op Center and Net Force. Op Center was actually a surprisingly ""OK"" TV mini-series, thanks to the efforts of Harry Hamlin and Lindsay Frost. Net Force, however, is a total disaster.

It's difficult even to establish blame. While the notion of an Internet investigations division of the FBI sounds appealing (isn't the Secret Service in fact charged with this responsibility?), everything in Op Center is ludicrous. The sophomoric romantic storyline of Bakula and Going, the uber Bill Gates villain played by Judge Reinhold, and the Kris Kristofferson (Can you believe he was in fact a Rhodes Scholar and former Army pilot??) dead mentor with a secret -- all of this just defies conventional wisdom or reality.

Without belaboring the point, Net Force is just plain not entertaining.",1 "It was nearly certain that 1903's ""The Great Train Robbery,"" popularly known as the first movie, would be remade in some form at some point. It's just fortunate that it turned out to be a clever, imaginative action/adventure rather than the dull-minded, big-budget exploitations we've had to endure in remakes & sequels in recent years. Conman and ""cracksman"" (bank robber) Edward Pierce aka John Sims (Connery) masquerades as a ""sharp businessman"" to enter a London gentleman's club and scope out a ""ring-flash pull."" He settles on the British Army's monthly payroll for the Crimean campaign, a shipment of solid gold sent in two special Chubb safes on a guarded railroad car. Much of the film is devoted to the collection of the four keys needed to open the two safes: two kept in a very secure railway office, one by ""square-rigged"" bank President Trent (Webb) and one by oversexed bank manager Fowler (Terris). To do all this & the climactic robbery, Sims assembles a colorful crew: theater actress Miriam (Down), who's also his mistress; pickpocket & ""screwsman"" Agar (Sutherland); driver & strong-arm Barlow (Downing); and ""snakesman"" Clean Willy (Sleep, in a unique & outstanding role), who can reputedly climb ""a wall of glass."" Sutherland has one of his best roles as the gifted safecracker who's both deft and hilariously awkward. Down combines sexiness & funniness as well as Marilyn Monroe ever did & it's an injustice that no one else has ever said so. But there's no match for Connery in a role that was made for him: a charming, polished, gentleman rogue (""No respectable gentleman is THAT respectable,"" he insists), as long on charisma as he is short on honor. Sims will resort to anything, even murder, to protect his interests & get what he wants, but it's impossible to hate him. Instead, Connery gives an outlet to the villain in each of us, the side that wants to stick it to the Man by robbing a bank or bamboozling the IRS, but can't be aired in real life by anything more dastardly than voting Mickey Mouse for President without fear of arrest. Prolific novelist and erstwhile doctor Crichton, in his first directorial effort, exercises firm control in bringing his own novel to the screen, seeming to know exactly what he wants to say & how to say it. Every time it seems that the film is about to lag, it somehow just picks up again--even at the very end--making it difficult to find a place to get a soda & popcorn refill or a bathroom break. Make your theater logistical arrangements carefully before setting out on this train.",1 "The humor is great in it. Bill Murray's character was hilarious, one of his best I believe, he's a self-centered wretched old man. Owen Wilson did a great job in this film as well, his character's sensitive, and thoughtful personality is very heartwarming. The relationship between Owen Wilson and Bill Murray is great. Their ""chemistry"" throughout the movie is what gets the most laughs, along with Willem Dafoe's character that is also very comical. I didn't like Cate Blanchett in this movie very much, i'm not sure why. Funny animation throughout the movie. This is my favorite Wes Anderson movie, the humor is great, and the casting was as well. No one could have played Steve better than Bill Murray, same with Willem Dafoe and Owen Wilson.",1 "The Evil Dead was called La Casa in Italy and that means The House, Evil Dead 2 was La Casa 2 but Ghosthouse is La Casa 3 so this is Evil Dead 3 in Italy but although this has nothing to do with a cabin and deadites Ghosthouse is a very good film. The music is very creepy and does sometimes send a chill down me especially with the ghost of the Girl and the Clown doll that haunt the people in the house.

The gore is another interesting thing because the murders are something different for a ghost film, the acting is OK in some parts but that isn't a main thing for Ghosthouse. If you're interested in a haunted house flick with something different to it then check Ghosthouse out for some creepy and gory scenes.",1 "So 007 has a brother, who is a Doctor, that some how gets talked into taking on a super badguy organization called Thanatos. He also happens to know Judo and knows techniques to induce the deepest states of trance possible (and that most men would kill to know). This organization plans to steal ""Atomic Nucleus'"" by woman poisoning MP's, and then raiding a highly secured facility dressed as...cats? I admit I watched the MST3K version of this, but it probably saved me from turning if off. That being said, there wasn't much about this movie that made sense from the word go.

I found and watched this during a bout of insomnia one evening. I slept like a baby afterwards.",0 Directed by Leslie Howard(who also played Mitchell)The First Of The Few tells his story from an idea he had one day watching the birds to the planes flying in the war.Made in 1942 a year after the Spifires helped win The Battle of Britain this is an uplifting film made I imagine for the sole purpose of building troop morale. R.J Mitchell(Leslie Howard)is a plane designer who's designs were deemed to revolutionary for the time.Along with his old friend Geoffrey Crisp(David Niven)who was a pilot in the First World War he sets out to build the plane. Geoffrey backs him up 100 percent and is the test pilot for Mitchells aircraft.However tragedy is just around the corner when (after working flat out without sleeping or eating)Mitchell feels unwell and consults a Dr who tells him if he does not stop he will die in just a year.Will Mitchell ignore the advice or heed it?well if you read about him you will know if you don't know the story then watch this wonderful film.David and Leslie have a great chemistry and play their parts well a must see film about an important part of British history.,1 "Having just got home from a HotDocs screening, I haven't had a whole lot of time to process all the information this doc throws at you, but my god was it interesting. I won't begin to tell you about the ideas, opinions, and facts that this film brings to the screen, because you should see it for yourself.

My criticism of the film would be in its editing - some places seemed choppy, I'm certain a few of the interviewees were cut-off in the middle of their last word (in the edit, not by the interviewer) but this nitpicking is insignificant when you think about what these people are telling you.

We need more people to see this documentary. But more than that: more people to start talking about the subject to which it is trying to alarm us, and beyond that, to actually take action. Immediately.",1 "In New York, the alcoholic and decadent detective Jack Mosley (Bruce Willis) is assigned to deliver a prisoner to the court sixteen blocks far from his precinct in 118 minutes. Eddie Bunker (Mos Def) made a deal with the D.A. office and will identify and testify against a dirty detective. While driving to the tribunal, Jack is attacked by a group of corrupt cops and protects Eddie.

In spite of being a flawed movie, ""16 Blocks"" is a good entertainment with lots of action and an optimistic, hopeful and commercial message in the end that people can change, with the redemption of Eddie and Jack. Mos Def irritates with his accent, and Bruce Willis is totally different from his usual shape, inclusive with a ""tire"" on his belly. It is funny to see all the damage caused by the bus in Manhattan and no press and no interventions of Ada MacDonald (Brenda Pressley), who was interested in the case. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): ""16 Quadras"" (""16 Blocks"")",1 "This is a really horrible movie, it's too bad, it's awful. It's a senseless combination of racist and sexist clichés, along with stupid touristic stereotypes and silly, dated puns (the jokes are so crude, so banal, that it's impossible even to have a good laugh) that can only disgust. I wonder why this film was a box office hit in Greece, where I live, since it is such a terrible, anachronistic insult to the country and its people. The direction is mediocre, the actors are worse and the plot is pure trash. It is so ridiculous, so irrelevant to the actual problems of this country, it is a movie that I'd rather forget. Nia Vardalos' ""My Big Fat Greek Wedding"" was a pleasant comedy, nothing special but at least there were some successful puns and originality. This film works on the same pattern without any imagination, without any respect to the viewer and, furthermore, it's very long and boring.",0 "I bought a 3 DVD box named ""Manga in motion"" which contained the movies ""Story Of Ricky"", ""Dragon From Russia"" and ""City Hunter"". I watched the two other movies and thought that they were OK, so I didn't expect very much from this movie, I thought it may as well be ""OK"". The movie starts with a very stupid scene and goes worse and much, much more worse all the time. The humor is very stupid (even for a hong kong movie), and so is the over-acting. I just had to fight to watch the first 30 minutes of the movie. Then, in the end comes the Street fighter scene. I can honestly say that I have never seen anything as stupid and retarded as that scene. That scene almost made me stop watching the movie, but I fought until the end. The movie is without a doubt Jackie Chan's worst movie, and don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Chan. But this kind of a movie is something that I think they shouldn't have done.

2/10 *** WORST JACKIE CHAN MOVIE EVER ***",0 "Now I wasn't going into this film expecting something great (like the original starship troopers) and I wasn't expecting something completely garbage (like starship troopers 2); so my feelings were neutral (best when watching a movie for the first time). After the movie It's safe to say that my feelings on it remained neutral, nothing was over the top good, or over the top bad.

Now to discuss the movie.

The storyline was nothing great, basic, unoriginal, and at times boring. To have a universe such as the one of starship troopers, and not to be able to come up with a better story is disappointing.

Acting was regular (I've seen worse, I've seen better), another let-down was that they didn't include some of the other characters from the original starship troopers.

If you enjoyed the original starship troopers only for its fast-paced action scenes (which is a good amount of the movie), then you might not like this one. That is to say that not much action occurs through this movie, more talking if anything. The fight/action scenes that do occur throughout the film (2 in total, I believe) are very basic, not very fast-paced, and altogether very mediocre.

It's obvious that there was a lower budget on this movie, what I like is that they worked on it and still made it watchable (only if it is average) even on such a budget.

As for CGI in the movie, all I had to say was ""WHAT?!?!? HUH?!?!"". How could CGI be worse than that of a movie created in 1997? I mean, its been 10 years, how could CGI have gotten WORSE in that time?? Well, I have no answers (apart from lack of budget) but it did, the bugs in this movie looked nothing compared to the bugs in the original starship troopers (which was created in 1997). Very bad outcome, especially because a lot of people were to watch this to see the conflict between the bugs and the humans when bugs were only present for around 5 to 10 minutes of the film.

In closing, if you'd like to see an EPIC war Sci-fi movie, watch the original starship troopers. Then if you have NOTHING better to do, and you MUST see this film, watch it (dont buy it, best to rent). If you don't watch it, it wont be a loss as this story has nothing to do with starship troopers 1 (apart from the war, however there are no other consistencies).

Notice I haven't even mention starship troopers 2 a lot throughout this review, its because it isn't anything in comparison to the original starship troopers (even to this one), and should be AVOIDED.

Overall, Good name and franchise, average movie. (Below average if comparing to the original)

4/10",0 "I liked this movie and, interestingly, my much younger companion did not. Too meandering and so little happening, she said. And that is the quality that I found most appealing and more like real life.

There are gentle stories here woven around the central premise of a young child's disappearance and the reaction to this event is seen as background in many of the scenes which is a technique very cleverly done.

There is also the haunting singing of someone in an apartment in the building where all the interaction and often non-interaction of the other characters takes place. We only see this mystery singer at the end of the movie.

Mary Louise Parker was the only harsh note. I find her performances always stilted, cold and full of a hidden tension not usually necessary to the role she is playing and again she did not disappoint. I did not know what the earthy Roberto saw in her.

I liked very much the character of Raymond searching for the scent of love in all his ex lovers. I have a bias towards movies like these, of the Run Lola Run type. I feel they are more reflective of reality, no Hollywood quick fix endings just a slice of life beautifully acted and photographed that just stays with you a little longer than the A-B plot lines of most movies.

8 out of 10.",1 """H20"" is a mini-series that keeps you on the edge of your seat. What Paul Gross and John Krizanc have written is a masterful addition to the political thriller genre, where the viewer never knows who is the villain and who is the good guy. Add to that a superb cast of actors (including Gross, Martha Henry, Peter MacNeill) and the cinematic eye of director Charles Biname, and you have a satisfying and intelligent piece of work. I recommend this highly: how often do you get an exciting drama that makes you think about our political system and how dependent we are on the benevolence of our neighbours to the south? Ten out of ten.",1 "This movie was recommended to me by a couple friends. It was vehemently endorsed by other friends. So I rented this movie at their insistence. I no longer wish to speak to these people. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Little to nothing of the plot was believable. The casting was horrible. The acting was worse, and worst of all...

*spoiler*

Willem Defoe dressing up like a woman at the end to help the ""saints"" could be the worst moment in cinematic history. Any acclaim he has ever received from any other role should be retracted because of his awful portray in this film.

If you haven't seen this movie, don't. If you have, please tell me how best to forget this awful movie experience.",0 "Documentarian/Journalist Taylor Gentry (Angela Goethals) along with her two male camera crew. They are making an documentary about an rising Serial Killer, who called himself Leslie Vernon (Nathan Baesel). They decide to follow his every move by how he's going to find ways to outsmart his prey, setting up traps, stalking his future victims, scaring his potential victims for fun and more. Leslie wants to be the next greatest psycho/horror/slasher/serial killer who ever lived like Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers. But Leslie isn't what he seems to be, especially when his ex-psychiatrist Doc Holloran (Robert Englund) looks for him and Taylor tries to uncover Leslie's real hidden agenda.

Directed by Scott Glosserman made an modestly entertaining, sometimes clever mockumentary horror film with some dark humour. The movie it is at best when they focus on Leslie's bizarre character and when it is shot as a documentary, the picture is really effective and sometimes very original. But it's loses any real flair during the third act, when the documentary style is over and when it's becomes an slasher movie like any before is the real letdown in the film. Baesel is actually terrific in the picture. Goethals is also quite good but she shines, when she shares scenes with Baesel. It is nice to see Englund playing against type but sadly his role is a bit short to be enjoyed. Scott Wilson's role as Leslie's only friend Eugene is a hoot as a career killer in hiding. But co-writer/director Glosserman does keeps the horror fans happy by adding in-jokes to your favorite slasher movies and he is not afraid to make fun of them in a good way as well. This could have been a really good little picture but loses its way in the final act of the movie. It's above average fare with enough intelligence, humour and strangeness to keep you interested. It is worth a look. (***/*****).",1 "Music mogul, Bernie Stein, joins his nephew Freakie and a hippie roadie, Iggy in an effort to make a superstar out of dead body parts. The hands of Jimmy Hendrix, Sid Vicious's ass, Elvis's head, and the penis of Jim Morrison. Well it would have been Morrison if Iggy didn't screw up and bring back Liberace's love sausage. uh-oh, I smell a wall of gay jokes cumin along. Sure enough King, the monster, gets confused by his fudge packing pecker whom actually talks to him. And, oh who am I kidding, as a red blooded heterosexual make this film is just way too gay for me. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

Eye Candy: Kate Fallon & Joan Gerardi get topless; plus more nudity in the extra features

DVD Extras: Commentary Director and crew; 22 minute Behind the scenes featurette; music video; Theatrical trailer; and trailers for 28 other Seduction Cinema titles

My Grade: F",0 "before this film i usually used to say 'no' to his films, i saw solely this one because of Nicholson, i was not too sure this film amusing me as im a guy whom films normally dont impress but also i do not have a critic's eye, i'm like a normal film viewer. but i can say now, this is one good film i have seen in years because of its light comedy. but here i would also like to add, if you are a normal film viewer with no intense standard towards films then you probably should see this one but if you reckon yourself a critic who watches a film from inside out or every thin line comes on the screen then may be you must wait till you hear about it from a mate like yourself, all in all i generously hereby allow 8 marks out of 10.",1 "I liked this film but I got spoiled with the first 20-30 minutes. It started off so intense that I thought this was going to be fantastic: an incredibly edgy film noir. It still wound up good overall, but it never lived up to that great beginning.

The story slows down a bit once the scene shifts from the heist in Kansas City to the rendezvous of the bandits down in Mexico. It has as a full lulls here and there but still does enough things right to keep your interest.

What it does is right is emphasize two things that a good film noir provides: tension and paranoia. All the crooks are assembled in one spot but only the boss knows who the others are. They don't know what any of the gang members look like since all of the thieves had to wear masks throughout the planning and execution of the crime. However, since the boss hired them, he knows them all. Also, down in Mexico, the good guy in the film, ""Joe Rolfe"" (John Payne) is an impostor, pretending he's ""Peter Harris,"" one of the crooks who got caught by the cops and knocked off just before heading south. Rolfe doesn't know, however, that the boss knows he's a phony. Payne's character got unfairly fingered in the robbery so he's down there trying to clear his name. All of this may sound complicated, but it isn't once you watch the film. Suffice to say it's interesting to see how all these guys slowly figure out who's who.

I thought ""Tim Foster,"" played by Preston Foster, was the best character in the film, probably because he was right in the middle of everything. He was a bitter ex-cop and the brains behind the whole scheme, which could easily have been pulled off . He was just wasn't lucky, because he had a great plan.

One of the people he had to fool was his daughter, who surprises him down in Mexico and further complicates the situation. Colleen Gray plays ""Helen Foster,"" but she doesn't really come into the story much until the last half hour. Her character did one implausible thing after another, things NO woman would do and softened the rough edges of this movie, which was a mistake. ""Helen"" wasn't even needed in this film. It would have been better as a straight male- only tough film noir.

Speaking of tough: how about this ""Rogue's gallery:"" Jack Elam, Lee Van Cleef and Neville Brand? Now there are three good faces for this genre of film. They were the other gang members

There are a number of holes in this story, but you have to ignore them and go along for the ride which, for the most part, is a good one. It's recommended for all film noir buffs.",1 "It's a little quaint by today's standards, but the writing is witty and the cinematography is excellent. More than that, it's an opportunity to see a 36 year old James Mason acting in a role where he ages 25 years. This was the one Gainsborough film he actually wanted to make, although he had hit the top of the charts with other Gainsborough Gothics such as The Wicked Lady and The Man in Grey. I was rather astonished at his ability to transform his extraordinary brooding good looks into those of a kindly, elderly gentleman with a twinkle in his eye. His gait, voice, and body movements so fitted the role of the elderly man, I believe he could have fooled me without all the makeup.",1 "now i'm not going to say this film is terrible but its not good in the slightest. with it being rated 6.0 on this site makes me laugh. the film is basically about a hair dressing competition in england, a little dismal i know.

the only thing stopping me rating it so low is the cast, even though they didn't do a good job its nice to see them all in one film. Josh Hartnett (Lucky Number Slevin, Sin City, 30 Days Of Night, Pearl Harbor and Wicker Park) is a brilliant actor but has an odd accent in this. Alan Rickman (Dogma, Die Hard and the Harry Potter films) is also a fantastic actor but doesn't really pull off being an English hair dresser. Rachael Leigh Cook (Antitrust, Josie And The Pussycats) Bill Nighy (The boat That Rocked, Underworld, Shaun Of The Dead) Warren Clarke (Clockwork Orange, I.D.) and Rachel Griffiths (Six Feet Under) are also in the film. so if there was any film with a cast like that you would definitely give it a second look. just too bad the film was poorly made and quite tiring to watch.

i would like to say that i'd recommend this to girls as it is sort of a chick flick but i wouldn't wanna give them false hopes on seeing a good film.......... 3.6/10..........j.d Seaton",0 "I care! I care! I care... wait a minute, I don't care, and neither should you. What's the point of brainwashing a bunch of kids to care? To sell toys? It would have been a lot better if at the sugar-coated climax of this animated kid's classic, instead of projecting all that caring, the care bears projectile vomited in the same manner as the viewers--in horror at what the kids of '85 were being spoon fed. The only redeeming value of the film is the high level of realism and social commentary that portrays an America torn apart by violence, class warfare, predjudice, and Hi-C. Share Bear, Birthday Bear... how 'bout Disgusted Bear. Please don't subject your children to this piece of un-Carefully illustrated nonsense. Take them to the park instead.",0 "Yes, I own this but at least I didn't pay much, 'cause it was used. Anyway, this film is boring, Oliver's accent is annoying and he puts on that "" I don't want to fight you"", good guy act, that Van Damme used to put on in the eighties- if you dont know what I mean, watch the film, I mean B movie cause this is in no way a ""film""!",0 "I saw this movie on DVD after it was given away free with the Sunday Times. And it's safe to say it's like all of those freebie CDs the newspapers are giving away these days…one OK song amongst a dozen that aren't worth the cardboard sleeve the disc came in.

The premise is a romantic comedy staple…He gets jilted at the alter. She gets fed up of playing second fiddle to her married boyfriend. The mismatched pair are thrown together for a trip to Donegal, presumably with romance and comedy thrown into the mix. The problem with this film is that it's neither romantic or funny. Yes, it's obviously a low budget film but that's no excuse for the dreadful script. There's no character development whatsoever, some very dodgy acting, zero chemistry between the leads and worse still, very little to like about them.

At least I got a free newspaper with the DVD.",0 "The first RE had a lot going for it.Nice cast.Good fx.Some suspense and general scares.A nice visual style.And a surprise ending that set the stage for a lot of promise to build on toward making one hell of a Horror flick.But a lot of people griped that Re was not like the game enough.Well the bad movie gods heeded their collective whine and have given them what they wanted.While the rest of us are still reeling from this disaster.

Its really a big screen version of the now-classic Playstation game RE 3.It takes place right after the first.Things start out okay.We're introduced to Alice,Jill,Carlos,Nemisis,etc.But after the opening 10 minutes it is all downhill from there.

For starters why give Alice Super powers?It takes away from the first movies realism,makes her shallow,and a grade z matrix wannabe.The stakes go from high to low.Whereas the first you never knew who was gonna live or die.Where is the tension?

The Nemisis is kinda fun to watch.They got him right.But even he is sabotaged by the random shots that reveal him to be an over-sized Stuntman in a rubber suit.A competent director would know to shoot around this.Even the Roger Corman cheapies know how to do that on a tenth of this flicks budget.

Where are the zombies?For the most part they are again sabotaged by the director,who keeps them out of focus most of the time.Its like they are ashamed to say this is a horror flick?

Where is the freaking logic here?The characters do the stupidest things?There is some howling dialog here.Its hard to sustain interest upon hearing what comes out of the cast mouth.Why the hell would they bring a kid along on a rescue attempt?The action sequences resemble MTV videos from 1986.

Milla is okay as Alice.I would watch her in a soup commercial.But she comes off as really pompous here.Sienna Guillory and Oded Fehr are about the only ones that come off well in RE 2.Mike Epps,Thomas Kretschmann,and Jared Harris are wasted here.The cast all come off as kind of smug in my book,and its hard to like them.

The directing,scripting,and visuals all look terrible here.I don't wanna be hard on Witt.But I would have went with Anyone else but him. I suspect its not all his fault though.I was never part of the I-hate-Anderson-crowd.But I think the fault here lies with him and the producers.He ruined AVP.Now this!I think he owes me 20 bucks now for paying to see the combined dreck that is AVP and RE2.In the same year no doubt!!!

RE2 held a lot of promise that has sadly been flushed down the proverbial toilet.Ever more cringing is the fact that a RE3 is on the way.",0 "Saw The Hurt Locker 7 days prior to watching Tunnel Rats. Tunnel Rats wins in a big way!! There was no main character in Tunnel Rats, and these guys were all regular Army. I was on the edge of my seat AND emotionally attached to these characters. There were at least 10 characters (3 or 4 of them enemy) that had some sort of character development and that takes place in the first 45 minutes of the film. It was slow at first, but once the first person enters the tunnel you'll feel like you're right there in Nam INSIDE THAT TUNNEL!!! I felt like I was crawling in there alongside these guys fighting my way through just trying to survive and find my way out. The tunnel confrontations were incredibly tense and gripping! I liked how the ""Gooks"" were portrayed as well, especially the female. The production values were well above B-movie grade. The cinematography was well done with some very thoughtfully choreographed shots with the Huey and the scenery. The soundtrack was quite appropriate as well. The DVD release takes out the really gory kill scenes, but you will have seen enough to imagine what just happened. When the really gory deaths occur there is a freeze frame and sometimes a brief drop to black. If you want to see all the gory deaths later on you can choose to do so in the Deleted Scenes section. The gory deaths are so horrifying that I think it's a good idea that they were cut out so that you don't just zone out and miss the next 20 seconds of intense action and suspense! If you enjoy war movies or are a student of Vietnam War history, this is a must see!",1 "I bought this movie for one reason and one reason only, Bonnie Hunt. I can not believe she sank so low! Her character is the only good thing about this film, and I hate to say it, her character isn't that great! This movie was the worst thing I had ever seen! Usually Lilly Tomlin is funny, she wasn't. and I was so suprised at Jack Lemmon's character too. Why did you people make this movie? WHY?!?!?!

This Movie will forever sit on my shelf never to be watched again!",0 "I've just wasted a few hours of my life watching this film. I expected more since it was based on actual events. Some of the acting is horrific and I'm almost positive I saw a guy reading a Q-card. The two twin sisters that own the hardware store are scary. They're more frightening than the ""train killer"". He didn't seem like such a bad guy! Every now and then he would get a little angry.

Most of the characters didn't even speak with an accent. They sounded like Americans. I hated to see that steam engine go to waste on this movie. I can't encourage any one to take the time to view this film. Overall, it stank!!!!",0 "OK, there are so many things wrong with this movie, I don't know where to start. I have been reading Jack Higgins for probably a decade and a half, so I am quite familiar with his work and his characters.

First off, Rob Lowe???? Good actor, bad accent. Oh, wait, I forgot, he can't do an Irish accent. Also, Sean Dillon is described as a nondescript figure, as far as his build goes. The only qualities that make him the man we love is his 'Fair, almost white hair and his pale blue eyes'. Lowe, obviously, has neither of them. Well, almost the eyes... MAYBE.

Hannah Bernstein, an intellectual Scotland Yard inspector. They got that right. However, Jack Higgins repeatedly dresses her in trouser suits.

Brigadier Charles Ferguson, always in an unkempt state, dress-wise, except for his Guards tie.

Also, the movie would've been much better had they followed the book a little more closely. The way which Ferguson and Dillon meet was in a different book altogether. And they didn't even get it right! The initial meeting of Asta and Dillon, again, not accurate. The arrangement made for reservations at Loch Dhu???? NOT EVEN CLOSE!

In other words, as a Jack Higgins fan, I was embarrassed by this movie.",0 I didn't even want to give this title a 1 because it just really sucked. I don't have any clue on why anybody likes this movie. The only reason I even rented this was because Bill Murray was in it and honestly I want the 2 hours of my life back. I would rather watch a dog take a crap than watch this movie again. Trust me...Steer clear of this one. If you want to see Bill Murray be funny than watch Caddyshack. If you want to see Mathew Gray Grubler than watch R.V. or better yet Criminal Minds. It was beyond terrible. I don;t think there is a word in the English language that describes how bad this movie actually was. Because of this movie I never want to see anything Wes Anderson makes again.,0 "Elvis stars as a race car driver. His co-star is someone who was popular at the time. His character has money trouble. These are the overall qualities of Viva Las Vegas, and guess what? They are also present in Speedway. What makes Speedway different is the great supporting cast, Bill Bixby, William Schallert, Gale Gordon, and leading lady Nancy Sinatra. The other thing is the chemistry between Elvis and Bixby and Elvis and Nancy. Elvis and Bixby have a real ""buddy"" vibe between them and Elvis and Nancy have a believable chemistry. Nancy is an OK actress, but Elvis isn't exceptional either. He was a good actor, but he was never going to win any awards. It seems like towards the end of his movie career he seemed to get a little bored with the same plot, but he turns in a bored-free performance here. Funny moments include the musical number in the IRS office and any scene with Gale Gordon. Gale Gordon is one of those comedy legends that probably could have brightened up a tanker of a movie like Xanadu. Speedway's racing sequences are somewhat dizzying. All of the cars seemed to look the same after a while. But all in all, it was a fun little time filler with goofy moments. The best musical number was the adorable ""Your Time Hasn't Come Yet Baby"" and Nancy's solo number ""Your Groovy Self"" was also a highlight.",1 "It is important when watching this series that it is not meant to be a remake of the book. And I will point out that the makers of this show definitely read the book. I was reading through the book and caught mention of a character named Quana (I cannot remember the context) and thought, ""flygirl."" The one annoying thing is that there seem to be plot jumps. How did Fallin become employed at Coreander's? I prefer the Bastian of the show over the movies, because now he gets to be a boy. I also think the addition of a love interest was a good idea despite its inaccuracy to the book, because that wasn't the goal of the show. Overall, I liked the show although I wouldn't recommend paying money for it. If you can get it for free though, go ahead and watch it.",1 "I already watched this movie some years ago today I watched it again and I really like this movie. The story tells about 3 friends living in hamburg the night before one of them will go to a ship to Africa and later singapore. It's their last evening they spend together and they have much trouble but fun too. A really nice scene is the kicker-scene where they play against the ""snake"", a really strange guy who plays kicker very well. This movie got so much emotion and is very funny too, so this proves that there are coming up some good talented directors, producers and actors. I hope to see more movies like this in the future, telling realistic stories from peoples lifes without spending so much money on movies to plaster bad stories. We have that movies from Hollywood all the time so I'm really glad to have movies like this one.

9/10",1 "This film, shot in black and white, takes you back to the films of yesteryear. Johnny is an island of innocence in a modern sea of debauchery. Undaunted and unflinching, Johnny captures the bad guy and gets the girl. I could almost say that's a spoiler, but the nature of this film makes it quite enjoyable no matter if you know the ending or not! Fun and frivolous, this film deserves your attention. I caught it quite by chance on IFC and am happier for it. Don't miss it, this is good stuff.",1 "This is probably one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I don't mean ""bad"" in the 50's Sci Fi B-movie way, I mean ""bad"" as in bad! Bad script, bad acting, even the blood and gore is badly done. The ""item"" itself, nothing but a horney muppet, isn't even the worst thing about the movie. An hour and a half of my life that I'll never get back.",0 "Personally, I'm not a very big fan of the comical style of the Ritz' brothers and I never looked at them as being much more than a poor man's Three Stooges or Abott & Costello. They never really achieved much in cinema and if you know that 'The Gorilla' is by far their greatest movie, you wonder why on earth they ever enjoyed the popularity status. In this low-budgeted comedy/thriller they play a trio of clumsy (on the verge of idiotic) private detectives hired by the wealthy Walter Stevens because he received a warning note that a murderer at large will kill him within 24 hours. The three are in Stevens' house when the time arrives, along with the niece, her fiancée and two servants, but still they can't prevent that the killer – known as ""the Gorilla"" strikes at midnight. The basic plot has quite some potential as a murder-mystery, but naturally everything revolves on the grimaces and unfunny lines of the Ritz' brothers. This regretfully results in a total lack of tension and credibility while it COULD have been a compelling thriller story. There's way too much talking going on and the hectic performances game me a severe headache. I personally thought that the maid was a lot funnier than the 3 brothers all together and it really hurt to see how a true horror-icon like Bela Lugosi is shamelessly downgraded to the insignificant supportive cast. The actual revelation of the killer's identity is almost too silly for words.",0 "This is just an awful movie. Really, there is no substance and if there is a plot it is well hidden. It is rated as a comedy but I failed to find any funny parts. If your kids bring home bad marks on their report cards, they should be made to watch this film as punishment.

mz4392",0 "I always hate it when all those high class critics from the newspapers and journals bash a film for not being what THEY want it to be and not looking at it for what its SUPPOSED to be.

The title is ""Death Race"" after all. No-one ever expected it to win any golden trophies in the first place. So what if the acting was a bit bland and the plot was a little weak. That's not was the movie is supposed th be about.

It's not a Martin Scorsese film where you sit back and think ""Oh, that is very thought-provoking and I feel that I've truly learned something inspirational today."" No. This is a film where you sit back, look at it, and think ""Holy ****!! Did you see that ********** explosion?!""

This is a film where you have fun in. Don't worry if you walk away with nothing meaningful to talk about at the end. Go ahead and laugh at its stupidity. I guarantee you you'll still have a much better time that watching something like Capote",1 "Antonio Scarpachi is dead! Adrian Monk Lives! Long Live Tony Shaloub.

Adrian Monk is a former Police Officer with Obsessive compulsive disorder and a fear of filth. He hates germs, has a plethora of other phobias, and wants to be reinstated to the Police Department.

Monk has a photographic memory and an ability to notice everything. He solves crimes by noticing the things most people over look.

In the premier I was totally impressed at how they use his obsessive compulsive disorder and his fear of germs to put him in predicaments that challenge his character. I love the way he struggles to overcome his phobias in order to get the bad guy. The show has comic relief that is classic Tony Shaloub schtick!

With his cohort Sharona, he solves crimes, impresses the police and confronts the many fears he has.

This is the Columbo of the new millenium! Not to be missed. I predict a long run for this program. I am not a USA Network watcher in general but I will be watching ""Monk""!

I am also a USM grad in Maine and I am proud to call Shaloub a fellow graduate. Well done!",1 "(possible spoilers) In what Alfred Hitchcock considers to be his first true film, he presents the story of a man who is suspected of being Jack the Ripper. It is almost a polar opposite of what was to become one of his favorite themes, the wrong man theme, in the sense that it is the populace (and the audience) rather than the police that are on the wrong track. The film is very expressionistic and highly stylish, and often lingers on motionless shots to let individual performances illustrate the dramatic tension.

A young Hitchcock (he was my age when he made the film, about 27 or 28) allowed himself to be swayed by popular and studio pressure much more than he would later in his career, since he allowed the entire ending of this film to be altered based on the popularity of it's handsome star, stage actor Ivor Novello. Hitch's humor comes through in scenes like a showgirl dramatically giving up peroxide, since the Avenger seems to prefer blondes.

The Lodger is also credited with being the first film where Hitchcock started making his trademark cameos, one of him at a news desk early in the film and once again in the crowd near the end. I am going to remain neutral on this, because neither appearance is surely Hitchcock. The man at the desk is shown from behind and could be anyone, and try as I might, I couldn't find him anywhere in the crowd at the end. Hitchcock also has nothing nice to say in the film about media sensationalism, which is the cause of much of the widespread panic caused by the murders. Very good early Hitchcock, it's easy to see why he was gaining so much attention at this point in his career.",1 "Just got back from an advanced screening of this film and was compelled to write this with the hope who ever reads this will take my advice and go see this film immediately. For several reasons:the first being the acting and casting. Emmanuelle Chrioui (I am a big ""Entourage"" fan) and new comer Robert Capeli were fantastic together. And Pat Hingle should get a nomination for his role. Artie Lange couldn't of been funnier (I am a bigger Stern fan). I also liked the way they cast soap star J. Eddie Peck as a villain. And Grant Shaud from ""Murphy Brown"" fame was stellar. His last scene made me laugh out loud. The second was the story, I don't want to spoil it for you let me just type you will not be disappointed. I concur with the other posting's that this is a must see.....",1 "I watched this for my English class and it portrayed some very interesting themes, still affecting todays world. The conformity, the outbreaks, the restrictions.... its all very real, and that's what I love about it! The only thing stopping me from giving it a full 10, was the fact that I didn't like the ending very much, even though the suicide was a shock, the whole thing about Mr Keating getting kicked out didn't entertain me at all. Another part of the movie I don't think is adequate is the scene in which Knox Overstreet is at the party with Chris. Although the part of him getting beaten up was funny,I don't think it was necessary to show him getting drunk.",1 "If you think this is how America truly is, then you're so naive. Where do the issues about poverty, the economy, deficit, high taxes, inflation, and racial injustice come in? Surprise, surprise it's never featured here nor is it EVER talked about!

We see some amazing direction followed by actors acting like real Joe schmoes reading from a script who display their pleasure with this grand country as if we don't have problems, because this propaganda would rather have us ignore the problems because it's much better to just watch this comedy and forget our misery.

Smart people will really dislike this and will see right through its act, as I did. Is it UnAmerican to see right through this propaganda? It's Unamerican to pretend we have no problems.",0 "I'm a big fan of Christopher Guest and his movies. For Your Consideration doesn't deserve any consideration. What a waste of time! Rather than viewing For Your Consideration, watch any other of his wonderful movies for the first or hundredth time and spend an enjoyable evening.

The characters are all flat and uninspired. The comedy is weak, tired, and very far from being fresh. It was all so predictable and boring.

I was so very disappointed. While many others walked out of the theater, I hung on hoping it would improve. It didn't. It is one of those films where you find yourself checking your watch to see how much more must be endured.",0 "For half or two-thirds of its length, I thought this a fair enough movie. True, it's a poor telling of the novel, bits from which are stuck together without the structure of it being clearly conveyed or, apparently, recognized. Also true, it's filled with bad theatrical ideas, such as combining the heroine of the novel with Austen herself (and then casting the role with an actress who can play neither one). And also true, it's played less like an Austenian social comedy than like a half-baked version of Tom Jones. All these things notwithstanding, up to a point it's entertaining enough. (However, ""enough"" here means, as always in this usage, not quite enough. Halfway through the movie, not seeing much I recognized on screen, I turned to the novel, and found one paragraph of it more involving, amusing, and wise than everything in the movie rolled together. But let that pass.)

Then came the Social Significance - as if Austen's novels were not full of social significance. Evidently the adapter disliked the nineteenth century, and Austen, and set out to show them up for what they were. I pretended to miss the insinuation of her father's having molested her and her sister--there being no other interpretation to be placed on the looks exchanged between the two of them and their mother when he gives Fanny a hug. But then Fanny turns up an album of atrocity pictures showing what her (almost) foster father, his son, and his crew were really getting up to with their slaves.

This exceeds allowable bounds. Such a device might be imposed on Fielding, or on Dickens, without betraying the author's purpose too far; but not Austen. It obliterates the story, or what's left of it. In the face of rapes and beatings and tortures, who gives a fig whether Miss Price and her Reverend get together? Yet the comedy of manners continues galumphing along as if the scene had never happened. Having forced it in, the adapter makes no changes in the narrative to accommodate it. This is film-making for MTV watchers, i.e. patients with short-term memory loss.

Ah - the adapter might counter - but that's just the point! The characters act as if these horrors didn't exist! To which I would reply: if she felt, reading the novel, that the squire was just the kind of man who would have done that sort of thing, white European male pig that he was, and that Austen (owing to her famous ignorance of human nature, which causes her books to continue to be read two centuries later) was too much of a booby to see it, whereas the adapter's own superior sensibility makes all things manifest, she might at least have done Fanny the justice of having her react to the discovery as she would have, given her character. The story turns on her absolute moral rectitude and her rejection of the amorality represented by the Dangerous Liaisons characters. In the face of the dark deeds of which she becomes aware, her denunciation of the others becomes itself amoral and hypocritical, for she has silently acquiesced in the viciousness of her class.

This conclusion must be extrapolated, since it is nowhere stated in the film, the adapter not having troubled to stir in the muck she has tossed into the pot. But I can't help wondering, if her object was to discredit Fanny, as well as the monsters around her--if she had so little use for the character as that--why did she choose to do this book?",0 "I will at least give the filmmakers credit for making their intentions (and level of aspiration) known right up front - with a title like ""Karate Cop"", the viewer knows EXACTLY what he's getting, and also how good it's likely to be. (I.E.,not very good).

I also admit that this Ron Marchini film is far, far better than an earlier film I saw that that he ""starred"" in (""Death Machines"") because he actually has dialog to deliver in this one (in ""DM"" he was a silent zombie killing machine) and he gets to kick people in the face on a regular basis (where in DM, the actual fights were few and dully staged). Ron's no actor, but he's in good shape, is reasonably photogenic, and doesn't seem to take himself too seriously. There are times in the movie where you can glimpse why a director thought he could be properly framed and featured to make a decent movie. Not a great movie, but a decent one. And since this movie is so much better than ""Death Machines"", if his acting and roles had continued and kept improving, I estimate he might have eventually been as as Don ""The Dragon"" Wilson.

""Karate Cop"" is also better in two ways than the stream of similar post-apocalyptic themed Italian rip-offs of ""Max Max"" and ""Escape From New York"" because it appears to have been made by Americans. That means there isn't the annoying ""tin-eared ESL dubbing"" problem that always drags the Italian films down a notch. And there's a lot more martial-arts themed fighting and gladiatorial style combat in this one than in the typical Italian genre ripoff,and it's choreographed with admirable energy and zest. Of course, that's probably a given with a title like ""Karate Cop"". But it is also worse in the score for the soundtrack, which is obviously scored and performed by one guy with a synthesizer. It's like listening to a kazoo for 90 minutes - even when it's skillfully played, there's just too much synth, and it's way too insistent.

And you have to have an actual screenplay, acting, and dialog to hang those fight scenes on; otherwise you might just as well be playing a video game like ""Final Fight"". And this is where the movie falls way short. Even in a ""Z"" grade movie, you need to have a compelling plot that makes sense, but someone wrote this one with their frontal lobes in ""neutral"". And you need a few people who can really act, at least a little. Aside from Ron Marchini, ""Snakey"" probably has the best lines and gives the best performance of the cast, and the actor who plays the ""Drug Lord"" at least looks as if he's having a good time. But the rest of the cast, even the extras (especially the kids in the cast) couldn't get on stage in the local community theater.

And as for the the rest of it....sheesh. I don't know why directors working with poverty level budgets think they can get away with incorporating science fiction themes. Good SF requires a lot of time and talent and craft to get decent results. You have to engage in ""world building"" to make it work; you can't just dress the cast up in Salvation Army handouts and headbands and pretend that rubble strewn back alleys with graffiti on the walls are the shattered remains of a civilization. A fog machine is for dinner theaters - it isn't scene design.

""Death Machines"" was an insult to me as a movie consumer. But for $1, I feel I got my money's worth from ""Karate Cop"". I can always use the DVD as a drinks coaster if I don't want to watch it again.",0 "Before I saw Death Wish, I knew there was more than just the context of it being a starring vehicle for one of the major bad-asses of the action picture, Charles Bronson (who's best role is still the one with the least words, Once Upon a Time in the West), and that it contains the elements that would spark an entire sub-genre (for better or worse). I knew that there was also a kind of historical context for the times, of how it was in New York City as well as in others during the 70's (though especially in the 70's)- I remembered my mother telling me about how the atmosphere of 'Death Wish' with its thieves and rapists and abusers was for real, that they were around every corner, and that crime was indeed at an all-time high then. So watching the film with this in mind, it brings a little extra drama to the story of Paul Kersey (Bronson). There is the style, and underlying humor, that appeals for the genre fans (and there is a minor bit of exploitation in making Kersey a 'bleeding heart liberal' with skill behind a gun). But there is also a sense of overall tragedy to it all.

The tragedy comes out of a truly disturbing scene- Kersey's wife and daughter go home from the market, unaware that a trio of hoodlums (one of them a fresh-faced Jeff Goldblum no less) follow them, bust in, and beat and rape them. This is indeed so terrifying and real it tops a scene like the one in Clockwork Orange with the assault on the writer; it's somehow even more shocking when its in an apartment in the now, with hoodlums as random and sadistic as the ones here. Kersey mourns the loss of his wife and daughter (the latter to dementia) briefly, but it sticks with him through the whole film, in one way or another. The first signs of him knowing what's around him on the streets at night (and one of the funnier bits of the film's bleakness) is when he takes a sock full of quarters to use on the hoodlums. This is short-lived after a visit to the south-west, where he gets slipped a gun in his suitcase. The rest of the film unfolds as it would, at least under the circumstances of the genre.

Yet within the grip of Death Wish being a genre picture (and this is something that the sequels and other lessor B films have forgotten) is that there has to be a sense of reality, and real dangers, to the film, not to mention the sort of evolution of Kersey into how he becomes- a killer, a vigilante of the scum who try to rob and threaten to kill. Although the police procedural that parallels his story isn't as strong as his, it works fine within the scope of the story that has to turn out in a certain way. But there are other factors to go with it besides a strong story (based on an even stronger book Brian Garfield). Bronson is, indeed, great at being, well, Bronson. If the violence in the film doesn't pull any punches for its time period, Bronson doesn't skip being good at showing Kersey's inner strength of defense as well as his weaker side. It's not a very complex performance aside from the conflicts midway through the film with Kersey, but it's in a way truer than the film could deserve. Michael Winner, the director, is also an asset with this, in giving to the film its gritty tone. And, as an added bonus, there's the sweet musical score from Herbie Hancock.

Death Wish is a film of its time, but one that still has significance, and entertainment value for today. People my age (i.e. college kids) will be attracted to it for its 'retro' style, and, as it is in the vein of a film like Taxi Driver (though less visceral), as a stylistic action film. And for the older folks, the drama of the film, and the solid storytelling, will keep it interesting. In short, it's the proverbial good vigilante film of its time, giving Bronson one of his most memorable turns.",1 "I just saw the NY premier of Inland Empire, and it was so refreshing to once again be transported in a way only David Lynch can transport somebody. Inland Empire is Lynch at his best - funny, thoughtful, eerie, beautiful, dark, deeply disturbing, and terrifying in a way that few horror films have ever affected me. The film is a slow burn, taking its time (about 3 hours), leaping through realities and bizarre encounters, continually keeping the audience asking themselves what reality they are experiencing, and what that reality means.

Laura Dern gives an outstanding performance as the tagline's ""girl in trouble."" She goes to places I don't ever remember seeing her go, from the naive to the terrifying, truly exposed. I've heard Lynch is campaigning for an Oscar nod for Ms. Dern, so maybe this is the one. She really blew me away.

This film - like all of Lynch's endeavors - is certainly not for everyone. It's vague, bizarre, jumps all over the place, and at times is deeply frightening (one of the few films in a long time to actually give me nightmares), but in my opinion it's also truly beautiful, almost serene. If you like a linear, clear-cut story, then don't see this film. If you appreciate non-linear, surreal drama/horror, however, then by all means go see it. Lynch is independently producing this, so I know he's banking on a lot of word of mouth for Inland Empire to be successful. Help him out. It's a fantastic film.",1 "I was pulled into this movie, despite a clichéd and standard TV movie type script. This was probably due to the performances and good recreation of the times.

Sean Hayes does not look like Jerry Lewis but made a good stab at recreating his manic energy and routines. Only in the dramatic scenes did I feel a lack of insight in his performance.

Jeremy Northam convinced admirably with his laid back Dean Martin, unfortunately he had little material to work with script wise but got across Dino's couldn't care less attitude which rolled along for years with Lewis until he could take no more.

I think the fault with the movie was that it was made when only one of the duo has passed on, so perhaps there were Lewis traits that had to be down graded at the expense of Martin. However to be fair they did show some of Lewis's control freakery and joke stealing that led to the final breakup.

Still for a TV movie it was definitely above average, these 2 stars were huge successes in their partnership days, and each went on to show their own brand of showbiz genius as they went their separate ways afterwards. In the end a rather sad story.",1 "Dale ""Apollo"" Cook stars as Mike a renegade cop who joins forces with a Karate instructor (Evan Lurie) to save the daughter that could be either one of them could be the father. Awful cinematography and poor acting make this one unwatchable. Besides who asked for a sequel to American Kickboxer 1?",0 "Bambi II is one of those rare gems of a movie that you can feel good about watching with your children. It combines a touching story of a father and sons's relationship as they struggle to deal with the loss of Bambi's mother. A subject that is not easily tackled but the director, Brian Pimental deals with it beautifully. He uses humor and sensitivity to show us how Bambi is dealing with his father's high expectations of him. The use of humor between Bambi and his friends, Thumper and Flower keep the story light enough for kids to enjoy.

As far as sequels go this one makes the grade. It's not an easy task to create something as good as the original but Bambi II succeeds where others fail. It's fresh enough with it's humor but still stays on track with the feel of a classic Disney movie from the the opening scenes to the the musical score.",1 "For the longest time, this film had been shown in the USA in an edited version with its title changed to ""The Inheritance"". I believe that when it premiered in New York, in its initial 1951 American screening, Jean Simmons had already become a major International star. It might have seemed risky, for the American distributor of the film, to advertise the lovely Miss Simmons as the star of a film called ""Uncle Silas"". Therefore, a genderless alternative title, ""The Inheritance"", was used for the American release. (Thus, showing Miss Simmons' character to be prominent as the film's main protagonist and inheritor.) Apart from the film's American title change, the print was edited drastically (and in some cases incoherently) resulting in an uneven and less enjoyable film than the one that those lucky audiences in Britain were able to see when the film had its UK premiere in 1947. Perhaps, because of all of the dissatisfied comments on this board (e.g. Film buffs complaining about the truncated version available in the USA), the Samuel Goldwyn Company has secured the original uncut British version ""Uncle Silas"", and much to everyone's joy, it has been shown twice on TCM. Seemingly, it belongs to the TCM library. Now, wouldn't it be great if the folks at Goldwyn (or TCM) would be nice enough to put this gem of a film onto DVD for us? Let's hope and see what the future holds!",1 "It's not to bad, you can tell the movie is old just by the effects and the picture and the acting, but actually it wasn't all that bad. The zombies were more funny that scary, and it almost made me chuckle a few times because they act sort of funny, running around mumbling, the gore was good, I like when the guy got his throat bitten out, and when the one police officers fingers got bitten off reminded me of a scene from the remake of Wes Craven's ""The Hills Have Eyes"" which was my favorite part in that movie, so it was kind of cool to see a similar scene in this movie. To be honest I'm not done watch the movie right now, and it seems nothing will really change my review on this movie cause it's almost over. But if you like horror movies, and zombies and gore, then check out this movie, I'm not got promise you'll like it because everybody's taste in movies in different, but all I know is I enjoyed it. So feel free to check this movie out.",1 "THERE MAY BE SPOILERS BUT YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN BE CONSIDERING WATCHING THIS MOVIE.

On the face of it this was a fairly tempting no brainer movie – the premise of the overrated (but not bad) original pasted onto the eighties slasher movie template – a touch of continuation with the Bobby, one of the survivors and Ruby, the feral girl (and the family dog, who gets his own flashback – draw your own conclusions!) from the original and the promise of much inspired teenager-slashing in the desert.

They are hooked up with some motocross riders and their girlfriends (one of the girls is blind and has Daredevil like enhanced senses – I am not making this up) and heading to a meet in some unspecified place to test out Bobby's newly developed super-fuel (they're carrying gallons of the stuff – deus ex machina alert!)

The kids decide to leave the highway and head across country thanks to one of the stupidest plot contrivances in cinematic history – they forget that the clocks went forward the night before – all of them!! This happened about twenty minutes in and I kept watching!!! More fool, me.

From there on its the usual predictable nonsense and features Michael Berryman (with a REAL tenuous explanation of his survival from part one) and a super lame villain (its Jupiter's brother!!) who looks like a retired wrestler with a big fat gut (y'know – he's fat – just run away!!)

None of this should be completely damning – there are a million pointless, predictable slasher flicks but some of them actually have a touch of originality – even if its only in the way the cast are killed off.

Boy does this movie fail – did Craven just take the budget and spend it on drugs? At least fifteen minutes of its overlong eighty six are taken up with flashbacks from the original (and not even the good bits from the original!) – the killings are bloodless and stupid and the killers are about as menacing as a drunk uncle at Christmas. And don't get me started on the ending...

This is the kind of dull, lazy, artless, stupid, `will this do?' filmmaking that gives horror cinema its bad name. It isn't even entertainingly bad – its just bad and should be in IMDB's 100 worst.

Pointless – avoid. You have been warned. 1 out of 10 only cos theres no zero option.",0 "The first problem I have with this film is in it's opening titles claiming to be based on a true story. This sets you up with anticipation that the filmmakers have developed this film aiming for authenticity, recreating what it was like to be the first fighter pilots in the first modern war. For the first time films makers have the tools with CGI to truly accurately portray the visceral effects of WWI dog fighting to put the audience right back into the thick shell smoked 1916 western front.

However they fall VERY short of the mark because through their obsession with their aerial money shots, they seem to have forgotten the human story of the true horrors of combat and what it does to the human soul. In the fact it's the human story that the director makes the biggest hash of. It's Horrors of war painted by numbers, lets have the veteran seen it all, lets have the fearless guy and then just so people know war can be nasty lets have a shell shock guy. But this is done so distastefully it truly mocks people who have actually been traumatized by war.

This films claims to have the most authentic aerial combat footage ever put to film. The CGI shots are also no where near as good as the film makers think they are. In many cases they come across as in game movie footage from an Xbox360, cartoon like and unreal. The filmmakers have also made no effort to research their period, without creating any spoilers there is some truly ludicrous almost James Bond like action set pieces that take away all sense that you are watching a realistic war film. The bi-planes might as well have afterburners and laser beams and fly into space, the film wouldn't be any less believable and probably a lot more interesting.

This is nothing more than a boys own story; where the first casualty is truth or realism. It has a TV movie feel and the acting is so bad you couldn't care less who lives or dies by the end of it. This film could have offered so much but it seems the director and the produces bottled out and aimed for an arcade computer style shoot em up with shallow acting and a big helping of cartoon CGI.",0 "This film has a great soundtrack all the way through! Most of the artists are not well known, but deserve a second listen. Great soundtrack!

The film was pretty bad. Cheesy plot, goofy sophomoric dialog, poor and clichéd acting, clichéd characters, pretty bad all around. If you take this film seriously, you will hate it, but going into it, you should know that it is not to be taken seriously. This film is worth seeing, but not worth paying to see, so only rent it if you have the Movie Pass lol. If you wade through all the goofiness, there a few funny moments. Although, if you are amused by farts and masturbation (God help you! lol), you might love this film lol.

Danica McKeller is not in the film near enough. She is a secondary character. Being the only talented actor/actress in the film, they should have given her a bigger role. And she is still cute as can be Winnie! I guess she will always have a special place in most people's hearts as Winnie Cooper from the Wonder Years. Great show! Richard Karn is the next closest cast member to being well known, and he is terrible in this film. What would expect though?

Yes it is clichéd constantly. The geek is in love with the most popular girl in the school, who dates the football star. The geek has a fat, somewhat effeminate friend, who always has a crazy plan. The geek stands up for the girl, and receives the ire of the jocks. The geek is clumsy lol. etc, etc.

SPOILER! One major problem I have with this film is at the end. We are all happy that the geek finally got the dream girl, and that he beat up the jock, and the dream girl realized how great a guy the geek was, and then all of a sudden, the geek wakes up, and the whole crazy plot we watched was just a dream, it didn't happen. WHAT? Then he goes and does the same things over again, and we are left to believe it happens the same way the second time. This was totally pointless and stupid! Why? Really bad move!

One question about this film: Why did they remove the nudity, if the film had an R rating even without it. The 2 scenes with breasts would not have raised the rating to NC 17, so why cut them out of an R rated film? Plus, why cut them out on the DVD release, if they are going to be in the Deleted Scenes anyway? I can't imagine this film had much of a theatrical run, if any, so the DVD would be the main release, so why cut it out, if 1. it's already rated R, and 2. they are on another part of the DVD anyway. Don't get me wrong, I could care less if a film has nudity, I just don't understand the logic here. Plus, the extended scene with the 3 girls in Debbie's bedroom displayed some of Danica's best acting, but it was cut in half for the feature.

Anyway, goofy film worth seeing ONLY IF you can see it for free, because of a FEW funny moments, a great soundtrack, and Danica McKeller's cuteness lol.",0 "Time Chasers features big chinned, Castleton graduate NICK MILLER (QUE elevator music) and his trusty textured wardrobe wearing friend-to-be-girl-friend LISA (QUE ... nothing). It also features the evil library clerk, CEO dressed J.K. Robertson. Oh yeah, it also has a guy wearing a pink shirt found at the day of the shoot cause he forgot his outfit. The storyline goes from a plane to a grocery store. Plus, a few shots of a plane flying into a camera that's recording a computer screen at the director's house on his off-day. That's all I should say, because the only interesting part was watching the credits to laugh at the fact that this movie actually had people to credit.",0 "I agree that the plot is pretty weak, but there is several MILLION dollars worth of musical talent in this movie. And some decent tunes!",1 "A little slow and studied, but very worthwhile and ultimately moving. One of those modest little films that are awfully good but you may have to oversell it's virtues to get your friends to see it. Some will love it, a few will shrug and say ""So What?"" I've seen it twice now, I like it even more the second time around. The long, long single, almost wordless shot will move you or annoy the heck out of you if your impatient. By the way, my native Italian friend (who loved the film) says Tony Shalhoub is much more convincing as an Italian man speaking English than as a an Italian man speaking Italian.",1 "It's too bad Andre De Toth didn't contribute more to the noir cycle, because on the evidence he was a natural (plus he was married to early-noir icon Veronica Lake). The Pitfall, made in 1948, looks more and more like one of the best, and most central, movies in the cycle, but (except for the early, more gothic Dark Waters) De Toth only returned to it once, with Crime Wave. Its story is not a fresh one: an ex-con trying to go straight (Gene Nelson) is coerced by circumstances to aid and abet a gang of his former cellmates. The uncomfortable spot he finds himself in lies between them and the law, personified by Sterling Hayden as a tough, unforgiving police detective. There's much more attention to character in the film's hour-and-a-quarter running time than in many full-length features of the era; Jay Novello, as an alcoholic veterinarian who doubles as an underworld sawbones, is especially memorable. By any reckoning Crime Wave is a minor film -- even a minor second feature -- but De Toth lavishes easy expertise on it; it's surprisingly well paced, well shot, as well interestingly cut. Why so many talented directors (many of them refugees from Europe) were relegated, in the 1950s, to ""genre"" movies -- crime dramas, 3-D schlockfests and westerns -- is a puzzle. In any case, I'd give any three of De Toth's westerns AND his House of Wax for just one more film noir boasting his directorial credit.",1 "This juvenile production is a dumbed-down version of ""The Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress"". To some it may seem an homage to the original but to this viewer it comes across as a cheap way to cash in on our desire for nostalgia. The aerial scenes are as unconvincing as the cleancut actors. If you want to see how it really was, catch the original.",0 "I heard varying comments prior to watching this film, and I have to say that I shall always follow my gut instinct from now on. This film is neither boring or slow paced! Whilst watching the trailers the first thing that caught my eye was the beautiful sets. And they did not disappoint! The set is magical. The acting is flawless. The music is brilliant. The story is well written, nicely paced and very artistic indeed. Clever and intellectual. A well deserved round of applause for both those in front of the scenes and behind. For anyone who has loved someone unconditionally. I would highly recommend to those who enjoyed films from Romeo and Juliet to Devdas to Moulin Rouge! ;)",1 "Joan Crawford should had broken into the vaults at M-G-M studios and BURNED this film. Not only is she TERRIBLE in it, but the production itself is laughable. Joan even attempts to sing and is often off-key.",0 "This movie does not know what it wants to be, is it a slapstick or romantic comedy?

Michael Richards' character can't get away from the Kramer character. Is he this oddball or a serious actor? He flips back and forth between the two. And in the courtroom, one second, he is fooling everyone with his acting, then the next, he becomes a complete dimwit w/o the ability to improvise through anything.

I'm not sure why the prosecutor would even phrase so many arguments so that it would be constantly objected, given that she has all the legal training.

",0 "I'm surprised how many people see this as a boring film that does nothing but chronicle the minutiae of modern-day office life. 'Clockwatchers' is a relationship film which also examines the lives of the new breed of second-class citizen in the late 20th century workplace, the temp.

Iris (Toni Collette) is a meek temporary hire who stands out about as much as the Muzak at her new assignment, a large credit firm. Luckily she's taken under the wing of Margaret (Parker Posey), the Artful Dodger of the firm's temps who shows her how to survive in this impersonal world. Along with Paula (Lisa Kudrow) and Jane (Alanna Ubach) they form an us-against-them support group and Iris begins to come out of her shell as a person as well. Soon Margaret is conducting a guerilla war against a permanent hire (Helen FitzGerald) who gets a job Margaret had been aiming for and who is almost a mirror image of Iris when she came to work a few weeks before. The office drama is played out in great detail, and the solidarity of the temps is one of the war's casualties.

This is a fine, above-average first effort from director Jill Sprecher, who wrote the screenplay with her sister Karen. She's obviously keen to show her skills here, and sometimes she directs the movie like it was 'Citizen Kane,' but that's not much of a fault. A little more serious problem is that after its climax the film loses some steam moving towards the denouement, but overall the screenwriting sisters have produced an entertaining film that speaks with authority on its subject. Let's hope they find regular employment.",1 "A movie said to be Irish-English-Swedish was enough to make me watch it when it was on TV, but I must say I'm disappointed. The movie starts out in Ireland, Finbar disappears, then half the movie goes by, and then suddenly Finbar decides to phone up his old friend Danny, telling him he's in Sweden. If the movie was half-interesting and believable in the beginning, after Danny goes to Sweden, it becomes decreasingly interesting and believable.

The scenery is really nice (even though I personally can't stand being in the north of Sweden because of all the snow and the freezing cold), but lovely nature pictures of it doesn't make up for the complete lack of anything resembling a proper plot. It's far too weak! Why did Danny go all that way and through all that trouble to search for Finbar, when Finbar was a completely selfish prat who no one in their right mind could really care about (let alone the movie audience!) - which we learn from the first 5 minutes of the film? The story's so full of plot holes it could compete with a Swiss cheese!

The only good thing about it, apart from the scenery pictures, is the Irish accent, and a chance to recognise some people who were in ""Michael Collins"", plus Lorraine Pilkington (""Monarch of the Glen""). That's about it. Sure, you can watch this movie if you've got nothing better to do, but you'd be better off watching something else.",0 "Wow. Shoot 'Em Up is exactly what it claims to be. An action movie. Balls to the wall, no holds barred, but nothing more. And that's exactly what you get. Don't go expecting high art...SEU doesn't take itself seriously enough for that. But that's exactly what makes it work. It KNOWS it's over the top, and doesn't try to hide it. Clive Owen's Smith character is the Bugs Bunny to Paul Giamatti's Hurtz Elmer Fudd. The film takes the best cartoon elements, makes them flesh, and still kicks in that over the top craziness. Bad puns that are so bad they're good, action sequences that there just for the sake of having an action sequence, and the wildest sex scene ever...it's amazing. It's the funniest, coolest, most amazing mix of stunts, bad one liners and paper think plot lines.

You get everything you expect from Shoot 'Em Up...and it's all great.",1 "This awful film fell into the hands of my friend recently and I was unfortunate enough to be there that night as he watched it. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a huge horror movie fan. I love both A and B horror but this was the first film in years that actually had me screaming in agony in my head. ""God let it end!! Let it end now!!!"" kept echoing through my skull as I shifted uncomfortably while cringing. I could think of no other movie that had made me feel so anxious for the ending. The plot was disjointed and shoddy and some of the FX was shady. I normally can overlook those while watching B-movie horror but in this case it all worked for the worse. Steer clear of Hellbreeder.",0 "What is it with intelligent people? Nerds, for lack of a more colorful but expressive term, make for surprisingly interesting stories. There is something about watching people attain another league of mental skill that humbles the rest of us. Sure, there's the madness that sets in (ala ""A Beautiful Mind""), but what about the quiet cheers brought about from a film like that Spelling Bee championship flick, ""Spellbound""?

""Wordplay"" fits into that category of documentary film-making, as it further instills certain modesty into the lesser minds of us viewers. The film cleverly interweaves the tale of several competitors who rival one another at the twenty-eighth annual crossword puzzle tournament. As their stories develop, and we learn about these individuals, the actual match builds with surprising tension. These stories are told side-by-side interviews with other crossword enthusiasts such as former President Bill Clinton and TV's Jon Stewart who offer their own passionate opinions on the pleasure and overall importance of crossword puzzles. It's a fun, entertaining film that could easily have been otherwise.",1 I am 34 years old and I watched this movie for the first time today with my two boys. It has been a long time since I have laughed this hard at a show. The boys thought I was just as funny because I would tell them about my childhood days while we watched. Family entertainment and quality time together...you cannot beat it!,1 "Julien Temple struggles to make decent movies. After the appalling Absolute Beginners, a film that - despite all the promise and potential of a great novel and a decent cast and a soundtrack by Bowie - falls short of the target by miles, Temple manages to barge around with an admirable lack of skill here in this cardboard cutout piece of cheap music hall. Nothing works. The film is slow and stiff with long embarrassing moments of nothing. In desperation a bored viewer may grasp at the flimsiest piece of stale slapstick to let out a yawning chuckle, but mainly the film can only be enjoyed by those who find turkeys amusing.",0 "Sticking Robert DeNiro in your movie almost assures you good reviews. Sticking Sean Connery only increases that. So when all of them join with David Mamet and Brian DePalma,the result can be nothing short of explosive.

Kevin Costner plays a naive cop put on a mission to arrest Al Capone (DeNiro). Right from the beginning, this movie is a thrill ride. DeNiro is superb as Capone, Costner is good as Elliot Ness,and Andy Garcia is entertaining as a sure-shot young Italian. But the real gem here is Connery,in an Oscar-winning performance.Connery plays an Irish cop who joins up with Ness. He plays the role very well,and deserved his Oscar.Also joining the group is Charles Martin Smith,as a accountant who shows a deft knack for shooting at stuff.

However,that's not to say that the movie is without flaws.Some scenes are very unbelievable (especially the one where Connery meets his demise) and some parts (especially at the beginning) seem to go on too long. This,however,does not stop this movie from being fun. 8.5/10",1 "This was a pretty good PPV! The main event was the dream match with The Rock and Goldberg.. That was a entertaining match... I am a big Goldberg fan, so I enjoyed it all the way... But the best match was Lesnar/Cena... They are some kick ass wrestlers, and the match was very good! The worst match was Sean O'Haire vs. Rikishi... That wasn't very good.. But it was a good PPV.. Especially if you are a Goldberg fan! If you are a Goldberg fan, make sure to check out Unforgiven, Survivor series, and Bad Blood from 2003... But there is something special about Backlash... It was Goldbergs very first match in WWE... Some of the other matches at Backlash was the six-man tag match with Triple H, Chris Jericho, and Ric Flair vs. Booker T, Shawn Michaels, and Kevin Nash.. There is also a great cat fight backstage with Stacy Kiebler and Tori Wilson.. Make sure to check that out! Enjoy folks!",1 "Son Of Sinbad is a film that follows the old studio rule that when you have an expensive picture and build an expensive set, get some use out of it. Any film fan will readily recognize the sets that were used in the RKO classic Sinbad The Sailor that starred Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. and Maureen O'Hara.

Fairbanks had the style and dash to play the scimitar wielding Sinbad, ladies man and teller of tall tales. I suspect Sinbad also told a lot of tales about the women as well as the voyages in his life. But here we get poor Dale Robertson who must look back on this film with no amount of horror. But as he was working for Howard Hughes I'm sure that Robertson did not have to worry his paycheck wouldn't clear.

In the Citadel film series book, the Films of Vincent Price both Price and Sally Forrest who played one of the many women in the cast both looked back with amusement on the whole thing. Price acknowledged that he hammed up his part of Omar Khayyam to the hilt. The role did give the classically trained actor a chance to speak Omar's immortal lines for the screen.

The plot if you can call it involves Sinbad and Omar Khayyam teaming up to save the Caliph Leon Askin from the invading Mongol hordes of Tamerlane. They also manage if you can believe to bring Aladdin's magic lamp and the Amazonian descendants of Ali Baba's Forty Thieves. This is an errand for their lives because Askin already has Robertson and Price under a death sentence for some harem indiscretions.

All this was an excuse for Howard Hughes to put in as many opportunities as he could to bring in as much leg and cleavage as he could pack on the screen at one time. At the drop of a gold dinar a harem dance number will occur, too bad the silly plot had to get in the way.

The film was shot in 1953 and waited two years for release, something not unheard of in the RKO years of Howard Hughes. It awaited approval of the Legion of Decency which controlled the censorship of films. Hughes apparently had to cut some of the more revealing scenes before inflicting this on the general public.

Son Of Sinbad gets as high a rating as it does for the sheer campiness of the film. Don't give this film one serious moment of viewing if you choose to watch it. Apparently the players didn't.",0 "i went to see this the other day at the deep ellum film festival in dallas with a friend who was an extra in it. i didn't know anything about it except that johnny whitworth (who i love from 'empire records') and brian krakow from my so-called are in it. so i didn't know what to expect. it was definitely different than most movies i rent or see. as martha sez, that's a good thing. it had a lotta funny things and the story was kind of twisted. it all took place here in dallas, and it did a good job of showing what a strange-weird-absurd place it can be. i thought the movie did a good job of getting inside the head of a guy who questions everything around him. a lot of the things he said and did definitely rang true for me. 2 thumbs up.",1 "I'm a fan of the first Epoch. But like most sequels, they wind up being bad. Mainly because they don't have enough ideas for a sequel. That's why I get nervous when I rent a sequel, because I don't know if it's going to be as good as Spider Man 2. Or dumb, Spy Kids fluff. The movie was kind of rushed. Unlike the first Epoch, everything inside the Torus was different. Unlike the Torus in Epoch 1, There weren't any huge rooms with those tanks in it, and no really good CGI effects. And My favorite Character from the first installment died. And oddly, this movie is rated R. Epoch 1 is rated PG-13. I'm gonna have to say this movie is a flop.",0 "Barbara H: pretty sad, dear. Neither the youth nor the presence to carry your role. The film is painfully aware of its aspirations -never approached in quality, sadly - of successfully passing as a mere mediocrity. Dream on. The would-be female lead seems to have used all her resources, all the accrued influence available at the autumn of her career- not to entertain but rather to keep her ""credit"" from the leading titles, ...BH only admitting to having perpetrated ""Eva"" at the final moments of film.

Without a better performance (and any high school drama aspirant could readily cough up a more nuanced and convincing effort than did BH... the film is worse than bad.

Not all are to blame: Mike Starr (a standout in Mad Dog & Glory) never does less than fine work: an underrated actor who deserves better than this stillborn wet poop.

The screenplay is awful, the direction is amateurish, and the cinematography ... is actually quite good.

All in all, a painful and humiliating waste of time. It was much more fun to pan it than to watch it.

Try a little less lipstick, BH? (It gets farther and farther from her mouth.) -------------------------------------------",0 "Scary Movie 4 left much to be desired. Grand total of genuine laughs: 3. Fart jokes just were never that funny to begin with, neither was seeing people get hit with miscellaneous objects every 4 seconds (approximately) for an entire hour and 20 minutes. Scary Movie 4 takes that sort of cheap humor to another level. Or perhaps just the natural level for a sequel to ""scary movie."" I mean, in earnest, it isn't even the level of humor that is the problem, but rather the monotony of it all. Fart joke, someone gets hit with blunt object, fart joke, pee-washing scene, another blunt object hits someone, someone gets kicked in the balls, poop joke. It all just becomes the same joke over and over and over and over again. See, i feel sad in side because this sort of satire could really have some potential if the real hilarity wasn't so overshadowed by the disproportionate amount of really dumb jokes that would best appeal to 10-yr-olds (who, incidentally, are not allowed to see the movie). For example, a real laugh could occur at the point in the movie when the dim-witted President ignores a global alien attack in order to listen to a children's' story. This sort of mocking is actually funny. Now when the next couple of scenes contain about 25 instances of people being hit with things, and three fart/poop/gross-out jokes, any substance the film actually had is washed away - or shall i say clubbed to death by blunt objects. At about 3 or 4 points in the movie i was so disgusted that i just wanted it to end! It was, quite literally, a waste of my life. Please, for your own good, heed my warning and do not waste an hour and 20 minutes of your life on something that is not, even in its most glorified form, entertaining or funny. If you have already seen it, i feel your pain.",0 "The only reason to watch this show is to watch Dominic Keating being wickedly evil as the arch-demon Mallos. He's only in 6 of the 22 episodes. This was one of Keating's pre-Enterprise sci-fi gigs (which include Buffy, SU2 and GvsE.) The rest of the series seriously sucks. Lamas is wooden. The character Goodwin is annoying. The character Sara is pathetic. This is another show that COULD have been great. Too bad. Now the pilot (Demons of the Night parts one and two) is out on video. Cashing in on Keating's new found fame no doubt. Well, they might as well make as much money as they can on this turkey. Keating's probably the only one who'll have a career until this is gone and forgotten.",0 "A genuinely funny and thought provoking film, with a number of surreal elements, and a lot of humour. The leading lady is always wanting to eat and announcing a meal - with shades of Bunuel's Discreet Charms - and there are very funny jokes dispersed amongst the film in the most unexpected places. It is very off the wall, and although others have said that it has disjointed dialogue etc, that's what's intended, and it is more like real life in a remote Cote d'Azure fort with such an odd bunch of people would be.

It's great - well worth a view. I saw it on a plane with English subtitles, and am now searching to see if I can buy it on DVD with subtitles.",1 "Considering that nearly everyone has seen some version of the reign of King Henry the eighth, this shows unbelievably sloppy writing, woeful miscasting in key roles, and reduces the central character to a narcissistic sociopath, and not the deeply flawed but charismatic ruler, scholar and musician he was. It also blithely ignores the speed with which the King degenerated from being the athletic, idealistic, hero of his people to the bloated, diseased, morally bankrupt tyrant he became, as the consequence of his desperate desire for an heir.

The fact that the writers ignored the real drama, inherent in the historical facts, for some cheesy sex scenes with the royal frat-boy depicted, just shows the inherent cheapness of their intent.

Truly the worst historical adaptation I've ever seen. The only good things about it are some excellent actors trying to cope with the dreadful material, and really admirable production values.",0 "The reporter Malcolm Anderson (Kurt Russell) is contacted by a serial killer, Alan Delour (Richard Jordan), who seeks promotion of his acts in the news. The only leads for the police force, commanded by Detectives Ray Martinez (Andy Garcia) and Phil Wilson (Richard Bradford), are the contacts of the criminal through Malcolm and the bodies of his victims. When Malcolm becomes more important for the media than Alan, the killer becomes jealous and kidnaps Malcolm's girlfriend, Christine (Mariel Hemingway), looking for revenge and more attention for his crimes.

""The Mean Season"" is an efficient thriller, mostly supported by the great performance of Kurt Russell, in excellent physical shape. The story has minor flaws and some clichés, but hooks the attention of the viewer until the last scene. Watching it again in 2005, we can see a not famous Andy Garcia in the beginning of his brilliant career. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): ""Temporada Sangrenta"" (""Bloody Season"")",1 "Former `Nam veteran goes back into the jungle to save American POWs from nasty commie scum . Hey didn`t Sly Stallone .... ?

Believe it or not this film managed to offend me more than RAMBO:FIRST BLOOD PART 2 . Both films show the Vietnamese as being cruel , stupid incompetent communist vermin but MIA shows a Vietnamese general begging for his life like a sobbing schoolgirl . I`ve read a lot about the war in South East Asia from a myriad of American sources , everything from Jane Fonda to Soldier Of Fortune magazine and there`s many different angles as to what observers thought of the VC but they all agree on one thing - There were no cowards in the Viet Cong . I was also taken aback with seeing the concept of the Vietnamese secret police travelling to Thailand to bump off our hero like an oriental KGB , sorry but I was under the impression the Vietnamese just wanted to be left alone and wouldn`t have the inclination to bump off Americans in foreign lands , but why let reality get in the way of a film that screams America good , pinko commie scum bad .

When this film was released in 1984 more than a third of the world`s population lived under a communist system . You`ve got to wonder if there`s a connection between the two",0 "This movie...where to begin. A heavily mustached Nick Jolley runs around smoking Slim Jims,wearing plaid bell-bottoms, and telling cops how to do their job. Zombies lose their teeth, Dr. Spector has a glued on beard, the ""decapitated head"" blinks, there's some sort of wormhole at the end of the film taking you to the beginning for a brief moment...one could go on and on. Put bluntly, this movie is one of the most horrid pieces you could ever hope to avoid. But after a while, you kind of start liking it! One might wonder why Nick Jolley wasn't in anything else. This film puts all questions to rest",1 "People who like this film may feel smug for doing so and who could blame them. This is that rarest of rare things, an American romantic comedy about young people that could have been directed by Eric Rohmer. It's full of talk and it's all highly intelligent, at times almost unbearably so, but the young writer/director Whit Stillman has a wonderful ear for a bon mot and he doesn't take things seriously. He lampoons these smart young New Yorkers but he doesn't despise them; the comedy is gentle and affectionate.

It's set among the well-heeled New York débutante set as they embark on a roundelay of parties over the Christmas period. It owes a considerable debt to Jane Austen and acknowledges this by referencing her as often as it can. Another reference point, of course, is Woody Allen when Allen was writing and directing genuinely smart New York comedies. It's even got a nerdy Woody Allen character in the form of Taylor Nichols' pseudo-intellectual.

Indeed if it has a weakness it's that the boys are far better developed as characters than the girls and in a good, fine, unknown young cast the best performances come from Edward Clements as the hero from the wrong side of the tracks, or in this case, the wrong side of the city and from Chris Eigeman as the handsome, verbose rich boy who befriends him, (think ""Emma"" with the sexes changed). A little gem of a movie.",1 "What a train wreck.

Watching the opening credits the audience is granted some manner of false hope; Wilson, Cain, Flanery, Dick, Ward, and Barrymore...not to mention direction from the talented Tamra Davis. Add in music by Mark Mothersbaugh and you might think you were in for a really entertaining hour and a half. You'd be wrong.

Instead this is 90 minutes of your life you'll be wishing you had back. This movie fails miserably in spite of its passable cast. The script is miserable tripe, with each member of this derelict wedding party recounting their own unique story, one more cliché than the next.

The supporting cast features a bevy of film stereotypes; the distant father, the crazy veteran, the villainous FBI agent...even a black security guard named after a ball player! How embarrassing.

Beyond the bad script, sub par performances, weak story, and average direction, Best Men never really decides where it wants to go. Comedy, dark comedy, action-adventure, drama; as it flounders it never achieves any of these goals.

Don't be fooled by the stars, this is grade A loser not worthy of its cast or its director.",0 "First off let me say that I decided to give this show a chance based on the amount of positive reviews on this site. I gave it seven painful 40 minute viewings before I decided to call it quits on this show.

Utterly formulaic. Every episode proceeds in a manner identical to the last. Bret Harrison awakes to discover that he is affected in some strange way by his ""demon-sense"". He goes to work, and manages to run into the devil. The devil gives him, in the vaguest manner possible, his assignment. He receives a box. Somehow his demon-hunting manages to delay the inevitability of his love interest with Andi.

Nothing about the writing in this show makes any sense. A canvas of hollow, poorly constructed characters interact in a manner completely abstracted from the reality in which social interaction actually occurs. Nothing so much as the motivation or background of the characters is properly accounted for, reducing the characters to moving plot devices.

It was actively arduous to watch the writers delay the painfully obvious love connection between the male and female lead. Every episode is another exercise of giving the audience hope, and then somehow spoiling it. This is obviously done to create a plot arc between episodes in a series otherwise devoid of continuity and purpose.

The show earned three stars because it wasn't the actors' fault. I sincerely believe it was the fault of the writers.

Avoid this show like the plague, H1N1, herpes, and the clap. You might trick yourself into thinking it is mildly clever after one or two episodes, but you'll soon realize this show has less tricks up its sleeve than a magician in a nudist colony.",0 "The film has a low-budget but the action isn't that bad. Especially the opening scene. A boy's family is killed by bad guys and he grows up to be a cop. He has blocked out the memory all of his life, but when a series of events triggers him to remember his dark past, he must get vengeance for his family. Decent acting and okay action. The budget effects the quality of the film but if you can get past that its an okay action-thriller. I bought this film on DVD for like 5 bucks and i had high expectations, but i actually enjoyed it. If you like Pare then it's worth a glance. If you don't like PAre or know he is, don't bother with it.",1 "This is one of those so-called classic movies I just don't get. Its credits are impeccable, and director Vincente Minnelli had done brilliant work elsewhere. The screenplay won an Academy Award. Actress Gloria Grahame won an Academy Award. With apologies to Miss Grahame, who did some fine work over the years, this does not seem deserved. As the story of the rise, fall and rise again of a ruthless producer widely believed to be modeled on David Selznick, it is no more than a series of cliches and in-jokes. As I am not a fan of either I was not particularly amused. Kirk Douglas is unbelievable in the leading role. He can portray torment and ambition, but not brilliance. In private life he may well be brilliant, but this doesn't come across on the screen. There's nothing of the entrepeneur or impressario about him; and no sense of the businessman. He seems at all times like an actor playing a part. Lana Turner is marginally better. Barry Sullivan is bland as a director, and the normally capable Dick Powell cannot overcome a bad case of miscasting in his performance as a pipe-puffing Southern writer (not based on Faulkner, I hope). In any case, Barton Fink this ain't. My sense is that the movie is popular for its ""in"" references, the thinly veiled depictions of real life Hollywood folk, the sheer fun that movie insiders and outsiders have connecting all the dots. I did this, too, while watching the movie, but in the end it just didn't add up. I didn't get it.",0 "The first movies in this series all had a focus in Sweden, and in Swedish culture. This last instalment leaves the Swedish focus, and makes it in to a European thriller instead. While this can lay a basis for a far greater funding, it also makes the film less appealing to Swedish viewers, in that it sets it self up for comparison with other movies with far greater funding, for instance the Bourne Identity. I am sad to say that the story is confusing, the audience laughed quite often when there obviously was no humour involved. And, worst of all, around me people fell to sleep. And this was during a quite loud action movie. If you really want to see a good Swedish movie, see `Smala Sussi', or `Ondskan', better still, see both. Keep away from this movie until you can see it for free on TV.",0 "Looking back on this movie, I really think this was the most realistic of all the political movies Kinski has made. Paris is the home of internation terrorism. And I think another look at Kinskis' choice in making this will give her fans a better understanding of her artistic makeup.",1 "I rented this movie the other day, and must say I have not seen a worse movie in quite some time. The main reason I picked up the movie was to see Mark Hamill in something other than Star Wars. Now I know why Hollywood wasn't really knocking down his door. The acting by all parties involved in this was awful. The two main females were especially atrocious.

The movie itself feels like it has ended 4 or 5 times before the actual end of the movie. Each time I'm hoping that the torture is over, but no, it still goes on. The Trickster escapes from the courthouse or from jail, or from wherever once again, and goes to fight the Flash once again.

The use of The Flash's powers was pretty sparse as well. He runs around fast a little bit, juggles to himself while beating on the Trickster a bit, but doesn't really do anything cool. The Flash is more than just running fast.

Special effects for this movie were actually one of the decent parts, considering it's made for TV budget, it didn't look too bad. The Flash's costume was also rather well put together.

Overall though, this was a very disappointing movie, both as a fan of Mark Hamill, and as a comic book fan. I'd recommend staying far away from it.",0 "Although there are plot points that you could drive a truck through, this is a well thought out script and the acting is uniformly great. Patrick Warburton really gets to show us his acting chops as the cement headed misogynistic Max Bright and Marie Matiko as Mrs. Bright is the perfect counterpoint to his bluster. Special kudos to Eric Roberts as the long faithful friend. There is Warburton's impressive full frontal nudity that arrives on the scene even before the opening credits roll, but even this robust titillation quickly fades once the story is under-weigh.

On the whole I am completely baffled why this little gem of a film has languished in the Never Never Land of ""Can't Find a Distributor"". For those that care to search it out, it is available on DVD in Australia in the PAL format. It's a legit pressing, but looks like a work print was used for the transfer. It was filmed on video and transfered to film which doesn't help either.

Check it out.",1 "I loved watching this as a kid. It was in two parts on Sunday nights on ""The Wonderful World Of Disney"" or whatever name the show was using at the time. And our country (New Zealand) only had B&W.

As a young lad, I was particularly impressed by Yvette Mimieux. Drop dead gorgeous.

Seeing it again a few years later, it didn't feel the same but the movie is still good light entertainment.

I guess all shows seem a lot better when you're young. Nevertheless, its better than some other stuff out there that I've revisited, hence the 7 rating.

If I see it out on DVD on a cheap label I plan to buy it.",1 "Raptor Island was possibly the worst movie i have ever seen. Characters suck and so do the actors who play them. The visual effects look like animated cartoons. the story is terrible and ending is stupid. All the commandos suck at aiming. And the black guys dies, which pisses me off. I would watch it for a good laugh.

It stinks.

The ending stinks

the actors stink

i would rather eat my own vomit then watch this movie again.

Only watch this if you wanna laugh",0 "I'm reminded while watching Death Valley: The Revenge of Bloody Bill on the sci-fi channel something George A. Romero said recently about certain new horror directors: ""They shot Faith Hill's last music video, and they think they're hot s***. Do they know how to handle it? No, they don't. Put 'em at an editing table, and they're clueless."" Although Byrum Werner (maybe the coolest name for an exploitation director, I'll admit) probably hasn't done a Faith Hill video, the comparison can still apply. Werner shouldn't be directing anything remotely related to celluloid, from seeing the catastrophe that is 'Bloody Bill', as he tries to compensate for a rote and crappy script with much worse 'style'.

Maybe it's a personal thing, but it's a pet peeve for me when a director uses a specific tint for a purpose that is completely ancillary, where it's more about calling attention to itself than serving any meaningful stylistic choice (Spielberg may be the only one who can get away with it). In this case, Werner uses it to the point of total madness, and not good madness: the tint is actually a lot of the time just on the *top part of the frame*, making it a foolish distraction. This goes without saying that the whole color scheme in general, whether applied by Werner himself as DP or in post, is annoying because it makes it obvious that he doesn't trust anything regarding the actual space being used, or maybe using some natural light or shadows to make atmosphere, instead of splashing on this crude red- often in a blurred vision (FOCUS! I screamed more than once). Don't even get me started on the editing in many instances, where random montage and action is cut as if by an epileptic puppy.

The story itself is rote anyway: a bunch of teens riding out in the desert get car-jacked (!?) by a black guy who leads them to the ghost town of Sunset Valley, overrun by (usually) running zombies led by Bloody Bill, who has a vendetta against someone done wrong by someone and blah blah blah. Point is, a lot of this, however just totally ludicrous it all sounds (Bloody Bill's a confederate- no Yankees or blacks after all), could just be moot if it was at least a halfway decently acted or technically executed effort. It's not, at all.

Watching Death Valley is like getting a checklist for things that could possibly go wrong for a movie and do, over and over again. The music is fourth-rate metal garbage on loan from the boys who've been practicing in the garage next-door; the ""performances"" are from nobodys (Gregory Bastian goes to lengths to be a bad-ass mutha, but is one of the most ineffectual I've seen in recent memory), this including Bloody Bill's 'actor' who is barely on screen at all; the gore and violence is directed amateurishly, with tomato-sauce blood and eye-liner used for added ""effect"" during the transformation from living to dead; even the production design, with the sign changing from time to time from 99 to 107 from start to finish is cheesy in an unforgivable way.

It works only up to a completely ironic point; make sure you've got the right friends and good booze lying around and it should make for a chummy Saturday night movie. But good lord, don't go into it expecting any semblance of an entertaining B-horror movie. It's drek of the shlockiest order, and I'd have to be paid more than the actors themselves were (if they were that is) to sit through it again.",0 "This is one of the few films I have EVER seen, I would call TOTAL RUBBISH!

It is a shame to see a talent like Nigel Benett, wasted in such trash.

It truly has NO redeeming qualities,

The screenplay is completely incoherent, to the point one has to only imagine the editor, had some kind of brain aneurysm, whilst working on it.

Somewhere after what may, or may not be, the second act, there is a 20 minute motorbike, ""chase"", that simply serves no purpose, other than to show off some ""special effects"" and explosions, and even they are so cheap, it is embarrassing to watch.

I have no idea, how you even get finance, let alone insurance to make such a film.

This film makes Plan9 from Outer Space look like Lord of the Rings! At least Plan9, had ambition, beyond its years, or finance.

Life is too short, >AVOID< >AVOID< >AVOID< >AVOID<.",0 "Peter Pan is all grown up and has kids and has forgotten his life as Peter Pan. Well Captain Hook comes along and kidnaps them. It's up to Peter to go back and retrieve his children. It isn't easy to learn how to fight, fly and crow all over again.

I thought that this was a really magical movie. It's a nice family movie and I liked the part where the guy flew out the window in the end and was just so happy. He really did lose his marbles. Most of the movie was happy and magical. The voice of Captain Hook is awesome. It's deep and sinister. Dustin Hoffman did an excellent job as Captain Hook. I cannot think of anyone else who could play that part as well as he did.

Think happy thoughts and see this movie.",1 "A good effort from Republic,with exciting effects including a horse to train transfer by Yakima Canutt, concerns Noah Berry's efforts to take over a railroad and John Carrols[as Zorro] heroic efforts to stop him. Good location photography,and supporting acting adds to the excitement. Whitney and English direct in fine style.The primitive musical score [used in earlier serials],detracts. Though not the same caliber as Zorros Fighting Legion, this is still a top notch serial,well worth viewing.",1 "A lot of good review comments, so I'll just add. This movie could well be classed a historical in some respects, and is actually shown in some colleges as part of curriculum. It is based on the true and personal story of Run DMC, The Fat Boys, Kurtis Blow, Sheila E, and others breaking out rap music for the first time to the mainstream audiences against convention and against those who would view rap as non-music and a fad. It showcases the music as a true underground phenomena; fun, creative, positive, and energetic; embraced by urban youth eager to rebel. Poor, fat, whatever, just being yourself for a change was enough for you to make a go of it and be successful. There are 12 musical productions in the film and some showstopper performances by Sheila E (coached by Prince for this film) especially. This movie was based on real events and the roles played by the people themselves who lived them. In that sense it may not have a Hollywood calibre cast and complicated plot, but that wasn't the point of this film. This film was meant to showcase the struggles of a music, the struggles of artists in an emerging genre, and show people where it was at in 1985. It did just that, capturing the heart and soul of hip-hop, where it all is rooted, free from excessive profanity, free from guns and gangsterism; just go out and have fun, stand tall, express yourself, forget the nay-sayers, and throw down the creativity. And the rest is history.",1 "This version, a remake of the original by Pat O'Brien and Adolphe Menjou, is the best of the three versions of this play adapted to the screen. (The third starred Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau and is nearly as good.)

It's an absolute hoot. And I've seen it probably two dozen times. It's better than potato chips. I can't just watch one scene. Whenever it's on I'm hooked for the duration.

The snappy patter, split-second timing and overlapping dialogue is enough to make you want the script for re-reading after the credits have run.

They don't make 'em like this any more.",1 "Let me begin by saying that I love (1) interesting, well-defined female characters dealing with everyday problems, (2) well-made independent films and (3) James Marsters (not necessarily in that order). Unfortunately, ""Winding Roads"" satisfied me on only one of the above counts (that being #3).

The premise of the film sounded promising to me (three female friends weathering different challenges at the same time in their lives). However, the script doesn't allow us to spend enough time with the characters or go fully into their motivations. In the case of the Rachel Hunter character, this is unfortunate. In the case of the Kimberly Quinn character, it renders her (in my opinion) unsympathetic, as her decisions and actions are without any real foundation or concrete motivation.

I don't want to go into spoilers because, frankly, I don't want to spend too much time writing about a movie that already took up ninety minutes of my life that I can never retrieve. There are many talented actors in ""Winding Roads"" (Hunter and Marsters, in particular, made the most with what they were given). With more carefully-written characters and plot, this could have been a very affecting movie. As is, it just left me feeling kind of ""eh"". I cannot recommend it.",0 "This is a typical Chuck Norris film and typical 80's action film. It follows a simple and commercially successful script: Lots of action scenes, lots of nudity, one liners, plenty of stunts and some moments of pure fantasy.

This film is great for those wanting to sit with popcorn and watch a film where you know what you're going to get. But this film sacrifices a lot of realism to achieve it. Scenes of helicopters making outrageous pick ups or so many Vietnamese henchmen with poor aims when it comes to shooting Chuck are some examples. This film is pure action based, as the movie went on, it was action sequence after action sequence and personally, I was fed up with too much.

There is so much wrong with this film technically and is you want to watch a clever, powerful dramatic and original action film ,then this isn't for you. If you want to watch a predictable, satisfying, simple adrenaline fuelled kill-fest, then you'll like this.",0 "With Jackie Earle Haley having an Oscar nomination this year for Little Children, I decided to check out what there was of one of his earliest works that I had watched 30 years ago, Valley of the Dinosaurs.

Haley did the voice of the small Butler child.

Valley of the Dinosaurs was the cartoon story about the nuclear Butler family (father, mother, sister, brother and a dog) who rafted their way down a whirlpool to the afore-mentioned valley, where they met their equivalent cave versions, father, mother, brother, sister and a pet stegosaurus.

They were all paired up accordingly for the fathers to work in the garage, the mothers to tend to kitchen work, the teen-aged daughter to have adventures with the strapping bohemian surfer dude teen-aged cave son (interesting that there never was an episode with Lok on some makeshift surfboard) and the young son (voiced by Haley) to wander off with the blonde cave daughter.

Ironically, the cave daughter, Tana, did bear an animated resemblance to Kathy Coleman, who played daughter Holly on rival Land of the Lost.

It really wasn't that much of a coincidence that Valley of the Dinosaurs and Land of the Lost both premiered the same year. Cartoon themes were very common.

An even better one was Speed Buggy and Wheelie & The Chopper Bunch, both Hanna Barbera cartoons.

But I digress.

My brothers were fans of LotL, and they even said LotL wasn't so much a dinosaur show, but was more fantasy.

VotD, on the other hand, was straight rugged, outdoor camping stories.

There was criticism that children weren't learning anything from Saturday morning fare and the like, so we were given Schoolhouse Rock, and, having seen the old primetime Planet of the Apes show with Ron Harper and James Naughton, I've been surprised at how instructional in gardening and the like that show was.

VotD does the same thing, perhaps a bit too much. We learn about wind conditions, how pulleys and levers work, siphoning water and various other helpful boyscout techniques.

To kids, . . . . . it was annoying.

Made worse would be the father, sporting that Race Bannon voice, telling kids not to do something, then the kids, usually Haley's character, would do it anyway, chaos ensues, who did it, the kid would confess and we would get a stern parental lecture.

A very stern parental lecture.

There would be other episodes where a rock was sacred to the cave people and it was sitting on top of a volcano, fish were put out for a crazy werewolf creature (with Scooby Doo's howl I might add) and the cave family would insist 'it is our tradition' and Father Butler would have to display a little scientific know-how to dealing with the volcano or the animal creature.

I guess about the worst one I have seen thus far was when the fathers and Lok used a giant turtle shell to maneuver underwater and (ready for this?) they polished up one side of the shell with sand to make it see-thru.

Each episode seems to end with the cave daughter, or sometimes the American daughter, observing one of the animals in some little situation and saying ""Looks like Digger yadda yadda yadda . . . "" and they all laugh.

Jayna of the Wonder Twins would repeat this finale on the Superfriends years later with ending each episode with 'Looks Like Gleep.' In the end, it doesn't compare to Land of the Lost. It is a different show, hardly a cheaper version to Land of the Lost's superiority or anything like that.

Now, over thirty years later, Jackie Earle Haley is nominated for an Oscar, against Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls.

Good luck, little Butler.

Strangely enough, there is an episode that deals with a windmill or something being used to signal planes that are flying over, which gives a hint that this was how the family got out of the valley.",0 "The Funeral is a dark and gritty story that plumbs the characters in a New York band of criminal brothers. It doesn't have the romantic sweep of a Godfather movie, nor the rawness of Scarface. But it does have great acting: the cold, sinister aloofness of the leader-brother(Christopher Walken); the raging insanity of the bartender-brother(Chris Penn); and, the cockiness of the younger communist-influenced brother. Annabella Scioria as the wife with a tortured psyche who ""had two years of college"", and Bennissio del Toro, as the suave and slick rival mobster round out the terrific cast.

But the movie does have some problems. The abrupt, ""surprise"" ending is consistent with the arcs in the movie, and is supported by trends in the characters' developments, but seems unsatisfying. Also, long philosophical conversations between killer and victims seems unrealistic. While these conversations(and flashback sequences) give insight into characters, it just doesn't seem likely.

Watch this movie if you are a fan of crime/Mafia films, and you can enjoy a thoughtful introspection of characters and relationships between characters. Don't watch it if you want to see a ""thrill-a-minute"", or explosions every other scene.",1 "Despite its pedigree, LUCKY LUCIANO is not a particularly good movie. Gian Maria Volontè has the title role and he's fine, but the great Italian director Francesco Rosi has really misfired here. The film lacks all cohesiveness as it tries to bend time with various episodes in the turbulent life of not only Luciano but the entire Italian mafia. Volonte is gone for long stretches of the film and the likes of Rod Steiger, Charles Cioffi (as deported crime boss Vito Genovese) and Edmond O'Brien fill the voids. It's all pretty confusing rather than ambitious. The acting is very uneven. Steiger is hammy and O'Brien is all bluster while Cioffi is quite good. Rosi's direction features a number of striking images but they're obscured by the film's poor editing. There is a terrific score by Piero Piccioni.",0 "After the long wait it finally came.. Death On The Road. An audio visual treat filmed on the Dance Of Death tour 2003/04. The package comes with 3 discs. 1 x Extras - Fan interviews (a bit lame, promo videos, photos and a behind the scenes on the road (very good). The other 2 are a stereo and 5.1 version of the gig (a bit pointless in my opinion). Anyway, the actual gig has been put together by Steve Harris again so the edits and cuts are immense... and there are a few black and white crowd shots. A bit of a shame but it doesn't take too much away from the finished product. The set contains a healthy wedge from the 2003 album as well as the trade mark anthems. Lord Of The Flies makes it in as the Blaze era token track.. not bad but it would have been nice to have had a lesser heard classic thrown back in (Powerslave? Wasted Years?).. The stage production for the tour rivalled that of the mighty 7th Tour of a 7th tour back in 88. Castles, Reapers & a couple of Eddie's are the setting for the show. A visual treat for sure. A very good concert DVD is whats on offer. A few flaws in terms of editing in my opinion but its pretty damn good. Is it as good as Rock In Rio? Nearly! The next DVD looks like it'll be the Ullevi Stadium show from 2005. I strongly feel that Steve should hand the editing job over to someone else to get a new feel to it. The TV broadcast version doing the bootleg rounds is bloody good. Needs a bit of tweaking but hold on to most shots for a few seconds at least. That could well be the best new line up Maiden DVD we'll see.",1 "To be honest I didnt want to watch this movie but it was my wifes turn to choose so I had no choice. After 20 minuites into the movie I was so glad it wasnt my turn to choose. This movie was absolutely fantastic. The Premise as you will read here on IMDB or on the back of the dvd in the shop/rental store seemed very lame to me but I was so wrong.

It starts off as a classic ""Whodunnit"" movie but then flips and twists on its head so many times your left astounded. I cannot imagine anyone who would not enjoy this movie, It keeps you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end and I loved every minuite of it. Throw in an all star cast (Cusack and Liotta are fantastic here) And you have one Hell of a movie.

10/10

You Have to watch this, Trust Me :)",1 "This was bad. Really bad. Extremely bad. Let's start with the most important element of any movie: the plot. Or actually, the lack of any. If anyone sees the plot, please return it to the filmmakers. Questions... questions... where are the answers? Isn't a movie supposed to give at least one answer? Ah wel... The SFX. Now those were quite good, for a B-movie. Don't really have to complain about those (except perhaps the use, which they don't have) The actors. This movie was poorly acted, the characters stayed as flat as can be. But hey, there was no room for character development, they had to move the 'story' along! The overall feel. If you watch the first three minutes and feel like pushing the 'stop'-button, do it. You won't regret it.

So, my conclusion: a one-way ticket to the trashbin for Ice Planet.",0 "This movie is about a young starving artist lady who's mom buys her a Volvo, but doesn't entirely pay for it. So the lady must make money to keep the Volvo, and at the same time find love.

The lady has a fun but stereotypical gay roommate, a stereotypical ""dahling"" rich mom, and a crush on a boring supermarket cashier (which just seems pathetic not funny).

Definitely the funniest part of the movie is when the lady says ""oh, what the hell"" and tries a phone sex job. The job doesn't work out, but the faces she makes while trying to finish a call are definitely funny.

Other parts of the movie involve police officers who help the lady after problems with the phone sex job. Eventually, she and the younger police officer hit it off on a date (sort of like Grand Canyon), but it didn't seem deeply romantic to me.

Overall, the movie does a nice job of mixing the trials of life with the joys of love. Enjoyable, but not Citizen Kane.",1 "A furiously intense story that takes place shortly after the Cold War where an American colonel (Roy Scheider - ""Jaws"") who has a troubled past, picks a fight with a high-ranking Soviet military officer, (Jurgen Prochnow - ""Das Boot"") that nearly escelates into a Tarantino-like standoff. Scheider and Prochnow are both good and so is Harry Dean Stanton (""The Straight Story""), who plays Scheider's superior officer and an old war buddy who is concerned about his friend. Director John Frankenheimer (""Ronin"") is smart in making the film go smoothly and I got kick out of the scene where Prochnow and two other Russian officers briefly watch an American (college) football game on t.v., question it, and laugh at it.",1 "Set in a small New Mexico village, this is a classic 'noir' tale of two rival nightclub entertainers, an escaped black leopard, and a serial killer. By today's standards, the plot is predictable and you'll figure out who the killer is early on, but there is till much to enjoy-great black&white photography, neat camera angles, and at least one chilling scene...the blood of the young girl seeping under the door, while her mother and brother stand by helplessly. Worthy of note is the lack of visuals concerning the actual murders...rarely do we see the cat or the killer. Considered a classic in its time, this one stayed around the theatre circuit for over a decade.",1 "The U.K. has a strong tradition in making decent WWII movies. This, is NOT one of them! The acting, script, storyline, accents, special effects,... you name it, are just so awful. Mr. Madsen's appearance on the DVD cover drew me in but I was not rewarded with his capabilities. The same could almost be said of Mr. Zane who at least was capable and almost mildly amusing at times. It seemed he knew the film was rotten so he walked his way through the ""action.""

Mr. Tod (I do hope it is not Todd), I am sorry to see your money spent on this film. I do hope you will see the return of it due to rentals so that you can invest again in future UK films. In the meantime, I STRONGLY suggest avoiding this film at all costs. To see how a WWII film can be done in England, rent The Dambusters,",0 "You know those films that have you trapped in the cinema? You're stuck there in the best seat in the house, centre of the row in your own special sweet spot that you swapped three times before you got just the right seat - and after about what feels like 13 hours you are still trapped there, uncomfortable and itchy, thinking ""When the F*** is this film ever going to END???"" (You know the feeling - think of A.I. and The Village).

Well, Visitor Q delivers a weird variant of that feeling. I sat there for the first 30 minutes wondering when the thing was going to f***ing start! It is interminable! So ""Arty"" it hurts. This is the first Miike Takashi film I have watched. Apparently he makes films by the dozen and, if they are all pretentious w@nk like this, I suspect it will be the last.

I'm not against Pretentious w@nk. David Lynch is up there amongst the top 10 directors for me but Visitor Q is cut-rate, cheap, and nasty pretentious w@nk.

As you may have worked out by now - I hated it.",0 "I really enjoyed Blackadder. I thought it was funny, interesting and at the same time meaningful - about soldiers being sent to their deaths by incompetent fools, which was commonplace in those days. The episode plots also had their relevance in war, and there were also some good settings, even though there were certain anachronisms. I would say that Blackadder Goes Forth is the best out of all four Blackadder series, and I think it deserves its rating of 9.0/10 on average. A very enjoyable view indeed. Blackadder should be seen by everyone, as it is a comedy of many colours. There are certain characters that I don't like (e.g Captain Darling), but I especially like stupid Baldrick and Blackadder himself. This is the best war/comedy ever made by far. Better than Dad's Army. *****/*****",1 "Personally, I don't think the comments from the original poster are worthy of this movie. I don't thin the original poster would know a good movie if it slapped him in the head...

This was a very well done movie with a great cast. Patrick Swayze did an excellent job of portraying a redneck-gone-big-city cop. Liam did a fantastic job of playing the out-for-revenge redneck-vs-mafia role as well. There is not much that would have made this movie any better than it was. In fact, changing it would have ruined it. Perhaps if Bill Paxton would have had a larger role rather than a get-killed-quick cameo... but other than that, I don't see what would have made this much better...",1 "A true Classic, of 1970's Cinema, and some!

That is the best way that I can begin to describe this, one of my all-time favorite Movies.

Once again, I first saw this Movie on my Mum and Dad's old Phillips V2000, when it was first released onto the U.K's Home Cinema market (hired from a seedy old Video rental shop on the Woolworth road), and boy did it leave it's mark!

In short, I LOVE THIS MOVIE!

O.k. At times the story, does tend to plod along at an almost snail's pace. But this is really a small price to pay for the Film's wonderfully inspired set pieces. Which, when they come, seem to hit you with the force of a speeding freight-train! In fact, just writing this review makes the hairs on the back of my neck tingle! As I remember each, and everyone of them. With such crystal clear clarity, that you would think I had only just finished watching the Film, for the umpteenth time! Truth is, it has now been about a year, since I last saw it!

Boy, doesn't time fly, when you're having fun!

If you've seen this Film before, no doubt, you'll have your own views on it, and so don't need me to tell you how good/bad it is!

However, if you haven't...

Trust me, when I say that this Film is a Classic, of the HIGHEST magnitude, and that it would be an absolute crime for you not to see it!",1 "It's easy enough to take pot-shots at a movie like this, especially if you try stacking it up against other stuff. It's a long way from the best or worst I've ever seen. Of course, Bela Lugosi can do no wrong. Just watching him laugh, or hearing the line, ""What an unusual cranium."" makes the movie worth a look. Obviously, Petrillo did an excellent take on Jerry Lewis, and his repetition of Lugosi's line about the ""unusual cranium"" was my biggest laugh in the movie. Duke Mitchell's task of imitating Dean Martin has taken a lot of hits, but it had to be harder to do Martin without going ""over the top"" than it was to do Lewis, where going ""over the top"" was exactly what was called for. Personally, I could care less whether I was listening to Martin or Mitchell sing, but that brings up another point. For decades Hollywood mindlessly insisted that movies include musical numbers and romantic sub-plots that nobody could possibly care less about, as anybody who's ever watched a Marx Brothers movie can relate to. OK, it's not great, but it's fun.",1 "Death By Dialogue. What a title. What an amazingly rubbish title. I am stunned that there are no alternative names that this film went out under. But, then again, this film is something else.

Synopsis: This film is about an evil film script. Its horrific contents come to life and terrorise a group of teenagers.

I have seen some rubbish in my time but this movie possesses moments of such stunningly memorable idiocy that I was somewhat taken aback. The very idea of a film script that is possessed by an evil spirit is hilariously silly. The script was for a film called 'Victims' and it was clearly written by a thirteen year old boy. The horrors that are unleashed by the script include a killer poodle-permed rock band, a seven-foot tall sword-wielding madman and two motor-cycle morons. I don't know about 'Victims', I would have thought that a better name would've been 'Eighties Cheese'.

This is one of those bad movies that contains moments of laugh-out-loud hilarity but also is hindered by atrocious pacing. Some scenes just go on and on and we do have to wait for the funny bits. But when those funny bits appear they are pretty much top-drawer, i.e. I challenge anyone not to laugh when the hair metal band pitches up in the woods. Too funny. At another time the protagonists decide that the best way to defeat the evil in the script would be to simply re-write it with happy stuff. Seems reasonable? Incredibly they mess up this very straightforward task by rewriting the script with one of the daftest non-escape plans ever conceived. In yet another random event – this film is a series of random events – we have a dream sequence involving a woman in a gown kneeling by a pool who meets an idiot in a racing car by a tree. Go figure.

It's all senseless and very haphazardly put together. But it's worth one viewing, if only to be stunned by it's monumental daftness. It does have moments of anti-genius. It's like a cross between The Evil Dead, The Edge of Hell and an episode of Scooby Doo. Although, much worse than all of those. Venture at your peril.",1 "Taxi (2004) Queen Latifah, Jimmy Fallon, Ann-Margret, Henry Simmons, Jennifer Esposito, Giselle Bundchen, D: Tim Story. Hopeless comedy-action fare throws a hapless Manhattan cop into the suped-up taxi of a mouthy cabbie who helps him chase four leggy Portuguese supermodels robbing banks. The opening scene—where an athletic bike messenger, obviously a stunt double, rushes through the city—will insult anyone's intelligence when the messenger removes his helmet to reveal Latifah herself. Right from the start, the two stars' comic bickering is tiresome, and Fallon's thickheaded character helps sink this unfunny movie. Only real value are some gratuitous shots of scantily-dressed Bundchen and her Victoria's Secret cohorts. Remake of the French film series. 97 min., rated PG-13. * ½",0 "Considering that there's a fair number of reviews already, I doubt anyone will read this. I wanted to write a short one for popular anyway and I seriously encourage everyone to watch this show. It somehow managed to combine humor and drama perfectly into one episode. Some of the episodes were honestly laugh out loud, but could also make me cry at the same time. Mary Cherry was hysterical! Popular seems like its filled with stereotypes with the typical cheerleader but really the characters are really well developed that it becomes a lot deeper than that. I loved all the characters and believed in all of them. The only negative thing I have to say is that the last few episodes got a little weird in terms of character motivations but other than that it is a fantastic show.",1 "I one reviewed a movie on IMDb and said it was the worst I had ever seen, but this movie has superseded that one to become the worst.

1. The movie was not historically accurate. There were several severe problems with accuracy. The idea that a woman, without at all disguising herself as a man, could have ever become a musketeer is awfully presumptuous to begin with. Next, all the characters were CLEAN throughout the movie. The time period in which it was set ought to have clued in the filmmakers that a little dirt was in order, since people rarely to never bathed. Also, almost all of the French characters spoke with British accents. The costumes looked new, like they had never been worn before.

2. The acting was abysmal. OK, there were a couple of decent actors, but I can't imagine how they were convinced to be in this. The main actors, however, Susie Amy and the main musketeers, were severely lacking in acting skill. I'm not sure if this was their fault or the director's, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt. My sister's comment was that at the height of Valentine's emotional output, she looks like she has just broken a nail.

3. The story was extremely close to the story of ""The Three Musketeers,"" where the musketeers must protect the queen from having her indiscretions become known. In this story, they are protecting the young king, but other than that, the differences are slight. Evidently the screen writer did not have the creativity to think up something actually new.

There was one thing I enjoyed very much about this movie. It gave us a lot of laughs. My sister and I muted the TV and made up dialogue to go with the terrible wigs and bad acting.

I would recommend this movie to anyone for a laugh.",0 "OMG! The CIA whacked Jack! Come back to reality. The movie has great actors (Noah Wyle, James Rebhorn, Gretchen Mol, among others); however, the Libtards in Hollywood simply cannot tell a story without their crazed anti-American, Anti-CIA, anti-whatever being the core of the story.

JFK was murdered by Oswald (with perhaps the aid of Sam Giancana). Bobby Kennedy was a ruthless and LAWLESS man. JFK had many flaws but was a great leader surrounded by lousy advisers! The movie is still worth watching as every 14 year old boy's fantasy comes to life and love is not what it is all cracked up to be! Had Jack lived he most likely would NOT have been re-elected as Goldwater was way ahead in the polls and the American public was still quite angry at the poor handling of Cuba and Kruschev!",0 "The humor in this film is much more irony based... the original Lake Placid was intended to be much more genuinely scary, this one will actually provide some good laughs if you go into it looking for the irony not the scare factor.

The CGI in this movie is sub-par, but I think that this was somewhat intentional, it adds to the b-movie feel. The movie is not realistic, if it was it would be perceived as taking itself to seriously and would be stupid.

Go into this movie looking for laughs and you will get them. Go into this movie looking for scares and you will come up disappointed.",1 "Alongside Molinaro's ""La Mort de Belle"", the best adaptation of a Simenon story for the big screen.

Helmer Delannoy proves a past master at creating a stifling atmosphere ( night scenes, a hot stormy weather, a heady melody pervading the story ), managing to make the tension rise and swell regularly until it explodes in a triple climax ( Maurice's interrogation, the confrontation of Maurice's wife and mother, the final attempt to murder Mauricette ). So, when the rain finally starts falling in the final seconds of the movie, it does as much good to bulky, weary Gabin as it does to the tense viewer.

Of course, the film benefits from a great interpretation : Jean Gabin gives life to his determined-shrewd-exhausted ""commissaire"" while Jean Desailly shines as the poor but dangerous Maurice whose boyhood has been prolonged by the misguided love of his mother ( Lucienne Bogaërt, perfect ). And Annie Girardot plays subtly and with welcome restraint the loving wife of a monster.

Sure, Misraki's music and song are haunting and the camera-work is sleek, but what actually makes this film a major work is that the authors( R.M.Arlaud, Delannoy and Audiard ) are true to the spirit of Simenon : disillusioned with human nature but sympathetic with those who are its victims, however monstrous they may appear to society.",1 "This was a fantastic movie and the score which I have on CD is one of the best. The chemistry between Midler and Caan is electric. Bette is in her element and the songs are classic. Jimmy Caan was fabulous as Eddie. Caan can hold his own with actresses Midler in this movie and with Kathy Bates in ""Misery."" I wish the movie would have more airplay on cable especially given the fact that the US troops are in military op currently. Regardless of whether we should be fighting or whether we should not be, the movie has lots of heart and it's for the boys (and girls)who serve. Has anyone seen the movie on cable lately? I am quite surprised that this movie has not scored higher in the ratings. This is a movie I would pay to watch in theatres today! We could use the good wishes for our troops these days.",1 I really love the flying doctors. I've watched it when i was a child and now as a young adult again. And i know i will still love it after 10 or 20 years. It will always be my favorite TV series. It's well written and easy to follow. I like all the story lines. But especially the romance between Geoff and Kate. It's so beautiful to watch them get close. They are all great actors. You really believe what they say. You can feel there pain and there happiness. I'm so glad that they are now playing the series back on Belgium television. But what i really want is that they make DVD's of all the episodes so i can watch whenever i want to. So please make the DVD boxes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,1 "Horror fans beware of the Hewitts House Of Horrors. The 2006 Prequel makes its 2003 predecessor look like a breezy Sunday drive. Few movies today contain all the elements of the good old fashioned Late 70's Early 80's slasher genre. TCM - The Beginning gave us that and a whole new platform for other horror movies of today to live up to. Hostel took us to a place of no return TCM-The Beginning guarantee's you wont be coming back. People in the cinema were...erm...nailed to their chairs in what was unfolding on the screen. The ticketgirl was telling all who went to see it 'Good luck.' Never have I been in a cinema whilst watching a horror movie where not one person has a comment, this movie was pure astonishment followed by the occasional boo scare and gargled scream. Not for the faint hearted and far superior then any of the Texas Chainsaw's before it.",1 "Judy Berlin is a blah story about blah people living their ever so blah lives. Blah, blah, blah. Eric Mendelsohn, a former assistant to Woody Allen and an obvious Woody wannabe, wrote and directed this independent production about Jewish angst in suburbia. Unfortunately, where Allen creates urbane films with fascinating characters, sharp sardonic wit and thought provoking ironies, Mendelsohn has brought us a sub-urbane version where witless and hopeless people go about their boring and mundane lives.

The film is an ensemble piece including various character studies in the slice-of-life format. The story has an obviously autobiographical flavor to it. David Gold (Aaron Harnick) is a failed 30 year old Hollywood director who returns to his parents in Babylon to wallow in his regrets, and I suspect he is Mendelsohn's alter ego. Though not specified, Mendelsohn uses enough period cars, props and costumes to peg the period to the mid 1980's which is undoubtedly a recreation of the period when he lived on Long Island. As a result, this film will probably have more appeal to Long Islanders since Mendelsohn, was successful at giving it a genuine Long Island look and feel.

The filmmaking was a mixed bag. The sound and music were terrible, even below standards for independent productions on shoestring budgets. The film was shot in black and white with a very artsy look. This was sometimes very effective, when Mendelsohn used high contrast lighting, especially in some of the eclipse scenes. At other times it made a dull story even duller.

The acting was the strongest element of the film. Madeline Kahn gives a wonderful performance as Alice Gold, a neglected housewife who is losing her grip on reality. This was Kahn's final performance before her death and was probably one of her very best. Edie Falco was also enchanting as Judy, the only upbeat character in all of Babylon (and she was leaving). Barbara Barrie and Aaron Harnick round out an excellent ensemble cast. It's too bad they didn't have more interesting material to work with.

The most that can be said about this film is that it contains positive hints of Mendelsohn's potential as a director. His future as a writer is far more certain. The camerawork was good, but he should be banned from writing screenplays. I rated this film a 4/10, probably a point higher than it's worth because I lived on Long Island and could appreciate the accuracy of the local culture. It might be worth a try for Jewish suburban New York viewers, but for most others, it is likely to be a tiresome ordeal.",0 "I wasn't waiting to see anything amazing when I started watching for this movie, since almost all the license movies have been terrible... Fortunately, my opinion was to change! Movie was great, actors were good enough, and there was actually a plot (whoa!). Director has done a great job by having that videogame atmosphere by use of light, but still keeping the movie tense. Marilyn Manson has also made a great job by composing some of his greatest soundtrack titles which really fit for this movie. I have played both Resident Evil and Resident Evil 2, and recognized many of the scenes which were kind of similar to games. What can I say? For the people who have played games, this one gives good vibes and they are going to love it. For regular people the movie might be above the average. This was one hell-of-a-movie, and I'm waiting for the sequel.",1 "SCORPION'S REVENGE (1997; AKA Sasori In USA) Japanese interior designer (Yohko Saitoh), wrongly sent to an American cooler for the murder of her husband via exploding car, gets a flip through the back catalogue of women-in-prison movie indignities: delousings, showers, beatings, cafeteria catfighting, yard catfighting, a warden who quotes scripture while he brutalizes and rapes the fishies, raging American bull dykes, and an absolutely inhumane LACK OF PANTS! But Scorpion's revenge ain't against the system, baby, even though she does manage to fuck it up a bit on her way out; it's with the people who killed her man and sent her away, and when she breaks out with another fish in tow, a blind girl looking for her own justice against the sleazeballs who offed her Latino guitar-picker boyfriend, and discovers in a staggering revelation that her husband faked his own death in order to kill a bunch of shyster lawyers who were suing his company (not a spoiler!), she realizes his clock must be punched, permanently. This probably should've been more tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps director Daisuke Gotoh wasn't aware just how big a joke the genre has become to American B-movie filmmakers and fans. As such, however, he does include everything one has come to expect from a babes-behind-bars epic; problem is its all crammed into the first 40 minutes, the remainder being dedicated to a rather laborious trek across the desert and the decidedly predictable and anti-climatic round of score settling with The Man.

Worth it if you can find it cheap, and compared to fellow Asia Extreme labelmate BEAUTIFUL PREY, a fair bit more fun. I give it a 7.",1 "Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. Those are just a few of the words that describe TEENAGE ZOMBIES. One of the worst bad movies I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. However, as others have pointed out, the fistfight near the end is worth suffering through the rest of the film for. I have rarely laughed so hard. Too bad there are no decent prints of this film (the DVD transfer is awful), because the bots and Joel would have done it proud.

Did I mention this was BAD?",0 "This film was another excuse to look through those old MGM film vaults and get out some old film reels, to enjoy once more. This excuse cetainly pays off with over 2*hrs of stunning musical/dance performances. It is even more enjoyable than the first, as Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly even entertain us with numerous dance numbers during the films intervals - the last time they were to dance together on screen. The clips are indelible as they are precious, which includes rare footage of Greta Garbo dancing!, Robert Taylor singing!, and Esther Williams Skiing!.

Overall it is action packed enjoyment throughout, simply bursting through the screen. Fans of musicals and any of the old stars, will relish with the opportunity to see the talented MGM stars in action once more. Lots of MGM glitz and Glamour thrown in too!!!",1 "This ""movie"" is an 18 second clip shown in Nickelodeons across the country in 1896. It consists of a rather ugly older couple getting frisky with each other and culminates in a brief but sweet kiss. THAT'S ALL!! And yet, when it appeared it was considered ""smut"" and there were widespread cries for censorship!!! It just goes to show you how much things have changed over the years! It's a very important movie historically and I have shown it to my history classes when we discuss American cinema. If anyone cares to see it, it's available on the Internet and is available in Quicktime, MPEG and other formats. Give it a try--it won't take up much of your time!

PS--This film is also known as the MAY IRWIN KISS and is not the same as the 1900 film THE KISS--a knock-off film also made by the Edison Studio, but with more intense kissing and a more attractive couple.",1 "Jesus Christ, I can't believe I've wasted my time watching this movie. I only watched because I have such a crush on Jordan Ladd. But watching this film almost put me off her. This is absolutely awful! I could have been watching Survivor Series 93 over this.

The lead guy in this was so bland and generic. I would love it if the great Mistuharu Misawa Tiger Drove '91'd his ass through a glass window. I was enraging every time he was saying ""lake"" and ""cabin"". I'd kick his ass.

Jordan Ladd, on the other hand, was absolutely wonderful. A true angel. But she couldn't even save this utter joke of a film. Sadly, she couldn't even act like she was off her nut when she took that truth drug. It looked hilarious.

I also loved the bit where Jordan accidentally spilled yogurt on her. It reminded me of a time where...nevermind.

Anayways, do watch this film because of it's awfulness.",0 "Documentary about Sam Shepard and the star studded production of Shepard's play the Late Henry Moss.

This was one of the choices on IFC in Theaters cable service and since I'm a huge theater fan as well as a fan of most of the people involved I figured I would give the film a shot. While its great to see how play is rehearsed and put together I found it all very disjointed and ultimately a mess. I know part of my problem going in was that I was completely unfamiliar with the play. Now having seen this film I feel I'm considerably less so. I'm sure that had I had some clue as to what the play was about the scenes we see being worked on might have had some resonance, instead of just seeming to be random.Many people have compared this to Looking For Richard, Al Pacino's film about Richard the Third, while that film had what seemed like random scenes, the play is part of our cultural heritage and so the plot is known by most people. Also that earlier film deals with Shakepeare and interpreting the Bard, things are put into a context. Thats not the case here. Here we have a good many talking heads talking about the production, Shepard, and Shepard's plays, and the autobiographical nature of what Shepard writes (and biographical stories). Its a jumbled mess that never really seemed to come together. Half an hour in I started to fast forward. It just never grabbed me or made me know what I was watching.

A miss.",0 "This was a huge flop when it was released (if memory serves correctly, it is in the Box Office Failures Hall of Fame). Chris Farley had died five months before its release, there were bad screenings, negative sneak preview reviews, etc... and when they finally put it out, the film tanked.

I've never found Farley funny but this movie is okay. It's got some funny scenes. It's original and has some clever puns on the whole Lewis and Clark adventure - it's essentially about two guys (Matthew Perry and Farley) who decide to ""beat"" Lewis and Clark by ""getting there first."" Christopher Guest receives directorial credit, which is surprising considering this isn't a ""mockumentary."" The direction overall isn't too great and I would never guess it was one of his films if I didn't know any better.

Farley is annoying as usual, and Perry is doing his Chandler routine - could he BE any more predictable? (Wink, wink.) There's a lot of crude humor and some stupid childish gags that embarrass rather than entertain (such as Farley's fight with the eagle).

To be perfectly honest this isn't a ""terrible"" film. I've seen worse, and at least it made me laugh, which is more than can be said for Farley's other film, ""Beverly Hills Ninja."" But at the end of the day it's still just okay and not good enough to warrant a good review.",0 "Angus made me laugh and cry many times during its short hour and a half. Yes, I was a fat teenager. Maybe that's whyI loved this movie so much.

But it's about the strugle, the will to live, that we all face. No matter what age.",1 "I had the great joy of watching David Lean's MADELEINE(1950)for the first time ever on TCM early this morning, and can say without any reservations that though it is one of the great director's lesser-known works, but it is by no means lesser in either acting or direction.

Featuring the glacial blonde Ann Todd(then Mrs. David Lean) as the real-life accused murderess Madeleine Smith, the film skillfully portrays the travail a foolish and willful young woman goes through when she follows her heart instead of her head and gets ensnared in a sticky situation. Caught between her tyrannical martinet father, James Smith, played excellently by the great Leslie Banks with his paralysed profile which added an extra flourish to his cold unsympathetic manner and her charming but unscrupulous gold-digging French paramour, Emile L'Anglier played skillfully by Ivan Desny, Ann Todd's Madeleine is veritably ""caught between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea!"" It would seem that there is but one recourse for Madeleine, that of shutting two-bit Casanova and lothario L'Anglier up so that her fire-breathing dragon of a father does not bite her pretty little head off, in much the same way that I have enjoyed biting into pastry Madeleines! But the ambiguity throughout the film of whether Madeleine actually did the deed and put paid to her paramour is maintained even up to the end when Madeleine gives her leprous Madonna half-smile which could indicate either guilt or innocence, leaving it up for the viewing audience to decide on their own.

The splendid direction of Lean, the superb moody photography of Guy Green contrasting various shades of darkness and light as well as interesting character studies of familiar character actors' and actresses' faces, the excellent film editing of Clive Donner(later to become a great director as well) and Geoffrey Foot, the authentic costume design of Margaret Furse all add to the moving drama. Jewel-like performances by such thespians as Barbara Everest as Madeleine's mother, Jean Cadell as Mrs. Jenkins the careworn landlady, Kynaston Reeves as a lugubrious Dr. Penny, Amy Veness as the sympathetic police matron Miss Aiken, John Laurie as the hypocritical Bible-spouting religious maniac and fanatic Divine rabble-rouser exhorting the crowd to condemn Madeleine, Edward Chapman as the worried Dr. Thompson, Moyra Fraser(more than HALF A CENTURY later, 55 years to be exact, in Dame Judi Dench and Geoffrey Palmer's ""As Time Goes By"" latest 2005 episode as one of the regulars, bumptious Penny, a role since 1993) as a spirited Highland dancer! Irene Browne as Mrs. Grant, George Benson as the Chemist, Eva Bartok as the Girl, Ivor Barnard as Mr. Murdoch, Anthony Newley! as Chemist's Assistant, Wylie Watson as Huggins, and many, many more, bear in mind that from Jean Cadell onwards, these were all UNCREDITED roles in Lean's film! They join with the credited cast Barbara Everest, Leslie Banks, Ivan Desny, Ann Todd, Norman Wooland as the ever-stolid and respectable William Minnoch, Madeleine's would-be-husband-to-be, Elizabeth Sellars as the harried but loyal pretty housemaid, Patricia Raine and Susan Stranks as Bessie and Janet Smith, Madeleine's younger siblings, Eugene Deckers as Thuau the unsympathetic French consul and friend of L'Anglier, and Barry Jones as the merciless Prosecuting Counsel. Last but not least is Hammer films stalwart and a superb actor, the late Andre Morell(husband of the late Joan Greenwood) as the Defending Counsel, who gives an impassioned and heart-wrenching yet cool and logical defense of Madeleine that has got to be one of the greatest courtroom speeches in Cinematic history! At least I think it is! The next time I bite into a pastry Madeleine I will recall Andre Morell's defense!

All in all, a FIVE STAR ***** film rating for the actors' performances alone!",1 "I watched this film in Poland, the fatherland of Agnieszka Holland, after being attacked and robbed in a dark alley earlier that holiday-trip. I had to watch it with one eye closed because of broken glasses, but this wonderful fairytale deeply moved me, brought many tears to my eyes nd transcended me in a happy world where everything is fine. At once I knew this was going to be forever the most memorable visit to the cinema. The story will be well-known.The end is fairly incredible, but that's what fairytales are usually like.What made this film so great was the wonderful music by Polish composer Zbigniew Preisner.Listen to the music alone and you'll know why this movie moves you.It's available on CD, like a lot of other filmmusic of this composer too (""Trois couleurs"",""Dekalog"" and ""At play in the fields of the Lord"" to mention some).",1 "Synopsis: Clare (Jackey Hall) and Julie (Andrea Ownbey), the campus snobs of Arkham University, are attempting to seek their own brand of revenge on goth girl Sarah (Ciara Richards) and her friend Allison (Adrianna Eder). When the campus is overrun by zombies, the snobs see a good opportunity to get back at their black-clad enemies. Unfortunately, things may not go as smoothly as Clare & Julie want and they might be the zombies' prey instead. . .

Review: This is about as bad as a zombie flick can get these days. Other than the attractive females that like to take their clothes off, there isn't a single positive element to this stinkfest. It's not funny, it's not scary, it's just horrible. The story, if there is one, makes little sense at all. The script (if there actually was one and it wasn't just a bunch of idiots running around speaking in 90s clichés) is offensively bad, and it's only worsened by sincerely THE worst acting I've ever seen in my life (no exaggeration). I mean, these people make walking look difficult. They make Keanu Reeves look like Laurence Olivier. As the film progresses to the actual 'zombie invasion' (which, strangely, wasn't the first ten minutes when zombies were wandering all over campus), it only gets worse and worse. The direction during 'action' (for lack of a better word) scenes is almost unwatchable. Hell, even during the still shots, the camera-work is pathetic. By the end, it's a grueling experience to get through and I, with my very high tolerance for total crap, barely made it through. This is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I have ever seen and will probably ever see. Avoid at all costs.

Obligatory Zombie Elements:

Cause of Outbreak: The spread of blood of a zombie brought back to the states by some idiot professor. . . or something.

Zombie Characteristics: They're mostly slow, shambling, etc., except for the occasional one with superhuman strength and kung fu abilities.

Zombie Effects: Apparently powdered sugar and ketchup = Zombie faces. Not even remotely terrifying or realistic.

Violence/Gore: There may be quite a bit of zombie violence, but the gore is just ridiculously bad and some of the worst I've ever seen. If strawberry syrup and Fruit Roll-Ups are disgusting gore to you, then this is the film for you.

Sex/Nudity: The film spends the first ten or so minutes acting like softcore porn, but that ends abruptly and the rest of the film is spent mostly clothed.

- - -

Final Verdict: 1/10. Truly, truly painful.

Recommended? I would not wish this curse upon anyone.

-AP3-",0 "In what is said to be his landmark film, Buster Keaton plays Johnnie Gray, a train engineer in Tennessee in 1861. When war breaks out, he decides to enlist but is turned down because he is more valuable as an engineer. His girlfriend's father and brother believe him to be too afraid to enlist, and his girlfriend refuses to speak to him until he is in uniform. A year later, Gray is engineering his train, the General, which is then stolen by Northern spies and used to halt supplies to the South. Gray pursues the train by handcar, bicycle, and engine car, then after rescuing his girlfriend, who was on the train, the tables are reversed as the spies chase him Gray, on the General. Pretty innovative comedy, with great stuntwork by Keaton ( including knocking away the railroad tie with another ), and a good feeling all around. Keaton turns in an absolutely great performance with a great showing of slapstick, sympathy, and and romance. Rating 10.",1 "Breaking and Entering focuses on Will,(Jude Law) a landscape architect who succeeds in business but finds his personal life is tougher to navigate. He has been with Liv (Robin Wright Penn), for years, but it's difficult to connect with her due to her worry over her autistic teenage daughter. When Will catches a teenage boy named Miro (Ravi Gafron) breaking into his office, he chases the thief home. He later meets the boy's mother, a Bosnian refugee played by Juliette Binoche. His anger at Miro is quickly transformed into attraction to his mother, further complicating his relationship with Liv... I remember watching Breaking and Entering more then a year ago but, at the time, I thought it was a bit dull and slow paced and I ended up seeing only the first half. After all this time, I decided to give the film a second try mainly because it stars Jude Law, a great actor that usually does the kind of films I like, emotional dramas, often very character-driven, about relationships and the human nature. And that is exactly what Breaking and Entering is, and this time around I truly enjoyed the film even though it's far from being great. I guess you could say Breaking and Entering is an acquired taste. Those looking for instant gratification will be disappointed, on the other hand,those looking for a cleverly-written adult drama will be pleased, I think. See, the story is quite simple but the human nature is very complex, the reason why we do the things we do, our emotions, why we respond to certain situations in a certain manner, that's what's interesting about the story and it's the kind of thing the film tries to tap into. Visually, Breaking and Entering is quite stunning with beautiful cinematography and some great locations. The film was well acted with Jude Law delivering the best performance. In the end maybe the film should have been a little shorter, it would probably please a wider audience, but, it's like I mentioned before, Breaking and Entering is an acquired taste, it won't please the masses, that's for sure but, for those like me, who enjoy raw and realistic emotional dramas, I think it's a film worth watching.

7/10",1 "A great little show that shows children a great deal about the world around them. The stories have a similar setup, Bing and Bong (the hero's) sit on their sofa and a giant catapult throws them to a different tiny planet where they have an adventure before returning back home and going to bed.

Within this basic frame work many different areas are explored. Science, nature, music, even conflict resolutions are shown among many others. These stories are never condescending but easy to follow and great for kids.

The program is cgi based with vivid backdrops and some inventive camera work. Rather than staying with the traditional side on camera angle, common to animation, the show sometimes puts in tracking or doll shots to place the kids in the middle of the action.

Go in with an open mind, sit down with your children and enjoy.",1 "A little extreme, huh? I think my nationality has rendered my some point of patriotism, that the war criminal could not just get away with this, of just like the blockbuster ""Pearl Harbor"", in the spitting of the people of China, plus the modest performance of Harley and Trevor, I would rather delete it from my PC.

The acting and outline of a movie should be put to the very first, and I think the main problem with the movie will not be just an "" old piece"" but the attempt to be realistic and natural, and the whole thing just get mixed up, I think Harley will be another Sean, But not that luck under the atmosphere of destruction, and nothing to give him but to be yourself, not to be too real, After all you are acting, people rushing into that theater not to see your lives, but to see your understanding of the particular line of the story told by the diversity of all the human beings existing and living in the planet some E.T. will not get fully understand and be attached to.",0 "This has got to be one of the worst movies ever made. I'm not being prejudiced against the director. this movie just plain sucks. I know some of you like it because it has a lot of blood and gore and mangled bodies and lots of stuff gets blown up. If that's your cup of tea, go for it. But in this movie, this is what is missing: any kind of acting, any possible directing, anything resembling realistic jungle battle, intelligent dialog, story line and plot without holes galore, intelligent soldiers, and I could go on and on. This is not how war is. This is not how it was in Vietnam. This does not show any side of humanity. It's a jumbled up mess. A complete waste of time and money. Do not see this film. Time for the director to retire.",0 """Day of the Panther"" begins with a young blonde chick taking on several masked thugs at an abandoned building (in a sequence that would have worked better if it wasn't intercut with other events happening elsewhere - a mistake that the director repeats at the end of the movie). She fights quite well, but she gets killed off (bummer!), and her partner, Jason Blade (Edward John Stazak) takes charge from then on. This guy has zero charisma, but I have to give credit where credit is due: when it comes to the martial arts he knows what he is doing, his execution is fast and smooth. The story is totally formulaic, and the cinematography has a cheap, overexposed look, as if the film stock was left out in the sun too long. (*1/2)",0 "I love this movie. I had to buy my own DVD of it, because I love it so much. Eve Ensler is my favorite female playwright. This workshop is nice for the inmates to express themselves freely, non-violently and in a positive way. This a description of all the women: Donna Hylton: Remorseful for murder. Serving 25 to life.

Anna Santana: Remorseful for murder. Serving 15 to life.

Nora Moran: Remorseful for armed robbery and assault. Serving 10 to 20 years.

Monica Szelkovics: Remorseful for murder and trying to convince her mother that with a sentence of 50 to life there is a strong chance she will never leave prison.

Roslyn Smith: Remorseful for murder and training guard dogs. Serving 50 to life.

Betsy Ramos: Remorseful for manslaughter. Serving 15 to life.

Kathy Boudin and Judith Clark: Former Weather Underground Members remorseful for murder. Boudin was released after serving 22 years of her 20 to life sentence. Clark is serving 75 to life.

Cynthia Berry: Extremely remorseful for murder. Serving 25 to life.

Betty Harris: Extremely remorseful for manslaughter. Serving 8 1/3 to 25 years.

Kelia Pulinario: Remorseful for murder. Serving 25 to life.

Michelle McWilliams: Remorseful for manslaughter. serving 12 1/2 to 25 years.

Migdalia Martinez: Remorseful for drugs. Released in 2000. Sentenced to 15 to life. Granted clemency.

Jan Warren: Remorseful for drugs. Served 13 years of a 15 to life sentence. Granted clemency and released in 2000.

Nedreys Arias: Remorseful.

Shanta Striklin: Remorseful.

Pamela Smart: Still a bitch and has no remorse for her crime of murder. Serving life without the possibility of parole. Thank God.

Kudos to Eve Ensler, and the rest of the film makers and crew members. Two Thumbs Way Up!",1 I have never seen a movie like that. Not only the acting of the player is perfect but also it is almost unbelievable that none had every acted before. There is substantial number of new movies in Turkish cinema but Karpuz kabugundan gemiler yapmak is certainly among one of the three best movies played in the last decades.

What is so said is that Turkish film industry keeps using some useless actors and actresses instead of the players of this movie. The director gave them a good chance to show themselves somehow and they did great job and I can't fathom why they have not been asked for any other movie. I could not help saying that shame on those who are not able to make use of these new players' talent in Turkish movie industry. No wonder why we do not have a good movie industry any more. Just think you producers let me say lastly....,1 "Aandhi is a story about Policiticans-one in particular…Miss Aaarti Devi (Suchitra Sen), a very strong and appointed lady. It has been her dream to lead her country one day, and her father's strong motivation pushed her in the right direction. Everything is going well up until her opponents start feeling threatened. People love her and believe her words, and they have to destroy her public image!! She hits the front-page story. Pictures have exploited he ruin the arms of another man.-None other than with her very own HotelManager (Sanjeev Kumar). A scheme well accomplished-as people all over began talking. She can no longer be trusted!! Who is this man? And what relation do these two hold? Watch this movie as all truth unfolds…and overall, to find out if this determined Lady wins back the trust and vote of her people.",1 "DUM,DUM,DUM,DUM.....Just when you thought you were safe from sequels... Comes this second dreadful,horrid,and poorly acted film.Louis Gosset Jr. sports a terrible ghetto accent thoughout the film,probably hoping he won't be recongnized.James Bond Hopeful(at the time)Simon McQuade plays a Costeuo-like Documentary filmaker,Mr.Fritz-Royce who*spoilers ahead* gets swallowed whole by Mrs. Bruce.Bess Armstrong(High Road to China) plays the love interest,but hey, at least she's better than Karen Young in Jaws the Revenge.Dennis Quaid(The Parent Trap,The Right Stuff,Dreamscape) is the now grown up Mike Brody,who with Martin Brody out of the film,is the hero.John Putch is Shawn still afraid of the Deep Blue Sea(get it?)In case your wondering the *cough* ""plot"" is set at SEA WORLD FLORIDA,not AMITY ISLAND,like in first two and ""the revenge"". A major plot point from the british sci-fi classic ""Gorgo"" is reused. What this film needs the most is to be released in Widescreen at it's 2:35.1 aspect ratio(plus with the 3-D process)on DVD. Hopefully if the Jaws 2 Special Collecter's Edition released this coming summer is a success,we might just see that,until then,avoid the atrocias video and Television Versions,Catch this fish at your nearest revival theater and enjoy some cheap thrills in 3-D.",0 "The cast is just perfect. The casting crew have done an excellent job. Roger, Tuesday, Corey, RT, Margret, Katie, Sophia even Owen are all good actors. It is 1000 time better than that 70s show. That 80s show is way more hilarious than the 70s show. The 70s show had crappy flashbacks and overall was pathetic. While the 80s show had excellent characters and the jokes were hilarious. All the crew performed above themselves. The storyline rules! I hope it is brought back because there is super potential in this show.

Full on crack up! The setting is mad the cast is cool!

10 out of 10 for a Sitcom no doubt!",1 "This movie is a very poor translation from the novel. Loosely based at best, with location and characters changed to the point where they are barely recognizable. The original plot of this story was intriguing and one that would make a great movie, had it been written with clarity and thought. However this version is designed with plenty of liberties taken on character development and plot continuity. Some I am sure would love the generous portion of nudity without reason or cause. Kate Beckinsale wandering around on the screen naked for no apparent reason is something I doubt we would see much of now. If you enjoy laughing over a miserable attempt to make a mystery, then by all means, rent this one, have some friends over, make popcorn, and have a cooler of beer on hand, and prepare to be entertained. But if you are looking for an edge of your seat afternoon of entertainment, look elsewhere.",0 "This movie is like two or three movie plots all spliced together--and in my eyes, this isn't done in the most successful manner. First, Lionel Atwill orders an up and coming actress to travel to Hollywood with a fading actor. Almost as soon as these two leave, Atwill has a heart attack or something like it and is ordered to take complete rest in the country. He invites along his secretary as his nursemaid and the stage appears to be set for romance at Atwill's country home.

However, then it starts to get VERY strange. It seems that Atwill's ranch has a runway with lights and a beacon--very posh indeed. And, it just so happens that BOTH a Bonnie and Clyde style couple are seen nearby and are being chased by the police AND a plane is about to crash because it's almost out of fuel and the only place it can land is at Atwill's landing field!! Talk about ridiculous! Now the Bonnie and Clyde-style couple is an interesting idea I suppose but Wallace Ford is given horrible lines by the writers. In particular, he says ""oke"" (pronounced like ""oak"") about three dozen times when he means to say ""okay"". After a short time, my teeth began to grind every time he said this!! In addition to these creeps, once the plane crashes, the survivors all come into the ranch house and the whole thing plays out like a stage production--with almost all the action happening in one claustrophobia-inducing room. While interesting at times (especially at the thrilling conclusion), the whole thing seems ridiculous, very far-fetched and poorly written--as if desperately needing a massive re-write. Not a great film by any standard, but there were a few good scenes here and there that might hold your interest.

Why, oh why, did Wallce Ford need to say ""oke"" again and again and again--it will probably haunt me for some time to come and I'll start avoiding his films!",0 """Capricorn One"" has a promising beginning: that story about the NASA faking the images of the arrival to Mars makes you think that's gonna be a nice politic film full of suspense. Anyway as the movie gets on the script turns completely tricky and so absurd, the plot splits into several parallel plots and there's a huge loss of intensity. Besides, nor OJ Simpson neither James Brolin are the best actors ever.

A nice air chase with airplanes and helicopters and some entertaining sequences. That's all that you'll find in ""Capricorn One""...

*My rate: 4/10

------------ ------------ ------------",0 "This modern retelling of Sherlock Holmes casts Rupert Everett as a Holmes who is clearly out of his element, much like Basil Rathbone in those cheapie Holmes flicks from the mid 40s that are set during WWII. Modern times (or 1902, in this case) foist upon the still-Victorian Holmes, and us, such unwanted contrivances as routine fingerprinting, telephones, cigarettes and crime ""game"" rooms. If you didn't know better, you might think you were watching an episode of LAW & ORDER. The plot is straight out of L&O as well: it's Holmes and Scotland Yard versus a fetishist serial killer. Holmes is so befuddled, he fails to see what we clearly see when it is discovered early on that the primary suspect's fingerprints do not match those taken from the crime scene. We then have to wait for Holmes to play catch up. How sad. I could have taken the change in era if the filmmakers had used an actual Conan Doyle plot. Everett is wasted, playing a chain-smoking, doped-up Holmes. We even get to watch him inject himself with cocaine in one scene, as if this was needed. We also get to watch Inspector Lestrade perform an L&O-style big whupping on the suspect.",0 "(Sing along to the classic song ""Calendar Girls"")

I did not like, I did not like those ""Calendar Girls"" I did not like, I did not like those ""Calendar Girls"" It is so boring this film called the ""Calendar Girls"" It is the most overrated film in the 2003 world Do not watch it any day of the year

The film stars Helen Mirren as an old girl who gets her geriatric peeps to nude it out in front of the world so they can raise some funds for a couch memorial in a hospital vestibule but what we get is dreary story that quickly rans out of fuel Stay Away, Stay Away cause this is too weird

That's why I did not like the film ""Calendar Girls"" That's why I was turned off by the ""Calendar Girls"" And if you did like ""Calendar Girls"" then you should be sent to a place where crazy people swirl Every day, Every Day of the year

** Needs Improvement",0 "This docu-drama provides a wonderful story of the right-to-vote movement early last century, but whoever selected the anachronistic music soundtrack has to be taken out and shot. The idea is to show what it was like in 1900-1920 period, and the production shots and camera work do a fine job; but why in the world do we need rock'n'roll music to offer a major distraction to the film? This really made watching the movie at times repugnant. And the director and editor decided to do some fancy, techno editing effects, which further removed the film from the proper time setting. But the fine acting by all major players, and the great story itself, save this film.",0 "The 30th animated Disney ""classic"" is, without a doubt, one of the most famous Disney classics, which is a good and a bad thing either, because its success tends somewhat to overshadow other very good Disney classics (often better than this). Or maybe what happens is that this movie gets the deserved attention, while others sadly do not have the same luck (such as ""The Rescuers"", ""The Aristocats"", ""The Fox and the Hound"", ""The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh"", ""Robin Hood"" and others). That is the worst aspect of this movie's success. So, as one can see, it's not all roses.

Nevertheless, ""Beauty and the Beast"" is one of Disney's most original movies. To a point, it is every bit as creative and imaginative as ""Alice in Wonderland"", except that it isn't as eccentric as that one.

One thing that is very obvious from the beginning is that this is a french tale. It's quite easy to understand that because all the characters have french names. Plus, they often use french words such as ""Bonjour"" (which means ""Good morning"" in french). Lumière even uses the word «Sacré bleu» once. However, it's not very clear the exact place of our story. All we know is that it's somewhere in France.

As much as I don't like all of the movie's characters, some of them are very charming. For example: Lumière (the candelabra), Cogsworth (a clock), Mrs. Potts (a teapot), Chip (the cute little teacup), Belle, Maurice (Belle's father, who is also an inventor) and Philippe (the horse). It's funny that a horse is named Philippe (Philip in french) - LOL.

Belle is one of Disney's most beautiful chicks, together with Jasmine, Ariel and the Blue Fairy. Belle is also classy, charming, carefree, nonconformist, conservative and nice. All of this makes her an interesting character and, above all, different from the rest of her village's population, who see her as a strange girl because she likes to read and also because she can't stand Gaston (unlike the rest of women) neither the idea of being his ""little wife"". Belle is appropriately named like that (her name means beautiful in french).

Gaston (who is considered the villain of the movie) is a character who's got no culture at all, being the epitome of pure strength and no brain (like Biff Tannen from ""Back to the Future""). Gaston is a tall, muscled, vain, arrogant, snobbish and chauvinistic guy with a heart of stone.

On the other hand, Gaston's follower and helper, Lefou, is more of a goofy guy than anything else, nearly like a comic relief. No wonder he is named Lefou (which means ""The Fool"" in french).

Monsieur D'Arque is a strange man with a sinister appearance that makes him seem to come from a terror film. For some children, he might be a bit of a creepy character.

My favorite character is Chip (he is the cutest of all, besides, his natural sweetness and innocence helps). However, Lumière and Belle come incredibly close to Chip when it comes to my favorite characters of this film.

The soundtrack isn't entirely spectacular, but the romantic ballad ""Beauty and the Beast"" is beautiful. It has 2 versions. Angela Lansbury's version is good, but the original one by Celine Dion and Peabo Bryson is extraordinary.

As for the cast, it is brand new comparing to older Disney films and most of them do well. Paige O'Hara and Angela Lansbury are among the best ones, but those who steal the show are Bradley Pierce as Chip and Jerry Orbach as Lumière. Jerry Orbach gives so much life and energy to Lumière, with such a convincing french accent.

The best part of the whole film is the famous ballroom dance sequence, which is wonderful, brilliant and very artistic (the graphics also make it look incredibly close to a live-action ballroom).

Generally speaking, this film has the main ingredients of an animated Disney movie: great picture quality (good designs, backgrounds, sceneries and colors), very good animation, creativity, originality, some charming characters, some romance, adventure, darkness, suspense, classic humor and so on...

The Prince (that is, the Beast as a human being) almost looks like Jean Michel Jarre with that long hair. That said, his change of heart during the movie is amazing. From a person who is spoiled, selfish, unkind and with an explosive temper, he becomes kind, gentle and even romantic.

Although the sequence ""Human Again"" was originally gonna be included in the movie, it was removed in the final version. It was recovered for the DVD. Yet, the version I consider the true one is the one without the sequence ""Human Again"", even if that one is not *officially* the movie's true version. But for me the true version is the one I know since 1991. It's the way I always knew it, so it makes perfect sense.",1 "My husband thought it would be fun to watch a bad Halloween-type movie with some unsuspecting friends. After all, we got the DVD on our honeymoon. To Walt Disney World, no less.

But fun? Oh, dear.

Four of us were begging to be put out of our misery.

As the movie began, the first lines were in English, on the Italian language track. Thinking, ""Okay, it's on the English track"" we were fine. Then everyone started speaking in Italian.

Why were the first lines in English???

Unfortunately, it went downhill.

Yes, there was nudity, as the title would suggest. Yes, there was ""sex"", as you would imagine would happen when there is nudity. However, they seemed to be afraid of using their tongues, which really takes away from the believability of the ""sex"".

The movie itself was slightly less painful than gouging your eyes out with a rusty spoon, but only because of the Butler, who resembled George Washington. Occasionally he would appear in the movie and laugh at you for watching, when he wasn't whipping the required lesbian maid. As the movie pressed on, we stopped cheering for the ""hero"" (not that we had started), and started cheering whenever Washington made his appearance. When he wasn't on screen, we asked ""Where's Washington?""

If you like Italian cinema (we don't), I hear you'll like this. If you like MST3K (we do), you'll be able to tolerate it. If you don't like either, but like torturing yourself, by all means, pick up this movie!",0 "The premise of this movie is simple and hilarious. Moore play an advertising executive who experiences a minor nervous breakdown. Unlike 'Reginald Perrin', who fakes his suicide, Moore's character has a falling-out with deceit. He begins composing advertisements that tell the truth.

And this is where the comedy really takes off. Moore's character is confined to an institution, but in the meantime his spoof adverts are accidentally sent to press. As things turn out; the truth has more appeal than lies (why do ad-men and politicians find that so hard to accept?). In the asylum, the plot enters its 'second phase', as we are introduced to a bunch of people with all manner of comic and tragic conditions. It is they who take up the thread of humour in this part.

It is also here that things go awry. A romantic sub-plot is farcically attempted by the introduction Of Darly Hannah as a love interest for Moore. Like him; she has also been committed for some reason.

The story then struggles between these two digressing strands and the whole plot is stretched too thin to cover them. Dudley Moore was 55 by the time he worked this movie, and much too old to play a romantic lead with a 20-something inmate. Their relationship begins to look uncomfortably like abuse. Darly Hannah has a wonderful face and figure, but not much else. Her coy-and-vulnerable-beauty is a role she would reprise to the letter in 'Splash' with Tom Hanks.

There is a happy ending as you would expect; but by then, so many wheels have come off that you no longer take the joke seriously any more. It's a pity John Guilgud wasn't used instead of Ms Hannah. He could have been an insane politician turned philosophical mentor, or some such thing. The plot would have stayed on-track and the gags could have kept on coming. The pairing had already been shown to be a winning formula in 'Arthur'. Bob Hope and Bing Crosby demonstrated that such a franchise could work in the longer-term with their 'Road To...' series.

For the most part, this is well worth a watch. Just be ready to make some coffee or get a beer or something when the maudlin and implausible romance takes over. Unless you're a fan of Ms Hannah's physical charms, that is.

This was pretty well Dudley Moore's last Hollywood outing. If he'd been 20 years younger I think he would have made the ideal candidate for 'Splash'. But the studios needed a younger vulnerable-funny-guy, and Tom Hanks seems to have been Moore's natural successor. He wasn't as funny, but he wasn't so short and had youth on his side. He was also a yank.

If you think this is good, then try 'Bedazzled'. You'll see Cuddly Dudley both at his most endearing, and at the high point of his pairing with Peter Cook.",1 "I'm sorry but Rosie O'Donnell talking about her mother's death and Barbara Walters (who has never really acted) on the actors studio. I have suggestions as to who should be on the Actors Studio in the future. What about your former wife, Nina Foch? What about the following? Kim Novak (retired and very much alive in Oregon. I bet she can teach acting), Dame Elizabeth Taylor, Barbara Windsor, Susan Lucci, Erika Slezak (she has 6 daytime Emmys), Jeanne Cooper, Emma Thompson, Susan Flannery, Helen Wagner (she celebrates 50 years playing one role on AS the World Turns), don't forget your soap roots, John Lipton. You spent 10 years on daytime with some of the finest around. You could have some longtime actors and actresses on your show. I bet they have better stories and can teach about acting. I look forward to your Liza Minnelli interview which will be a deservedly 2 hours long. Don't forget the Redgraves as well, Lynn, Vanessa, and Corin? What about Broadway stars like Cherry Jones, Zoe Caldwell, Angela Lansbury, John Lithgow, Oprah Winfrey, etc. There are plenty of wonderful actors and actresses out there waiting to be interviewed for your show. Kim Novak is a good example of somebody. She is a golden girl from the golden days of Hollywood. She would be worth watching as well. Come on, Lipton, you can do better than Rosie and Babs.",0 """One Last Dance"" is another one of those movies whose bad word of mouth will puzzle a lot of viewers. While the major subplot has been done a hundred times before (frequently better), the music and dance are superb. Further, while Lisa Niemi (Mrs. Patrick Swayze) is a pretty inept actress, her camera setups superbly capture the dance. Besides, ""One Last Dance"" boasts one superb performance, that of George De La Pena (""Max""). With this movie, Lisa Niemi, for better or worse, clearly establishes herself as both the brains and drive behind Patrick Swayze.

Hopefully, ""One Last Dance"" will usher in a whole series of dance films, both comedies and dramas; and one could certainly do much worse than the dance team of Swayze and Niemi.

I give ""One Last Dance"" a ""7"".",1 "Based on the story 'The Forbidden' by Hellraiser writer and director Clive Barker, Candyman is another tale of people delving into places where they shouldn't delve and otherworldly evil. Rather than a demon from hell, the antagonist of this tale is an urban legend going by the name of Candyman. The mythology behind the story is one of the film's major plus points, and director Bernard Rose does a good job of building it. The mythology combined with what can only be described as a fetid atmosphere bode well together, and ensures that this film is both a creepy and absorbing tale of horror. The film follows a pair of University students; Helen Lyle and Bernadette Walsh doing a thesis on urban legends. They decide to research the modern day myth of 'Candyman', a figure who appears complete with a hooked hand to savage whomever stupid enough to say his name five times in front of the mirror. However, one of the duo starts to put a bit too much effort into the work, and ends up coming a cropper when Candyman decides to have his wicked way with her.

The parts of the story that stand out the most are the relationship between the protagonist and Candyman, and the idea of a community of people believing in title character. However, this is where the film falls down to me. The scenes between Helen and Candyman put too much focus on the 'evil' dialogue, and the relationship is never really built upon. The urban legend theme is often touched upon, but we only meet a handful of characters that believe in the almighty Candyman, and they aren't in the film for long. The basis of the story follows Helen's bid for sanity, and while this provides an interesting backbone for the film - I really do think it could have been a lot better. The casting is largely good, with Tony Todd putting across an effective portrayal of Candyman, and Virginia Madsen delivering a believable performance as the film's victim. Xander Berkeley, who came to fame recently with a role in the first two series' of 24 rounds off the cast, which is under the direction of Bernard Rose. The only other film I've seen from him is Paperhouse, and Candyman is certainly a lot better than that. Although that isn't exactly difficult. Overall, this is a creepy and interesting film; but I can't say I'm a huge fan of it.",1 "I'm not a big fan of Demi Moore but I have to admit that her performance in this film is very good. Bruce Willis does what he does best; that is to say, he's annoying to the point where I was hoping someone would kill him and put us all out of our misery, even though I thoroughly enjoyed his character when he wasn't being mean to his wife. Glenne Headly was amazing and Harvey Keitel, one of my favorites, was once again the consummate cop.

But the best part of this movie, for me, was the realism. The New Jersey accents sounded natural and unaffected, especially Harvey Keitel's pronunciation of Joyce's name as ""Jerce"". The homes looked like regular folks lived there, not like designer-inspired movie sets. The clothes were real, the hairdos were real, and the way the characters behaved was real.

I've seen this film a couple of times and I haven't found any glaring plot holes; everything follows a believable and sensible course. If Demi Moore's character is lying, she's doing a damn good job of it.

The only problem I have with the story -- and it is a problem I have with many stories -- is that at some point the characters completely abandon their day-to-day lives. After Jimmy's funeral it seems that Joyce never returns to the beauty shop that she owns and Cynthia and Cookie never work another day in their lives, even though all three women depend on the income from their jobs. I would have preferred to see how Joyce's alleged descent into madness affected her business, how her customers reacted to her, and how she and the other stylists interacted during working hours.

Overall I give this film an 8 out of 10. Great performances by the main characters, solid storyline, and nothing fake to distract from the story.",1 "as people knows,the public praise is very bad but box office is so high in china.it face an embarrassed situation,one side is ice,another is fire.

as concerned as me,i take this movie Mo Gik as nothing,or just a steamed bread.one world,one steamed bread,just like the 2008 Olympic saying.Kai-Ge Chen is really not god,but he took him as,and even had been cheated by others(yes,the media and audience took him as god before,but it's more like a sneer,make him can't speak out human's word.).He thought the audience can't understand his movie immediately, of course,he is god,how can we poor human can really understand the thought of god.So,Kai-Ge,just stay on your paradise with your flower armature and noble blood,don't get down,on the ground,or less,you have to face sputa.

recently,i hear of the comment has rebounded.promise me can doubt it conspiratorial like an inclemency commenter, i just can think those one who make it rebound are employed by production crew.if goddess man(Chen hong,Kai-Ge's wife)know it,she will say again:""what's on earth the bad man's heart,it is equal to murder my baby,why Chinese always fight with Chinese.""but i think,you should thank all kind Chinese, especially the kindness of film bureau and movie theater,it is them who can give you so good feature period and in this feature,no other movies can compete with mo Gik,they even don't have chance to compete for they(Naria,King gang) can't be featured in your own time.",0 "Luxo Jr. is a wonderful example of why people still prefer cartoons from 50 and 60 years ago to today's material. The problem is simple: these new cartoons, such as Pixar ones, aren't funny! Oh, they may be clever as anything, but funny? Not really, so it misses the mark because 98 percent of the human population watches a cartoon to get some laughs.

To describe this two-minute animated short as ""ingenious"" and/or ""innovative"" is a lot more laughable than the cartoon itself. All it was, was Pixar lamp watching his little child lamp play with a rubber ball for a minute We see a lamp hit the ball and then hop along and then jump on it.

Wow. I have news for those who thought this was ""ingenious."" Drawing Inanimate objects coming to life is as old as cartoons itself, so what's ""innovative"" about this?

You want innovation? Watch Felix The Cat silent cartoon from the early 1920s - 85 years ago. That was innovative, as were tons of Looney Tunes and Pink Panther cartoons....plus we laughed a lot more, This ""cartoon"" is nothing.",0 "Quite possibly one of the cheapest and worse movies of all time, comparable only to Journey to the Center of the Earth (1988). Hmm both remakes of Jules Verne novels. Could there be a connection? With the staggering number of times these movies have been remade, it's quite possible that all opportunities for originality are lost. Also, it's a TV movie; need I say more? Hallmark is known for it's portrayal of human emotion, so I thought that at the very least that would be good. But no. Acting is cliché, the set is terrible, and the plot is same ol, same ol. When will someone make a good remake of a Jules Verne novel again?",0 "This movie was quite maligned when it came out. Since I had been a big fan of both vivacious Jill Clayburgh and the manly James Brolin at the time I went to see it. Since I was a teen, I took a lot of what was portrayed as quite accurate. True it is a mostly fictionalized account of the two stars, but it has got some redeeming qualities. Namely, Brolin's dead on Gable. He is indeed very good, and I kept forgetting that it was not really Clark Gable. Clayburgh, as attractive as she is does not have Lombard's classic beauty or figure, but she's so gosh darn likable as Lombard one can overlook her shortcomings. Seeing it again recently, Jill Clayburgh as Lombard is a stretch, but I felt she put so much into the character, and a better script couldn't have hurt. Physical aspects aside, the two actors have great chemistry, and one gets the impression they are really crazy about each other. It's ashame that neither Brolin or Clayburgh got more to do...the story does meander at times and the film is a tad too long. Although it's not a great film, it's definitely worth checking out. Be on the lookout for Melanie Mayron as Dixie, before she went from frump to vixen.",1 "This movie is a failure in every sense of the word. It tries so desperately to aquire the praise tarantino deserved so well. Instead it comes across as being naive and pretentious. The dialogue is absolutely laughable. I didn't think highly of Garcia to begin with, but this particular 'performance' has finally thrashed every last bit of credibility he had. Keep your day-job Andy!",0 "Chuck is back and still after Andy is now placed in a foster home after the tragic events of the first film since his mother was committed. In an attempt to save their reputation, the manufacturers of Chucky reconstruct the killer doll, to prove to the public that nothing was wrong with it in the first place. In doing so, they also bring the soul of serial killer Charles Lee Ray back to life.

Andy soon find out that chucky is back and up to no good, of course he tell in his forester parents that doll is alive, yet again now one believes him, There some deaths scene that not gory and not even little bit scary and two of death scene are off-screen. Everything about this movie is so boring and deaths scene could not even save movie, I would say this is the Worst Child's play movie in the series I would say fast forward to last 7 minutes of movie, as it the only worth watching part of movie to see chucky getting killed off yet again.",0 "This is one of the best movies abut Viet Nam ever and the best about the early (fist five years) part of the war. If you thing Rambo and Delta force are what Viet Nam was about, don't watch. If you want a feel for what was going on then, watch.",1 "I own this movie and I remember going to see it when it came out. A female cop gets raped by a gang of punks who's lawyer gets them off with a slap on the wrist. This cop is then approached by a lady doctor whose young daughter was attacked and killed by a pedophile. The women form a support group for women who have been sexually assaulted or abused. Within the group the doc and the cop along with other ""hardcore"" members decide to take matters in to their own hands. With the cop's help, they track down sex offenders and take out their own ""special brand"" of justice. It was sooo much fun to watch all the women in the theatre cheering the ladies on and watching all the guys slink down in their seats giving their girls covert looks. You could just hear them thinking: Would she?? Remember, this was in the days BEFORE Lorena Bobbit. I think it's a great movie especially for the tongue-in-cheek neo feminist set. If you can find it (try half.com), it's a great movie for a ""man bash"" session. Just invite your girlfriends over and open a bottle of merlot and have some laughs.",1 "When you think of it, this is a very inexpensive way to produce a movie. Imagine what it would have cost to hire **real** actors for all those scenes lifted from the old detective pictures. This movie actually has a quite small cast, with one of the parts played by writer/director Carl Reiner--more money saved! The marvelously talented Reni Santoni, who portrays a South American policeman to hilarious effect, is a Reiner favorite. Santoni actually played a character based on the young Carl Reiner in the semi-autobiographical ""Enter Laughing"" fifteen years earlier.

There is much clever writing here and Steve Martin's deadpan style of comedy is right on the money. As this is satire, not drama, the virtual absence of plot isn't a major flaw. Likewise the limited acting skills of Rachel Ward who only has to do sexy.",1 "I was only a 12 year old kid when I initially saw this movie on the first day of my summer vacation from school back in 1970. We laughed so hard throughout that I missed many funny lines. Since then I have seen this movie several times, and still find it uproariously funny. I am a Midwesterner who loves visiting New York City, so I do not believe it is a put down of the big apple, but simply a comic study of a trip where everything goes wrong for a very high-strung person and his comparatively passive wife. Lemmon plays this frustration beautifully, and the angry humor is as much cathartic as it is hilarious. While no cinema classic, it remains one of the funniest movies of its time, and one I enjoy upon repeated viewings.",1 "The Omega man may now receive renewed attention as a result of the current and third re-make of the original story from which it derives, ""I Am Legend"".

Whilst ""I Am Legend"" may well be more faithful to the original book, that text, however, is an unremarkable piece of escapist sci-fi. Whereas The Omega Man, using the story as a vehicle, developed it into what may now be read as an uncannily insightful analysis of latent undercurrents of late twentieth century culture.

The Omega Man replaces the rather puerile vampire theme with that of a reactionary cult of anti-science. The epidemic that supposedly turns people into blood-sucking Buffy-beasts in the original story is replaced by a rather more believable illness of which symptoms are aversion to light and insanity. A TV news anchorman, using the technology of mass communications that science has put at his disposal, is shown as opportunistically exploiting the biological disaster to create a religious cult that entirely renounces science, with himself as its head.

Aspects of this scenario reflected elements within the ""hippy"" movement that was nearly contemporaneous with the movie's making. The nascent ""Luddite"" reactionary element that was in hippiedom has swelled in prominence in the years since the movie was made, as the less harsh themes of Sixties ""counter-culture"", libertarianism and the renunciation of top-down political dogma, have evaporated. Today, in the mature, even decadent technological societies, the principal themes of culture and politics are a renunciation of science and the reassertion of mediaeval religious dogmas. These two elements frequently intertwine. Whilst the ""environmentalist"" political dogma seeks to dictate from above every aspect of everyday life for every citizen, the state has launched into a millennial conflict with renascent mediaevalist religion as it is expressed overseas in ""terrorist"" movements.

Seen from today's perspective, Charlton Heston's depiction of the isolated, besieged man of science, Dr Neville, seems eerily evocative for the embattled minority of us who cling to the ideal of scientific truth that is now under attack. As in The Omega Man, we now see the mass media that is a product of science used by that media's own opportunistic elements to generate a hostility to science that they can then play to their own advantage. We have reached the point at which to dare raise the pseudo-scientific nature of the dominant political ideology that is environmentalism is to risk being rendered an outcast, like Neville.

A far-fetched fantasy adventure at the time of it's making, The Omega Man now seems to have uncannily anticipated the major political themes of life in the early Twenty-First Century. A truly prophetic parable of our times.",1 "I've bought PROFIT on DVD. Genius. I've bought THREE's COMPANY on DVD. Wonderful. I bought FREE ENTERPRISE on DVD. Fun All from the same video label. They put out THE GRAND and I bought it. It's easily the worst comedy ever made from an unfunny man named Zak Penn. Zak, please stay away form comedy as you're not talented at it. Stick to lousy comic books and filling in the dialog bubbles. Awful, awful, awful!!! You are not Christopher Guest. What are you trying to prove? Listen to the astute TV critics that scolded you and said funny was not in your DNA. You are not talented as far as humor. Stick to garbage comic books where the upside is spelling things correctly.",0 """I'm sick of Symmetry"" a character says in this film, and here we have one of the last works of Luis Bunuel's surrealistic fantasies that brings a story after another with a never ending that mocks the ignorance in which societies live in; It's just amazing how Bunuel exposures the conventionalism to which we are so accustomed and makes of any place a more decadent and irrational angle of the world. Comedy is just the perfect condiment that guides you and distracts you through a series of events that never have sense for the first time. Bunuel's humor is always taken to the profane as many judge, but indeed is just another evidence of how reality often times makes us uncomfortable even in our own privacy. A must see film without a doubt, it mirrors your emotions, it drives you mad, drives you sad, and challenges your morality.",1 "I just finished watching the DVD and can't wait to see it again! Jeremy Kasten does a great job for his first movie. He creates an atmospheric, unsettling, and at times just plain weird journey into subjective reality. The film has a certain insecure tension -- just when you think you're putting it together, Kasten throws in another piece of the puzzle and you have to re-think what you thought you knew. I enjoy films that don't spoon-feed me the answers, but rather allow me to draw my own conclusions. I also like the use of the unreliable narrator...the last 20 minutes is a roller-coaster ride! Jeffrey Combs is absolutely perfect as Doctor Ek, and Seth Green is hilarious yet unnerving as the mysterious Douglas. Seth always brings multiple levels to his characters, and I rate this as one of his best performances. Don't be put off by the fact that this movie may be referred to as ""low budget"" - in my opinion, that fact makes the production all that more sincere. The DVD will give those with a home theater system a good workout and add to the overall experience...and watch it after the sun goes down with all the lights out too!",1 "I was lucky to see TROOP 1500 in its full feature length version at the Dallas Video Fest. I hear there is a shorter version which will be broadcast on TV. Quite frankly, I have never seen a documentary which is both artistically innovative and radical in its content. The idea of girls interviewing their own mothers in jail is nothing short of GENIUS and I cannot imagine any other filmmakers telling this story with as much wisdom, heart, soul and depth. Ellen Spiro and Karen Bernstein have presented an eye-opening gift to the world, a film which will make it hard to ignore the children of incarcerated mothers. I see every documentary I possibly can, including the big commercial hits like Fahrenheight 911, but TROOP 1500 is BY FAR the best one I can remember. I wish it would be seen in every cineplex in America, but the next best thing is to see it on DVD or television in its shorter form. Highly recommended from someone who is as critical and cynical as anyone. TROOP 1500 is a fierce, urgently attentive work of art.",1 "This is a great HK action flick and like most of them, it's all about the action. Essentially the whole industry in HK is more or less like the American B-movie action market, starring the likes of Dolph Lundgren, Van Damme and of course Cynthia Rothrock. The main difference though is the high level of quality in the action of the HK movies. They feature the inane plots and hokey acting of DTV American movies but my god can those guys do good action.

This film is virtually plot free but of course that isn't important. What it does have is action legend Yuen Biao (Best known as one of the three dragons, with Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung). In the 80's Biao was one of the three favourite sons of the genre. Arguably Biao was also the better fighter than Chan, but of course Chan did the most amazing stunts of the three legends. Also at the time perhaps the most popular female action star in HK was Cynthia Rothrock. She was big box office fodder and drew in the punters even before Michelle Yeoh became the number one bad ass beaatch! I have to say I like Rothrock. She is one mean lady and kicks buttock like the best of them. The high kicking carnage dished out by Cynthia, particularly in her HK movies is just hot, really darn hot! Rothrock moved away from those movies in the early 90's and had a brief slew of theatrical films in the US before dropping into the DTV market where she remains a popular draw. The problem is that American cinema doesn't spend the time and energy on the fight sequences like they do in HK. Nowadays the average Rothrock fight scene looks very conventional, while of course still remaining sexy by the sheer fact she is kicking booty. Righting Wrong of course is full to the brim of high octane and imaginative fights and the film never drags. Rothrock is superb in the action department and has some great fights, amongst others a great fight with Biao, while Biao is also superb, showcasing some amazing moves and great stunts. This is simplistic entertainment and a lesson to American movies on how it's done. ***",1 "I give this film a ten because it was very entertaining and thought provoking. For years I have been trying to remember the name of it so I could order the video to watch again. I saw it 20 years ago. I don't remember all the details but I remember how much it touched me.

It was quite frightening, even at the age of 23. I never forgot the strength of Laura Dern's performance. It was incredible, defining. I have followed her career ever since. Treat Williams was also excellent. I don't want to risk a spoiler so I will just say he was a very convincing character.

I also believe it would be as meaningful today as it was in 1985. The relevance of this film is timeless.",1 "First of all, the film is very interesting and thought provoking. That being said, it does resemble Office Space a little bit. I say that because a lot of it takes place in an office and it's like we are watching it from Milton's perspective. Those are the only comparisons. I have just watched this movie, and I like it very much. This is the kind of film the movie theater's have been missing. To go back to my summary title, I think that Christian Slater's performance in this film outshines anything else he's done. I am a big fan of Elisha Cuthbert. She is good in this as well. However, Slater's performance is something to see by anyone and everyone. I almost forgot that is was Slater playing the part of Bob. Slater has never left the building!",1 "I started to fast forward to see if it got better but unfortunately it didn't. Cheap sets and production (looks like handy cams with poor acting) let this movie down. At one stage you could see the camera and sound men the next shot pans too. Also you can tell the transitions between shots as there is a awkward pause before the actors start acting! It was also hard to believe as there were no hospitals for the sick astronaut or isolation chambers, etc as if the script had not been updated. The whole movie looked cheap, very c-grade and was extremely implausible to watch, so much so it had me cringing and wanting to turn it off. I Give it a miss.

Just found out this was originally broadcast live, I watched a broadcast much later.",0 "i only really watched this film because i was on holiday in boring Yorkshire with nothing to do what so ever. also it had Lindsay Lohan in, one of my top favourite actresses so i thought what the hell. i was pleasantly surprised though as i really enjoyed the film. at first i thought OK a doll comes to life how gay. in fact it was really cool and Lindsay played a totally lovable character. the actress that played the doll was really good too and her and Lindsay worked well together to produce an excellent film. i didn't really like the end though as i thought it would have been much better if she hadn't gone back to Sunnyvale but had stayed and married Casey's dad. that would have been much cuter. i'd recommend anyone to watch this film, i think the family would enjoy it- well maybe not the dads!",1 "Willie Stargell was the last card he needed for what set? He had a place for the card in a scrapbook with cards from 1953!?? The space for Stargell in the book wasn't large enough for a 1971 Stargell super card. Why in the 7th game of the series do all the Detroit fans cheer when Pittsburgh wins? Why in two different games when the visitors are up the scorekeeper changes the home team's score? Why would the owners of a tobacco company live in Pittsburgh? Especially, right across the street from the Hentons. Mandy said she regretted leaving Honus, but never mentions her husband, Mr Young. (Unless she just changed her name to prevent Honus from finding her, still in Pittsburgh. I don't even think Piedmont was a person's name. I believe it is a region in South Carolina, but I understand this was just done for dramatic purposes. Why would anyone think an autographed T206 Wagner is worth more than an unautographed card? It's not mint anymore. Why did it look like the card was signed in ink when Wagner asked to borrow a pencil? The kid never stops him to tell him to use a pen. Why put a $400,000 card in your pocket, pass it around to everyone, and tap it against your head? Why didn't he buy something to protect it when he was at the card dealer? Also the card seemed a little off center which would ruin the 'mint' appraisal. Why wasn't he more upset when Wagner threw the cards in the fire. Joe could have kicked the fire out and saved the cards, enabling him to go back to 1985 and give back the one card to her, while still have plenty for himself. How could Honus throw the cards in the fire knowing how important they were to Joe? Lastly; how could Joe go back to 1985 and explain to the card dealer that the card he showed him before now is autographed. (This would probably drop the value of the card to about $100,000.)",0 "Why anyone would be at all willing to defend this piece of tripe is beyond me. Is that a rude statement, designed to evoke a defensive response in people with poor taste in films - or no taste at all? No. It is, quite simply, the statement of a fact: I do not understand why anyone would enjoy this film.

I've no idea what the film was shot on, but the video quality is equivalent to that of 1.5 hours worth of America's Funniest Home Videos. The music was god-awful, repetitive and annoying. Who would actually LISTEN to this stuff? And, the acting. Here is where this pile truly shines. Every line seems forced and awkward, read or poorly memorized instead of being acted. Any casting director who worked on this film would be forced into suicide after viewing it, so I can agree with another poster who took the opinion that these actors are the director's friends, or friends of friends.

What about the story? Well... what about it? There's really nothing to talk about here. Only the first 20 minutes or so of the film have anything at all to do with ghosts or ""ghost watching."" After that it's all exposition involving characters we know nothing about due to extremely poor characterization. Then again, I guess good characterization isn't really possible when the film is acted by people who would merely call that a ""big word,"" and not attempt to understand its meaning.

Do not waste your time with this piece of dreck. The music, story, filming, acting, lighting, sound... it's all absolutely terrible. $4 for a rental was, quite simply, the worst $4 I have ever spent.

- J",0 "I understand that this is a 'merely for the fans' movie...the tomb stone of the 'Trinity' series.

However, the result is pretty embarrassing. First, while Hill aged rather well, Spencer looks significantly older than he actually was, much as if he was sick or something. Second, they don't know what kind of movie they want...is it a Trinity movie...a parody of a Trinity movie...a western-styled Piedone movie with lots of kids around...? Beans, belching and a (very moderate) amount of fist-fights do not automatically make a good Spencer/Hill movie. They push the envelope but I am not sure about what.

Who knows... Maybe it's that the atmosphere of 1960-70s Trinity movies, or late 1970s-early 1980s Spencer/Hill is gone.

I find the final scene in which they come to get them but loose their guns listening to children singing the corniest and lowest moment in all S&H movies, including Banana Joe & similar.

Ruth Buzzi as their mother is ugly as puke...you can see she's wearing a wig and that jaw...that horrible jaw...

Intentions behind this were noble, but I maintain it shouldn't have been filmed.",0 "Sherman's March is three hours of footage from a broken man's life. Ross McElwee takes us on a journey to make a documentary on Sherman's March, but ends up showing us a sequence of extensive real life footage from his subsequent crisis in love. The picture feels like a home movie. Experiencing so much of the director's personal life is an unusual experience and takes the motion picture somewhere it doesn't often go. However, the movie is long and I feel it should have been further edited for the public. it is a bit egocentric to expect people to spend so much time watching some random guy's life.",0 "This is indeed the film that popularized kung fu in the 1970s. However, if it ever had any kind of excitement or even halfway interesting plot, it doesn't seem to have aged very well.

Long story short: extremely drawn out, slow-moving, confusing plot with run-of-the-mill choreography, typically annoying and exaggerated whiplash sounds with every punch and kick, and constant ""plot twists"" that never come to an end. By the time the film reaches its emotional climax, I had long had all the wind knocked out of me to actually care.

Watch it for its historical value as a milestone of Chinese kung fu cinema -- just leave your expectations at the door, or you'll be bitterly disappointed.

For hardcore fans only.",0 "I really enjoyed this movie. This time, it's not Chinese male who rule an action movie, but Chinese women. But above that I really enjoyed the relationship between the two sisters. How a movie is touching you depend of your life. I lost my parents I lost my daughter and may be this is why I was touched by this movie. I would like to have the version of close to you from this movie. I also liked the play with the camera. One of my favorite scene, is when Lynn (in the french version) jump out of the window (at the beginning) while her sister is asking her to not forget the cake.

Martial",1 "Even though Steven Seagal has made movies who are much worse than this, this is still far from being his best work. I wonder if the whole movie was made just for self-ironical reasons (remember, Seagal fortunately has a lot of self-irony). The main problem is that Seagal is too fat too be a real action-star right now. Some of the fights in this movie still are pretty cool, but there are just something that isn't there. Maybe it's because some of the fights are so overdone so that everyone know that it isn't Mr.Seagal doing most of it anyway? The worst part about the fighting is the roundhouse kicks. Even though they're rather cool, they're as far from the typical Seagal fighting style that it's possible to be. And you never see Steven's face when these are performed..........................

The story is standard, but that's totally OK. No one cares too much about that anyway in a movie like this. This is in fact one of Seagal's best movies after ""Exit Wounds"". That doesn't mean that this one is any good, because some of the others are pure garbage.",0 "We held the screening of this film as an event to honour these amazing kids that are around now. The film did an excellent job of introducing the concept into a wider audience than the regular spiritually minded people who would probably have known about this stuff. Some of the scenery was stunning and the story line spoke to every father, mother, daughter,son who has been part of a family system wrecked by emotional unavailability of the members. The influence which Grace had in helping heal these rifts was very real. I am a father of 6 children who also abandoned my older children due to obsessive work and alcohol addiction before I eventually 'woke up'. Then my wife and I were blessed with one of these Indigo's (our little son David) and a 'Crystal' (our daughter Rachel). I now realise that their energies were partly responsible for bringing my wife and I to awakening and now the whole family has healed. After the movie our 25 year old son, who has recently left the Army, gave me a giant hug for the first time in his adult life and said, 'Dad, I didn't know what all this stuff was about that you got into when you changed your life around until this movie and event has shown me and I am very proud of you'. That real life situation shows the power of this movie for those who are ready to receive its blessings. Well done to all the team at The Beloved Community for putting it all together!.",1 "Let me explain my view before some of you decide that I'm mad. Firstly most sane people agree the 1st film was absolute garbage. This film has many strengths. The plot, there is a reasonable plot with high level characters taking on an epic quest. The details, a great level of detail on the world actually having a history which gives the setting realism. The enemies, they were interesting having more than just one agenda. The good guys, although certain area's with the characters were a bit plastic, they did have character which was lacking in the first. The traps and puzzles, very impressed with the traps and puzzles which were overcome using methods that players could imagine. Clichés are limited which cannot be the same for many other films of this type( one being released recently and hyped to hell!!!) In conclusion this isn't the best film I have ever seen but it does have a lot of the elements that I wanted to see and I hope will spawn more films of this type but maybe a series starting the characters from their first adventure. It'd be good to see a fighter having a go at skeletons and zombies and being terrified and frustrated when bow fire has little or no effect.",1 "I am a truly HUGE Brent Huff fan, and have been since seeing Perils of Gwendoline.

Mr. Huff looks great in this movie and though his part is short, he is seen enduring a bone-scraping torture through his bare chest that looks like evil acupuncture.

Brent was one of the most handsome and sexy actors in these actioners and he could act when given half a chance. I don't know why he did not have a larger career, but I am thankful for the one he had.

In some ways, he was the Mark Damon of the Eighties (though Mark got more notice for a little while during his heyday.) Mr. Damon has gone on to do very well as a producer. I hope the best for Brent as well.

The VHS version has nice picture quality. I have not seen the DVD version.

An 9/10 for shirtless torture sequence.

The rest of the movie is okay. The actor who plays Huff's interrogator is a good one who shows up in many similar roles.",1 "I actually liked the film. I see that it isn't quite popular around here but for me it was fresh, hilariously Irish and darn entertaining. The taxi driver was my absolute hero with this horrible accent and honest, stupid face. I loved the merry soundtrack, the muddy scenery and all the nice ladies dying in a mockingly nasty way. Not to mention the 'thanks' waving of the crippled zombie or the furry cocker-spaniel hand-made shoes of the warrior. There wasn't much of an explanation why these Bronze Age bodies resurrect but I didn't need such: they do, that's all. Meet the consequences. As a matter of fact, the not-so-dead primitive warrior looked a little bit like the Bulgarian Prime Minister, so I really enjoyed the movie in the company of two beers. It gets ten out of ten from me. Sheer amusement. Of course, the movie isn't as good as, say, 'Event Horizon' but it's still good enough.",1 "Director Hans Weingartner has stated that this film came about partly to reflect on his own struggle to find a political identity as a young adult in Germany. This confusion is evident from the beginning, as all three of the young adults seem to have different motives for becoming 'Edukators'. In one scene early on, Jan finds a watch that Peter has stolen and throws it out the window of the van, to which Peter responds ""you just threw away 5,000 euros"", implying that he intended to capitalise on his 'find'. Jule also seems to have a rather selfish approach to being an 'Edukator', as she purely wants to cancel a debt so that maybe she could start a lucrative career herself. Both of the guys are willing to ignore the nature of her motives and help her (they even compare her situation to the debt of Third World nations) for their own selfish desires (i.e. her).

My problem with the film was that the ending was too facile. The set-up of the characters is somewhat idealistic, so the end message ""some people never change"" carries little of the gravitas it ought to (as does the clumsy, unauthorised cut of Jeff Buckley's 'Hallelujah' – was it *really* necessary?).",0 "I'm not sure who it was that described this movie as ""Crouching Tiger meets Shrek"", because that in itself sets an unreasonable benchmark in all sorts of ways. Let's be fair here, both Shrek and Crouching Tiger won Oscars, for crying out loud. Dragonblade is first and foremost an animated children's feature, produced on a shoestring budget - particularly compared to the sackfuls of money thrown at the likes of Shrek. Moreover, the only similarity with Crouching Tiger is in that martial arts are featured in this film, but it's far from being an art house movie, nor does it pretend to be so.

As far as plots go, it's not the most complex out there - but then again, you have to constantly remind yourself throughout that it's a kids' film. Boy meets girl, girl has idiot brother, idiot brother lives up to expectations, mysterious monster terrorizes village, boy sets off on quest to find weapon to defeat monster, all is well in the end. Characters are introduced throughout the story, mostly diversionary, some irritating - of these, three spring to mind - the obligatory cartoon sidekick animal creature, the funky Guardian spirit and the grammatically-challenged teacher type (oh why does wisdom equate with a Yoda-like sentence construction?).

What is scintillating about this film is the martial arts. Directed by a martial artist himself, the film attempts to do justice to the intricacies of wushu. Several fighting styles are apparent in the film, carefully rendered and presented in a way that wushu purists will feel vindicated, yet non-experts will be entertained. The various set-pieces between characters are unique, exciting, laudable. In that respect, definitely enough to keep accompanying parents entertained for the duration of the film - along with various script nods to other films. From the not-so-subtle Taxi Driver innuendos to the blatant Babe reference. With a little Klingon thrown in.

I would have like to see much, much more action in the film. The pacing of the plot is slightly uneven (let's get to the throwdown, people!), with too much time spent on story exposition and not enough on the central premise of the film - it's a cartoon action movie for kids, right? Again, the budget must be kept in mind when appreciating the animation involved. Then again, it's not meant to be realistic - it's a cartoon, folks.

Just as Mulan worked in English and not so much when dubbed into Chinese, I believe this film to be the opposite, appealing in far greater amounts in its original Cantonese version. Voiced by actors recognizeable to the Chinese-speaking market, the idioms and language used, along with the singular heritage of the movie leading to its setting, makes it immediately less corny than its English counterpart.

In summary, it's a good little kids' movie, with enough in it for accompanying parents to appreciate. Moreover, as a film 100% produced in Hong Kong, it's definitely something that Hong Kong can be proud of.",1 "Poorly acted, lamely scripted, unnecessarily violent, and pretentious far beyond the typical indie films, ""Frogs and Snakes"" was one of the worst films of 1998. While a bad film may be enjoyable on some level for its cheesiness or other lame aspect, this film's self-importance and supposedly ""deep"" dialogue makes you want to gag. Nothing redeemable.",0 "I bought this on Pay-per-View thinking that if Wesley Snipes was in it, I'd probably like it. I was wrong. First of all, I'm glad I was at home, because some of the actors mumbled so badly I had to keep adjusting the volume. It took me half the movie to even understand who was who and what exactly the plot was. But, the worst were these super annoying flashbacks, as though even the director realized that we couldn't figure out what was going on without help. The ending is totally implausible. The sound stinks. The car chase in the second half looks just like the one in the first half. The English girl says, ""Didn't we do this before?"" I thought...exactly! In fact, the car goes from damaged to not damaged to damaged. I don't know why they bothered to film this in Bucharest unless it is super cheap to do so. They showed us almost nothing of the place. Might as well have filmed it on a back lot somewhere. In fact, better yet if they hadn't filmed it at all. What a mess!",0 "Decoys is set on St. John's College campus in New Brunswick in Canada where Luke (Corey Sevier) & his roommate Roger (Elias Toufexis) are two students just trying to have a good time, while trying to return some loose change to blonde babes Lilly (Stefanie von Pfetten) & her roommate Constance (Kim Poirier) Luke witnesses something strange & terrifying, the two female roommates are in fact aliens. Obviously no-one believes Luke but when Bobby Johnson (Mark Trottier) is found dead under mysterious circumstances Luke is convinced the alien babes are behind it & since he is blamed for Bobby's murder after having a fight with him earlier in the evening Luke has even more reason to expose the alien menace on campus....

This Canadian production was co-written & directed by Matthew Hastings & the feeling I get from the other IMDb comments is that Decoys has divided opinion with some mixed reviews & as I write this the average 'User Rating' on the main page comes to an almost exactly half 4.4 out of 10. While I didn't think Decoys was the worst sci-fi horror film out there I wasn't that impressed with it & overall I would probably have to say I thought it was slightly below average. The biggest problem I had with Decoys is that it spends far, far too much time on boring teen drama issues & at times I thought I was watching Dawson's Creek (1998-2003) or something & the horror is kept to an absolute minimum with a few pinches of sci-fi thrown in there. The script isn't very good either, why would someone during a talent show turn up with a flamethrower, shoot a jet of flame at the crown & then just leave? How can someone enter a room with a flamethrower, use it to fry a couple of aliens & yet none of the curtains, carpet, wooden table, chairs or anything else not get so much as a singe? Why, if one of those aliens saw or even suspected she saw Luke hiding in her closet did she not do anything? After seeing someone in the closet she just leaves yet Luke must have seen her revealing herself as an alien which just makes zero sense to me if your an alien & are trying to stay incognito. Also why was one alien good & the other's bad? How did they get to Earth? How were they able to mimic humans perfectly? Are morgue's in Canada so lax that they allow any old teenager in to take a good look at his dead classmate? Do these very same morgue's leave autopsied bodies just lying around at night on any old table? Are these guy's so pathetic that when a total blonde babe goes down on them to suck their manhood they make silly faces & come up with excuses why the total blonde babe should stop. Right, I know I wouldn't. I also felt there just wasn't that much to the film, it's fairly slow, not that much happens, there's nothing in the way of mystery or surprises & there's a pointless twist ending that paves way for a sequel tacked onto the end. Those are just off the top of my head to, I could go on. I suppose if your looking for a dull teen drama with a few touches of sci-fi & horror then Decoys might be the film you have been waiting for, if not then there are much better alternatives out there that deserve your time & money more.

To be fair the film looks pretty nice with slick production values & better than average but still nothing brilliant CGI computer effects. There's not too many memorable scenes here, there's little horror & apart from a shattered frozen arm & a brief glimpse of a rotting dead body there's no gore whatsoever. Despite lots of opportunity there's not much nudity either, I think there's only one nude shot in the entire film despite several sex scenes which all end up being tamer than tame. The aliens when revealed are nothing special in themselves & look rather dark & drab & to save on the budget very humanoid in shape. AS I have already said the film spends too much time on dull teenage angst & dramatics rather than genuine chills of which there are virtually none. Even though Decoys might have a somewhat glossy look there's very little substance here below it.

According to the IMDb this had a budget of about $5,000,000 which amazes me, although the film does have a nice look about it & decent production values virtually nothing happens & I can't believe that amount of money was spent on this but having said that it's not impossible it cost that much. If it did then Decoys is even more of a disappointment when the amount of money the makers had to play with is taken into consideration. Filmed in Ottawa in Ontario in Canada. The acting is alright but nothing special from no-one I have ever heard of, some of the college girls are pretty hot though.

Decoys is a film that seems to have provoked a fairly mixed reception, some seem to like it while just as many don't. In my opinion I would say it's slightly below average & forgettable & there are better films out there. A sequel Decoys 2: Alien Seduction (2007) went straight-to-video & while I haven't seen it it's meant to be terrible.",0 "I caught this movie a long time ago, late at night, and I really enjoyed it. It just worked for me and was a lot of fun. This movie has a guy's fiancé kidnapped by some weird cop. Turns out this cop is from hell and he has taken the girl to be Satan's new bride. The guy gets some help from an old gentleman who apparently had the same thing happen to him. The old man gives the guy a gun and the guy goes to hell to get back his girl. The movie does really well at presenting hell for an obviously low budget movie. You get the feeling you are in another world. There is plenty of action and comedy here too, though not much in the way of horror. The guy gets some help here and there and runs into various obstacles along his way and he gets to see the many sights and sounds that hell has to offer. My personal favorite was the road of good intentions. This movie goes at a good clip too, and it rarely slows down and there are a few twists along the way as well. The movie for me works on almost every level and if you ever have a chance to watch this little gem do so.",1 "It's surprising to see the number of rave reviews for this movie. As someone who is passionate and open-minded about all types of foreign cinema, I thought this movie was absolutely horrible with no redeeming value whatsoever.

Not only was it overly long, but it seemed like the director only had a budget of $10 to film what turned out to be nothing more than a meandering, incoherent, pointless piece of drivel masquerading as high art. This movie barely has any plot and NO characterization whatsoever. Sadly, the only memorable thing in the movie is scenes of actual animals being killed, which is terrible.

If, as other reviewers here have said this is how Africans see themselves, then is it any surprise African films don't get much exposure in the world market of cinema?

I also completely disagree with the reviewer who said that people with long attention spans will enjoy this movie. It's more like anybody who's accustomed to such basic cinematic elements as story or character development will not enjoy ""Yeelen"" as it features neither.

For a far superior film from a similar region in Africa, I would highly suggest Ousmane Sembene's ""Moolaadé"" from 2004. It too is filmed from an African perspective rather than a Western one...but it actually has a relevant, engaging storyline with fleshed-out characters for whom you actually care.

""Yeelen"" on the other hand, is an excruciating, mind-numbing experience that I wouldn't even inflict on my worst enemy. It's as enjoyable as watching urine dry on a toilet seat.",0 "To be fair for a short while I was quite taken with the sheer atmosphere of Sunshine. The ship, the location, the effects. Breathtaking.

Still, it didn't take long for them to mess it up. Here they go again... The wheels started to fall off about the time the crew start having a brawl. I'm thinking, maybe the selection process should have focused a bit more on the maturity of the people saving the human race? Responsibility and all that.

The story continues and we have a major catastrophe and the shield is damaged as a result of a human memory malfunction. Two observations:

1. We have an intelligent (?) computer that will override their vital mission to fix the shield in a vital, life threatening way but it wouldn't bl**dy well make the one point something angle correction to the shield when they changed course in the first place! (Which thus also endangered the mission) Since when do we let computers make judgment calls? Why didn't they again use their codes to override the computer for the mere 30 seconds or so it would take to save the Captains life?

2. There was a huge, inconvenient fire in the oxygen producing compartment. Now the computer tells the crew many useful things but did it mention there is a fire? Nope. Was there an effective way to deal with this risk? Again no. Unless you consider burning the oxygen you need to survive effective..... I might mention here that the implication is that the trees have created so much pure oxygen that the fire is particularly violent. Um, surely you have been feeding the trees CO2 or basically the same air everyone is breathing?

Moving on...

We have the space jump from the Icarus 1. Some guy, we really don't care who, ends up in the absolute cold of space behind the shield. Absolute cold of space being -273 degrees Kelvin we're told, so pretty rapidly he freezes. Now that's tough I guess but it's even worse, it's just wrong.

If we assume there is no radiant heat coming from the shield itself here's the story. Space is a vacuum, a vacuum is nothing, so it is neither hot or cold. If, there is no radiant heat source present, then an object will radiate it's heat without gaining any in return until it's all gone. This occurs at absolute zero which is -273 degrees Kelvin. Good so far.

The reason freezing instantly is rubbish is because the writers haven't realized that there is no heat loss by conduction (as in air) but only by radiation. This can be a very slow process. Which is why we put hot drinks in a vacuum flask to keep it hot, a vacuum is the best insulator. Basically freezing would be the least of your worries in space without a suit.

A few more minor points too sharp to swallow

- The shield has lots of moving parts, that don't appear to be useful... - If the plan all along was for the shield-bomb unit to fly into the heart of the Sun, what was going to protect the spacecraft on the return journey? What was going to protect the bomb when it entered the Sun and the heat could come from behind? - Why can you simply raise the, absolutely vital, mainframe computer out of it's coolant without any safety devices or alarms going off? (To override a mission saving action by the computer you need two people and security codes...) Once you raise it, although it turns off, in a while it will destroy itself, somehow. To service it the best way is to dive into freezing water and use a....spanner. The system that raises and lowers it has enough grunt to trap and maim a human being. - When the computer goes off the lights go out, there are no emergency lights... - You can ask the computer to allow so much heat and light in that it will kill you. What the...",0 "After Hours is a classic, highly original and bizarre movie that reveals its greatness only through repeated viewings. It all takes place over one night, and becomes a surreal, unpredictable journey through the Manhattan underworld. If you like cleverly written, unpredictable stories then this film is for you. There are great cameo performances from the likes of Rosanna Arquette, Linda Fiorentino and Teri Garr among others. The film begins like a gentle romantic comedy, but as soon as Paul gets into the taxi to go to Marcy's Manhattan loft apartment, everything begins to go wrong and the film turns more sinister.

Scorsese is a master at creating a sense of unease, with scenes cleverly set up to make you fear the worst, and share Paul's growing paranoia. This happens particularly with Marcy's character, with the suggestion that things aren't quite right, and why was she visiting the all-night drug store? ""It's under control"" says a guarded Kiki. The plot twists are often difficult to predict but the clues are there, and by a bizarre sequence of events, (SPOILER) Paul is unable to return home and ends up being persecuted by a vigilante mob with a Mr Softy truck.

These scenes with actor Griffin Dunne running through the streets in the middle of the night are the highlights of the film - he witnesses a shooting while hiding up a fire escape, and says almost to camera: ""I'll probably get blamed for that."" It's vintage comedy of the darkest kind, and a journey into one man's soul on a search for love and acceptance. The sad thing is that most of the characters he meets are also just looking for a soul mate too, but the yuppy world that Paul comes from makes him too prejudiced and unable to see through their apparent weirdness to the lonely person underneath.",1 "JB below is short for ""the James Bond concept"". CR below is short for Casono Royal.

JB: Opens with an action scene that is the climax of his previous mission. CR: Opens with James Bond portrayed as a cold-hearted murderer.

JB: Somewhat realistic action sequences. CR: Bad guys runs up wall as if this is a Matrix movie.

JB: James Bond's boss, M, is a man to whom James has respect. CR: James breaks into the home of M and hacks into her computer.

JB: Visits Q's lab to get some new gadgets. CR: No Q. No gadgets.

JB: Bond catches bad guys, killing them in self defense. CR: Bond attaches bombs to bad guys, smiles in a sinister way when they blow up.

JB: Has a story. Has a villain with a ""world-domination scheme"". CR: Has no story. Has a villain who plays the stock market, and when that fails... plays poker.

JB: Has a gigantic climatic end-scene. CR: Anti-climax #1: Le Chifre gets killed by unknown villain. Anti-climax #2: Bond and Lynd on a romantic boat trip. Anti-climax #3: Lynd dies. Anti-climax #4: Bond shots Mr. White and before we actually understands who White is and his motive etc. the movie ends.

JB: Ends with Bond and his babe together. CR: Babe is already dead, so it ends with Bond, presumably, murdering another guy.

SUMMARY: Daniel Craig essentially make a cameo of his character in ""The Road To Perdition"". It's not Bond. There's senseless killing, no Bond-babe, no one-liners, no great end-scene, no gadgets, no suspense, no story...

RATING(if this was any action movie): 3/10.

RATING (for being a Bond-movie): 1/10.

I'm sad I actually paid to see this as it might encourage the producers to make another movie like this one.

BOND IS DEAD. I hope they won't make another movie like this and call it Bond.

*** EDIT *** JB: Had a yerning Monneypenny. CR: Has money.

And to all the people complaining that ""this IS the REAL Bond! straight from the novels!"". Ahem.. this may be the Bond from the novel but it's not the Bond that's been in movies for the past decades. That's the Bond we've expected to see. That's the Bond we want to see.

If they really want another character. Fine. But give it another name. 008 or whatever.",0 "This is a horrible movie. They make the Muslim family look like they are bad people. This movie makes the American family look like they did not do anything wrong. First of all Jason should not even mess with this family to begin with. He disrespected her family. They are a royal family. This is a very bad movie because Muslims should stay with Muslims. Americans should stay with Americans. As you can see, they divorced in the end. The Muslim royal family are trying to protect their daughter from the American. He took her away and did not get penalized. He should of been sent to jail for life. He married her in a stupid chapel in Vegas (SIN CITY). The Muslims should have disciplined Mariam before she came to the country of America. Now she went from being a princess to an American divorced girl. If she would have married a Muslim, she would stay married. She did the wrong decision. It reminds me of the movie ""Not without my daughter."" Another bad movie, she was acting so stupid. She stole the kid and ran away. What a bad women. People make her a star. How ridiculous!!!!!!!",0 "We showed this at our local Art film movie-house. It is where it belongs.

Watch it if you think that David Cronenberg's adaptation of Burrough's book, ""Naked Lunch,"" is too linear. If you don't know who William Burroughs is definitely avoid this. This has more to do with surrealist dream films than documentaries.

Delightfully mad IMHO.

Bees, Bouroughs, Book of the Dead. Egyptian myth.

Anti-War Sci-Fi Cyberpunk ""My dead wife was in the hive. She fragmented."" ""They were the dead and vengeance was their life."" ""I was Cain."" ""The Planet of Television, transmitting the dead.""

It's all pretty schizophrenic. Jacob Maker, beekeeper, in the land of the dead and the garden of eden, Iraq.",1 "I picked this up in a cheap DVD bin. I immediately recognized as 1 of 2 movies that I saw when I was a starving (pretty much literally) student living away from home for the first time, in 1973, and couldn't resist picking it up and giving it a look, that many years later.

As other reviewers have noted, the promotion for the movie is pretty, ahem, imaginative. There's not a lot of sex (hardly any, actually), very little nudity, any reference to homosexuality is passing and irrelevant, there is no horror other than the horror of murder and violent death by knife and gun (we need more???), and it is not oriented towards the supernatural beyond the fact that the villains dabble in black masses -- there are no otherworldly events, no actual contact with the devil a la Rosemary's Baby or Devil's Advocate.

So it's really a detective story. The device of tracking parallel time-lines does add some suspense and tension (exactly what did happen to this girl, and will the detective crack the case); however, I found that the tension peaked somewhere around mid-movie, and the trip to the end more or less plodded to anti-climatic conclusions to both time-lines.

Unrealistic (as I imagine them) scenes certainly contributed to that plodding effect. At one point, amidst wild gunfire, a uniformed policeman tells the arriving detective, ""he's up there and he's got one of our men as hostage"", and then resumes shooting in the general direction. Uh, yea.

Now, there are unexpected pleasures to be wrought from watching obscure movies now and then, and while I generally am pretty resistant to the 'oh wow, I've been there' effect, I did find the 1972 vintage shots of 'Place Jacques Cartier' and 'Rue St. Paul Est', well before the resurrection of the area as ""Old Montreal' to be such a surprise.",0 """The Exorcist"" made you feel respect and fear to the Devil. Sam Raimi's ""Evil Dead II"" makes fun of the Devil and demon possession. Although there are some really scary scenes, there are some really twisted funny situations that would leave you wondering ""what the f*** just happened?!"". The movie is funny for the wrong reasons. I eventually don't laugh about when a man is breaking himself dishes on the head. I don't think it's funny when a man is repeatedly beaten up by grotesque characters. I would never imagine a man getting eaten by a demon locked under a cellar and throwing gallons of blood! ""Evil Dead II"" makes it look hilarious in a wicked kind of way. For example, when Linda's head tells Ash that ""she is being tormented, and suffering in hell; you can feel a little scared but the next scene has a corpse without a head holding a chainsaw. There's no time for logic here, just sit and enjoy!

It also has the ability to make you feel tense and I must say, scared. The combination of demon possessed people, EVIL sounds (I love the weird noise in the movie), wicked laughs and chanting (""dead by dawn!""), and intrepid camera angles are the perfect ingredients to make a sui generis Horror-Comedy movie. Watch out for the ""A Farewell to Arms"" joke, the whole situation with the evil hand, and the eye that gets in a woman's mouth!.

Sam Raimi went too far for the good reasons. He created an unbelievable and unforgettable work that has served as inspiration for many movies in recent years. The movie is easily one of the most visually stunning Horror movies of all time, for sure. Die hard fans of gore get an eye candy for an hour and a half. Raimi created a cult movie in all the sense of the world. ""Groovy!"". ""Dead by Dawn"" will never bore you because in every scene there's a feeling of uncertainty and that makes it even more interesting. There are no rules here.

The plot is as scary as you can imagine but it's held in such a way that it isn't taken very seriously. I mean, demon possession caused by the Necronomicon is something that happens in the real world. Not exactly with that book but it can happen via satanic books and rituals. Raimi takes it to a different level of humor mixed with gore.

Bruce Campbell deserves a special mention. He delivers a wicked, solid, and totally believable performance. Something you haven't seen before mainly because of the strange situations he goes through. His performance could be described as a ""solo"". Easily, one of the best performances of any actor in a Horror movie. Also, one of the characters that suffers the most in any movie! Ash is beaten up by demons, humans, objects, etc. Even possessed creatures make fun of him.

The gore here is great, glorious. You get decaps, mutilated bodies, a hand cut off, bleeding demons, etc. Blood spread all over the cabin is the common denominator. One of the goriest movies of all time.

Watch ""Evil Dead II"" to witness one of the most creative, brave, and goriest movies of all time. It delivers something for everyone. It has action, gore, spectacular camera angles, and some action! Check out Ash V.S. possessed Henrietta. * After it, phrases like ""join us!"", ""swallow this!"", and specially ""groovy!"" will be part of your daily vocabulary.

Recommended for every Horror fan in the world. This movie is an obligation to watch.",1 "One could claim that 1988's ""Die Hard"" is one of the most influential action movies ever made because it basically revolutionized one of the most copied (but never matched, at least in terms of quality) formulas: a loner, by some unique twist of fate, battles it out with an ""x"" number of terrorists in an enclosed environment.

By the time that ""Die Hard"" was released, the action movies were most often dominated by the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Chuck Norris. Star Bruce Willis, whose only notable credits at the time were television's ""Moonlighting"" and 1987's ""Blind Date,"" which was released the year before, was the unlikeliest of them all.

Willis was a wild card - an unlikely choice for the role of our hero ""John McClane"" - since he didn't have any action credits on his resume' and let's face it: Bruce Willis just didn't have the bulging biceps required for a role like this. But that's the beauty of his performance in this movie: he's an everyday guy, caught in a not-so-everyday situation.

On Christmas, McClane's estranged wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) invites him from New York all the way out to Los Angeles to spend the holidays with the family. But it requires him to make a stop at the Nakatomi offices, which is having an after-hours Christmas party. Riding for the first time in a limo, he's introduced to the suave driver, Argyle (De'voreaux White), who gives him some pretty useful advice on trying to win over the wife.

At Nakatomi, things of course get off to a rough start for McClane, as he gets into an argument with the wife and is left to wallow in his misery. However, those problems are about to take a backseat to the real ""party"" - twelve terrorists, led by Hans Gruber (all-purpose bad guy Alan Rickman, perfectly cast) - seize control of the building and proceed to rob the Nakatomi building of its assets, most of which include negotiable bonds and other valuables. But they didn't count on the ""fly in the ointment"" (pain in the a**) to make things hell for these so-called party crashers.

Certainly one of the best known action movies ever, ""Die Hard"" did receive the scorn of critics upon its 1988 summer release, but the audiences sung a completely different tune.

The film was most often praised for the production, with the brand-new Fox Plaza office tower serving as the fictional Nakatomi building. It was also praised for the energetic and skillful direction of John McTiernan, whose most notable credit was the action-sci-fi thriller ""Predator,"" which was released the year before and starred Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Bruce Willis was the perfect actor for this performance, since he brings the wit and vulnerability to a role like this one. If Stallone or Schwarzenegger were in this movie, I'm sure the effect would have been a lot different.

Personally, I think ""Die Hard"" is one of the greatest action movies ever, up there close to my favorite action movie of all time, ""Raiders of the Lost Ark."" Like Indiana Jones in that film, ""Die Hard"" had an Everyman cast in the role; McClane, like Indiana Jones, wasn't a larger-than-life musclebound grotesque: he was a real guy that you cared about, who got hurt, and had real feelings.

That's why I think both of these movies have sort of stood the test of time as becoming what they are best known for today: action classics, and they're here to stay, ladies and gentlemen.

10/10",1 "There is almost no reason for me to write. Many of you have done the job for me. But I take the misuse and co-option of a ""Downtown"" NY vibe in this movie as a personal affront. Amos Poe has some kind of Alt -street cred, although now I can't remember for what. Something to do with Debbie Harry. But he (on the basis of this film) is not an artist, not an entertainer, not a good post-modernist, not very smart! As many have pointed out, he knows how to quote from much better things. And he knows how to cast weirdly iconic actors and use interesting East Village locations. But the killing scenes are excessive, the acting scenes are unconvincing. And neither illuminates the other. Jim Jarmusch, forgive me! Any doubts I have had about your genius have been erased by this slop. I understand now (I already liked it a lot) what a massive achievement Ghost Dog is. You have quoted Godard, but added something to our understanding, as Godard did with such as Fuller and Ray. This guy, on the other hand belongs in the Press area of a European Blondie Reunion concert, holding a Poloroid camera. He totally wasted my time with his smarmy, hipper-than-thou bullshit. Lisa Marie is hot though.",0 "There's a special place in my heart for old school Jackie Chan films. For some reason, when I look to my JC collection for something to watch, I tend toward the older fare.

On the surface, DRAGON FIST is pretty average. But if you're an old school fan, you can't help rooting for virutally everyone in the film. Yan Yee Kwan (sometimes Yam Sai-kun) is one of my favorite bad guys; he was also excellent in Fearless Hyena, Once Upon a Time in China, Iron Monkey, and Heroic Trio. James Tien and Nora Miao bring a lot of respectability to the cast as well.

The plot offers some nifty twists. The fights are strong. I have to agree that the film takes itself just a little too seriously. If Jackie's early work could be measured on a ""stiff-o-meter,"" DRAGON FIST would fall squarely between TO KILL WITH INTRIGUE and FEARLESS HYENA. Not coincidentally, that's about where it falls in his chronology.

Much of the charm of these films for American viewers -- and it can't be disregarded, especially for those of us who grew up in the 70s and 80s -- is the afternoon matinee ""Kung Fu Theater"" nostalgia factor. It imbues them with a quality that I can't ascribe to many of Jackie's later films. I love POLICE STORY, etc. -- the production values are generally much higher, the stunts are mindblowing -- but those are a different breed altogether. They occupy a different place in film history, and in my esteem.",1 """The Flying Car"" is a lukewarm redux of the infamous ""Uncle Walter"" scene from Smith's debut film ""Clerks"" (1994)--the one that takes place as Dante and Randall, a pair of 20-something convenience store employees, drive to the wake of Julie Dwyer, one of Dante's old flames, and get into some...unique...conversation en route. When introducing the short on The Tonight Show in 2002, Smith, in jest of using existing characters, told host Jay Leno he was ""going back to the well."" How right he was! Not only the characters, but the entire dynamic of the short and its dialog are derivative of the ""Clerks"" scene. Both involve the two in a car where Randall, the more wickedly sardonic of the pair, engages nebbish Dante in an absurd argument (his ability to suck his own penis in ""Clerks,"" and weather or not he would allow a mad scientist to remove his foot in exchange for a levitating automobile in ""The Flying Car."") Both pieces are anecdotes--a setup by Randall against Dante. And, in both cases, Dante falls for it hook, line and sinker.",0 "I was very excited to watch another Tornatore's movie, but after 5 minutes I wanted to ask my money back! I really wasted 10$. The actors were good; this is probably the only thing I liked and allow me to give a ""1"" as a score. The movie tells the story of Irena, an Ukraine girl, who comes to a small town in North of Italy and works as a janitor in a nice building. She becomes a thief, steeling and making copies of the keys of the apartment of the Adachers, a rich family of jewelers, who lives in the same building. Then she is responsible for the falling of Gina,and replaces her as a maid in the family. The movie is characterized by feedbacks of Irena's past, when she was a prostitute, forced to have children and sell them. Just to the end, we discover the real plan of Irena: living close to Tea, the last child she was forced to have, and apparently was sold and adopted by the Adachers. But the ghosts from Irena's past come back and the story ends in a real drama and in years of prison for Irena. The all story was horrible. First, I'm really tired of seeing another Italian movie showing the story of a foreign from East Europe being a prostitute, a maid and a thief. Come on, Giuseppe, find something better! It looks an ""amateur"" story, not directed by a famous director as Tornatore, but by young director at his first movie. And don't tell me it was his first thriller: if somebody is not able to direct a thriller, just don't do it. There were good ideas but he just wasted them, and none of them look credible. As the falling of Gina, the old maid of the Adachers, is not credible. The old lady is paralyzed after falling down the stairs, and, just at the end, starts recovering from the accident. Her recovering doesn't make any sense to the story and is left in the air. Then the Mold, an evil character from Irena's past, performed by an excellent Michele Placido, who was killed by a giant scissor that would have killed an elephant, is still alive and comes back in Irena's life. Or the last name of the family that adopted Tea, chosen by the Mold by a name engraved on his necklace. Not to mention that, after Tea's mum died because of Irena, Tea continues to write to Irena while she is in jail and pick her from prison years later. I had the impression Tornatore started the movie without knowing the end and then he just developed it, adding new ideas, but none credible. I really don't understand how actors as Claudia Gerini, Michele Placido, and Margherita Bui decided to appear in this movie. It's really awful and it is far ages from Nuovo Cinema Paradiso and Malena.",0 "This movie can absolutely cause a depression for the rest of your weekend. It is the absolute hardcore movie of the inhumanity at Auswitch Birkenau. It shows a group of Hungarian Jews how are forced into working the gas chambers and crematoria the so called 'sonder commandos'. The scale of the mass murder has never been shown so graphically , and I have seen quiet a lot of WOII movies. Forced participation in the mass murder and the inhumanely dally routine this creates is the central theme of this movie. Through out the movie the mass of people being murdered and the 'alien' situation this creates makes it difficult to identify whit any of the victims or other characters in the movie. This remains until the 3 minutes before the end of the movie. After the rebellion of the sonder commandos is smashed by the SS, a trilling poem by a murdered gill sums up the final end of the sonder commandos. The poem and imagery shoots through the hart.",1 "

After Seeing the other works of the directors (Coneheads & The Last Unicorn) I didn't really expect much in this movie, since its older and the directors might not have done better earlier in their career. I also didn't think it could get any worse, but it did. You start off with the dwarves meeting Bilbo a little too fast, and the music starts. The horrible music was so annoying I could hardly concentrate on the plot of the movie. When they get to after they meet the eagles I though they had skipped a part of the movie. I thought they really screwed up, but no they left out an important character (Beorn). I believe he was too important to just skip him. He was a big part in helping them on their journey. I don't think the goblins really looked good. They don't look like goblins to me they look more like an orc would. I think Don Messick should have stuck to doing the voice of Scooby Doo. To me he wasn't a good Bilbo. If they rated the movie today they would probably give it a G rating (in less the deaths of some of the creatures was too violent). Most of the voices were good but they were just stuck with a bad project and bad directors who seem to get stuck with bad movies a lot more.",0 "Last night, my cable box cut out before ""The L Word"" - why did it have to play up during a good TV show and choose to work perfectly throughout all six hours of ""Revelations""? Six hours. Six of the dullest, least invigorating hours I've ever spent in front of a television screen.

Screenwriter David Seltzer went on record as not really believing in the stuff when he wrote ""The Omen,"" but this tale of the End of Days is truly lacking in conviction from Joseph Vitarelli's clichéd choral theme onwards (whatever you might think of ""The Passion of the Christ,"" you can't deny that Mel Gibson genuinely put his money where his mouth is); instead of being thought-provoking and chilling, the first four hours are nothing but build-up with nothing going anywhere, and when it's not teasing you it's being ridiculous (ominous supermodels dressed in black hanging around? Ooooh, scary).

The miniseries also lands us with two main characters - a relentlessly serious professor and a nun who would make Mother Teresa seem like a hedonist - who simply don't register (pity Bill Pullman, if not Natascha McElhone), leaving Michael Massee as a Satanic mass-murderer to prove that the Devil gets, if not the best tunes, at least the best lines; the dire job ""Revelations"" does can be summed up by a failure to care when our villain, having launched the plot by kidnapping and murdering Professor Pullman's young daughter, lures his unlikeable teenage son into his clutches (by way of a webcam fronted by a Christina Aguilera-type). And any series that casts John Rhys-Davies and fails to turn his entertaining pompousness to advantage is beyond hope; though you have to give them credit for casting Christopher Biggins as a Cardinal. (What with this and Hugh Laurie in ""House, M.D.,"" NBC Universal wins the Most Unusual Use Of British Actors Award by a mile.)

Sadly, such little plusses are cancelled out by all the minuses - following the endless teasing, the last two hours try to crank up the action, but it's all for naught; and the abrupt, anticlimactic, cop-out of an ending just in case enough Bush voters tuned in to make an ongoing series viable will irritate the converted and atheists alike. (Fortunately, US audiences tuned out in droves from hour one onwards, meaning that the story will never be either drawn out endlessly or continued. No wonder they say ""God bless America."") For a truly powerful look at the Apocalypse coming to pass today, see ""The Rapture"" - ""Revelations"" is not only not as effective as ""The Omen,"" but it's not even ""Omen IV: The Awakening."" If nothing else, this does prove once and for all that when it comes to standing in for other countries, the Czech Republic is the Canada of Europe.

Father, forgive Stillking Films, Pariah and NBC Enterprises, for they know not what they do.",0 ". August Spies, the socialist activist, warned his contemporaries - and we today who read his works - how excesses of a hyper-capitalist society eventually develop one focus: criminalise non-conformist behaviours as its method to control the citizenry.

We are there - this film is a wake-up call for us to stand tall and repel our corrupt political and social 'leaders' who only seek personal greed for themselves - the rest be damned. They claim to be 'Christian', yet they deny what their own Bible teaches them.

Thus you see in 'Prison Song' how every act our protagonists make invites further retaliation by 'the system' - a corrupt 'system' at that.

- The cops were corrupt the way they criminalised young Elijah for doing what all kids do - for being a kid.

- The 'juvie' and foster care 'system' was corrupt - right from the beginning as well as bouncing our 'hero' from one decrepit environment to the next.

- The 'justice' system was corrupt for 'criminalising' Elijah.

- The cops extended their corruption the way they 'criminalised' his mother during her time of desperation wanting her son returned to her home. Only the cruel 'system' lacked the heart to cry for her.

- The mental health care 'system' was corrupt drugging his mother (reminiscent of '... Cuckoo's Nest'). Mass druggings persist today.

- The corrupt private prison was the expected final nail on our 'hero's' coffin. In-mates meant only one thing to the corrupted administrator: his profit margin - his bottom line. Note how he bragged he was cutting expences: no water - no toilet paper. Eventually, the administrator ordered that no human dignity be graced upon his charges.

- The construction operator who only cared about his profit greed - he, too, saw cheap prison labour as his windfall.

- The prison guard who sold out his own soul in desperation to support his family - losing his construction job to slave-wage in-mates because the operator chose to squeeze more greed to line his pockets.

We saw our 'hero' maintain his decency among these environments of societal corruption.

Knowing his fate was sealed inside the gate, he could easily have slain his captive guard. Our 'hero' proved he was above their corruption - no matter what they imposed upon him. His final act defines what it means to be a hero.

Meanwhile, the guards proved their corruption and cruelty knew no boundaries - they totally lost their souls - perpetuating their own corrupt environment. They sealed their own fate.

RKO Pictures produced several movies during the early 'Depression' era (1929 - 1932) using similar themes and story lines. All worth the search.

'Prison Song' is important for all audience - all ethnic backgrounds.

That said, repetition in contemporary form reminds us those themes remain with us - that we have much work to do to overcome the cruelties portrayed in this version.

Sadly, with our current American political climate as it is, our 'hero's' demise was the only ending this production could have presented without making the movie a waste of time.

You can either participate continuing this losing society, or you can work building a future that would make your children proud.

The choice is yours. .",1 "Mike Myers, as his own father Stuart, is quite possibly one of the funniest characters I have every seen, and it is worth it to watch if only for those moments. The rest is strong as well, with excellent comedic performances from Anthony LaPaglia, Alan Arkin, and the late great Phil Hartman. Not the tightest script around, So I Married an Axe Murderer makes up for any lags with its hearty and frequent laughs, coming mostly from the excellent acting of Myers and the aforementioned performers. I guarantee that anyone who watches this movie will be quoting from it.",1 "I saw this movie on a Delta Airlines flight the other day. Even with my higher level of tolerance on an airplane, I couldn't even finish this one.

There is practically no character development or plot development. The acting is not believable--no kid would scream like that so consistently or behave that way, and no parent would be so whatever about it.

Don't waste your time with this. It's sad when a movie fails to entertain even an airplane audience. And unfortunately, the cute little girl didn't save the movie. I can't imagine any realistic ending could have been pulled off after the lame start. Sorry.",0 "There are few things worse than ""art"" that wants to appear so hip that it's above it all. THE DOOM GENERATION is an empty piece of bloodied fluff, meandering its way from one ""shocking"" scene to another. It's boring and pretentious. Do not waste your money or time on this one.",0 "There really isn't much to say about this movie. It's sickeningly boring and it doesn't make much sense! It even makes ""Howling II"" look good. And that IS saying a lot. The mother was an insult to women everywhere as she fluttered through this one like a butterfly. The boy was so gut-wrenchingly despicable that you almost want to cry. Twenty minutes into this one, I was asleep. When I woke up, I was wishing that Stirba and her ""gang"" would ""pop out"" somewhere. Once again, this film is garbage!",0 "Having seen Lano and Woodley on Australian television and been impressed with their wit and humour I expected this DVD would be some of their best material but I found their TV performances to be at least as funny. A lot of this performance is funny and one bit at the end had me rolling in laughter but some of it is just plain silly and I was put off by their reliance on ad-libs, or faux ad-libs. They broke character and scene a lot to make light of their own stage play. The plot of the show has Lano and Woodley getting marooned on a desert island after a plane crash. It seems like they took this basic plot and collected every ad-lib along the way to form about two thirds of the show. I'm not saying that ad-libbing and straying from the plot isn't standard fare for comedians, but when the whole show is like this, when the ""mistakes"" are so deliberate, it becomes patronising. They went too far out of the context of the desert island for me with their interaction with the audience. I suppose the audience on the night may have enjoyed it, it was after all for them. If I was in the crowd I probably would have felt I had my money's worth. Alas, for me their legend has faded. They were more ad-libbers than comic talents.",0 "is it possible for a movie to suck more than ""the smokers""? it's possible- ""tart"" (also starring Dominique Swain) was worse, but not by much. who cares about spoiled little rich kids at a prep school in wisconsin? answer: about as many as liked this movie (i.e. enough to fill phone booth and no more)",0 "There are only a few book to movie adaptations, I hate and this was one of them. My lordy lord lord,VC Andrews must be spinning in her grave,this is an abomination to her fabulous Dollanganger series. ""Flowers in the Attic"" was the first of her books I read and I was watching the VH1 TV show ""I Love the 80's"" and they mentioned that this was made in 1984. So I went out and bought it. Wish I could get my money back,this is so not like the movie. It is so no like the book,they cut back so much. If you read her books do not see this movie .

The acting is done horribly and they twisted the ending so badly,the mother doesn't die until the fourth book or something,I can't recall",0 "A friend recommended this film to me and so a group of us got together to watch it. Not understanding that Dafoe was gay at first and then realizing in hilarity that he was, I laughed my way through this absurd attempt at a good independent film. The casting of Ron Jeremy in any role in this film immediately diminished any legitimate value it held. I especially like the need for a Ron Jeremy sex scene, (give him something he knows guys, don't let him stretch his characters beyond porn). There are too many horridly overacted Willam Dafoe scenes to recall, and for this reason I figured it was made early in his career. 1999! Less than five years after the English patient (though four, after speed 2) it is so sad to see a good actor acting badly in such a ridiculous film. Willam Dafoe has had a rollercoaster career of inspiring roles and hilarious flops. The sad part is that, (I imagine) Dafoe and the makers of this film thought they were doing something truly important. Save this stuff for film school, and Willem...I'm disappointed.",0 "One expects more from Universal movie monsters than one gets here. This film disappoints on many levels. While the Beasts of the Dark do make for some cool critters, the reasons for their actions at the end are not altogether made fully clear. Plus the ending after the expected ending is such a terrible letdown that it will leave a bad taste in most viewers mouths. Also the film has a terrible slow and dull pace. Even John Agar couldn't save this one and I so wanted to like it.",0 "I've always loved Farrah Fawcett, ever since I've seen ""The Burning Bed"", a couple of months ago I heard that she was going to do a movie for T.V., so I came on the internet and went here to IMDB, when the movie came on I thought it was not the best, but what commercial t.v. movie is?, the only thing I liked about it was Farrah Fawcett, she was really good in it, she looked different, but I still loved her in this movie, I gave it a 7 because I thought 8-10 was too much, if this was a motion picture it probably would be a 2 star movie, but anyway I liked it, I even taped the movie for myself.",1 "I picked up cable -- it's as lousy as I remember with the same B-movies you would expect, but with 355 channels now instead of 99. Out-of-Towers is one of the B-movies. Playing 459 times this month on all the Bad B-movie channels, Steve Martin plays a watered down Neal Page from ""Planes, Trains and Automobiles,"" a much superior movie. Goldie Hawn plays a bimbo with smarts again, but one thing that was neat about her role is that they acknowledge her age and ""over-the-hill"" sex appeal that someone like Richard Gere still hasn't figured out. John Cleese reprises p****d-off hotel manager Basil Fawlty from the very funny BBC show ""Falwty Towers"" and gets a good amount of laughs, even if one is a cheap cross-dressing joke. Plus its great to see the Kids in Hall star Mark McKinny get slapped by one of his his mentors, Python's Cleese. Do some laundry, dishes, sort through your video collection like I did; it has some good moments. Not a great movie, but ok to watch maybe once. Average C-. 6.8 of of 10.",0 "Although it is hated by most long time FF fans, I find 8 to be one of my favorites. With incredible graphics (the characters are a far cry from the blockyness of 7) and a new magic system, 8 also has an intreguing storyline that follows young squall around the world. Plus, the gunblade weapon is one of the coolest new weapons around, and the new limit break system makes for cool divergences from normally routine battle (if you have ever seen Squall's 'Lionhearted' limit break you know what im talking about.) Plus, it has truly the hardest enemy I have ever fought, the Omega Weapon, much harder than the final boss to say the least. Over all, it's a great game, and out of the whole series, it ranks number 2 in my book.",1 Wonderful film with a lot of tongue-in-cheek humour. Alec Guiness is excellent as an descendant of a family full of (in)famous captains who has just one little problem to follow in there footsteps: he has a bad case of seasickness! So he decides to buy a 1000 foot pier and run it as a ship. The city-council though has other plans with de seafront and the pier does not really fit into their plans. The Captain can only do one thing: declare his pier as a proper cruise ship! This is a film that fits in with the other small masterpieces made by Ealing Studios in the fifties and I can really recommend it..,1 "I saw this movie the other night. I can't even begin to express how much this movie sucked. The writing, the voice acting, even the claymation. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. It's like watching 24 hours of C-Span for the sake of comedy. It just doesn't work. It literally falls flat at about every spot possible.

Also, the movie's animation is very poor quality. I know that this is an movie made by one person, but to think that he could make 97 minutes worth of crap, maybe he could at least make 1 second worth of funny.

This show may take the cake for being the worst film of all time. Yikes. It really was that bad. If you're looking for a movie that will make you laugh, steer clear from this abomination. My advice: Don't even buy it, or look it up for that matter. Your brain will than you.",0 "really,closer to an 8/10. this movie was well-acted,skillfully shot,and attractive without having that disgustingly fake,over-polished look that everyone seems to use now. and it Does make sense,if referring to the progression of clues and false leads and how the movie ends. the things that were definite drawbacks and did Not make sense were more mundane; the cops have a very laissez-faire attitude towards their guns(and even More annoying,each time it's an obvious Portent Of Doom :P ),those dippy cops also missed a handful of important and somewhat obvious clues at first glance(even second and third glance). it's disheartening how many ppl apparently got lost in the 'mystery' part of this psychological thriller/murder-mystery. as long as you pay attention the whole way through,the whole set-up pans out rather well and i thought the effort put into Both the idea and the execution of it was admirable. not perfect,but being coerced into a little analysis-in-the-midst is always nice.",1 "I've got to admit first off that I much prefer Universal's Frankenstein series to the Dracula one (same goes for Hammer Horror), but this third showing for the count isn't bad at all. The films following Tod Browning's 1931 original are not as professionally done - but so long as you go into them knowing that you're watching a B-movie, that shouldn't be a problem. Son of Dracula is better than Dracula's Daughter in my opinion, albeit only slightly. The story in this film hits home harder and while it lacks the sensuality of the previous Dracula sequel, that's made up for in several other areas. Unlike the last film, this one doesn't really follow on and is pretty much a solo entry in the Dracula series. We follow a morbid, yet naive heiress, who invites a man named Count Alucard (Dracula spelt backwards) to her U.S. home. Her boyfriend is suspicious of the newcomer, and this suspicion turns to jealously when the Count and the heiress are married. This then turns to tragedy when he accidentally shoots the heiress...

Despite being famous for the role, Bela Lugosi actually only played Dracula once; which is unfortunate, as the rest of the series could have benefited from having him in the lead. Lon Chaney Jr (a man who has played all of Universal's main villains) is a worthy replacement, however; but the Count just doesn't seem as sinister with him in the role. Robert Siodmak takes the director's chair and does a good job with it. The atmosphere isn't as thick and foreboding as his later film, The Spiral Staircase, and the tone is typically Universal in that it's 'fun' - but the film is continually dark and sinister, which is nice. The special effects are good considering the time that it was made, and seeing Alucard change into a bat or appear from a shroud of mist is always a highlight. The story takes in themes of love and selfishness, and the characters are actually rather well done. I can't say that either the characters or the film itself is a patch on the original Dracula book and film, but it was never meant to be and this film is a worthy addition to the Dracula series.",1 "The best sitcoms ever are only counted on one hand reaching to 5, 1) Sceinfeld, 2) Family Ties, 3) Perfect Strangers, 4) Married with Children, 5) Dream On. There are other good shows like The Nany, Friends, Taxi, According to Jim, Mind your language,Everybody loves Raymond, Becker, and few others but don't stand up to category ""best"". Family Ties being among the best gives the credit to Michael J. Fox (Alex P. Keaton) and only who watched the show know why. The other characters, however, were also funny but not as Alex. There were Skippy, Malory and Michael Gross probably the funniest next to Michael J. Fox. As for the rest they weren't as funny but they completed the set.

The show was so smart and original compared to other family based sitcoms. Contrary to Married with children (which is also an extremely funny and smart show), it depicted the ethics that most of the families miss today - ethical parents, democrats, charity loving and enjoy the bonds they have and though they play it so safe during the whole show, they still got you laughing in a joyous way. Alex was so funny in almost all the episodes with a lovely contradictive character. Though he seemed to be so materialistic, a big fan of Nixon, womanizer, always making fun of his naive sister(Malory), he had so depth and wasn't really a happy character all the way. There was this episode when his friend dies in a car accident and Alex was supposed to be with him but lucked out because of his selfishness. In this episode, Alex reveals so much depth of a character, he exhibits regret for not going with his friend, realization of the useless meaning of being ambitious while everything is going to end one day and at the same time he gets you laughing while he is visiting a shrink for help and the latter turns out to be a Grant College graduate, same college where Malory is studying and Alex always makes fun of it. He also tells the shrink that when he was a kid he was just as normal as any kid playing with toys and stock market. He could also identify the coin's value from the sound after they used to cover his eyes and toss the coin for him to guess. In other episodes we also see Alex so romantic in love with Elen and later hurt because she leaves him for dancing scholarship to France and then he falls in love with Lauren (Courtney Cox). That was another funny and memorable episode because she is a psychology student and interviewing Alex to study high achievers. Definitely, an unforgettable show!",1 "It's the Korean War, Lt. Clemons and his company are ordered to retake from the Chinese a ridge known as Pork Chop Hill, it's a futile exercise as the hill itself has no significant tactical worth. Disillusioned about their superiors and frightened to the hilt, the men must battle for the hill knowing they could well be killed just because the top brass want to save face.

Based on actual events and lifted from the story by S.L.A. Marshall, Pork Chop Hill is a poignantly effective drama that impacts hard about the grimness of war. Playing out {with some justification} as a paean to the wonderful infantrymen that fight the wars, it's an engrossing viewing that never feels preachy or self indulgent, a charge that sticks with many other acclaimed war dramas. Directed by Lewis Milestone {All Quiet On The Western Front}, the picture benefits from a feeling of authenticity, a sense of desperation hangs heavy for those viewers willing to fully invest into the picture. Photography is expertly handled by Sam Leavitt, with the cast, led by a brilliant show from Gregory Peck as the compassionate Clemons, firing from the top draw. A powerful and memorable movie for sure and certainly an important one because the Korean War is largely forgotten these days, so Pork Chop Hill now stands proud for those that died during the conflict, for this is a wonderful testament to the brave fighting under stupid circumstances. 7.5/10",1 "I will never understand how this film manages to be so cheesy yet so creepy at the same time, but Ghosthouse pulls it off with ease. Right from the start we get some nice gore scenes and that creepy carnival music. Then we get some terrible acting.

The house has a very ominous feel to it, no doubt this is more down to the creepy music used (some of it taken from Stagefright). The acting ranges from OK to completely inept - several of the characters are just unconvincing in everything they say. For example there's the girl who says ""Look, it's that horrible man!"" The bad acting however makes the film more entertaining to watch and gives you plenty of laughs. The little girl and her doll are also very creepy, but I think the main winner in this film is the weird carnival music that makes it stand out from all other films. I love the scene with the ""grim reaper"" in and his maggot infested skull.

If you love 80's horror flicks, you can't go wrong with Ghosthouse. It has that nasty Italian feel to it, but also plenty of cheesy fun.",1 "Man... Well, first off I promise I'm not a 'Troll' and I'm not going to say something brainless and general like 'worst movie ever' because it isn't : ) However... after thinking about it honestly, I THINK what this film is, is a good example of what probably could have been a good film and I don't know WHAT the hell was done to it, but man oh man... the result is literally STUNNINGLY awful. Immediately I thought that it's GOT to be the director, it HAS to be! But, I checked and I GUESS the guy credited with it did direct 'RIGHTEOUS KILL' which was quite good. Then I saw in the Trivia section that he replaced the guy who directed 'CONFIDENCE' which was a fr i gg'n BRILLIANT film. So, I'm rather mystified as to what went wrong.

Now, apparently there must have been serious trouble with the production because of it being delayed so much in addition to the change in directors. I can't even begin to surmise WHY the result was so poor, but something sure happened all right.

Well, for specifics, I mean, HOW can you possibly make Al Pacino look that bad... It wasn't really him per se but the more I'm thinking about it maybe it was whoever the hell put the thing together as the finished product. It's like whoever decided what takes to use and whoever was in charge of editing the damn thing I believe must be the one(s) that ruined it. Funny too, because there IS indeed a good film in here somewhere; the story itself is very good, the actors obviously are good. LeeLee is as stinkin' BEAUTIFUL as ever, although that is not really relevant : ) Even the production and camera-work in and of themselves were very polished and well done. But, I don't know... It's the way it's all put together that looks so damn awkward.

The scenes where there is SUPPOSED to be high drama come off as VERY amateurish; GEEZ, just check out the scene between Al and the cop friend of his. Can you say 'STILTED...?' 'AWKWARD AS HELL...?' I've honestly seen literally thousands of films, but I sure cannot remember one where a very good idea with good actors and supposedly very good directors (both of them) turned out so dang horribly... I was thinking 'Was it the script' because so much of the dialog and interaction was so awkward; but a good director can work around that and fix it enough so that it doesn't turn out THIS bad. I seriously would LOVE to know EXACTLY what the hell happened...",0 "It seems fair to say that the title ""Falling Angels"" is plural so as to include not only the baby brother who somehow fell over Niagara Falls and whose picture is later given wings and enshrined behind wood paneling in the Field family's basement. It also describes the mother, Miranda Richardson, whose spirit has been gradually destroyed by her volatile, controlling, husband, until she is reduced to a morbidly depressed alcoholic with no life beyond the couch and television. Each of her three high-school age daughters are falling as well, away from the insular family where no outsiders are allowed to observe the sad dynamics, no help is asked for or accepted. Each family member is alone in coping with their emotions and longings. Still there is always the sense that this is a family with strong ties and feelings for each other.

The three sisters gravitate (fall) into outside relationships, whose merits and wisdom are not judged by the movie, but simply shown. The girls' future lives are being formed, and will always have been influenced by the events of the past -including forced confinement in a bomb shelter by their father as an exercise in preparedness. Even that act of well-intentioned cruelty is not judged too harshly by the film. It's a misguided deed done for the sake of the family. There is no angst or acting out or weepy reconciliation drama in this family. Instead there is some anger, some sadness, and some unspoken love.

The acting is first rate by all. Miranda Richardson is excellent as the fragile porcelain-like mother, drained of spirit, quietly detaching from life. The portrayal of the late 1960's is the most realistic I have ever seen. It's achieved not by the musical score, or the pop-culture icons of the period. Instead it is the 'feel' of the house and furnishings, the neighborhood, the clothing. And also, it shows how life then was somehow different than today – quieter, more private – at least for some of us and the families we grew up in during that time.",1 "I have to agree. What a really awful movie. This was just a poor ripoff at a time when poor ripoffs weren't as common as now.

Sigh...

The original Westworld takes a good concept and works well. The attempts to tie futureworld back to Westworld are poorly structured.

Wooden performances abound, not just from the 'robots' either.

Watch Westworld and skip the sequel.

Another reasonable pick for an odd Yul Brenner movie is an odd post-apocalyptic knife fighter flick.

Aardvaark",0 "OK,I know this is cheating, but here's a review from Gemma Files of Eye magazine, who pretty much could sum this up better than I...

""Whenever I watch a particular type of movie, the same two thoughts invariably occur to me: why are there so many boring, self-obsessed people in this world -- straight, gay or otherwise -- and why do so many of them seem to think we're all waiting on pins and needles to see films made out of their boring, self-obsessed love lives? Case in point: writer-director Roland Tec's All the Rage, adapted from his stage play A Better Boy. Chris (John-Michael Lander) is a (debatably) hunky gay lawyer who specializes in drawing up wills and having frequent, meaningless sex with guys whose numbers he immediately loses. Eventually, this slick little toad meets up with a nice guy named Stewart (David Vincent) who doesn't work out, knows about baseball and ballet and sends Chris flowers with sickly-sweet poems attached. Is it love? Will their equally shallow friends let them get away with it? Will Chris cheat on Stewart with the first pair of pants that walks by or will he actually -- heavens to Betsy! -- get a quick evolutionary life lesson by having his heart broken for a change? From a purely technical viewpoint, All the Rage is inept film-making at best: everybody on screen talks and looks almost exactly the same, which doesn't help make the oh-so-predictable plot any less stultifying. Working with next to nothing in the way of funding, Tec apparently wants to trade on the idea that low- to no-budget automatically equals ""arty."" But this is basically an exploitation film with socio-political pretensions, and all the constant bewailing of loneliness and promiscuity in the world won't make his characters' obsessions with each other's baskets seem any less sleazy.

A waste of time, and pretty much unsalvageable on every level. If the choice is between All the Rage and watching paint dry, save me a seat in front of the nearest wall."" -- GEMMA FILES",0 "This is a great movie....the movie keeps you on yur feet the whole way!

It's about Arnie and his troops....heading into the jungle to rescue some hostages....well turns out they have something that is hunting them...a alien that likes to hunt and collect skulls as trophies. Great cast...Arnie, Carl Weathers, Bill Duke, Jesse Ventura, Sonny Landham, Richard Chaves. The special effects in this film as awesome and the Predator played by Kevin Peter Hall....he was pretty darn scary looking....Great action, great cast, awesome movie!!! I give this movie 4 stars ****!!!!!!!!!!!",1 "I selected the film from a sat.TV guide as a light entertainment, knowing absolutely nothing of it in advance and not having seen the original film. The opening sequences have greatly surprised me with scenery from my hometown Prague, complete even with Czech flags on one building. Later display of Danish flags could not dispel the confusion in the national identity the film was trying to portray. Same goes for signs on buildings and minor items like car registration plates. It appears the film was made on a shoestring budget, or else the film-makers could not wait another day till the Czech flags, displayed for national holiday or a prominent festival, were taken down before shooting city scenes. The plot was rather simple and predictable, the acting wooden overall, the heroine looked older, less attractive and lively than her opponent. I could not believe the lack of research that allowed a reference to a ""5000year old Danish monarchy"" into the dialog. Do not bother to watch unless you are a tourist who loved Prague during your visit and want to see the scenery again.",0 "Okay.....I can't believe people are brain-dead enough to actually LIKE this piece of dog poo. I saw it as a child and it insulted my intelligence like no movie ever has. It's so bad it SHOULD get no stars. Not even the cute dog saves it. The dog gets drunk. HE ACTUALLY GETS DRUNK. He ""saves"" a boy...from drowning in AN INCH OF WATER. May I bang my head on a wall now? No, that's right, I've gotta stay for the most touching part of all: the boy and dog get separated and the dog TRACKS THE BOY BY SNIFFING EVERY PLACE THE BOY HAS URINATED AT TRUCK STOPS. WHICH, I MIGHT ADD, IS ACTUALLY SHOWN. Isn't that oh so charming and cute? Even if it's SUPPOSED to be a parody of child+dog films, it doesn't work. It's not cute. It's not funny. It's atrocious and stupid with atrocious and stupid scenes. The actors are also so bad that you'd swear it was a sketch from All That except THOSE sketches actually are amusing at times. The ""special"" effects look like they had a ten-dollar budget. Bottom line: DON'T WATCH THIS. Don't watch it even if you love dogs or kids or dogs and kids. It's bad bad bad. Not so bad it's good-just so bad like ""Can I kill myself now?"" Don't even make your dog watch it. This is the WORST kid and dog movie ever made. And it's definitely NOT appropriate for children.",0 "Of course, I'm saying that lightly. It's actually not that bad, but it could have been better. What they do need to work on is the accessibility of this movie to others.

Watched the DVD and it's the most basic dvd out there. No menu (couldn't believe that one) Standard screen no subtitles no extra's of any kind. Basically, if you find it on dvd, it's one step better than vhs, but unless you collect on a actor bases only, it's a rental only. 4/10 ps: even in this case, the dvd is better than vhs because it'll never get screwed like tapes will. Although if you smash it.. oopsy.",0 "This flick honestly looks as if it was made on $1.98 budget! The acting is so far sub-par it makes Keanu Reeves seem like Robert DeNero...The lighting (which is amazingly annoying once you get 5 minutes into the film) looks as if it was done with a few Bic lighters...The ""special effects"" look as if they may have been done in a 4th grade art class...The ending will not only leave the viewer scratching his drunken (hopefully) head, but come up with at least 10 alternate endings that would have been soooo much better! Why would One not only own (as I do) or rent this flick? It's honestly so, so bad - it borders on being good! If you're a fan of very, very, very low budget 70's horror flicks or the Drive-In Theater, this baby is for you! If not, you will find yourself losing more brain cells by the minute then Cheech & Chong did during the entire decade of the 70's! Final note: This movie was co-written by George ""Buck"" Flower, whom unfortunately I just found out passed away in 2004...Rest in Peace George, and please, don't let this be the movie that you'll be remembered for...",0 "When I was at school in my early teens, never a film was so much talked about after a weekend. The guys loved it, and one scene when they give chocolate bars to the soldiers, stuck to one's mind and one's appetite. I saw this film on DVD yesterday and either the chocolate scene was missing or unconsciously I slept through it. There is not much of a plot to the film, because it shows the real hero Audie Murphy in combat. But what great action scenes! The soldiers capturing a house in the field and then losing it, Murphy blowing a tank, shooting by mistake at himself in the mirror, standing on a tank in flames, throwing grenades at a pillbox, crossing a river under fire, whatever you think it is there, and in Cinemascope, which adapts very well to the widescreen format. We are used to see actors playing heroes, but here we see a hero which played western characters that could never be as brave as he was in real life. Everybody would think it is unreal!!!",1 "Dumb as hell. Stupid. A plot that's the same as a million other badly-made movies you wish you'd never watched. Someone nice finds something. Some one nasty wants it back. Someone else nasty also wants it to make themselves powerful. What makes this movie slightly different i suppose is that two nasty people each want what the nice person has found instead of one nasty person. I wasted an hour of my life watching this nonsense before i gave up. And it's racist: African people are either savages smeared in dust, lazy, or dependent upon westerners for their livelihoods. Don't bother watching this. It's rubbish.",0 "You know, I must have missed something here because this story just didn't make much sense. During the Civil War, Union Colonel Pembroke (James Coburn) surrenders his position at Fort Holman to Rebel forces, and once court martialed, makes an offer to Major Charles Ballard to take the fort back with a handful of men. When asked why he surrendered in the first place, he stated that it wasn't important, so we never do find out. Huh?

With five outlaws saved from the gallows, and a soldier thrown in for good measure by the Major, Pembroke makes his way back to Fort Holman, dangling a five hundred thousand dollar promise of hidden gold to his rag tag band. Curiously, it seemed to me that once the bullets started to fly, Pembroke lost more men than he started out with, but then again, I wasn't counting. In what looked like the complete reverse of the situation at the end of ""Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid"", it appeared that Pembroke's bunch had the entire Rebel garrison at Holman surrounded, managing to destroy everything in sight while picking off a swarm of soldiers who never seemed to be seeking cover from all the gunfire. Holman's commander, General Ward (Telly Savalas) must have figured that being this close to the end of the flick, he might as well take Pembroke's sword to end it all. The set up seemed to suggest that Ward and Pembroke were mortal enemies, but if they were, I'm not going back to find out why.

The print of the film I viewed probably didn't help matters any, it was a cheap DVD I picked up for a buck, and was quite dark and muddy throughout. I will give credit though to Pembroke's military ally Eli Sampson (Bud Spencer), he got an awful lot of mileage out of the old, hey the War is over gimmick. As for the half million in hidden gold - nope, it never turned up.",0 "It has been quite a while since I have seen a film that was this beautifully crafted and nearly flawless. The acting is very convincing and the storyline follows quite closely to a Michael Criton-esquire novel. I was rather surprised at the 6.8 rating this movie has received thus far, and I hope that more positive reviews will come in order for the score to be bumped up to at least the mid 7's. I can guarantee you will not be disappointed by this film. For one thing, it stars Denzel Washington, Jim Cavizel, who I felt did a marvelous job at playing the antagonist, Val Kilmer, and Bruce Greenwood. With these four actors, you typically cannot go wrong. I notice that these four are also never in the tabloids and don't get caught up in the typical Hollywood tripe that is so prevalent today. They have raw talent, are not just getting by on their looks, and their performance, especially in this film, shows it. ""Deja Vu"" is one of those rare films that grabs a hold of you from the very start and does not let go of you until the very end. People even clapped after the film ended and such applause was well deserved. If you do anything at all this Thanksgiving weekend, then by all means, put going to see ""Deja Vu"" on your shopping list. I can promise you that both you and your family/significant others will be blow though the very back wall of the theater.",1 "This is another example of great filmmaking from John Cassavettes. Using his signature directing style (fluid camera movement, rack focusing, uncomfortably close two-shots), he creates a sprawling visual masterpiece loaded with social commentary as he explores the story of a man caught in a downward spiral in the underworld. Very, very good.",1 "Being a big fan of the original Ski School film I was very disappointed in this follow up. Many of the key elements that made the orginal successful are missing in this. These include the wonderfull supporting cast of section 8 that dwelled at the resort, particularly Ed and Fitz, that Dave led. This has therefore resulted in a lack of on-screen chemistry with the new line up and as such the laughs have been very infrequent. In addition Dave is matched with a poor ""baddie"" and again adds to the downbeat theme of the film.

If you want a really good laugh then watch the original Ski School.",0 "Gritty Dramas are not usually my thing, but I saw this by chance and was very impressed by it. It's nearly impossible to make a first feature film. It's nearly impossible to make it good on as tight a budget as this was obviously shot on. The fact that it was made in such a short time is also another factor to be considered. And my consideration, after taking all these factors in to account is, this is brilliant! It is a strong story with plenty of moral interest, it has strong performances and a nicely done twist. I wish Paul every success with whatever he does next! He is a directing and writing talent to watch out for!",1 Jamie Lee is enough reason for me to watch this flick. Jamie Lee in tight leotards...Yummy. Good Acting Also. You have to see it.

PK,1 "When the movie going public demands you back 14 times you know that something is being done right by both the studio and the players involved.

William Powell and Myrna Loy hit a real career high point in this film with a rather original plot gimmick. The amnesia gimmick is stood on its head in this film.

Powell and Loy are married and he's on a business trip involving an ocean voyage. Powell is something of a stuffed shirt when we meet him on the ship. When a drunken Frank McHugh falls overboard, Powell dives in to rescue him and in the process gets himself knocked out.

When he comes to, like in Random Harvest, he discovers his former identity which is that of a confidence man and as it turns out McHugh also is a full time grifter.

Unlike Ronald Colman who spent the whole of Random Harvest searching for his lost years, Powell has his identity there. Returning to his town with his new found friend McHugh, he finds wife Loy together with the fact he's a person of some means. But he also finds out that Loy was planning to get rid of him.

Powell together with McHugh and former associate Edmund Lowe try to work an elaborate con game on the town. At the same time Powell is falling for the woman he married and embarks on a campaign to win her back. Those two agenda items come into conflict.

Bill and Myrna are at their best in I Love You Again. Two highlight scenes for me are Powell's cooing courtship of Loy and his trip through the woods in his Boy Ranger uniform with his Boy Ranger troop. This must have been the same outfit that Jimmy Stewart was trying to get a summer camp for in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The goings on are similar to what Powell went through fishing in Libeled Lady.

I Love You Again is movie comedy at its very best. Don't miss it if TCM runs it again.",1 "Quite recently I watched a marvelous documentary on Australian exploitation cinema entitled ""Not Quite Hollywood: the True, Untold Story of Ozploitation"" – which I highly recommend to anyone – and it really stimulated me to track down a lot of titles I've never even heard about before. ""Snapshot"" is one of them; a peculiar psycho-thriller/melodrama hybrid that coincidentally came out shortly after the huge box office success of ""Halloween"" and thus had to be re-titled ""The Day After Halloween"" in order to make extra money and cash in on the success of John Carpenter's classic. Obviously this movie has absolutely nothing to do with Halloween, Michael Myers or Haddonfield and hopefully not too many people will be beguiled by this cheap marketing scam. I'm not even too sure ""Snapshot"" fully qualifies as horror, since the film barely features any genuine moments of fright. Despite the still relatively low number of independent cult movies produced in Australia around that time, ""Snapshot"" is an adequate and professional accomplishment with proper production values, respectable performances and ambitious story contents. Heck, the film is so ambitious that the drama overrules and the thriller elements never really even come through. ""Snapshot"" is much more of a satiric portrait of the sleazy and dishonest advertising/modeling industry than it is a nail-biting suspense thriller. Director Simon Wincer (""Harlequin"", ""Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man"") seemingly never ceases to enlarge the melodramatic universe surrounding the main character Angela, but actually there's very few action. 19-year-old Angela is lurid into shooting a topless modeling ad by an eloquent and she promptly gets offered a job as the face of a perfume brand. Angela is very enthusiast and moves in with her photographer, especially since she's tired of her domineering mother and dead-end job at the hair dresser salon. She rapidly adapts to her new classy life and doesn't even have to bother anymore about her stalking ex-boyfriend and his (not-so) inconspicuous ice cream van. However, she learns this is predominantly a rotten world full of greed, betrayal, false promises, sexual harassment, blackmail and danger. As said, ""Snapshot"" is a plain straightforward coming-of-age drama falsely advertised as a genuine horror movie. There are two noteworthy sequences near the very end, but they hardly seem worth waiting for. This could be an interesting and compelling viewing experience, but then you better know beforehand to expect a serious-toned film instead of a brainless slasher imitation.",1 "This film was touted to be a Documentary concerning Orlando Gays Days, the Gay Community in Orlando and Big Business. Having viewed this film (wish I hadn't), I didn't come away with anything the documentary's name ""Selling Queer"" stated , except for one very short, very quick comment in the entire film. The comment was fast and was hard to find through all the choppy confusion. Selling Queer had absolutely no cohesiveness of structure, content and purpose. Sorry, it did have a purpose. The purpose was for some director(?) to make a quick buck off Homosexuality.

Renting or even seeing for free, Selling Queer would not be worth the effort. You would do better to burn the money in you wallet or purse rather than wasting it on this film.",0 "I have seen lots of movies, good and bad, but this was the worst movie ever, the only horror movie i've seen where the most horrible thing was the movie itself!!!! I mean i LOVE camp movies, cheesy movies etc but not stinkers and this was this biggest gas bomb ever!!! It reminded me of a home movie gummed together by my aunt Flo after a drunken and diurretic trip to Mexico. Only without any of the fun, only the vomit!!! Please don't waste your time or money on this dog, give some blood instead, you won't see any in this movie and when you do you won't care because you're ready to scream from boredom!!!! Don't watch unless you're just currious how bad a movie can be and still make into your local video shop, the most horrible horror movie ever!!!",0 "Such a disappointment, this film needs to go into the trash with Highlander 2: The Quickening. This movie marks just another disappointment in a long line of disappointments after the great first Highlander. At least the Series had a few seasons before it lost its way. I love the story concept so much it is painful to watch crap like this. Why do the creators insist on changing the story concept, first the planet Ziest and now there can be only one but there can be more than one? I hope they never make another Highlander again, it is just to painful. Also, will they stop breaking the swords!!! Bad enough Connor has his katana break, but now Duncan's too! Just stay away from this movie!!!",0 "Hellbent Regency 2004 Color 85 minutes Gay-Horror Dylan Fergus, Bryan Kirkwood, Hank Harris, Andrew Levitas, Matt Phillips and John P. Petrelli star. Written and Directed by Paul Etheridge-Ouzts Rated R for graphic violence, gore, nudity, language and drug use Finally homo-horror rears it's cute little head from behind the genre divide. I was lucky enough to attend this film courtesy of tickets from Camp Blood. Upon entering the fully packed theater as loads of people couldn't get in that were eagerly awaiting the screening outside. It hit me, this is it and I'm so excited. Being that I am a huge horror fan and a gay man I have been eagerly awaiting this film for quite some time. A film that combines my lifestyle with the thrills I've become so accustomed to cherishing over the years. So as I sat down the films promotion manager came up and introduced the film. He said I'm so happy all of you could be here to see the movie, I hope all of you like it and if you do tell your friends. And if you don't just say it was challenging. The audience giggled along with me and my friends and the lights dimmed. We were first shown a trailer of another homo horror film hitting theaters soon Dante's Cove witch looked more like a skin flick to be honest. not that I'm complaining but it got me worrying a little I was hoping Hellbent would be something more than just pretty flesh on view. I can happily say that it was. After a silly beginning featuring two hot guys getting it on and getting murdered. It was off to meet our main characters. First up gorgeous pretty boy Eddie played by the Passions Dylan Fergus. He's the Jamie Lee Curtis of the film, the somewhat virginal victim. Throwing off sex and drugs in search of a bad boy hunk he saw at the local tattoo parlor. That bad boy hunk is Jake played by sexy as hell Bryan Kirkwood of The Forskaen a scruffy, tattooed, tough boy protecting a wounded heart. Than there are his friends Joey played by adorable Hank Harris of Pumpkin the naive twinkie cutie of the group swooning over a crush on a deliciously hot jock boy. Bisexual Chazz played by yummy poster boy Andrew Levitas of Psycho beach Party (Provolonie) your basic friendly but whorishly natured player. And finally last but not least there's the model Tobey whose dressed up as a drag queen for Halloween hoping someone will notice something about him besides his looks played by heartthrob Matt Phillips. But wait there's the villain shirtless, mostly in the dark with ripped six pack abs, a devils mask and love for decapitations and eye gouging played by the brutally handsome John P. Petrelli. Along they go on their escapade to the Halloween carnivale in West Hollywood. Hoping for fun and hot guys they end up being stalked and systematically slaughtered one by one by a pointless but amusing killer. And this film is just entertainment, it's fun. there's lots of eye candy, creatively brutal and gory death sequences and manages to generate a good amount of old fashioned suspense and laughs. It plays a lot like a Friday the 13th sequel with an all male cast. And all though this is a film about gay men it's not a gay film. This is a horror film cut and dry and any real horror fan won't have a problem admitting to it. It's obvious that it was done on a low budget, but despite the poor film quality the film is smart and energetic fully delivering on it's promises as a brutal horror film that features gay characters. Hopefully the film will make some sort of impact, from the audience reaction I think it has quite a future to look forward to. A definite big time cult movie. It has hot boys, gruseome deaths and jolts galore. Let in the fun and go find Hellbent. A traditional tthrowback to the heart of the genre a film that generates goose bumps, laughs, sex appeal and good old fashioned slasher/horror! ****(out five) Richard Cavellero Metuchen,NJ",1 "You learn everything new everyday. Had I never watched this film, I wouldn't have known the following; apparently, cavemen had perfectly sharpened and rounded metal knives and wore make-up; apparently, newborn pterodactyl(whatever the plural form of that word is) have feathers; apparently, if you called an electrician in the late 80's, you'd get a pushy and respect-less jackass who prints out a business card that says ""electrician and adventurer"". Seriously. The first was decent at best, this is just plain bad. No reason to sugar-coat it, no way around it, it's just bad. It shouldn't even be classified as 'horror', seeing as there are virtually no horror elements whatsoever in the film. The comedy elements are there, but they are just ridiculous and pitiful. The attempts at comic relief are so in-your-face and obvious that it's hard to sit through. The better part of the jokes and gags are cringe-worthy. The plot is nonsensical fantasy-babble. The acting is atrocious. The characters are paper-thin and poorly written. The dialog sounds like it was written by a child(and a mentally retarded one at that). The score is so unbelievably, unforgivably 80's that it's hard to listen to without screaming at the top of your lungs. The special effects are so ludicrously obvious and easy to figure out that one has to wonder if that's what they're supposed to be. The whole film doesn't really make even the slightest bit of sense on any conceivable level... I know this was just made for a laugh, but, for crying out loud, even the dumbest movies have some purpose(if absolutely nothing else, then at least to entertain). This doesn't seem to have any purpose at all(other than to successfully squeeze money out of what I suppose must have been somewhat of a box-office hit of a first movie of the franchise). I recommend this to... well, no one, I guess, except for possibly 80's movie freaks who may get a kick out of just how bad it is. Everyone else should avoid. 1/10",0 "Unfortunately as soon as I saw that this was a partly Canadian production from the opening credits I very nearly turned it off; as most things than come out of there are either boring or pale and poor imitations of the USA. I should have switched off. This movie rambles along in all sorts of directions with no apparent reference to anything. Is it a film about a broken marriage, a love affair, a faith healer, a child terminally ill or what? Seems that even those making it...ain't got a clue and it gives the distinct impression of being made-up as it goes along. No one wants to be a critic...there are a few good scenes and good acting.....but I found the whole picture disorganized and dis-orientated with neither meaning or message.Even the title is daft. A generous 3 out of 10.",0 "GRAY LADY DOWN

Aspect ratio: 2.39:1 (Panavision)

Sound format: Mono

Whilst heading home on its final voyage, a nuclear submarine is sunk by a careless fishing vessel and lands on a crumbling ledge above a yawning abyss.

Arriving at the tail-end of the 1970's disaster cycle, this half-baked thriller toplines catastrophe stalwart Charlton Heston (going through the motions) as an iron-jawed captain who preserves morale amongst his surviving crewmembers while awaiting rescue by military top brass (including Stacy Keach and David Carradine). Unfortunately, the basic scenario - remarkably similar to another sub-in-peril drama, MORNING DEPARTURE, filmed in 1950 - is fairly humdrum, and once it's been established that the survival of Heston's crew depends on work carried out by a unique exploratory vessel created by Carradine, the plot begins to alternate between non-activity in the sub and endless journeys to and from the stricken vessel by Carradine's miniature craft. TV director David Greene fails to generate much excitement, and the outcome is entirely predictable. Co-stars Ned Beatty and Christopher Reeve were re-teamed later the same year in Reeve's break-out movie, SUPERMAN.",0 "This is a movie about a Afghan woman seeking asylum in the US before 9/11. The story is about an allegedly brutal legal system that she must navigate to get asylum. In fact, what it shows is a that it is an efficient legal system which prevents abuses of our immigration system which immigrants often abuse to avoid national quotas. The movie has only one purpose and that is to gain sympathy for illegal immigrants. It is an extremely liberal propaganda movie.

What the writers have done is take a true story which is atypical of the asylum process in which the Afghan woman is deserving of asylum but she is unable to satisfy the safeguards that have erected to prevent illegals from entering the country. She has no identification. She cannot prove who she is and cannot find anyone to vouch for her. For all the immigration officials know she could be a terrorist attempting to sneak into this country.

In each decision the INS makes the right decision based on the facts before it.

The Afghan woman, played superbly by Layla Alizada,gets representation by a pro-bono lawyer from a big law firm who mucks through the case. Unfortunately, the lawyer is played by Juliette Harris, who as usual does a miserable job of acting. She is a zany and serious acting is far beyond her capability.

This is a movie for dummies and sob sisters. It's only redeeming value is the acting of Layla Alizada.",0 I saw this movie on Star Movies yesterday. I liked this movie a lot. The underlying message of the movie was in spite of all odds things still work in India. Whoever is willing to take the risk of setting shop in such emerging economies like India can be assured of profits if he absorbs and shares the cultural diversities. For eg:The incident where Todd transfers the entire office to the terrace when water gushes in. Also the Holi festival & arse washing incidennts were unique

But the girl was slightly too.despo & forward for a Indian small town girl. All the actors did their part well. Can anybody suggest me more movies with this theme ?,1 "...but then what is? Here it is 2006 and I've just gotten around to watching this ""movie."" Yes, it was high on my ""must-see"" list. I kid! I kid! Just bored on a Saturday afternoon and during my channel-surfing I come across this flick and decide ""what the heck!"" It should have been ""what the hell?!"" The fact that Lasagna, er, Lorenzo Lamas was the star should have warned me, but I'm a glutton for punishment.

I agree with every other review about the horrible effects. The things that made me laugh the most was the NAVY S.E.A.L.s' poor shooting ( the trees in the woods come out on the bad end of that ), Lorenzo throwing his machine-gun about a quarter-of-a-mile across a lava chasm to the CIA girl, the Russian agent and Lorenzo shooting at each other with machine-guns at POINT BLANK range ( Lorenzo on the helicopter, Russian on the ground ) and missing each other! This movie is full of wacked-out jollies like this. But still, I could not look away. Something about the Sci-Fi Channel and their crap movies compels me to watch. Watch, but only if you want to make fun or truly enjoy cheese, which I admit, I do. ""Frankenfish"" is still the best Sci-Fi movie yet, IMHO.",0 "What are these people thinking? The writing for this show is totally lame. I really like Julia Louis-Dreyfus and I cannot believe that she can even say the lines written for her part without regurgitation spewing from her lips. I have watched every episode and I have been giving the show the benefit of the doubt thinking that maybe it will get better. Nope. This show will never last with writing this bad. I felt this way from the first episode. Friends of mine say the same thing. America loves Julia Louis-Dreyfus. American television is filled with silly shows. Some of those those shows are funny because they are so silly. Look at ""The Family Guy"". That show is filled with jokes and lines that really have nothing to do with anything in the show. That works because the jokes are so far away from what is really happening. But with ""Christine"" the jokes are just insipid. We are not as dumb as the writers and producers of this show think.",0 "Not so sure about that, unless of course he says something you like. Remember people tend to like and appreciate anything that least offends them rather than pure truth, as the cliché goes , truth hurts. Olbermann is extremely biased towards the Democrats, for proof watch 10 episodes and count the number of true ""debates"", i.e. arguments in which there IS an _opposing_ point of view, rather than just blind anti-Republican, anti-Bush hatred (8-9)*5 For proof (rather most recent of many), of the many just watch his defense of Kerry Nov 2 2006, soon after his (Kerry's) gaffe about lacking education and ending up in Iraq.His hilarious attempt at bolstering his position is even crushed by his own guest Thomas Ricks. Your answer will conform with mine, the Russian for nothing. Nada. Which pretty much sums up his show too , its nada.",0 I couldn't sit through this. The dialogue between Prinze and Forlani was brutal. I didn't make it to the end so I will give this a 3. I'm sure if I kept watching it could have become a rare 1. No adult could possibly enjoy this. I guess if you're a teen you may find this cute. I was physically attracted to Forlani before this role. Her lines were so annoying that I have seriously lost all of my attraction. That takes a lot my friends. PAINFUL!!!,0 "Actually, this flick, made in 1999, has pretty good production values. The actors are attractive, and reasonably talented. There aren't a bunch of clowns running around blasting away, expending hundreds of rounds, but never hitting flesh. Nor are there wild car chases/crashes where thousands of dollars worth of beautiful machines are uselessly trashed.

The interiors look respectably modern, architecturally, and the equipment looks up to snuff. Well, there is that high tech computer room furnished with what look like leftovers from a '50s electronics lab. And the pancake make-up on the corpses cracked me up. Not pancake make-up in the conventional sense, but what looks like dried pancake batter slathered over their exposed skin. This is supposed to support the idea that the bodies have calcified -- though how the virus would accomplish this transmutation is an exercise left for the student (viewer).

Ah yes, the virus. I would like to tell you that this is not the absolute worst premise for a sci-fi, horror flick I know of, but I can't. A computer virus that is transmitted via a television (or computer monitor) screen and becomes a lethal biological pathogen? Gimme a break. Warp drives a la ""Star Trek"" are one thing, but photons becoming viruses? This is so silly the desired ""fright factor"" just isn't realizable. The flick could have used one of those awful dream sequences where the dead come alive, or have a cat jump out of the closet, or something, because the viral thingamajig isn't doing it.

One presumes Robert Wagner has the same excuse for playing in this inanity that Lord Oliver gave for some of his later, trashy venues. He needed the money. No other comparison between the two should be construed,however.",0 "I used the hypnotherapist Kyrah Malan, when she was in Sacramento and got great results with my goals. I went back to her for other goals and it always worked for me. I know it was more than just voodoo because I had tried to loose weight for 20 years before then and nothing had ever worked. She was always really nice and professional. I know that she works on a donation basis and does a lot of charity work not charging people for her services when she feels they really need the help and couldn't otherwise get it. When I found this site and watched the clip I told my friend (who had told me about Kyrah) about this show and she said NONE of the women in the breast enlargement study had to pay a dime. Penn & Teller made it look like they had to pay money. She also said the woman who didn't notice any difference never attended any of the sessions or did the things she was supposed to. I bet they edited the program to make her look bad and so they could make fun of her. If someone is a fake their fair game, but why find a hypnotist who is good and then try to make them look bad? In my eyes that makes them (P&T) the liars and fakes.",1 "This film seems to have worked a little spell on me.

After I watched it for the first time, I just sat there, thinking, not feeling blown away, truth be told.

Then, before I knew it, I'd been sitting there in my recliner for about 45 minutes or so, absolutely still.

Then I wanted to watch it again for some reason - which I did, very late that same night. And it was then that I felt myself being tugged, and, eventually, almost overcome at its conclusion. But I really don't know why - and still don't.

But I have a strong feeling that's a good sign, that this film is not done with me yet. Because I kind of want to watch it again.

But be forewarned that this film is very very different from the norm. Then again, nothing about it's presentation screams out to be noticed, really. Like it is meant to draw you in, standing at the door and smiling, like somebody you think you know - but don't, really.

Must be something to do with how simple and subtle Mr. Holden has made it. Becaus3e it isn't at the end of the day. At least it doesn't seem to be.

Hmmm...",1 "Clint Eastwood stars as Wes Block a police officer who hunts a serial killer who targets prostitutes who he handcuffs. However Eastwood finds it hard to be a police officer in the red light district because his urges get the better of him. Some good acting from Eastwood and Bujold elevate this one above mediocrity, but some interest still remains especially since the serial killer plot angle offers some good ideas.",1 "I like horror movies. Guess what, this wasn't one. Bad acting, bad plot, bad everything. Do not rent this movie. Trust me. Bad make up, bad hair bad bad bad. The only good thing about it was some of its truths about paganism, but other than that. The only reason why I picked it up in the first place was because of its cover. Ten minutes into the movie you could already see where it was going. (MINOR SPOILER)**** The ending,(which I'm surprised I stayed awake to see) was unpredictable and just plain stupid. Sorry, but that's the truth. Again don't get this movie.",0 "What are accomplished actors like Ellen Burstyn, Peter Boyle, James McDaniel and Deirdre O'Connell doing in this piece of dreck? This is one of the worst-written things I've ever seen - it barely even rises to the level of cookie-cutter formula in its laziness (in the credits, the serial killer character is just called ""The Killer"" - the writer couldn't even be bothered to give him a name, never mind any background). The plot developments are laughable and absurd, the police are made to look completely incompetent, the psychic-ability angle is gratuitous and poorly used, and there is virtually no suspense to speak of. Kristin Davis and Matthew Settle are very attractive-looking leads, but their characters are boring ciphers. Avoid at all costs, especially if you are a fan of any of these actors.",0 "Here's what Robert Quarry did after Count Yorga, if you're interested: he donned a wig and caftan and became a Charlie Manson type hippie guru vampire. This isn't exactly up to the standards of the Count Yorga movies, at least the first one, but it's OK for a hippie vampire movie. And it even features John Fiedler, as Pop, who wears a medallion and a hippie vest but still looks pretty much the same old geek....he who voiced 'Piglet' in the Disney movies for years. The idea is that there's this commune type set-up with all these groovy hippies that live in a big house near the ocean. One of them, a creepy looking dude named Barbado, seems to set off invisible wind chimes wherever he goes, it can't be his necklace, that seems to stay pretty still. When Barbado sits near the shore one day and plays his flute, this coffin washes up on the shore and of course you know who's in it. The coffin gets dragged to an undisclosed location and suddenly the commune has been blessed by the appearance of this Khorda guy, who spouts psycho-babble and has them all drink bottled water. Groovy. Of course, behind all this groovy mysticism Khorda is still nothing but a vampire and pretty soon so are most of the hippies in the commune. Except for one, Pico, who you suspect is wearing a wig held on by his headband since that never comes off. Of course he comes back to save his girl, and so on. This never really rises above cheesy drive in fare, but that's fine, I like this stuff. No great shakes, this, but entertaining enough. 7 out of 10.",1 "As a gay man, I can honestly say I HATED this film. It does TRY to show a certain type of gay man (obssessed with the gym, high-paying job, can't commit, treats everyone like dirt) but it fails miserably. Crummy cinematography, really pathetic script (I couldn't believe the actors actually SPOKE these words without gagging or barfing), even worse acting, not ONE sympathetic character, and an ending that doesn't make a bit of sense, seeing it just tells us the same things we've been hearing since the beginning of the movie! This film actually makes the characters in ""The Boys in the Band"" seem like positive gay men! Also, this ""group"" of people just shows a VERY small portion of the gay society. It also portrays every gay man as a vicious queen. I can't believe a gay man wrote and directed this movie. Talk about ""internalized homophobia""! A total waste of time (I can't say talent). DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!!!",0 "I can't do enough to dissuade anyone from seeing this movie. Oh yes, it's bad. Evil bad. And I've seen plenty of bad movies. This one's even worse than Hootch County Boys-and that's bad. You want to know how bad?

Okay. The plot involves this guy who wants to seduce a high-up lady in society, so he needs this aphrodesiac-making kettle thingy, but he also for some reason switches the heads on these two other girls...see, it's all very confusing, and makes little to no sense whatsoever. Yes, like all ninja movies, it has the prerequisite cheezy fighting scenes, some of them quite hilarious (like the barfing coolie-hatted ninja and the guy who shoots blades out of his eyeballs) but they are not numerous enough to assuade the pure monotony of most of this picture.

Unlike Hootch County, you cannot even put this movie on if you want to go to sleep soundly, as it is too distrubing for this. Oh, just don't see it under any circumstances, and you'll be all right. No, it's not even funny bad! Okay, well I warned you...",0 "In Seoul, parts not matching of severed copses of three men are found in cars and bags left in public spaces. Detective Cho (Suk-Kyu Han), who is under investigation of the Internal Affairs, is assigned to lead the investigation with his team. When the identities of the men are discovered, the police finds that the artist Su-Yeon Chae (Eun-ha Shim), who lives with her friend Seungmin Oh (Jung-ah Yum), had been lover of the men. Detective Cho and his force protect Su-Yeon and follows the leads based one the information she tells, while the killer executes other victims. However, Cho discloses very dark secrets in the end, finding the real motives of the murderer.

""Telmisseomding"" is a stylish and gore South Korean thriller, with a magnificent cinematography, camera and acting, and an awesome music score. Unfortunately the director and the screenplay writer have not succeeded and the story is totally confused mainly after the last twist. I have my interpretation but some points are missing or does not make sense, and I did not understand the bond between Su-Yeon and Seungmin (the homosexual love between them is subtle and not clear whether it is corresponded or not) and who is the killer indeed. It seems that Su-Yeon has actually killed her lovers based on her sexual trauma with her obsessive father, but if this premise is correct, why Seungmin had the aggressive attitude when the detectives arrive in the hospital? Or maybe both girls were the killers and Su-Yeon wanted to blame Seungmin and plotted the whole situation in the Tower Records. Therefore, the story is flawed and not clear. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): ""Partes de um Segredo"" (""Parts of a Secret"")",0 "I tried to spoil my girlfriend, who studies Japanese culture, with a film and it worked! Unagi (the Eal) tells a story of man who commits a 'crime passionelle' by murdering his wife. When he leaves prison the guards bring him 'his' eal. Under supervision of a local priest he tries to live a peaceful peasant-life in a place where nobody knows about his past; he becomes a barber, the eal is his friend ('they never say things you don't like..'). The situation changes when, on instigation of the priest, a girl starts assisting him in his shop. Inevitable his dilemma's come back...

I loved this film for it reminded me much of the films of the Dutch director/producer Alex van Warmerdam; the ordinary, tightly directed up to every detail, the sufficating dilemma's lightly woven thru. Modern drama at it's best!",1 "This is a straight, nonsensical comedy starring 2, or should 3 (Nancy) actors I have never witnessed before. On the same vein as ""Dumb and Dumber"" and ""There's something about Mary"" (the Farrelly brothers), I found this movie to be a humorous ""Fight Club"". In fact, I liked a lot more how the conflict of multiple personalities is handled on this movie; the ending, actually, made a bit more sense (though it would be a toss-up to say this film is better than Fight Club).

The film-making tandem of Tom Kennedy & Alex Harz, seem to have the potential to be the next Farrelly brothers or Trey Parker and Matt Stone: aiming for the limit of what audiences might stand in front of a screen. Be sure to watch this film with your best friends, and get ready to laugh yourself silly over this one. It's a good one!",1 "Let's get straight to the point, this is low budget horror. So at the end, you've probably got what you asked for; below par acting, below par sets, below par directing and below par anything else that you might want to add. Of course you can come across very good low budget movies, and this certainly doesn't rank as one of the worst I've seen by any stretch of the imagination (see scarecrow or the Pumpkin Karver for that accolade for example), but this could have been so much better. The plot is typical slasher horror fair, with young college students trapped in a building, and the first half hour is quite interesting, setting up the situation. But then the film slows right down, and unfortunately it is very clichéd and never really sparks. There are also a number of very odd situations created that are plain annoying, and as with so many recent movies the attempted 'twist' is just pants. Certainly if the director had cut 20 or even 30 minutes out of this film it would have been a far more enjoyable fair. As it stands its a passable way to waste an evening if you have nothing better to do, and aren't expecting great cinema, but there are far better slasher movies out there.",0 "As much as it is about politics (anarchy, rebellion, the lies of nationhood and imperialism, etc.), Izo also contains the key to Miike's personal creative philosophy. Consider that Miike is probably one of the most prolific filmmaker's of all time. It has been said by other critics that he is more in love with the process of making movies, than having made movies. Many filmmakers I have worked with seem to prefer having made the movies--having that list of accomplishments to look back on, to show others, to impress people with. I think Miike strives for continual rebirth through his work, much like Izo strives for transformation through the act of nonstop destruction and homicide. Izo's transformation is one from apparent humanity to inhumanity--a fanged, drooling, screaming, red eyed demon. When Izo runs the treadmill of infinity in this film he is struggling to break free of the cycle of death and rebirth that ensnares humanity. Only Miike would boldly portray a man of incredible violence and ruthlessness as having what it takes to burst through all of that to a final confrontation with a powerful being that may be God itself. I prefer to think of Miike this way, a maniac railing against all things--nationhood, conformity, morality, ethics, religious authorities, military authorities, sexuality, family, the workplace, and , in this movie at long last, against God itself. For those of you who have seen this movie, I urge you to compare Izo with Ichi from Ichi the Killer, and Izo's ultimate rebirth with similar imagery from Gozu. I would suggest that the fate of the protagonist of Audition is also a form of rebirth. Izo is a stunning testament to the power of sheer determination, guts, and the willingness to battle all foes, be they God or less, which drives so singular and inspirational an artist as Takashi Miike.",1 "I was 10 years old when I first saw this movie (and I was born in 1993), and it was one of my favorites. The 90's had a lot of very great movies, and I had to watch movies when I reached an age where I'd understand them. At 10 years old, I began to watch movie after movie to catch up to my older sister. Hook has many talented actors in it, and the plot was very good. The action scenes were very well done, the pirates were incredibly detailed in their clothes, and the whole island brought me back to the world of wonder that is Never Never Land. The Disney movie of it was what led me to watch this one, and because I watched the Disney one, it made me love this one even more. Sure, there are some of you who say it could have been better, and in some ways, I do agree, but for what they had to work with, I say it was a spectacular adventure.",1 "John Hurt has plays so many roles it is difficult which he personally would select as his best. For Me, I've seen him play mad emperors, tyrant Dictators and pleasant storytellers all with the same conviction of a true Thespian. In this film "" The Outlander "" his role is relegated to playing the courageous Rothgar, the Danish Chiefton of the Northland Vikings. From out in the distant galaxies and far from his own home world, comes 'Kainan' a space traveler (James Caviezel) who's spacecraft has been damaged and sent careening towards Earth. Upon crashing, he discovers he is on 'Old Earth' circa 10th century, Norway. Unfortunately, he quickly ascertains one of the creatures he was battling in space has joined him when he lands. Here he must not only adapt to the Viking way of life, but hunt down and destroy the last of a race of creatures called the 'Moorwen.' Sophia Myles plays Freya, the chieftain's strong willed daughter and Wulfric (Jack Huston) the brave heir apparent. Ron Perlman is Gunnar and displays some excellent acting as does young Bailey Maughan who is Erick. The movie is a surprising blend of Alien, the 13th warrior and Beowulf. The dramatic action theme is way above par, while the physical confrontational scenes and special effects are incredible. A superb movie and a worthwhile entry on it's way to becoming a memorable Classic. Highly recommended for all! ****",1 "One of those high-budget, yet relentlessly schlocky movie-star vehicles which both pander and condescend to a mass audience; the pedigree talent involved may well warrant a viewing, yet the film is so pompous it makes viewers feel like chumps for watching. Harrison Ford plays a slimy, self-absorbed lawyer whose life takes a drastic turn after he walks into a liquor store being robbed. Annette Bening plays Ford's spouse who helps her husband through a difficult period, and has a rebirth of her own. This is precisely the type of material director Mike Nichols would have thumbed his nose at twenty years ago; working here rather joylessly, Nichols wraps all the phony uplift in cinematic Saran Wrap. The self-deceit (and smugness) hanging over the film is like a gray pallor. *1/2 from ****",0 "Like other reviewers, I've acquired the remastered DVD version of 'Buck Privates'. Bud and Lou fit into the story pretty well, far better than their stint in 'One Night in the Tropics'. The story rolls along at a breakneck pace and I especially enjoyed the steam loco shots as the train transported the boys to boot camp. The Andrews Sisters as usual are fabulous with some great songs.

What really impressed me was the photography, perhaps not something people would normally comment on in an A & C movie. Previous copies I've viewed have been grainy and washed out whereas this new print is visually great to look at. It was interesting for the first time to be able examine characters in the background, see facial expressions more clearly and especially, watch Lou 'working' both Bud and the crew off screen.

Clearly, Lou, like Stan Laurel and Buster Keaton, was a genius of comedy timing, the likes of which we may never see again.",1 "I thought this movie was excellent, entertaining and very informing of people like Connie Volkos. She is a despicable thief, a nut and definitely personality disordered and sociopathic. She is not concerned with ruining other people's lives and is oblivious to the devastation she causes. She takes no responsibility for her actions and thinks she can just get away with things. It all started when Michelle Brown (the victim) walks into the loan office were Connie worked, with a skirt on that Connie liked. When her credit card is declined at the store she steals Michelle's credit card and information and dishonestly has the luxuries life, she wants. In the end all I can say to her is that, ""Hey when you've layed around your whole life, you don't just get to say one day, ""Oh I think I want what everybody else has worked so hard for their whole life"". It does not work that way"".",0 "I couldn't disagree more with the teenager that watched it for school. This was terrific acting of an episode in history that affects any resident of the world. Well acted by the leading characters, good explanation of the historical context of the situation, and a fascinating portrayal of the differing interests of the three nations involved. I was riveted to it. The stakes involved for each country were enormous beyond belief, and I appreciate that it wasn't trivialized by Hollywood by throwing in love interests, happy endings, and 'awesome' special effects. Rather, it's an editing and re-enactment of actual words, meetings, press releases, etc that nevertheless is very dramatic and straightforward. I have watched this show, and, in addition, the Band of Brothers mini-series, and Patton for a good understanding of the interrelationships, tribulations, and objectives of WW II at the leadership level, the military's level, and at the level of the guy in the trenches. It all makes sense when you put it all together, with each reinforcing the other.

Old movies never die, they just fade away (apologies). Frankly, I don't buy many DVDs, but I will be looking for this one!

Since I first wrote this in 2004, I have just discovered (May 2007) that it was released on DVD back in Feb. ! I'm anxiously awaiting delivery.",1 "A one joke movie- but its a great joke.1940s gumshoe Rigby Reardon{Steve Martin} gets a visit by sultry client Rachel Ward whose father has gone missing. Then the fun begins.Set in and around 40s LA, this film combines Martin interacting with clips of characters and scenes from classic 40s noir.He gets advice from Marlowe- the actual clip of Bogart is shown and flawlessly inserted into the film. Along the way, he gets to interact with Alan Ladd{This Gun For Hire}, Barbara Stanwick and Fred Mac Murray{from Double Indemnity}, Burt Lancaster{from The Killers}, Cagney {The prison scene from White Heat} Cary Grant {from Suspicion} Edward Arnold, Bette Davis, Charles Laughton, etc. This film works like a charm because it parodies the noir that it spoofs in a lovable and respectable way. It is never held up to ridicule. The beautiful black and white photography and costume designs by the late great Edith Head all work as one.The ending is a riot! If director Reiner playing a Nazi with a bogus German accent doesn't make you laugh, hothing will. Its all there- the seedy office, the rainy nights, the 40s cars, and the typical noir jargon that made these films great. Ir will probably appeal more to film buffs than the average viewer, but thats OK. Martin has never been better- and Rachel Ward is a knockout too.Great fun!",1 "Just thought I'd add to some of the comments here, having seen ""Erin Merryweather"" in New York. This is an amazing film, beautifully paced and really quite spooky. The cast is top-notch (rare for an independent film with no big ""stars""), particularly the two leads, Vigdis Anholt (who plays the title role) and David Morwick (Director, Screenwriter and Producer as well as co-star). First of all, ""Erin"" is lovingly shot, the camera work is fluid and inventive, and much of the story is told through some of the best (and creepiest) fairy-tale artwork I've seen. The original score - at once sad, foreboding and apocalyptic - complements the tone nicely. Can't say enough about this film, but it certainly didn't fit with some of the DV ""slasher"" stuff I saw at the rest of the festival. If you see this around, check it out.",1 "This 3rd Addams Family film seems to be a movie adaptation of the 1990's cartoon series as opposed to the Original Black & White TV series which the first two films were based on. This movie has ""comedic"" elements which give it a completely different style to the first two movies. And not in a good way.

The premise of this film, a family reunion of the Addams family, is utterly preposterous considering there was a family reunion all the way back in the first Addams Family film, when Uncle Fester had a party thrown in his honour. You have to wonder if the people who made this film had ever even seen the other two. It would appear the characters certainly hadn't as they mistake a group of people with the last name of ""Adams"" for ""Addams"".

It's not surprising this film was direct-to-video. However it is surprising that this film was made at all.",0 "This is simply awful. A load of sloppy dildo-humor and incoherent lines of dialog. The movie lacks definite focus to a point where you wonder if the film ever had a script, the ending is by far the most idiotic resolution I have ever seen. Stay away, or you might have nightmares; this movie is simply the definition of a ""failed comedy"" film... The acting is decent and the directing is OK, but this does not save it from being extremely painful to watch, I would rather burn alive than see this piece of crap again. The obvious targeted costumer here is a middle aged Swedish old lady who thinks movie like ""Shindlers list"" and ""The Godfather"" is too serious and violent. Conclusion: Swedish films generally suck. I know, I'm a swede.",0 "In Spanish-speaker culture, ""Cantinflear"" is a approved word (The Real Academic of Spanish language). That means so much in a language. Cantinflas is the best comedian in our culture. He was Passepartout in ""Around the World in Eighty Days"", but the better performance were in the trial of the movie ""Ahí está el detalle"", all the people finished speaking like him (cantinfleando). I believe that the confusion in this movie is so good due to Bobby was a dog but the trial was a man murderer. Cantinflas is the Best comedian in America Spanish-speaker.",1 They showed this movie to us in school when I was 7 or 8 years old and it was just so sad. Having grown up in a rough part of Chicago I connected with the settings and characters in the film right away and this film has stayed with me for the last 38 years. The film pulls you back and forth between joy and sorrow. between anger and sympathy. It will pull at you heart only to be devastated at the climax of the story. Even the villains in the film seem to realize what they have done and they suddenly go from being characters to hate to just people playing their role in the urban jungle. There are some very valuable lessons to be learned from this film for people of all ages and I would recommend it to anyone.,1 "Just watched it. I was so eager to watch it after all the praise it got from IMDb and even a loyal facebook fan base. Stay away. The whole movie is predictable, besides the twist - which had me in hysterical laughing fits, it's plain ridiculous. The movie is one cliché after another, the acting is not too bad, but the story is just lame. I don't understand what separates this film from other 'teen slasher/horror' movies. How can someone describe it as a horror? It was utterly lame. Me and my gf predicted the film in 5 minutes. What's the point of watching something so predictable? Even the twist didn't save it. Enough with these repetitive projects, create something original. I can also admit that I enjoyed Midnight Movie more than this. Stay away not even for a rainy evening.",0 Beautiful portrait of a young man whose innocence is so pure that he is not affected by the harsh reality around him. Mulroney radiates his sweet personality all through the movie. A collector's gem for all fans of him or the rest of the impressive cast.,1 "In the ""Purple Rose of Cairo,"" Woody Allen finally stays behind the camera for the first time since 1978's ""Interiors,"" stepping away from constantly playing these neurotic show- biz/writer characters to brings us more of a romantic comedy that celebrates film as a form of escapism rather than a form of art. It's a delightful breath of fresh air for those that love his films but are tired of seeing Woody do his same old shtick.

Allen's muse of the 1980s, Mia Farrow, stars as Cecilia, a Depression-era New Jersey waitress with an abusive husband who spends nearly every day at the movies, seeing the same pictures over and over again. The latest movie, ""The Purple Rose of Cairo"" stars the charming Gil Shepherd as the naive and optimistic Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels). Cecilia is charmed by his performance and returns again and again, until suddenly the character Tom Baxter walks out of the screen and into her life, creating a crisis at the theater and flipping Cecilia's world upside-down.

This odd fantasy element is intriguing in concept, but it's rather jarring in the film to start with. Allen must quickly establish that it's only the character Tom, not the actor Gil, coming out of the screen, that it's just this one theater in New Jersey and all these other details to get us to subscribe to his imaginative idea. After awhile, however, it all makes sense and it works brilliantly to create a conflict of fiction versus reality.

Farrow is great as this stammering, broken and hopeless romantic who struggles with her convictions and her drive to go where her heart leads her. She ends up in a conundrum as what was only an escapist fantasy becomes a tangible part of her life. She can either choose to live out her fantasies despite them not being real or live a real life.

Allen challenges us to understand the lines between fiction and reality, to grasp why it is we go to the movies, what it is we seek there. ""The Purple Rose of Cairo"" does this in a silly, satirical way, but occasionally a line will be spoken that is quite poignant (as Allen does well more overtly in his other films).

""Purple Rose of Cairo"" is a really nice change of pace for Allen, the type of film that will still challenge his audience but also give them the escapist romantic fantasy that we so yearn for when we go to the theater.",1 "I really enjoyed this movie a lot when it first came out 8 long years ago and I decided to revisit it with my little brother tonight and enjoyed it just as much as I did back then. I think it's definitely one of the better Marvel films and up there with the first Spider-Man and Iron Man. I'm definitely glad I decided to check it out again.

There are a lot of great elements in this film and I thought the story along with the effects were both great. The acting was really good as well with great performances from James Marsden and Hugh Jackman. I thought they did a great job of adapting the comic book into this film as I've been a big fan of the comic books since I was very little kid.

Most Marvel fans have most likely seen this film, and a few times over. However, if you haven't yet, you really should do yourself the favor of checking it out. You probably will enjoy it quite a bit.",1 "Forget Heinz Ruehmann playing Heinz Ruehmann interpreting the ""Hauptmann von Koepenick"", concentrate on some of the remarkable supporting actors and actresses to have at least some fun. And then, try to get 1931's ""Hauptmann von Koepenick"" with Max Adalbert...",0 "I think many people that see this don't realize is that much of the dialog is not scripted. The actors are given information about what there character is like and they themselves create the scene. I place this on the same level of comic genius as ""Who's Line Is It Anyway?"".

This type of comedy is not for everyone and that is why some people feels this comes off as quirky. I have to be honest and say I have never seen ""The Office"" so I cannot comment on any of the comparisons.

I am happy that this series has been picked up for another season (3). I do have to admit that I could not see this running on one of the major networks, but TBS is a great place for it. I would like to see about five or six seasons then have a made for TV movie type conclusion.",1 I am a really big fan of horror films I've seen Texas chainsaw Halloween you name it I've seen it. My favourite is child's play 1 saw the the 1st chuck film when i was 9 and i loved it. I recommend who ever reads this go and see child's play 1 but you have to buy it because it is banned and its rare to get hold of in hired shops especial in england. If you want to know why its banned look it up. Childs play 2 is good if you see the 1st one you can compare it but after you see the first one you will notice that don Mancini has mucked the story line up. I notice that because he didn't explain nothing at all about it he changed everything the main characters from the 1st one should have been in the second one. he should have changed the 2nd story line into the the 3rd one and come up with something explaining what happened to Andy's mum. I recommend after seeing the 1st chuck don't see the rest up to you but if you see the last 4 you will find that the plot as gone you will get really confused about what happened to the main characters. Plus after seeing the last 4 you will find they are boring I recommend to just see the 1st child's play because the 1st was superb,1 "In Alfred Hitchock's The Trouble With Harry, the old geezer pulls our leg a bit, offering a sweet but rather cynical black comedy about how best to dispose of a dead body found by an old sea captain. Actually, none of the characters in the film give a hoot about the dead man but are only seeking to protect themselves from scandal.

The film, however, is a delightful entertainment, beautifully photographed amidst the Vermont fall foliage, and filled with indelible performances by Shirley MacLaine in her first screen role and veterans Mildred Natwick, Edmund Gwenn, Mildred Dunnock, and John Forsyth. Even though Hitch portrays people at their most loathsome, there is still something so charming about them that you can't help but smile and forgive their all too human foibles.",1 """Satyricon"" is among the weirdest and most colorful, larger-than-life movies I've ever seen, along with Erasurehead, Erendira, Santa sangre, Naked lunch... If you don't like these, don't even try ""Satyricon"".

On one hand, its many flaws are rather upsetting. The out-of-sync lipping (bad post-sync), the fact that the movie neither really tells a story nor evocates sensible moral or philosophical concepts... so one may say it's actually a dull movie. The violence in this movie doesn't seem to make real sense, neither does the homosexuality, neither does the ""romanian decadence"" portrait.

On the other hand, the scenography, the sets, the costumes and makup are among the most dazzling ones you'll ever see in cinema, and the cinematography... well... maybe the BEST one you'll ever see. I can't think of any another movie able to compete with ""Satyricon""'s mindblowing cinematography. Each scene is a terrific picture, with several visual layers, extraordinary lights and focuses, a lot of invention, of visual flair, and the overall technical mastery is stunning.

The result is something mesmerizing for some, totally disgusting for others. I have to say I'm more on the mesmerized side, because I was mainly focused on the visual/meditative aspects of the movie, not on the narrative ones.

If you're really into cinema, I mean as an artistic media more than as entertainment, you MUST see ""Satyricon"", as it's to my sense the most *visually* outstanding movie ever made. Be prepared for some disappointment about the movie as a whole, though...",1 "This movie is a piece of crap. Period. The lighting is awkward. There is one noticeable blooper in every scene. There are plot holes left and right. The acting is awful. The budget is noticeably low. And for all these reasons, it's extremely entertaining.

Basically, the movie starts out with three women being arrested for (according to the Box description) ""Crimes they didn't commit. After this, they are all sent to jail. All of these 'crimes' are just a form of self-defense, and would most likely result in a fine, at worst. To believe that a woman defending herself from an armed robber is worth jail time is laughable. In jail (which is constructed of an old elevator gate, and could be pushed over without effort) they all are released under the promise they find the killer of ""Nitro Jones"" (horribly played by Juvenille).Not surprisingly, he is in the movie for less than five minutes, yet gets the lead credit. Awesome. Following that is a period of awful fight scenes, terrible dialogue, and stereotypes.

This movie is one of the worst movies ever made, but it's a must see for this reason.

GOOFS: One of the girls call's the character ""Baby Boy"" by the actors name ""Skip"".

When Nitro says ""It's hot in here"" and touches his shirt, you can hear heavy feedback from the mike.

The tag-line is ""Bad Girls with Big Guns"". Only one of the girls actually holds a gun in this movie, and it is only to take it away from a bad guy.

The cover is obviously photoshoped and one of the girls on the cover isn't even in the movie.

Outside of Keefer's (a lawyers) office, you can easily see that a biohazard warning has been spray painted off the building.

The Hooker in the prison with the Angel's asks if they have anything she can smoke that's ""Not a cigarette"". Obviously, they'd have search all of them for drugs, so this question is down right unbelievable.

The Fight scenes are sped up so they can be performed slower in real life.",0 "I watched season 1 and the beginning of season 2 in a weekend, and now I am addicted. Could Nico and Kirby together be any hotter??? They have amazing chemistry! I am in awe of the two of them together, it is crazy. I hope the writers of this show keep them together because it is hot! All three women are strong women who I can totally relate to because of my own career. This show is real good and I can't wait to watch it again. I think everyone who loved sex and the city would love this show. My friends have talked about this show since it was on, but I figured since i missed the first season it would be hard to get into it, but I was wrong. It is a great show!",1 "I first saw this movie on TCM, and I became enamored of this fabulous acting couple. I won't repeat the fabulous reviews of this film, but I hounded TCM to reschedule the movie, but alas. Then thanks to an amazon.com seller, I bought the video. I have watched it over and over. What fun to see Lunt running around in disguise and thinking he was putting something over on his wife. And Zasu Pitts as the maid, she's priceless!

The Guardsman has also put me in touch with their biographies, what wonderful lives they led. They were Broadway stars, Lunt and Fontanne, they have a Broadway theater named for them.

And 77 years later, the Guardsman still brings laughs to us. Thank goodness for them!",1 "This film was so derivative, the only pleasure we got watching it was trying to identify which movie a particular scene was most directly stolen from. The result is a formless mishmash with no character of its own.

At every turn, there was something that didn't make sense - such as the two main characters entering and wandering around freely in an insane asylum (which was itself as clichéd as anything in the movie.) What, no security, no locked doors to keep the inmates in or intruders out?

Rating: skip this one.",0 I remember seeing this movie when I was about 4 years old and let me tell you that it was great. I was always renting this movie and I was always watching the TV show. It was one of the most fantastic animated adventure made when I was a child. I will always remember the thrill of seing Adora transform herself into She-Ra to save Etheria. It is so sad that it had to end. I really hope that one day a network will show it again to the next generation of children.,1 "Unremarkable love story between a well educated woman (Scachi) and a simple Scottish sailor (D'Onofrio) that goes on and on for almost thirty years. They lived separate lives but sometimes they get together and live passionate and feverish days of pure joy and lovemaking. A thin plot and cardboard characterizations and dialogues make this one a boring and peasant look upon the problems of the relationship of two diferent persons. Besides, D'Onofrio is completely miscast in the role of a Scottish fellow. I give this a 4 (four).",0 "This is one of two cartoons I have watched with Porky and Sylvester (the other being ""Jumpin' Jupiter""). Personally, I thought this cartoon worked very well, with a new theme of horror (which is both funny and freaky) and the fact that Sylvester never speaks and is a great deal more of a coward than a hunter of Tweety (who is not in this cartoon whatsoever). Porky is an entertaining character here, who is especially heart-warming closer to the end.

In this short, Porky and Sylvester have moved into a big, spooky house and Sylvester is terrified of his new surroundings. He has good reason to be terrified, as the house is populated with horribly murdering mice. Sylvester, as he is a cat who cannot speak, cannot tell Porky of the horrible creatures in the house and just stays close to his owner, hoping that they will not be killed...

I enjoyed this cartoon for the originality of it and for some of the jokes, which, despite being very slapsticky, were quite humorous. I enjoyed the new character of Sylvester, whom I prefer to his character with Tweety, of which he is more famous for.

I recommend this to people who like Sylvester and Porky and who like/don't mind to see cartoon horror. Enjoy ""Scaredy Cat""! :-)",1 "I was in my twenties when this show was on and I loved it, too. It was quirky and different and I just wish it had been given time to grab an audience. Unfortunately, it came out before the viewing public started wanting something different from the usual detective TV show fare...that was so dull and predictable that you not only recognized the plot but could usually anticipate the dialogue. I always liked different though and remember how refreshing I found this show and its stars. It was delightful and introduced me to it's two stars Ben Vereen and Jeff Goldblum. It's sense of humor, for those that never had the opportunity to see it, reminded me of a show that came out several years later and was quite successful, Moonlighting. It was fresh and totally different and perhaps, in retrospect, that uniqueness is exactly what sent this wonderful show to an early grave. I hope that eventually some kind (and highly intelligent) soul does see the need to release it on DVD; I will certainly buy it. And I'd love to see it show up as a rerun...if some bright exec from TVland or Sleuth channels happens to be reading this. I think this show would weather the years well and that audiences today would love it. Sadly, it was just a show that debuted before its time.",1 "Sorry, but I have to say there was only one aspect of this film that was enjoyable, and that was the sweeping scenery. And these wonderful scenes were sandwiched in between the most absurd and drivel filled scenes imaginable.

I gave the movie about 30 minutes and had to press eject. Too much pointless obscenity, nudity, and violence. If the plot made any sense I would have tried to stick it out. Perhaps a film critic and or film student would have enjoyed this (for reasons unknown to me or anyone else that could care less about such things), but I certainly couldn't.

If you are like most people who probably rented this because of Dwight, don't bother. For everything he is credited for on this movie (writing, starring, directing and musical score), he fails - miserably.",0 "I try to be positive when watching a movie. I usually don't bring many expectations to the table. Generally, I can find something worthwhile in any movie I watch, even when the movie sucks ass. However, except for the ample cleavage, this movie totally sucks in every department.

The acting is very amateurish all around, the writing is poverty-row (at best), the cinematography is quite poor in a lot of places (lots of out of focus shots), and the ""special effects"" are laughable. Plus, this movie has a couple of the worst child actors I've ever seen! Damn!!!! I wanted to smack them every time they appeared on screen.

I walked into this with an open mind, but for all my efforts, I just ended up getting robbed of money and 80 minutes of my life that I'll never get back!

",0 "This movie was really bad, I think that the title fooled me because I thought that there would be at least more vampire call girls and more of a vampire acting but what I got was a bunch of boring sex scenes including a girl straddling a washing machine while some goof with glasses watches through a peep hole, a lady at a club watching the most horrible band in the world play with a guy playing a guitar with only one note and then she takes him back stage, or vice versa and straddles the guy. Then there's the red neck who gets ripped off by one of the call girls and goes after her at the head call girl's house and asks for his money back and they all seduce him instead. This movie was nothing but a compilation of lame skits, terrible acting and left overs from last years copy of Hustler and thats it.",0 "Since I get unlimited rentals from Netflix, I often mix in some stupid movies, sometimes because I feel like watching a lighter movie that doesn't require any thinking, and sometimes just out of morbid curiosity. It was the latter that compelled me to rent ""New York Minute"" starring the Olsen twins.

""New York Minute"" has gotten universally bad reviews from critics, but I considered that the mere fact that the movie starred Mary-Kate and Ashley invited ridicule from people who haven't even seen it. Despite a traumatic experience in my teenage years, when I was repeatedly forced to watch ""It Takes Two"" (an Olsen twins version of ""The Parent Trap"") by some kids I frequently babysat, I gave this one a chance. To my surprise, it was even stupider than it looked. Even stupider than the critics led me to believe. Even stupider than ""It Takes Two."" So stupid that I hardly know where to begin… The interchangeable Olsen twins play, you guessed it, twin sisters. Although they are identical in appearance, they have completely opposite personalities: Jane is the conservative, overachieving twin, while Roxy is a messy, truant punk. Eugene Levy plays a truancy officer who's obsessed with catching Roxy.

Jane and Roxy are both taking a trip into the city -- Jane to deliver a speech for a scholarship contest, and Roxy to go to a concert -- and a predictable case of mistaken identity leads to both twins getting kicked off the train. While they're at the train station, FBI agents descend on a guy trying to hand off what turns out to be a computer chip with pirated music (leading one to wonder why they didn't just e-mail the files or something), causing him to slip said chip into Roxy's purse, resulting in a Chinese-wannabe limo driver chasing the twins through NYC to recover the chip.

During the bizarre chase, Jane accepts a ride from the limo driver because she can't wait 3 hours for the next train, even though she has more than 6 hours to get to her speech. Then Roxy tosses the important chip onto a tray of food, which the dog proceeds to eat. At one point, the twins end up in a sewer, but the scary black people-turned-nice at House of Bling give them multiple free makeovers (despite Jane's tight schedule to get to her speech, she takes the time to try on half a dozen outfits and dance around in each one) and a cab to drive. Meanwhile, the truancy officer commandeers and subsequently wrecks a tourist couple's RV to chase down Roxy, but then gets promoted for busting the pirated music ring.

It all comes together to create possibly the stupidest movie ever made. What's really sad about ""New York Minute"" is that it was supposed to be a vehicle to show that the Olsen Twins are serious actresses, but it ultimately just shows how undeserving they are of their fame and fortune. (1/10)",0 "'The Night Watchman' was the debut directional effort by that great master of animation, Chuck Jones. Typical of Jones's serviceable but rather dull Disney pastiches that characterised his early work, 'The Night Watchman' is an unbearably gooey little offering with a constant lack of energy that is sorely required to bolster the wafer thin plot. A young cat (a clear prototype for Jones's cloying early character Sniffles) takes over the post of night watchman when his father is too ill to carry out the job. Immediately, he falls foul of some tough guy rats who push him around and take advantage of the absence of any real threat to gorge themselves with food and have a big night out in the kitchen. Of course, the cat finally turns the tables when his conscience buoys him up for a big final showdown. Betraying none of the talent he would become famous for (and, let's be fair, this was his first film), Jones lays out the story in a straightforward, no-frills manner. The characters are all severely lacking in charisma, particularly the so-wet-you-almost-don't-feel-sorry-for-him cat, the animation is lumbering and predictable, the musical number is flat and the story doesn't build naturally, instead resorting to a tacked on and completely unsatisfying finale in which the cat does a too-sudden about face and metes out a workmanlike beating to each individual rat, a production line revenge that is less than thrilling to watch. Of course, Warner Bros. was still finding its feet as an animation studio and 'The Night Watchman' is not significantly worse than many of the lesser cartoons of the time but, other than its historical importance as Jones's debut, there's really nothing here that I'd recommend to the casual cartoon fan.",0 "Looking at some of the other user comments, I realize that many sought to extol the purported virtues of this film, professing Lucrecia Martel's artistic brilliance and method for capturing personality and conflict as demonstrated in this, her ""ouevre,"" but as far as I'm concerned, these people must be blind, if not also deranged. This movie is abysmal. It's inert, without direction and a true chore to finish. The first hour and a quarter scarcely set the stage, with the duration moving no quicker or more palatably, and I'm more than patient with artistic efforts that appear to want for plot, but this was pointlessly plot less and otherwise utterly bereft of potentially other redeeming features. The bulk of the acting is mediocre to average, Martel's writing without flair or innovation, and the camera work and editing pretty much boring. Why Almodovar was willing to put his name on this work (and I'm convinced that it was his name and no more, based on the wretchedly lobotomizing slowness of the story, bloviating banality and clear absence of captivating content) is beyond me. And I would like to clarify that this dreadful film school fare should not even be included in the same paragraph, let alone be the subject of any direct comparison (unless it is a profoundly disparate one) to any of the following: Amores Perros or any of Inarritu's work, any actually-Almodovar-created work, the Cuaron Bro.s' Y Tu Mama, Salles' Motorcycle Diaries or Central Station, Meirelles' City of God or even the pretty but anticlimactic Carrera's Crimen del Padre Amaro. And I actually think that the scene settings, character list and cast had real possibility and promise: Mia Maestro (as the young Catholic teacher leading and incessantly lecturing the group of girls in choir practice in sanctimonious catechism-worthy restraint and denial of any sensation or sexual awakening, whom Amalia's friend Jose(fina) claims to have seen making out with a clandestine lover) is pretentiously chaste and overtly uptight but so comely and foreseeably coquettish that I would killed to have seen her character more developed or perhaps the explicit aforementioned trysts; María Alché is sufficiently intriguing, complex and coy that far more could have been done with her, apart from the dilapidated swimming pool and sneaking up on the tragically-boring Carlos Belloso/Dr. Jano; and, well, that's about it. Oh, I almost forgot, I will give Martel this: speaking from the somewhat limited experience as the son of a pathologist and a nurse, Martel DOES manage to capture how deliriously boring and maimingly monotonous a medical convention can be (otorhinolaryngologists no less, their motto would rightly be ""fun with phlegm""), particularly when held in a craphole motel (think Leaving Las Vegas' witty ""The Whole Year Inn""-cum-""The Hole You're In"") and further exacerbated by a tediously planned dramatization of how to conduct a patient interview (a device Martel must have found brilliant since she devotes exponentially more time to this than anything else). Please, if you take nothing else away from my admitted logorrhea, synthesize this: this movie is awful, Martel likely a hack worthy of condemnation rather than scatologicaly-founded praise, and above all else, I implore you, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME!",0 "As a standalone movie ""Highlander II - The Quickening"" is definitely a bad one, with uninspired plot, ludicrous scenes such as the one with the accelerating metro train, and pretty bad acting performances. Maybe not bad enough to become an unforgettable classic of bad film making, but certainly awful and ridiculous all the way. However, this movie deserves a special place in the realm of modern disasters in the film industry, because as a sequel it is absolutely abysmal, out of place, and an utter disgrace to the first one (and to the whole series, which never recovered after the atom-bomb that this movie dropped on the plot).

This flick could well be a warning for any director who wants to direct a sequel to any movie: if you're not absolutely sure about what you are doing, think again. This movie was so incoherent and inducted so many plot inconsistencies in the whole series that even the credibility of the first one came out irreparably damaged. It put a truckload of trite sci-fi elements in what was just a fantasy story, it denied everything that happened before... literally. The first time I saw this I was totally puzzled, I almost couldn't believe it.

As a standalone movie (and if I felt like being generous), I would rate this a 2 out of 10. But as a sequel, this gets...

1/10",0 "I don't know exactly how many movies did Clint Eastwood make as a director and/or actor with basically playing the same role in also almost the same story every time, detective who makes no excuses and goes in hunt for a serial killer...sounds more than familiar? And 'Tightrope' is exactly that kind of movie, although atmosphere is a bit darker than usual in Clint Eastwood's detective movies, which is a very good thing because the more darker the atmosphere in these kind of crime-mystery-thriller movies gets they get more exciting to watch. Other than slightly different atmosphere, 'Tightrope' is same as every other Clint Eastwood's detective film, it doesn't matter what his character's name is, Wes Block or Harry Callahan, it's the same personality and work approach. Fans of 'Dirty Harry' could love this, everyone else who is into investigative-thrillers should watch this movie.

7/10",1 "The movie turned out to be really good. I went to the special screening last Wednesday at the Magnolia. The movie was... different, not at all what I expected. There was hardly any background music; the mood was set directly from the scenes and the characters. It's going to be released late spring, so I do not want to give too much of it away. :) It was a horrific story, a true story. At times I wanted (and did) scream out. Other times the theater was filled with a nervous laughter, followed by gasps. The movie made you feel sentimental towards the characters, showing glimpses of whom they were, inside and out the Center, but at the same time making you despise them for the terrible crimes that they had committed and showed no remorse for.

Afterwards the director was there. He had flown in all the way from Brazil. When asked what his intended message of the movie was, he said ""Message!? If I wanted to send I message I would go to the Post Office!"" Also he stated that the destruction of the detention center, Carandiru, was an important step in their government. The place wasn't even a prison. I was a holding place for criminals before they even had a sentence. The place was only destroyed about a year ago. He just wanted to share it with others; I implied that it was for everyone to learn from instead of actually having to live it themselves. All in all it was a much enjoyable evening. 9/10",1 "Beginning in World War II-era Hungary, two soldiers stay at a remote country home. The sexually frustrated soldier Vendel (Csaba Czene) concerns himself with myriad masturbation techniques while watching his commanding officer's wife and daughters. The product of his frequent seed spillage, Kálmán (Gergo Trócsányi), grows to comfort his country as a champion eater. While the International Olympic Committee refuses to recognize his sport, Kalman remains stolid and captures the heart of Gizella (Adél Stanczel), a fellow female champion. Their heir, Lajos (Marc Bischoff), has not inherited an ounce of his parents' impressive girth. This sickly lad lives a life of quiet desperation as a taxidermist. A disappointment to his corpulent father, Lajos finds a few lucky solutions to solve his problems.

Following these three generations of fairly twisted fellows, TAXIDERMIA is light on plot but heavy on visuals. Visceral often to the point of being gross, few bodily fluids and orifices go unseen in Palfi's sophomore feature effort. Recommended.",1 "Richard Burton was always a wooden film actor and an overacting ham who just recited the lines in that horrid chain smoker's gravel voice of his. He was far too old for this film and looked like he was about to drop dead at any minute. All the other actors were too old and obviously unfit for their parts as well. This is a racist film, and it was made in South Africa in the apartheid era. This was a hugely controversial decision. Roger Moore, a Tory tax exile who should never have been cast as James Bond since he was already too old when he started, had no problems with funding apartheid throughout the 1970s. This is just a very bad, predictable and clichéd film by that hack director Andrew V McLaglen. To be avoided.

0/10.",0 "So I got this movie recommended by a horror-film buff at the local videostore, and I somewhat appreciate that he told me about this movie. It has a good plot and great potential to do something with it. It has a good soundtrack with mostly electronic songs on it. But it felt too much like a student project film for some course on film-making.

The main actor gets annoying fast and can't deliver dialogue at all. (Probably why they cast him in a serial killer role) And having the serial killer talk about what he's doing the entire length of the movie gets really boring and drawn out. I don't know where they got any of these actors, and I hope I'm not ""fortunate"" to see them in another film. The plot itself falls flat when the multi-twist ending gets pushed in your face and you feeel like screaming, ""Oh man!"" and feel ultimately disappointed. And if the main guy gives me one more Nietzsche quote, I'm gonna be his new killer.

Overall, a good concept which goes dry and actors who can't act or speak so they speak over the action. And the quality is sub par if that means anything. 4/10",0 "Literally one of the darkest of noir films, though not everyone's favorite it seems.

THE ENFORCER is criticized in several comments posted on IMDb in part for its portraying cops learning code words such as ""hit"" and ""contract"", for the first time.

The words are a minor springboard device which aren't crucial to the evidence. Eye-witness testimony is what the cops badly need to put the top man in the chair.

The historical context loosely linking the plot to Murder, Inc. hardly diminishes the ability of the film to hold up as an edgy crime suspense drama some 55 years later.

It's a movie with a great ensemble cast of character actors relishing the juicy dialog.

Of course viewers today aren't going to drop their jaws over the cinematic debut of words that have long since become common in the colloquial lexicon.

Especially when there are plenty of great lines in the film to enjoy, and even mimic over and over again:

Such as Ted De Corsia's ""He ain't human!"", ""I gotta get-out-of-here!"" and ""You know what to use. Use it!""

And the meeting between the #1 man and his #2 man, whose repartee enriched with sinister gestures is well worth rediscovering:

Mendoza- ""I've been worked over by some of the best, and you're just what I'm looking for."" Rico -""What? You want some more?"" Mendoza - ""I can use a guy like you!""

Rico - ""You must be nuts!"" Mendoza - ""I've still got a dime left. C'mon, I'll buy you a cup of coffee!""

Mendoza - ""Someday you'll realize I'm a great man. I'll make you a rich man."" Rico - ""I must have kicked you in the head!""

Mendoza - ""This is my first contract. I'm getting paid $500 for the hit."" Rico - ""You'll never have $500 as long as you live!""

My favorite shock scene is when a hit man realizes he's about to be ""taken care of"" by an old crony, he makes a desperate break for it into the night, letting out a blood-curdling scream.

THE ENFORCER is not presented as a bio or semi-documentary at all, really. There is no narration, no final moral. Bogey doesn't indirectly lecture the viewers, instead he's picking his own brain as Ferguson.

Though he's a dedicated lawman, Bogey's not playing a preachy reformer as did John McIntire (Police Commissioner Hardy), quite admirably to be sure, in the 1950 John Huston crime caper classic, THE ASPHALT JUNGLE.

ASPHALT JUNGLE and FORCE OF EVIL are also films with scenes of double-crosses and back- stabbing that I enjoy as much as THE ENFORCER.

Relentlessly grim, and for the most part original, THE ENFORCER stands on it's own.

The ending is a bit anti-climatic only because it wraps up so quickly after all the tension and flashbacks have reached the anticipated moment of the ""pay-off"", so I rate it a 9 out of 10.

I had no problem with the way the story unfolds as we are given pieces of the puzzle. The flashbacks get better and better so my advice is stick with it.

Underrated gem, deserving better than the reserved reviews and short shrift it often gets.

Zero Mostel, Everett Sloane, Ted De Corsia, Jack Lambert etc. all contribute what are perhaps among their best, if brief, performances on film,

TWO ICE-PICKS, WAY UP!",1 "This movie might have a directional setting towards the political and private life of India's Prime Minister, Indra Gandhi, nonetheless, its powerful and sentimental theme carries the audience with the subtle forces of life which all and sundry experience, at least, one or the other times in their married lives.

Gulzar has excellently directed the movie while adorning it with passionately electrifying emotional focus during certain scenes. The musical score and songs are worthy of all praise. The hypnotically tranquil appeal of the song ""Tere Bina Zindagi se Shikwa"" speaks volumes about the meaningful and touching melody besides its filming against the gloomy backdrop of a ruined historical monument in a moonlit night. Much different from the rubbish artificiality of present day movies, the songs of this film exude a living originality to the flow of events.

Sanjeev Kumar and Suchitra Sen both have given their lifetime best performances and Gulzar earned a big name with its release. It is definitely a must-see film.",1 """Trooper Hook"" is an engaging title, suggestive of a colorful robust cavalry Western, maybe something along the lines of those majestic John Ford numbers. Sadly, it's anything but that.

The original story is by Jack Schaeffer, who wrote the novel ""Shane."" The book wasn't that hot, being essentially a cobbled together and unsophisticated old-fashioned pulp piece. It was made into a Western masterpiece by George Stevens, the director, and his crew.

Well, Charles Marquis Warren is no George Stevens. His direction here and elsewhere is flat and uninspired. The script is of little help. After Sergeant Hook, Joel McRae, battles and defeats the Apaches, they find a captive white woman Barbara Stanwyck who has had a child by the Apache Chief, the camera-ready but modestly talented Rudolfo Acosta.

McRae takes Stanwyck and her child on a stagecoach ride, along with various other passengers, some of them obviously derivative. (When, oh, when, will we see a stagecoach in dangerous country without a greedy banker?) They are pursued by Acosta and his band, who have escaped from prison. Finally, McRae sees to it that Stanwyck and her husband, John Dehner, who has thought her dead for lo these seven or eight years, are reunited. The only problem is that Dehner doesn't like the notion that Stanwyck has been getting it on with an Apache, nor is he particularly fond of the prospect of raising ""another man's leavings."" Well, en fin, Dehner and Acosta are killed and Stanwyck and her boy leave with McRae, object: matrimony.

I suppose something could have been done with a plot like this, even if the Apaches in some ways are the usual stand-ins for African Americans. But it's a slow story with a lot of grumbling and no sparkles in the script. Whoever thought of casting the familiar and reliable, Viennese-as-all-get-out Cecilia Lovsky as a Spanish duena? She ought to be making Sacher-tortes, not tortillas. Barbara Stanwyck, a good and sexy actress ten or fifteen years earlier, looks steely. We're half an hour into the film before she has a line of dialog -- and not many after that. Joel McRae is almost unrecognizably aged and wears a mustache that makes him look older. It's not that actors in late middle-age don't belong in Westerns. McRae himself did a splendid job two years later in ""Ride the High Country"", under a far better director, and Gary Cooper was just about right in ""High Noon."" But, whatever your age, you need a good vehicle and a director who knows what he's doing -- and this ain't it.

It's not an insulting movie. Its sentiments aren't wrong. And it's not outrageously sloppy. It's just plain dull.",0 "Finally, I got to see this legendary masterpiece on TV. When I first heard that there was an Arabian movie featuring the Western icon ""Hopalong Cassidy""(William Boyd) and the Gothic icon Boris Karloff, the idea sounded like a disparate joke. (Actually, Karloff only plays a brief, minor role, being new to the silver screen at that time.)

The script is very original. The shooting is excellent for the times. And the acting is so well done, you feel what the characters feel, and can easily read the actors' lips for practically every line. Unlike many silent-era films, you get the sensation that you are in this one.

The comedy starts right from the opening scene, and I will describe it only to illustrate the unexpected silliness of William Boyd: He is in a night battle in World War I, and drops into a shell crater to avoid German gunfire. His 1st Sergeant, a bully and a brute whom he despises, had just fallen in before him, and is unconscious. Boyd tries to revive him until he sees who he is, and starts slinging mud on the Sergeant's face. He revives and they immediately jump into a fistfight in the mud. When a flare illuminates the night sky, they look up and see the hole is surrounded with numerous Germans with bayonets. The enemy was having a time watching them fight each other! It is an eye opener to see the future Hopalong Cassidy in a real cut-up comedy role, back when he looked like a very young cross between Marlon Brando and Jack Haley.

I was very impressed with the nitty-gritty reality in this film about POW's of World War I, in an era when glossed-over heroics and reality-denial dominated war films. Moreover, there is often a timeless feeling, especially during the POW camp scenes, which gives the viewer a sense of closeness to the people of that era; and the understanding that people have at all times in history been, in their own way, ""modern.""

The dual-based plot, (survival and escape, and later a pursuit of romance), rolls steadily through ever-changing backgrounds. The factors of comedy, action, danger, and romance blend harmoniously throughout. The relationship between Boyd's and Wolheim's characters develop from utter hatred, to enduring animosity, to forced survival cooperation, to mild mutual suspiciousness, to amorous competition, to strong friendship.

Though this is a silent film from 1927, centered on World War I in Europe and Turkey, I have never had such a modern and timeless feeling from a silent movie. This results from the cool, timeless acting and characterizations, and the excellent directing and shooting.

This is the first silent drammatic film my kids have thoroughly enjoyed, (until now only preferring silent comedic standards by Keaton, Chaplin, and Harold Lloyd.)",1 "I hated this movie. War movies are difficult to pull off as it is, at least historical ones, but this one fails more miserably than any I've seen. There are some okay moments. There's a few good moments between actors, and occasionally you can get the tension of the cat-and-mouse game of the two snipers. However, the rest is terrible. It's all war scenes, with one drinking scene and one sex scene. There's no chemistry between Jude Law and Rachel Weisz, and this is the probably the main reason why the sex scene is so weak and distasteful. It seems a little like a last-ditch attempt to say both ""Look! These characters really do have a relationship! They're having sex!"" as well as ""Look! It really is hard for these characters! They're having sex on a tiny cot!"" Not to mention an excuse to show Rachel Weisz' ass.

This is two hours of my life that I want back.",0 "As co-founder of Nicko & Joe's Bad Film Club Show here in the UK, all I can do is stand on my chair and applaud wildly. A true, true instance of a great bad movie, it's come a very close second to Shark Attack 3, which is of course THE BEST bad shark movie EVER.

The best thing about the film though is being able to see all of my favourite shark movies in the one film! Genius idea. So many times I've been stuck watching a movie like Star Wars and thought, jeesh, this movie is great, but it could do with a few Star Trek cut aways.

There are moments of true hilarity and you have to admire the balls it takes to put a film like this out there

Bravo, no, really, BRAVO.",1 "Maybe because I grew up watching SNL live during its first 5 or so years but I really got a laugh out of the Coneheads when they would do that skit on SNL. I admit I have not seen the movie in a while but I was just thinking about Laraine Newman from doing some reading about the group Devo (its a long story) and I just realized that she really got screwed not getting the role that she played on the TV show. I see pics of her on IMDb and she looks OK now, back in 93 she probably still looked cool, I mean why not use her as the kid? I mean there freakin aliens anyway so so what if a 35 year old plays a teenager. The teen in the movie Coneheads plays like the Marylin Munster type as the only semi normal one and her role is kinda lame except when she scarfs down the sub, that was funny, and Farleys reaction was about the best part of the movie. Well, I liked Coneheads but then again I liked Dragnet so I'm probably an Akyroid lover at heart that would watch anything he's in an enjoy it.",1 "Dark Tales of Japan is a collection of made-for-TV J-Horror stories, shot by popular Japanese directors. The result is a Twilight Zone style anthology that aims to please those who can't get enough of Japanese ghost films, but unfortunately it fails due to rather cheap production values, poor effects and a lack of genuine scares.

In 'Would You Like To Hear A Scary Tale?' (directed by Yoshihiro Nakamura), which acts as a 'wraparound' story for the whole anthology, a creepy old lady boards a late-night bus and proceeds to tell a scary story to the driver (despite his not being too keen on hearing one). She's obviously a ghost, but isn't the slightest bit frightening.

The Spiderwoman (also by Nakamura), follows a couple of magazine reporters who are writing an article on a mysterious monster that has been repeatedly sighted in the town of Ibaraki. The intrepid investigators track down the creature... and soon wish that they hadn't! A couple of creepy moments and some rather fun dodgy CGI make this tale just about watchable.

Next up is 'Crevices' (directed by Norio 'Ring 0' Tsuruta), in which a young man finds out exactly why a missing friend has plastered his apartment with red tape: it's to keep out the creatures that lurk in the crevices! Lots of creepy atmosphere make this the best of the bunch.

The Sacrifice (directed by Koji Shiraishi) is the title of the third story, and although lacking in scares, it is made watchable by the presence of the gorgeous Yû Yamada who stars as a young woman cursed by a creepy workmate, but who is ultimately saved by her mother (who sacrifices herself to a giant disembodied head with strange eyes!).

Blonde Kwaidan, the low point of the whole film (despite being directed by perhaps the most well known of those involved—Takashi 'The Grudge' Shimizu), is a (mercifully) short story which features a Japanese businessman in Hollywood, who comes face-to-face with a blonde ghost. Yawn!

Before the film is rounded off with another 'scary' story from the ghostly bus-lady seen at the beginning of the film, Masayuki Ochiai (director of the upcoming Shutter remake) delivers the fairly enjoyable Presentiment, in which a trio of ghosts scare the hell out of a poor man trapped in a lift.",0 "You know you're in trouble when you can spot continuity errors in the opening sequence of a film (check out the disappearing bra) without even looking for them. ""Devil's Prey"" is otherwise a well-shot movie, but it's just hokum of the ninth degree. The devil worshippers are a joke compared to the satanic cults in other horror films (and, although they clearly outnumber the heroes, they persist in attacking them one by one), and I hope Patrick Bergin knows that, after a role like this, his career has little hope of reviving. (*1/2)",0 "You'll want to see ""A Holy Terror"" if you're a Humphrey Bogart fan, but it would be incorrect to consider this a Bogey film. George O'Brien stars and portrays Anthony Woodbury, the socialite son of a father who legally changed his name twenty five years ago, and at the same time had William Drew (James Kirkwood) placed under surveillance. Adverse to publicity and never allowing a photo, Thomas Woodbury/John Bard (Robert Warwick) is seen only briefly on screen when he is shown going for a hidden weapon as Drew arrives at his estate home to force a confrontation. When Tony learns of his father's hidden past, he's determined to learn more about William Drew and the circumstances of his father's death.

The film's most interesting scene occurs when aviator Tony literally crash lands his plane into the home of Miss Jerry Foster (Sally Eilers). She begins a cat and mouse relationship with Anthony, who begins using the name Bard once he reaches Wyoming.

The plot of the movie gets muddied when William Drew asks his ranch foreman Steve Nash (Bogart) to bring Bard to the ranch unharmed. Nash has an underhanded side, and involves his partner Butch Morgan (Stanley Fields) in the endeavor. Since Anthony wants to meet with Drew, and Drew is paying Nash a thousand dollars to bring Anthony to him, there's no reason for Morgan to pistol whip Bard and carry out the request like a kidnapping. Obviously done as a dramatic element for the film, the tactic doesn't make much sense, other than to provide a reason for Anthony to arrange his escape in a dramatic ride on horseback, with a rather effective looking leap over Devil's Gulch that the baddies won't risk attempting.

The astute viewer can figure out the payoff - William Drew and John Bard were once in love with the same woman, who married Bard. But Anthony's father was really William Drew, and on that note the film ends rather abruptly.

""A Holy Terror"" clocks in at just fifty three minutes, and that's probably a saving grace. The performances are rather stilted with not much more than the characters going through their motions. Bogart's turn as a bad guy is of some interest, building on the con man turn in his prior picture ""The Bad Sister"". It would be five more years before he gets his hands on a real meaty role as the villain Duke Mantee in ""The Petrified Forest"".",0 "It´s no good point in this movie. The worst movie ever. I don´t want to say more. If you like boring movies, watch this.",0 "Great great episode, i wondered when are they gonna make a tribute to movies like 'Wrong Turn' and 'Hills Have Eyes', and they really delivered it with 'The Benders'.

I had no clue that this episode will be the one about deranged sick family who hunts people for sport, because its title 'The Benders' would suggest that it's about some supernatural beings who can maybe change their look, like shape-shifters or something like that.

Anyway the episode is very well directed, aided by very good acting performances, specially from Dean and female cop who helps him find his lost brother who was kidnapped by the members of this sick family.

Episode also tries to tell us that you don't need supernatural stuff and monsters to make a scary TV show episode or a movie, humans will do just fine !

9/10",1 "I am a big fan of Jeff Foxworthy. The Blue Collar Tour movies and Blue Collar TV are hilarious. Unfortunately, this roast did not follow in their foot steps. I, usually, think Larry the Cable Guy is very funny, but not this time. His comments about Corky from Life Goes On were totally uncalled for. To make such a comment about a person born with Down Syndrome was in poor taste. His comment about Christopher Reeve sat badly with me, also. If I was a member of Mr. Reeve's family I would have liked it even less than I did. Several made comments about Jeff's 'clean' comedy, but they chose not to follow in his footsteps by repeating such words as f**k over and over. When will they learn four letter words are not what makes a comedian. This show put down others more than it did Jeff Foxworthy. It attacked those with Down Syndrome, Mexicans, gays and, of course, the South, as well as others. If you were a comedian on this show, you might want to take lessons from Mr. Jeff Foxworthy. This show fell short of the usual Foxworthy standards.",0 "I was looking through TV Guide last night and saw a movie starring Heather Grahm on, who I liked in movies like Boogie Nights, and Austin Powers, so I decided to watch it. It started out ok, but you could tell the story was lacking, and at about half way through, it started to deteriorate. I do not remember this movie being in the theaters, and I'm sure if it was, it wasn't there long. The acting was stale and unconvincing, the dialogue was silly and predictable, and the story was confusing and stupid. Definately one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I like movies like the ones this has been compared to like Fight Club, but this one doesn't come close!! Heather Grahm has done much better things since. I gave it a 2 out of 10 but thats because I clicked on the wrong number, I meant to give it a 1.",0 "I'm shaking my head right now as I notice the high rating for this documentary. I like crossword puzzles maybe like once a year but was very amazed by those who love it. I mean love it. Slamming their headphones when they find out they screwed up only made me laugh. It was interesting to see Mike Mussina talk about his experience with crossword puzzles. And perhaps it was interesting to know that some people can do them in under two minutes but what else can you cram in 80 minutes. It seemed like they just talked about the same old stuff for 60 minutes than they had the competition for 20 minutes.

I guess you can say that I don't get it but others will. A decent documentary and you will learn useless things but for entertainment, it was way below average in my eyes.",0 "----- SPOILER ALERT -- SPOILER ALERT -- SPOILER ALERT -----

This film is bad in every way! Normally i newer comment film here on IMDb, but this film is so extremely bad, that I gotta warn people against it. It got no story, you don't know exactly what the point is, is the main character good or bad and fast you don't care. The photography is boring, trying to become something and end up extremely pretentious. The symbolism is SO thick that you can have to use a big knife to cut trough it. Oh sweet Jesus. And the whole holocaust theme is simply pathetic. The main character, an old Jewish man, is so annoying, and everybody just adore him ""because hes so magic"" (blaaaahhh), so I actually cheered on the Germans. The use of voice-over is simply pathetic, and make the film even more pretentious. The scene where the nurse gets introduced says it all: You see the feets from a beautiful woman walking down a hall. The camera pans up and you see her sexy legs and you notice that she is wearing a nurse suit. The pan ends up at her ass and its a nice, sexy ass. When you see this pan, the voice-over say something like: ""The nurse, her legs is so sexy, and her ass is the best"". Duh... yes, that what we can see on the screen. Don't have to tell me like I'm an idiot. I feel sorry for all the Jews that died in WWII, but its still not an excuse for making such a horrible film. zero stars from me...",0 "This highly entertaining movie is about an assortment of odd ball characters who hang around an ordinary bar. There is no need for scripting the characters. They come as they are. There is a woman who hides a sordid past by claiming to have been a burlesque dancer for royalty. There is a mysterious professor who hangs around the bar all day reading the paper. There is the dancer/comedian. There is a guy who plays a marble/pinball game all day in hopes of reaching the stage where the machine lights up and spits out flags and sparklers. There is a not too bright, but lovable man who hopes to have enough money to marry the burlesque dancer.

All in all this is very entertaining movie. The two most gripping characters are a former cowboy who spins tall tales. At one point, he claims to be 59, but then tells about his experiences across the U.S. that happened over 70 years ago. There is also one of the scariest, meanest mobsters ever portrayed. He looks so purely mean and plain that it is scary. I recommend this movie. It has all the appearances of being the original ""Cheers"".",1 "I actually happened into the first airing of the pilot episode by pure chance of changing the channels. I was in 10th grade at the time. I faithfully watched Magnum P.I. through its eight season run, and completely enjoyed everything about the program. When a teacher at High School couldn't get his door unlocked, we used to say to him ""work the lock, Magnum. Don't look at the dogs"" and he would throw the whole class out to ""the bullpen"" as he called ""study hall"". Anyway, I remember at one time CBS had ""Wednesday's Heroes"" Mike Hammer at 8pm, MAGNUM P.I. at 9pm and The Equalizer at 10pm. Anyway, after Magnum P.I. ended after season eight, I did not faithfully follow any TV show every week until ""The Shield"" premiered on FX! I have purchased Magnum P.I. DVD Sets for season's 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8. I enjoy watching the show as much now as I did when it originally aired. It is something to see that there were no cell phones and no internet information superhighway while the show was on. This is an excellent TV show from the 1980's that has aged fairly gracefully.",1 "To start off with, this is not a bad movie at all considering how little it cost to make ($6000? $3000? Something like that.) and was edited on a desktop computer. But, it's still pretty cheesy. The low-budget documentary format is clever, but doesn't really lend itself to being scary. The Blair Witch project is much, much better...much, MUCH scarier, and much more convincingly performed. The Last Broadcast is going to start making some dough now that it's riding on the Blair Witch's coattails, and unbelievably, some people are saying that it's better than TBWP. NO...FRIGGIN...WAY... The Last Broadcast is interesting and original, and it holds your attention well-- I'll admit that I was surprised by the ending and had to view it several times for it to sink in-- it was quite cool. Overall, though, the movie was a disappointment.",0 "I'll admit that when I first turned on ABC family at 8 I was a bit skeptical about this movie. It looked like a cute romantic comedy though and there was nothing much on other than an ""Alias"" repeat and a repeat of the Lifetime show ""The Division"" so I settled down on my bed to watch it and I was quite surprised at how good it was. The characters worked well, Sarah Rue(I don't know how she spells her name)and Carley Pope both amazed me with their talent. Brian A. Green was somewhat of a new face to me. I had never seen him before in a movie or anything so I was suprised with his performance as well. Overall a good expiernce for a ""TV"" movie, I think had it been released at the box office it would have been medicore, but TV movies are never as good at box office hits.",1 "I don't mind some adult humor, but this feature was just downright dirty. The first 10 minutes consisted of Pryor swearing at some guy taking pictures, followed my even more profanities. I don't know what happened between that time the the last 5 minutes because I walked out. After seeing this I never looked at Richard Pryor the same way again. And to think that he actually went on to host a childrens' show.

If profanity and tasteless, unfunny dirty jokes make you laugh, then you'll probably enjoy this. But if you're an ""old-fashioned"" type, then don't bother.",0 "Although this western feature has much big name talent, it however fails in quality. The plot is thin.There is too much unnecessary violence. Direction is poor.",0 "What I love about British comedies is that they're always looking for something new. They're never content with repeating the same ideas under the guise of new actors and story lines. Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is one of those crazy new ideas. Richard Ayoade and Matthew Holness return to the '80s, look for everything that was bad in that decade's TV shows, for what was in need of a send up, and created this show which spoofs anything from A Team to Night Rider to Miami Vice.

Garth Marenghi is a horror writer, a visionary, a dream weaver, or, as he puts it, an imaginer. He's really a mediocre novelist and a worse director and writer. But somehow he manages to get a TV show made with his publisher, Dean Learner, and actors Todd Rivers (the amazing Matt Berry) and Madeleine Wool (Alice Lowe). The show is awful, with corny plots, bad sfx, and a synth-heavy score typical of the time. Garth believes the show was so ahead of its time it could change the world. Unfortunately no channel bought it and Darkplace remained in his basement for nearly twenty years (except for a run in Peru).

Decades later a channel decides to air the show. For this Garth adds a few interviews with himself and the crew. Many times they interrupt the action to comment on it. Obviously, these are the finer bits, with the serious way they discuss the show they made, incapable of realizing how poor it is.

Alas, they only made six episodes. I can't understand why it didn't gain more popularity. The episodes are short and one will feel hungry for more. For this reason buying the DVD is a good idea. The crew created two extra interviews, each 30 minutes long, which are as amusing as any of the episodes and give a lot of insight into Garth, Dean, Todd and Madeleine's mysterious fate. This is the only DVD I've actually bothered to watch all the extras, they're all amazing and add a lot to the original show.

Up there with the modern shows of its kind - The League of Gentlemen and The Mighty Boosh - this mix of humor and horror, of TV and movie spoofs is one of the most original and unforgettable shows made.",1 "The film, Cyborg was a relatively unimpressive movie. I explored that the realism within was quite lacklustre, with reference to when Van Damme's character escapes from the crucifiction cross - then began a mighty fighting scene, which was highly disappointing to the viewer.

The antagonist was also quite disappointing on appearance and acting skills. His fighting technique was quite pitiful, and although so was Van Damme's, the slugfest was rightly won by the 'Muscles from Brussels'.

To recommend this film to a friend, would make them believe that i was the enemy. The film showed glimpses of hope, but nothing progressed from it. A very disappointing film.",0 "Duvall is nothing less than superb in this movie. I don't recall him playing a more believable character ever before. The one disappointment in the movie was the church scenes. I belong to a Christian church with ""enthusiastic"" members and Pastors. However, they don't stand around screaming the same one liners the entire time and I don't recall ever being in a church that did. They usually have a message for the day and it is different all the time. I am sure some more research could have been done to make the church scenes more realistic. I might have had more compassion for E.F.'s situation had he gained more of my respect by giving a great sermon.",1 "The acting in this movie was so bad, especially with the killer. When he came charging at them at the end on the ATV, I was laughing so hard, my side hurt. They could not create a parody of this movie and have it be any funnier. I pride myself on seeing really bad films, but even this one hits a new low. Not even worth the bargain bin. What a waste of film and time. I hope they never work again. The only thing scary about this movie is if someone was duped to seeing it at a theater. The only thing that scares me is if they make a sequel. I can't believe they were able to gather together so my people that lack any talent. Just... bad.",0 "It's a good thing that the following year from That Certain Woman, Bette Davis and Henry Fonda got to make Jezebel and acquit themselves well in a drama of substance. It certainly showed that as a team they could do better than That Certain Woman and have it be the only film they would be judged on as a screen team.

For such a noble thing Bette's been around the track quite a bit and gets a few more turns before the film ends. As a teen she marries a notorious hoodlum who is killed in a gun battle and she's trying to live it down. She's working under an assumed name as a secretary to wealthy attorney Ian Hunter. When exposed Hunter doesn't care because he's in a rather loveless marriage to the rather frigid Katharine Alexander.

Bette likes him OK, but her heart is set on playboy Henry Fonda. They do get married, but Fonda's father Donald Crisp comes running after his son and gets the marriage annulled. Of course he can't annul what Fonda left to remember him by.

Bette doesn't tell him about their kid and later Fonda marries socialite Anita Louise who is later paralyzed from a car crash. If you're a devotee of soap operas the plot can take any number of directions from here and I won't say.

If That Certain Woman were made today it would be debuting on the Lifetime Channel. From what I've just described there's enough material here for a dozen soaps. One common thing I noticed in this film. The women are all noble and self sacrificing, especially Anita Louise. The men however are all dogs, between the lusting in his heart Hunter, the weakling Fonda, the tyrannical Crisp, even the reporter who tries to blackmail Davis, Hugh O'Connell. Now that's an article of faith to get on the Lifetime Channel.

Bette and Hank do their best with it all, but there are enough tears to fill Lake Erie in this film and suds enough to wash the uniforms at the Great Lakes Naval Training station.",0 "I'm not writing any more plaudits for this movie, for most everything has been said about it before. Even a quarter century later, I weep everytime I watch Mr. Hurt and Mr. Hopkins in their roles. The great humanity of David Lynch and the producers has left us with an equally frightening and endearing vision of Mr. Merick.

Sadly, there will always be elephant men, as long as ignorance and the impulse for destruction rule men and their domain.",1 "I'd never heard of this film until recently it was recommended to me as a pleasant but easily overlooked Jean Arthur film

Jean Arthur's range is hardly tested in this one - she plays Carole a nice girl next-door type with the typical Arthur intelligence but without any of the more complex qualities, which in certain of her films drew such memorable performances.

George Brent, as Fred Gilbert, is similarly untested in this film (as in most of his films) but is in the additionally unfortunate position of providing the comedy in the romance, initially through his health regime obsession and then his superficial attraction to Maizie (Dorothea Kent), (the latter also being the means by which an essentially simple story is sufficiently prolonged to allow a feature length gap between the boy meets girl beginning and the inevitable - this is 1930's romantic comedy - boy gets girl ending).

A modern audience may not react too well to Fred's comments about a woman's role in business or his attempt at ruthlessly (in intent if not in effect) resolving his `Maizie situation' once the attraction has palled. However the main problem with this film is not that the women's movement has moved on 70 years since the film was made - 1930's comedies are after all, remembered for the strong and independent heroines and Fred is of course made to regret and reconsider his words and actions. It is simply that you do wonder a little just what Carole sees in him. Fortunately this film is saved from the romance being completely unbelievable by Carole's obvious recognition (and Jean Arthur's ability to convey) that she loves Fred regardless of his faults.

What is slightly harder to accept is Fred's overlooking Carole for so long (at least once she is out of the rather scary suit and spectacles she wears in the film's opening scene). Even allowing for the fact that anyone can make a fool of him/herself when it comes to love, Fred's abrupt changes of heart, especially the first volt face when he decides to employ Maizie, left me a little puzzled. A nice clue is given in the scene where Fred follows Carole to the secretarial school and in response to he snappish `I'm busy' he sharply retorts, `I never saw you when you weren't'. However this is not explored fully nor given elsewhere as an explanation for his foolishness (at just 80 minutes long, an additional 2-3 minutes to deepen this rather more satisfactory explanation for Fred's behaviour would not exactly have overdone things).

In addition to the main cast there is the usual nice support from Lionel Stander and Ruth Donnelly, Columbia contract actors, as likely as not to be in any Jean Arthur film of this time. I'm not sure why but Lionel Stander saying the word `bellicose' just cracks me up. There are some nice scenes between Ruth Donnelly and Jean Arthur, which are a rarity in a film genre where scenes between 2 women are usually about romantic rivalry and bitchy exchanges. This element is of course present in the scenes between Carole and Maizie, the latter being as unpleasant and manipulative as the audience needs her to be in order that we do not need to worry about her (or Fred's treatment of her) when she is ultimately dispatched (landing on her feet in any event).

If you like 1930's Hollywood romantic comedy then this is a sweet, unassuming film, which, while not as memorable as many other films of Hollywood's golden age, is still worth a look.",1 "The original version based on the same story, El Bosque del lobo was a little spanish masterpiece but this movie is a pathetic waste. Bad acting (The lead female actress was last seen in another bad spanish production, Beyond Re- animator, a terrible sequel to the cult classic from the 80´s)and direction (take a look to his terrible boring first film, Second name), and more than dissapointing visuals, this film is good for one thing: curing insomnia. I will like to know why this Elsa pataky is a big new sex symbol in Spain. She´s petty but that´s it really. Her acting is one of the worst ever. And Julian Sands, who does remember him? Exactly. Where is John Landis when you need him? 2 out of 10.",0 "I love watching movies, and often times, I ignore documentaries, because I feel they're too dry. You see, they try to educate you or inform you, and I want to be entertained. Well, this did all three! I was fascinated with the women's personal stories, and would often compare theirs to my own. It was insightful to here about life back then, dispelling others into thinking that it's some sort of trend (tsk, tsk!) or some other backwards idea. If you want to get cozy with a bowl of popcorn and lend your ear to some tales of long ago, if you're straight and disbelieve that older lesbians existed, if you want to rid yourself of ignorance to find out more than ""what lesbians do in bed"", if you want to see fiction mixed gracefully with true life stories, watch this. You may have met one of these fascinating women and not known it. I was at a bookstore, and I heard a familiar voice behind me, thinking it was someone I knew. I peaked behind me, and there stood the Native woman who appeared in it. I was excited, but did nothing about it. If I wasn't so shy, I might have thanked her for sharing her story and for being an inspiration to the younger generation who heard it.",1 "I was excited at the prospect of watching Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag, thinking that it would be a genuine documentary. How wrong I was. The saccharine sweet narration can be rather vomit inducing at times, however in places it is delivered in a dull, lifeless monotone. The documentary aspect of the film is very shallow indeed as it simply glosses over things and never really actually educates or demonstrates anything, we are just treated to some very basic facts figures over the top of some visuals that are, admittedly, stunning.

Some of the cinematography is excellent and I would love to be able to say make the whole experience worthwhile however it suffers from bad editing and staging and a lack of continuity making it obvious that many shots were filmed in various locations nowhere near Red Flag, and during some of the dogfight sequences it's hard to keep track of who is who as the aircraft keep chopping and changing between shots so you have no real idea who is flying what.

There is an excessive amount of pyrotechnics used to stage various explosions making the whole affair feel rather fake and forced. Ultimately this isn't a documentary and it isn't a film. It doesn't educate and it doesn't entertain, and it feels like a huge missed opportunity given the access the film crew had to the Red Flag exercises.",0 "I first saw WWHTKB when it was screened in my hometown film festival two years ago at one in the morning on a Saturday. I had been watching movies all day for two days (thank you Jolt Cola and Continental Breakfast coffee) at this point, and WWHTKB stood out for a few reasons as one of my favorite movies from the festival. The main storyline, though contrived at points, kept a consistent mix of cynical humor and sarcastic wit with downright impossibly ridiculous situations and an extremely unlikely cast of characters - including ""Bitch,"" the main character's abusive ex-girlfriend - that had me laughing out loud more than a few times. There were a lot of things outside of the main storyline that stood out as downright hilarious concepts, such as the fake John Travolta film, ""Oh Shenannigans!"" from which they show clips. Though these elements made me chuckle, they really don't stand out from the entire genre of late-teen-college-age movie as something original. What really stands out from the film is the high amount of action that happens within the scenes, but having no real interaction with the plot. For example two movie theater clerks poke holes into paper cups and get kinky with the popcorn tubs while two main characters talk about going out to the improv later that night. This is the kind of movie that is best watched with a couple of drinks and some good friends that you've gotten up to some fun with. I got to talk to the director at the festival, and ended up actually buying a copy of the movie. It has some of the most wonderful cover art for any movie that I've ever seen. A definite watch for one of those late night boredom releases.",1 "Brian Aherne stars as an aging stage actor. He is rich and famous, but very unhappy and tired. Most of this is because he's feeling that life has somehow passed him by--he's a relic of the past. His trophy wife isn't particularly interested in him and he longs for his long dead first wife and his idyllic youth.

When he arrives late for the first rehearsal of his next play, the director (real-life director Sydney Pollack plays this part) is brash and obnoxious--further pushing him to long for the good old days.

Then, suddenly, upon leaving the theater it's now 1927. He looks the same but everyone else is younger. And, to his great surprise, his old friend and wife are alive and full of life. You'd think that this would be everything he'd ever wished for, but Aherne soon learns that you can never go back.

The theme of this episode is living in the moment and while this installment of the series isn't as weird or unpredictable as most, it manages to work well because of the nice leisurely pace that was created by Aherne. He glides slowly and deliberately through his role--instilling it with both class as well as sentimentality that I really liked. Not a great episode but also one well worth seeing.",1 "If sinking your teeth into over-ripe fruit is one of your pleasures, then Jamaica Inn should be your dish. It features one of the ripest and most ludicrous performances I've ever seen from Charles Laughton as Sir Humphrey Pengallan, and that covers a lot of territory. As the squire who is the full-figured mastermind behind a gang of murderous wreckers on the Cornish coast, Laughton sports the latest dandyish fashions, a false nose, false eyebrows which almost have lives of their own, a carefully coifed comb-over, a piggish over-bite and line readings that would make Bette Davis at her most mannered envious. Close behind in the ripe playing sweepstakes is Robert Newton as Jem Trehearne, law officer and hero, who roles his eyes almost as much as Laughton, and Leslie Banks as Joss Merlyn, the leader of the gang and the owner of Jamaica Inn. The only person who manages reasonably well is Maureen O'Hara who plays Mary, the plucky and beautiful niece of Merlyn's wife. Even she is largely confined to earnestly crying out for decency and screaming.

Don't get me wrong. Jamaica Inn is so over-the-top it's a delight to watch, especially when Laughton is chewing the scenery. Hitchcock, making his last movie in England before leaving for the United States, supposedly became so bored during filming that he didn't care what the actors did. The story is a bodice-ripper by Daphne de Maurier; in fact, Maureen O'Hara's bodice gets ripped not once but twice. The time is about 1800. The place is Cornwall on the rocky coast. Jamaica Inn is a stone hulk of a building close by the warning light that shows ships where to avoid the rocks in the stormy seas. Someone with advance knowledge of ships with rich cargoes has been blocking the warning light. When the ships founder, wreckers work their way to the ships, slaughter all the sailors and take the cargo. Merlyn and his gang are the heavies, but who is the mastermind? Then young Mary, whose parents have died, shows up late one night at Jamaica Inn's doorstep to be taken in my her aunt, Merlyn's wife. At the same time we learn that the gang has a ringer in its midst, an officer of the law determined to bring justice to Cornwall and identify the mastermind. We also learn (this is no spoiler; we find out very early in the movie) that the mastermind is the effete, mannered Sir Humphrey. It all comes together with madness and murder on the wind, switching from Jamaica Inn and the rain-swept coast to Sir Henry's elegant mansion and his imperious demands. ""Listen Merlyn,"" Sir Humphrey says, ""I want money. I know what to do with money when I have it which is why I must have it. Do you understand? I must have it!""

The movie looks great. There are crashing seas, stormy nights and coaches drawn by galloping horses. Jamaica Inn itself has that detailed, threatening look that Hitchcock achieved with the wind mill in Foreign Correspondent. Stone stairways go up and down, nothing fits well, shutters rattle in the wind. The scenery chewing isn't confined to the leads, either. The gang members get their moments, too, especially Emlyn Williams as Harry, an invariably cheery and dirty young man with a knife. The movie rises or falls, however, not on Hitchcock but on Laughton...and Laughton is so ripe he's spellbinding. You have to see him to appreciate his way with these words, spoken to a bound and gagged Mary, ""We may be going a long way, you know. Nearer the sun, of course...the Isles of Greece. You're thinking that'll cost money, but I have enough. One must have enough. I always knew that to live like a gentleman, spaciously and with elegance, one must have money...and a few beautiful possessions, of course, like you, my deah."" Sir Humphrey's last words bring the movie to a satisfyingly ornate ending: ""Make way for Pengallan!""",1 "Great film! Some rather large plot holes that could have been easily avoided, if one were going to be honest, and at times the thing is frustratingly obscure and careless with logic. But Believers has a very creepy air, the acting is generally superb, and the ending is - if predictable a light year off - totally BRILLIANT.

The movie plays like a very long episode of The Outer Limits (the 60s original, not the wretched colour revivals), and that's no bad thing. I suspect this movie played better outside of the US - American audiences tend to like everything explained with a minimum of ambiguity, and this movie has a very cavalier attitude towards plot information. Bad plot flaws damage the overall impact - the incredibly half-hearted search for the paramedics, the far too swift 'sex conversion' of the hero's buddy, the unexplained resurrection of a woman cult member, the badly answered question of why the paramedics needed to be kidnapped at all etc. But, ahhh, I've seen A-films that have made worse mistakes.

Believers is most effective in the little details...the ever present loud speakers in the compound, constantly burbling propaganda you can only half hear, the glassy expressions on the faces of the cult members, the fact that these weird people are scary because they are NOT overtly evil. Perhaps more important is the fact that, like the Leader with the hero, the movie never tries to convince you to believe in what is happening...you can take it or leave it on one level or another. Comparisons with Jonestown are obvious, but the film's general tone owes a larger debt to the Aum Supreme Truth cult in Japan, with its' fetish for electronic devices and quasi-scientific esoterica, the usage of poison gas, and the idea that the charismatic leader holds a revealed ""indisputable truth"".

Daniel Benzali is electrifying as 'The Teacher', creating a sort of Colonel Kurtz character. The Quanta Group's second in command, who appears at the start in the TV interview, and whose name eludes me, is also superb. Check out the deleted scenes on the DVD for moments featuring both men, both apparently improvised for the most part, that are better than anything kept in the movie. Puzzling omissions. The movie also contains one of the more chilling torture scenes in recent memory, in the shape of the electro-shock 'purging' of the hero. Devoid of gore, this scene is made frightening (for me at least) by the complete lack of emotion shown by the torturers. ""It's for your own good"" delivered in a weary monotone is far scarier than a truckload of Texas Chainsaw evil-chuckling over a victim.

But *that* ending, a very erotic sex scene, the aforementioned EST torture moment, and a general air of weirdness and repressed hysteria, gives this film an edge. Well worth seeing.",1 "Wow I usually love your stuff, director Phil, but this was... painful to watch. You made a terrible film choice; does your long hiatus from directing have something to do with this turkey? Are you punishing yourself?

The only reason I kept watching was to see the nuclear explosion. That too was a disappointment. Affleck, Freeman and Cromwell really all suck here too. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this one in the theater.

So get back to directing something that has a decent screenplay. Keep away from CIA writers and CIA approved plot lines and the whole terrorism thing. It's getting really old and the propaganda isn't working anymore.

You have enough chutzpah, Phil. Direct something that explains how terrorism is really just the new boogeyman, to replace the cold war boogeyman. Something that explains where AlQueda really came from, or how Presidents can do business with a boogeyman's family with terrorist ties, but no one says anything.",0 "I found it hard to view the user comments on this film because of all the partisan ranting from demagogues of both parties. Therefore, I am going to try and leave my own political persuasions out of this review although I definitely have a viewpoint about what was happening in Iraq and the need for US involvement there.

*** This may contain spoilers, although this is a simple documentary with no plot, so there ain't much to spoil.***

After all the hype about Michael Moore's slanted, biased, and intellectually dishonest film Fahrenheit 911, and all the celebrity hubbub about how George Bush is an evil so-and-so and our involvement in Iraq was simply about obtaining oil, I thought I might have a look at what the other side (who gets far less sensationalistic coverage in the national media) had to say about the whole situation. I had heard that this documentary was particularly brutal and difficult to watch, but I thought it was important to see just what was going on in Iraq before the US dismantled Saddam Hussein's regime.

It was brutal, it was grotesque, and it was very difficult to sit through. We are treated to footage of people's arms stretched out across two concrete blocks and then being broken with axe handles; we see fingers hacked off, then the screaming, bleeding victim tossed aside to fend for himself; we see hands amputated surgically and tongues clipped out—all these horrific atrocities committed by way of punishment in the name of ""justice"". We see torture, murder, and disturbing footage of women being publicly shot or stoned to death for ""crimes"" such as adultery.

My problem is that the documentary, hosted by some boring, no-name yobbo in a suit and tie, frequently wanders from its supposed focus in favor of showing gruesome footage. At first it feels, albeit unpleasant, at least informative; however, as the film wears on, it becomes even more unpleasant, loses its informative nature, and begins to feel distinctly exploitative in tone. I found that shift in tone more disturbing than the film itself. The film ends with every videotaped beheading they could find. I had seen many when they were current news, believing it important to see what the enemy (terrorists and radical religious fundamentalists) was all about, but I just couldn't stomach re-watching these cold-blooded, grotesque murders again, presented as they were in the guise of ""infotainment"", and turned the movie off.

In some ways this film shows some important things that were happening within Hussein's Iraq that folks like Sean Penn either didn't see or chose to ignore. It will make you appreciate living in a free country where you don't have your tongue cut out or your hands amputated for displeasing a mad dictator. The US got involved in Bosnia and Somalia based on concern for the genocide occurring there, how could we in fairness turn a blind eye to Iraq? Saddam Hussein actively and arrogant defied every UN sanction and action taken against him, including those he agreed to in order to end the war in 1991, but the UN clearly wasn't going to do anything about it, especially with corrupt UN officials making under-the-table deals with Hussein. Who else but the US would have taken steps to correct this injustice? These are all good points made in the beginning of the film.

But the film's weakness is where it loses its focus on the reasons we went there and simply becomes a parade of gore, brutality, and murder. Although it has its good points, I can't in good conscience recommend it as a good, well-made documentary.

Cheers

Brent",0 "Randall Peltzer (the late Hoyt Axton), while going all around town trying to sell his faulty wacky inventions, accidentally stumbles on a cute little Mogwai at an antique china store. The owner refuse to sell it, but the kid sees dollar signs and sells it to Mr. Peltzer, telling him three things never to do to the creature. So back in Kingston Falls, the misguided inventor presents it to his son, Billy (Zach Galligan) telling him the warning that the Chinese boy imparted to him. Needless to say, Billy ignores all three rules and soon evil little Gremlins are all over town causing rampant destruction.

This movie is greatness in every single way. With style, charm, and humor to spare, this film was among the top echelon of movies from the glorious '80's (Man that decade was GREAT to be a kid or teenager in).Never overtly slapstick comical, this film is still tongue firmly in cheek none the less and seeing the amazingly great Dick Miller is ALWAYS a treat. By the by, call me dense but I never realized that Howie Mandell did the voice for Gizmo. That's kinda neat. This was followed by a sequel that's just about every bit as good as the original.

My Grade: A

Special Edition DVD Extras: Commentary by Director Joe Dante, Producer Mike Finnell and Gremlins Creator Chris Walas, Second Commentary by Dante and Actors Zach Galligan, Phoebe Cates, Dick Miller and Howie Mandel; Cast & Crews bios; 8 Additional Scenes (with Optional Commentary; Photo Gallery; short vintage featurette; Theatrical & Re-issue Trailer; and Trailer for ""Gremlins 2: The New Batch""",1 "hey folks,

this is the best show Robbie has ever given, his voice as gentle as can be, entertainment at its best.

I've been a Robbie fan since the beginning, even when he was with take that, he was born to be a entertainer, he's got the talent from his dad, who's a well-known comedian in england.Robbie's comedic talent, his gestures, his voice, the whole charisma, has made him to what he is now: THE mega star!

if you aren't a fan of Robbie yet, you will become after watching the show! you need to watch this! it's a kick in the head, as Robbie would say.

kind regards, his no 1 fan",1 "Although 'Le trou Normand' lives on as Brigitte Bardot's film-debut, I think this view an injustice to the great French actor Bourvil. It's him, in the principal role of Hyppolite, who greatly carries this rather enjoyable movie to its end.

Seventeen year old Brigitte plays a role she admittedly does not like: a not-too-sincere girl with a conceited state of mind. In spite of all that, the shape of things to come is clearly visible.

",1 "I've been a fan death note after the watching the 1st series of Anime; and I started reading the manga because the anime wasn't coming out fast enough. the overall the concept of Death Note is intelligent, exciting and has a great story. I was shocked to find that 75% of this movie's story was not from the manga. right from the start: Light's girlfriend dying? TV reporter Takada? where did they come from? aside from new characters, the part where Kira openly says he's the 2nd kira? these points made the movie less intelligent and also more predictable. the acting and direction of the movie was also poor.

but the strangest part of watching this midnight on a Friday night was that every time Ruuk spoke - the whole cinema would laugh out loud. If you're a fan of the manga; don't bother watching this movie.",0 "Oh I laughed and cried. Maybe I went in to it looking too hard, but this made for TV presentation is a lousy and by-the-numbers knock-off ('Predator' for most part)… ah most of this cable ilk could be labelled so, but where it got me was how passé it was on delivering thrills and excitement. Yes, the story didn't draw me in at all (and does it get silly in the latter half) and the transparent characters would only annoy (not a good sign), so I was hoping they would up the ante, but it just smoldered along as it seemed to be running on empty and the macho dialogues were utterly pathetic. It didn't roll off the tongues, but felt forced and clunky. I just wanted some fun. No so luck. Hey one thing I couldn't knock though, even though it looks cheap however the CGI was competently executed and never overdone in any way. They even used some passable puppet designs too, and the main alien design works out well despite being a cross between 'Predator' (mainly the armour it wears) and alien from 'Enemy Mine'. Disappointing was that the action with these CGI beasties is cut-up and blurry, making it hard to adjust and the block-headed characters get plenty of time but in the end they aren't worth it. Brian McNamara was so-so, but the rest were largely forgettable, just like this whole presentation.",0 "'Big Brother' is without a shadow of a doubt the worst programme ever to have tainted our television screens. All it consists of is a group of people living in a large house far from the outside world but under the watchful eye of a C.C.T.V camera. The idea is to avoid periodic evictions from the house, whoever succeeds in this task will win a cash prize. Amongst the 'Brother' contestants, the most famous one was the now deceased Jade Goody (a girl who once thought East Anglia to be abroad!). Having a show like this on her C.V is nothing to be proud of. The show's title is named after the fictional character in George Orwell's novel 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'. I wonder if Orwell (if he were still alive that is) would be happy to find that one of his character's names is used as the title for such an excuse for a show, I think not! At least no one has to suffer this show any longer as the T.V stations have now come to their senses and taken 'Brother' off the air, though why it lasted as long as it did in the first place is beyond me.",0 "4/10 (it at least had good cinematography) or How to Win an artsy film prize: Make a film that's suffocatingly deep, allegedly meaningful, partially immersed in quasi-mysticism then throw in some contemporarily realistic elements in an exotic setting but do make sure the leading characters are offbeat in some way (in this instance gay & Thai.). Forget about any ideas of an engaging storyline, as that will be inconsequential in the face of the momentous acting. Then pray that Tarantino + the other judges had a very pleasurable time as regards their leisure pursuits just before & just after the movie's screening. Oh, and before I sign off... psssst.... what a protracted & most nonsensical bore this film was! IMO, the best Thai film is undoubtedly either 'Nang Nak' or 'Ai Fak' (And btw, just why hasn't the DVD been released with Eng subs for the latter??? Grrrr)",0 "Okay, so it isn't the Epic Finnish Movie Spectacle of 2003. It isn't Art with capital A.

But who cares.

Judging all measurements, this movie should be a turkey. The whole idea is so patently ludicruous that This Movie Just Can't Be Good. Shameless mixing of genres, unexperienced moviemakers, and, good heavens, Tony Halme.

But surprise surpise - for some reason, this thing was watchable. *Very* watchable. Sure, it looks a bit cheesy here and there, might have needed some extra care at some times and places... but overall, the lasting impression I got was that This Isn't A Gigabuck Hollywood Movie But It Sure Looks Like One.

But then again, I like movies that knowingly play with cliches of the genre, or genres in this case. Running jokes rule. And obviously the makers have had fun, which has to count for something...

People seem to severely dislike the special effects - and I think this is unjustified, it's just amazing that they did it *this* good with *that* sort of money.

And the plot wasn't *that* bad. Honestly.

Cult classic material. Definitely.

As a movie: *** As a parody of Hollywood: *****",1 "I only watched Lion King II because I taped it from TV. I watched it twice and still wondering if it's made by the same group that did the first movie.

It's quite a disappointment. The characters are not interesting any more. Their facial expression has too many changes in one second it's not natural. And I'm hoping it's just me, I found Kiara very annoying, probably because of her sometimes-nasal voice (that always gives me a fake-cry impression). Besides, unlike Simba, she wasn't given the chance to mature. She was the same spoiled little girl from the beginning to end. It's a good thing they want to have a princess instead of a prince, but it's easy to tell the plot is still highly underneath Kovu. It's strange to talk about character chemistry in an animated movie, but I found Lion King II lack the kind of chemistry the first one had. Probably the director's fault.

The plot did mature a lot, though. During a great length of the movie I thought Zira was to live. She's not really a villain, just some poor old thing stuck in the thoughts of revenge for too long. But I guess little kids won't understand it that way, so Kira dies at the end. Given a plot like this, it's pretty hard to screw up the characters due to lack of complicity, but they did.",0 "I have never been so depressed in my life. The movie tells the story of a family--a very dysfunctional family. The type of family that you actually pray for a happy ending to the movie. At the end of the movie, things seem to look up as they move on with their lives, but I just have a feeling that Jack will become a juvenile delinquent, Alice's parents will be so self-absorbed her future will be dismal. The only ones with a possibility of a future without a lifetime of pain is Franklin & Nardia. I can see how some people will appreciate the pain of everyday life...but this was just too much to bear!",0 "For many viewers this film was spoilt by advertising, that showed a movie full of spying, hacking and big mysteries.

Yes. Big mysteries.

Left is one. How does a pretty smart guy lose contact to the ""Reality"", whatever that is meant? It is good, that this movie only had a low budget, that makes it possible to recognize the smallest change in acting.

Simple plot, overwhelming acting, financial flop, just a terrific film.

Thumbs up and 10 points",1 "Gregg Araki's THE DOOM GENERATION is reminiscent of everything from MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO to THE RIVER'S EDGE to TRUE ROMANCE to the experimental films of Pasolini, of Warhol (Morrisey), as well as of Richard Kern. The film reveals its thematic message when the most innocent and selfless of its three main characters asks the other, more self-centered, two if they ever think about the meaning of existence. Dismissing the very question, they reveal to the questioner an answer of sorts, one which suggests that we each create a meaning for ourselves, and are all existentially alone as we do so.

While offering us a rather slight story of a pair of teen lovers on the road who encounter a slightly older bisexual who becomes their nemesis, companion, lover and protector, THE DOOM GENERATION offers a great deal of visual style and wit, and some genuine moments of suspense. In fact, the film's gory and discomforting climactic scene is perhaps the artistic highlight and suggests some real filmaking talent by writer/director Gregg Araki. This is probably not everyone's cup of tea, but is worth a look for those who like a film which challenges them to react to strong imagery and who don't mind transgressive depictions.",1 "Take Malcolm McDowell who dies quickly, rather like the plot of this film. He is the only star in the film. I did recognise Chris Penn but I don't know what I've seen him in before, possibly Reservoir Dogs. Wrestling fans may recognise a brief appearance by Leon White also known as WCW and WWE Superstar Big Van Vader. His fight scene is most likely the best and well organised fight in the whole film.

This is a manga comic or anime film that has been made into live action and it was obviously a really bad idea.

No script, bad story, really bad acting and some really bad fighting scenes. I really wish I hadn't bothered watching it.",0 "After watching this show, I would not recommend anyone to spent money to watch this on the big screen. I happened to have 5 free tickets to bring my kids to watch it. If you have not been reading news and do not know what is global warming doing to our planet, or where do polar bears live (besides the zoo), or how walruses look like, then perhaps this show will benefit you. Other than that, there was really no significantly new or interesting information that I gained from this documentary. The net result - an animal story about animals struggling to survive - non-dramatized. Not entirely bad, I did appreciate the skills and patience of the crew in producing this show. It was well done.

By contrast, the ""March of the Penguins"" was a much more interesting and 'moving' documentary.",0 "This truly has to be the worst film ever, a bunch of five year olds would surely be able to write a better script, construct more realistic sets and props and act to a higher degree than the actors in this movie seem to have demonstrated and still be more understanding to historical accuracy!

And can someone please explain the wigs? Surely not adding to historical accuracy (for any century!) or even 1984! Added to this the poor soundtrack which seems to suggest that the director, at gunpoint, forced some lonely spinster from the organ of a church in Dunny-On-The-Wolds, Surrey to sit down and construct (with a timescale of half an hour) the film score on a budget of £5 and a pickled egg!

I can only describe it as one horrific car crash, so awful, you just stare in disbelief, knowing that you should look away and hoping that no one else will catch you looking! Poor Sean Connery, did he desperately need to pay the mortgage for another month?! Dire!",0 "The only good thing about this movie is that it featured attractive actors and actresses. While there were a lot of ""jokes,"" almost none of them was funny; it was just minute after minute of unbearably awful dialog and sight gags revolving around ""old people shouldn't have sex.""

I might have forgiven 'Surf School' for being an awful movie, but it's also one of the few that's managed to offend me on multiple fronts. Hey, it's 2005: you don't have to make five or six references in the script to how black your black character is, complete with Affirmative Action jokes. And I just love the gay guy wearing a red bikini, lisping about all of the beautiful boys while shaking his hips and petting other dudes for an entire agonizing scene! Yeah those queers sure are hilarious, aren't they?

But maybe the worst part of the movie was the female lead, Doris. She starts out as a pretty goth chick, who doesn't talk much and loves reading (in the movie she's reading Sylvia Platt's ""The Bell Jar."") Everyone thinks she's creepy and she's restricted to background action. But toward the end of the movie she's urged to ""show her support"" for the boys. How does she do this? Why, by getting into a tiny bikini, seducing the ""bad guy surfers,"" and -as a fantastic final touch- transforming herself into a blond, of course! Suddenly she's the center of attention and SO much happier! Who knew the secret to happiness was to stop reading books and whore yourself out?

I don't mean to say there's anything wrong with sexy female characters, especially in a beach movie. In fact, the gorgeous women and men in 'Surf School' were probably the only things that kept me from killing myself while watching it. But Doris's character does a complete and inexplicable 180 from a quiet intellectual to an oversexed exhibitionist, all in order to ""encourage"" a bunch of dudes who (with one exception) have been avoiding her for the whole movie.

Sorry Joel Silverman, but that's not sexy. That's creepy as hell.",0 "If I had to select one film to represent Hindi Cinema, it would be Kal Ho Naa Ho. I don't really care if people say this is not the most influential or historically significant film.

Kal Ho Naa Ho is the best Hindi Cinema has offered me. I have a special connection with this film and its believable characters especially Aman{SRK}. I regard this as his best role. Aman is the greatest character in the history of Bollywood. The main reason for it is the way he played with my emotions was unbelievable, he made me laugh out loud initially and during the climax he melted my heart and I cried with him. I've never seen and maybe will never see another more vibrant and colorful character. Kudos!

The background score is also tremendously strong and emotional. Excellent score by SEL. The music/songs were awesome. My favourite of the lot was the title track sung by Sonu Nigam, which instantly became my all time favourite song before I even saw the film, just listen to its lyrics...Again PERFECT!

The story is relatively very simple but the film does a superb job in showing it. People may say the last part of the film is too emotional and not required but I strongly disagree. This film gave me exactly what I wanted...Complete satisfaction. Perfect acting {by all}, Perfect music, Perfect story.

In all, A Gem of Indian Cinema IMO and my one and only favourite Hindi film of all time. Enough said!

Rating: 10/10",1 "Someone at the BBC came up with the idea that they should make a programme featuring all five incarnations of the Doctor. A meeting was held, and it was decided that the programme should be made. There were a few problems. Tom Baker didn't want to know, and William Hartnell had gone to that great television studio in the sky. But with a little old footage and substituting Richard Hurndall for Hartnell, the problems were ironed out. And since Anthony Ainley was already doing for Roger Delgado what Richard Hurndall was doing for William Hartnell, there was no problem with The Master.

Some old companions turn up too. These include Fraser Hines and Wendy Padbury; and a mature trench-coated Carole Ann Ford gets to shriek: ""Grandfather! Grandfather!"" like only she can.

Of course all your favourite monsters turn up just to muddy up the reunion a bit, and the story is passable, considering the task set for the scriptwriters.

The programme was made as a celebration of nostalgia. It does its job quite well. but as an exciting film, I am afraid it falls flat.

Still it was nice to see some old faces, and I thought that Richard Hurndall was a good sub for Hartnell.",1 "This film alone was worth the price of the DVD it shares with ""Plan 9 from outer space."" See the locations used,hear members of Wood's ""stock company"" talk of him! See Ed Wood actually directing scenes from a Grade Z western!!And,it answers once and for all just what did Ed Wood use for the flying saucers??Who could ask for more?",1 "This action film concerning the transport of a laser gun talks itself to death. Crew and cast both show signs that they were caught in the Indonesian heat: the stunts and special effects are bad; whether a good guy or a bad guy, everybody's acting is bad ; there is no decent story; Ashley's directing is hopeless. The film is beaming something conceited like ""what you can do in Hollywood, we can do at least as good"", but of course the makers were wrong, they simply lacked the talent. They should have used the laser beam to obliterate this film.",0 """Screams of a Winter Night"" was made with student actors attending Northwestern State University in Natchitoches,Louisiana,a college that has since been abandoned,the neglected campus becoming a popular teen hang-out.It consists three genuinely spooky stories told by a young campers in an old cabin.The first one is about 'The Moss Point Man',a Yeti-like creature encountered by a local girl and her boyfriend deep in the woods.The second one is about a mute psychopath in an allegedly haunted hotel with the climax somewhat reminding me ""The Blair Witch Project"".The third story is about a sexually repressed girl turning psycho after an attempted rape.The strange,howling wind is becoming stronger and stronger...Creepy low-budget gem from late 70's without gore and nudity.It has some great scares and surprising twists.8 out of 10.",1 "THE EEL borders on dark humour when a man, who after eight years in prison for the murder of his wife, is released from jail. He sets himself up in a barber shop by the river and trouble comes knocking on his door and he can not seem to get away from it. Simple, yet effective, a very mature piece of work and pleasing overall.",1 "Story: In a world of relativism where anything goes and values are becoming personalized, this movie gave me a truly fresh outlook on old Christian and Buddhist values. In this movie, I saw the basic principals of goodness and value, which we all were taught as children, become relevant in the ""real world"" of that era-and most definitely more relevant today. Principals like ""Do to others as you would have them do to you,"" ""Turn the other cheek,"" ""There is no greater love than to lay down your life for a friend."" I walked away from this movie changed, and excited to know that I had just seen a standard set for society today.

Technical: The first time I realized that this was a low budget film was after I had watched it and heard the news from someone else. It didn't give away that secret during viewing. There were some problems with lighting and a really cheesy wheelchair. The music was a mix of Celtic and Far East, and I enjoyed it. I also liked how they chose to portray violence; they weren't graphic about it, but it wasn't whitewashed. There were also some new styles of filming which I found to be quite interesting. But, you'll have to see for yourself :)

Overall a great movie.",1 "This is a very entertaining comedy. The dialogue is lightning paced and flows quickly from one character to the next without a break in between. Cary Grant is excellent in his attempts to keep his ex-wife from re-marrying and on the staff of the newspaper. Rosalind Russell plays the part of his ex-wife well, matching his banter in kind. This movie is worthy of all the praise it gets. One thing I realized while watching this film, a lot of the classic comedies are founded on good witty dialogue. Unlike most of the comedies made today which seem to be founded in silly site gags and bathroom humor. Given a choice, give me the classics any day.

***1/2 (Out of 4)",1 "The movie was made by Juliano Mer, Arna Mer's son. Arna Mer, a Jewish woman who fought in the 1948 war dedicated her life to helping Palestinian refugees after the 1967 war. Among her feats was establishing a children's theater in the West Bank city of Jenin during the 80s. Using old footage, Juliano Mer returns to the refugee camp after his mother's death and after a devastating Israel Defense Forces operation, to check up on the kids who attended the drama group - Arna's Children, who have grown up under Israeli occupation. Some joined militant groups, went on suicide missions or were killed while defending their home. Though highly political, the film does not take sides and is not dogmatic, just humane and real.",1 "We all know that Tammy and the T-Rex is not meant to be in the IMDb top 250 but it sure as hell does not deserve to be in the bottom 100.Ill admit there are some cheesy and really what the f*** parts, but it is actually a entertaining film.This was recommended to me by a friend who likes movies like me so i watched this expecting the biggest piece of trash ever.Instead i got a somewhat good film.Denise Richards and Paul Walker play really good parts and though the plot seems very absurd, it not that bad.If your ever watching this just sit down and try and enjoy it.You might actually like it.

7 out of 10 stars.",1 "There were some in the audience who couldn't believe that a film like Amos Gitai's Promised Land could be made, given its almost documentary like feel to an aged old problem of human trafficking for prostitution. I suppose those who feel that way would probably not take to London to Brighton, which like films such as Lilya-4-eva take an angle of child prostitution, and spun a different narrative out of it.

Here, it's actually out of desperation - in fact almost all the characters here reek of it, in exploiting children on the streets and enticing them with significant sums of money in order to satisfy the whims of some rich clients. The film takes on a non-linear narrative in having its tale told, which leaves you pretty much engaged in wanting to find out just why two women are on the flight as per its title, leaving behind the city of London in double quick time, where we are introduced at 3:07am to Joanne (Georgia Groome) in thick makeup, being hidden in a stank toilet cubicle by an older lady of the streets, Kelly (Lorraine Stanley), suffering from one badly bruised eye.

I suppose a modest production budget made this film look like a typical gritty English crime thriller, with the hand held camera bringing the audience into the thick of the action, either slowly drawing some sympathies from the lead female characters because of the lack of options made available to them, including being on the run, or presenting a sense of clear and present danger up close, especially when pimps Derek (Johnny Harris) and Chum (Nathan Constance) become inevitably close in catching up with the duo for an event they committed, kept closely under wraps.

The relationship between Kelly and Joanne remain one of the highlights of the film, two women who have nobody else to turn to, trying to determine what their next course of action might be at every turn. We see how Kelly takes it upon herself as the surrogate guardian of Joanne, but I suppose only because of the immense guilt that she brought to the table, for having again out of desperation, introduce a young girl into her dark underworld. Those who have watched Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging would see how Georgia Groome makes an about turn from privileged child, to one roaming the streets.

The other highlight which I had enjoyed was how thugs have the capability of systematically breaking down one's defenses, in balancing threats and carrots so as to gain some level of trust and obedience. Johnny Harris plays his role well as the pimp who constantly looks out for himself, of bowing to authority and pressure, while Nathan Constance as his chum actually had a lot more characterization going on for him instead. A pity though that it wasn't explored further, and had to be ended as it did in the film.

London to Brighton has a sense of danger permeating throughout, in a sort of hunter versus prey kind of film, that will leave you on the edge of your seat as it builds up to its last act, in a story succinctly told in under 80 minutes.",1 "This is a beautifully made movie which brings Michael Winterbottom back to similar territory explored in his first two, and best movies. It's saubject matter and acting are wonderfully naturalistic, but it's cinematogrphic style owes more, with it's constantly moving camera and exquisite use of filters that make Lambeth appear more beautiful than it could ever do in reality, to the movies of Wong-kar Wai. It's the sort of movie that would be demeaned by having it's plot explained, like trying to explain Beethoven's Ninth symphony to a deaf person in sign language. Actaully, it's so beautiful visually and it's humanism is so deep that a deaf person might enjoy it. Please go and see it.",1 "I'm sorry for the people who liked it, but there's is absolutely nothing good about this movie. Actors are really playing bad, quotes are stupid (even when they try to have some scientific background), often in the movie we have these vomiting camera shot making circles around the characters (the bank scene is the worst scene I have ever seen in a movie, I laughed all along). So if this unreal scene was not enough, we have that strange bus driver who runs when the FBI agent tries to cut off the bomb.

As I know we can find a lot of funny bad movies in the 80's, it's the first time I see a recent movie being so ridiculous.

Everyone should see this movie at least one time in his life, really. All young directors should see it, and learn how not to do.",0 "I'm all for brainless action/horror movies with lots of gore and nudity. Unfortunately, Le Pacte des Loups tries to be more than that, which makes the entire movie unbelievable. After a short setup, the film starts with a shot of pretentious religious imagery. Two strangers arrive and then save some woman and her father. One of the strangers is a martial-arts ass-kicking spiritual Native American (HE HAS A F*CKING TOMAHAWK AND MAGICAL HEALING POWDER FOR GOD'S SAKE! YEESH.) stereotype and the other is a dashing daring French hero main-character stereotype. It should be noted that the two hardly talk to each other throughout the entire film, which makes the last third of the film illogical and stupid. In fact, all of the characters are pretty much one-dimensional. The acting is not bad (it's not amazing either) given what the actors had to work with. Onto the plot: The film is a horror film wrapped by French royal court and religious intrigue. But since the film is mainly a horror film, the other stuff is just mentioned in passing and thus the imagery seems pretentious. Especially when you consider that the main character is resurrected. (Also, at one point the Native American character is laid out with his arms spread in a crucifixion position in a room where there is religious imagery all over the ceiling. Hmmm.) Anyway, to sum it up, the plot is stupid and unbelievable and the film is filled with gothic and religious imagery. None of that would matter if the film was a brainless action film. Unfortunately, the martial arts was pathetic. Maybe I've been spoiled by the fight scenes of some recent films (e.g. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) but I thought most of the battles were pretty lame. There's a lot of dodging and slowmotion kicks. Nothing spectacular. The final battle was funny because the French-guy main character, who suddenly gained kick-boxing abilities in the middle of the film, shoots flaming ARROWS (HE HAD A FREAKING GUN!) at people and SCALPS a guy. As I mentioned before, the movie sucked because instead of being a normal action/horror movie (the action is horrible; it's scary if you consider wolves in a procupine suit scary) it tries to throw in religious themes (which isn't in the film enough to justify all the freaking imagery everywhere. Even the Native American character is part of the imagery.) Oh yeah, most of the plot of the 2 and 1/2 hour movie makes no sense too. There was a lot of gore and nudity, which is always good. But I'd have to say that this movie is utter crap.",0 "This, like ENOUGH, starring Jennifer Lopez, and others dealing with abuse issues are movies about what many women feel about wrongs done, and are a good way to work through the anger without actually having to go to jail for ""acting out!"" I am waiting for this one on DVD.",1 "The delectable Dina Meyer and the normally competent Lochlyn Munro co-star in this turkey made for The Sci-Fi Channel, about archaeologists unleashing an unkillable monster from an Egyptian tomb. Meyer looks great in black leather and shooting two guns at a time a la Tomb Raider Lara Croft while Munro simply looks like an idiot in an Indiana Jones hat about two sizes too big for his head. The movie goes nowhere once the monster is unleashed, which happens about five minutes in. At times, the creature looks like a poor man's griffin; at other times, it morphs into a bad copy of Inhotep from the first two THE MUMMY movies. The dialog is from hunger, as is the acting. Other than tuning in to get a look at the beautiful Meyer, this one is best skipped.",0 I'm a big Robert Mitchum fan but even I couldn't sit through this one. Everyone acts as if they're asleep. They show the entire range of emotion from grim to grim.

After the first half I gave up and fast-forwarded to the unsatisfying conclusion. This is the slowest moving plot you'll ever see in your life and as near as I could tell none of any of the character's motivations was revealed until the final scene. Since all these stars have done great work elsewhere I guess the blame lies with the director and the script.

Just give this movie a pass and go watch ANY other Mitchum film.,0 "With all her money, why in the world didn't Anna Nicole think to buy that toothless cousin of hers some teeth? Even when she gave her a makeover she didn't think of that! Also maybe her dog would not have tried to have sex with stuffed toys if it had been fixed! But anyone think if that? NO! Movie stars make me sick, they could help so many people and do so much good with their money, yet most of them can think of nothing to use it for except for drugs, booze, and partying! Shame on them! Yet I do feel a great deal of pity for Anna Nicole, she thought fame and fortune would bring her happiness,and she had to learn the hard way that they do not. It was for people like her that Jesus Christ died for.",0 "If you are a maniac who watches movies constantly, you know that you have wasted some hours in your life by movies that have absolutely nothing to say, this debacle is such one....gone are 100 minutes of my life! The story is superthin. A rich girl Madame De Clèves (played by Chiara Mastroianni, and I never could imagine acting could be done in such a boring way) has been destinated by her mother to marry the boring (they definitely found each other!) François De Guise. But of course, our bourgeoisie-lady meets (huuuum) a popstar and falls in love.... Now excuse me and let me point out some critical things. a) the popstar, a certain Pedro Abrunhosa is a macho in Armanisuit who plays the most annoying Portugese rock you can imagine....his crapmusic is about 20 minutes from the movie! b) the popstar seems to be part of the high society of cultural life, so it happens that he plays for a few people who normally only watch pianoconcerts from Chopin. Since when is that cool??????????? c) Since when falls a bourgeoisie-woman for a popstar who is surrounded by groupies? I don't know if director Manoel De Oliviera wanted to be hip by using some popscenes but it only makes his movie ridiculous. And the worst is yet to come! Madame De Clèves cant decide and she asks the help of her friend who happens to be...a nun. The nun tells all philosophicalbullshit that can be told in four words ""Do your own thing"", but for this intelligent answer you have to see a picture from 100 minutes in where nothing happens. I absolutely don't wanna hear terms like ""art cinema"", this is just wasted money. God, even Woody Allen wouldn't like to see this garbage.

",0 "If I was a foreigner and I heard that Americans were coming to visit my city, I would cringe if I had seen this show beforehand. The wife is not bad at all, however the husband... is an idiot. Representing America in a foreign country you should be the epitome of manners and etiquette. Instead, I see on the show when the idiot asks for more hot sauce in Mexico there was no please and no thank you, just an assumption and very little effort put in to speak the native language. It is great to see many of these places that I may one day visit but now, I have to make up for the ignorance and feigned appreciation of the Americans who ventured there first? Thanks... appreciate it. I would really like it more if 1) The husband at least was replaced... ugh how can she stand him; 2) The couple or maybe even single person.... yeah that would be nice studied up on the local culture and customs and language prior to visiting anywhere. And for anyone that doesn't know, # 2 above is an unspoken requirement for traveling to any foreign land. It is about respect for the people and the culture and the understanding that there is MUCH MUCH more beyond the borders of our country that is has a depth of history and culture much greater than ours. We are babies in the eyes of the world and I find that often, the uneducated traveler behaves as one as well.",0 "

By far the worst Argento film I've seen. The story is plain stupid, although the story has never been the most significant part of the Argento parcel. This time his visions have lost it's edge totally, the splatter and gratuitous typical Argento-violence is there, but that and his infatuation with opera is the only thing reminding of his previous work. Acting isn't much, but you still see the occasional wonderful camera moves and he has always used music very convincingly. As a whole it is disturbingly lame production from such a grandmaster, whose previous Stendahl's Syndrome was just mindbogglingly powerful masterpiece. Hope his next giallo film has same grit his former giallo visions have portrayed...",0 "I don't know why this movie got so much criticism. I thought it was pretty good. Sure, the effects might not have been the best, but it was still a great movie. The original Jaws was one of, if not THE, greatest movies of all time. That's a tough act to follow any way you look at it. Jaws 3 also had some great actors, including Dennis Quaid and Bess Armstrong. You can say what you want, but I'll always love Jaws 3.",1 "SPOILER ALERT! This is one of the finest satiric cartoons ever made. I am convinced that South Park is the best show on TV (and the only excuse to turn on that disgusting Comedy Central [AKA The Beer and Sex Channel,]) but some people wonder if the movie is as good as the show. Take my word for it, it isn't. It's ten times better. In the movie, Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny see an R-rated film starring their favorite Canadian actors, Terrance and Philip. The movie is entitled Asses of Fire, and if I may quote Arthur Taussig, the title is the least offensive thing about it. In the opening scene of Asses of Fire, we discover why it was rated R. I won't give away one of the funniest parts of the movie, but I'll just say that I didn't know you could use that many obscenities in only three minutes. When the movie ends, the boys leave the theatre repeating all the words they've heard in the film. Not knowing what the words mean, they continue this behavior the next day at school. Their teacher sends them to the guidance counselor who subsequently calls their mothers. As those who watch the show may have guessed, Sheila Brosfloski, Kyle's mother, is outraged and begins a campaign to have the film banned.

It's general pop-culture knowledge that Kenny McCormick is killed in nearly EVERY episode of South Park. One can naturally assume that his death in the movie would be the Kenny-death-to-end-all-Kenny-deaths. It is, but unlike his frequent deaths in the show, his death in the movie is a huge contributing factor to the plot. This may be a slight spoiler (if you can call the way in which Kenny dies a spoiler.) The boys end up seeing the movie again, and Kenny is killed while imitating something he saw in the film that may be too inappropriate say in this review. He is banished to Hell for skipping church to see the film, and we discover that Satan and Saddam Hussein are in a homosexual love affair. In this relationship, Satan is surprisingly warm and caring and wants to communicate with Saddam, but Saddam just wants sex. The conversations between these two characters throughout the film are hilarious. Meanwhile, back on Earth, Sheila Brosfloski's movement to have Terrance and Philip banned has spun out of control. Canada is blamed for all of the problems of America's youth, America is preparing to literally wage war against Canada, all Canadian-American citizens are sent to death-camps, and Terrance and Philip are scheduled to be executed. Back in Hell, Kenny listens to a conversation between Satan and Saddam. Bible readers know the seven signs of the end of the world. The fall of an empire, the coming of a comet, etc. We discover that when the blood of Terrance and Philip touches American soil, Satan and Saddam Hussein will ascend from Hell and rule the earth. It is now up to Stan, Kyle, and Cartman to save humanity from the horrors of every Christian's worst nightmare, and his boyfriend, George W. Bush's worst nightmare. This film is more than hilarious. I am convinced that Matt Stone and Trey Parker are the funniest individuals in America. This film is an animated musical, but parents beware, it doesn't bare the Disney family-friendly stamp of approval. The best songs in the film are ""Up There,"" ""I'm Super,"" ""What Would Brian Boitano Do?,"" and the infamous ""Blame Canada,"" which was nominated for an Oscar. The best voice jobs by the creators were Saddam Hussein (Matt Stone,) and Satan (Trey Parker.) I could watch this film twenty times every day and never tire of it. Caution: while this film is animated, it is certainly not for the kiddies. It is filled with vulgar language, but it is not gratuitous. The language used is the purpose of the film. The moral of the film is that no matter what words your children learn from a film, it is not the filmmaker's job to raise your child. It's an anti-censorship film. It is the up to the parent to put it into context and punish accordingly. I would recommend this film to everyone who is not easily offended or an extreme Christian, YOU WILL BE OFFENDED. If you're into satirical cartoons, or just want to see Canadians drop bombs on Alec Baldwin, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut is a must-see.

",1 "I expected a lot from this film, being one of the most ambitious Swedish films ever with tons of local media coverage and a genre I enjoy, but I was disappointed. It looks great and big (at least parts of it), but something is wrong with the acting or the direction (or maybe the script) because you never really get drawn into the story and you don't really care about the characters.

Stellan Skarsgård is great (as usual) but it is a very small part, Vincent Perez is OK, I liked Morgan Alling in his role, but both Joakim Nätterqvist and Sofia Helin are really weak.

I looked so much forward to this film when it came out (had read the books), but was very disappointed. Did not expect much for the sequel, and it really was not worth much either.",0 "I had some fun times with this film, even though it does not come close to any of the great werewolf pictures. The films strongest points are its gore and the werewolf suit. The kill scenes are gloriously splattery at times and the werewolf looks very cool for a low budget production. I was dubious of the idea of having it talk, but on the other hand hearing a werewolf rattle off cheesy lines and genuinely enjoy getting up to some carnage if fairly novel. No tortured heroics here, this werewolf is just a mean SOB. Richard Tyson plays the role with gusto and it works well albeit in a cheesy way. The film does try to have a bit more of a plot than just a standard teens trapped by a monster opus and it kinda comes off although it makes the film uneven in tone. There is the odd plot hole in there to chuckle at too. Acting wise, the film is OK. The main character and his girl both do pretty well and it is interesting to see a film with such a weak male lead, whose female pal is considerably tougher than he is. Nice traditional role reversal going on there. Sadly, the girl in it is closer to Bree from Neighbours during her goth phase than a convincing looking tough girl but I'll let that slide because it made me laugh. The teenagers at the beginning are appallingly obnoxious and disposable, but happily they are disposed of. The adults mostly do quite well and there is a brief appearance from David Naughton for horror buffs to chuckle at. The films flaws come chiefly from the tone, which varies between gruesome and joyously politically incorrect and a cheesy almost Scooby Doo or Famous Five vibe when the two leads are investigating the werewolf. Also, the ending could have been somewhat better, though it is still perfectly reasonable. All in all, this is a good weekend booze/popcorn film for undemanding werewolf movie fans, with some fine moments and an overall feeling of fun. Good times.",1 "There were a few interesting aspects, especially for the film's era. The scope was pretty (overly?) large - even if a lot happens off-stage. However, there were some pretty horrible bits of acting as well. PLENTY of material for the MST3K guys. For a while I kept thinking it was FAIL-SAFE but done as a subplot on the Love Boat.

I especially love the 8 women to 600 men left in the polar research station who get RIGHT to the obvious point. As morally distasteful as it is ladies, we have a planet to repopulate and lots of men with needs...

Short straw gets George Kennedy.",0 "Stray Dog (1949)

An early Kurosawa film, made before he came to the attention of cinema enthusiasts with Rashomon. Toshiro Mifune plays a young detective whose pistol is stolen by a pickpocket. Fearing for his job, and fuelled by embarrassment he sets out to find his pistol, which has been used in two crimes by the thief, in Tokyo during a sweltering heatwave...

Kurosawa's western influences are as clear as ever in Stray Dog, as for all intents and purposes it plays like a conventional American police story. Several scenes reminded me of Orson Welles' later film Touch of Evil, particularly an extended montage sequence with a similar feel to the famous opening shot of Welles' film showing a disguised Mifune walking the streets as he attempts to track down blackmarket arms dealers accompanied by a cacophony of street noise and Latin-jazz-big band music. Another scene where Mifune and the older cop leading the investigation, played by Takashi Shimura, stakeout a Japanese Baseball game, could've been a Hitchcock set-piece. Elements of this film seem to have been referenced in a variety of contemporary works from the doppelganger criminal/detective idea in Michael Mann's Heat to John C Reilly's desperate search for his lost gun in Magnolia.

However, despite the references to conventional genre film, Kurosawa adds depth to his film with several philosophical themes and ideas. First is the subtle way in which the detective and the robber are shown to be connected. Mifune explains how his possessions were all stolen after the war, and that he contemplated turning to crime but decided on the opposite route of law enforcement. The robber, who ends up with Mifune's gun, commits the crimes exactly because he too had his bag of belongings stolen. Mifune feels a deep sense of guilt that his pistol has been used in these crimes and almost breaks down completely when his boss, Shimura, is shot and wounded. The idea resonates with Mifune, that the life of crime he managed to avoid has returned to his life through this chance occurrence. The robber himself, is only seen in the great final chase, but he is given surprising depth of character just in the chase alone. The final chase between the two men is a classic Kurosawa scene. In a tense moment, there is an instinctive reaction by both men that they've finally found each other. Mifune is shot in the arm, out in the countryside, as Mozart drifts from a piano in a nearby house. His blood drips onto the flowers below. The theme that the gun only has a certain number of bullets pays off, as the robber fires twice and misses, leaving the gun empty allowing Mifune to overpower him. The two men wrestle in the flowers, falling into a river and get covered in mud. The robber is eventually overpowered and handcuffed and Kurosawa composes a wonderful shot showing the two, unrecognisable and exhausted men arranged at either side of the frame in the foreground, like a mirror image, while a group of singing schoolchildren walk past in the background. The robber suddenly begins to cry, and howls in anguish. Identity is blurred, the robber is no more evil than the detective, just a weaker man who gave in to the difficult environment he was faced with.

Although some elements of the technique aren't as well developed as Kurosawa's most famous, such as the clumsy flashback intro and narration there are many moments which show the sign of the truly great filmmaker he was to become. The sense of oppressive environment, both place and weather, is strong and it's possibly the sweatiest film I've seen! The detective story itself is pretty compelling, but the final, climactic scene alone transcends simple genre film-making with something profound, poetic and moving.",1 "After eagerly waiting to the end, I have to say I wish I wouldn't have joined the whole series at the first place. The final episode was everything against the previous seven years. It has ruined everything. The journey was 23 years, but captain Janeway has the power to reduce it... let say, seven years only. Why seven? Why not just one? Or nothing? Why not avoid the whole adventure? Crewmemebers were dying all along the journey. Why she wants to save Seven of Nine only? The others don't count or what? The most ridiculous part when the crew states that getting home is not really the most important thing to them. As the say, ""journey is more important than the destination"". Unbelievable. And at the finale scene the are surrounded by other Federation ships and the Earth is in sight. Nothing about landing, returning to the normal life.

Worst ending ever.",0 "Classy romantic comedies about African-Americans that neither deal drugs nor go on booty calls were unusual fare for Hollywood in the pre-Tyler Perry era. ""Waiting to Exhale"" (1995) charted this change of attitude in the depiction of blacks that caught on in later movies like ""Soul Food,"" ""Eve's Bayou,"" ""Love Jones,"" and ""The Wood."" Director Malcolm D. Lee's witty, sophisticated, but dramatically well-rounded yarn ""The Best Man"" is the latest to capitalize on this trend. Despite some profanity and raunchy sexual allusions, ""The Best Man"" endorses marriage, fidelity and religious values. Nobody gets shot, stabbed, or coked up the nose. The characters qualify as intelligent, positive, upscale role models and stereotypes appear conspicuously absent in this seriocomic account of a weekend college reunion before a classmate's wedding.

Happily, ""The Best Man"" shuns racism either as a political issue or as a narrative theme. Actually, this lighthearted but occasionally down to earth comedy of errors looks and sounds like something Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw might have penned. The point is that ""The Best Man"" emerges as a polished mainstream comedy where the characters are first and foremost people with all of the foibles and frailties of mankind. A strong ensemble cast headed by charismatic Taye Diggs, who won over audiences in ""When Stella Got Her Groove Back,"" distinguishes writer Lee's accomplished directorial debut. Unlike his famous, more often controversial brother Spike Lee, Malcolm sticks to the story and avoids tangents.

Chicago author Harper Stewart (Taye Diggs of ""Go"") has just written his first novel. Appropriately entitled 'Unfinished Business,' Stewart's about to be published story has been picked up by Oprah Winfrey's book club. Life couldn't be better for the novice novelist. The froth of Harper's success fizzles when he learns that his ex-college flame, BET-TV producer Jordan Armstrong (Nia Long of ""Friday"") has circulated an advance copy of his semi-autobiographical effort among his close chums. When Harper arrives in New York City for the weekend festivities surrounding the impending marriage of football star Lance Sullivan (Morris Chestnut of ""Half Past Dead"") and Mia Morgan (Monica Calhoun of ""Love & Basketball""), he finds himself up to his ears in hot water.

Naturally, Harper's friends have perused his novel. They bicker about who he used as models for his fictional characters. Things come to a boil when Lance suspects the worst. He believes that his sweetheart Mia may have bedded down with Harper, the guy he chose to serve as his best man. Reluctantly, Harper confesses, and the once philandering football star blackens his eye at their stag party and then threatens to throw him off the balcony. Lance calls off the wedding without warning Mia and then storms out of the party. Harper realizes grimly that he must patch things up. The next day everybody shows up at the church in their finest garb, but poor Mia has no idea why Lance is tardy.

""The Best Man"" is the equivalent of Terry McMillan for guys. They form a closely-knit group of friends who have achieved success of their own right after college. Predictably, their reunion sparks old rivalries and bitter jealousies. Harper finds himself in trouble long before he arrives in the Big Apple to celebrate with his friends. Just as his publishing career is gaining momentum, Harper's girlfriend goads him about a commitment that he balks at giving. Quentin (Terrence Howard of ""Iron Man"") is a cynical career drifter who cannot find a woman for himself but who doles out advice to Julian Murch (Harold Perrineau, Jr., of ""The Matrix Reloaded"") about how to deal with his prima donna girlfriend Shelby (Melissa De Sousa of ""Biker Boyz""). Finally, Lance has decided to settle down now that he has inked a $5-million contract to play for the New York Giants.

""The Best Man"" towers as a four-star romantic comedy in the tradition of ""The Big Chill"" with characters who never get short-changed and an ending that is agreeably believable.",1 "An intriguing portrait of a young man drifting away from reality. And since that young man was a famous hacker with an unhealthy interest in conspiracies, the movie has got to be about conspiracies, right? Wrong. But that's exactly what the ads would like you to think. Very bad marketing for a very good movie. And beware: it can bring you to tears!! (Just thinking about that PDP in the rain makes me weep ... *sniff*)",1 "I admit it: I didn't watch this show when it first aired. I was an 80's kid, so I was far more concerned with shows like Ducktails and Tailspin than any dumb show about a P.I.

But, luckily, reruns have managed to re-introduce me to the world of the 80's shows. I've since become rather obsessed with my ""three 80's M's"" -- Matlock, M*A*S*H and Magnum.

All I can say is, this ain't no Macguyver. Tom Magnum is NOT a PC guy left-wing activist who makes speeches at the end of the episode on the environment, or who can build a nuclear reactor from a piece of gum and a shoestring. Magnum is, as his name suggests, the kind of guy who shoots first and asks questions later. He always manages to get himself in trouble, and sort of mooches off his friends. He doesn't always know who is the bad guy, and he has been known to kill a few people in cold blood. He doesn't always say or do the right thing. He has some serious baggage, from his wife and daughter being killed (or were they??) and Vietnam. Some times-- well, quite often, he screwed up. His closest friends are usually in danger-- or killed-- because of him.

This makes it sound bad, I know, but you know, these are the things I love about Magnum. He's got baggage, he's not all together, he's a bit messed up. Not seriously psychotic, you understand, but not all together. I love Magnum: the play between him and Higgins is just delightful, and his poor mooched off friends just can't say no to him, hard as they try. And, you know he's like that, but you love him anyway. Silly loud Hawaiian shirts and all. You can almost always count on at least one bar fight or car chase, He's sort of a gun-slinger of the 1980's America.

Magnum is first and foremost, Fun. Tom Selleck and cast are utterly delightful, and I think this show is quite underrated, because when you take away the car chases there are still first and foremost good story lines and good writing.

They have serious episodes, and they have silly ones. I tended not to like the sillier episodes: those episodes usually ranked as the best in the series stand up very well. They had good episodes and better episodes, I can only think of one or two eps in the entire series I just didn't like, but they aren't horrible, just not my taste. If you get a chance to see Did You See the SunRise parts 1 and 2, Infinity and Jelly Doughnuts (I don't know if that's the real title) or any of them, really, you watch about 3 of them and you'll be hooked. Especially Infinity and Jelly Doughnuts, I think it's one of the best episodes ever. And the series finale was brilliant, really most of them were just fun but they had some utterly brilliant episodes. You really feel like you know Magnum, and I think it's because he's just a little messed up that makes him feel real to you. That and he talks to you: often he says things like, ""I know what you're thinking, and you're right, I shouldn't have..."" or ""I know what you're thinking, but this time, you're wrong. Higgins is the one who..."" I really wish I'd gotten into this series when it was on, and that I appreciated it for what it was, but alas, I did not. I'm just glad I had a second chance to appreciate what a brilliant and fun show this was. I hope someone else out there has the chance to watch this show and enjoy it-- or re-enjoy it, for the great show it was.",1 "Like many of the comments, it will be considered to be in the top five movies I have watched. Living my life as an identical mirror twin, I could sense the incredible love between them. I watched the movie on TV and there was only one commercial so I was riveted to my couch as I did not want to miss one moment. I did not have a sense of where the story was going at the beginning but the writers took us on a believable journey. Perfect pick for the mother. I am lucky to be channel surfing this night or I would have missed a story that I could so strongly relate to. I will have to do some research to see if the Polish brothers have written or directed any movies since. I wish them both huge success with any projects they tackle in the future. Thank you for sharing a love that I have been fortunate to always know.",1 "whilst as a comedy this film is very patchy and sometimes excruciatingly vulgar, what makes it watchable is the Moore/Cook relationship. Cook is by far the funnier, more dedicated and original.his quick-witted thought processes are brilliant though i did sometimes wonder if he was simply trying to be as shocking as possible simply for the sake of it. Moore often seems past caring,often simply following cook's lead but perhaps it is the strain of Cook's obvious resentment that knobbles him. certainly he seems to be struggling to keep up with Cook's genius, but then i've always felt Cook was the more talented. the material is often of a sexual nature, sometimes (mock?) misogynistic and swearing is prolific. watching this it's clear to see how comedy today is often very derivative. The horse racing sketch, for example, blows the juvenile ""dicks and pussies"" speech from team America out of the water. if only every drunk and stoner could be as spontaneously funny.",1 "Few who aren't students of the history of airpower today recognize the name of William ""Billy"" Mitchell. An early pilot in the U.S. Army's fledgling Air Corps, he served in World War I when no American-produced plane saw action above the trenches of France. Notwithstanding the Wright brother's initial breathtaking powered flight, by 1914 England, France and Germany were far ahead of us in not only aircraft design but also in fashioning tactics for a new kind of warfare.

Mitchell returned from the war not only a convert to the future of airpower but as a zealot advocating his prophecy to all who would listen (and to very many who didn't want to). The post-war Army suffered massive cutbacks. Mitchell reverted from brigadier general to his permanent rank of colonel, a more gentle demotion than many others experienced.

The Army's first postwar chief of staff was the only man ever to hold the rank of General of the Armies, John J. ""Black Jack"" Pershing. Pershing actually appreciated aviation's potential to a real degree but he faced a budget-cutting congress while leading an army with too many senior officers who dimly recalled fighting Indians from the saddle.

Mitchell was given the opportunity to sink the German war prize battleship ""Ostfriesland."" A rather foolish cabinet member offered to watch the aerial bombing from the warship's deck, so certain was he that the vessel couldn't be destroyed from the air. Fortunately for him his offer was not taken up.

Gary Cooper turns in a quietly passionate role as the Air Corps leader who did sink the ""Ostfriesland."" In the film he's shown disobeying war game rules and using one-ton bombs not approved for the exercise. That never happened. He went by the rules (that time). His and his pilots' achievements were dismissed, however, by battleship-loving admirals who claimed that the test was meaningless since the ship wasn't defending itself. Some Japanese observers were less sure that this was a valid analysis.

Gary Cooper's Billy Mitchell, despite deviations from the real story, is a remarkably accurate picture of a dedicated officer with unrestrained hubris whose public and volatile denunciations of Army and Navy superiors for numerous fatal crashes led to his then highly-publicized court-martial.

Ralph Bellamy as Congressman Frank Reid is Mitchell's chief counsel. A blistering but unreal cross-examination by the young Rod Steiger as MAJ Allan Gullion is the the dramatic high point of the film. It's something we expect from the courtroom genre. Mitchell is convicted of, in essence, disobedience, and is placed on a long-term suspended status (in reality the effective and actual termination of his military career without the continuing public interest that incarceration would have brought).

Cooper is strongly expressive while exuding a powerful sense of personal morality and duty as Mitchell defined that quality. That largely matches the real Mitchell.

As defense witnesses we see the young H.H. Arnold (to achieve five-star rank in World War II) and Carl Spaatz, a four-star architect of strategic bombing in the next war. These officers persevered in their dedication to birthing a powerful air force and they did it without losing their careers and thus their effectiveness (in that regard they mirrored young field grade officers such as George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower in their crusade to take the Army from the horse to the tank).

Cooper walks out of the film in civilian clothing, a slightly confused expression on his face. He should have been confused. For the remainder of his life, which ended before the war he predicted, he was essentially marginalized as aviation expanded and America slowly recognized the need to build a world class air force.

Overall, for historical accuracy ""The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell"" is solid on the central story and fictional on the margins.

This DVD transfer, however, borders on dreadful. Colors are washed out and voice levels shift slightly over and over. But it's well worth watching.

7/10.",1 "Other commentators are way to lenient with remakes of old, cheap, drive-in movie fare. Why do a remake that is even more cheesy than the original? Jennifer Rubin is not nearly good-looking enough (at any of the ages attempted in this film) for this role, not to mention that I confess that I spoke too soon in my comments on the remake of Not of This Earth regarding ridiculously skinny actresses. Like that movie the sets got worse as the movie progressed until some of the scenes looked like they were filmed inside a big packing box. The idea that drives this story is not very good to begin with and warranted no remake, unless as part of a general spoof of the 50's/60's cheap SF phenomenon. My advice is: if you see this movie on the rental shelf, keep walking. Roger Corman has had a long career and I presume he is very rich but he has pretty much been a synonym for fairly bad, low-budget movies. His real claim to fame is the number of careers he has launched for makers of better movies.",0 "Easily the worst movie this year. If you're looking for character development, good dialogue or a halfway decent plot, this is the wrong movie. Even if you're looking for Catherine Zeta-Jones' butt, you're still going to be disappointed. (You saw it all in the previews.) The only compelling aspects of the completely 2-dimensional characters were due to the fact that he's Sean Connery and she's Catherine Zeta-Jones. But even James Bond with a Hellenesque beauty at his side cannot save this cerebrally-challenged script.

The worst part is that it was too painful to make fun of. If a cheap and bad horror movie is a man falling off of his bike that you can laugh at (and sometimes laughs with you), than ""Entrapment"" is a catastrophic and very painful train wreck. If your Connery/Zeta-Jones fix is unsatiated. Go rent ""Goldfinger"" and ""Zorro."" If you just want to get out of the house, please save yourself and see ""The Matrix.""

",0 "This is for all the kids born in the 70's who do not remember, and didn't have to bear the burden that our fathers, mothers and older brothers and sisters had to bear.

Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the '100 Women of the Century.'

BY BARBRA WALTERS

Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country, but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam

The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot

The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat.

In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF SurvivalSchoolwas a POW in Ho Lo Prison the 'Hanoi Hilton.'

Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American 'Peace Activist' the 'lenient and humane treatment' he'd received.

He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was dragged away. During the subsequent beating, he fell forward on to the camp Commandant's feet, which sent that officer berserk.

In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying career) from the Commandant's frenzied application of a wooden baton.

From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the 'Hanoi Hilton',,, the first three of which his family only knew he was 'missing in action'. His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and clothed routine in preparation for a 'peace delegation' visit. They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they were alive and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his Social Security Number on it, in the palm of his hand.

When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: 'Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?' and 'Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?' Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper. She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him all the little pieces of paper.

Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Colonel Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know of her actions that day.

I was a civilian economic development adviser in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnamin 1968, and held prisoner for over 5 years.

I spent 27 months in solitary confinement; one year in a cage in Cambodia; and one year in a 'black box' in Hanoi. My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border. At one time, I weighed only about 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.)

We were Jane Fonda's 'war criminals.'

When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with her.

I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received... and how different it was from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as 'humane and lenient.'

Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched with a large steel weights placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane.

I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda soon after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She never did answer me.

These first-hand experiences do not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of '100 Years of Great Women.' Lest we forget...' 100 Years of Great Women' should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots.

There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them. Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer and she needs to know that we will never forget. RONALD D. SAMPSON, CMSgt, USAF 716 Maintenance Squadron, Chief of Maintenance DSN: 875-6431 COMM: 883-6343",0 "By the last half hour of the movie, I wanted to bang my head against a wall. I love Lindsay Lohan, and I thought she was great in Freaky Friday, and maybe the reason she annoyed me so much in this movie was the fact that she was TOO good. She really was a drama queen. As for the movie, random fantasy scenes with cartoonish seventies figures and background everywhere was truly irritating. Also, her outfits in the film were so horribly hideous. I suppose this movie was amusing, but still, the word that describes it best is ""annoying"".",0 "In WWII England a troop of surveyors are dispatched into a characteristically happy-go-lucky and scenic village, though really they are a select assemblage of German officers with orders to seize control of the township on the horizon of a covert German attack in a few days. Director Alberto Cavalcani is smart. Rather than this information creeping up on us like a twist, we grasp this from the start. When one of the villagers grows suspicious, we are in an enhanced state of tension. The Germans hijack the parish, a handful among which refuse to lose hope of alerting the unsuspecting free world around them.

Do not make the mistake of presuming that it is an insincere propaganda yarn, considering its era. This is in fact quite an electrifying tale of survival. If so many can overlook the propaganda of obsolete films like Battleship Potemkin, there is certainly room for this picture. It stands out, owing much to its unexpected flashes of violence that are sincerely exhilarating and often frank and uncompromising in terms of the drama. It is not gritty like most modern war films. The quaintly timeless English ambiance, and the consistent theme of it maintaining its spry morale, is a clever and natural juxtaposition to the taut aggression of the conflict, which is thus more well-defined. The relatively unfamiliar cast is plainly high- quality.

At its hub, yes, it's a work of propaganda exploiting a thriller story to enrapture its WWII-era British spectators. But mind you, it is based on a story by English writer and WWII MI6 spy Graham Greene. Nevertheless, the English were righteous in that war, remaining the only European country the Germans intended to occupy but never could. This piece grows to be as riveting as any other good movie, and what's more, its unexpected violence causes it to project with particular prominence.",1 "I had been looking forward to seeing this film for about a month after I saw an interview with Ben Kingsley talking about it.

I was very disappointed. I found it slow, pretentious and really flat. I thought the two main characters were vain, shallow and unlikeable.

Penelope Cruz's performance was far better than Ben Kingsley's but was nowhere near her usual standards, such as Volver. She has much greater ability than was displayed here.

The background music was laboured and intrusive. All in all I found it horridly contrived and I had to keep looking at my watch to see how much longer I had to suffer it before it ended.",0 "The same extreme close-up footage of what appears to be a pit bull gorging on a blood rare piece of meat is inserted again and again with each kill. Considering how many kills there are in this trash fest, you'll become so familiar with the gator's incisors, you might start giving each tooth a name.

Ridiculous and deranged. So much so, it begins to look like it's a parody, but I think the film actually took itself seriously. This is one of those flicks with so many outrageously stupid lines it could become a cult classic of the so-bad-it's-good kind. The acting is beyond atrocious. There's one Jessica Simpson look alike who is casually jogging around (looking like she's doing an episode of Bay Watch) through the forest after seeing two gruesome deaths. The skeptics she encounters recite lines like robots. There's three dimwitted twerps who flunked out of Animal House wandering around looking for an anti-drunkenness elixir. Then there's some whack lady (an unrecognizable Kelly McGillis) who wants to catch the thing. And some poor man's Capt. Ahab who also wants to croak it. Oh, and the vulcanologists who just stand around gossiping.

I love the rampage scene, where the gator chases everything that moves. Red CGI splotch paint balls replace characters frequently; that's about the level of the CGI effects. The ""volcano"" looks like one of those science project things kids do. Characters with ""Next victim"" written on their faces always seem to fall down while running so the thing can devour them. Terrified extras screaming and running: straight out of an old Godzilla type flick. By this time, you're either rooting for the monster, or rolling on the floor in hysterics.

Demented script, comically awful acting, brazenly sloppy special effects: this one is so amateurish, you have to see it to believe it.",1 "It is shocking to think of how big the High School Musical franchise has become for Disney. In 2006, the first film became a surprise hit, and the sequel is expected to follow along the same lines. It is embarrassing to admit, but I bought a month's subscription for Disney Channel on Demand just so I could see High School Musical 2 before anyone else, and it definitely didn't disappoint. Let me say it right here and now: High School Musical is thousands of times better than the first film, with improvements in every category. The movie is longer, most of the scenes are more realistic, the directing and the acting seem to have vastly improved, and most importantly of all, the songs and the music are just AMAZING. These are the type of songs you would expect from a Broadway film or production, not some TV movie musical! The lyrics are beautiful, and nearly all of the songs are spectacular. All of the original cast members return for High School Musical 2, including Zac Efron, Ashley Tisdale, Vanessa Hudgens, Lucas Grabeel, and Corbin Bleu.

The plot this time around is incredibly different from the first one, and much more structured. It has a certain unique flow to it. Summer has arrived and Troy and Gabriella's love has to stand the test of time. Summer break just happens to be the ultimate test. Sharpay's parents own a country club, and she allows them to hire Troy, but all of the Wildcats come along for summer jobs. Sharpay will stop at nothing to tear apart Troy and Gabriella. Troy must discover who he is and what the future really holds for him along the way.

The best thing about this sequel is the fact that Disney seems to care so much about it. It's not one of those crappy sequels like Inspector Gadget 2 with none of the original cast returning. This sequel brings back the entire cast, and fleshes out the backstories for each and every one of them. With a longer length, there is more time to develop the characters, and this time is utilized wisely with a number of songs with amazing lyrics. Each and every song brings something new to the plate and is a realization of one thing or another. Every song has its own sound and feel that is much more unique than the first one. The soundtrack is simply amazing, and even the one song that didn't make it into the movie (Humuhumunukunukuapua'a) ended up as one of my favorites.

The acting is considerably better this time around as all of the cast members have had a year or so to work on their acting. Lucas Grabeel steals the show as Ryan, who finally breaks free from being Sharpay's accomplice in everything. Zac Efron gives a flawless performance with some amazing vocals, and it's very easy to see why he has become such an icon so quickly. Everyone's hairstyles and clothes look much better this time around, and there is much less of that corny Disney-Channel-show feel to it. The writing and the script are very well-written, and there are very few scenes that don't come out the right way. The dialogue and the music and lyrics balance themselves out perfectly in the movie.

High School Musical 2 is not only the best Disney Channel Original Movie ever made, but it is also sure to become a classic, and one of the best film musicals I've ever seen. It is better than the first film in every way imaginable with better humor and comedic moments, better writing, and much better songs. Don't miss this film—you won't be disappointed! It is nothing short of amazing.",1 "Wow, I really enjoyed this show! The acting, story and effects were great. The cast seemed to work well together, it's too bad that Justin Hartley is now on Smallville. For a pilot, the show was great and showed a LOT of potential! Wow, what was the CW thinking by not picking it up?! The pilot had action, mystery sex appeal. People were expecting great things from this show and the CW screwed it up without even getting it on the air. They're crazy. Hopefully the huge success and huge number of downloads on i Tunes will make them change their minds... hopefully. With an average rating of 4 and a half stars, I don't know what CW is waiting for!",1 "The movie starts like a sort of mystery/thriller,when Janie pursues the truth about her past. Along the middle we find out what has happened to her and the movie changes into a human drama. I could really identify with Janie here, putting myself in her shoes. How she copes with the very sudden changes in her life really made me think about parents and family relations.

Kellie Martin(Janie) gave a fine performance.Very much recommended.:)",1 This film is pretty damn bad. As has already been mentioned the film steals the plots of Executive Decision and borrows a bit of the Rock for good measure.

What I did not understand was why would the kidnappers hijack the Vice Presidents plane ?? Surely with all that potential chemical death on board any plane would have done. In fact why use a plane at all just use a bomb in a warehouse with the chemical. Oh well who knows the minds of master criminals in terrible films ?

The plot is stolen from executive decistion. The aerial shots are borrowed from stock footage. This really only leaves the acting to save it - sadly it doesn't. Stereotypical bad guys and Stereotypical good guys (the leader of the special forces team sent in to rescue the Vice President is a gung ho idiot so that the main film hero can take over - oh my god).

Good look finding more work for all involved in this turkey.,0 "this is a exellent film to watch a rainy night with your friends.. their old Stockholm ghetto talk is really something! I really recomend this film too all the swedish IMDB members out there!

ghetto talk: ""kom igen vi shappar""

""biga pengar""

""vi slaggar här ikväll""

""va fan vill du??....fitta!",1 "Of course, ""Flatley"" is already not exactly the ideal name for a dancer, but I think Michael is really pushing the irony envelope with this new title: ""Feet of Flames""

One really can't resist recommending Desenex Foot Spray to the retiring (and clearly, ailing) Flatley.

I might add that, much like that cheering London crowd (per review below), I too am enthusiastic about this being his last live performance.

""Hinting that it may be his last live performance, Flatley is cheered on by an enthusiastic London crowd."" ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide",0 "I was subjected to this at a party recently and honestly, I can say nothing good about it. The animation was awful, the storyline (such as it was) was incomprehensible. The voice acting was passable, but hardly makes up for how horrible the rest of this cartoon was. After a short time, maybe five or ten minutes, of having this trash inflicted on me, I managed to politely excuse myself and get some chips. How anyone above the age of ten can be so enamored with this remains a mystery to me. But, from what I can see, fans of this genre are rabid enough that poor animation and incomprehensibility make no difference to them, so one negative review equally will make no difference.

On the other hand, if you like GOOD animation, steer clear of this and watch some classic Bugs Bunny instead.

0/5 stars.",0 "Burt Reynolds and Tony Randall in charge of the ""apparatus"" required to make a pass on a date, with Woody as one of a thousand soldiers make the rest of the movie worth the wait. The more times I see this, the more I also enjoy Gene Wilder's bit as an unusual doctor with an odd sense of compassion. If you like ""intelligent-zany"" this is for you.",1 """Love Me Or Leave Me"" has been critically lauded and publicly supported. I can only concede it's a very fine music/drama/biopic.

What's so unique about this film is it's skillfully combining the ""gangster"" element with the ""musical"" genre. The bio-based storyline plays out like somewhat like a crime drama, while the musical portion rings forth with twelve complete full-bodied numbers.

The casting is truly inspired: what a coup getting Doris Day, at the peak of her physical, acting and vocal powers to be cast in a real-life role, while snaring the brilliant, often breathtaking James Cagney--forever at the peak of his powers--as the indestructible ""Gimp.""

Together they create fireworks, playing off one another's sweet 'n' sour characterizations with great relish. How amusing it is to see Cagney having fun with his deft limp-walk and grueling thug-character, complemented by Day's equally enjoyable, contrastingly lovable persona.

The songs are all very beautiful, and expertly rendered by Day in this, a wonderful tribute to her vocal talent and impressive musicianship.

The script is well-written to utilize the stars' individual gifts, and the widescreen production is a delight to watch. After all these years, ""Love Me Or Leave Me"" holds its own, thanks to the contributions of two now-legendary stars.",1 "I love this collection of there videos. ""Jump"" is my best music video in that video collection. Alex influenced me to play the drums and Eddie is just the best guitarist that ever lived. They rock and will never die. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK FELLAS.",1 "***WARNING SOME SPOILERS*** This is the one that started it all, before King Kong, Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, Godzilla, Jurassic Park, etc. Nearly eighty years ago, this ambitious silent film was unleashed on an astonished public, the story adapted from the famous novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Although there had been silent short subjects featuring prehistoric animals before, The Lost World was the first full-length feature to introduce the concept of such outsized monsters invading a major metropolis. Today, such a plot seems terribly cliched, but it's unfair to judge The Lost World by modern standards- technically or artistically. In fact, if imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery, this original version of the Lost World should be blushing from the attention!

Willis O'Brien (who had produced many short animated subjects previously) was the primary resource behind Lost World: without his expertise and participation, the movie would likely never have been completed, or even considered. The film's producers rightly figured audiences would want to see the film primarily for the prehistoric animals, so the human cast took a supporting role. O'Brien and his crew went above and beyond Doyle's story, populating the Lost World with seemingly dozens of creatures, (only a few are mentioned in the novel). The inclusion of more dinosaurs allowed the film to feature them as the primary menaces, instead of the novel's plot of tribal warfare between natives and ape-men. Except for stuntman Bull Montana as the villainous missing link inexplicably traveling in conjunction with a chimpanzee, this portion of the novel was excluded from the film.

The film varies somewhat from Doyle's novel: a group of intrepid explorers accompany the volatile Professor Challenger (Wallace Beery) to a plateau in the jungles of South America. Beery's Challenger is probably the most interesting character in the film. He's a man driven by his convictions and unwilling to back down on his arguments. In several ways, he can be seen as a precursor to King Kong's Carl Denham. Lewis Stone as Sir John Roxton provides the only real subtlety of character, an older man in love with the sole woman of the expedition, Paula White (Bessie Love). Roxton sees his chances for romance fade as Paula falls for Ed Malone (Lloyd Hughes) a younger man who hopes to make his career as a journalist on the expedition. Roxton first conveys dismay at the budding romance, then resignation as he chivalrously bows out of this romantic triangle. It's an unexpected touch of subtlety in a film that is geared towards drama and conflict.

Inevitably- because of this emphasis on the special effects- this romantic subplot seems intrusive. If only the film could have sustained such human interaction, or managed to evoke some compassion in audiences. Sadly, though the effects themselves are quite startling, the pacing and direction of The Lost World are merely serviceable. O'Brien and his crew worked wonders to create the dinosaurs and volcano eruption, but the technical wizardry is let down by the workmanlike, unimaginative direction of Harry Hoyt, who seems completely disconnected to the possibilities inherent in such a plot. Unlike King Kong, which wisely built up suspense and tension when introducing the prehistoric denizens of Skull Island, the dinosaurs in Lost World appear abruptly and without context. The brontosaurus, for instance, is first seen grazing sedately through a simple cut away from the live action, and is not shown in scale with the players until later, almost as an afterthought. The Allosaurus that stalks into the nighttime camp, contrarily, is well handled. With its eyes eerily reflecting the glow of the campfire like a jungle cat's, the dinosaur advances from the darkness towards the explorers. Even here, however, the suspense is dissipated by the fact we've already seen the Allosaurus (or another like it) attacking first a Trachodon, then a Triceratops, so its appearance in the camp is less of a shock. (Its attack, as well, is too brief).

As for the effects themselves, it is obvious that there were many technical bugs that O'Brien worked to improve upon during production: the results are mixed. Sometimes the animation of the monsters is smooth, (most notably with the Brontosaurus running amok in London) but in earlier scenes it is obvious much of the stop motion was shot using two or even three frame exposures between moving the models. This gives the animation an uneven look, and it's odd that these more primitive scenes survived into the final version. It's also strange that a Brontosaurus was selected to be loose in the finale, especially since this sequence wasn't included in the novel. Unlike Kong, the dinosaur doesn't have much motivation other than lumber through the streets. Even the collapse of Tower Bridge seems anticlimactic rather than a spectacle highlight. People are injured, but the dinosaur provides little intentional menace. Had the filmmakers substituted a flesh-eating Allosaurus as the captive that broke loose (as shown in the posters for the film!) it would have provided far more of a threat. (Hmmm, sounds a lot like ANOTHER `Lost World made 72 years later!)

The Lost World has recently been re-released on DVD in a beautifully restored (and much extended) print, culled from several sources. Most of this restored footage is of the human drama, but there are a few significant dinosaur scenes, as well. There is more footage of the dinosaur stampede, and it appears some of the existing animation was replaced by a different `take' of the same scene featured in earlier releases. On the whole, The Lost World is one of the more interesting silent films-- mostly because one can see some of the seeds of King Kong being sown here, seven years before. This version of the Lost World, while perhaps not a true classic like King Kong, nonetheless has its moments. If you're curious about the birth and development of stop-motion, or see what inspired the more recent Jurassic Park films, I'd recommend visiting this Lost World again.

",1 "This movie put director Luc Besson into the big league.

The basic story is about a drugged up vicious street punk serving a life sentence for killing a cop.She is given a second chance at freedom of sorts, by a top secret French assassination agency.The movie shows her transformation into something better then she was and the affect it has on the two men in her life that mean something to her.

This movie is amazingly well acted. Anne Parillaud, Marc Duret, Patrick Fontana are outstanding.

This is a pretty violent movie, but not just for the sake of violence,it is a necessary counter-point to Nikkita's blossoming appreciation of life.The violence is realistic and well done.

The action scene's are fast pasted and tense.

Everything about this film is top notch, I recommend it.",1 "This film is the one that introduced me to one of my favorite actors, Adam Sandler. His movies are mostly hit-or-miss gag machines, but this is one of his movies in which nearly every gag works. I almost miss the old Adam Sandler. The old Adam Sandler character would be a man who acts nice, but turns violent and angry when he doesn't get his way. Now he plays a mild-mannered every-man who makes little wisecracks. Not that the latter isn't funny, but the former is what he'll always be remembered for, and this is a perfect example of an Adam Sandler's true comedic side.

Happy Gilmore (Adam Sandler) is a nearly unlikeable loser who after a strangely traumatic childhood, grew up to be a raving, anti-social lunatic, who happens to be obsessed with hockey. He constantly tries out for hockey teams, and proudly holds two league records (Most time spent in the penalty box, and he was the only person in history to ever take off his skate and try to stab somebody). One day, his girlfriend dumps him, he doesn't make the hockey team, and the IRS repossesses his grandmothers house which he grew up in. Soon, he discovers that he has an incredible talent for golf, with a record breaking long drive. Unwillingly taken under the wing of one-handed former golf pro Chubbs Peterson (Carl Weathers), and becomes a golf sensation due to his long drive, and extremely rude behavior, much to the dismay of the leading tour money winner, Shooter McGavin (Christopher McDonald). A bitter rivalry and a race-against-time ensue, as Happy tries to earn back his grandma's house, and beat Shooter.

Happy Gilmore is a movie that I truly adore, and will always cherish. There are many quotable lines, and hilariously random scenes and/or characters. One of the funniest ones is a cameo by Ben Stiller as a cold-blooded orderly at an old folks home, who treats the citizens like inmates. One of the funniest comic bits in any Adam Sandler movie is the sequence in which Happy gets into a fistfight with Bob Barker, the host of ""The Price is Right."" For some reason, Bob fails to notice the heckler who's most frequently uttered word never fails to affect Happy's game for the worst.

Another hilarious thing about this movie is how many of the characters in the movie manage to play their parts and keep a straight face, even when Happy is assaulting innocent people for the smallest reasons, and cussing out the golf ball when it won't go ""home."" Happy is one of a group of quirky characters in the film, but much of the humor comes from the reactions of the serious characters, and/or the extras when Happy does something stupid. One hilarious example of this is when Happy repeatedly screams out every word that can't be said on TV, well... on TV. The overall premise of the film is fun, and the film delivers non-stop laughs. Sit back and enjoy the classic Adam Sandler vehicle. I highly recommend this film, and give it 10/10.

It is proudly rated PG-13 for Language and Comic Sexuality. Sex: 4/10 Violence: 5/10 Swearing: 5/10 Drugs: 2/10",1 "**SPOILERS** A bloody shootout in a Mafia safe-house apartment results in the rip off of $300,000.00 from the mob's Harlam bank. It also cost the lives of seven people including two members of the Mafia Gennaro family.

Old Don Gennaro, Frank Macetta, is worried about his operations in Harlem falling apart and has his young hot-shot and sadistic son-in-law Nick D'Salvio, Tony Franciosa,to get things back to normal. Nick starts by trying to get back the stolen loot with the help of the Mafia controlled Doc Johnson, Richard Ward,who runs their Harlem rackets.

The three, who knocked off the mob's monthly take, Jim Harris Joe Logart & Henry Jackson, Paul Benjamin Ed Bernard & Antonio Fargas,are marked for death not only by the Mafia and the Jackson Harlem syndicate but by the NYPD. Not just for ripping off the mob but for the murder of two policemen who tried to stop the trio's getaway.

Put in charge of the murder/robbery investigation is young and collage educated Let. Poke, Yaphet Kotto, which irritates the local police precincts Capt. Mattelli, Anthony Quinn, who feels he should be the one in charge. This causes friction not only between the two cops but the men of the 27th precinct who feel that Capt. Mattelli should run the investigation.

During the movie Capt. Mattelli grudgingly accepts the decision of Let. Poke being put in charge over him since he's been compromised by taking graft from Johnson for years, that will only hamper finding the three hoods who ripped the Johnson/Mafia off. Capt. Mattelli also learns only to late that once your in the pay of the mob the only way you can get out, or retire, of that squalid arraignment is in a pine box.

Extremely brutal crime/drama with two of the persons, Henry J. Jackson & Joe Logart, who dared to take the mob's ill-gotten gains ending up viciously tortured and murdered by the maniacal Nick D'Salvio, who took a sick and morbid glee in doing the two in.

The third man, and head, of the group of robbers Jim Harris was a lot harder and far more dangerous nut to crack and find by Nick and his hoods. Tracked down in an abandoned building in West Harlem. Jim alone with his common-law wife Gloria,Norma Donaldson, begins to freak-out when he get's epileptic seizures with no medication on hand to relive them. This time thing don't go off that well for Nick and both the Mafia and Johnson mob, like it did with both Joe & Henry. By the time the shootout was over the entire block, where Jim was holding out in, was left shot up and demolished together with Jim Nick and Gloria.

Superior crime/movie with a stand-out performance by a young, 34 at the time, Yaphet Kotto as Let. Poke who showed the overly brutal Capt. Mattelli that you don't get the same results in solving crimes with 1940's police tactics in the year 1972. Even more important it's a lot better to be an honest cop then a dirty one in both having a clear conscience and long lifespan.",1 """The Enforcer"" is a gripping tale about an investigation into the activities of a crime syndicate boss and the efforts of an Assistant D.A. to bring him to justice. The criminal in question was the head of a group of contract killers who carried out murders to order and avoided detection because their operatives never had any connection with their victims and so there were never any known motives or obvious leads for the authorities to follow up in their investigations. This concept, although very familiar to audiences today, was something very topical at the time of the film's release and also a matter of great public interest.

In the period immediately before the release of ""The Enforcer"", Senate Committee hearings on organised crime were chaired by Senator Estes Kefauver. These hearings were given national television coverage during a period when the medium was very new to most viewers and the revelations about the pervasive nature of organised crime and the existence of the outfit known as ""Murder Incorporated"" attracted extremely large audiences. It was during these broadcasts that the general public first became aware of some of the jargon used by hired killers and ""The Enforcer"" is credited as being the first movie to feature the words ""contract"", ""hit"" and ""fingerman"" in this context.

After a four year investigation into the activities of crime boss Albert Mendoza (Everett Sloane), Assistant D.A. Martin Ferguson (Humphrey Bogart) has a witness who has agreed to testify that he saw Mendoza kill a man. When the witness, Joe Rico (Ted de Corsia), dies suddenly as the result of an accident, Ferguson and Police Captain Frank Nelson (Roy Roberts) undertake a meticulous review of their investigation to date to try to find another piece of information which could lead to them being able to get Mendoza convicted.

The case files confirm that the investigation started when a frantic young man called ""Duke"" Malloy (Lawrence Tolan) visited a police station and reported that he's been forced to kill his girlfriend. It transpired that he was a hired killer who'd fallen in love with his intended victim and when he'd initially refused to go through with the job, he'd been pressured by other gang members into completing the contract. The overwrought Malloy hanged himself in a police cell and the investigation that followed involved police officers in gathering information from a variety of people including Malloy's fellow gang members.

Ferguson and Nelson's review eventually brings to light the name of another person who would be a perfect witness but unfortunately Mendoza becomes aware of this person's identity at the same and this leads to a desperate race against time for the police to find the potential witness before Mendoza's men do.

The movie's structure is interesting as an account of the police investigation is given in flashback with the stories of each of the interviewees often constituting a flashback within a flashback. The action is delivered with a good deal of pace and tension and despite the story's closeness to real events, the movie's style is always entertaining and not overly solemn in the way that some docu-noirs can be.

The colourful collection of characters featured in ""The Enforcer"" are brought to life vividly by the excellent cast and Humphrey Bogart is especially good as a man who is extremely determined and powerfully focused on his task but is nevertheless also very controlled and methodical when necessary.",1 "Second to Space Cases, My Brother and Me was possibly the worst show I've ever seen on Nickelodeon. Not only did it have no premise, but it contained a series of the worst actors I've ever seen. Each actor spoke as if they were reading their lines off a wall - broken speech that made them all sound incredibly dumb. It used to pain me, as a kid, to watch this show when it was on and usually I'd have to change the channel halfway through. Suffice to say, none of the actors from the show has gone anywhere, more or less. I can't even remember any of the plots because none of them had the possibility of holding my attention. And the funniest thing of all was throwing in the token white kid with blond hair and glasses. Overall, a poor effort on someone's part.",0 "Ah the sci-fi channel. How often do you disappoint me? Quite often I think, do you ever show good movies? OK you have given me the great 'Heroes' and the reasonably good 'The Lost Room' but they are series, and as for the movie well there really is nothing positive to say. Bad acting, bad directing, terrible characters and a shallow story, and that is just for starters. I checked out the director Allan A Goldstien and was not surprised to find nothing of interest in his resume (in fact I am half thinking that this is a pseudo name). The premises of four motor bikers out motto-crossing in a national park when one of them has an accident that needs a park ranger to come rescue them only for them to get caught in a forrest fire is weak and predictable that you know every beat before it happens. Leading man Bryan Genesse the park ranger is so bad it is terrible. Cast as the action hero martial arts boy in the footsteps of so many others this guy makes Seagal and Van Damme look like De Nero. The supporting cast are little better and well before the end one was left hoping the fire would engulf them all then the film crew. Avoid at all costs",0 "Sometimes people irk me. More specifically are those people who, when in reference to some of the recent animated features, say things like ""Oh it's such a great film, because, not only do the kids love it, it's funny for adults as well! (yay for us!)"" This irks me because adults and kids alike have always been able to appreciate a well-made animated feature. So while I do hate this growing trend -one that has seen studios offering ""condolences"" to parents who drag concession-hungry children to see their movies by using two-tiered, age-discriminating humor (I guess so parents can nod knowingly to each other over the heads of their kids, while receiving these studio ""winks"", as if to say "" They didn't get that one, but we sure did -it's because we're OLDER."")- I do feel the need to point out that Nemo is not the first fish to reference popular culture to adults.

Enter Teacher's Pet, Disney's hand-animated feature (released on the heels of the announcement that it is shutting down its Florida animation studio) based on the popular kids series about a dog named Spot (Nathan Lane) who wants nothing more then to become a boy. With its skewed color pallet, course lines and surrealistic characters and environments, creator Gary Baseman offers us a visually stimulating experience –one that provides a refreshing (if not nostalgic) breather to a genre on the verge of becoming sterilized by computers.

However, it takes a lot more then just strong visuals to form a well-crafted animated feature –and Teacher's Pet is a prime example of why. Written by former Cheers scribers Bill and Cheri Steinkellner and directed by first-timer Timothy Bjorklund, the humor in Teacher's Pet falls almost completely flat. By attempting to appeal simultaneously to adults and kids alike, they have taken a potentially strong premise for either audience and turned it into a convoluted mess that succeeds only in its ability to bring generations together through boredom. This is supposed to be a kids film -I don't need to explain to my four-year old niece why Spot is now a middle–aged man hitting on moms and shacked up in some sleazy motel- if they wanted ""edgy"" then they should have pitched it to Matt Stone. Sh*t or get off the pot I say.

Reviewed by Shaun English",0 "this show is show hilarious! after one episode (i watched it on accident once after that 70's show, which is still the very best show on tv), i was hooked. My personal favorite episode is the one where steven and lizzie each have a respective night out with their gender, where steven, lloyd (my fav character), ron, and marshall (my 2nd fav character)go to a party and marshall gets lloyd's overflow. lizzie, rachel, and a bunch of extras go to a bar and have a good time also. hilarious episode. the most underrated show on tv, and while th andy richter show looks really good, i hope it doesn't replace the best attempt at a new show since malcolm in the middle (fox works wonders by going against convention...look at it, simpsons is a cartoon, 70's show is a period piece, malcolm introduced a new style, undeclared is breaking new ground, grounded for life is flashbacked, titus is hardcore...man i love fox)watch it, you won't be disappointed",1 "Big Spoiler Alert. So read this only if you've already seen it... or don't care. But you should see it.

First, I give this a 7. It's got some great actors, music, and directing. The creepy mood that the miniseries created was perfect. I sat and watched this straight through and wasn't bored once, despite it's being 5 hours long. UNFORTUNATELY, I couldn't escape two things. First, the massive plot holes, especially towards the ending, and second, the fact that they gave up on the mystery of the room by the final third of the film. One example of a huge hole: The Order. Why even create that subplot if you're going to leave it hanging the way they did? The only answer is that this was supposed to be a pilot. But it didn't feel that way. And there are dozens more that make equally little sense. Second, the mystery was just dropped. The whole question about how and why the room came to be and who the Occupant was before whatever happened happened was just left to float away as though no one would really care anyway. Sure, Joe wanted his daughter back and one could argue that he was thinking about her and nothing else. But to use that explanation is just giving the film an excuse to be sloppy. For a detective, he barely asked any questions and I feel as though it was intentional so we would forget that there was a mystery to begin with. People, especially detectives, are curious and I'm sure that if confronted with something this bizarre, they'd be asking questions for hours (and not get up and leave before the omelets even arrive).

Sadly, these two problems seriously deflated my impression of the series. In large part because they were so annoying. It started out so fun with the competing groups vying for control of the objects and the characters involved behind the secrecy. But once the last hour came, it was as though the studio sent down a memo telling the director to wrap it up so they could start filming a reality TV show on the sets.

This is another example of why you give people enough time to complete the story rather than force it into an allotted time slot. My only hope is that these problems I had were the result of an over-zealous editing team, and that if a DVD of the miniseries comes out, the scenes from the cutting-room floor can be picked up and re-attached so that some sense can be made out of the thing.

In conclusion, it's good. Very good. But it could have been great.",0 "Very funny movie about a simple minded young man who's simply afraid to move out of his parents house because he doesnt want to be alone.To make up for his lack of an interesting life, he constantly lies to the only people who he can let his imaginative frustrations run wild with - the neighborhood kids,who idolize him.Does he realize this ? Of course not ! Will he ever learn ? ....Maybe.. Frank Whaley is hilarious as the inept but good hearted Jim Dodge,delusional liar and big dreamer.Jennifer Connelly is absolutely beautiful as the rich,understood Josie McClellan.John Hughes is brilliant once again,and this smart quirky story shows he truly understands what it was like to be young.Those who were in their twenties in the nineties will laugh their head off ( as well as wish they were and were not Jim Dodge at different points in the movie. ) If you liked Mannequin you should get a kick out of this as well.",1 "Final Fantasy VIII is the apex of fantasy RPGs. Not only does it take place in a world we can believe and understand (a somewhat futuristic world that is fairly peaceful but still militarized), but it features characters we can feel akin to, for the first real time in the FF Series. These characters are very real; they have problems, ambitions and fears. They love and hate. They experience real hope and true despair. Final Fantasy VIII is truly the last great love story of the 20th Century... a story for the ages.",1 "Beinvenue a St Piere, a French outpost off the Eastern shore of Canada. On this small island, Ariel Neel Auguste (Emir Kusturica) awaits Madame La Guillotine for having killed a man in a drunken brawl. A burly brute of a man, Ariel's quick thinking saves an islander from certain death when a house being moved slides down a hill.

Ariel's charm wins him the regard of Madame Pauline La (Juliette Binoche), wife of Captain Jean (Daniel Auteuil), the commander of the island's garrison. Islanders are divided on the issue of execution; most would like to save Ariel. Madame La sends Ariel, now a trusted prisoner, on a mission in a small dinghy. The idea is that Ariel will escape into nearby British or American territory, but Ariel true to his parole faithfully returns and even helps bring Madame La Guillotine ashore.

Yugoslavian born Emir Kusturica plays the French islander the commoner Ariel Neel Auguste with a sensitive gentility, persuasively tough and docile, hardheaded and obedient.

As Ariel waits execution, tables turn on Captain Jean. He's ordered home to Metroplitain France. Officially he's a guest of the fleet Admiral. Actually with political unrest at home Captain Jean faces the firing squad. He too is told of the many opportunities to escape, but steadfastly follows orders right up to his execution by firing squad.

Daniel Auteuil plays the tough-fisted French Captain with the practised arrogance of an officer used to getting his way.

I'm not entirely sure a motion picture though full of violence or threats of violence would be fully understood by an American audience. The parallelism between Captain Jean and the commoner Ariel is far too delicate for audiences which are addicted to shoot-em up high speed police chase lines.",1 "I recently watched ""Marple: Murder at the Vicarage"" (starring Geraldine McEwan), and must say I was not overly impressed.

If the police investigations of the day were conducted as they were in this dramatisation of Agatha Christie's novel, it's a wonder that any criminals were ever caught at all, much less convicted, with or without any dotty old ladies poking their noses in. Even in a pretend TV ""whodunnit"" investigation, a little reality goes a long way.

Not only was the murder scene not secured, but suspects ""et al"" were allowed to come and go through it at will, and in fact there was never any ""boffin"" in sight. No incident room was ever set up, but then I didn't see many police around to actually use one. No fingerprints appeared to have been taken or checked for (even though at the denouement it could clearly be seen that ""dabs"" were left all over said murder scene), and any reference to or collection of written statements were completely overlooked. Awkward for any later trial I would have thought. Albeit modern forensic science has advanced out of sight since the 1950's, initial proceedings were surely much the same then as they are now.

I was brought up in an English village during the same period (the Fifties) in which this production was set (although the book was written about 20 years earlier), but I didn't ""recognise"" any of the characters. They were all like plastic effigies straight out of a Hollywood studio, and the village itself from the top of a chocolate box. Although similarly born of Agatha Christie's pen, both characters and village were much more believable in the previous Joan Hickson series, and in which the direction was much more knowing. To its credit however, the story-line stays reasonably faithful to the novel, except for Professor Dufosse and his daughter. Where on earth did they come from? They're certainly not creations of Agatha Christie, and never appeared in the book. An unnecessary additional red-herring from the producers no doubt, or are they a replacement for Dr Stone (an archaeologist) and his secretary Miss Cram? If so, why? Why change the characters? Also, as another reviewer has reminded us, Miss Marple was the ultimate spinster and only had one small ""fling"" when young, which was maternally cut short.

Considering the impressive line up of star actors both young and old on display here, there should have been an equally impressive result. It was considerably short of that, and one is left to wonder why this re-make was ever produced, and with all due respect to Geraldine McEwan, magnificent actress though she is, the late Joan Hickson still reigns supreme as Jane Marple.",0 "Now I remember this show airs on CN on 2001, titled Grim & Evil, one was Grim (Grim Adventures of B&M) and Evil (Evil Con Carne). Now in 03' it was retitled ""Grim Adventures of B&M""

Grim & B&M- It's about two kids waiting for something unusual to happen, and it did, comes the Grim Reaper. First of all, the character designs, voices and other stuff is downright bad.

Characters of the show: Billy- He was a neighborhood boy who doesn't remember anything because he doesn't have a brain, Well, he has a brain right now! He can be smart, intelligent and have personalities to each other.

Mandy- Can this creep ruin everyones lives today? We'll find out, Now Mandy is a mean spirited girl has no opportunity to have fun, she wants to be a demon all day. Mandy's Emotions: mean (that's all) no happiness? , no smiling? Why? Anyway, Mandy is so bad, that she torments Billy thinking he is retarded, well he's not! Grim- (No description). The humor is very overrated.

I used to watch this show when I was 12, but after a few years, I suddenly gave up on it.

Overall: It's not as bad or boring as Spongebob Squarepants (IMO the most overrated show ever made, but it's definitely not as good as Rocko's Modern Life, Ren and Stimpy, Doug or Invader ZIM.

B&M: 2.5/10",0 "This movie had an excellent story line. The actors were great and the choice of Matthew Lillard as Manic was genius. Lillard built upon his earlier ""Scream"" success playing a crazy. Saffron Burrows' portrayal of Angel was genuine and she sizzled as the Wing Commander! Special effects were very good. In my opinion, the movie was much better than I expected it to be. I recommend this movie to everyone, but especially Wing Commander fans.",1 "This is one of my personal favorites,great gore, good music, cinematography and of course John Morghan and Tony King's insane over the top performances. Overall a neat flick, and the gore rules! dig that shotgun blast to the stomach effect!",1 """For the Boys"" is a fantastic film. This is for sure one of my favorite all time movies. Bette Midler gives a great performance. The film makes you laugh and cry. It should of been nominated for best picture. Although Midler did win Best Actress at the Golden Globe Awards for her performance in this movie. A MUST SEE!",1 "A lot of people criticize this film for not being funnier. If it was, I probably would have suffered cardiac arrest. Barbra Streisand and George Segal are hilarious.

Seldome have I seen two great actors paired in a funny movie that really clicks.

Barbra is doing this film soon after winning an Academy Award for Best Actress in her first film (Funny Girl). She is a riot as a prostitute that absolutely drives Felix (Segal) nuts! It has to be added that this is the first major film in which a major actress says f*ck. (I hear this has been cut from all but the VHS version.) Segal chose to go the comedy route, rather than drama, for which he is equally qualified (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?). He starred with Jane Fonda in the original Fun With Dick and Jane. Here he is a perfect match for Doris (Streisand) as an uptight writer.

I am not stretching the truth even the slightest bit to say that these two will crack you up.",1 "By the title-I was hoping for a sex-and-violence extravaganza. Needless to say, I was sorely mistaken. My copy of LE PORNO KILLERS has no subs/dubs-so I have no idea about most of the finer-points of the film. 

From what I could gather-two female hit-women are sent from NY to I guess Italy to kill somebody. As the story plays out, the girls get nekkid and have a fair amount of (un- graphic) sex with some men and each other...

The two female leads are hot and do show a good bit of skin-which is the only saving- grace at all in this one. Maybe if I'd have been able to follow the storyline I would have enjoyed it more-but I doubt it. And unfortunately-some decent nudity wasn't enough to save this one for me. Worth a look to rare sexploit completists-otherwise not worth the effort in my book. 4/10",0 "Hack screenwriter Joe Gillis (William Holden) accidentally falls in with faded screen legend Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson). She lives in a crumbling old mansion with her butler Max (Erich von Stroheim). She refuses to believe that she's no longer remembered and will never make another movie. She gets Gillis to stay with her and rewrite ""Salome"" which she thinks will be her comeback. Gillis has no other choice and things slowly get out of hand.

A VERY cynical view of Hollywood--especially for 1950. It shows what Hollywood does to people like Norma--it makes them stars, tells them that they're great and dump them coldly when they're no longer needed. It also takes swipes at directors, agents, screenwriters, even entire studios! It has a tight quick script, is appropriately filmed in gloomy black and white and is masterfully directed by Billy Wilder. Everybody thought this was a bad idea when it was being made. It was believed to be too cold and vicious for the public. Also Holden was warned it would ruin his career by playing a younger man kept by an older woman. But it turned out great and is now rightfully considered a classic.

The acting is almost all good. I never thought Nancy Olson was that good. Her character is too pure and sweet to be believable. Everybody else is right on target though. Holden is just great in his role. You see the pity, anger and helplessness on his face when he realizes Norma is falling in love with him--and he's trapped. von Stroheim was equally good as Max who encourages Norma's delusions. Swanson however is just magnificent! She has a very showy role and could have overplayed it--but she doesn't. She's mad for sure--but you only see it peeking through every once in a while. When she loses it completely at the end it's frightening. If she had played it like that all through the movie it never would have worked. How she lost the Oscar that year to Judy Holliday for ""Born Yesterday"" is beyond me. This is a must see and a true Hollywood classic but VERY cold and cynical. A 10 all the way.

""I am big--it's the pictures that got small"". ""All right Mr. deMille--I'm ready for my closeup"".",1 "A big city family that runs into financial difficulties relocates to a small American town to start over. After arriving in the new town the father discovers that he does not have the job he was promised and the wife takes a low paying job despite her husband's objection. The teenage children initially have trouble finding new friends and adjusting to the slow paced life of country living. The antagonist is the extremely unfriendly neighbor from across the street who, for no apparent reason, is openly hostile towards the newcomers. This slow moving film preaches that strong family and religious values will help a family overcome difficulties and prevail over hardship. This is a sappy and predictable film with average acting and no redeeming qualities. Don't waste your time.",0 "When I first saw this movie, I was deeply touched. Its an awesome movie that everyone of all ages should see. I could watch it over and over again and never get tired of seeing it. I like the music that was composed in this movie. The girl who played Mary Lennox is an extremely good actress. Its a movie that will make you laugh and cry and touch your heart at the same time. I really love this movie and the book as well. Both are very breathtaking. Its definitely a must-see kind of movie. Whoever hasn't seen this movie should definitely see it its worth it!! From the beginning to the end there was never a dull moment of this movie.",1 "Before watching it, I decided to give the trailer a look and liked what I saw. But when it came to actually watching the feature. Well that was another story. Even with such a novel idea, it couldn't escape its roots that hang heavily in this old-hat haunted house format. No surprises or shocks here. The pallid story never grips or inserts much interest, as it becomes a wearisome tale of never-ending, suspicious tedium. The slow grinding pace doesn't help matters either. It seems to be all build up, but director George Bowers' predictable touch can't seem to raise much in the way of suspense and really overuses the usual scare tactics with miserable results. This even goes for Webster Lewis' generically telegraphed score. One or two effective surreal set-pieces (involving the hearse and its driver) and Mori Kawa's nicely atmospheric photography, just can't make-up for the lame, weak and overly boring presentation. Performances feel wooden and terribly uninterested, and it seems to show. Trish Van Devere fluffs about, and Joseph Cotton adds his two bobs worth. Put it under the very forgettable files.",0 "We recently screened this film for our English class and I found it to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. There are WAY to many closeups of this actress, the plot was very weak, the props were poorly manufactured, and the sound was unbearable.

DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM.

The film shouldn't have been released to the United States and should have just stayed in Bollywood land where it belongs. This film is neither shocking nor riveting. I can't believe how many people liked this film. A group of normal college kids from Chicago all unanimously agreed that this film was complete trash.",0 "I saw this in original release and recently viewed it again with a friend who'd never seen it. What I remembered about the film was obvious in seeing it again. This is the most bizarre performance Christopher Walken has ever given on screen. It's as though he personally finds the story insanely funny (and for many, Streiber's visitors in the night schtick is a joke), and he seems to be winking at the audience and barely restraining himself from rolling his eyes. Whether or not this movie works for you depends almost solely on whether you buy into Streiber's personal alien abduction mythology. I don't. Alien abduction may be an open question, but I see Streiber as an opportunistic huckster. So for me the film is third-rate sci fi. It's a little spooky in the beginning, but as it unfolds you'll understand why Walken seems to be laughing at a private joke all the way through the movie.",0 "There were some aspects of this movie I really enjoyed. The cinematography was excellent, ranging from the clanking steam train couplngs to shimmering desert panoramas, to the moving and simple effects at Wounded Knee. Viggo Mortensen did a good job as the lead Frank Hopkins, bringing his characteristic sincerity to his role. It was nice to see Omar Sharif and his front teeth again. The horse, Hidalgo, almost outdid Viggo. And here we find one of the great catches of the movie. The man-and-animal-sidekick relationship which works really well here.

Sadly, I found the script quite wanting. The lines attributed to the Arabs and Bedouins were banal and one-dimensional. Their characters (and the Brits) were stereotyped. I felt that the scriptwriters did well in the US, but foundered in some of their own quicksand in the Middle East. I also found myself scratching my head at historical timings. Was Iraq called Iraq back then? When _was_ then?

If you are prepared to ignore the ""based on a real..."" horse dung, you will enjoy this rollicking adventure, cast much in the same genre as the ripsnorting and politically incorrect cowboy and indian movies of the 50's . To modernise, we move it to 1900's middle east and turn the Indians into Arabs. But what more to expect from Hollywood?

Viggo and his horse make a great pair and between them and the cameras, make this film worth seeing.",1 "The Secret of Bigfoot was to me, the halfway point of the Six Million Dollar Man series. The show took its first turn toward the direction of Science Fiction with the introduction of the Bionic Bigfoot played by Andre the Giant as well as the hidden colony of alien beings. I loved Stephanie Powers character and her attraction to Steve. The initial battle between Steve and the Sasquatch is a highlight of this 2 part episode. Oddly enough, I think this may have been the start of late 70's scifi shows with alien beings in polyester jumpsuits, cheesy special effects and laser beams, and giant monitor screens for communications. In addition to the SMDM, the Bionic Woman series as well as Wonder Woman, Battlestar Galactica, and Buck Rogers were all notorious for doing this in the late 70's but you what? I love it anyway!! The Return of Bigfoot was also a great 2 part Bionic Crossover with both Steve and Jamie and Bigfoot was played by Ted Cassidy. Unfortunately, the last Bigfoot episode (also with Ted Cassidy) called Bigfoot V made in season five fell flat and was pathetic. Avoid that one. But this first Bigfoot 2 parter is high on the recommendation list.",1 "This film is a classic comedy. I would recommend this one up there with Clerks, Swingers and Old School. This is well shot who ever did the editing was solid. I'm not sure if this is out yet in the movies. It should be out soon. The girls are extremely hot. I would like to have seen more of the girls but then I've always got those type of movies in the top shelf of my closet. The acting was good. I think that this is going to launch many new faces and new careers in the business. Looking forward to see your next project. I am going to watch it again there were a couple of scenes with some very funny lines. I'm not sure if these were the same guys that did Clerks. It feels like the same type of humor very witty and sharp dialog.",1 "and I hated it.

My friend had raved to me about this show. I guess I liked the idea, and thought the few sketches she described to me sounded very funny. So I gave it a chance. I watched a few episodes on YouTube. I tried to like it. I made myself think I liked the show. However, I couldn't keep up this charade. And when I found out it was on EVERY night on my favourite channel, as a replacement to some of my most-liked shows - I couldn't help but be very annoyed. I thought, ""They replaced the Boondocks and Bromwell High with THIS?!"" Really...I found it pretty odd that people could like this show. I don't have anything against crude comedy - in fact, I love it when it's well done. Take the first, second, and third seasons of Family Guy, which are well-scripted and still very funny. I just can't take this, though. Most of the time, it's 80s references that go over the heads of their target audience, or bodily function jokes. There were only a few gags that I found truly funny...

I think my dislike of this show might be because of the lack of consistent, well-formed characters. I tend to be drawn towards character-based animated comedies. The lack of that element, combined with the ""humour"", contribute to a very bad show.

I think Seth Green's marvelous on Family Guy as Chris Griffin. And I can imagine how much fun this show must be to make - whenever the writers think up another ""brilliant"" gag, they can just insert it into their next episode.

I tried to like it, I did. But I guess I'm not a fan of someone vomiting in every episode. I wonder if it's just me?",0 "Well, that was not the greatest movie to spend six-fifty on. In the beginning, I bit my lip with frustration. Toward the middle, I was groaning inwardly. By the end, I sat in my seat filled with shock, ranting to my friends and anyone else who would listen.

Obviously, not enough research went into this film. Sam (Sean Penn) was an unrealistic character. The characters explained that he had autistic tendencies and was retarded. No. I have dealt intimately with autism (living with someone who has it, working at a daycare for children with it, going to preschool in a class with well over half people with disabilities) for over sixteen years, and I can tell you that Sam is well off his marker. He is far too high functioning for some of his low functioning traits. In other words, he becomes incredibly capable when the plotline requires it, then appears to be quite low functioning at other times.

He knows the Beatles like the back of his hand. Okay. I can go for that. But how does he apply the songs and life stories to and draw complex connections from the Beatles to his own life? How can he come up with these life lessons for his daughter and profound statements for just the right time (""Always set your dreams high, Lucy."" ""You need to leave your husband."" ""You don't know what it's like when you try and you try and you try, and you never get there!"")? So he is high functioning enough to do all that, but he can't make a drink at Starbucks after many years there? He can't understand concepts simpler than the profound exclamations he makes?

Some of the other disabled people in the movie were well done. However, the man who the filmmakers apparently wanted to appear to have autism (the one who kept rattling off movies and their release dates) was a cheap Rain Man rip off but plausible. The largest problem with him however, the thing that made me not believe in him, was that he seemed capable of analyzing the characters in the movies of which he spoke. While this only happened once or twice, it was enough to cause me frustration.

Also, there was very little to no background given. How did Sam have a baby? How did he hook up with a woman, hooker or not? How did he raise a child alone (except for the help of a woman who never leaves home) for seven years? How did he know what diapers to buy? How, how, how? How did all of these plot holes sneak by? This only served to confuse viewers and give an unstable view of Sam's abilities. More ""hows"" were generated than answers.

The best thing to come out of this movie was Dakota Fanning (Lucy, Sam's daughter). She was the most believable character, and seemed to innately know how to act and react. Laura Dern (Randy, foster mother) was also fantastic. She obviously just wanted the best for little Lucy. Sean Penn did the best he knew how for Sam, but it just wasn't up to par. With a script that had adequate research, a well-defined character with a well-defined disability, and some more research on his part, he would have fared much better.

Many think this is ""just a movie"" and doesn't deserve harsh criticism, but face it, this is what the general public sees of disabilities. This is what the average person thinks about people with autism. They'll get their education about disabilities from movies like this one. And what they're seeing is a false image. I'm so sick of seeing autism misrepresented in cinema.

If you want to see a good drama that deals with disabilities, Rain Man is the best. Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of autistic savant Raymond is dead on-I believed that he was autistic. The next best is What's Eating Gilbert Grape?. Leonardo DiCaprio does an excellent job with his autistic character Arnie, a completely unrecognizable change from the DiCaprio in Titanic or Romeo and Juliet. If you do want to watch I Am Sam, knock yourself out. Just don't waste any of your time believing it.",0 "This is one of those dark movies, where it's constantly raining and wet and where the light always seems to be dim. Appropriately enough, this changes to bright and shimmering heat in the very end. As a kid, I hated dark movies. But perhaps it is appropriate in this case, because Seven attempts to be a statement about humanity: no one is without sin.

The seven deadly sins are gluttony, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and wrath. Prime examples of people committing these are being punished one by one, brutally and efficiently, by a psychopathic killer. Detectives, and reluctant partners, William Somerset (Morgan Freeman) and David Mills (Brad Pitt) are assigned to track down the killer. Needless to say, the job gets accomplished. While some might argue it is done surprisingly, I'd argue otherwise.

For once, I wasn't impressed with Pitt's acting. I thought Freeman did a great job. As usual, the villain, John Doe played by Kevin Spacey, provides a chilling performance, even though he is not given as much center stage as, say, Anthony Hopkins was in Silence of the Lambs. In fact, the whole movie seems to hurry through without giving key characters enough time to build up their emotional worth, particularly Mills' wife Tracy (Gwyneth Paltrow).

In the end, Seven does manage to get its point across effectively. While watching the movie itself, I thought it a bit anti-climatic, but when mulling it over later, the images echo very strongly in my mind. One of the most disturbing films I've seen.",1 "Its the usual modern gangster plot line: people die, drugs are sold, snitches are dealt with. But its the bizarre and hilarious execution of these gangster film clichés that make this film a classic.

Cam'ron seems to be the next Rudy Ray Moore. This movie is gritty, hilariously weird and endlessly entertaining. Its ""Menace to Society"" directed by Lloyd Kaufman.

The whole thing really comes off like some amazing ""backyard film"". The dialogue appears improvised. The special effects are hilariously lacking. But everyone gives inspired and interesting performances while just playing themselves.

Plenty of one-liners: ""Fuck your bread, Bebe!""

Great for a drunken movie night with friends who love rap music or weird cinema.",1 "This film truly is exceptional in many ways. Exceptionally funny, exceptionally touching, melancholy and energetic, set in exceptionally cold ghetto and harbour districts of Hamburg. Three friends, Ricco, Floyd and Walter, live their easy lives there. All three of them are quite different, still tight together by a deep friendship. Although the quarter they live in, the harbour that pulsates continuously, the places they go to, although these all seem very surreal and unpleasant, as if illuminated by cold neon light, one never feels uncomfortable with that - due to the deep sympathy the three friends have for each other. They manage to have fun and analyzing thoughts about their situation at the same time. A film full of contrasts, both in pictures and in moods. A must-see!",1 "This movie was incredibly terrible, it was like they were trying to make the worst movie possible....And they succeeded with flying colors. The acting was pure trash and the killing in the movie was so unnecessary and ridiculous. No one kills that many people for absolutely no reason! Every time I get bored I just put Killa season and skip to the part where he's crying about his niece getting shot and I just laugh for a good 5 minutes, the fake tears and the way his expressions are exaggerated are just too hilarious. In conclusion, you should buy this movie if you want to be a witness to the worst movie on the entire planet, or if you want to laugh at serious scenes that aren't meant to be funny. Other than that the only place this movie belongs is in the garbage, or better yet, in a furnace........lol",0 "This was my first experience of early John Waters movies and I found it pretty quality. Though quality is not something that one might immediately associate with the film owing to the extreme low budget and various goofs, it has a lot going for it. Divine and David Lochary put in fine performances and Mink Stole is also awesome with the rest of the cast effective too. The script, although dated, is often very funny and draws some fine characters, making the craziness that goes down pretty involving even while the technical ineptitude is offputting. The ineptitude doesn't matter too much as it is quite amusing, and the film has a few very memorable scenes that make one forget all about the shortcomings. Though I didn't find the film as demented as I expected it to be there are still moments that could cause a fair amount of offense. Personally I thought them to be sheer genius. I would definitely recommend this, mostly to grindhouse/cult weirdness fans.",1 "This is a superb movie. I don't think it will ever become dated--not as long as little league baseball is in existence. I remember first seeing it at a drive-in when I was ten, shortly after my own little league season had finished. Walter Matthau is excellent as Buttermaker, the beer-soaked coach who takes on the unwanted task of coaching a team of misfit kids who were allowed to play in the league only after a civil action law suit was won in their favor. Tatum O'Neal shines as the team's recruited pitcher Amanda, whose mother once dated Buttermaker. A touching subplot involves the relationship between Amanda and Buttermaker which turns from distant to warm as the final game approaches. Vic Morrow gives a frighteningly good performance as the out-to-win-no-matter-what coach of the opposing team who was never happy with the fact that the Bears were allowed to play in the first place. Joyce Van Patten is also good as the butch, outspoken league supervisor.

It's the kid players that really give this movie the edge. All performances are top-notch, and director Michael Ritchie splendidly keeps the focus mostly on them and their feelings about the whole ordeal. Stand-outs include Jackie Earl Haley as the heroic Kelly Leak and Chris Barnes as shortstop Tanner Boyle. This film should be a warning to relentless adults who try to achieve stardom on the backs of their children, be it on the baseball field or on the ballet floor.",1 I couldn't decide from the first few minutes of the film - is this a trailer for a movie or a very long flashback sequence?

The movie listed itself as 71 minutes and became a shade over 60 (on DVD)

All the action sequences changed POV so quickly it was impossible to latch onto the story. Character development was practically non nonexistent and the final scene was over so quickly it was a surprise to see the credits. Acting ranged from appalling to not so bad. I should have known in the final fight scene that it was the main bad guy who was killed - that was the most realistic makeup of the entire move !!! And that's saying something...

Give me my hour back :),0 "I discovered this show only months ago, and was so mad that it had been on so long without my knowledge. I am not interested in becoming an actor or director, but I am a movie lover to the core and am always interested in what actors have to say. These interviews are wonderful because they are not the average ""hollywood"" interview. It's not about who the actor is sleeping with, and how hard they've been partying. The interview explores the reasons behind the career choices, and experiences of filming. It is much more real, and deep, and interesting then any others. You really feel like you are part of the audience, and you get to see a different side to some very incredible actors and learn something new. I love it!",1 "Well...i rented this movie only because i needed a second movie to rent at the video store and this one promised a dollar back if returned the next day...now i know why..they knew no one would want to keep this poor excuse of a movie in their house for more then a day. I believe it actually lowered my intelligence. The funny thing is, the main character rambles on as if he is supposed to be intelligent with a bunch of 50 cent words at best...and funny enough the only reason i rented this movie was the fact that the box description claimed a dog actually talked, and told him things to do...well the dog never physically talks, it just talks TELEKENETICALLY...i would tell you more..but half way through the film my eyes began to close as well did my fiances...so at least this movie serves as a sleep aid...That sadly however is its only purpose. Please dont do like i normally do and rent the movie despite the bad review, when i say this movie sucks worse then having a dog p*ss on the leg of your best dress slacks...i mean it!!",0 "Elliott Gould is bemused and colorful as a Vietnam veteran back in college, stuck between a rock and a hard place; he's working semi-seriously towards getting his teaching credentials, and yet is stymied by his fellow classmates who want to protest the hypocrisies of the Establishment (with Gould's help), and also by his instructors, hypocrites with power who work by a double standard. Director Richard Rush occasionally does fluid work here, and the film has fervently funny and thoughtful scenes, however Robert Kaufman's hot-headed script, adapted from Ken Kolb's novel, is awash with half-realized ideas. The kids sound off violently against the University's directors, but we're never made aware of what they want--or what they want done about their concerns. Made during an era wherein young people hoped to change the world--and get laid--the characters in this picture nevertheless are just sounding-boards for the writer. Topics are brought up not to be discussed but to be challenged (and, in these cases, the kids are just as blind as their professional elders). Was that Kaufman's point, that student riots really ARE just violent preludes to sex and otherwise a waste of time? Gould's shaggy character rants and raves too, but his Harry Bailey presents a different problem: he cheats, he lies, he cuts corners, he heartily embraces his own set of values and yet is happily corrupt! A hypocrite himself, Bailey loves teaching, loves kids and their innocence, but he doesn't see his own short-comings--and I'm not sure the filmmakers do, either. Bailey is a one-sided writer's creation (and oddly, for a movie filled with so many liberal stances, Bailey--like most of the other characters--is anti-female and homophobic). Candice Bergen (in a wan performance) plays Gould's shiksa goddess girlfriend who doesn't like being called a WASP and who would give up everything to be married in the suburbs. She's continually put down for that, as if she's a sell-out, and yet how exactly would Gould live if he were to achieve his dream of being a high school teacher? As it is, he can't even pay the rent on his apartment! The riot sequences are staged for utter seriousness--and they are filmed and edited with precision--but they don't come organically out of this story, they are interjected for shock value. The rage and anger presented here is convincing, but the cause is confusing. These students don't seem to want peace at all, and neither does director Rush. The narrative is pushed towards violence for no other purpose except to vividly stage two movie riots. This is exploitation, and the crummy feeling one gets from the picture can be related right back to the people behind it: they're hypocrites, too. *1/2 from ****",0 "All the beautiful cinematography in the world could not save this movie. It wanted desperately to be a legitimate spy thriller, however the best ""enemy"" it could muster was to fight against a bank. Alright, so in reality banks do fund wars, but instead of teasing out who was behind everything and letting us and the character work out what they're up to, less than half an hour in, Calivini explains absolutely everything we need to know. WHAT? This is not how thrillers work at all. I was not thrilled or on the edge of my seat.

The acting was at best average. There was no character development at all. This is probably the scriptwriter's fault rather than the actors, though, as the the pace of the plot really didn't allow for the characterisations to be expanded upon. The unnecessary traveling around was nice to look at, but at the detriment of having a well structured plot. How convenient the assassin just happens to fly to New York. How convenient that Umberto Calivari will see you right away and explain everything you need to investigate. The plot was full of these kind of things which other thrillers force the characters to use their ingenuity to uncover. These characters just got handed information on a silver platter and pulled out their passport.

The worst aspect of the movie was the fact we had an Interpol agent and an Assistant District Attorney from Manhattan as our heroes. WHYYYYYY. They have absolutely no authority, jurisdiction or resources to be gallivanting around Europe. The part where Naomi Watt's character is all ""Fuck protocol"" was hilarious because that's what they'd been doing the entire movie. I think the scriptwriters were trying to be creative by not merely having an MI6 and a CIA agent working together, but what they decide fell so horribly flat. Their justification for Naomi Watt's character being there was so horrible tenuous, it reflected the lack of development and depth of the entire movie.

Poor effort.",0 "Renegades is set in Philadelphia where detective Buster McHenry (Kiefer Sutherland) is working undercover to try & bring down a dirty cop by arranging a robbery to steal six million dollars worth of diamonds, however things don't go to plan & the dirty cop doesn't show up & instead McHenry is forced to go through with the armed robbery with local mobster Marino (Robert Knepper) & his men. Things go from bad to worse for McHenry as bullets start to fly & people are shot & killed, the cops show up & all hell breaks loose & Marino, his men & McHenry try to escape en-route stopping off at an art gallery where Marino takes a fancy to an ancient Indian tribal lance on display & decides to steal it shooting Goerge Storm (Gary Farmer) in the process. His brother Hank Storm (Lou Diamond Phillips) is understandably annoyed & when he saves McHenry's life as Marino shoots him & leaves him for dead the two team up to bring Marino down, prove McHenry's innocence & get the Indian tribal lance back...

Directed by Jack Sholder one has to say that Renegades is a really lacklustre & lifeless attempt at mismatched partners teaming up together to bring down some bad guy action thriller & is in fact maybe one of the worst examples I have seen. There are plenty of great examples of this type of mismatched partner action thrillers from 48 Hrs. (1982) to Lethal Weapon (1987) & it's sequels to Midnight Run (1988) to Tango & Cash (1989) to The Last Boy Scout (1991) to the more recent Rush Hour (1998) & sequels to name but a few fine examples, unfortunately when compared to shining lights of the sub genre like the aforementioned Renegades is just plain poor in every department by comparison. The main aspect of these types of films that ultimately make or breaks them is the partnership, here it's a quick talking wise cracking Philadelphia cop with a blatant disregard for police procedure who gets teamed up with a quiet respectful native American Indian & it just doesn't come off since there's virtually no humour or memorable interplay between the two. I just never warmed to either of them although to be fair Sutherland does try & his character does come off as the more likable of the two. The plot is extremely bare-bones & very thin, basically there's this robbery where events take a turn for the worse for our two main character's & it becomes personal for them so they team up to bring down a common enemy. That's it. There's a supposed plot twist about a bad cop but it comes to early in the film & has no real impact on the story other than a cop is involved with the main bad guy. The action scenes are poor & very forgettable, there's a dull car chase & a few seen it all before shoot-outs where the bad guys can't shoot straight, no-one ever runs out of bullets & it's just a case of men standing there holding guns firing at each other. Yawn. The plot is extremely predictable & strictly by the numbers with these two mismatched partners hating each other to start with but growing to respect each other & becoming great friends & even putting their own lives at risk for one another, seen it all before & usually done much better with more humour & more excitement. I also hated the ending, I mean after killing people, stealing cars, threatening people at gunpoint, taking part in an armed robbery where innocent people are killed & breaking every rule in the book McHenry gets off scott free & even gets a vacation out of it!

The action scenes, if you can call them that, are poor with only a fairly sedate car chase to remember the film by & even that seems lethargic, slow & dull. The occasional shoot-out are dull & all look the same as each other, the plot twists are handled poorly & have little to no impact & Renegades is one of the worst examples of the mismatched partner action thriller genre I can remember seeing. For an 80's big studio big budget action thriller Renegades doesn't seem to be that well known, there are only sixteen reviews on the IMDb as I write this & only three external reviews. I can certainly understand why it's been largely forgotten about & why it doesn't seem to have any sort of a following.

Making less than $10,000,000 at the box office I assume that Renegades was a flop, the same years Tango & Cash is a much superior film using the same general template. Filmed in Philadelphia & Ontario in Canada. Kiefer Sutherland looks fat, out of shape & has a really bad moustache but managed to live this down & has gone on to have a fine career as a respected actor while Lou Diamond Phillips has made dozens of low budget straight to video action films.

Renegades is a really predicable, humourless, dull & plodding action thriller that throws two mismatched yet boring characters together to bring down an equally boring enemy. One to avoid, even newly converted fans of Kiefer Sutherland (beacuse of hit TV show 24) might want to skip this.",0 "Okay, so this one never did (and never will) win any awards. But pound for pound, John Hughes was never better and never will be again, most likely. Yes, I know, I know. ""Ferris B."" is a more coherent, cohesive film. And ""Breakfast Club"" has all the lines. And ""Pretty in Pink"" has all the pathos, plus Ducky. But this one's got Jim Dodge (F. Whaley). Easily one of my favorite film creations ever. You can't not love this guy. Even in the usually dumb montages that plagues MTV-ish films of this nature, he's charming (wearing a veil and cow-boxers and rollerskating, for instance). And then there's Jennifer ""Eternally Easy on the Eyes"" Connelly who, yes, has her usual charms (both of them), but who manages to bring a degree of wit, grace and sincerity to the ""girl next door anyone would die to get with"" role that's rarely been matched since. This film's full of terrific lines and memorable moments. Jim's ""Jimget"" fantasy. John Candy's entire cameo. ""Could I get this uniform washed, it...smells a little like Darnell."" ""You mean you've never heard of sashimi?"" ""The subsonic tummy bump..."" The list is endless. The bad part: yes, the last 15 or so minutes are plagued by a lack of money and a lack of laughs (money as in it looks like they ran out and decided to end the film...now). But the two leads are terrific together and the idea of them hashing out their high school trials and tribs in this particular setting is quite effective, really. Sweet, simple, goofy and funny, this one deserves another look, despite the ""run out of steam in the last stretch of the race"" factor.",1 "I thought it was all very contrived and elements of the movie are a blend of others done before all meant to push forward a modern tolerant society alternative lifestyle movement.

Tony Curtis/Laurence Olivier had a similar dynamic in Spartacus. The version we saw had English subtitles so the characters appeared to be speaking an Elizibethan Shakespearean form ""thou art a knave"" , but the spouse said the spoken Korean was current colloquial. That was the initial thought, oh yeah, this is a lift from Shakespeare's Europe, the court jesters, men playing women's roles (wouldn't they at least shave??), the palace court and consort scheming away, a play within a play. ""The Play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King"". The costumes and roles we saw before in the episodic Dae Jang Geum series - (did they re-use the sets and clothes??), everything looked very familiar. I was looking for the palace cooks and maids in the background...

That being said, the ""Captain"" of the minstrels, Jang Saeng, comes off as an interesting, athletic, strong moral character, against any possible stereotyping as a limp wristed homosexual.

So, nice try, but too much ""sampling"" of previous arts.",0 "Being a big Thora Birch fan, and seeing this DVD at FYE for $12, I figured it'd be worth a look. I thought Thora's scene was freaking hilarious... the poem was Shakespeare-esque. I also thought Dominique Swain was pretty good in her lead role... but the producer, Nicholas Loeb, was putridly pathetic. Were they so over-budget that he HAD to cast himself? And in the lead male role! I couldn't stand watching him. I thought anyone could be an actor. I was wrong.

Still, because of the interesting plot, Thora's amazing scene, Swain's good acting, and my ability to chuckle at Loeb every other scene, I gave it a pretty high ranking in my book.",1 "If you want to see how bad Italian science fiction can be see this film. Made in the wake of Star wars this piece of wasted celluloid is just about as bad as you can be. Worse its not even fun.

The plot, for those who care, have aliens kidnapping genetic scientists from earth to help them prevent their race from dying out. Its nothing you haven't seen before better.

This is a turkey, from the hair to the wardrobe to the special effects. I'm pretty sure the acting is the pits too, but I can't be sure since the dubbing is so bad.

Avoid",0 "If there was ever any iron-clad proof that Britain is the most uncultured and TV-addicted society in the world then the dredge that is Big Brother is it. The basic idea of this show tanked in other countries where the people are more intelligent but somehow, five years after the rank original, the people of Britain still buy into this crap. They still fall for the same old, same old rubbish that was boring first time around. It boggles the mind. Are we really all that stupid? I blame the Sun newspaper.

Big Brother is a wasteland of coma-inducing boredom consistently starring a deliberately PC and multi-ethnic group of people (with an absolute MAX of 1 token Scottish person) with no personality outside of the stereotyped image they were 'cast' to present. There MUST be one (if not many) gay person. One arguer. One sexist. One extrovert party animal. Etc, etc. They are caricatures of real people. Thus nullifying any genuine sense of 'reality' TV.

And, 'at the end of the day', 'no offence to anyone', 'I don't mean to be funny but', 'correct me if I am wrong', 'you know what I'm saying', they NEVER ever speak outside of clichés. And whenever they DO say something interesting it's edited out for 'legal' reasons. Whatever happened to free speech. I don't believe it really exists my good fellow. I know I'm not unveiling a sacrilegious revelation when I say this trash is edited and directed to the Nth degree. Thus nullifying any genuine sense of 'reality' TV. It's a saga of nothingness. And when something DOES actually happen (they call it 'Fight Night' as there is THE such night every year) the screens go black and we don't get to REALLY see what happened until Channel 4 okays it and edits their way around the truth. Thus nullifying any genuine sense of 'reality' TV.

Every Friday night is 'eviction night' in which the people of this once mighty and powerful land spend money phoning in who they want evicted from the house (and trust me, Channel 4 REALLY likes it when you phone many times in one night 'just to make sure'). That fame-grabbing, wannabe, desperate individual then begins their definite, inevitable, inexorable descent into well deserved obscurity. Davina McCall, who apparently has nothing better to do with her life as she's 'hosted' this mince since the very beginning, interviews that person with eyes and attitude that loudly suggest 'Who the hell are you and why are you taking up so much airtime?' before showing them the mandatory and expected 'best of' their bits scene. Watching this pointlessness is how most people in Britain prefer to spend their summer weekends.

Even the narrator has THE worst accent one can possibly imagine. To make matters worse he basically repeats the same lines on every show. 'Dee 486. De ooder 'ouzmaits r een de gah-den'. I presume the producers of this show are deaf and thought this guy wasn't unintelligible.

For the past few years I keep thinking that 'THIS has got to be the last one' as BB constantly goes from bad to worse to even worse then to absolute hell. It's cheap, brain-dead tripe that only appeals to the lowest common denominator who are vegetablely unaware that Channel 4 are laughing at them. They spend nothing, yet YOU make them millions.

Be a real human-being. Turn this long, long, so incredibly long past it's 'prime' rubbish off and go get a life!",0 "Don't be fooled by anything that you have ever read about this movie, no matter how good someone has said it is. There is NOTHING good about this movie. I won't bother getting into the story, but I will say that the story is horrible, the end makes you say ""who gives a crap?"", there is barely if any gore at all in it, and this might very well be the worst movie ever put on film.

I bought the DVD for $3 (US), and I feel as though I've been ripped off...that alone should give you an idea how bad it is--and it's not the kind of bad horror movie that is so bad it's good. This just goes beyond bad. I could never explain how horrible this movie is.",0 "This odd, incoherent, cheesy and ridicule late-80's horror feature represents the directorial debut of Robert 'Freddy Krueger' Englund. And let's be honest, if it wouldn't be for his name on the credits, the film would have been righteously forgotten a long time ago already. ""976-Evil"" has an absurdly implausible plot and it takes far too long before the (tepid) gore & action kicks in. During the first hour of the film only really weird things – that largely remain unexplained - are going on, like a totally random biblical omen that exists of a shower of fish-rain. Yes, dead fish falling down the sky like normal rain! I'm not quite sure about the significance, but presumably it's God's sign to warn the lead characters that they will soon face an unholy type of evil. With reason, because rebellious teenager Spike and his nerdy cousin Hoax frequently call the titular phone number to get their daily ""horrorscope"". But the toll-free number is possessed with diabolical forces and turns its customers into homicidal monsters. Spike is strong enough to resist, but the miserable Hoax is an easy victim and he soon begins to mutate. He doesn't mind, though, because now he can finally fight back against his domineering mother, the school bullies and all the girls that rejected and laughed at him. You guessed it, ""976-Evil"" is just another lowbrow horror version of ""Revenge of the Nerds"" and the only good thing about it is the choice to cast Stephen Geoffreys. He's ideal to play a character that is simultaneously pathetic and creepy. In the second half of the film, there's a bit of gore and witty one-liners, but it's too late to improve the overall quality. The plot is unimaginably incoherent. Cousin Spike suddenly disappears at one point but randomly appears again for the finale, the amateur-reporter out of the blue hooks up with the school's headmistress and Robert Picardo's potentially terrifying character is never properly introduced. From time to time, you get the impression that Englund is a gifted director but on other occasions you damn him and his film to hell for being just another disappointing and time-wasting 80's turd.",0 "I am appalled to see that the overall IMDb rating for this movie is only 5.2 (edit: now down to 4.9! Madness! Later edit: Ah, now it's up to 5.4 - still abysmal. Oh, and now it's up to 5.9 - going the right way, at least!). Hopefully posterity will be kinder to it than that. It is a very good, well-acted, well-written and well-filmed movie. Apparently, though, it is too subtle for many viewers.

The humanitarian situation it shows is reality. The characters may be fictional, and they may not be representative of the typical relief worker - but they aren't supposed to be. This is a story of those particular two people, and how their feelings for each other grow out of the humanitarian work they are embroiled in. There's no separating the love story from the relief efforts, because she falls in love with him because of his commitment to those efforts. It's true that, at the end in Chechnya, she is more interested in him than in the local situation, but there are two very good reasons for this: One, unlike in Ethiopia and Cambodia she was only there to find him; she wasn't involved in some relief work there, so obviously his safety was foremost in her mind. And two, and more importantly, if she managed to save him, he could have continued being the man she fell in love with; continued his courageous commitment to fight death and suffering. So, I repeat, the love story and the humanitarian subject matter of this movie cannot been separated.

And the thing about her leaving her own family; fer crying out loud, it wasn't a happy family! Her cheating husband represented, both to Angelina's character and in a wider metaphorical sense, the numbing meaninglessness of a trivial, awkward and frequently loveless domestic situation, compared to the importance of saving lives and being in the company of infinitely more inspiring people.

(And what a refreshing change to see her husband - Linus Roach - in the kind of role that so many women portray in the usual Hollywood movie, being the colorless, passive backdrop to the male hero. Gratifying to see it reversed, for once.)

The ending of the movie was unexpected, and yet, in retrospect, it couldn't have ended any other way. If the movie were serious about its subject matter - the relief efforts *as well* as the love story -, it required an end of that sort. The surviving daughter keeps the hope for an eventual happy end alive.

I'm saddened that so many people did not ""get"" the movie. Many of the criticisms leveled against it are of scenes that were *meant* to evoke that response, and which are addressed later in the movie. There's a development going on; the characters are growing in the course of the story, and so is the movie. Many people apparently couldn't perceive that.

This was an extremely well-structured, rare, thought-provoking and sobering type of movie that I'm thankful could get made in this day and age (and I've just bought the DVD). But what a pity it met with such an insensitive public response.

9 out of 10.",1 "The plot, in short: Three backpackers, two Americans and one Icelander, does Europe by train with two major goals: To get high and nail as many women as possible... In Amsterdam they accidentally learn of a hostel in Bratislava, Slovakia where sex-mad women thirst for men in general, and American men i particular. They of course decide to go there and at first it seems the rumors were true. But they soon learn that the hostel is nothing more than a front for a bizarre club, where people can pay a huge fee to get to perform unspeakable acts...

My 2 cents: The director and writer Eli Roths biggest accomplishment before Hostel is Cabin Fever (2002) - weather or not that is something good is a matter of personal judgment. That he got two Evil Dead'ers (Scott Spiegel and FX-genius Gregory Nicotero) interested in his script is not at all surprising. But how he got Quentin Tarantino to executive produce (and thereby act as ""posterboy"" for his flick) is, to me, a total and utter mystery.

Hostel has potential, I'm not going to take that away from it. The thought that a place exists where rich people pay money to torture and kill other people is interesting. And a story about a kidnapped person who finds himself locked in that very place, waiting for his assassin, should make for a great film! The film is wonderfully lit, specifically in the torture chamber-scenes. And the set-dressing in those scenes are marvelous. It really feels like Roth found these places - and just shot them as the were. But the lighting, set-dressing and potentially-rich story, unfortunately, ends the positive things I have to say about Hostel.

It is frustrating to see a story that could have been so exciting and horrific get so utterly fumbled up! The movie is an hour and a half long, and takes a whopping 50 minutes to get to the place that is supposed to be the scene of terror and creepiness. The nearly hour-long ""intro"" is spent observing the backpackers while they party, get high and watch naked ladies in Amsterdams Red Light-district. When the story finally starts to focus on whatever is wrong with the Slovakian hostel it points everything out to such an extensive degree that it feels like Roth wants to put a stupid-hat on every member in the audience. I sat, in vain, and waited for him to take the lid off, go ""ta-daa!"" and show me something intelligent that I had missed. But it never happens and when the lid, towards the end, slowly slides off on its own accord it turns out that the ones you suspected were bad guys were in fact...bad guys. The ones you suspected were dead...were dead. And the entire movie ends the way you suspected it would all along.

Jay Hernandez (Paxton) and Derek Richardson (Josh) doesn't do to shabby in the two leads. But Roth has stayed true to Hollywood formula and chosen picturesque before personality, and the bigger part has unfortunately been given to Hernandez - instead of Richardson who I thought were more likable, and more interesting to watch.

Spanish director Koldo Serra made El tren de la bruja in 2003. A short-film about a man who agrees to partake in an experiment and suddenly finds himself strapped to a chair in a dark room. He hears metal objects being handled and someone pacing back and forth in the room. When the light is turned on it dawns on him that he will probably be tortured to death. Serras short-film is fifteen minutes long. It was filmed in two days and is scary as hell! Hostel is both longer and has, as it first seems, more story to build on. But it still wants to base the horror in exactly the same sort of scenes as Serras short - and fails miserably! Hostel is, probably, made specifically for an American teen-audience, where drugs and naked women represent half of the movies pull. Blood and bodyparts make up the other half. If you watch this and expect anything more sophisticated than some blood and naked breasts you'll be disappointed.",0 "Black street dramas, like Clockers & Boyz In The Hood, are made to raise awareness about the atrocities that happen everyday to young black youths. Whiteboyz is about three white boys who want to lead that life so bad that they dress, act and talk like they see on the movies and in rap videos. The idea of white males pretending they're black could have been funny if they had tried a This Is Spinal Tap approach to the film. Instead they take every cliche out of black street dramas, but because they're white and because it's set in the ridiculous setting of Iowa (no offense to you Iowonians) they slap a comedy label on it.

However, there is nothing funny about this movie. The group of white kids at like they think black kids act. When young black men finally enter the picture (in real life that is, not fantasies) they act nothing like that. Eugene Byrd plays Khalid (one of the only actors to leave this movie with some dignity) a young black man ready to start law school that is if he can stay out of the trouble the white boyz are looking for. The three want him to introduce them to Chicago drug dealers to set up a Iowa connection. The result of which is bloody.

I was actually angered while watching this movie, not at society (like with Do The Right Thing) but with the filmmakers themselves. This material is not funny at all. It's like a person telling a joke and gets the entire thing wrong, then can't remember the punchline. This movie just drags on and on which is not good since it's only 88 minutes.

This not only the worst excuse for a comedy I've ever seen, but one of the worst films I've ever seen. zero stars out of ****

David W.",0 "This is as depressing as the rest of the specials, though not as much as the Christmas one. It's amazing to me that more of my generation didn't grow up angst-ridden because of pap like this. You want to THROTTLE Lucy and the rest of the girls, save for Peppermint Patty, who at least tries to be nice to Charlie Brown, and give the rest of the gang a whop upside the head while imitating Cher in 'Moonstruck': ""Snap out of it!"" When CBS chose not to air any of the specials one year I sat down and wrote a personal letter to Roone Arledge, CEO at the time, profusely thanking him. These shows should be put in the dustbin, have kerosene poured over them, and set alight!",0 "Nothing fresh about this movie: conservatives are bad. Christians are bad, republicans are all fascists, blah blah blah.

If I wanted to get beat over the head with fanatic left-wing views I can just watch the Daily Show for free which like this movie says the same thing ad nauseum.

For all the rah rah talk about revolution against the state (with huge allusions, blatant actually, to the democratically elected Bush Administration) it really boils down to a message tailor-made for people who will just revel in the idea of seeing Bush compared to Hitler, Fox News compared to(ironically) state propaganda, Christians portrayed as oppressive bigots.

So if you hate republicans and enjoy liberal cliché, this movie is for you. For those who can see through the bullshat on both sides, avoid this steaming pile.",0 "With early comparisons to ""American Pie"" and ""Road Trip,"" I wasn't expecting much when I saw SURF SCHOOL this past week. Actually, I like mindless, escapist fluff comedies, and was prepared for one of those here. What I found was one of the most gawd-awful 90 minutes I ever spent in a theater.

The plot was simplistic but had potential: typical ""fish out of water"" scenario, with East Coast transfer student Jordan (Corey Sevier) feeling out of place in a Laguna Beach high school run by a group of championship surfers, led by Tyler (Ryan Carnes). He bands together with other misfits at the school, including a geeky punk, silent goth girl and a perpetual virgin nerd, and enrolls in a surf school prior to the high school surfing championship in Costa Rica. Got the ending figured out yet? No surprises, believe me.

Most of the comic relief is provided by the alcoholic former ""surf dude"" who runs the school (overplayed beyond endurance by Harland Williams), and a couple of oversexed 60's era hippies who run the place where they are staying. Whatever funny moments there are (including a running gag by Williams inviting people for ""mahi-mahi"" and a chimp ""flirting"" with the virgin nerd) are overdone until they lose their appeal. And the film is filled with patronizing stereotypes, from three gorgeous Sweedish tourists to the illogical choice of a flaming campy gay MC at the surf championship. The dialog meanders in illogical circles, leaving the audience scratching their heads in confusion and wondering if this was mostly ad-libbed. The outtakes over the closing credits are better than some of the scenes left in the film. The writer/director should consider some other line of work.",0 "A fairly good watch, Every seems rather realistic, The fact the movie looks as though seen through a crappy camera makes it seem life-like. I first watched this around 5 years ago at 11pm with the lights off and a storm outside, Scary no?, Thus making me lose 2 nights sleep...The ways the Aliens were conveyed were okay, and the ""powers"" they had were a tad far-fetched but still a great movie to watch alone and in the dark, the bad thing though is if you watch it for a second time all the scary moments just aren't there leaving you to sell it or watch as your friends are scared by it just to play small jokes on them for a day or two(worked with my brother, so meh). I highly suggest to rent this and not buy it as it loses its worth after one view through.",1 "Whirlygirl suffers primarily from a bad script and poor direction. The script lacks the closure of a third act; we are left hanging thinking there needed to be something more. There is a rescuer scene which I guess the director thought would be a climax but the movie has an episodic feel to it.

This film is based on a true story. Well the scriptwriter should have embellished it since true stories do not make compelling films. The lead actor Julian Morris does a decent job with the material but the rest of the cast performances are flat. In fact one of the students, who was acting like he was just waking up had a believability level of zero. Speaking of Morris, I had just watched him in Cry Wolf where he also plays a prep school student and his character seems to have walked out of that slasher movie into this one. Slasher movies can get by without any character development but a film like Whirlygirl requires it.

Hats off to DP Christo Bakalov for delivering some great images to such a hollow story.",0 "Sure, it's not for everyone. It probably won't make an impact on anyone that never sat through hours of Banacek, Mannix, Cannon, Rockford Files, Magnum PI, or the 30 or so ""Quinn-Martin"" productions mentioned in the pilot.

The deadpan delivery of Adam West as the likable, sad, washed-up actor is incredible. Why was he never given a chance after Batman? His portrayal of a man tempered by constant rejection, yet bravely holding on to dignity and hope that the next audition brings, is fascinating. Arthur Miller could not have done it better. Did I mention he's funny as hell, too? In today's terms, that character's name is Johnny Drama, instead of Lookwell.",1 "Maybe it's just cause I'm kinda partial to great flying and big-busted women who kick butt, but ""Aces: Iron Eagle 2 is the most fun I've had watching a movie all year (the other highlight being ""Princess Diaries 2, but that's another story).

After seeing the original, pathetic ""Top Gun"" wannabee (aircraft engaged in ""aerial combat shooting static displays, COME ON!), I skipped ""Iron Eagle 2"". However, there were some things I wanted to see after watching the previews and seeing the poster. Yeah, those things belonging to Rachael McLish, the only body builder of EITHER gender who ever got my cigar puffing (Yeah, I know this is sexist as hell, but I'm on a roll and it's THAT kind of movie). No nudity, darn it, but McLish is hot and handles herself well, especially with a couple of machine guns. Besides, how many movie's do you get to see with Sonny (""Streetfighter"") Chiba, Horst (""Magnificent Seven"") Bucholz and Senator Fred Thompson of the great state of Tennessee, not to mention, the downright neat (with the right script) Lou Gossett, Jr.? Yeah, ""Aces"" is predictable, but that's part of its charm. It was probably also fun for former 007 director John Glen to work with people who can actually enjoy their work without trivializing it. HEY ROGER MOORE AND TIM DALTON: PAYING ATTENTION? Just wish McLish would've had more exposure ...

I give ""Aces: Iron Eagle 3"" a ""7"". MISS MCLISH: DO YOU HAVE ANY OUTTAKES? THE RIGHT ONES WOULD BE WORTH AN ""8"".",1 "Wow... what a dark, enthralling tale! The plot is so tight, story arc so suspenseful, acting so affecting, and the scenes so horrifying and heart-wrenching at the same time, I'm completely captivated just 3 episodes into the show and ready to buy the entire series.

The cover art does no justice at all - Skeet Ulrich with his goatee shaved off (trying to shake off the Johnny Depp curse?) looks so much like his ""Scream"" character, that I thought this was going to be another teen drama.

Gothic horrors it deliverers, but not jut for teens. If ""Buffy the Vampire"" is high school, then this is Post Graduate. It's intelligent as ""The X-files"", only cuter, warmer, and more soulful.

Yet, this great TV series was doomed and forgotten due to bad timing, while elementary level suspense and fantasy like ""Heroes"" and ""Lost"" got many seasons and followers... How incomprehensible and depressing, really, ""GOD IS NOWHERE"", or shall I quote Paul Callan ""...why is God doing this?""",1 "The Squid and the Whale is a film by Noah Baumbach about his childhood in New York in the 1980s. It details the circumstances of his parents divorce, and although names have been altered, Noah is represented by the elder son Walt and his father, the brilliant academic Jonathan Baumbach, is played by Jeff Daniels as 'Bernard'.

It is a complex film and not every viewer will understand it at first. At a superficial level it has been (simplistically) interpreted as a light-hearted and affectionate comedy about a husband and wife whose marital difficulties are having a negative impact upon their children. However, if we read between the lines there is a more stimulating story at work. Allow me to elucidate.

SOME SPOILERS TO FOLLOW (IMDB requires that I draw attention to these spoilers to provide readers with a choice but I should point out that I consider them imperative to a proper understanding of the film, although they may be read equally well after one's first viewing)

At the commencement of the film Bernard is a successful academic and writer but one whose work has been overlooked in recent years. We discover that his agent is not up to the task and that he is looking for a new one to ensure that his work receives its dues in the literary community. Incidentally, this is quite typical of the publishing industry, who tend to neglect denser, more intelligent writers in favour of those who sell well, like Dan Brown. Later in the film we learn that his wife (played by Laura Linney) has been published in the New Yorker and subsequently shall have her first novel published. This is significant because we learn that Bernard has taught her to write and there is even a scene early in the film in which he corrects a poor ending that she has attempted.

Furthermore, we learn as the film progresses that the reason for the breakup of the marriage is that Bernard's wife has been sleeping around with a lot of other men. It is never explicitly stated but we can probably assume that she slept with a publisher and perhaps somebody at the New Yorker and this accounts for her literary success. This is setting is crucial for a proper understanding of the film.

In essence we can say that the film deals with the existential crisis that Bernard is experiencing. He tries, in the best faith, to pass his polymathic intellect onto his two sons but is undermined in this endeavour by his wife. Later in the film his younger son Frank is persuaded by his mother's emotional blackmail to stay with her when he should be with Bernard.

Meanwhile Bernard's eldest son Walt (read Noah) is distracted in his pursuit of wisdom by a girl at his school who we quickly discover to be frivolous. This girlfriend, in conjunction with Frank's tennis coach who later becomes Bernard's wife's lover, symbolize the frivolities of the trivial people who get in the way of Bernard's attempts at existential resolution. The tennis coach's constant deployment of the suffix 'my brother' at the end of each of his sentences indicates his lack of linguistic sophistication and thus, we can infer, sophistication of thought.

There is a further intrigue involving one of Bernard's students, a talented young writer named Lili. The relationship between Bernard and Lili can be understood as an archetype of the Platonic form of love. Thus, when the sexual relationship between Bernard and Lili is revealed and used by Bernard's wife to justify her own infidelities, the astute viewer is able to discern the important distinction between the two. In Bernard's case the sexual element is merely an inevitable elaboration upon the essentially philosophical nature of the bond with his student.(cf. Plato's Symposium). In the case of his wife, her promiscuity and loose morals can be seen as an indicator of her inherent superficiality. It is clear that she has rejected Bernard's corrective influence and given herself up to an essentially usurious existence.

There are parallels to Bernard's predicament across the canon of western literature. Examples can be found in Kafka (who is mentioned in the film), Goethe, Marquez, Gaddis, Dostoevsky, Cervantes and Nietzsche among many others, of the classic heroic type Bernard represents. A man shunned and misunderstood by an indifferent world which is concerned chiefly with the superficial, the corporeal manifestations of existence. In this context the film can be correctly understood as the emancipation of Bernard, redemption finally occurring in his declaration of freedom from the confines of his married life. Bernard's wife is thus understood as the principal antagonist, whilst the aforementioned frivolous characters, the tennis coach and the son's girlfriend, represent the uncaring and self-deluded universe in which Bernard is fated to exist. Meanwhile his two sons are the innocents, in whom certain of Bernard's traits are already visible but both of whom are in danger of corruption. In the denouement, we are unclear as to the precise exposition of this element but such ambiguity is an essential part of the postmodernist paradigm within which the film occurs.

It is this that leads me to award the film 9/10. It would be churlish to award anything higher to a narrative that addresses its subject in such an oblique manner. It denies the fundamental aim of all art which is to educate the masses. However, it is paradoxically precisely this element which affords the film merit. It is designed with great precision to be apprehended only by the intellectual elite with whom the film deals. It cannot properly be labelled elitist as it also provides the lesser audience with the requisite comedy and dramatic tension. However the discerning viewer will be rewarded appropriately; commensurate with the perspicacity one brings to the film theatre.",1 "This is a ridiculous, poorly researched film with an undeservedly good title.

This is a ridiculous, poorly researched film with an undeservedly good title.

This event occurred in 1966. Will the director please explain why the police are flying around in Apache helicopters and carrying Beretta M9 pistols? I know the film is supposed to be ""surreal"" but give me a break. A little bit of research could have lent a lot authenticity to this film. Acting was also mediocre at best. The ""tactical"" team at the end of the film is absolutely ridiculous. This film constituted a complete waste of my time. Don't waste yours!

This is a ridiculous, poorly researched film with an undeservedly good title.

This event occurred in 1966. Will the director please explain why the police are flying around in Apache helicopters and carrying Beretta M9 pistols? I know the film is supposed to be ""surreal"" but give me a break. A little bit of research could have lent a lot authenticity to this film. Acting was also mediocre at best. The ""tactical"" team at the end of the film is absolutely ridiculous. This film constituted a complete waste of my time. Don't waste yours!",0 "Highway to Hell starts off as a campy 80's ish horror flick. It grabs you from the start and then holds on when our stars jump over the real world divide. The concept is ingenious and the characters are fresh. There are some great sight gags and loads of funny lines. THis is definitely better than the 5.7 rating here......I just left a review for 'The Prodigy' and I am FLABBERGASTED that it has the same rating on IMDb. This is EASILY a better film. Patrick Bergen and Chad Lowe are great adversaries and on originality alone this film deserves at least a 6-6.5 here. Pure unadulterated 'B' movie genius. Wish I could find a copy to rent. 3.5 out of five on my 'b' movie marathon list. It is very strange and not for all tastes, but HTH will forever be a cult-classic.",1 "The IMDb advises that I should say ...

*Warning Spoilers Follow*.

... but there is no way to spoil this movie, because it is already spoiled to the point of being compost, and is ready to be spread out on the fields.

It has been almost 20 years since my girlfriend of the time, an obsessive Madonna fan, talked me into seeing this piece of trash, and I still go to bed at night praying to God that I can somehow get that two hours of my life back. This is not one of those movies that is so bad it is good. This is one of those movies that is so bad it actually slingshots right around past good and right back to bad again.

Madonna stars as a missionary (I know this is a leap of faith folks, but I am *not* kidding!), who teams up with Sean Penn (her then husband) to search for ""Faraday's Flowers"", a cache of opium balls she hopes can be used as a pain killer for wounded troops. From about this point on, the movie takes on a rhythm that more or less goes ""1, 2, 3, plot twist, 1, 2, 3, plot twist, 1, 2, 3, plot twist, and so on"", as the duo of Penn and Penn bounce around randomly from one ridiculous situation to another with plenty of plot twists, but absolutely no plot evident to be twisted. In the mean time, they are being chased by a corrupt official with prosthetic hands (He lost his real hands from opening a booby trapped money belt called a ""shanghai surprise"", which is what the movie is supposedly named after. This seems appropriate to me, seeing how I had lost my money from watching this booby trapped movie.).

You may wonder why it is that I am able to remember so much about a movie I haven't seen in almost 20 years. To that I can only say one thing ...

... emotional scarring.

This movie is that bad folks! I have seen a lot of bad movies in my time, but this one rules as the unchallenged chief god in my pantheon of stinkers. It makes Ed Wood's movies look like Academy Award winning material. It even makes the worst of the worst of the flash animation that I have seen over the last six years on the net look good. I would eagerly gnaw my foot off to escape from this movie.

If, for some reason, you are ever unfortunate enough to find a copy of this little ""gem"" on the shelf of your local video store, the only thing I can recommend is that you slowly and carefully turn yourself around, then run, run! RUN!!!!!, and immediately seek psychiatric counseling so as to avoid any possible post traumatic stress syndrome you may suffer from exposure to this movie.

I give this movie a 1, but that is only because IMDb will not let me input negative numbers.",0 "Okay, maybe a lot of you guys already mentioned this (I haven't read all the comments) but there is a story by Dean Koontz telling something similar. A funhouse, a bunch of young kids and a murderer, a freak of nature... Greaaaat! The story kicks in! I thought... this could be wonderful cinema. Well, it wasn't! I never saw a worse movie than this one (or perhaps if I count in I'll always know what you did last summer, this would come in second place)!! I can't understand why this title was in the After Dark Horrorfest? There were so many other good ones left out... I don't say there were no good parts in it... a loved the story 'bout the twins in the beginning and the sex scene was a big laugh (especially the climax) but that was it. No good acting, no good plot, a good story just turned into a bad movie! I wasn't scared at all... Maybe I ask too much of a movie... I donno...",0 "I read some of the comments about that film and really thought i was gonna watch something worth watching, but..... The film in itself is very quiet, there is hardly any talking, which i personally don't like. You get to like the characters through their actions, but even then I was not impressed with it. The ending is very disturbing and fair enough it might happen far in the north but not everybody want to watch a film about a disturbed middle aged woman. My advise watch this if you really and even really bored, but overall the film was not to my liking and I'd say to any of my friends not to bother with it, even though it's got good actors in it.",0 "Poor and superficial film, using disturbing images, playing with the American believe that Violence and Corruption only happen in other countries. This is a bad copy of other Brazilian movies, this people could be making Art with more social engagement , sensibility and respect for other cultures.

The worst part of the movie is when Kids are showed acting/playing as kidnappers. The director admitted that He asked the Kids to do the theater, but presents it as if it was reality, making the public believe that this is how kids play in the streets of Brazil. This is unetical, not a documentary, shouldn't be a reference.

I believe that it's time for the young Americans to start looking into solving their own problems at home. And not only look for sensationalism , violence and misery but, beauty and successful experiences in other cultures, not only they problems, feeding prejudices and fear.

It's time to exchange ideas , using art as communication, a Global believe of trust and enlightenment. Not only fear of the different, of the foreigner, the neighbor...",0 "Wow. This movie was HORRIBLE. There was a song after every 5 minutes. This movie unfortunately stereotypes way too much! Terrible plot and BORING. The lead actress is attractive, but needs to work on her acting. As an Indian, I am tired of us being portrayed as the bad characters in movies. Keeping our culture intact is very important to many and should not be portrayed as something bad. The heavy British accents are also hard to get used to. This movie had nothing positive to send to the viewer.

I rented this at the local Blockbuster and am glad that I did not see in it a theatre or I would have left early.",0 "Pray for Morning starts as a few teen friends decide to spend the night in the Royal Crescent Hotel, a large rundown long abandoned hotel that was the scene of five gruesome murders back in 1984. Jesse (Jonathon Trent) has always been interested in the hotel & drawn to the mystery surrounding the still unsolved murders, he has convinced some of his high school mates to accompany him, during the middle of the night of course because going there during the day when it was light would just be silly. Once there they decide to check out the rooms in which the five bodies were found, before anyone know's it an evil ghostly spirit has been awakened & is killing the teens off one-by-one & unless they can stop it none of them will live to see the morning...

Written & directed by Cartney Wearn I watched Pray for Morning last night without knowing a thing about it, the title is rather vague & could have referred to anything so I didn't go into it with any great expectation yet I still found myself disappointed & not particularly having a good time. What we have here is a cross between The Shining (1980) with it's hotel style setting & The Amityville Horror (1979) with the now standard haunted house scenario (spooky property has a dark past, you know the sort of thing) along with a few boring mystery elements thrown in there for good measure. The film spends far too much time showing annoying American teens wondering around this old hotel in the dark, it just doesn't make for particularly entertaining viewing & gets very boring very quickly. The script is predictable & is nothing more than a teen slasher with some tenuous supernatural elements along with an obligatory twist ending which didn't do much for me at all to be honest as I thought it was pretty ineffectual. There is one amazing scene I just couldn't work out, in it one of the annoying American high school teens examines a twenty year old blood stain & determines that whoever left the stain was trying to hide something! How on Earth do you work that out? Also it turns out that whatever the victim was trying to hide they hid inside an nearby air vent so when they were killed how could they have been trying to hide something when they had clearly already hidden it? Also why didn't the police find that severed hand in the vent only a few feet away? According to earlier exposition the police had 'torn the place apart' looking for clues so why not find that severed hand only a few feet away from a murder victim? The police obviously didn't do a very good job, did they? There's no explanation as to how or why there's a ghost in the hotel or how it manages to alter reality or how it can transport people back in time &, of course, the annoying American teens mobile phones don't work for no apparent reason either so they get isolated from the outside world in a now obligatory plot device for low budget horror films. The story doesn't engage or entertain, that character's are both poor & annoying, the plot is forgettable & not that much actually happens.

The hotel sets or locations (not sure if they filmed in a real hotel or in a studio) are quite nice but why are some of the lights on? Wouldn't the electricity have been turned off? Horror wise there's not much to get excited about here, there's a few bloody corpses & what looks like a bamboo stick stuck through someone but not much else & there's not much in the way of scares since the less than impressive CGI computer effects have the opposite effect & make things almost laughable. There are one or two bits with a decent atmosphere but it's never sustained for any period of time. The film seems to take itself very seriously & there's no humour or fun to be seen anywhere which doesn't help when the plot feels so stale & lethargic. To give it some credit there are a few period flashbacks at the end which are quite nicely done I suppose.

With a supposed budget of about $2,000,000 this has better production values than a lot of recent low budget horror but that's hardly any sort of recommendation on it's own. Filmed in Los Angeles. The only real cast member of note is cult German born actor Udo Kier who doesn't look interested at all & to my eyes seems to put on more weight in every subsequent film he makes (the Steven Seagal of the low budget horror world!).

Pray for Morning is a dull supernatural teen horror slasher that doesn't satisfy on any level really, never mind pray for morning I would suggest that most audiences will be praying for it to finish not too long after it has started.",0 "This movie is beyond bad, I thought it could be a decent enough comedy with some hot latina-chicks.

The latter there were plenty of, but the style of this movie is extremely childish so there aren't any sexiness going on, I mean just look at the rating: Rated PG for MILD sensuality.

The story is as if taken from a Spanish-SOAP-OPERA and the acting is as over-the-top as that as well, I found SOFIA VERGARA funny in SOUL PLANE and ROSELYN SANCHEZ is good in WITHOUT A TRACE but they were as bad as the rest of the bunch in this ""comedy"".

Comedy: Yes, but where are the jokes? Were there any? And did this movie even make me chuckle even once? No.

Not even cameo's from talents DL HUGHLEY (Stand-Up-Comedian) and FREDDY RODRIGUEZ (Harsh Times) could make me enjoy this movie, it just made me think how on earth they got into this horrible movie.

One thing that's even more confusing is the fact that FOREST WHITAKER is listed as a producer, to me he's one of Hollywood's finest and hopefully his producer-spot just meant that he financed the movie and wasn't actually a part of making this movie because that would have been a shame.

I'm bagging on a lot of people here, but the biggest bag should be on the lead guy Thomas (played by Eduardo Verástegui) whom delivers some of the worst acting I have ever seen in recent years, he is beyond bad in a way I can't even describe.

There's one good thing about it though, without the start and end-credits the movie is only about 70 minutes long.

If you want a romantic-comedy with latino-actors there is always SUENO (John Leguizamo, Elisabeth Pena) which I quite like.",0 "This is a great movie for kids AND adults. It was a thrill a minute with a lot of laughs. I've never been on the Disney ride, but the movie has made me very curious about it, and will probably make a trip to Disney next year. This movie is a great advertisement for their theme park!",1 "From incredibly inept scriptwriting to ridiculously bad acting, sloppy editing and incompetent directing, this film belongs in movie-dumb's rubbish bin. It starts out slowly, with no dialog, then increases its yawn factor as words are added to this meandering, nonsensical script. There are so many disconnected and incomplete avenues in this film that the viewer suspects it is a parody of a real movie. It continues trudging along into an undeveloped storyline that makes the viewer wonder if anyone actually viewed this film before it was released onto an unsuspecting public. Hard to believe Clint Eastwood directed, produced and acted in this piece of human excrement. This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen.",0 "I'm not entirely sure I understood the plot of Sukiyaki Western Django, mainly because I couldn't understand the dialogue very well, but I still can say it's unlike anything I have ever seen. In a time when ridiculously unoriginal films are hailed by critics and average viewers alike, it's great to see something truly different come to the screen. Sukiyaki Western Django takes the oldest subgenre in American cinema, the western, and spins it until it is original again—and it works.

I have never been a Takashi Miike fan at all, honestly. I have only seen this and Audition, but Audition was boring and cliché enough for me never to give him a second thought. Sukiyaki Western Django, however, shows his true capability as a director and that he isn't just another run-of-the-mill carbon copy like I originally thought after viewing Audition.

Sukiyaki Western Django is very dialogue heavy, but it still packs a lot of action and a lot more character deaths than is standard for this type of film. People are calling this movie gory, but it isn't. The blood is pretty generic and typical, though maybe a little more than your standard action flick. This didn't really disappoint me as much as it does in other movies, because blood isn't really needed in Sukiyaki Western Django. It carries itself with style and a lot of intense action.

I think the reason this film is getting so many negative reviews is because people don't get it. You really have to be a fan of the genres it imitates to understand it fully, even though the plot is simple. Two rival gangs, and one man, a gunslinger, they both need. The rest is a mix between action and art that simply stunned me. The town itself is so diverse it almost becomes its own character, and in a way it is. The aesthetic of some of the action scenes go so much further than the typical slow-mo Matrix rip-off you're used to and really creates a style all its own. The technical beeps in the background gave off a really cool surreal, modern feel that isn't overdone or annoying.

The acting worked for the genre, even though most of it is terrible and hard to understand. The entire Japanese cast, minus Tarantino, worked because they all spoke English, which just added to the cool-weirdness. I'm sure if your high school English class tried to analyze every figurative detail it would take weeks. Just put it this way: as far as the formula goes, Sukiyaki Western Django is both original and complex to the point of insanity. I simply cannot understand how this is by the same man who wrote/directed Audition.

Overall, I'm going to quote something I heard someone say after they viewed Sukiyaki Western Django: ""Well, that was different, but I wouldn't call it entertaining."" That is the view a lot of people are going to have, and I can't deny people will think that just because I personally disagree with it. It comes very close to being too top-heavy with aesthetic for its own good, but, for me, it was still very entertaining and awing. I can't say anything else except that you need to see this and make up your own mind. It is original, that's not my opinion, and if you're like me and enjoy more than the typical Hollywood movie you MUST see this. If you can care less about originality and just want another typical western you've seen time and time again, don't bother.

It really matters what your opinion on entertainment is. But I loved it.

8/10",1 "My friend introduced me to a lot of anime series, but this one really stood out. It's about a young boy who moves a dorm but the administration places him with 3 other slightly strange roommates. They gradually get to know and trust one another, and you learn about each one's story. I think they were in the high school/college age range. Each character has their own ""special"" quirk and problems they're trying to fix. It's a great drama/comedy that is funny and serious in the right spots. It might be too slow moving for some people but you just have to give it a chance. At the time, I didn't think I would enjoy it but I really liked this series. I wish there were more episodes.",1 "Aw, come on IMDb'ers, why the low rating? Where's your sense of loyalty? I can't hear that Kenny Loggins title song and see those pairs of dancing feet during the opening credits without sitting down to watch this whole movie. And even if it's largely to make fun of it, I still love it for old times' sake.

Kevin Bacon is the tough city kid stuck in some podunk Midwest town where dancing has been outlawed. John Lithgow is the preacher who serves as Bacon's arch nemesis; Lori Singer is the preacher's daughter who has a hankering for the new dangerous kid. Dianne Wiest is the reasonable mom who acts as referee between dad and daughter. The whole thing is sillier than an episode of ""Laugh-In,"" but many of the actors (particularly Lithgow, Wiest and Bacon) are good enough to actually sell the material. And come on, admit it, you know you like the music.

Grade: B+",1 "I've just finished seeing this movie for the first time on TV. All the way through I simply could not believe that time and again such decisions were made purely on the basis of the judge's homophobic bias. I kept waiting for someone to stand up and declare the obvious - that it was wrong to deprive a loving, caring mother of her child simply because some bigots don't approve of who she loves.

What amazed me most of all was that at the very start of the movie we were told that grandparents had no legal entitlement to visitation in Virginia. So it was appalling to me that even though there was no basis in law for granting custody to Jody Ann's appalling mother, simply because of a judge's personal bias custody was granted. It makes a mockery of the law and of the US legal system.

I came on here hoping to find that in the eight years since the movie was made commonsense and justice had prevailed and that Jody Ann had finally gotten to bring up her son in a loving, caring, nuturing home. But sadly it seems that bigots still rule in the good IL' US of A.

It also astonished me that no one thought to ask why the grandmother was insisting on the child calling her 'mamma'. This surely confuses the child and is a clear indication that the grandmother's motives aren't in the child's best interests but her own. Clearly, she wanted the child for herself from the start and her daughter's new lifestyle was just an excuse.

I was enraged by Jody Ann's brother and 'best friend'. Both of whom betrayed her and lied on the stand, simply because they were angry that she had chosen to love another woman. They should be ashamed of themselves.

All in all, a sad, depressing indictment of America, of its intolerance for those who don't fit the 'mom's apple pie' image and the grip the raving rightwing lobby has on this country.

I wish Jody Ann all the best. I am sure that when her son is grown and is able to understand the manipulations of his grandmother and the injustices done to his mother he will choose to be with her again.",0 "A rare find. 10 out 10 in my estimation. Apparently Flynn later in life wanted to be considered a talented actor rather than simply a ladies' man or ""matinee idol"". I think he was an excellent actor, a characterization borne out in his performance as Don Juan in this film.

The cinematography is brilliant, the dialog, though typical of films of this genre, is tongue-in-check and thereby hilarious as well as highly entertaining. The acting is superb across the board.

The film, true to the studio system protocols of the era, is stylized, but the stylization works brilliantly. I am certain that any contemporary aspiring director, writer or actor who is serious about his or her craft can learn an immense amount from this film.",1 "The last and craziest of the six Hubie & Bertie cartoons, about two decidedly non-country mice. In this one, the pair have been living in a cheese factory and, having eaten enough cheese for the next two thousand years, decide to end it all, by leaping into the mouth of Claude Cat, their dupe in the Oscar-winning MOUSE WRECKERS. The entire cycles goes on and on, with many a funny sight gag. Highly recommended.",1 "Adapted from the short story, ""Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been"", by Joyce Carol Oates; this slow paced and moody film is for those who like introspective stories where you spend a lot of the viewing time in self-analysis rather than character identification. The mood is complemented by a lot of James Taylor on the soundtrack with ""Handyman"" repeated several times.

It is also one of those ""axe to grind"" films where fans of the short story feel compelled to whine about the adaptation not being faithful to their interpretation of the book, although Oates endorses it without reservation on her website. Any non-readers considering viewing ""Smooth Talk"" would be wise to remember the source when reading negative comments from this group.

To reach feature length it was necessary to expand on the short story and to dramatically depict events that are just briefly mentioned in the original version. Everything is still told from the point-of-view of 15-year-old Connie, increasingly estranged from her mother and marveling at her new-found attractiveness to boys. Fans of Laura Dern who have not seen this should seek it out as she gives an remarkable performance, arguably her all time best. Perfectly cast physically as a gangly coming of age teenager Dern plays Connie with such restraint and awkward hesitancy that anyone with acting for the camera aspirations should view this simply as a perfect example of the power that can be produced by underplaying a character.

The ending is restrained as well, making it unexpectedly powerful and haunting. They go out with Connie and her sister slowly dancing to ""Handyman"", leaving the viewer to process what has been shown and what has been implied.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.",1 "A wistful tale of a bookie past his prime and too nice to play the debt collector. Peter Falk gives an amazing performance as a small time Boston bookie who's far too reluctant to enforce the tough tactics of his mob boss. The movie starts slow but rewards with a touching tale aided by an inspiring cast. Lauren Holly is convincing as a self-sacrificing waitress wife of her gambler cum alcoholic husband and shows she's no barbie doll. Excellent acting also by Tim Hutton as Holly's irresponsible husband and Tyne Daly as Falk's wife. The dull spot is Freddie Prinze Jr's (who should remain in comedy) one-dimensional role. He was unable to portray well his role as an arrogant self-serving and cowardly young punk.

Vig (or Money Kings) is a story about how the simple way of life can never be the status quo. This is a story about commitment, responsibility, sacrifice and doing what is right. Great movie and a touching tale.",1 "This was probably one of the better ""Ernest"" movies in that it moves fast which means it's pretty entertaining without being too stupid, as some of Jim Varney movies were. However, even this you can except a lot of ""stupid"" but some of that is part of Varney's charm as the lovable ""Ernest P. Worrell,"" a man he made famous first with TV commercials and then with a handful of inane-but- Innocent comedies.

This 100-minute film would have much better chopped to 80 or 85 because there are some legitimate laugh-out-loud scenes. Varney does a lot of impressions, some of which are very good. The two nerdy salesmen in here are also funny. As with all the ""Ernest"" films, there is nothing really offensive in here. Today, this could almost be rated ""G.""",1 "This film takes place at Starliner Towers, a high rise apartment complex isolated on an island and which is very self-sufficient. A biological experiment gone awry has led to the creation of slug-like parasites that, once inside a human body, turn people into ravenous sexual deviants. The buildings' in-house doctor, Roger St. Luc (Paul Hampton) becomes aware that the tenants are going mad, but will he be able to stem the tide of wanton sexual aggression on display here?

This was truly a groundbreaking film, not only for its director, David Cronenberg, who had previously only done ""underground"" films, but it paved the way for the future of the horror genre in Canada. Cronenberg may have been learning as he went along, making this film and its follow-up, ""Rabid"", and it's obviously not as polished as his subsequent works, but it's still very respectable, showing early on that he had a definite aptitude for this medium.

It's along the lines of his other early films to deal with ""body horror"": it's provocative, intriguing, violent, and unnerving. He offers such memorable and potent images as a bathtub scene featuring none other than the iconic actress Barbara Steele, and especially a late scene featuring two children on leashes and behaving as dogs. The films' action leads to an equally memorable ""Night of the Living Dead"" style finish.

Joe Blasco provides the film with some decent creature creations and splatter that are just fine for low budget fare. With the amount of gore and violence on hand, it goes without saying that this film won't be for everybody, and there was some uproar at the time of the theatrical release that Canadian tax dollars could be going towards making this kind of film.

Deep-voiced, sharp featured Joe Silver is wonderfully entertaining as the character who gives us all the necessary exposition, and the alluring cult actress Lynn Lowry is quite good as the nurse, making up for the blandness of male lead Hampton. Alan Migicovsky gets quite creepy as an early victim, who gets progressively more disgusting as the film goes on, Susan Petrie is cute and likable as his anguished wife, and guest star Steeles' presence is very welcome.

Suffice it to say, this film might not quite pack the same punch as Cronenbergs' later horror films, such as ""The Brood"", ""Scanners"", ""Videodrome"", or ""The Fly"", but I think it's a solid debut with an offbeat premise and an effective delivery.

7/10",1 "One of the few movies that has the power to bring a tear to my eye. We see the life of Harry, as a young boy, as an acne-scarred teen, and as a lost soul thirtysomething. As a child, he has a naive enthusiasm for romance. But his socially awkward self and repulsive appearance lead to a lifetime of rejections. Until the end when he finally finds somebody who accepts him. Repulsive and unacceptable as his last acts may be, they are not a violation so much as they are his desperately grasping for somebody, anybody, to love.

For me the movie is simultaneously depressing and uplifting. I will never forget the ""invisible man"" strategy he employs to get a girl to give him one dance. Or the painful scene of him as a young boy on the carnival ride with a girl, paralyzed with fear and unable to make any advances.

Anyway, SEE this movie. It was released on DVD last year, and should not be too hard to find. Order yourself a copy if you don't see it at your local stores.",1 "This movie should never have been made. I love the shows, the cartoon movies, lots of ""Scooby"" stuff, but this just sucks. They made Fred and Daphne self absorbed idiots, Scrappy a total pain in the butt and Velma a Mega-geek. The only things they did right were (beside the fact that it's under 90 minutes long) Scooby and Shaggy, knowing that they could make a fortune off of screwing up the other four and not Scoob and Shag (knowing whoever wrote the script, that would have made the movie better[note the sarcasm]). I would give this stinker a no-star rating, but I had to give it at least one.

* out of *****.",0 "This movie is really quite a feast. It shows two German brothers on a trip to Japan to visit a Zen monastery. Both brothers face personal questions: one has just been left by his wife, and the other, well, that comes too late in the film for me to discuss here.

Upon arriving in Tokyo, they settle in a comfortable hotel and go out for a night on the town. Problem: where is the hotel? At first this seems comical, but it quickly becomes a serious crisis.

They sleep in cardboard boxes on the street.

The brothers' ability to deal with these problems and their other problems are examined in the light of the daily mundane tasks they take upon themselves when they arrive at the monastery.

The movie handles religion very well. It shows the value of their meditation without getting overly preachy. It shows the brothers, especially Uwe, the one whose wife left him, trying very hard to find a meaning in what they do.

The movie is about people and the deep problems people have. Some viewers might find this boring, but I found it compelling. There is no one thing I can point to, but the whole feel of the movie and the characters seemed right.",1 "The few parts where this movie is somehow mildly funny are totally outdominated by the fact that it is criminally unrealistic. If you get the idea that what happens in this plot is therapy, or might actually work as a therapy, you're out of your mind... if anything this would be the best way to drive somebody completely insane. The only reason this illogic, unfunny, pointless, storyless crap sometimes gets good criticism is the fact that there are some good actors in it... It's just a really cheap idea, not even a new one, splattered across way too much time and resulting in a ridiculous, totally made-up ending that is impossible to believe if you got some sort of a brain...",0 "I think that 7th Heaven used to be a good show. Now it's gotten so lame that I don't care what happens anymore. The show is still a tiny bit addictive, but it just doesn't have the same appeal to me it once had. This is by far the worst season of 7th Heaven ever. The show has always been sort of predictable, but now I usually know what will happen before it does. Like this week's episode for example. Simon and Rose fought over that stupid wedding ring she forced him to buy. She made him feel totally guilty for something that was her fault. And as usual, he was dumb enough to take her back. Now it seems that they will get married after all, but who knows? Next week, Rose is supposed to drop yet another bomb on poor Simon. If the show really does end, it can't end with Simon marrying that insecure, needy, clingy, spoiled, selfish, manipulative brat.",0 "A love story about two people (James Earl Jones and Lynn Redgrave) who end up in the same boarding house (run by Margot Kidder in one of her best performances ever), after being rejected by society and the people whom they have counted on for support. As they fall in love they have to deal with the unusual ways that each of them have created purpose for themselves--the very reasons society has rejected them--while also facing their prejudices about age, race, and sex.

I saw this film at the 2000 USA Film Festival and thoroughly enjoyed it. All the performances are first-rate, as is the cinematography, the script and the music.

This film is unlikely to get wide distribution, due to the fact that it does not feature wet teenagers or loud rock-and-roll, but if you do get the opportunity to see it, do. You'll be glad you did.",1 "There are lots of reasons to love ""Coeurs"" . At first, I must say, I hadn't great expectations for this French adaptation of the British play ""Private Fears in Public Places"", by the acclaimed Alan Ackynbourn. I was wrong: actor- director- screenwriter Jean-Michel Ribes did a clever job with the script. The stories of the six characters intersect smoothly, there are a few big laughs, but the general mood of the film is bitter-sweet and pensive. The ending is in a way very pessimistic: the very true-to-life message is love is a dream, and soon or later everybody has to wake up. The film shows remarkable acting. Italian Laura Morante was awarded with the Pasinetti award in Venice, but the rest of the cast is very strong as well. Honorable mentions go to Pierre Arditi's sensitive performance, and, with lighter tones, to André Dussollier's. Alain Resnais' direction, winner of the Silver Lion at the latest Venice film festival, left in the film a distinct theatrical feeling. The repeated image of the snowfall, used between one scene and another, is appropriate and poetic. Over all a good film - recommended. 8/10 in my book.",1 The film is quite fun to watch and the Mole People are a little on the wired side but nonetheless they looked good especially for the 50s!If you like the Universal Monsters movies then check this out soon!I think you'll like it!,1 "They basically put parts 1,2,3 and 4 together in one movie.First of all the kills in this movie were boring and made with CGI.Second,way too much sex and nudity.I mean a little is okay but having a sex scene last 3 minutes and showing EVERYTHING that's just dumb even for a horror movie.Third,the ending was kinda hard to understand.Jason jumps out of the lake and cut,it's over.I mean that was just mind blowing and odd.On a positive note,Jason looked scary and cool.Jason looks the best in this movie.This movie had it's moments but it's just wasn't that good.I strongly suggest watching the old Friday The 13th movies.Parts 1,3,4,5,6 and 7 are the best ones.The rest are just okay.",0 "One of the most hilarious films ever made, THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT has more laughs than ten of today's so-called ""comedies"" combined. Even though a few set changes and a couple of new supporting characters are added to ""open up"" the storyline, director Herbert Ross and writer Buck Henry manage to keep the same spirit of the original one-act, two-character play intact. There's a lot of verbal warfare in Henry's screenplay, and he seems to have a gift for penning wickedly funny dialogue. Some viewers could argue that THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT is little more than two characters insulting each other for 95 minutes, but - when those insults are so rigorously funny - who cares?

In the female lead, Barbra Streisand gives a refreshingly unsentimental performance as Doris, the semi-illiterate hooker who (for once) does not have a heart of gold. George Segal was primarily known as a dramatic actor before he was cast as Felix, the snotty book clerk/writer-wannabe. His performance is so convincing that he has been known as an expert comic ever since. The chemistry between Streisand and Segal ignites from the beginning, and it stays aflame throughout their relationship's many ups and downs. Robert Klien has a funny supporting role - and plays it expertly - but THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT remains a showcase for the chemistry between Streisand and Segal. I think well-respected film critic Pauline Kael said it best when she wrote, ""Were Tracy and Hepburn ever this good. . . maybe, but they were never better."" High praise indeed!",1 "An average tale of a guy who, out of desperation, chooses the wrong drinking buddy and gets into trouble. Estevez is great in this movie, and the real laughs start when he gets busted by the cops. Before that, the parties looked boring and the partiers acted like they were trying too hard to be cool. Many situations were predictable for me, I knew he would get busted on the rooftop as he was about to kiss the girl and I knew he would get held up right after he said he was 50 feet from the police station. At times I was having more of a time picking out who I recognized from other films....the wanna-be pimp was the gas station attendant from Dusk Till Dawn, the drunk at the bar was the head of the jail from Bad Boys (Sean Penn flick, NOT the Martin Lawrence one with the STOLEN name), the bartender is a bit player in many films. This movie reminded me somewhat of Blind Date with Bruce Willis in that everything was going wrong on his night out too and he also ended up getting busted.",0 "This is the one you remember from when you were growing up and watching Saturday morning ""Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner"" cartoons. I recently watched this cartoon a 15 years at least since I last saw it and laughed out loud at all the pranks that Bugs pulled out of his hat. I know I must have used some of these jokes when I was playing baseball as a kid.

And the cameo at the end of America's perennial first lady was a hoot - and Bugs goes and lampoons her on the spot!

Classic is the only word for this one.",1 "I believe the only reason anyone would have seen this film is because Russell is in it.

That was my reason.

Russell does well in his role.

Love his hair cut in this one.

A better script was needed.

But, we have to keep in mind, this was not a big budget film.

Helen's character Mary could GET on the audience's nerves as well, even though she was a good person & meant well.

You could tell why she got on Zack's nerves.

Course, she has not done much in her career. When you consider the best thing she ever did was her guest spot on ""Seinfeld"".

By the book, not really exciting action scenes.

To be seen only if you are a fan of Russell's.",0 "HBO is renowned for their excellent original programming. Recently, the premier cable channel has gotten into historical drama with the excellent ""Elizabeth I"" and ""Rome."" Ever the copycat, Showtime now offers ""The Tudors,"" combining the time period of ""Elizabeth I"" and the format of ""Rome."" Too bad it has none of the quality. Where ""Elizabeth I"" had gravitas, ""The Tudors"" is deadly dull. Where ""Rome"" was risqué and shocking, ""The Tudors"" is just empty-headed and smarmy. It was difficult not to change the channel on this show in the first ten minutes; I cannot imagine plodding through an entire droning, silly season of this. HBO's programs are the products of creators genuinely keen on their subjects and time periods, while this plodding, vapid Showtime program is another lame attempt to mimic a rival's glory.",0 "I loved the ended of this movie.

Beatrice Lilly had such a screen presence, her eyes seem to jump off the screen. It's easy to see why Rudolph Valentino had a romantic interest in her. It's a shame she only made 8 movies in her career. TCM said that it was because movie making lacked the audience interaction she so much loved. And didn't care to make movies with out knowing instantly how the audience was reacting.

Sure the ended may have shocked some audience goers and it wasn't what they wanted but, I kinda liked that. It was in the times with today to have twist and turns in the plot.

The updated musical score probably adds more to this movie than we'll ever know without hearing the original. It was simply suburb!!

I would imagine with a few edits and very little re-write this movie would have moderate success today.",1 "Unfortunately, this movie falls prey to an overwrought treatment of what many would consider to be a still esoteric, but increasingly popular, subject. With its formulaic and simplistic narrative of California's burgeoning wine culture, the characters are stereotypical; and were portrayed in a manner that we would expect from the more industrial-minded aspects of Hollywood.

Despite these faults, it was pleasurable to watch Rickman portray Mr. Spurrier, whose work today within the wine world is often admirable. For those reviewers that did not see the film, such as fellow reviewer Luisinho Biker (who made a reference to a war – I am uncertain what this has to do with anything), the importance of the Judgment of Paris was more than just beneficial to American vintners. It also showed that French winemakers may have been resting on their laurels, and had not reevaluated how they had been producing wine. Many nations, including the United States, realized that winemaking could be approached using new techniques while still adhering to terroir and tradition. Of course, there is not a best wine. A better movie may show that wine is a deeply faceted staple that can be interpreted in many ways. Perhaps the up-coming Judgment of Paris will highlight the depth of oenology and those that enjoy its fruits.",0 "Sadie (Moore) and Ben (Krasinski) want to get married, but Reverend Frank (Williams) wants to put them thru some tests to see if they are really suited for each other.

I don't know if I have ever subscribed to a Worst Movie list, but this one will be in the top-10 for sure. Bad script, bad acting, bad direction and no one noticed? Well, I did. Gone are the days I would run to a Robin Williams movie. Gone. Gone. Gone. Either he was scripted or is just losing it, and I don't feel he is an actor who can be scripted. What does that leave? Huh?

Nothing funny happened, no good or clever lines, just a constant stream of nothingness. I could go on and on how horrible this was, but that would be pointless and boring.

Violence: No, Sex:No,Nudity:No, Language: No",0 "I just watched the laugh-fest that is 'Flight 93'.

The most hilarious thing about that BS was the fact that just about all of the relatives receiving phone calls were holding small babies when they took the calls! I was just thinking 'bloody hell, how many more of these people are going to be holding babies?' when the Mark Bingham call was made. The next scene was at the Bingham's residence, and they were all holding babies! Not just one, but about three or four; fμck!ng hell, I lost count there were so many! Still laughing now! But the clincher was when that light aircraft was reporting a visual sighting of flight 93. ""Take evasive action"" ground control radioed to the GA pilot. Then the light plane flew right around and over flight 93, as it was in a 450kt+ decent! I nearly pi$$ed myself! What a fantastic movie! You do believe me, don't you? lol.",1 "Blood Shed/Crazed/slipping Into Darkness was the first movie I ever reviewed on IMDB. Initially I totally bashed the film. After A second viewing I take it back completly!!! The fact that the video art work makes it look like a violent-gore film lead to my negative review. I was expecting a gore fest and instead got a film with low body count and no gore. This film is actually very good. Their are a lot of interesting little things in this movie proving way ahead of the current events of our time. The lead character is constantly having flashbacks of his childhood. Most interesting is the priest flashbacks, the film seems to hint that he was molested by a priest especially of the quick shots of the boy on his knees possibly in a confessional booth. Ironically this issue is currently all over the news. It's almost as if the writer knew of a dirty little secret and was exposing it with this film. The character's army flashbacks are interesting too, especially since real life serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had a bad experience in the army as well. It seems to me at second look that this film is a realistic look of how a lonley individual with serious past issues can slowly become completly insane and end up murdering people. To top it off there is some funny dialogue by the old ladies in this film to soften the serious tone. A second look at this film reveals a seriously under rated study of insanity. The original title Slipping into Darkness fits the movie better than the Blood Shed tag which will steer you the wrong way!",1 "I got this film after reading the back of the cover. It sounded wonderful: An exploration of the five senses through the lives of five people that interconnect. After watching the movie, I wondered where the movie that the box described went. I didn't learn anything about anything. The only good thing that has come from this film is the quote ""I'm tense because your making me tense."" Its been awhile since I saw the film, but I do rememeber that this film does not live up to its expecatations at all. If you've only seen Hollywood movies, then you might think that this is art, but otherwise, your in for a dud.",0 "Watching this movie to the end was such a real torture for multiple reasons that I had to share about my pain and frustration from this horrible experience. First, the story is so empty, dull and finally stupid that it could have been told in 15 minutes max. But much worst is the directing style that is terribly boring. It starts nicely visually like for an advertising for any high end contemporary luxury product; as if it was the only intention of the director, to prove that he could do it nicely (with tons of cash). But having to watch this commercial for more than 30 secs but a full hour and a half becomes very painful after just 15 minutes. The directing is terribly boring with endless very useless slow camera moves on cold architecture, useless moving cars, actors walking in or out for 20 secs or elevators elevating for a good 20 or 30 secs. What the hell?!? Mixed with fistfights with no visual interest, a very dumb and not plausible shooting while running scene where one cannot shoot another from 2 meters, and endless slow paced and useless scenes that should have been cut out or not even be shot to start with. Very soon, it all appears very pretentious. Because when they finally talk, foreigners might not hear it but the tone is often horribly false, especially with the German accent of the blond actress. Her tone is SO wrong. It becomes a torture like with very bad amateur karaoke singers. I do not understand how a director cannot hear it when editing. like a musician without hears. Dupontel who I usually always love despite very strange (bad) career choices has no lines here and is only one color tinted, making his character totally dull and boring after 20 minutes. Melanie Thierry is not bad but a bit transparent here despite extraordinary facial features. No characters has any interesting point besides the villain just because he remains a bit mysterious but we'll quickly discover that besides his strange eastern accent he has nothing more to deliver than pure brute stupid violence. Sublime former French model Estelle Lefébure took an honorable chance to show some of her unknown acting talents and truly did not fall in many traps and delivers as much emotion as the script allows her to; maybe even a bit more. But of course there was not much to deliver from the script and to remember particularly to start with. Overall I had to push ""2x"" faster button many many (too many) times to not fall asleep for a third time. This movie can only be an excellent ""berceuse"", something to go to sleep in 10-15 minutes if you don't mind having to start over the next day to this where it goes. And there is no spoil here in telling that it leads NOWHERE. Good Luck. pass your way. PS: On this same SciFi topic of memory manipulation, I just watched Paycheck from P.K. Dick and John Woo and that was way much better even if really not good neither. Mandchurian Candidate seems to keep staying one good reference.",0 "The story was beautiful and provoked deep emotions in many sections, but I felt that much of the talent was aimed at displaying the ordinary communication within the family rather than the love of music or whatever passion the main characters may have had for their chosen lives. I felt cheated in some respects because the music and jobs seemed more window-dressing that life choices. Seeing and hearing Giora Feldman was a surprise and a treat. I wish there had been more about the music or more about the parents and their internal lives.",0 "Delta Force 3 is your typical mindless action fest that you usually get stuck watching at 3:00 am on HBO when you can't seem to sleep and there's nothing on regular tv but news, infomercials and endless loops of Sportscenter. With this movie unless it's a real good case of insomnia your problems will soon be over...because for an action movie its pretty boring and the acting isn't anything to write home about either. Not to say it's horrible, it's really not bad...it's just not good either. It's one of those movies you watch and then you just kind of forget it eventually because it wasn't very memorable. I will say this about it though they did use a creative way to get the bomb in a tv studio.That was about the only memorable event in the whole movie.",0 "This movie wasn't very good. It brings nothing new to previous giant killer creature films. The plot is nothing great. A few news reporters are sent to a poverty stricken, war torn African country to track down a killer crocodile called Gustave. So of course not only do they have to fight the croc, they are also in trouble with the local war lord.

The croc resembles something from a sci-fi channel TV movie. It just looked very fake. And the few scenes that showed the croc were very fast and blurry, it was hard to tell what was even going on. There is little blood and gore and it certainly isn't scary.

FINAL VERDICT: Poor special effects. Not even good enough to be one of those B movies that are fun to watch.",0 "I'm sure we have all seen long movies we have enjoyed, but this one appears to be a 30 minute movie with 80 minutes of filling, it just has long pointless scenes, that add nothing to nor the movie or the characters, they are just there and you have to watch them. It even has characters that add nothing what so ever to the plot, they just appear do their stuff, say their lines and yes, you have to watch it.

I must admit after watching the first 100 minutes, the movie has an interesting twist, probably thats why i didn't give it a 1, but even the most twisted of twists could not save 100 minutes of nothing.

It has some pieces of action but for some strange reason the director might have thought you could get excited and he nicely inserted them in the form of flashbacks he could interrupt every 30 seconds and fit in a few minutes of reaction shots.

To finish this off i promise i was trying hard to think something nice to say about the movie but it happens to be so long and so slow, that when you get to an action scene or to an important part of the story you are so bored from what happened before that they go unappreciated.",0 "I have seen a lot of bad movies. One of my favorite pasttimes is watching bombs and making fun of them. This film, however, surpasses almost every one in terms of confusion and all-around ambiguity.

Having read the classic epic poem ""Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,"" I know that there is a plot to the story. However, watching this atrocity--I hardly dare to call it a ""film""--you wouldn't be able to tell. The desperate stab at entertainment makes infinitely less sense than the plot of 1998's ""The Avengers"" (another waste of Connery's talent), and is so painful to experience that even I, a veteran of the worst of the worst, almost succumbed to the urge to throw a lamp through my TV screen. I kept watching in the vain hope that there would be a point to the random events I was witnessing.

There wasn't.

The lead (I think he was intended to be romantic, but failed) is wearing one of the worst wigs I have ever seen, and does absolutely nothing that makes sense. There is a love interest, who follows the tradition of ""Blade Runner"" by turning into a bird and flying away. The production values are terrible; the writing, nonexistent. It strays so far from the original literature that I still have difficulty connecting the two in my mind.

The only redeeming factor is Connery's presence; unfortunately, he is on-screen for only a few minutes at the beginning and end of the film (kind of like Charlton Heston in ""Beneath the Planet of the Apes""), and is given no passable material with which to work.

As much as I adore Sean Connery as an actor, I can't help but wonder why he hasn't shot the agent who is responsible for putting him in some of these roles. Of all the bad apples of his distinguished career, this is by far the most rotten. If you value your brain cells, avoid it.",0 "This is one of the worst films made by many of the cast! Oscar nominee Liam Neeson as a hillbilly brother of Patrick Swayze! Hah! Bill Paxton and Oscar winner Helen Hunt went on to much greater success in 'Twister', but seem to just be paying their dues here. Ben Stiller looks miserable. Unfortunately, Patrick Swayze has made too many films like this one; he actually seems to belong here. Truly laughable from start to finish!",0 "Adam Sandler... geez. The simple fact that he makes money off garbage like this (everything else of his is just like this) and guys like Steve Martin and Bill Murray--who on their worst day beat out anything Sandler on his most inspired day--struggle with their films for the simple fact they make funny films with a concept, or you might even have to think a bit about the humor. Fans of Sandler are the same folks that let MTV dictate their lives and consider the Teletubbies ""cool"" just because it's hip to like what toddlers go for. Someone explain that fad to me: teens and people in their early 20's liking preschooler fare.

Just like Farley and Spade, Sandler left SNL, where he actually was funny, and succumbed to making easy-laugh bile on film. The only SNL'er that left for the big screen and actually has continually made the most of it is Mike Myers. So far, out of his four films in which he was the star, each of them have truly been hysterical.

Most Sandler fans are the type of people that would say, ""If you don't like Adam Sandler films, you need to drink s'more."" Exactly, because that's what it'll take to actually stomach one minute of any of his films.",0 "All the subtlety and detail imbued in this screenplay matters little when it is lost in tentative and banal acting. Comedy is particularly satisfying when it deals with the shortcomings of human nature, not when it denies natural emotions and intellect as this story does so inexcusably. This could have been good, had the story adhered to a few requirements for good storytelling. First, develop characters so that I care about them. Second, in all good fiction, always tell the ""truth""; that is to say, the story must be believable. Third, do not appall the audience with lackluster, passionless actors who mete out stilted lines and gestures. I think this movie could have been twice as effective had Hitchcock used cardboard cutouts of the actors with stop-motion animation.",0 "This compilation movie of three horror stories is dark and disturbing. The first story concerns a woman's greed for beauty and the bizarre path she takes to get it. The second story centers on a director who gets held captive by a film extra with an agenda. This leads to torture and a strange game of cat and mouse. The final story regards a writer with a twisted past. This part is surreal and at times awkward in storytelling and direction. I enjoyed this film as a fan of the horror genre. The elements of surrealism and paranormal activity were effective in each story. While the movie did have a relatively slow pace, the intensity of each stories climax made for a fulfilling watch. Recommended for fans of Tales from the Darkside, Tales from the Crypt, The Twilight Zone and admirers of Takashi Miike and Chan-wook Park.",1 "This movie is horrible. The script is juvenile, I've heard better sound on soap operas, and the direction is just plain bad. The acting, for the most part, is stiff and unbelievable. The only semi-okay thing about this whole movie is Dominique Swain, whose acting ability is wasted. One of the strongest things I can say about this movie is that I want that 90 min of my life my life back. I don't know what these people were trying accomplish with this movie and I suspect that they don't either.",0 "Extreme Force was a movie with a lot of action. It was nice seeing Hector the world martial arts champion in a film. He acts very well,and his martial movements are awesome, I would think as good as Bruce Lee. I have seen Hector a lot in martial arts magazines, he really knows what he is talking about. I am a martial artist and I can tell all his movements in the movie are true and real, that's very rare to see now days! I thought the plot was interesting, although kind of confusing sometimes. I am looking forward to seeing this champ on the screen again. A real fan, Matt",1 "An honest character study that is fearless in finding humor in certain racial stereotypes. Very well acted especially from the lead; John Ford Noonan, who I've had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with on many different subjects and levels. The direction is solid and specific from Kamal Ahmed who's created a fresh, raw and impressive take on the Independent film medium. Bonz Malone is another powerful character who takes the film to another level. The set and some of the visual choices made in this film are amazing and prove the level of commitment involved from Director, Ahmed and Cinematographer, Tom Agnello. Another great attribute to the film is it's soundtrack by The Sacred Groove Posse which mixes funk and an old seventies type feeling to the story.",1 "We all gotta be careful in what 70's Jackie movies we watch, but this one certainly isn't bad. The plot has something to do with Jackie's master being killed. There actually is a mildly shocking twist (shocking for Jackie, but don't expect Usual Suspects here). Anyway, the kung-fu is very good, definitely up to snuff. Jackie is good, and there's scenes where the old men fight. Even the dubbing isn't horrible. Very good overall, but Snake and Crane Arts of Shaolin is better (even though it has an awkward title) if you're looking for something from this era. I gave it a 7.",1 "MONK is just about the WORST DETECTIVE SERIES THAT HAS BEEN AIRED ON UK TV. I don't know why the viewers in the USA rave about this rubbish. It is about as riveting and exciting as finding that someone has emptied a trash can on your doorstep the first thing in the morning. Thank goodness that it is only aired on the Hallmark channel in the UK. To watch this and get into raptures about it is beyond me. When you think of all the great series that have reached these shores from the USA, it is an insult to the American people to think that they can actually enjoy this rubbish, and can't actually wait until the next episode is aired. I just cannot see how Tony Shaloub can keep you riveted to your screens. I cant think of one movie where I have thought, oh great, Tony Shaloub is in this movie. I cant wait for the day when Monk is no longer aired on UK TV. His charismatic presence is zero. The only way that this series is in the least watchable, is if he was not in it.",0 "Now the subject of a UK-based reality TV show, as talent scouts look for stars to play the leads in a new stage production, ""Grease"" is probably the definitive high-school movie musical. It's energy and light-heartedness has endeared it to generation after generation of fans.

Danny (John Travolta) is an LA high-school student who has a brief summer affair with Sandy (Olivia Newton-John), a beautiful Australian girl. When the summer's over, Danny returns to school at Rydell High and the company of his gang The T-Birds and their girlfriends the Pink Ladies. When Sandy unexpectedly turns up at his school, it leads to a complicated, comic romantic journey...

The movie should not work: the plot is flimsy and clichéd, nearly everyone is a walking stereotype and the cast of high-school students are played by twenty/thirty somethings. They should all look stupid up there, but they don't.

There are three main reasons for this: first off is the catchy and outrageously memorable music: ""Summer Nights"", ""You're the One that I Want"" and ""Greased Lightning"", to name but three, every song in the film has enough snap to get you singing and dancing. The use of stereotypes in the movie actually works: I don't think I know another movie with so many distinctive and memorable characters: from the romantic leads Danny and Sandy, and minor characters like brainless jock Chisholm and hyperactive supernerd Eugene, each one makes its mark.

In today's world, with online communities like Friends Reunited and Bebo connecting people with their old schoolmates, the use of adults to play teenagers might actually strike a chord. The lighthearted and affectionate friendships in the T-Birds and Pink Lady Gangs, are played with a lot of humour and honesty, and will almost certainly bring out nostalgic feelings in the older members of its audience.

This is why, for many people, ""Grease"" is still the word.",1 "It is really hard to understand what kind of message this film is supposed to convey. We have several threads of story that start and seem to lead nowhere. Juliette Binoche is an actress who after acting as Mary in a film about the life of Jesus is struck by religious fervor and apparently starts identifying herself wit the the Bible character. Forest Whitaker is a religious TV host who does not seem to care to much about God, but when disaster strikes his personal life he remembers Him and starts praying and believing - are we supposed to believe as viewers that this sincere? The film about Jesus starts some kind of controversy which seems to refer to Mel Gibson, but the real Mel Gibson as much as I may not like him is certainly sincere in his beliefs, and does not look like the cynical character in this film. Although 'Mary' lasts only 83 minutes the screen time is too long, so it is filled up with scenes of the biblical story (from the film in the film, or trying to convey some confuse metaphor? who cares?) and an episode of a Jewish Passover celebration in Jerusalem interrupted by an act of terror with no connection whatever with the rest of the story.

It is hard to grasp why this film was made, what is it really trying to say and why actors like Juliette Binoche and the now-Oscared Forest Whitaker got involved with it. They act well, but it's wasted talent. Unless you are a fan of Bible inspired films, there is no good reason to spend the time seeing it.",0 "I have two favourite periods of history: JFK and the English Civil War. It would therefore have had to have been a really awful film to have kept me away.

What can I say. I loved it. Yes there are one or ten historical inaccuracies, and Scott is a poor actor. However, Roth and Everett are very good. I had a great night out with Cromwell & co.",1 "I came into the cinema already having seen the trailer not expecting much from the movie. The first 45 minutes were OK starting with a few funny lines and getting a taster of what was to come of the main character. However the movie became a bit of a shambles as soon as the first ghost came along and the movie never really engaged me from then on.

I know that from the title i wasn't going to get a lot of realism but what i found hard to believe was the way Connor mead (main character) was able to have a life changing moment in one night ,from everything guys would want (most men would agree) to having everything a woman would want from a man, without the woman having to do anything which of course doesn't teach us anything.

the ending was very weak for an already weak storyline with a seemingly impossible wedding being put back on again after Connor has a 2 minute pep talk to the bride ,in which she realises she is wrong for not wanting to marry the man who slept with her best friend still sitting in the same car on the way to the airport. to cap it all off we return to the ghosts chatting each other up and everyone lives happily ever after.

If the producers actually had an idea of when to release the film they should have done it around Christmas because of the closeness to ""A Christmas Carol"" and people don't mind a corny film or a corny song because it's Christmas...instead it seems like everyone got it wrong with this one",0 This is a classic movie filled with non stop jokes. 100% hilarity Guaranteed. See it as soon as possible.,1 "I have always loved the theme and title sequence to this film. The film itself is only okay at best. The late sixties, early seventies style, lighting and some scenes are descent along the way, but the overall film just doesn't involve the viewer. However, this movie has a great little gem at the beginning with its animated title sequence and theme, which is so different and eerie, yet rockin' at the same time. I used to just rewind the tape and watch the title sequence because it really is interesting and moving. I wish the good parts of the actual film could be put with some scenes and sequences that are as moving and intriguing as the title sequence - then they would have a really memorable film! Instead, there are too many parts that are just bizarre and irritating. I get what they were going for, but some of the sequences were just too prolonged and not connected enough.

I did however like much of the lighting in this as it is interesting, hues of purple and blue illuminating back rooms and entering windows. The bizarre color schemes of the creature that appear as attacks of flapping wings are strange, but somewhat effective if only there were more to those shots.",0 "Overall, it is a very good movie although some of the Chinese to English translation was not well done. The movie does comply with a plot climax and exposing the corruption idea of a supreme power at court in a communist society. Although there might be some scenes are not matching the real scene, however, it is understandable of how a movie is made to present a story into a reality. My overall experience with this movie is great. There are many beautiful scene in China having been brought in the movie as well as how the political and local culture at the old days of China. It is a tear earning movie as well as a temporary aggravation of the mistreatment to foreigner in China at that time. This makes me think of 2008 Olympics in China, what will it be like.",1 "In this film, Errol Flynn plays a publicity man and ex-newspaper editor, Patric Knowles plays the owner of a newspaper, Rosalind Russell a star reporter and Olivia DeHavilland plays...well,...an idiot. While I could try to explain the plot as well as how all these characters come together in the film, I'd rather not--as the film is a super-frenetic mess. I am a huge fan of Errol Flynn as well as Olivia DeHavilland, so it came as quite a surprise that I enjoyed this film as little as I did. The biggest problem was that despite all the star power and the direction of the great Michael Curtiz, the overall effort is pretty awful and is only saved by a few moments here and there (provided mostly by Flynn and Walter Connelly). The stars and script try too hard--making the film very shrill and pushy. This is because the film is too high-paced and the script too busy--often resulting in all the main actors talking loudly over each other (not a fun experience at all). Now SOME films with these qualities work (such as MY GIRL Friday or BRINGING UP BABY), but this one does not because the script is poor plus Miss DeHavilland is cast in one of her worst roles ever. While Miss DeHavilland was wonderful in roles in such notable films as CAPTAIN BLOOD and GONE WITH THE WIND, here she plays against type. Instead of the usual sweet character, here she plays a ditsy dame and it just never works and seems, like the rest of the film, very forced. Katherine Hepburn could pull this off, DeHavilland could not.

The bottom line is that the stars of this film made much better films and you should see them instead. In particular, Flynn, Knowles and DeHavilland all appeared in one of the greatest films of the era, THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD. So it's obvious with better direction (sorry, Curtiz just doesn't have it here, though he was usually a wonderful director--particularly in romances and adventure films) and writing this SHOULD have been a lot better considering the money Warner Brothers spent to bring all these stars together.",0 "This film has a cult following, much like Stuart Gordon's Re-Animator or Sam Raimi's Evil Dead, but isn't close to entertaining as the two cult classics. I am a huge fan of cult films - I even enjoy such obscure cult flicks like Head of the Family and Don't Look in the Basement, so I was anticipating an enjoyable ride with Basket Case, but it didn't deliver. Everything about this film is bargain--basement, from the acting to the effects. The stop-motion effects are TERRIBLE. I realize this isn't Harryhausen, but low-budget filmmaker Brett Piper uses stop-motion quite well.

The film tells the tale of conjoined twins - one little more than a head growing out of his fully developed brother's right side. His father hires a trio of quack doctors to remove the head, named Belial, from the body of the anatomically correct Duane. The doctors throw away Belial after removing him from Duane's side, but Duane picks his brother out of the trash bin and they go on a revenge murder spree, killing the doctors who separated them.

STORY: $$$ (This isn't the problem. The story is interesting but everything else is muddled. This dialogue is bad and the effects are terrible. In more capable hands, this could have been the cult classic that some people proclaim it to actually be).

VIOLENCE: $$$$ (There is plenty of blood in this film. The best scene is when Belial gets busy with a set of scalpels and plants them in the female doctor's face. If gore is your thing, then this won't upset, but if you like well written dialogue, then don't bother).

ACTING: $ (Terrible, from top to bottom. There isn't a soul in this film with a shred of talent. The lead, Kevin Van Whatever, is in desperate need of acting lessons as is his love interest, Terri Smith, in her only film credit mind you. The doctors were poor actors and the people inhabiting the motel seemed plucked from off the streets).

NUDITY: $$$$ (Plenty of it - men and women",0 "This picture is nothing more than a dose of mindless fun, with some creative killings (have you ever seen an umbrella impaling before?) and some funny moments of self-reflection (the scene in the movie theater is a standout). Because of the extensive flashbacks in the beginning of the movie, in which footage from the first film is used, those who have seen the original recently will probably hate this; for the rest of us the flashbacks are almost a bonus: essentially you get to see two movies for the price of one. (**)",1 "This is a great bad movie and many of the scenes are hilarious. If you'd enjoy watching a 60-sec slow-motion scene where a guy in a gorilla costume wrestles an obviously dead shark, thrashing it around and pretending to be in the throes of death, look no further. This whole movie is full of great scenes like that, and if it weren't for an overly drawn out love story subplot, ""A.P.E."" would be a 5-star unintentional comedy. You get a little bit of everything in this South Korean flick: ""Godzilla""-style miniature sets, toy model animals and people, remote control helicopters, firework explosions, and of course, a guy in a gorilla suit. The plot is not important, really, and the film gets right down to brass tacks after about 2-min of backstory. Just know that there is a 35-ft tall ape, and he is going to rampage Korea. Throw in an American actress (Joanna Kerns, of ""Growing Pains"" fame), her reporter boyfriend, and a pair of Army officers bent on killing the beast, and you have ""A.P.E."" The direction and editing are sometimes stunningly inept, resulting in several great ""WTF moments,"" including my favorite when a character is hanging off the outside door of a moving jeep, for seemingly no reason. Anyhow, I could go on forever with this one. As far as bad movies go, ""A.P.E."" is a definite keeper. You are going to get laughs out of this one.",1 "This movie, ""Monster on the Campus"" is a very enjoyable, silly movie from Jack Arnold, made in 1958. The basic premise line is that a scientist played with stoic charm by Arthur Franz, is studying evolution and is accidentally bitten by a million year old fish which then causes the good professor to run amok on campus. The movie has some scary moments and some silly moments, the monster in a flannel shirt comes to mind, but overall it is good fun on a rainy night. The lovely leading lady is played by Joanna Moore, Tatum O'Neal's late mother, she showed promise in this movie, but I can't recall seeing her in any thing else. Enjoy this movie in all it's simplicity.",1 "I think American Desi is simply a collection of outrageous stereotypes. Let's put aside the cue little acronyms ABCD (American Born Confused Desi - anyone of Indian descent) and NRI (Not Resident Indian) and look at in my opinion the fundamental flaw with this movie. With the exception of the two females characters- Nina and Priya, nobody is likable in this movie.

Both Nina and Priya are charming, sweet and people you want to be around. Unfortunately, they are only supporting characters in this flop. Everybody else is either a total fool, idiot or dork. I don't know any person let alone an Indian, or Pakistani who behaves anything like the men (or should I say ""immature boys"") in this movie. It seems the creators of this movie want to copy the American screwball comedy formula but, that's not a good idea unless you have good writing, interesting characters, etc. This movie lacks in heart and doesn't deliver on a fascinating idea - a film exploring the lives of American born Indians.",0 "This goes closer to the original Terminator than any of the others do which is only a good thing. It has a kind of darker Mad Max feel to it by showing how pockets of people around the world survived judgement day and are now facing the struggle of survival against nature and most importantly SkyNet.

The contemporary sharp cinematography is in the direction of Transformers and War of The Worlds with a bit of matrix in there for boot. Christian Bale brings a lot of credibility to the role of John Conner but surprisingly isn't the main focal point of the film. I would've liked to have seen him more in it. The rest of casting was pretty good with some good performances.

It contains a lot of nods to the other Terminator films (except perhaps T3 but the less said about that the better), but keeps it's own individual identity as a brilliant Action Film following in great footsteps. Watch it!",1 "Someone told me that this was one of the best adult movies to date. I have since discredited everything told to me by this individual after seeing this movie. It's just terrible. Without going into lengthy descriptions of the various scenes, take my word for it, the sex scenes are uninteresting at best. Jenna in normal street clothes in the beginning was the highlight of the film (she does look good) but it's all downhill from there.",0 "This show is the very sort of program that is needed--desperately. How many shows out there deal with the looming global catastrophe growing from the abuse of the ocean's resources? Human beings are having a devastating effect on life in the sea and few are even paying attention. Along comes a show that hints at the potential to address these vital issues and it never gets holds water. I guess it is like Dr. Chomsky says: television is not about the programs, it's about the advertising. In the television world, what they call ""content"" is the commercials they want us to watch while the ""filler"" is just the show that comes in between the ads. Maybe if more viewers understood this and were more discriminating and vocal about their television viewing, Hollywood and advertising sponsors alike would get the message that it is better to have a show that interests a lot of people than try to get advertisers that want or don't want to sponsor a particular show. (Though I can see how a company that sells tuna fish would not be so tempted to sponsor a show with a superhero character that makes fishermen out to be the (ofttime) bad guy.)

I don't know that it was a sponsor that influenced this show to not get picked up but it makes sense that if not enough companies were willing to sponsor this show, its chances of getting on the air would sink straight to the bottom like a lead weight in water.

Aquaman was one of my favorite superheroes in childhood and I would have very much liked to have seen this show become a regular series. I do believe it had good potential to float although the pilot in some ways felt weak to me. The acting was not particularly good and the scripts could have used more polish. I see that often in pilots and then the show gets better as time goes on so that could well have been the case here. Looks like we'll never get the chance to find out. What a shame.

Perhaps if viewers show enough interest, this pilot might be further developed into a TV movie or a mini-series. I would certainly be one of the first in the water to buy it on iTunes.

I rate this 7 out of 10.

Wordcount: 392",1 "Is this the most widely theatrically distributed Filipino film in the history of cinema in the U.S. I believe so.

This film will be an inspiration to independent filmmakers, showing what you can do with a gripping story, great originality, great field locations, a decent digital cam, no special effects, and (almost) no money, and (almost) no crew.

The shaky camera was annoying because it was prominent for the ENTIRE film, except the final scene, where we are back in the States. I was shooting documentary footage for several weeks last October in the Philippines, and this is what your footage looks like when you are shooting from a moving jeepney. I can't stand my footage shot this way and it will end up on the cutting room floor. Here is a whole film shot this way, and it is a bit much. Many independent films have selective scenes shot this way and there is a point to them. I can only figure that they were in too much of a hurry to use a tripod, because the constant blur does't add anything to the dramatic impact of the film after the first few minutes. Too much ""AUTHENTICITY"" Mahhhhnnnn.

Without the terrorism aspect, this is like a travelogue of the Philippines, unfortunately in the case of the squatter areas. I stayed in a barrio outside of Manila with poor people and it was more like the 'hood back in the States, with water rationing and no hot water, but a pile of garbage was not holding up the walls of the home where I stayed, something I noticed in the squatter areas near the Manila Airport. But EVERYWHERE you go in the Philippines, you will travel by tricycles(motorbikes/motorcycles with side cars), jeepneys, and no air con buses. Everywhere you go, if you are male, you will be invited to cockfights held in arenas the size of huge high school gymnasiums as found Stateside. Everywhere you go, there will be vendors wanting to sell you eggs with warm chickens inside waiting to have their heads bit off.

I traveled extensively several hours to the North of Manila on Luzon Island, in areas of astonishing scenic beauty, not seen in the film. The terrorists/Muslim extremists are holed up in known spots to the South of Manila. Be careful if you go to those areas. In your first day in the Philippines you will effortlessly be able to experience all of the above, except you will not be dealing with kidnappers.

The Philippines is a fantastic place to make a film. I will be back.",0 "I don't hate this movie as much as I hate Mars Callahan. He is an awful person for allowing such precious film to be wasted. It seems to have all gone wrong during the writing process. Mr. Callahan forgot the most important rule about writing: Rewriting. And rewriting. And rewriting. The trivia section says he wrote this in two weeks. No kidding. The whole thing looks like improvisation. Bad improvisation. We get it, ""Mars"". You like to play pool. And you're good at it. That's about all I got from this series of pictures masquerading as a movie. The result was about as effective as giving the audience the finger.

What else can you expect from this? A bunch of bad jokes that shouldn't go beyond the locker room they're so lame. I didn't get anything from the characters, much less the ""lead"", the great Mars. He just came off as a douche. And Chazz Palminteri and Chris Walken do their best but two great actors aren't enough to save this Titanic mass of garbage from sinking. They might as well be bumping into walls for 120 minutes. It's too bad YouTube wasn't invented at the time this came out. Could've saved a lot of people a lot of time and energy and money...If you've read this and still decide to rent it, you deserve what happens to you.",0 "Upon release from prison an ex-con (Henry Fonda) tries to go straight and start a decent life with his new wife (Sylvia Sidney). However, he is sacked by his former employer and increasingly desperate considers returning to a life of crime.

An impressive film with excellent direction by Fritz Lang who brings his unusual camera angles to bear on a bleak story. The film is said to be somewhat inspired by Bonnie and Clyde, but more than anything is an interesting exploration of how fate and circumstance can lead to disaster and tragedy. Moving at a crisp pace the film delivers plenty of suspense and surprises as Fonda is framed for murder not long after his release and, interestingly not long after he is fired, threatens to return to his miscreant ways. This keeps the viewer guessing as to whether Fonda's proclamations of innocence are true when he is arrested. The film is quite bleak for its time and contains quite an uncharacteristic performance from Fonda as a man desperate and disgusted by the callous treatment given him by society. Fonda doesn't entirely convince, but the film is still very good.",1 "LOL, I know I stole that line from I love the 70's, but I just thought it was so true and that was my exact thought from the first minute I started watching The Bad News Bears. Now to the movie, The Bad News Bears is one of the funniest movies I have seen in a long time, I almost died laughing throughout the whole movie. I obviously heard about this movie from the show I love the 70's on VH1, way before the remake with Billy Bob Thorton. It always slipped my mind though when I wanted to rent it, but finally I remembered and I am so glad that I got the chance to see it, because this is one of the best comedies to come out of the 70's.

Buttermaker is a has been baseball player and now an alcoholic, he is given the job of a little league coach for the Bears since no other fathers are taking the job. But he's definitely taken back when he finds out that the team he is coaching are kids who are, well, I guess you could say ""lacking"" in the department of knowing how to play baseball. But he just wants to get paid and get the job over with, but when their first game comes along, the kids get creamed 26-0, Buttermaker is pressured to drop the team out of the league, but instead teaches the kids how to play and recruits a couple of new kids, a girl who's mother he used to date, and a rebel without a cause. The kids get better in each game, but it's a matter of Buttermaker getting his priorities straight when he lets the game get the worst of him... and he's an alcoholic!

The Bad News Bears is just so funny, Walter Matthau was just too perfect for this role as Buttermaker, he was so believable. I think my favorite Bear was Tanner, because the role could have been over done, but the kid did it just right, not to mention his last line of the film is just classic and fit the movie just right. I loved how the film wasn't your traditional your favorite team is always going to be out of no where champions, this was an awesome comedy that anyone would just fall in love with.

9/10",1 "If you enjoy the 70's, bell-bottoms, fake beards, Creepy Crawlers, or shoving a red hot needle in your eye then this is your movie! I, on the other hand, simply enjoy making fun of it.

It is simply bad. If it's not women being attacked by Creepy Crawlers and rubber snakes, it's a zombie who can't keep his Halloween teeth in his mouth. The lighting, sound, and sets are horrible (you can clearly see that Lucina's doctor and Dr. Specter's offices are the same friggin' room!) And the acting... oh the acting!

Of all the ""actors"" in Asylum, one stands out above the rest. One man whose blandness out-shines all the others. He likes his clothes groovy, his cars mustard yellow, and his hair, side-burns and mustache big... really really big. This man is Nick Jolley. He alone is worth seeing this movie for. I'm not saying he's talented. Far from it. He's just so bad, he's funny.

I would truly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys watching really bad films and cracking-wise a la MST3K. It hurts, but with a few well-placed jokes and a few good friends to share them with, it goes down much easier.",1 "I rented this movie thinking that everybody had been too hard on poor Alicia, who had been wonderful in Clueless and sexy in many an Aerosmith video. I was wrong. It might have been due in part to the non-existent script, but Alicia showed no screen presence at all. Instead, she smoked and drank during the entire flick (is this the moviemakers' attempt to appeal to the teenage crowd this movie is aimed at??). Benicio del Toro's performance was all right, even though (or: because) he seemed to think he was in a remake to the 'Usual Suspects'. In all, if you see only a hundred movies this year, don't let this one be one of them.",0 "I had been waiting for a good long time to see this movie and finally got the chance at the July screening in LA. The biggest compliment that I can think to give is that the movie captivated me from the first frame through the last and that it delivered exactly what I had hoped it would (with a few surprises along the way).

The cast was fantastic, bringing the witty and touching words of the script to life in a fun, beautiful setting. Though I had seen bits and pieces about the film through blogs and pictures, seeing it all play out in a theater was fantastic.

There is so much more I could say, but I have refrained from even telling my friends the details because this is a movie best watched unspoiled for the first time. I can only hope that it will get picked up for distribution and that I will be able to see it on the big screen again as well as on DVD.",1 "This movie caught my eye while I was channel surfing. I don't know what kept me from changing the channel despite the slow, unstructured plot - but I'm glad I stayed with it. The story is highly predictable, but I think they didn't try to avoid that. Instead, they tell the story in a very creative way. I can see why it would annoy those who like a very structured movie. But this movie is kind of like listening to a song without really caring about the words. Likewise, the story isn't really the point here, it's about the characters in the story.

Midway through the movie, I was pretty sure the lead actress was Casta, but I didn't even know she had an acting career. I look forward to seeing more of her. She was very graceful, above obviously beautiful, and helped center the rest of the cast. I really loved the sets and the costumes as well, and I believe this is the first time I've taken a line to mention this in a review. All these little things put together made it an enjoyable viewing experience, as long as you believe enough in the characters to want to know what happens to them.

You'll probably never seek out this film unless you're already a fan of Casta. But if the mood fits you right, or you simply like movies set in the '40s, this can be a very rewarding film.",1 "this movie is appalling.

it isn't camp. it isn't smart. it isn't cool. most of all, it certainly isn't entertainment.

the only comedy found within is the revelation that the people who made this movie obviously think it is worthwhile. and even this is somewhat embarrassing - making one feel the same sensation as being in a public place with your father when his low tolerance is becoming blatantly obvious.

it's sad.

this is the movie that those sweatpants nerds you avoided in high school would have made if they had some money for special effects, a parent in puppetry, a vague understanding that chicks dig 'deep' things, and no aesthetic abilities whatsoever.

but these weren't the dorks who went on to invent recyclable styrofoam or to decode the human genome. no, these particular losers aspire to something much more unattainable - coolness. and these guys think they have cracked the code.

it has all the awkward earmarks of unaware nerd-made cinema: pathetic dramatic scenes, unconvincing tough posturing, getting excited about swearing, and offensively bad comedy.

a piece of advice, guys: next time you make a bunch of money puppeteering kids shows, don't make another lame attempt to impress babes. they won't care. make a down payment on a townhouse. your parents will be proud and being a homeowner is at least something to talk about at the high school reunions.",0 "August Rush is a modern-themed story about the power of a life force flowing through all of us and how synchronicity, faith and self-assuredness guarantee that each of us can personally fulfill our destiny. Although this film plays well to a broad audience, it is very mystical and based on simple, yet emotional themes that will play flat to some movie-goers.

If you have strong parental feelings or enjoy movies centered on the power of human love and attraction, this story will move you like few films ever have. Great for families- it's completely devoid of explicit scenes that make parents squirm and carries a positive message. Similarly, if you prefer uplifting stories championing the resilience of the human spirit, you'll love it. I gave the film a 10 for that reason- it will remain a personal favorite for years to come. However, if you are easily bored with themes that are lacking in danger and suspense or prefer gritty true-to-life movies, this one may come off as a disappointment.

The screenplay seems written as a spiritual message intimating that there is an energy field that connects all of life, and music is one of the domains available to any who care to experience it.

The plot is simple but deep in implication- an orphaned boy wants to reunite with his parents and feels that his inherited musical genius can somehow guarantee their return. Meanwhile, both parents languish in separation, fate having split them as quickly as it united them in parenthood. Neither know they are parents (see movie for explanation). The film itself was accomplished with imaginative directing and is studded with vivid imagery that punctuates the emotional ebb and flow of the story.

I liked the music, which was richly textured in genre, ranging from classical elements to a folksy modern collection of songs that were tastefully presented by some of the leading cast members. Music is the center-piece of this film, and it works.

I thought the casting was excellent, although none of characters really stood out from the others. Robin Williams plays an antagonistic role, delivering a smashing performance as an orphaned street-wise survivor of enormous depth and understanding, but tragically maligned by a life of rejection. This is a midrange performance by Williams, not the quiet and subdued moodiness of Good Will Hunting, nor the over-animated Morky style. He gives interesting color and charm to a darker figure synchronistically woven into the lives of his fellow cast members. Bravo! Young Freddie Highmore is sharp and charming, though narrow in expression. Just as expected, his natural charisma shines through in a most refreshing manner. Parents Keri Russell and Johnathan Rhys Meyers each lend flawless performances in captivating resonance with the other actors and the film itself. They are interesting and believable. Terrence Howard plays a small but significant part and underacts as well as Kingsly or Gielgud. Excellent! Leon G. Thomas III and Jamia Simone Nash (children) both earn honorable mention. This movie treads on every heartstring. I loved its invitation to believe in the extraordinary miracles of everyday life. Take your kids, your significant other, your parents, or any friend. It is August and will give you a very pleasant Rush. Sit back, breath deep, and get riveted!",1 "Oh man. This movie is so bad, it makes me laugh. Here's why...

Frodo and Sam seem to be the only characters who do ANYTHING in the film. The animation's so bad. Seriously, Gollum looks like a mutated frog. Hardly anyone else but Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, Gollum and the creepy Minstrel has more than five lines. The orcs (who aren't even the least bit scary) sing the dopiest song in the film. Legolas and Gimli aren't even mentioned, let alone in it. And Faramir gets a ten second cameo, only 'cause he's Eowyn's boyfriend. You don't even see the two have a moment to know that. And if you've never read the book, or seen the new movies, you wouldn't even know who that guy was. It was just bad.

The only good parts? Eowyn gets to kick the Witch King's butt. Sam's little dream of Rosie is just cute. And the Eagles rock.

But seriously, if you want to see a good animated adaption of J.R.R. Tolkien's works, get Ralph Bashki's ""Lord of the Rings"". But if you want to see this wad of crap, it does make a good comedy.",0 "When I saw the DVD standing in the store, I though,finally a movie about WWI, with Danile Craigh and it will be showing us the story of the first big push during the first great war.... NOT, it was more of a school play, and a very boring one. The movie stays in the trench, or shall I say a very obvious indoor set and even the actors make up is badly done. One actor looks more like the unknown guy of ""Wham"". Please don't wake me up before you go go, but just let me sleep through the whole movie. If you want to see a very good WWI movie, the last battalion will do the job. How this one ever got a rating of more tan 6 ? It blows my mind. All I can say is, I want my 6.95 euro's back that I spend on this terrible movie! Any buyers :o) ?",0 "Baseball is a great sport, but an horrible subject for movies. Except perhaps for EIGHT MEN OUT, or films where the sport is not the principal subject, like COBB, FIELDS OF DREAM, FEAR STRIKES OUT or BULL DURHAM, a comedy. Every time someone tries to make a serious film about baseball, it always fail. Billy Crystal offers us nothing original. His film is full of clichés : abusive slow motions (on the crucial moments, of course) stupid special effect when we see the ball coming right to us, horrible heavy orchestral muzak (on the crucial moments, of course). But the two young actors, Pepper & Jane, are doin' a very fine job. Also, Crystal offers us a good early sixties set. Hey! How about a movie about Barry Bonds breaking McGwire record ? And, in a few years, how about a film about Vladimir Guerrero breaking Bonds record ? I hope that some day Spike Lee will make his movie about Jackie Robinson. That will be the best serious baseball movie of all time.",0 "What can you possibly say about a show of this magnitude? ""The Sopranos"" has literally redefined television as we know it. It has broken all rules, and set new standards for television excellence. Everything is flawless, the writing, directing, and for me, most of all, the acting. Watching this show you'll find yourself realizing that these characters are NOT real. The acting tricks you into thinking there is a real Tony Soprano, or any character. This show is also very versatile. Some people don't watch the show because it's violent, it's not all about the violence, it's about business, family, and many deeper things that all depend on what you, as a fan see. For me, I don't like when people refer to the show, a show about the Mafia. For me, it's a show about family. A family who, through generations, happen to be apart of the mob. Overall this is a masterpiece of a show. This is what television should be. Right here. Complex characters from stunning acting, magnificent story lines from brilliant writing, and what do you get when you mix these ingredients together? A show that defines excellence, and dares to be different.",1 "this movie, like a book of short stories, can hook you once and annoy you the next. The segments follow a violin for 3 centuries obviously shooting for a wide range of settings, thus a wide range of stories and characters. But they are all much different. The Red Violin will be rewarding for those who pay attention, and a pain for those who don't, because the transaction of the violin from person to person isn't smooth, whoever is not willing to pay attention should steer clear. I definitely recommend it to all big movie buffs, because those willing to see it, should. I really enjoyed Don Mcellars work before, and this is no different. Some segments, like 'Vienna' are very enjoyable and sad (in a good way, like bambi's mom getting shot) well some like 'Oxford' are dark and depressing. You may not leave thinking it's spectacular, but ya gotta respect it. Thumbs up.

",1 "You have to hand it to Warren Beatty, he redefines the term ""maverick"". He could be, like many of his contemporaries, taking it easy. Instead, ""Bullworth"". One of the most outrageously funny satires I've seen in a long time. Satire? Somebody asked me. Well yes, satire. A realistic, daring, clearheaded, masterful satire. We live in satirical times, we have no choice in the matter. It takes an artist of Beatty's caliber to turns things around and makes us laugh and shiver at this mess of our own making. After seeing ""Bullworth"" I felt compelled to revisit some of Beatty's earlier work as an actor or producer or director. From ""Mickey One"" to ""Reds"" passing through ""Bonnie And Clyde"" and ""Shampoo"" not to mention ""Heaven Can Wait"" Mr. Beatty's legacy is one of amazing consistency. As I smiled enjoying his funny portrayal in ""The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone"" with Vivien Leigh, I thought: that beautiful man is not just a pretty face.",1 "everything that happens to this family, they deserve. the whole fact that they learnt a lesson is supposed to be a resolution at the end of the film. you have a man who is too wimpy to tell his boss he won't write a report when he's supposed to be going on holiday. employment laws are on his side, he is allowed holiday. his boss can't threaten his job the way he does, so that conflict would never arise.

he hires an RV and is given no instruction as to it's various functions and has not been asked if he has ever driven anything like it? that I find unlikely.

their trip to his business meeting is of course plagued with problems, all of which they fully deserve.

Even the way they treat the other campers who try to be friendly with them is excessive.

robin williams is supposed to be the main comedy name carrying this film but none of the situations he is put in are funny.

The seatbelt gag is stupid. there are tribes in the amazon who have never seen cars that would have worked out a seatbelt faster. the fact they insult us by trying the same gag twice?

he deserves to lose his laptop and is an idiot. he clearly should have said no to his boss when he asked him to do this report and just gone to hawaii and saved us the trouble of this terrible and contrived movie.

best avoided.",0 "June Haver presents a beautiful life like representation of an idylic world where success occurs while life is the lie and 3rd grade words are not kept from promotion ie white lies go far. I was born in 1952, so this movie is way out of my time frame for appreciation as the year now is 2002 but it does not take much effort to recognize greatness, no matter what year faces the antiquities of its present and its vehicles of success.

The movie, has terrific set design. The technology was the 10 gigahertz computer of the day. The wardrobes have beautiful embroidery with terrific symbolism of a hot night life. Even the difficulties of Russia of that time are gently assuaged with positivisms that only the arts could present as opposed to political intrigues that were overwhelming at that time for almost any successful state of mind.

The movie did much for me feeling very happy about being a private in the front lines of money, being able to speak under orders that had an authority behind them and should of I had a few dollars, maybe could have a chance a kissing one of those girls.",1 "This is one of the better Spaghetti westerns from the late 1960's. Franco Nero, Tony Musante, and Jack Palance are all in good form. My DVD copy is a cheap one and seems badly edited but the fun and vibrancy of the film still comes through. A cool political western the theme of which was continued in Sergio Corbucci's next film Companeros (another very good 'Spaghetti Western').",1 "I'm not sure what this film tried to be action, thriller, comedy, spoof perhaps all of the above as far as I'm concerned it succeeded at none of the above. Overlong and tiresome specially the subplot with Jamie Lee as the undercover spy. I also wasn't compelled by much of the action and frankly there wasn't enough of it. Yes there were some dazzling special effects and computer graphics but aren't we all getting tired of a films primary asset being its special effects !",0 "I enjoyed this movie very much. It had a good, easy-to-follow story, some good action and good humor. Van Damme give's one of his best performances to date, and for the first time use's his brain and fist's instead of his martial art expertise. The chemistry between Van Damme and Arquette is very believable and you can tell that Van Damme's character really does care about the family. A very enjoyable film and believe it or not, an A+ performance from Jean-Claude Van Damme.",1 """Nukie"" is a celluloid cesspool. Forget about insulting its audience, I feel like I've insulted myself by forcing myself to watch the entire movie. I can't even relay the plot because I lost track 1/3 of the way through. It is an utter failure in every measurable way. I've seen a lot of crap films, but there is nothing I've seen that tops this.

Nukie is ugly. He has snot dripping from his nose. He befriends a talking chimpanzee. He meets the chimp's ""cousin,"" a talking baboon. He can metamorphose into a ball of light. The special effects were surpassed in movies made thirty years earlier.

Thank god ""Nukie"" was a failure, or else we might have had to endure Nukie lunchboxes or a Nukie TV show. Even worse, a shrieking Nukie plush toy – ""MMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKKKKOOOOOOOOOOOO!."" Oh my god I need a drink, now.",0 "I hate to say this but I preferred the first family, the Pembrokes to the Powells, but beggars can't be choosers. I remember when the show first aired on CBS television. Again after a year, the show had a large following but there was not enough room in the prime time schedule for an average sitcom in the age of Cosby Show's success. If you think about, Charles In Charge paralleled Mama's Family on NBC which attracted probably not the kind of audience that the network wanted for their demographics. Like Charles in Charge, Mama's Family was cancelled after 2 seasons. It resurfaced over a year later on Saturday evening television in something called syndication. The same for Charles in Charge, there was the audience for the comedy. Unlike Mama's Family, Charles in Charge replaced an entire family. The Powells were prettier than the Pembrokes but I liked the first family better. Sandra Kerns who played Mrs. Powell disappeared even though her name and face were in the credits, she left sometime during the production to raise her own family sadly. We never caught much of her again. It was more about Skippy, Charles, and the new kids. So I still watched the episodes but I thought the show got weaker with Ellen Travolta playing Charles' mother. James Callahan's role as the grandfather got bigger as well.",0 "... rushed execution and obviously not a lot of production value(s). You could live with the latter, but the performances aren't the best either. Of course it's nice to see Ving Rhames in a lead role, but it'd be even better, if the script got sharpened too, so it would match his performance skills too.

The title of the movie gives you the main character and you also know, from the (V) behind the movies name here at IMDb, that it is directly produced for Video/DVD use. Terence Malick does elevate the movie too, but not as much as you'd think he would! The story (if you really want to know it before you watch it, read it here somewhere on the IMDb page) has been done before, so you might be used to see better movies, than this one on this particular topic ...",0 "What makes city a city? What makes it different than a village? Is it the traffic jam? The people who live there? Or is it something else?

According to this movie, the criminals and gangsters define the city. While London has Jack the Ripper, Belgrade has his ""davitelj"", i.e. the strangler. That's how begins an interesting movie, ""Davitelj protiv davitelja"" a mix of comedy and horror. It is a story about a guy, flower seller, who turns into a mad man, and commits a series of crimes. Also, we have a police inspector who is trying to stop him. The inspector is getting a lot of help and ""help"" from a young rock singer and a girl working in a local radio-station. To make the picture complete, there is also a strangler's mother, a character inspired by the Hitchcock's Psycho.

The movie is amusing, I liked it, but people expecting an exceptional movie, like ""Ko to tamo peva"" or ""Maratonci trce pocasni krug"", director's earlier works, will be disappointed.",1 "I had to admitted that the sequels of most the original Disney Picture movie were often disappointing. However, after I had seen Bambi 2, I found that it was an enchanting, funny and warm movie, it is definitely one of the fewest best sequels came from the original one.

The story happened to be in between the scene that Bambi's mother was gone and the prince, his father, took him; and the scene he grew up. It is talking about how Bambi lives with his father. At the beginning, his father took care of Bambi temporarily until he find the suitable one to take care of him. As a prince, his father appeared to be quite tough to him at the beginning. However, when they lives longer and longer, the father and son relationship grew. Bambi started to enjoy living with his father. Though they were living so happy, his father found the suitable one and Bambi was sent away. Through an accident, finally, the great prince changed his mind and determined to raise Bambi by his own.

The film is well organized. The characters are well-designed and redrew and the story unfold naturally. The background music was so pleasant to be listened to and match the scene very well. Some scenes were quite memorable, Bambi plays with his father and his father slowly unfold his mind. I can see that he really care about Bambi. it is so warm.

Although the original one was more than 60 years ago, the sequel gave me the feeling of the movies of 19th. The original movie gave me a little bit sorrow and made me sad; But this one gave me warmth and hope.

All above are just my personal opinions, other may not agree perfectly, but, for me, it is worth watching and it is one of the fewest best sequels from the original one. I scored it 9.",1 "It's amazing to me how many people comment on these old Italian horror films saying things like: ""Don't watch this movie and expect to see 'The Godfather...'"" This film can't be compared to big budget Hollywood productions. In many ways, it's miles better than anything else out there because films like ""Anthropophagus"" achieve an emotional effect greater than films like ""The Godfather"" on a fraction of the budget.

There are two famous scenes in ""Anthropophagus"" that people tend to focus on because they are so shocking. If you've seen as many Italian horror movies as me, you'll find these scenes to be typical of the genre, albeit a little excessive. The things about this movie that I really like is the editing, the acting and the music. George Eastman makes for a perfectly creepy bad guy. He's big and intrusive and believable. The setting is perfect: a strange deserted island. The gore is over-the-top and D'Amato delivers it as usual.

It would be impossible to find a movie nowadays that's this effective with such a budget. Nothing but vintage Italian greatness here. I recommend the Shriek Show version which includes the uncut masterpiece plus a whole disc of extras.

8 out of 10, kids.",1 "anyone who has a heart or a mind or a stomach won't enjoy these at all. The characters are small animals with the consistency of butter and they seem to just get laughs out of blood and gore. Some episodes are total junk, physically impossible, and utterly stupid. I am sorry to say some of my friends liked this, and as a result I just avoid them to stop the flow of bile coming to my mouth. If you want to watch something funny, you have Blackadder, Monty Python, the simpsons, blazing saddles, young Frankenstein, and fawlty towers. In any case you have a wide variety of movies and shows where you might even have to think to get the jokes.",0 "Remember that movie about the guy who wanted revenge for the death of his son and had a monster unleashed that he could not control? I can't remember the name, but the warning is the same. Dabble in black magic and it could come back to bite you.

That's all I can say about this movie. Thai Black magic and some really gory stuff. The problem is that it takes a lifetime to get there, and the trip is very painful. Painful in the sense that there wasn't anyone in this film that resembled an actor.

If it's blood you are fishing for, then you'll catch it, but at what cost?",0 "Look I don't wanna say much about this movie..... Its great,Bachchan is superb....But it is a complete ripoff of Brian De Palma's Scarface....Just check out both and then tell me of there's difference.. A group of bandits are in a village.They kill Bachchcan's father and almost rape his mother. Swearin revenge he starts assassinating the bandits which his mother disapproves. Meanwhile he begins a relationship with a nurse and his sister with Bachchan's bodyguard... I know it doesn't sound same but first see Scarface and tell me if there is a difference.. But its a great movie and Bachchan's performance is awesome.",1 "Let me just say that after seeing two of the After Dark films last year (The Hamiltons in theaters and Gravedancers at home) I was very excited for this film, and considering the cast, it was warranted in my mind. Now...I want my 9 bucks back. How bad was the film you ask? Throughout the showing i was surrounded by nothing but drunkards laughing at inappropriate times, this was annoying at first, but by the end, i had joined them...not because the movie was entertaining in any sense, but they seemed to have found the only way to enjoy it, and i wanted to try as well. I don't know where to begin with this abysmal blunder, first off though (and most obvious) Nicole DuPont CANNOT ACT. Listening to her botch her lines in an over-exaggerated manner the entire film was simply painful...I WAS CRINGING BY THE END.Not that her lines were any good in the first place, which brings me to point 2, the writing was terrible, and despite the best effort of Ryder Strong, Michael Madsen, and Rachael Miner, the film was intolerable. I didn't not know how to feel about characters such as Dakota (just came off as bitchy and annoying, but was supposed to be a hero...wtf?!!!) and characters such as Jackal were underused and ruined by the bad script (WHY ARE YOU WHISTLING ""I'VE BEEN WORKIN ON THE RAILROAD""?!!! THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!!) Third, there was nothing intriguing about this film, the gore was kind of cool, but neither the cannibals nor the protagonists interested me in any sense, nor showed any depth; locations were boring and rarely changed; and just not a whole hell of a lot happened. I'm sorry this review is long, but i cannot warn you against this film enough, it isn't even laughably bad, its the rare breed of horror that has no redeeming qualities...",0 "I liked this film from the moment I heard the story-line. The thing that I REALLY like about it is the fact that the production team found a way to put sci-fi elements into the story while still making it believable. The acting was good on all fronts; the African-American woman (I think her name was Shasta or something to that effect) was very natural in her conversations with Washington. Carlin's (Washington's) curiosity about the inner working of the agency he is later employed by in the beginning of the film is very believable. It is this seamlessness that makes the movie as a whole more believable. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone old enough to understand it; although it's gotten mixed reviews, I still think it's a gem among other more shallow, lackluster films.",1 "The Great New Wonderful - a mixture of 5 stories in NYC set in Sept 2002 - a mix of comedy and angst- this low budget movie has several recognizable faces including Stephen Colbert,Edie Falco, Jim Gaffigan , Maggie Gyllenhal,Will Arnett & Olympia Dukakis- but the guys that stole the movie were the 2 Indian bodyguards that lived next to each other.This felt like an art-house movie- nothing wrong with art-house flicks I guess- but after awhile I get tired of the meloncholia and the intrusive soundtracks.This comes out on Tuesday and has the option of watching the movie either as one story or as 5 stories- while all 5 stories have some interesting moments- the best one is the bodygaurd arc. C+",0 "This movie does not get the credit it deserves, in my opinion. Cooney wrote something beautiful in this script. He brought upon questions and ideas subject to us, and approached it in a manner that keeps us guessing – keeps us curious. Cooney is not a philosopher, he is a film writer: he is simply doing what he does best in life, and in my opinion with great merit. We have seen this theme before, and even after this film (The Butterfly Effect), but that does not give any reason why Cooney should not take his stab at it. Pure originality is few and far between these days, maybe even non-existent. As for the directing: nothing bad to say. There is some great camera work, cinematography and use of effects. There were some beautifully placed dark and gloomy scenes, and a wonderful recreation of the act of dying and being brought back to life (exactly the way my grandfather described it to me when it happened to him... not to say that each resuscitation isn't unique and individual, but we do hear of a common trend: see the white light; see your body below you).

My only real problem with the film is that I think Piper Perabo was slightly overacting. Not that the acting did not fit in some way, but it seemed a tad dry and much, but this is a subjective outlook. Others may find her fitting.

******** SPOILER ******** DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE WATCHED THE FILM

Consider what the orderly said (and I'm paraphrasing): how and why people die is the question. It may be the only question.

I am writing this comment not to be audacious or to act superior, but I feel I have read a few other unintelligent comments that brought me to be motivated to say my piece. What some people do not realize, or have yet to realize, is that the story is about a man who is at the edge of death. Some people in this world die, but have a chance to be resuscitated – some people come back to us, some don't.

Consider those who do survive. Why is it they live and other before them did not? The same tools and similar (maybe even the same) circumstances are at their temptation. Maybe those who died gave up, and those who lived still had something important to live for. This is Simon Cable.

Now, of course, there are holes in this hypothesis: is this important calling of God (Peter seems to think otherwise at the end: we decide), there are those who come back to us without amnesia (but at the end, does Simon not go back to where he once was, unaware and unknowing once again), and does this make him insane (the old cliché that the insane are truly those best in touch with the world). The last idea I don't personally believe, but this movie is about the questions. It doesn't end in obscurity or lose its' intelligence, it simply explores an idea and leaves us wondering: how and why do people die? And is this phenomenon even more than we, as believers of our own trend, realize.

Though the rating of a movie to simply overall 1 to 10 can be difficult, and I am still on the fence of how much I like it (having just seen it, and would like to come back to it a few weeks from now). I gave it an 8, though I think a 7.5 would be more accurate to my opinion at this moment.",1 "Just saw Goal 2 earlier today, opening day across the UK. I must say that it was a solid sequel to the first, which I enjoyed thoroughly. Anyone who liked the first Goal movie should enjoy this. It continues the story of Santiago who gets transferred to mega-team Real Madrid in the opening sequences and follows his new life in Spain. Massive paychecks and beautiful women begin to get to Santi's head and we see a darker, perhaps weaker side of our hero in this chapter. All the main characters from the first Goal have roles in the sequel as well as cameos by superstars like Zidane, Ronaldo, Raul and Beckham. Solid sequel that is recommended to all fans of the original! If you haven't seen Goal yet, you should catch that before seeing part 2.",1 "Legally questionable, though horrific. Anyone who hates even the concept of rape, should perhaps be sort of okay with this movie.

Anyone even complicit in such an act should be guilty. And punished.

But to be honest, the way this movie goes about trying legally entangle anyone present in such a foul act, is sort of forced. Not that there isn't any legal way to do it, but the way the director and writer do so, very much a question mark, and sort of a poor writing example.

Not a bad concept. But to be honest. Not a very good performance. Though the individual performances are mixed. Some quite fine, some others not so much. The court performances on all sides are quite awful.

Caveat: Foster is excellent. She has so much talent.",0 "First of all, I'm not a Pokemon fan. I rented this movie one day because I was frightfully bored. Now, the movie itself was not ALL THAT BAD. Sure, the dialogue sucks, the characters suck and you could care less if Ash suddenly blows up, but the movie did have a few redeeming qualities.

The animated short, Pikachu's Vacation was not one of them. The short was nearly UNBEARABLE, as it was all in Pokemon Jive Talk. It was so excruciating I nearly fast forwarded to the movie. Now the movie itself was ALMOST average. I didn't care for any character except maybe Mewtwo, who was the only one somewhat developed. The movie does have a good message, but they almost state it directly. The final battle was almost exciting, but other than that, this movie is for the Pokemon fans. 3/10",0 "How to describe ""The Dying Gaul."" That is a challenge. It is very much like a play (which makes sense, seeing as it was adapted from one), and it makes one of the most skillful transitions from stage-to-screen that I have ever seen. It works like a play, but visually it thinks of itself as a movie. Confusing I know, but a person who has seen the movie will know what I'm talking about.

In terms of what genre ""The Dying Gaul"" fits into, it's more of a drama/mystery. It has a slight noirish tone to it, but this is not ""The Big Sleep."" The beginning is a drama, but its transition to mystery is perfectly executed with such a subtle build-up that looking back, it's hard to believe that the beginning was from the same movie as the end of it, or that it all was accomplished in 101 minutes.

Robert (Peter Saarsgard) has written a brilliant script after the death of his lover, Malcolm (Bill Camp). Movie producer Jeffrey Tishop (Campbell Scott) loves it, and wants to make it into a movie, but he insists that Robert change the relationship from homosexual to heterosexual. Jeffery's wife, Elaine (Patricia Clarkson) becomes interested in Robert, and then a few secrets are spilled which changes everything.

""The Dying Gaul"" is really about the three characters. Everyone else has only a few token lines of dialogue at best that simply flesh out the story. The three actors-Saarsgard, Scott, and Clarkson, develop their roles well, and the three of them are fully three-dimensional. Ironically, while Saarsgard may have the most interesting character on paper, he's actually rather flat compared to Clarkson and Scott. Clarkson plays the housewife who still has a job even though she could easily live off of her husband's wealth, and she's not as clueless as many other movie housewives are.

Campbell Scott, though, is the real joy of ""The Dying Gaul."" At first he's a money-obsessed movie producer (the kind that seem to fill Hollywood these days), but as the movie goes on, he fleshes out his character and becomes a pretty sympathetic man. Scott dominates this movie, and it shows how truly gifted he really is.

As good as this film is, it isn't perfect. The music, particularly at the beginning is too loud and threatens to drown out everything else. The film also leaves a few questions open-ended even though doing so serves no purpose.

Still, ""The Dying Gaul"" manages to throw in a few unexpected twists and surprises, and it is very watchable and highly recommendable.",1 "It is such a great film that i have been watching it for over 9 times at the cinema at the strange film festival. She is so dynamic, beautiful and outrageous. I really do admirer her, she is my idol! I love you Annabel Chong!",1 "I am in this film (IMDB, can I have a credit?) You see me run up to the harbour wall and my line, ""She's getting away!"" is dubbed in a bad Hispanic accent and becomes, ""The Condor, she is leaving!"" (See, now, I could have done that - bad Hispanic accent and all!)

Henry Cele reprises the role of Shaka, Zulu. James Ryan does standard B-movie tough guy, military-type acting but without precision. Cameron Mitchell seems to be bored. Maxine John is gorgeous, but that's about it.

There is no sense of story placement or detail about Grenada - but, as it appears to have been filmed exclusively in Cape Town, South Africa, I guess that's not surprising. Basic, low-budget tat.

This is, without question, the worst film I have ever seen. It probably beats ""Revenge of the Killer Tomatoes"".

I absolutely loved it.",1 "Perhaps my favorite part of ""The TV Set"" was the enlarged and mounted review of it from the LA Times that the theater put in the window to presumably attract casual moviegoers who don't know what they want to watch. And there it was, writ in letters as tall as coffin nails: ""not that there is anything in this movie that we haven't seen before..."". What a tremendous accolade! And perfectly true. The kind of movie that possibly passes for interesting outside of Los Angeles where presumably people think we must be so smart and funny and sensitive and so fail to realize that we are, in fact, as prone to vapid fart-noises as to anything else... Isn't it amazing what passes for thoughtful entertainment today..? ""The TV Set"" is in every way untrue, hackneyed, inauthentic, dull, uninspired, recycled tedium.

Enjoy!",0 "London to Brighton (2006)

A harrowing story, a real descent into a little sliver of the streetwalking underworld of London and the perils of little rich girls who run away from home. I don't mean to make light of any of it--the movie pulls no punches, and adds some that go beyond the usual violence, too--but this is one of those recent stories where a terrible situation is imagined, and then filmed with awful realism. The two tracks, the plot with its significance, and the raw, visceral reaction to seeing anything so horrible, are both played out to the max. And acting is really first rate. The bad guys are really sneeringly awful, and the two key females, a full grown but struggling prostitute and a young girl who gets swept up in it all, are so believable it's scary. And impressive.

And none of this is enough for a great movie. It makes for an intense experience, and there's no rule that says a movie has to be enjoyable (this is totally not enjoyable in the usual sense). But there is little here that reveals or probes, there is little of what you might call art, or nuance, or originality. It's not exactly a formula, yet, this kind of abuse in your living room, but I think it will be. There are several I've seen recently, the one that comes to mind is Julia. In both movies, young children are victims and it's difficult to really watch without detaching and looking around the living room and reminding yourself this is fiction, these are actors, don't worry.

Terrible things happen in the world, of course, and worse things. But I'm not sure we need to see them, or should want to. It's like becoming an emergency room doctor because you are fascinated with suffering and blood. Movies should be like doctors, then (to stretch the metaphor) and have some purpose to them beyond wallowing.

And beyond representation. Maybe it's a reminder of the truth out there, but if that's all, it's not enough, and it goes on a very long time. I think accurate representation is the simple motive behind the filming. The director (in this case with a short resume--I've never heard of him) makes it vivid, fast, and very real. In that sense he succeeded. But again, realism isn't really a great goal in itself. It can be a means to a greater effect, a higher (or if not higher, at least other, separate) intention, something that takes the viewer somewhere. Anywhere.",0 "Don Juan (errol flynn) is a romantic well know lover in spain. He has many storys about him. THis adventure involves saving the queen from a villion, which is trying to control spain. Don Juan wins the queens heart and saves spain. It's a funny romantic Adventure. The costumes are great, the director is great too.",1 "TV may be mostly a wasteland these days, but every once in a while, a fine original film shows up on the tube. `Dinner With Friends' is certainly in that category. It takes the viewer deeply into the relationship between two couples and within each. They were best friends until one of the marriages hits the rocks. We see each side of that split and how it affects the other couple. Initially, sides seem to be taken along gender lines, but that reverses as each member of the separating couple finds new relationships. Is it fatal to the other marriage? Watch and see.",1 "The horrors of the Nazi death camps is brought into sharp, stark focus in this brilliant movie. A horrific study of human nature. A deeply disturbing collection of graphic images. Intense acting and very unusual direction tells the story of the Sonderkomandos... those hapless inmates who where given the terrible task of loading the ovens with the copses of their gased neighbours, friends and family. Not suitable for a first date, but definitely a movie you should see with someone with whom you can talk openly afterwards.

Watch it!",1 "Miscast? Maybe so but Lon makes the best of his situation and turns in a decent portrayal of the Count. Son of Dracula is an underrated Universal gem which is sadly overlooked because of people being prejudice to Chaney playing Count Alucard(Spell it backwards your in for a surprise). Chaney is seen as a nice guy monster who many say only works when under a Jack Pierce make-up job or as Larry Talbot. Chaney takes the role very seriously and actually creates a villainous character. All though Chaney lacks the thick Lugosi accent he has his mannerisms and creates mystery in his voice. It's sad that Chaney isn't praised for taking this risk because I think he knew his acting ability was going to be challenged by this picture.

The plot here is actually quite clever, instead of having your heroes try to save the heroine from becoming undead, our heroine volunteers to become a vampire. Alucard arrives from his native Transylvania as a quest of honor at the Dark Oaks plantation. As soon as he arrives though the plantation's master, Colonel Caldwell, dies conveniently leaving his morbid daughter Kay the deed to the plantation in his will. Kay knows Alucard's true nature and offers her neck to him in order to live forever but she must agree to become the Count's unholy bride in return which causes problems because she is engaged to Frank Stanley. Stanley angered over the marriage tries to murder Alucard with his pistol but shoots down Kay as the bullets pass right threw him. Frank seems to be loosing his mind as he is arrested for murder when Kay's body is found in a coffin on the plantation. Only a local physician named Brewster and a Van Helsing type professor know the truth.

The picture also is visually the best of the 40's Universal Monster offerings. Robert Siodmak is no Todd Browning but he understands the visuals of the vampire flick. There are some pretty clever shots in which Siodmak uses the shadows and lighting to his advantage.

Besides Chaney 'Son' has a decent cast. Chaney regular Evelyn Ankers plays Kay's sister who is hesitant to believe in this vampire story. Louise Allbritton is perfect as Kay, she creates a mysterious disturbed soul. The best performance besides Chaney and Allbritton has to go to Robert Paige who isn't your stereotypical horror hero, when Kay offers Frank a chance to live forever he all most gives into her.

Son of Dracula is different from the standard Horror flicks of the 40's and that is why it works and continues to stand out 64 years later.

(The advertisement for war bonds remains intact. Leave it to the Count to stop Hitler)",1 "I found this DVD at Big Lots for $2. With badly photoshopped images of Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen (obviously from a Reservoir Dogs promo) on the cover, I had very low expectations. But I'll give this movie credit. At least the director has some idea of what he was doing. Unlike other crap films like ""Cheerleader Ninjas"" and ""Tha Sistahood"", this one could actually direct the camera in a way that didn't make you want to blow your brains out. But when saying the director wasn't doing hits off of a crack pipe while working is the best compliment to give a movie, that's still pretty bad.

The story is basically about how corrupt the LAPD is. This corruption is basically revolving around a half dozen or so cops. That's pretty well contained, I must say. There's also a subplot of guys robbing convenience stores that goes nowhere. And another subplot of the main guy's love affair with a cop groupie. That one may be uninspired, but the sex scene is probably the funniest I've ever seen in my life. The two roll around naked under covers in the most awkward positions possible while the guy grinds his loins and gives the most painful grimaces is the history of man. Honestly, it just has to be seen to believed.

Casting sucks. Dennis Hopper is in the movie for a total of about 10 minutes, and looks like he's in physical pain having to deliver the insultingly bad script. Madsen is in there for more and seems less affected, but he's no stranger to a bad script. I've sat through films with him that were much worse, so this is nothing new to him. The hot young cop who owns the nickname Cowboy (because, you know, they want to be original) looks about 40. One fatboy cop, who looks mid-thirties, has a non-touching scene with his ""mother"" of 45. The constant unexplained parties at fatboy's ""mansion"" have the same people who seem not to change their clothes for weeks on end.

But the worst part of this film is the logic. Cops w/ bullet proof vests take shots like Superman without barely a flinch. Whenever there's a shootout within 20 square feet, nobody considers taking cover from the bullets. And why should they? Trained LAPD officers are known for being terrible shots anyway, right? There's also no sense in ballistics when detectives come around.

Bottom line, this film may suck noodles but I've seen Madsen in worse (Against All Hope, Executive Target, My Boss's Daughter, etc). Unless you're a big fan of his, as I am, stay away from this film.",0 "Phenomenal is the only word for LIZA WITH A Z - did you notice that there were no spectacular sets or special effects, just an incredibly versatile artist accompanied by a dancing ensemble and an orchestra. Who of today's ""artists"" could do that? With all the negative news about LIza in the past decade or so, some people tend to forget that in the two decades after CABARET Liza was indeed a superstar of the first magnitude - if her movie career never really took off (remember duds like LUCKY LADY and A MATTER OF TIME?), she was still the Queen of the Concert Stage in the US and Europe.

Liza was absolutely in her prime here - incredibly, she was only 26 in this year of CABARET and LIZA WITH A Z, and her voice was in great shape: rich, resonant and powerful - all the notes were there, big-time! (Check out some 1960s Minnelli recordings like ""Come Saturday Morning"" - her voice was much higher and sweeter then than we're used to.) And yes, there were certain brief moments when she looked (rather than sounded) like her mother, but she's all LIZA. I saw her on Broadway in CHICAGO in 1975, and caught her first ""Post-Betty Ford Center"" tour in 1985, and she was still brilliant (That's when she starting singing ""When I gooooooooooooo - I'm NOT - going - like - El - sie!"") and at an outdoor theater in 1992. What a performer!

Barbra Streisand had MY NAME IS BARBRA - LIZA WITH A Z is Liza Minnelli's MY NAME IS BARBRA! Truly legendary performances by truly legendary performers.",1 "Aside from being a great, dark film, with a substantial plot line and a GIANT cast (Oldman, Penn, and Harris), this is an Oldman performance not to be believed. Mr. Oldman himself has been quoted as saying that ""State of Grace"" is HIS favourite performance. And, as usual, he gives a performance to be equalled by none.

Sean Penn is marvelous, too, and Harris portrays evil incarnate.

This film should be re-evaluated, and Gary Oldman should have received the Oscar for it. His portrayal of Jackie Flannery, a wild, violent young gangster with an ethereal tender streak - is simply phenomenal.",1 "In contrast to some of the reviews I've read, I thought this film was a poor effort on every level.

I grew up in the North of England in the 1970s - was one of the first punks in Sheffield (where I understand the film is set) - and I don't see any authenticity in it. Just a bunch of caricatures meandering through a faux 70s setting.

The plot lines were dreary and unfocused and the resolution ridiculous. Two lackluster juvenile leads and the remaining talent chronically under used.

It fails- as most British movies do - to actually look like a film. It looks cheap. It has televisual sensibilities - and budget TV at that. The disco sequences really rock - not. Hard to spread out fifteen extras to make a room seem full I know.

All in all it is rubbish. And its no wonder it was a flop when originally released.",0 "It took Vidhu Vinod Chopra 5 years to write Eklavya and its worth all the 1825 days of ink, paper, sweat and brains!

Eklavya transports you to the vivid land of Rajasthan, where the Local Rana (Boman Irani, splendid) still considers himself the king even though democracy prevails. Eklavya, the royal guard (Amitabh Bachchan, however unbelievable it may sound this is his best performance till date. In some scenes, you can't look straight into his eyes! You deserve the Rolce Royce Mr. Bachchan!!) is endowed with the responsibility to protect and safeguard the so called king and his kingdom just like his previous 9 generations have been blindly abiding.

Jackie Shroff as the Rana's cunning brother and Jimmy Shergill as his over-confident son fit the bill with perfection. Sanjay Dutt as Inspector Chauvhan is superbly refreshing and brings in the required humour factor.

The film commences with a very unpredictable twist and climaxes with a very predictable one.

What lies in between forms the crux of this miniature masterpiece. The plot is genuinely original, cinematography breath-taking, editing is swift and the background score sharply contributes to the ongoings.

Where Eklavya loses its 2 stars is the slightly sloppy screenplay after the interval and the okie-dokie romance angle between Harshwardan (Saif Ali Khan, intensely controlled) and Rajjo (Vidya Balan, eye candy). You either make it piping hot or don't make them fall in love at all Mr.Chopra.

Eklavya will blow you away with its plot and the way it is executed and elaborated by the director's witty creativity. Specially, the scene where a thousand camels run along the train kicking up a virtual sandstorm or when Eklavya plunges the cinema hall into darkness with only his ears alert at work.

You will fall in Lav with Eklavya as soon as you take your first step out of the theater. Go catch this vibrantly entertaining Rajasthan Express which lasts only about 110 minutes and you won't come out unentertained. The message is clear and the medium of message couldn't be more entertaining. It certainly is Indian cinema at its best.",1 "The only reason to watch this is the world's first glimpse of Paul Douglas Valentine. Sure the lunatics like Ed and Lorraine Warren and Ted Gunderson add some side-splitting moments, but PDV sticks out like a sore thumb as the only person knowing what’s going on and able to play the audience properly. A true atheistic satanist, Valentine was obviously having fun throughout and clearly had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek more than once. The “satanic panic“ was a joke and should be just another silly footnote to the 80s. Sadly, the 21st century has produced a new breed of “theistic satanists“ who actually worship him as a deity. Now THAT is scary.

And sad.

In the interest of full disclosure I should state that I am family.",1 "You look. You experience time. You dream. Reality is a combination of all three. The Inland Empire is not Hollywood, the town of make believe, but you and your inner empire of thought and delusion.

Movies are imaginary concepts, yet we all get caught in the net,like lost fish. Our knowledge of the real is not our five senses alone, but a mix of memory and wish.

Intertwined with loss and hope. Loss of the past and hope for the future neither of which exist, except in mind.

This is an expanded sit-com.

A movie within a movie within a nightmare. Do spiders have nightmares? Do you have to be big or small to have emotions? A snail or an ape?",1 "My brother and I rented this as a joke and out of curiosity. I mean, how do you make a movie about a couple floating around in shark infested water for 2 hours? Well we find out, and its every bit as boring as you'd imagine. This movie doesn't mess around, within 10 minutes of the start of the movie they are in the water and lost. The movie then goes on to show them floating there, and trying to make it seem suspenseful at times. But when it comes down to it, they are just floating there, often times doing absolutely nothing, not talking or anything. A lot of sleeping.

It was unbearably boring. I've seen bad movies, but none that leave me squirming praying to a God I don't believe in for it to end.

This is all not to mention how stupid it is to make a film that is ""based on a true story"" that no one can prove. For all they know they both dived in, bumped their heads on a propeller blade, and sank unconsciously to the bottom of the ocean, where they died peacefully in their sleep. They only call it a true story to reel in the people with true story fetishes (such as I) to the theaters.

How they made a sequel I do not know, and I'm sure as hell not making the mistake of renting it just for s's and g's this time around.

Terrible God-Awful Movie. Run away (and hide).",0 "Like the love child of ""Absolutely Fabulous"" and every novel Jacqueline Susann's ever written, ""Girls Will Be Girls"" is an 80-minute festival of campy trash, hilarious one-liners, and bitchy, catty women. The only catch this time is that the women are all played by men.

Evie (Jack Plotnick) is a washed-up B-movie actress who is decidedly not aging gracefully. She lives with Coco (Clinton Leupp), her more grounded friend who functions mainly as Evie's maid and abuse magnet. Into their lives walks their new roommate Varla (Jeffery Roberson), an aspiring starlet whose late mother Marla (also Roberson in flashbacks) was also Evie's most hated acting rival. All of them have dreams, of course. Evie's dreams involve drinking as many martinis as she can and then having plenty of sex with anyone available. Coco still pines for the hunky abortion doctor that operated on her many years ago. Varla hopes to become the actress that her mother couldn't while dealing with the advances of Evie's gorgeous but microscopically-endowed son Stevie (Ron Mathews). Of course, there are hidden motives galore, and more than one mean-spirited one-liner.

The gimmick of this film, that all the women are played by men, is never as overstated as you may think. After all, the characters are all female, and they are treated in the story as if they are female. It's only slightly different than young boys performing the female roles in Shakespeare's plays. The camp value of the movie focuses not on the drag spectacle, but on the unrelenting melodrama and silliness of the plot, taking the elements of ridiculous films like ""Valley Of The Dolls"" and upping them to a level so ludicrous, they can only be considered comedy. That the framework of the film makes all of these developments seem perfectly natural and realistic is a credit to director and writer Richard Day.

The actors are all quite game and in on the absurdity of their surroundings. Plotnick is quite humorous, dropping the most mean-spirited one-liners you'll ever laugh at, and the clips of Evie performing in the 60's stinker ""Asteroid"" resemble nothing less than Morgan Fairchild on quaaludes. Leupp reprises the role of Coco from his scene-stealing moments in the movie ""Trick"", and he imbues the character both with a humorous sense of bad luck and an immediately sympathetic personality. Roberson is not quite as spectacular as his co-stars, but he gives the naive, trusting Varla a great heart and a hilarious scene involving opera and cheese in a can. Even Mathews is great, all melodramatic soap hunk and hair product.

While the movie receives high marks for style, including efficient and effective set design and a very nice score, it's a very loud movie in the sense that every scene is turned up to 11. While this works most of the time, even at the film's short running time, it tends to strain. The ending veers sharply away from comedy into deep melodramatic territory, and even though it is diffused quite handily, the film almost drowns in TV-movie-of-the-week sap before the mood lightens again. Also, some may find the hostile attitudes of some of the characters, mainly Evie and to a degree Coco, to be too off-putting for comfort. Evie, especially, is one of the most unsympathetic characters you'll meet in a film this year.

Regardless, the film is hilarious and immensely entertaining. A high recommendation for anyone who likes divas, camp, or catty fun. And don't forget to bring the cheese. 8 out of 10.",1 "I'll admit that when I first started watching this show, at a friend's request of course, I thought it was vaguely interesting. I've always loved paranormal things, and figured a show called ""Ghost Hunters"" could fill my insatiable need to understand such things.

Unfortunately that was not the case. Gradually I became more and more annoyed at this show and their methods. Mainly I have a few issues with how they handle things. First, some of their members don't seem to respect the ghosts, or spirits if you will. I recall there was an episode in which one of the members was trying to provoke the ghost into doing something by calling it names. Careful doing that, newbie, you might just get possessed.

Another issue I had is that they rely on technology for EVERYTHING. They'll set up thousands of dollar's worth of cameras and other equipment around the place in hopes that they'll catch something. This may be scientifically proved to catch things that we have scientific proof of, but when you're trying to catch PARANORMAL things with EVERY DAY technology, you've got to know that you're going to get little to nothing. At least Paranormal State has the balls to use psychics, mediums, and religious methods, which are far superior to technology.

Last issue is my main problem. They're rarely willing to draw a conclusion about a whole lot of ANYTHING. They use their ""scientific method"" to try to rule out regular happenings before they can draw a conclusion, but even when they do rule out everything else, they STILL aren't willing to admit it's paranormal. For example, if they had a camera get knocked over or something, they would test for ground movement, wind, drafts in the house, physical intervention, etc etc, but even when they rule that nothing normal could've possibly effected it, they only rule that it could POSSIBLY be paranormal, and that's being generous. Get my drift? If science can't explain it, then obviously it must be PARA - NORMAL.

And whenever they DO find something they deem to be ""paranormal"", they don't do anything about it! I can't tell you how many times they've heard EVP's saying ""help"" or ""help me"", but they never do! They log it as just another phenomenon. Has it occurred to them that these spirits actually want help passing on, and this is their only way of asking for it? Nope, they wouldn't know. It's all about ratings and money.

Ultimately I don't like how they go about doing things on this show, and I believe that ultimately their methods are causing them more trouble than it's worth. I'll stick with Paranormal State, thanks.",0 """You really don't like women, do you?"" ffolkes is asked. Rufus Excalibur ffolkes (Roger Moore) is an eccentric, misanthropic ex-British Army officer who has his own team of highly trained underwater commandos, ffolkes' fusiliers. He specializes in hostage rescue and anti- terrorism action, all immaculately planned and decisively executed. The bearded, curmudgeonly ffolkes favors Edwardian suits, does petit point and loves Scotch and cats. He's on a North Sea oil platform where Lou Kramer, a clever criminal (Anthony Perkins) who has hijacked the supply boat Esther which is moored below, has demanded 25 million British pounds or he'll blow the rig sky high. ffolkes got there because the British government could think of no one else who had a chance of thwarting Kramer's plan. If Jennifer, the production platform, and Ruth, a nearby drilling platform, which Kramer has mined are destroyed, a good deal of British North Sea oil production will go up in smoke with them. The plot is ingenious. But then, so is ffolkes. And he's prepared to be just as ruthless as the criminals. folkes has one advantage. His plans never go wrong. Almost never.

But back to ffolkes and women. ""I do not!"" ffolkes answers. ""You see, I together with my five elder sisters was raised by my maiden aunt. Both my parents died tragically in childbirth. Until the age of ten I was forced to wear my sisters' hand-me-downs. Then when I married I discovered to my horror that my wife also had five sisters, all unmarried and all expecting my support. I find cats a far superior breed.""

This clever, exciting adventure did only modest business when it was released, and was quickly forgotten by most. Too bad, because it's a well-made film which generates tension, has an unusual setting in the cold, stormy waters of the North Sea, and has some fine actors. Among the standouts are Anthony Perkins as the vicious, confident, and, of course, unstable Lou Kramer; James Mason as Admiral Sir Francis Brindsen, a stock figure at first but who, thanks to Mason's skill, turns into a character of barely noticed wry humor; and Michael Parks as Kramer's key henchman, possible lover and explosives expert.

Most of all, the movie depends on Roger Moore, and he delivers a dynamic and amusing performance of a man of action who'd be much happier in an earlier age. His complete self- confidence in his planning and his talents would be irritating if it weren't so well acted and expressed in lines so well written. ""I suppose you're one of those fellows who does the Times' crossword puzzle in 10 minutes,"" says an irritated Admiral Brindsen after ffolkes offhandedly explained the meaning of a coded message the Admiral had just received from London. ""I have never taken 10 minutes!"" says ffolkes indignantly. Moore is perhaps underrated nowadays, but I think he was expert in light comedy and in amusing adventures. In my opinion, he is the second best by far of the James Bonds. (I haven't seen Daniel Craig.) Even aging a bit in the last couple, be brought style and insouciance to a franchise that was slowly going off the tracks. And yes, I'm a fan of A View to a Kill. Moore made this picture between Bond films and he plays against type.

The movie ends, as it began, with ffolkes clearly happy with his favorite companions. We had earlier met Mary, his tortoiseshell tabby. We leave ffolkes with an award from the British government, delivered to him in Scotland by the Prime Minister herself...three white kittens named Esther, Ruth and Jennifer.

For those unsure how to pronounce ffolkes, we may have to dig deep into Hitchcock. ""I don't get the double 'F',"" says American reporter Johnny Jones to Scott ffolliot, a man he's just met as they speed down a Dutch lane after an assassin. ""They're at the beginning,"" says ffolliot. ""Both small 'F's."" ""They can't be at the beginning,"" says Johnny. Says ffolliot, ""One of my ancestors was beheaded by Henry VIII. His wife dropped the capital letter to commemorate it."" ""How do you say it, like a stutter?"" asks Johnny. ""Just a straight 'fuh'.""

Fuholkes is a well made, amusing adventure.",1 "I saw the whole movie. Am Greek and this is a very recent film. I thought it could be good. After the first 15 minutes the film was like this : Every time the main character(a man) meets a woman , the woman attacks to him sexually and... The film was repeating itself, every scene was the same ... One of the actresses is very famous in Greek, and i like her in the ""hot"" scenes .. but come on... is this art ? Am really sorry that the director - whose film Loufa and Parallagy I can watch 100 times per day- made this movie. No story .. if in the same scenes the actors were more nude.. it would be porn. I am very open-minded... it reminded me of another movie Lucia y el Sexo, especially the scene in the water (blue sea and sex) but i cant really understand what was the purpose of this movie. Am really sorry for my bad critic, am not an expert. This is my personal opinion.",0 "It has been sometime since I have seen this television movie. It is an eerie film, imaginatively made considering the budget that this film had, which was not much. When we had fewer stations that we do now, films like this were still being seen in the afternoons on affiliate stations to ABC. This show, was part of the Tuesday or Wednesday movie of the week that ABC had. It was from this series that Duel, Directed by Steven Spielberg came from. Regrettably, many of these other films I think were equal to Duel, but these directors and writers from what I can see, never were able to come close to Spiebergs fame.

Todays TV movies seem to be made with bigger budgets, but watching a film like Cold Nights Death shows what greatness can be done with a limited budget. The Tuesday and Wednesday night movies on ABC were not all good, but some of them deserve greater status than has been accorded them. These films remind me of the excellent B movies we have heard about that Hollywood made as a second feature in their heyday. Those in the 1970's who looked upon the 1950's as some great creative time on TV forgot about these films. Even in the 1970's when American films were some of the best ever, Film critics then were also not appreciative of what they had before them.

Hopefully buried treasures like A COLD NIGHT'S DEATH, and other films will get their re release, either on TV, or on DVD's. Apparently this film is available on DVD to purchase, but many others may not be.",1 ..it would have won 10 oscars compared to this turkey! I have only one thing to say about this film. BAD!!!,0 "In the beginning the film was a bit boring but as it went on it got better and better. I find it quite amusing with a good end. I think it follows the style of analyse this, grosse point blank and other movies where a contract killer or mafia guy , in this case an undercover agent starts pursues therapy. If you liked any of these, go watch it.",1 "This show is unbelievable in that it lacks any perceivable value to anyone. It's perhaps the most value-less show ever to be seen.

I don't say things like this lightly. I have seen ""poor"" and ""pathetic"" and said so. I've seen shows which may not be *MY* tastes but I could see where they may appeal to someone who is angry enough, drunk enough or high enough. I can even see where someone might stare at a lava lamp for hours. Yet this show is worse than them all. Finally a network has come up with a show with less entertainment value than the lava lamp.

I've seen trashier. I've seen equally as stupid. I've seen more repulsive. Yet the Anna Nicole show is even lesser value. At least ""trashy"" or ""revolting"" are qualities which ""shock"" the sensibilities and appeal to certain groups. To each their own. Yet the Anna Nicole show even lacks these dubious appeals.

This show is about not a clever commentary on ""nothing"" like Seinfeld. It actually *IS* nothing. A woman without charm, intelligence or any redeeming qualities going about ansolutely nothing of interest.

Television has reached a new low with this one. I suggest anyone considering watching this move up a few notches and watch a good MLM infomercial or tune into the test pattern late at night.",0 "Point 1: Good action. Wasley Snipes delivers nicely. Great close combat moves. Point 2: Obviously not the biggest budget possible for this movie. And still a very good movie. Point 3: Action movies always have those unbelievable characters and actors who have been hired not so much because of how they act than what they look like and what they can do physically. No exception here. Point 4: Plot was simple and straight forward with a nice twist at the end. I'd say the script was adequate for a movie gone straight to video. Point 5: This movie delivers exactly what you expect from a movie in this genre. Period.

Now that you judge this flick in it's context (B-movie), you realize it's really not that bad people say it is. Expectations are too high only because they see Wesley Snipes at the opening credits. Throw your prejudice in the corner and see this movie for what it is; Good clean above average action.",1 "High-octane A&C, their first starring roles and a really kinetic blending of musical numbers and comedy routines. Too bad this 90 minute dynamo wasn't sent to Hitler and Tojo. They would have tossed in the towel right away. One look at the sheer energy of the flying boogie-woogie couples is enough to light up a dozen defense plants. I'm sure it was great to have this kind of zippy support at home, but I'm afraid those eve-of-war conscripts were in for a lot more than the year of garrison duty the movie portrays.

Nonetheless, note how the movie never loses its bounce. That's a tribute to director Lubin, the film editor(s), and the comedy duo that in 1941 was still fresh and eager to please. The crap-shooting skit is classic A&C, along with the ""money counting"" routine, and of course there's the Andrews Sisters segueing into their knock-out version of the classic ""Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy"". Even the inevitable romantic scenes are well handled without being draggy, (but just what is that over-sized thing perched on Frazee's head-- I'm still wondering.).

In passing-- note how the class conflict of the Depression era is leveled out by the the common war effort and the spirit of one for all and all for one. Note too, how the patriotic screenplay favors neither blue-collar Alan Curtis nor rich playboy Lee Bowman in their competition for the lovely Jane Frazee. Still and all, Bowman must first lose his privileged arrogance before being accepted into the great American melting pot.

Also, I was a little puzzled by the ""Apple Blossom Time"" number which seemed a throw-back to WWI with its GI's (doughboys) strolling dreamily down the lane to the romantic down-tempo strains. I expect the producers wanted a change of musical pace for variety's sake. That's understandable. But more importantly, I think the number reflects popular tastes from the 1916-18 period, such that it's contrast here with the boogie-woogie numbers provides an interesting glimpse of how the pace of American life had speeded up between the wars.

Be that as it may, the movie remains a zesty blend of comedy and song with a larger than usual A&C budget-- (note the realistically crowded train station). I expect everything just sort of fell into place to produce what amounts to a happy accident that likely helped set the pace for the many war-time musicals that would follow. Even non-fans of A&C should enjoy this one.",1 "I can't say I enjoyed Slime City too much, but it does have an element of trashy fun to it. The atmosphere is similar to Basket Case, only trashier and on a lower budget. There are some cool death scenes early on, but then the pace seems to plod for ages. There's a good erotic dance scene from one of the ladies which some may enjoy. The only reason I would recommend Slime City to anyone is for the scenes at the end, which are priceless. The girlfriend of the guy turning into slime hacks his head off, and the head splits apart and his brain tries to escape by slithering across the floor. Seeing that she is in front of him, the brain turns around to slither in the opposite direction. She then hacks him up.

If you can tolerate low budget trash this may be your sort of thing, just don't expect too much.",0 "If GO director Doug Liman collaborated with Pedro Almodovar on a remake of that film, you might just about get something equal to NOT LOVE JUST FRENZY. Set in the mid-'90's omnisexual club scene in Madrid, there's plenty of sex, drugs, betrayal, death and dance beats to go around. Those not used to movies with subtitles probably won't have the wherewithal to stick with this one, but veteran viewers of such fare as WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS?, WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN and AMOR DE HOMBRE know that the eventual rewards are worth it.

Blond, hedonistic nymphomaniac bartender/actress Monica (Caetana Guillen Cuervo), sweet- natured Yeye (Ingrid Rubio) and vivacious activist Maria (Beatriz Santiago) are three flatmates looking for a fourth to let a spare room at their place, to stretch the rent with some extra dinero. Unfortunately, friendships and romantic entanglements will be the main things stretched past the breaking point, when Monica decides to rent the room to Max (Nancho Novo), Yeye's sexy, shady ex-boyfriend who has a secret he won't let get out, and a certain appendage he can't seem to keep...in his pants.

Keeping the pot at a roiling boil are subplots including Alberto (Gustavo Salmeron), Yeye's gay ""play husband"" who is having an affair with a married bisexual, Alex (Javier Albala) and a mad infatuation with straight physique model, David (Liberto Rabal); Luis (Javier Manrique), a psychotic cop masquerading as a secret admirer of Maria's who has his own agenda involving Max, and Maria's own secret crush, Carlos (Juan Diego Botto), her cute student pal who lives right next door, and confides in her about his latest romantic involvements, clueless to how she really feels about him.

Just for spice, add a lesbian madam named Cristina (Bibi Andersen) who also has Max's number; a coterie of drag queens so over-the-top they make the girls from PRISCILLA, QUEEN OF THE DESERT seem downright genteel; sex that just avoids becoming triple X-rated porn, prodigious drug use, more sex and a murder investigation that will turn everyone's lives even more topsy-turvy...if that's possible.

This arch spoof of all the sex-drug-and-drama gay genre films seems at times like a mess, but the writing is tight enough that you can follow all the plot twists, without getting as lost as some of the characters seem to be in their own little worlds. And though the DVD box trumpets the presence of Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz, you better not blink if you don't want to miss them. Not that it matters - the cast is engaging throughout, and in the midst of all the ""Frenzy"" of the title are some gorgeous and striking scenes, such as Monica flouncing down a busy city street in French Renaissance attire and sunglasses, and David in a nude rooftop scene (don't ask - just watch for it.)

Overall, one of the better non-Almodovar entries to the canon of gay-themed foreign films from the last decade.",1 "this version aired in the 80's when i was just around 10 years old, i remember so well watching with my mother and loving it so much because we had the soundtrack with Robert Goulet singing...he kissed my mother at a concert in Edmonton when she was a young girl...tragic that the world only knows the gene Kelly version...he is not an issue, just the whole movie, all dancing and the singing is weak. i wish CBS had not destroyed the original...someone must have taped it on one occasion...please let us know if we discover one! the record is really very good and Peter Falk one can never go wrong. funny that made for TV can be so much better.",1 "I'm glad this film is finally being re-released. The trailer states it's ""the movie you never saw,"" but quite a few of us did see it. I loved it in 1982 (3?), so much so that I went out and bought the S/T, which I still listen to (yes kids, on vinyl). Just saw the film again, and except for being a tad embarrassed that we wore such silly clothes back then, I think it holds up beautifully. Yes, it could have been cast differently. But the point was to drop the normal-looking, average joe and mary into a fantasy setting. IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK FAKE. The sets are gorgeous! It's based on what Vegas used to look like, before they tore it all down and put up that oversized Disneyland. The music is some of the best Tom Waits has ever made--I only just learned that Waits selected Crystal Gayle; (FFC had requested Bette Midler (after hearing her duet w/ Waits on ""Never Talk to Strangers"") having listened to this LP for 20 years I'm glad he did. There's not much to the story, (no back story, no character development), but there's not supposed to be. Doncha think FFC could've made that film if he'd wanted to? (and really, we've had 20 years of films that pick apart relationships ad nauseum). This film works the way it was intended to. Sit back and enjoy it, it's musical fantasy-realism, it doesn't matter that Nattassja can't sing.",1 "I would like to disagree with the above. I thought that the use of the remaining stills to recompose this movie, was brilliantly done. It was, indeed, obviously a labor of love, but now, we at least have SOME idea of what the audience saw in 1927...here it is, 2006, and I thought that for it's time, it probably WAS frightening. And Chaney's makeup is outstanding. The people of that era weren't used to those kinds of images on the screen, so I imagine that they were probably petrified by Chaney and his ghastly makeup, which, for its day, was superb, as I stated before. I'm clearly a Chaney fan, however, so, more than likely, I am truly biased.

All in all, this was brilliant, I thought.",1 "This is the dumbest most useless movie ever! Its almost like the script came from toilet paper some guy used in a stall. It was so unfunny it was uncomfortable to watch. It is the complete anti-thesis of entertainment. I have seen better productions in college and on cable access. Just absolutely awful all the way. There is nothing redeemable from this movie. This quite simply has to be the most moronic film to ever hit the planet.

The dialog was useless and did not ever look realistic. Its as if the actors are reading in monotone off of a cue card. The acting was deplorable. It should be viewed at acting school as what not to do. I think all together it is a pure waste of film, waste of space and waste of time in video store or cable station in the universe!",0 "No, I mean it, I am in a state of utter awe of this ability to continue producing grade-A results. This is a review of the PC version. All that appears to mean is that you can save at any time(with a few delectable exceptions), and are not limited to the well-placed(if arguably plentiful) checkpoints. In ways, this is less hard than the others(on the other hand, it is challenging, yes, also on the easiest setting, of the three for puzzles and four for action... yep, adjustable difficulty, so anyone can play this). It's about as long as the first one(in general, it takes a bit of inspiration from it... including in a way that I'd have preferred it didn't, but I understand that others did want that; you should definitely try to play the original one before this, you will appreciate it on another level), but the well-done puzzles seem simpler(that, or I'm getting better... and I tend to think it's the former, not the latter; meanwhile, this has the greatest riddle-solving system yet), if there may be about the same amount of them. On the other hand, this one may have about twice as many types of creatures. They are grotesque and nightmarish again, and this time, a few are downright bizarre in appearance, resembling nothing that we can recognize. All of the design is impeccably done. This again uses our own imagination in conjunction with the unnerving sights and audio to build up the psychological terror. The atmosphere is chilling, carefully established and maintained throughout, by the grisly sights and the incredibly well-done and meticulously crafted sound-side that is either shocking or hinting, never noisy or dull. This has amazing music, if there may be more lyrics than earlier in the series; then again, they are fantastic, and like the second, this does, as it needs to, distinguish itself(without deviating so much that we get alienated), they can't all be carbon-copies, they have to do something new. This hits the nail on the head in that regard. The plot is marvelous, if not as deep as that of SH2. I refuse to give it away. The story-telling is well-done(I swear to you, I was literally touched a handful of times during this, not only scared) with you finding details as you go along, and then the scripted, in-engine cut-scenes(there are no CGI ones in this one, and they are not missed), with a free cinematography(with that said, were there an excess of shots from below the protagonist, or was that just me?), a wide range of animations and rather articulated faces and the like(I do not personally find the introductory movie as compelling as the other two, perhaps that is only me... it might be the pop song, if I will grant that it's sufficiently sad in tone). This has astonishing graphics, and the lighting, shadows and weather effects(love the ""grain"") are brilliantly done. You now play as Heather, a teenage girl not afraid to speak her mind. I wasn't bothered by the gender in the least, and her personality isn't irritating(I've yet to come across a single obnoxious person in this franchise up to this point); however, her vocabulary, well, fits her age, and it does take away from the mood when something is called/described using words like ""boring"", ""gross"" or ""yuck"". Well, it didn't bother me enough to take me out of it, even briefly. All of the characters are credible, diverse and well-developed, and there are so few of them that you remember everyone and they all matter, none of them can be left out with no impact. Vincent is one of my favorites of all three games. The acting tends to be magnificent. This is instantly engaging and quite exciting. It takes a while before you realize what exactly is going on, without this losing any of its gripping tension. It is a cinematic experience with its strange, interesting and effective angles, and the dynamic camera that you can exert limited control over. The button for this can get you third person view, and that is invaluable in this. It won't work everywhere, still, it will when you have to, as the video-game won't always automatically do so. One thing I suppose one could say is that the enemies can be frustrating, to an extent not seen before this entry. And there are a lot of weapons, if not any that are superfluous. I've heard complaints about the Uzi... well, can *you* use it constantly? Besides, these are not about the combat. The lead now turns her head at nearly everything you can interact with, which at best takes getting used to, at worst is an annoyance. They split up Enter and Use into separate functions... not sure why. There are several endings and other things to unlock. This revisits areas from the previous incarnation, though they do new things with them. Several of your surroundings are creepy places to begin with, like a subway station and train. You now see the elevator as its moving, another of the countless eerie situations in these. It's all so abandoned, so close to quaint, and yet absolutely not. The interface remains unchanged as it should be, and once you are used to the directional keys(shouldn't take long), the way you move in this is rather intuitive, and you can get into this almost immediately. This does tinker with game-play mechanics a tad, all improvements. You can run a nice and fitting distance before tiring, for example. There are immense loads of brutal, bloody, strong violence and disturbing content, as well as a little sexuality in this - you should be able to figure out pretty quickly if you can handle it or not. I recommend this warmly to any fan of the other ones, and of other smart survival horror VG's. An acquired taste that ages like a fine wine, and that I wouldn't dream of doing without. Return to Silent Hill... if you dare. 10/10",1 "Tho this movie was uneven, the quirky humor was invigorating. I rated it 7, partly because there were some concepts I had not seen in movies previously.

The young leads were personable and presented their characters quite admirably. Their car itself becomes a personality in the show.

You will find several actors you haven't seen in years. (Some shine in the light of this movie; others, well... 'nuff said.)

The Music of ""King Sunny Ade & His African Beats"" was refreshing. The Juju Music was at the same time full of energy and joy... & was gentle almost like meditation.

If you are looking for a pleasant diversion, strongly unique in places, I highly recommend it.",1 "Hey, of course it's the same movie as Executive Decision. Michael did it first and Hollywood thought it was such a good movie, they packed it with so called top stars and remade it with bigger special effects. Fantastic movie, great scenes even if some of them were re-used in other movies, but what do you expect from a lower budget film. Not only does Michael put in a solid and believable performance, but all the cast come together well to make this a great action/suspense movie not to be missed. Whether you are a die hard Dudikoff fan or a newbie to his movies, this one is yet another great offering from Dudikoff. Check it out and you won't be disappointed.",1 "A routine ""B"" western in the Lone Star series of westerns Wayne made in the 30's. What sets this one apart is John Wayne as a ""Singing"" Cowboy. This was the time of the beginning of the Singing Cowboy era in ""B"" westerns (e.g. Gene Autry). Wayne's voice is obviously dubbed. He sure doesn't look comfortable serenading the heroine or warbling a tune while riding across the prairie. Fortunately for all concerned (especially the Duke) this experiment was quickly ended.

Anyone who wants to hear the Duke's ""real"" singing voice should watch the opening credits of ""Cahill U.S. Marshal"".",0 "Alterning elements from ""Waterworld"" and ""Mad Max"", this film is a pleasure to the eyes with beautiful sand landscapes from chilen Atacama´s desert. Besides, it´s a pleasure to the ears, with the outstanding brazilian diva Sandy and her voice. Go to see it now, but don´t forget to take a big glass of water before. I´ve got very thirsty at the end.",1 "I've got the feeling that somehow the director couldn't decide what kind of movie to make here: A psychodrama about the inner conflicts of a woman (concerned with her past) and/or the solving of the conflicts in a relationship *or* a simple slasher spiced up with some naive psychology. Or both.

But the movie is still pretty impressive with great performances overall (especially by Allison Elliot - that woman has got more talent in her little finger than a lot of big stars do, and Richard Harris' son is great,too), an effective score which includes some cool songs (too bad there is not CD out - how canI get hold of ""Rockets"" or the song played during the end credits?) and interesting/atmospheric and very well done direction. But the Irish background of it all seems to be a little bit forced.

Anyway, don't expect some kind of standard horror flick or you will be disappointed!",1 """Snoopy Come Home"" is the 2nd of the 4 Peanuts specials. In many ways, it's a unique Peanuts story (particularly for being a musical, dramatic and emotional motion picture). At the same time, its simplicity is extreme.

This is an improvement over the previous ""A Boy Named Charlie Brown"" and a classic. There are many good things about it. The story is simple but solid, fun, dramatic and interesting. There is some nice score, such as the hilarious song ""No dogs allowed"" and the beautiful but sad songs ""Do you remember me?"" and ""It changes"".

Unlike the first movie, here both Peppermint Patty and Woodstock appear, although Marcie is still missing. There is, however, a crazy girl named Clara who looks almost equal to Marcie, except without glasses. She's the one who names Snoopy ""Rex"". I call her ""the terrorist"", lol.

Pepermint Patty's role is small here and, as usual, she's a tomboy. But she is surprisingly kind here. Really doesn't sound like her. Considering she's very quick-tempered and often unfair and obnoxious, she manages to surprise us here.

Lila's role in the movie is minor. She is everything that Lucy and ""the terrorist"" aren't: friendly, sweet, kind and lovable. Lila was the original owner of the world's most famous Beagle. I think they should have found a way to make she and Charlie Brown meet sometimes, so that she and Snoopy had the chance to visit each other occasionally. Charlie Brown and Lila could even be friends...

During good part of the movie there is a sad atmosphere: Lila's illness and loneliness, the Peanuts gang missing Snoopy a lot (mostly Charlie Brown, who is most sensitive about this). Like Charlie Brown, I hate goodbyes and I'd rather more hellos.

The few things I don't like about this movie are when Linus and Snoopy hurt each other, the boxing match sequence with Lucy and Snoopy and, of course, the sequences with ""the terrorist"" (a real trauma for Snoopy and Woddstock) and most parts with Lucy. I just don't like Lucy, she's obnoxious, unfair and mean to Snoopy, Charlie Brown and even Linus.

The artwork is extremely simplistic but perhaps a little better than in ""A Boy Named Charlie Brown"". Still, this artwork is clearly not at the level of ""Race for your life, Charlie Brown"" and even less of ""Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown"".

The journey of America's favorite Beagle and Woodstock to visit Lila at the hospital is admirable, as well as everything they go through because of all those ""No dogs allowed"" signs (including one that forbids both dogs and birds, which is discrimination against animals).

This movie isn't all drama, however. There are some comical parts, such as whenever Snoopy and Woodstock laugh. The laughter of both is hysterical to listen! And Snoopy's indecipherable growl-like speaking is always a full plate, as well as his characteristic signature with a footprint. Woodstock also has the loveliest whistle of all time - he really whistles beautifully!

This should definitely be on Top 250.",1 "*****POSSIBLE SPOILERS*****

Poorly conceived propaganda flick unites a classic cast to produce a truly bad egg in which they share virtually no scenes. To say that the story is muddled would be to give it too much credit -- I don't think it really has a story. At one point, the action being shown on screen is a flashback inside a flashback inside of another flashback... what with all the jumping around from story to story, it's hard to imagine that any audience could keep all this straight.

With the unbelievable confusion going on in the intersecting plots (which basically center on a group of prisoners trying to escape from a colonial penal institution so they can fight for France -- yes, Bogey plays a frenchman in this one, believe it or not) it's not surprising that no drama or interest is created by the film's action. We already know who'll live and die because it's a flashback, so there's no suspense either.

In a novel twist, Lorre turns out NOT to be a weirdo or a bad guy or a coward. When Bogey's character breathes his final breath, we can only sigh in relief.

This movie was a rip-off, it wasn't even really a movie, and the audience only got to see a little bit of any of the stars.",0 "Anne Fontaine's movies always have some kind of strange relationships. In this particular one, a nice sweet girl, an insurance company employee, meets a strange vet who is quite mysterious ans fascinating, while a serial killer with a scalpel kills women in the area : we are just like Isabelle Carré (perfect as usual), because Benoît Poelvoorde is a pure magnet. We have always known him as a very funny comedian and it's quite a revelation to see him play this obscure character. Apparently, he was quite traumatized to play this part and he says in magazines he never will play that kind of thing again : that would be a shame !",1 "In reading some of the non-spoiler reviews prior to watching this film, I was prepared for a deliberately-paced drama with elements of horror sprinkled in. What I got instead was a movie that was boring beyond comprehension.

By ""boring"" I do not simply mean slow-paced. Most assuredly, there are many slow-paced films that are very interesting - ""A Tale of Two Sisters"", ""Pulse"", ""Cure"", and ""Audition"" come to mind. However, there are also many slow-paced films that are simply boring. ""Sorum"" is one of the latter.

At no point during the first 85 minutes did I feel even remotely interested in what was happening. There was far too much ""small talk"" that contributed virtually nothing to the story. To be honest, the first 85 minutes could have been easily condensed to less than 30 without much loss to either plot or character development.

When the final sequence of events took place, I could not help but feel cheated at the rather superficial treatment of the primary issues that the filmmakers were attempting to address - especially considering all of the screen time that was literally wasted during the first 75% of the film.

I do agree with the positive reviewers here that ADD-ridden simpletons who need car explosions or lots of deaths will have difficulty sitting through this one. Unfortunately, the attention deficits of teenagers will never change the fact that ""Sorum"" is a poorly made film. Attempts to justify trash film-making in this manner is reprehensible. A bad film is simply a bad film.",0 "As reflected in its subtitle, ""Stoked"" is not an original idea about a talented individual attaining success then losing it. A formula for a different time place that works: during the 1980s skateboarding scene. Long before Tony Hawk reached the pinnacle of skateboarding prominence to become synonymous with the sport, there was Mark ""Gator"" Rogowski. Hawk, who is an interviewee, rolled in similar circles with Gator. They, and others like them, were at work in an era before the Gravity and X-Games were established, eventually becoming permanent TV offerings.

With Gator as the focus, viewers get a back-story of when Extreme Sports was in its in infancy. Rogowski was among a capable few who took a hobby of countless teenagers to become a well paid performer. He earned money through merchandising and lucrative endorsement deals. Just as he reached the top, he slowly declined--personally and professionally--surpassed by an evolving skateboard landscape which beckoned higher skills.

Viewers need not be skateboarding aficionados to be engrossed inside this dramatic profile, with an all too tragic conclusion. Too bad for the uninitiated, Mark Anthony Rogowski couldn't have been introduced under better circumstances.",1 "Hyped as The First French Sex-Horror Film ""The Blood Rose"" certainly delivers the goods.Lemaire plays an aging painter whose wedded bliss to gorgeous Anne turns to tragedy,when she nearly gets in a catfight with his former lover and falls into a fire in a pretty hilarious scene.She is of course horribly scarred.The great Howard Vernon plays a surgeon who may be able to return her to her former beauty,but he'll need a live victim to do it.So women are brought to the artist's château in order to get a face.The dwarfs,who were the painter's longtime servants,are charged with capturing the girls.Clearly inspired by Franju ""Eyes Without the Face"" ""The Blood Rose"" features lovely Gothic setting of French medieval castle, great-looking women and a healthy dose of sleaze.Rollin-esquire atmosphere is well-captured and the climax is fantastic.7 out of 10.",1 "Wildcat is a typical B-movie of the 40's. The plot is straight forward and largely predictable. For those not familiar with the term, wildcat refers to someone taking the risk of drilling for oil in unproven areas.

While there are no major stars here, there are some recognizable faces. Richard Arlen made a career of B-movies and plays the lead here as an endearing hustler. His main antagonist is Buster Crabbe of Flash Gordon fame. William Frawley (Fred Mertz of I Love Lucy) plays an unscrupulous card shark, that eventually shows some heart. Toss in character actor Arthur Hunnicutt, who is best known as a crotchety old-timer from westerns and 50's TV. Overall, a decent cast that does a fine, if unspectacular job of delivering the goods.

The dialogue is snappy in parts, but also lame in places. There are enough conflicts and action sequences to keep the story moving without bogging down. The characters cover a wide range. There is the flawed hero lead, the conniving femme fatale, a naive youth, a cold-hearted antagonist and loyal associates.

While this movie is mildly entertaining, there is nothing spectacular here. While the movie is shot in the present (1942,) it has a western flavor to it. So if you enjoy any of the actors or just want to see a ""modern"" western, it's not a bad way to spend 70 minutes.",1 "Terry Moore stars in this tripe about a rich kid who fakes his own kidnapping in order to get attention from Mummy and Daddykins. But Terry Moore remains the only reason to watch. Let's see, what else?

There are some cool Mercedes-Benzes..... um..... the palm trees in Beverly Hills are very pretty..... uh..... *zzzzzzz* - oh, sorry!

Did I mention Terry Moore?! - yeah, I did. Well, that's about it. Let's review, shall we? The reasons to watch this movie are:

1. Terry Moore, 2. cool Mercedes-Benzes, 3. pretty palm trees

There. We're done. That wasn't so bad, was it? A bit of advice, though. If you are planning on watching this, get totally blitzed first. At least then you won't be able to remember it the next day.",0 "Korea's answer to ""I Know What You Did Last Summer"" follows a similar story route to its American counterpart: one year after a group of high school friends accidentally kill a classmate, a masked killer begins to pick them off one by one. Who could have possibly seen them that night - or was their 'victim' still alive when they dumped him into the sea?

Originality cannot be expected from the teen slasher genre anymore but an effort can still be made to ensure films of this ilke are entertaining and scary. RECORD is neither, churning out badly rehashed scenes from ""I Know..."", ""The House On Sorority Row"" and ""The Faculty"" (among many others) and failing to deliver one decent shock throughout the 95 minutes.

Acting is decent from the cast who, as seems to be the norm in Korean cinema, approach an uninspiring script with gusto and an undeserved enthusiasm. Direction is mediocre at best, however; a strange choice of camera angles and the worst killer's costume *EVER* contributing to RECORD's downfall. Most disappointing is the film's ending, where the two 'surprise twists' are that obvious you've earlier dismissed them as being too blatant!

RECORD's only saving grace is its bright start - the first act is actually excellent and shows the American counterparts how character development and setting the mood are supposed to be done - but, other than that, this is a very poor movie. Not recommended.

** / *****",0 "This is one of the WORST movies I've ever seen. Why? Where to start, where to start?

How about dialogue? At one point in the movie, our hero John realizes that they are being watched by government agents. DOH! They followed them openly right to the house Why the look of shock? So, what does he do?

1 - Interrupts a conversation that sounds as normal as any in this movie

2 - Writes ""Keep talking normal"" on a newspaper on the table

3 - Puts his index finger to his mouth with the universal ""shhh"" sign (how does one ""shhh"" while talking normally?)

4 - Next, a looong 15 second pause in conversation

5 - Then this REALLY subtle line - ""I'll be right back. Follow me. Keep an eye out"" in a monotone voice; end of conversation.

Other really bad parts include the trimmed border and visible hinges around the ""secret"" trap door and, my favorite, a hidden CD picked up in a different location than where it was hidden in an earlier scene. Since both places had flags, I guess I wasn't supposed to notice. I could list more, but it hurts my brain to think about how bad this movie was.

So, the screenplay is bad. Cinematography is bad. DVD production is bad (what's with the Apache helicopters on the main menu graphics and not in the movie?). The acting is bad, but with this script, even Maria Conchita Alonzo and David Warner can't help it. The concept of the story is great, but the execution is simply horrible, the suspense is transparent (the sunglasses thing was SOOO obvious), and there is a lot of extraneous dialogue (keyless encryption). It wasn't a failure to suspend disbelief, it was a failure to get in the same universe with disbelief.

Maybe someone will take the works of Dan Brown and do something similar to this movie and do it right.",0 "OK i love horror movies every one of them make me laugh even when they are not under comedy. But this movie is freaking amazing. it has guts gore and LAUGHS. the reason why i laugh during any horror movie is because how creative horror movies are with killings. this one was like super creative and awesome i love this movie every one who likes comedy needs to see this movie its awesome. Also all the actors are freaking cool and nice job pick hot chicks I'm just saying. One last thing ""Horny the Clown"" awesome name by the way. There is one more quote thats not listed thats pretty cool Horny the Clown: ""Your my girl now, and I'm HORNY!!!!!!"" Awesome line.",1 """Meet the Spartans"" is the only movie-movie after Scary Movie that was funny enough to keep me entertained. This has got to be the worst. The only funny part of the film was the opening titles, which was just so ridiculously awful that it made me laugh. Makers of the movie desperately in the need of easy money? Very likely.

I really hope they stop making these money and time wasting, worthless peaces of dog sh*t. It seems that they're just repeating the same ""jokes"" over and over again and thinking that it still makes people laugh. Luckily this came out of the TV and I didn't need to waste anything else than electricity on it. I switched the channel after an hour of TRYING to watch it.

Anyone who is interested in seeing this, stop being interested. Spend your money on something reasonable and skip this one. Ugh, even ""Superhero Movie"" was better than this, can you believe it? 1 out of 10 stars.",0 "This movie is about how important it is to live your life to the fullest. To live your dreams, follow your instincts, to resist social pressure, stay true to yourself, to become who you really are. Leading character Anna, a hard-working wife and mother of two daughters, has always wanted to be a writer. But her work, husband and two daughters have always stood between her and her passion. A sick daughter, an unfaithful husband, a demanding old mother, and her own social commitment make it hard for her to sit down and write her autobiography. Then dramatic events make her realize that she has only one mission: to be a writer, to finally live! ('Leef'!) Several different sub-stories develop and finally come together in a breathtaking, jubilant climax. Award-winning script-writer Maria Goos is at her best here, and so is director Willem van de Sande-Bakhuysen, who was terminally ill when the shooting started and who died shortly after 'Live! was completed.",1 """She's Out of Control"" was actually one of two light comedies released in 1989 regarding overprotective, single fathers and their fifteen year old daughters who have just started dating. The other was ""Dream Date,"" a made-for-TV comedy with Clifton Davis and The Cosby Show's Tempestt Bledsoe. Considering some of the minor characters in ""Dream Date"" (including Pauley Shore as a brain-dead high school student who was convinced that the father is the devil) and it being predicated upon more slapstick humor than we saw in ""She's Out of Control,"" it is a bit funnier in comparison, although probably geared for the more ""wholesome"" family film choice. But in the end, there is still something lacking (and probably at my age, I would no longer find it all that funny) in a tale of an obsessive, overbearing father trying to prevent his teenagedaughter from participating in the dating game.

Be prepared for extra doses of Tony Danza, if you can. Here, he plays Southern California radio-show manager and single dad Doug Simpson, who's eldest daughter, Katie (Ami Dolenz)has just dropped her dorky vices (braces, magnified glasses) and gotten a make over. Now it seems, every boy in town is calling her or showing up at her doorstep to court her. And while this comes as a shock to her father at first, despite the insistence of his girlfriend, Janet (Catherine Hicks) that this is all normal for the girl and in fact, good for her, he is still unconvinced and becomes not only paranoid, but soon enters therapy.

Doug's therapist, Doctor Fishbinder (Wallace Shawn), decides that his book would serve as a handy guide, which encourages Doug only to intervene into his daughter's dating choices even further. On the one hand this is funny (such as the scenes with him walking in on a party and then befriending her ""misunderstood"" boyfriend, which winds up costing him his Jaguar), but on the other, the repetition may start to weigh on the viewer as the story becomes insurmountably ridiculous (I'm not sure where Danza was going with the explanation about being involved in the lunch counter sit-ins when he is under the impression that Leroy might have come to pick up his daughter for a date).

I would have to agree that this movie suffers from being too dated. That the appeal to audiences around the time of this film's release was probably the fashion, the music, even the actors themselves (Ami Dolenz for younger audiences and probably, Tony Danza, before he because more of a pop culture joke), things which are probably very cheesy by today's standards. Yet, I'm sure it is still a favorite among 80s nostalgics (although, I'll pass on this one). In any event, I think this kind of story much better done with Dream Date. Because it was a made-for-TV movie, it had to be sweet and concise.",0 "Doriana Grey should please Franco's admirers, leaving others alternately bored, confused, and aroused in spite of themselves. As with others of the director's films, there's a dreamlike quality to the proceedings, with wealthy and ennui-afflicted recluse Doriana strolling leisurely through her home or staring at the sky between sexual encounters played out to tranquil sitar music.

Some of the actors seem to be playing their parts in a trance, as if hypnotized before shooting, like the cast of Herzog's Heart of Glass. The English dubbing, too, is mostly monotone, which only enhances, rather than hurts, the timeless, otherworldly atmosphere, with dialogue ranging from the seemingly lofty (""It is the destiny of all beauty to be destroyed"") to the simply lewd (""Go down on me"").

The DVD, as of writing, has long gone out of print, but Franco enthusiasts are encouraged to look for this one through gray market services. The staring, frightening lust expressed in Lina Romay's eyes alone is worth at least one visit to her château.",1 It tickled me no end to read some viewers comment that a Kashmiri Muslim girl fell in love and allowed a man to bed her in a span of 8 days romance. They thought it slightly implausible. This might have held true for some two decades back but not nowadays. We have to understand Zooni (Kajol) came from a fairly modern family (she was no village bumpkin) in the movie and the apple of her parents eye. More so because she was blind and her mother always encouraged her to look forward to her Prince Charming the day he arrived. She was this inexperienced girl full of ideas of romance and blind to boot and Aamirs winsome voice and poetry won her over and she just went into the relationship headstrong girl that she was knowing and accepting that there might never be anything permanent (she just wanted to live for those 8 days she was able to be romanced by the person she was besotted with) a very common occurrence actually in todays scenario.

The story of a man torn between love and duty might be hackneyed but I sure as hell didn't know how it was all going to end and was eager to sit through the whole film and watch it to the very end. I don't know how some people thought the first 90 minutes was horrible and the rest even more so! I found the first half extremely entertaining and the second half was a pleasure to watch just for the sheer pleasure of watching two very high class actors perform as they never have.

Kunal Kohli is an extremely sensitive director and while there may have been slip ups in pace here and there (it was an emotional rather than an action packed movie after all) on the whole the movie shows a director of competence and someone who has a very bright future.

The cinematography is breathtaking and the supporting cast of Rishi Kapoor and Tabu adds to the movies worth. Rishi especially is brilliant.

But the movies strongest point is the performance of the two lead actors especially Kajol who had the more author backed role. Kajol and Aamirs chemistry leave you wondering WHY they never acted together before. And they look so good its hard to imagine Kajols a mom and Aamir a divorced dad of two.,1 "This had positive reviews but i've run marathons that passed faster. I watched it with a friend and half way through felt compelled to stop it and apologise, which I've never done before. I eventually finished it but remain baffled by what anyone could think this movie has going for it.

As mentioned elsewhere, the main theme here is able bodied people who want to become paralysed, or paraplegic. So if that's the single most mind blowing and fascinating concept you've ever heard of, then you probably still shouldn't bother watching this because it's not like they explain it. The characters dawdle along through tedious lives and pointless, boring conversations. None of the dialogue or actions are interesting or engaging at all. Occasionally things get a little animated, but it's usually difficult to understand why and always completely impossible to care in the slightest.

Eventually I'm pretty sure nothing happens at the end but even though I just finished a couple of hours ago I can't remember much other than feeling very grateful.",0 "This is probably one of Alfred Hitchcock's worst films. He would certainly redeem himself the following year with the classic ""North by Northwest.""

Other than breathtaking cinematography of the French Riviera, this film really has little to offer.

It is said that Cary Grant came out of retirement to make this. Thank the lord that he didn't resume retirement after it.

It's basically the story of someone copying the cat burglar techniques of former cat burglar John Robie (Grant.) There are chase scenes throughout the Riviera but the film is dull. We really reach the point where we don't care who the guilty party is.

As in the fabulous ""North by Northwest,"" there is an exciting climatic scene but even that fails to realize the emotions needed.

Grant gives a fairly good performance but is hampered by the written material. Grace Kelly was still probably with a swell-head for her undeserved Oscar win, the year before, for ""The Country Girl."" The part of a rich, snobby, girl in the fast lane was good for her but she fails to capitalize on it. Her mother, Jesse Royce Landis, has some scene stealing scenes. Note that Landis appeared the following year in ""North by Northwest"" as Grant's mom.",0 """Kate & Allie"" wasn't just a typical sitcom. It has a certain level of importance in the History of Women on Television. Show creator Sherry Coben clearly wanted to tell the story of independent females making it in the city. And the program's producer/director Bill Persky was partially responsible for another iconic independent TV woman: Marlo Thomas' Ann Marie from ""That Girl."" You might say this scenario was one possible evolution of that character.

Kate McArdle (Susan Saint James) and Allie Lowell (Jane Curtin) were two divorced women with kids, who were friends from school. Kate was a struggling travel agent with her daughter Emma (Ari Meyers) and a ne'er do well actor as her former husband. Allie was a Connecticut Doctor's ex with two: Jennie (Allison Smith) and Chip (Freddie Koehler) and presumably a decent alimony settlement. In order to help each other out, they all lived together in a sprawling street level duplex apartment in Greenwich Village. Kate had a bedroom, Allie had a bedroom, Chip, the lone bit of male representation, had his room and the two girls shared a room. What was the rent on this place in the 1980s? There was a slight ""Odd Couple"" element to the story lines, as Kate tended to be free-spirited and fun, and Allie typically was conservative and more realistic/pessimistic. Their ex husbands would occasionally appear but the focus was always on the two women, the issues they dealt with and the problems they faced trying to have careers and raise their kids well and even sometimes have a social life in New York City.

The charm of the show was in the chemistry of the players. There was a real sense of family coming from the five regular performers and that helped to create a believability that came through on camera. Somehow though, when Ari Meyers left the program, the spell seemed to have been broken. In the episodes where Ari was no longer a part of the cast, the program seemed to lack something. Perhaps the writing suffered, and the story lines fell into more typical sitcom style areas. The setting also changed as the women moved from their homey/funky Village digs into some sterile skyscraper, and the show only lasted one season after Ari's departure.

This was one of only two prime time series that were shot in New York during this era of television. The other was ""The Cosby Show."" ""Kate & Allie"" filmed at the iconic ""Ed Sullivan Theater,"" which has been home to ""Late Show With David Letterman"" since 1993.",1 "I was excited to see the movie. Then I was disappointed. Much of the acting, especially the ""known"" stars, was quite cheesy. The writing seemed disjointed and the characters weren't funny. I especially was put off by the nastiness of some of the dialogue. The reference to defecate or not to defecate was gross. Occasional humor but too sporadic.",0 "STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh

Gladiators was a hugely popular show at weekends on ITV when I was a bit younger. It was even filmed in my home city (Birmingham) and (cringe!) I actually remember going to see it with my family. As a younger viewer, it has a certain appeal but seeing it endlessly churned out nowadays on Challenge TV I am only able to see it for the rather corny and cheesy show it is.

For some kids in the early 90s, the 'gladiators' with their superhero names (e.g. Panther, Saracen, Wolfman) and larger than life physiques must have seemed like great role models to look up to until the penny dawned and it became clear that many of them were just pumped up steroid abusers and in fact one or two even got found out and were penalized by the show's producers. The corniest character being the 'wolfman' who would frequently shock by getting aggressive with contestants or referee John ('contender reeeeeeeeady!!! Gladiator reeeeeeeeeeeeady!!! Three two one......wheeeeeeeeep!!!') Anderson before he did it so often it ended up becoming clear that it was all for show and the whole thing was basically just set up. The very premise of the show, wherein the main eventers were selected because of their 'ability' to carry on training for long periods of time without stopping and taking a break was rubbish because obviously the human body (male or female) can only carry on training for so long before they have to stop for a bit or risk dehydration, spraining ligaments or whatever.

As a kid, the show had appeal, but as many other reviewers have noted, 15 or so years on you can just see it in it's true colours, cheesy, corny and now even a little dated. Amazingly it ran from 1992 to 2000 when really everyone had become disillusioned and bored with it around 1995. **",0 I can't believe how dreadful and boring this TV series is and am not surprised that ABC canned this show. Each episode wastes time in explaining how automan was created by some early tech geek played by Arnaz. Automan is a holographic creation played by a boring Swedish model. Along the line the same bad guys are hounded by the spectacular crime duo...yawn. Everything about this show is just tepid and dull. I can't see anyone staying up late at night and becoming excited about this predicable rubbish.,0 "I thought that this film gave off a somewhat one-sided look of Americans. And while that is probably no surprise, what got me was the constant examples of how we were portrayed. From the beginning, we're labeled as conniving swindlers who are just out to cheat people any way we can. From there we are given examples of pimps who seem to rely on foul language (however Americans do have some extremely colorful metaphors), prostitutes, crooked cops and truckers who are more goofy than anything. I liked the film, I enjoyed the plot and the action, and thought that overall, the movie was solid. It just nagged at me the way we were made to look. That's the filmmakers discretion, I know, but I just wanted a chance to say it.",0 "In the DVD commentary, Pascal Greggory and the director state that this is not a comedy about bisexuality, it is a comedy about sexuality and choices. This is so true. Alain faces the choices we all face. Does he choose the person who is more like a partner than a romance? Does he choose the younger, eager lover who offers little more than sex? Does he choose to pursue the yet-to-be-obtained intriguing person he has recently met? A few other peripheral choices also hover nearby. But even more basic questions are asked: Does he have to choose? Can he choose more than one option? Will any choice make him completely happy if it cancels out all the others? This film made me reflect on these questions and choices in my own life, which is exactly what a good film should do. I think anyone who is over 30 and unmarried should be able to relate to Alain, at least on this level.

A few reviewers have asked why so many characters are attracted to the narcissistic, emotionally remote Alain, but in my experience, it is often just this type of person who has many people attracted to him. For some, he is a challenge. For others, he is safely unattainable. For yet others, he is someone who will hurt them (which they expect), or who won't be hurt too much if they leave him. Alain mirrors the other characters' loneliness back to them, and one wonders if any of them would be happy if they ended up being Alain's choice – and if he could ever stick with that choice.

If you're happily content in a stable, long-lasting relationship, then you will see this film as a comedy about things that happen to other people. But if your heart still has the capacity to lead you in directions you don't expect, this film will have greater meaning for you.",1 "I sat in the darkened theatre pondering this question: if the 7 teenagers in front of me were having such a great time, why wasn't I? Was I missing something here? Did I not get it? I came to the conclusion as the credits rolled, that I got it alright. It just didn't work. I glance at the kids in the rising light looking like they just got off a roller-coaster, and I understand. I'm not a teenager.

This is more of a kid's movie than any of the so-called kid's movies I saw this year. Stardust was an adult oriented fantasy. Ratatouille had distinctly adult oriented humour that no doubt went over most kid's heads. Yet a film that is supposed to be adult, Die Hard 4.0, was aimed directly at the kids. And now this, the kind of movie I would have lapped up at 15 or so. It has everything I would have wanted back then: Gunfire, swearing, boobies, bad puns, lots of blood, increasingly gory deaths. Oh, and er, lactating hookers. This is a film that is decadent and racy for the sake of it, possibly to have it's pre-pubescent audience snigger at the use of a rude word. There are those who would frivolously use the word 'satire' to describe this film. Shoot 'Em Up does not even come close to being that deep. In the end, it just becomes a pale imitation of the folly it pokes fun at.

The plot is non-existent. I expected this much, only I half expected for there to be at least a thread to hold it all together. I was wrong. Instead, it has different variations on that cinematic darling, the gunfight. We have gunfight while eating carrot, death by carrot, firing a gun with a carrot, gunfight during sex, gunfight while birthing, gunfight while parachuting and gunfight with no workable fingers with which to fire (that's where the carrot comes in again). Imagine if you will, an E! Entertainment special, Top 1001 movie gunfights and you have Shoot 'Em Up. It's trying to be desperately clever and winds up being desperately generic. Some are even pretty well constructed, but others, the majority, instantly forgettable.

There's no character development to speak of, which again, I expected, but these people are literally made of cardboard. How can an audience be expected to be thrilled by a gunfight if they don't care about anyone in it? Furthermore, the script is so full of cringe-worthy lines, it's hard to see why writer Michael Davis may have thought he was being clever when writing them. Clive Owen's mythical charisma is lost on me. I see him at his best in small films such as Croupier or Children of Men in which he actually plays a character, but so far his blockbuster roles have been disappointing. His King Arthur was about as stale as they come and his deadpanning in this role feels forced and unenthusiastic. Paul Giamatti looks like he's having fun chewing the scenery, but chew the scenery is all he does and try as he might to be menacing, he falls short of creating any kind of tension.

Director Michael Davis brought us some teen comedies early in the decade such as 100 Girls and Girl Fever, neither of which impressed me due to their complete immaturity and their utter tastelessness, compared even to the likes of Tomcats. Shoot 'Em Up has done nothing to change my mind about his work. Thanks to Girl Fever, I'll never be able to think about Clint Howard the same way again.

So, to sum up, a gormless mess of action sequences, starring the 'almost James Bond' with less plot than a Michael Bay extravaganza and a large abundance of carrots. Movies need a certain amount of substance to survive. This had none. A waste of time and money.",0 "I loved this film. It was full of clichés and rubbish effects (the budget was so obviously spent half way through so the second half is more cardboard cut outs than CGI's) The square looking college journalist who's obsessed by UFO's can't get a break with her editor. Then, what a coincidence, a wrecked space shuttle pretty much lands her back garden. By the end, that square looking journalist has lost the specs, her shirt and her hair is hanging down. Then the brave tyke takes on the giant spider with a bazooka whilst hanging from a moving helicopter. Talk about multi skilled. (By the way, this was shortly after the spider had rampaged through down town LA growing bigger with every person it ate).

This film was so wonderful, me and a friend have decided to write our own monster horror. If this can get made, then the studios are going to be snapping up ours. I fancy Spielberg to make the film ""Budgies""...",1 "Turetskii Gambit / Turkish Gambit is a good movie, a loyal adaptation of the book by Boris Akunin (Although the makers chose to change the identity of the Turkish spy at the end - obviously to shock the audience already familiar with the book. Worked on me.) The acting, direction and cinematography are all praise-worthy. Close-ups, camera movements, and pans are all cleverly done. Special effects add to the pace of the movie, and the director succeeds in smoothly integrating high-tech tools with traditional storytelling methods. The one thing disappointed me was the omission of a large part of the story describing and narrating the siege of Plevne. The production somewhat fails to emulate the book in that sense, as the siege, related battles and their effects on the Russian army were not portrayed effectively.

As a Turk with an interest in Russian history, I particularly enjoyed the film. The costumes, equipment and places looked very authentic. It was the most accurate depiction of Turkey and Turks in a non-Turkish film so far. I thank the gods that it was not a Hollywood movie.

(SPOILER) I think, changing the identity of the Turkish Spy is a wise choice for the surprise effect, but it definitely weakens the plot of the story. Original spy (D'Hevrais) had a better background story, better reasons, and a better plan.",1 "The start of the film is a bit rough,character behavior, but as it moves it along it just gets more amazing. I have seen many Japanese anime movies, Miyazaki being my favorite. Mind Games raises the bar visually, not beyond Miyazaki, but for anime in general. I am amazed that this film has not toured the U.S, by now. Anyone who loves anime must see this film. The use of color is extraordinary and seems to build into ever more wondrous neon kaleidoscope. the story itself is also very well constructed, full of compelling characters, some suspense and a great ending. Life in the whale is such a creative element. I'm now trying to find a DVD copy of this film for my collection. If you have a chance, be sure to see this amazing film.",1 I expected a lot better from this director but frankly this film is the greatest load of rubbish I have seen in a long time. Plot? What plot? Story? What story? For the life of me I cannot even guess WHY anyone would want to release this crap!,0 "I've had the chance to see this movie yesterday in Paris before I leave. From the trailer, I thought it's worth seeing as it looks like a good thriller/horror film. But I was so disappointed. The story line is somehow predictable. It lacks originality and you can easily compare it to a masterpiece of cinema (i'm not gonna mention the name, but i'm pretty sure you'll guess it). As for the cast, I think they were over-acting here and there, maybe due to the weak script and the empty moments where they look like not knowing what to fill the scene with. But hey, not everything is bad, you'll enjoy some good cinematography in some scenes, specially in the beginning. Unfortunately, i think it's a missed opportunity and as we say in french: Dommage, c'est raté!",0 "Because I really have to throw up. Back in the seventies, there was a genre called Blaxploitation. Most of the films were utter trash. This is one of the trashiest! This film is pure garbage. Have you ever seen a play in a black-oriented neighborhood? You know, that over-acting kind of acting, similar to what's found on Good Times (TV show), full of stereotypical pimps, hustlers, theives, welfare recipients and too tight jeans. Just plain horrible. A waste of film.",0 "Unless you are interested in twenty-somethings spouting nonsense which they consider profound, you will probably be bored after 10 minutes. While I'm sure the characters can all be found in real life, this movie could only hold someone's interest if the monologues were either hilarious or truly profound. Neither condition is met unfortunately. Actually, I found the film pretty depressing. The characters are all caught in their own Ground Hog scenarios with no wish to break free. The monologues really don't present any new ideas but rehash various conspiracy theories and so forth. If anything, the film demonstrates the need to move out of college towns and get on with your life. 3 out of 10 is generous.",0 "A hilarious comedy that pulls no punches and is miles away from being politically correct. Not for the easily offended - the girls talk about everything from abortion to suicide - but packed with laughs from beginning to end. You'll be giggling the entire film.

The 'girls' are all great, but Jack Plotnick's portrayal of Evie in the 1970-ish B-movie ""Asteroid"" is priceless. I still can't keep a straight face when imagining him trying to say ""as-tro-phy-si-cist.""",1 "I think most of the reviewers on this site must have seen a different film to me as this is just a lame film noir tarted up with the odd mention of Hawksmoor and Crowley (mispronounced in the film). The Alan Moore/""From Hell"" comparisons are totally unjustified, except in the rather simplistic thinks-it's-much-clever-than-it-is ending.

The film is far too dark - almost everything is shot in red and black - the characters are dull and the story predictable. I had high hopes for this as a genuinely uneasy and different Brit flick (hell - just give me anything that doesn't have gangsters) but all the occult stuff is just window-dressing for what's actually a very straightforward film. Yes, it apes the mise-en-scene of ""From Hell"" - dabbles with its themes of cyclic time - and even has a lead character who could be Constantine from the ""Hellblazer"" comics - but it has none of the sophistication of Alan Moore's writing. Like I say, it wasn't lousy; it just wasn't a patch on how it had been advertised...",0 "I must admit, my first impression was it would be just for kids. I was pleasantly surprised just how much of a kid I still am! The Bee Movie was an adventure in honey heaven. The cheerful animation and very funny script kept me flying high to the very end! I loved this movie. It lifted my spirit and helped me to relate to my own dull working world experience. I see so much potential in this film for sequels and spin-offs. A clever script and comic timing that only Jerry Seinfeld has mastered, this film is sure to take you on a journey. It blends fantasy and reality so delicately they are both interchangeable. Seinfeld was at his best. I also have a new respect for the little buggers (bees)! I recommend this movie to anyone who feels trapped in their routine... set yourself free and see the Bees!",1 "This episode is one of the best of a mixed first season. When the Enterprise engines undergo tests by a warp field specialist Kosinski, his assistant, a being known only as the Traveler from Tau Alpha C, is inadvertently responsible for hurtling the ship across the other side of the galaxy. when a return is attempted they are pushed even further beyond into what can only be described as another place or time beyond what we know as space. In this realm thoughts become reality and we get a tantalizing look into Tasha's troubled past on Turkana 4, a pet targ owned by Worf and even a brief glimpse at several crew members fantasies becoming reality. The budget must have been huge for this episode! We also see Picard's dead mother for a moment in a touching scene too. This was an incredibly impressive episode for such a young show! When they realize the Traveler was responsible they unite to help the Traveler through good thoughts and feelings and the Enterprise is returned home. Picard does the proper thing and gives Wesley a commission to Acting Ensign for his help with the Traveler. Interestingly, the Traveler had earlier discussed with Picard Wesley's future would be an interesting one leaving the viewer to wonder what would become of this throughout the rest of the series run...",1 "After reading all the comments praising this movie, I went on a quest to find a copy of it. What a major disappointment! I gave it a 3 instead of a 0 only because Virginia Madsen is beautiful to look at, albeit she is a whore in the movie. The film is pure trash. Baseball is secondary to drinking, swearing, having sex, cheating, and being plain obnoxious. Petersen, whom I like as an actor, is too cocky in this and has very low moral standards. The guy that plays Joe Louis Brown is almost as bad, but not quite. The baseball action isn't bad, but less time is spent on the playing field than in the barroom or bedroom. How can this be called a baseball movie? And you just know how it's going to end, it's so predictable. Two guys come into the game in the last inning and win it for them. The movie would have been better if they had lost the game. And the wedding at the end was anti-climatic. I give each couple six months to a year before they get divorced. This is certainly not a movie to sit down and watch with your family. If real ballplayers are like these guys, then there are no heroes in baseball. A real poor example of sportsmanship and clean-cut living. How did this movie get to TV unless it was really late at night? August 10,2008. So many people have disagreed with me on this movie, that I decided to watch it again. I did, and it still stinks! Now that is my opinion. You may love the movie and that's fine with me. We all have different tastes. You can at least agree with that, right? To each his own.",0 "I read the book on which this film is based--""Bud and Lou"", by Bob Thomas--when it first came out, and it didn't impress me much. It turned out that Thomas had relied for a lot of his information on Eddie Sherman, Abbott & Costello's longtime manager who had been fired by the duo and obviously had a major ax to grind. That was to be expected, and it's even understandable, but this movie is, if anything, even more one-sided than the book. Its main goal seemed to be to paint the two comics, especially Costello, in as bad a light as possible. Now Lou Costello was no saint; he was known to have a short fuse, he and Abbott fought bitterly on occasion and even went for months at a time without speaking to each other off the set, he gave many of his directors a lot of trouble and he had a habit of ""appropriating"" furniture and props that he particularly liked from the sets of his pictures. However, if you believe this movie, he was venal, nasty, stubborn, vengeful, temperamental and offensive 24/7. The script bears little resemblance to the real lives of the two comedians (Costello's daughter in particular was so incensed by this movie that she wrote her own book to refute it and the book it was based on); however, even if it was 100% accurate and Costello actually was the ogre the movie paints him to be, the horrendous miscasting of Buddy Hackett and Harvey Korman destroys whatever possibilities the movie might have had. Hackett bears somewhat of a resemblance to Costello, although he's taller and heavier, and Korman is about the right size and build as Abbott, but that's it. Costello was born and raised in northern New Jersey, as was Abbott, and both had the sharp, rapid-fire speech patterns and New York-ish accent typical of that area, though Costello's was more pronounced than Abbott's. Hackett sounds like a Borscht-belt Catskills comic, which is what he is, and Korman sounds like a classically trained stage actor, which is what he is, and neither of them even tries to come close to the way Bud and Lou spoke--Abbott's mile-a-minute carnival barker spiel, Costello's excitable sputtering as he gets more and more confused--which was central to the astonishing verbal byplay between the two and which, although they made it look easy, was actually quite complex, especially in the ""Who's On First"" routine. In addition, and even more damaging, is the fact that Korman and Hackett have absolutely no chemistry whatsoever, which is painfully obvious by their atrocious rendering of ""Who's On First""; it's so embarrassingly, maddeningly inept--Hackett, for reasons known only to himself, speaks even more slowly here than he does in the rest of the movie, when the whole POINT of the routine was Costello getting more and more overwhelmed as the pace got faster and faster--that it should have been completely cut out.

The film plays fast and loose with the facts--many bios do, but this one does more than most--and the performances by the other actors are nothing special. Arte Johnson plays Eddie Sherman, but makes no particular impression. Michelle Lee, tall, slender, gorgeous and WASPish, plays Costello's wife Anne, who in reality was short, stocky, swarthy, and in fact looked more like Lou Costello than she did Michelle Lee, and Hackett doesn't connect with her, either. The film makes some curious omissions; it doesn't mention, for example, that both Abbott's and Costello's wives were burlesque dancers, which is where they all met. While a case may possibly be made for leaving that out, less understandable is the fact that, although the film covers the team's career in radio and movies, for some unfathomable reason it completely ignores the fact that they had a hugely successful television series for several years (which is still being shown in reruns today).

To sum it all up, if the one-sidedness, inaccuracies and omissions weren't enough to sink this movie, the almost criminal miscasting of the two leads is. This is a stinker of virtually biblical proportions. Avoid it.",0 "Miami Vice was a brilliant TV Series with great acting from Don Johnson and Phillip Michael Thomas. Great story lines and amazing scenery, like Crockett's Ferrari Daytona. From Drug Lord's to Porn King. Crockett and Tubbs will get there criminals. Whether by boat, car or any other way you could think of. Sometimes it gets personal but their still professional. With Boat races, car chases, beach babes, shootouts and the best views Miami has to offer.

Miami Vice Also shows the fragility of life. With life, death, love, honour and friendships tested in the mind boggling adventures of Sonny Crockett and Raphael Tubbs",1 "Once again, Hollywood, or a counter part depicts history through the eyes of the camera.

The portrayl of the Inspector is so far from the truth, it is absurbed!!

The physician to the royal family was never seriously considered as a suspect.

Prince Albert never fathered a child from a prostitute.

The real killer was a man by the name of James Maybrick.

",0 "When I sat down to watch this film I had a nagging doubt that Daniel Craig wouldn't be able to fill the shoes of his predecessors. Sadly for him they forgot to make a bond film for him! The start was drab and low key with no bond music, the opening seen was quite good but nothing new and the film then went from bad to worse. There were no good cars, stunts, women, gadgets, villains or exciting finishes. To add to this Daniel looked awkward with the women and clearly has never played Texas hold-em before. This card game was the only real story a lucky win from $5m to $30m against!! Not really Bond beating a world dominating villain?! And finally Bond is supposed to be cool and collected not a thuggish fighter... a truly horrible film... roll on Clive Owen and a decent plot....",0 "If the title of this summary weren't self-explanatory, then let me begin my ranting about how clichéd this movie actually was. If one were to write a documentary about clichés, they could use this movie to supplement any single example of cliché that one could possibly think of.

Lets begin by talking about the story line. The first-half, which dealt with a love story and father-son relations as dry as could be. While the father son relation between Amitabh and Salman was passable, there seemed to be absolutely no chemistry between Salman/Rani. First of all, they seemed to just rush the love story, deciding that it wasn't really all that important, as Salman wouldn't even be in the second half of the movie.

The comedy in the first half wasn't great either. Parts were OK, but the writers obviously thought they did a better job than they actually did.

The second half of the movie proved to be one of the most predictable and boring scripts ever. Its as if the producer deciding to bring in script writers from TV soaps and wrap up the script. Furthermore, the theme was unbelievably outdated.

Question>What do you get when you mix a bad storyline, with a bad director, bad writers, a horrible theme, and an extremely outdated moral message? Answer:Baabul",0 "I'll keep it short and sweet, as many have already made accurate criticism of this film, and in general I agree.

The film is a travesty, portraying Cromwell, inaccurately, as a 2-dimensional bully. This is compounded by terrible acting (as usual) by Tim Roth. The man just can not act! Here he spurts out each line like a child in a school play, relieved that he has managed to get yet another memorised line out of the way.

Rupert Everett as Charles 1 was unconvincing, playing the part as a brute with no class. Charles was a Scot but there was not even the faintest hint of a Scottish accent here, and only the clumsiest inclusion of badly performed stutters. He had clearly not done his homework. I guess Alec Guinness set a standard for this part (in 'Cromwell') which may be impossible to surpass. But the difference is that Guinness was a good actor.

Dougray Scott played Fairfax better, but it just got tiresome.

As for the script, it was dire and lazy. Easy money. Don't expect any history lessons.

I walked away from it half way through. Life's too short to waste it on this junk.

This film demonstrates two things: Tim Roth can't act and Mike Barker (Director) can't direct. Just goes to show, it's down to who you know, not what you can do.",0 "This is the BEST version of this story, by far. Others have tried but failed. In my opinion, Colin Firth is the ONLY and BEST Mr. Darcy to have ever played the role. The rest of the supporting cast are fantastic and amazingly realistic. The pace of the story is brilliant without cutting out too much of the detail to the plot. (I think this might be a reason why this mini-series blows away all of the other tries at doing this story in movie format).

A true classic! Grab some wine and cheese and spend a night or two watching this wonderful mini-series. You will want to own it in order to have more Pride and Prejudice evenings with the girls (or guys) in the future.

A MUST have for anyone's DVD collection!",1 "My first brief acquaintance with ""Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell"" came when I watched the trailer. I watched the trailer and promptly put the movie back on the DVD shelf where it remained untouched for nearly twenty-one months. For some reason I still haven't figured out but already deeply regret, I decided to watch it after all even though I'd knew it would have the same painful effect as poking my own eyes out with a rusty spoon and pour sour vinegar in the badly infected eye-sockets. Yes, I am aware of the fact that I'm ranting on and on, but that's partly also because there's very little to say about the film itself. Apart, of course, from that it's a totally retarded and irredeemably awful piece of Troma crap with amateurish acting performances (praise the Lord most of the characters don't talk a lot), horrible dialogs and effects/monstrous creations that appear to be designed by kindergarten toddlers. Arguably, the best element about the entirely pitiable project is the enticing title, and then that is also for about 99% inaccurate. The lead girl is hardly a nymphomaniac, nor is she very barbaric and theoretically speaking there aren't even any dinosaurs. If I'm not mistaken, dinosaurs are prehistoric creatures and ""Nymphoid bla bla bla…"" is a post-apocalyptic movie. The monsters aren't dinosaurs but ordinary mutated pets (!), like dogs and cats. All the fans and Troma junkies who're claiming this movie ought to be interpreted as a nifty and ingenious comedy are full of lame excuses. No matter how underdeveloped my sense of humor may be, I know for a fact this wasn't comical.",0 "Tonight, FMC showed Cover Me Babe – released in 1970, it's got Robert Forster as a student filmmaker, who's obsessed with the idea that ""reality"" might be more interesting than scripted productions. Especially seedy, sordid reality. He's inspired by the Lee Harvey Oswald shooting that was broadcast live on TV - his big idea is, essentially, reality TV! He tells his film teacher about how someday people's real lives will be filmed, and viewers will come to prefer it over anything scripted - very prophetic! A better movie than I expected, and apparently rarely seen, especially on TV - this version seemed uncut, with nudity intact.

It's not worth any great expense or effort to seek, but fine as an easy diversion - interesting and prophetic, but by no mean a great movie. I can see why it was despised in 1970 - it's only value as a cinematic artifact is achieved by it being almost 40 years later now, and how eerily the film predicted the rise of ""reality"" entertainment. The very same things that Forster's lead character is hated for screening, those things now win awards and accolades and movie/TV career contracts. Forster's performance is metallic and makes him more unlikable than any film character I can think of outside the a-hole principal in Animal House - and at least HE was funny!

So it's a curios at best, but with out-there and ultimately accurate ideas about media and pop culture, the kind of thing film buffs can appreciate. And (very) young Sondra Locke really isn't bad as one of Forster's long-suffering girlfriends, even tho there's never the slightest indication why she'd put up with his vidiot/savant personality and ways ------",1 "This beautiful and moving film provides via a sensitively handled love affair an intriguingly subtle morality play.

The owner of a restaurant saves the life of a German who is trying to commit suicide after being turned down - by the restaurateur's mistress.

This character goes on to achieve power as a Nazi. He uses his power to save 1000 Jews from the concentration camps, and makes a fortune for himself in the process.

He does good simply to benefit himself. Was it right to save his life? Had he died, so many other lives would not have been saved. His life is interlinked with the lives and deaths of other people.

It would be unfair to elaborate further on this theme, as it would give away the plot.

The film also returns to the idea of life and death with its theme of suicide; suicide being the ultimate way to take control of your own life.

With all of these thoughts, it is still an entertaining and uplifting movie, with the most exquisite theme. Life and death are united in the English lyrics given at the end, which combine gloom and hope in the most extraordinary fashion.

A fair bit of philosophy built into a simple and tastefully done move makes for good entertainment.",1 I had never seen the movie before I went out and bought it the other day. It was an impulse thing I know. But there are very few musicals that I've seen and not liked. Also I have yet to see a movie with Donald O'Connor in it and not love it and him even more than I already do. It was my first Bing Crosby film and though I thought he was okay in it I have to say the only reason for me has to be Donald. I love his dance and song solo number of bounce right back. It makes me smile and laugh each time I see it. It's a cute movie and puts you in a good mood each time you watch it. SO I'd get it a 10. It's one of Donald's best. It's a must see.,1 "Yes, Benjamin Button is a good film and a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. It looks beautiful, sounds beautiful but we must all be really starved of good film-making if this movie gets people waxing lyrical. It's a great high concept idea, but what do the film-makers get really out of that besides the ""life is unpredictable... you never know when change is gonna come"" theme that permeates the movie. Well, dah, there's nothing that profound about that. Also, while Brad Pitt is gorgeous to look at, and a very likable movie star, his performance somehow left me a little cold - it doesn't hit any deep emotional chords, and while you could praise him for being subtle, he just doesn't have the everyman quality, that sense of human anguish anyone can relate to, that someone like Will Smith does. I wish he would just let go a little more like he did in Babel, and really show us the man behind the beautiful veil. David Fincher got gritty and great in Zodiac, but he gives in to style a little too much in Benjamin button - too many beautiful shots of Brad Pitt on motorbikes with sunglasses on, in front of a magnificent sunset. I wanted the whole movie to feel more real. Don't get taken in by the hype, Oscar voters!",0 "VITUS is a Swiss film,that has just been released to DVD from playing in ONLY a handful of theatres from July to October 2007. This my friends is a crying shame, they release violent, hate filled films in 2000 theatres,

VITUS is a simple but yet complex tale of a child prodigy, a musical genius,whose IQ is 180. Our young hero would prefer to be a normal every day lad who loves playing the piano.

As I said this lad is a genius, & how he achieves his goal is just wonderful.

Swiss directer Fredi Murer directed with great care,Peter Luisi & Lukas B. Suters very intelligent screenplay.

Vitus is played by Fabrizio Bursoni as a delightful precocious 6 year old then by TEO GHEORGHIU when he is 12.

Teo himself is a very gifted piano player, who has appeared in concert halls in Europe & in the US. A bright future ahead for this young virtuoso. He is also a very good actor.

The director picked the right lad for this role..

Julika Jenkins & Uri Jucker are pitch perfect as the caring parents of this gifted young lad.

The only known actor in the cast is BRUNO GANZ, one of Europe & Germany's finest & best actors,playing Vitus's grandfather. He is a grandfather every lad & girl wishes they had. PURE PERFECTION.

He should be nominated for a supporting actor Oscar or Golden Globe,/ but he will not, because so few have seen the wonderful movie. The film should be nominated in many categories as well.

SHAME ON YOU Hollywood---YOU LET THIS ONE SLIP BY. This is an excellent family film with superb classical music,played by a real 12 year old piano virtuoso. It may be boring for the wee ones,but not for older children.

There are many very humorous moments,very few sad ones & a few exciting ones.

I loved this film SO WILL YOU

Ratings **** (out of 4) 97 points (out of 100) IMDb 10 (out of 10)",1 "Warning: Spoilers

Two parts of the movie really irked me:

1) When Gwen is trying to seduce Caleb, she says something about him trying ""normal"" sex first. For someone whose best friend is gay, that seems like a pretty homophobic thing to say, as if gay sex is not ""normal,"" but straight sex is. 2) After the horrible things Gwen has to say about Kyle at the end, Caleb (who earlier professed how much he cares for Kyle) doesn't even bat an eye and still wants to be with Gwen.

Gwen is a bad person, the acting is bad, the story weak; it's only good for admiring Ryan Carnes' and Scott Lunsford's hot bods. Just rent it and watch with the sound off.",0 "Clear and Present Danger is an exciting addition to the world of Jack Ryan, delving deep into the world of international politics. Nail-biting suspense and explosive action sequences add to the movie, with some truly awesome military special operations added to the mix as well. The inner conflict between acting CIA Deputy Director Jack Ryan and Robert Ritter is extremely entertaining, Harrison Ford and Henry Czerny play their parts impeccably, as do Willem Dafoe as John Clark, James Earl Jones as Admiral James Greer and Raymond Cruz as cool soldier Domingo Chavez. Do not miss this top-notch political thriller!",1 "This movie goes from joke to joke constantly and never misses a beat. I could not stop laughing the first time I saw it, and the tenth time I saw it, and the hundredth time I saw it. This movie never gets old. There is not one single dull moment. The movie takes off and never lets up, not even enough to let you breathe. There is something absolutely mesmerizing and hilarious about Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels' performances as the lovable idiots Lloyd Christmas( Jim Carrey) and Harry Dunne (Jeff Daniels).

The movie starts out in Providence, Rhode Island with two guys who are down on their luck. They've just lost their jobs, are late on the gas bill(again), and make the best of a bad situation by returning a briefcase they've recovered to its rightful owner, an attractive woman named Mary (Lauren Holly). And Lloyd(Carrey), has fallen madly in love with Mary after driving her to the airport. It just so happens that Mary lives all the way across the country, in Aspen, Colorado (or is it California?) Sure its crazy and stupid, but they've got nothing to lose, so they take off in their 84' sheepdog. And let's face it, if we were them, we'd go too.

Dumb and Dumber was not pretentious, the actors never made you feel like they were in on the joke. No, they played it with a straight face the whole way through, and that's really the best way to do comedy. Even when they aren't speaking, their body language alone is enough to elicit huge laughs. The reactions and facial expressions are perfect.

The film wasn't warmly received by a lot of critics, but only because they couldn't lower their snouts long enough to realize that this was not another movie about dumb guys, but really a film about earnest guys. And they are pathetically funny just being themselves. They play stupid games in the car to pass the time, and sing aloud to keep from getting bored, and have crazy dreams of one day opening up a worm store.

The movie plays out with a high spirit and feel good attitude that can't be matched. And the soundtrack is perfect; it really sets the tone and never feels out of place.

Really, truly, without a doubt, the best comedy ever made. I will treasure this movie forever, and even when I watch it the 101st time, I know it'll make me laugh... and laugh... and laugh till it hurts.

The film is well paced and has a spontaneous nature that lacks in most comedies. Behind all the stupidness, there is a real glow of brilliance. The fact is, more than all the goofiness and crazy antics, ""Dumb and Dumber"" is a film full of smarts, and that's what we end up admiring the most.",1 "And featuring the likeable clown from Freaks. What more could one ask? A low-budget Old Dark House mystery that is better than it needs to be, with sharp dialogue and engaging characters...can't go wrong!

Why can't all B pictures be this good?",1 "I've seen this movie compared to Donnie Darko several times, most recently in another comment here on IMDb, however, they're nothing alike. Donnie Darko is a beautiful, thought-provoking film, while this movie just falls flat. It tries so very hard to be deep and depressing, that it ends up almost a parody of itself. The quasi-philosophical mumblings of the main character sound like they where stolen from a manga and none of the characters seem even remotely like actual people.

My advice, watch ""The Go-Getter"" instead. It too has a young man who's lost both a parent and his way, it too has Zooey Deschanel, and unlike The Good Life, it has humor and it doesn't try to be something it's not.",0 "This movie was quite a deception for me.

The dialogues on TV and theater were so much better. It's a hour and a half abusing on jokes about the language (mis-spelling Portuguese) together with a story that is ""by all means"" absurd and that's all. I know the situations around ""Toni"" and ""Zézé"" must be funny and unusual, but the script could have make more sense. But this is a reflex of our problem, here in Portugal: script writers (specially in comedy).

The fantastics Marco Horácio and Maria Rueff were misemployed, reduced to characters with no contents.

The level of humour should have been raised. Didn't happened and these two (good) characters deserve better.",0 4 screens for this movie and 1 would have been sufficient.. this has to be one of the Worst movies i've ever seen. Save your money... it would have been a better flick if more answers had been given about samora or however you spell her name.. OK i'm trying to fill up space since i Must write a minimum of 10 lines of text.. the only good thing about the movie was i liked the view of the harbor from her house.. and the faces of the dead people reminded me of the movie Scream for goodness sakes.. there really was no suspense.. everything was predictable.. as i said sequels are rarely good.. i'm sure i'm making a mess on this review.. i just had to say why i gave it a rating of 1.,0 "Seeing John Malkovich and Greta Scacchi on the cover credits raised expectations, but this film was very disappointing in many ways. The director was apparently quite desperate to make this an ""arty"" movie, but the acting was very poor at times and the attempts at jokes were embarrassingly bad. I just couldn't believe that John Malkovich agreed to appear in such a low quality film....",0 "The USS Nimitz and her crew find themselves flung for no apparent reason whatsoever into the past, D-Day to be precise. It's good for what it is, which is a pure escapist popcorn B-movie. Martin Sheen can't help but pale in comparsion to REAL men like Kirk Douglas and especially Charles Durning. Furthermore Martin shouldn't be able to be in any movie that the military is involved with, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, the movie is enjoyable enough, the ending was so very disappointing though.

Blue Underground Limited Edition DVD Extras: Disk 1)Audio commentary with cinematographer Victor J. Kemper and David Gregory; 2 theatrical trailers; Teaser trailer ; 2 TV spots Disk 2) ""Starring the Jolly Rogers: Interviews with The Jolly Rogers F-14 Fighter Squadron"" -documentary (31 minutes) ; ""Lloyd Kaufman Goes Hollywood: Interview with Associate Producer Lloyd Kaufman"" -featurette (14 minutes) ; Poster & still galleries: Kirk Douglas Bio

DVD-ROM: Zero Pilot's Journal

My Grade: B-",0 "The film was shot at Ibsley (now no longer in existence either as a base or a beacon, though you can see the remnants) which was in Hampshire, and in 1942 an active fighter station. The group of airmen listening to David Niven recounting the story of Mitchell were real RAF airmen. The filming did not stop for the war. If the bell went to scramble, filming would temporarily be halted while those airmen would run to their spitfires, go off and fight the war, before returning and carry on filming as though nothing had happened. At the end, Niven was so impressed with those heroes that he sent them off to The Savoy in London for the weekend, ringing the manager with instructions to give them whatever they wanted: women, drink, food, making sure the bill was sent direct to him. Difficult to imagine our pampered ""stars"" doing likewise these days! How do I know so much? One of those unsung heroes was my adored uncle Peter Howard-Williams, who had been in 19 Squadron flying out of Duxford during the Battle of Britain, but happened to be at Ibsley when the station was chosen for the film.",1 "I've watched only 4-5 serials, so I don't have a lot to compare this

to, but so far it's easily the worst of the lot. The overlap from

chapter to chapter is too great (too much material repeated in the

new episode that was seen in the previous episode). The acting is

poor, especially Ralph Byrd (if he stood still for a moment, he'd be

attacked by a woodpecker). The ""comedy"" of Smiley Burnett is

nothing to smile about (he's even worse here than in the Gene

Autry movies). The character with the most brains in this serial is

actually the 12 year old kid, played by Lee Van Atta. And perhaps

most of all, has anybody seen Dick Tracy in this film? I must have

missed him, because no one in this movie even remotely

resembled the comic strip character. Low budget is not enough of

an excuse for low tech here. At least the director could have put a

watch on Ralph Byrd's wrist, & pretended it was radio controlled.

The two low budget jungle serials I watched with Phyllis Coates

(""Panther Girl of the Congo"" & ""Jungle Drums of Africa"") were way

better than this, & so was a low budget jungle serial with Clyde

Beatty (""Lost Jungle""). Not that those were great serials, but they

were better than this one, so tells you something about Dick Tracy.

If you'd like to watch a better crime serial, I recommend ""The Green

Archer."" That & the serial I'm in the middle of now, ""Captain

Marvel,"" are far superior to Dick Tracy. I rate it 3/10.",0 "Denys Arcand's new film STARDOM is a very funny satire of the celebrity obsessed times we live in. Jessica Pare plays Tina Menzhal, a girl from Cornwall, Ontario who becomes a supermodel. Along the way we see how the media reacts to her and her relationships. The film is funny throughout with wonderful supporting work from Dan Aykroyd, Frank Langhella and Thomas Gibson. Although Arcand goes too far sometimes, the film is overall and excellent satire of modern life.",1 "Swarms of mutant grasshoppers crack windows. Sometimes, sometimes not.

Swarms of mutant grasshoppers threaten to smother the children of *coughs* plot elements.

Swarms of mutant grasshoppers blot out the sun and threaten all life on earth.

All their mutant billions are miraculously killed in a few seconds by fiddling the power lines of the Midwest.

It is difficult to describe the jaw-dropping awfulness of Locusts nor is there any point in attempting the job. Gotta be seen. It is the Plan 9 of the current generation and is very highly recommended.",1 "This is the first film i've failed to sit through.My head ached, my eyes hurt, and boy did i feel sick! After 20 mins i had to give up. It's a shame that such a top rate cast was let down by the insane camera-work and direction.Quick cutting has it's place,Natural born killers and the Bourne trilogy are enhanced by it because it furthers the story, but you are still able to actually focus on the characters.This rubbish is so quickly cut you are't given the chance to appreciate the acting or follow the plot.The director should definitely never work again. Unless you are a depressed masochist avoid this at all costs.",0 "This movie left me amazed. In my opinion it is one of the best films of all time. Some reviewers here have criticized the film for being historically inaccurate. To those reviewers I say, if you don't like the film, why don't you watch another film about the 15th century Mayans................. Oh wait, I remember. There aren't any. You'll find many films about England, and France, and Austria. And some other Eurocentric Epic, but hardly anything about any other Civilization in the world, and for them to knock a Director that actually had a little vision, to make a movie about another part of the world is disappointing. Its easy to get on the Mel Gibson hate bandwagon.

But, back to the film.

Visually stunning. I felt like I was part of the adventure, incredibly stunning camera work. The acting? The actors weren't acting as Mayans, they became Mayans. Every single performance was convincing.

The Violence? First of All, I couldn't finish watching Sin City simply because it glorified senseless violence and I hate senseless violence, and yet its on the top 100 list-go figure. This is not the case with Apocalypto, the movie is about people that were abducted to be SACRIFICED, gee, I guess there won't be blood, or violence. I happen to think it was used appropriately.

//SPOILERS Purpose of Film? Someone said this film is meaningless. This is not accurate. Opening quote: ""Before a civilization is destroyed without, its destroyed within"". The Film is about a Society that has become Depraved. A society that had become so corrupt, and insensitive, human life become worthless. Historically inaccurate? I think not, Aztecs, Canaanites, Carthagians,etc, etc. Again, something Never explored in films.

Finally, Hope. Never giving up.End of Old era, New Beginnings.

All in All, this Film is groundbreaking. People are always complaining about Hollywood being predictable. When a movie breaking new ground appears, its booed off the stage.

;-)",1 "Slow. Lifeless. Joyless. Passionless. Boring. Am I leaving anything out?

Oh, where to start the post-mortem on this one? Well, one could begin with Sir Ben Kingsley. If ever there was a less-interesting, passionless performer, I've never heard of him. Good actor? Absolutely. But not for this part -- he never should have been cast. Obsessed by his young student? I don't see it. He waxes poetic about her body, then never even touches her breasts. He claims to love her... yet he seems half-asleep. Maybe it had something to do with that transorbital lobotomy a while back -- that might explain the baldness. Does he ever even SMILE at her? Does he even seem to CARE?? If you turned the sound off, and couldn't hear the lame dialogue, you might think he detested her instead. I think the only look of happiness on his face was a stupid, s**t-eating grin, when he inexplicably shows up at a dance club to observe her. And from that point on he seems so pussy-whipped that we lose all respect for him anyway.

It's almost as if Kingsley was emulating Brando in ""Last Tango in Paris."" But that was a different movie, about a much different relationship. For an audience to care about a movie like this, the characters have to care about each other. They at least have to appear alive. In this case, they aren't, and we don't. Where are William Holden and Kay Lenz when we need them?

And what possible reason would a beautiful creature like Penelope Cruz have for falling prey to a bald, geriatric college professor? Because he's a wise old man? Because he's on TV? Because she needs a father figure? We're never given a clue into what makes her tick -- that's the problem. It's a superficial relationship at best. One actually longs for the Jeremy Irons remake of ""Lolita."" And at least Clint Eastwood's ""Breezy"" had moments of lightness. And it had Bill Holden. This doesn't.

There's a reason we've never heard of the director: she's of the glacially paced, cinema verite, documentary/neo-realist European variety -- probably lesbian -- who considers emotion as dirty a word as characterization. Dennis Hopper almost saves the day -- he's the only alive thing in this dud -- and then he dies! What a treat for the audience. And what an ill-advised, pointless and unnecessary plot point. Who green-lighted this script? And don't try to tell me the great Nicholas Meyer actually wrote it. Meyer, of the classic ""Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan"" and ""Time After Time""??? He must be on massive doses of Prozac these days. Or maybe he's the one who underwent the lobotomy.

And don't try to convince me this lackluster snorefest was once a Philip Roth novel. The great and hilarious Philip Roth, of ""Portnoy's Complaint"" and ""Goodbye Columbus""????? ""Dying Animal"" is right. The book must have been written in his ""Human Stain"" period, after he lost his sense of humor. Well, at least this dead-on-arrival adaptation doesn't break the streak: a good movie has never been made from a Roth novel. And probably never will.

I'm giving two stars here, strictly in honor of Penelope Cruz's tits, which we see several times, thankfully -- though they're obviously not photographed by anyone who seems to care. And if we saw her ass just ONCE -- which we don't -- I might have given it a 3. And I'm not even going to get into the melodramatic plot twist at the end. If the director finally decided to go for some kind of drama, it was too little, too late. Nobody really cares about a tacked-on movie tragedy after two hours of monotony. All the characters could have been killed in a terrorist bombing and the audience probably wouldn't have really minded. Actually, that might have made a decent ending -- at least it would have woken people up. Or better still, kill them off in the first act, and put them out of their misery. Either way, senseless violence would have been preferable to another brain-dead, heartless, monotonous line reading (Dennis Hopper, as I say, is the one exception: he gives a funny, passionate, inspired performance).

On a technical level, there are also an incredible number of annoying, shaky, hand-held shots that serve absolutely no purpose, other than to distract. Couldn't the producer afford a tripod that day? Wait, don't tell me -- the director thought it was ""art.""

Welcome to European, no-talent, amateur-hour hell. Close the door on the way in. And watch the flames.",0 "This video is probably the worst film ever made. I have a feeling that the director and script writer wanted to make the worst film of all time.If that is the case they did it. Now a 36 foot ape that is in Korea. It kills jaws,flicks off a helichopter,does the disco,and gets killed by annoying soldiers that stick thier gun barrel right next to the lens of the camera all with out making a noise mind you. I think the ape doesn't have a voice box or tongue.It's seriously the worst film ever. I have this film at my house and i paid $10 for it about 13 years agon when i was 5 cuase i liked king kong and stuff right so i thought hey looks good. when I got home and put it in i couldn't watch more then 5 minutes of it. A 5 year old i tell you couldn't satnd it Barney is better this peice of poo.",0 "Beauty & the Beast is still one of my favourite Disney films. It has a feisty, book loving heroine, a gorgeous beast, entertaining support & a vile villain. Plus enchanting songs & colourful, detailed animation. My favourite character is Chip, the little teacup, who has a vital role to play. Alas, the gorgeous beast is eventually replaced, but that's for sake of the fairy tale. What we didn't need was a new musical number. It's just an unnecessary filler in that spoils the pace of the film. Be sure to watch to the end of the credits. There's a wonderful dedication to Howard Ashman. The voicework is fantastic & best of all, the film is in classic 2d. It's a shame we see less & less of that style nowadays. With notable exceptions like Ice Age, 3d animation lacks the uniqueness & charm of traditional films. CGI doesn't have to flaunt itself. It's the story & characters that truly matter. 8/10",1 "Okay, so this was not as explosive as the first ""Beverly Hills Cop"" movie, but it still had enough energy to succeed. Eddie Murphy is great here. His portrayal of Axel Foley in ""Cop II"" is just as hilarious as the character was in ""Cop I."" Look for appearances by Chris Rock and Gilbert Gottfried. They are funny, too. It is a must-see sequel.",1 "I was VERY disappointed in this film. No, that's not quite true. I didn't have great expectations for this TV movie, but it did not even live up to those meager hopes for a decent disaster flick. The characters, for the most part, were uninteresting and whiny and unsympathetic. The special-effects are not exceptionally good-- no better than most films today. And the story was lacking in excitement and depth.

In addition, the lack of destruction was 1) rather unbelievable, and 2) annoyingly sparse. After an earthquake in a city that is mostly unprepared for such an event, one would think there would be a great deal more devastation. Like ASTEROID, GODZILLA, VOLCANO, and to a lesser extent, DANTE'S PEAK and ARMAGEDDON, AFTERSHOCK has relatively little in the way of physical damage. Now, far be it for me to want total devastation and loss of life, but really, can't we get a little more than a few toppled and cracked old buildings? I realize that special effects are expensive, but to me, the directors and script-writers of these films don't seem to want to make any effort to make a truly ""disastrous"" film.

(One last point, NY City seems to get picked on a great deal in disaster films: AFTERSHOCK, DEEP IMPACT, ARMAGEDDON, GODZILLA, FAIL SAFE, INDEPENDENCE DAY, and others such as DIE HARD 3, and THE SIEGE.)",0 "The tagline of this film sounds interesting, but also shows the movie's thin plot. 'I shot my wife. Prove it.' Ultimately, the film is smart and witty and keeps you intrigued the entire time as you try find a way to do what the tagline asks you to. However, that's it. Naturally, Anthony Hopkins can do now wrong and 'newbie' Ryan Gosling does really well. Together in a scene, these two are awesome.

What I like about this film is that it totally focuses on the Hopkins/Gosling story-line. In many other films like these there's always that the policemen/attorneys (in this case Gosling) fall in love and then mess it up/ruin their marriage because the case is tearing them apart, you know the drill. There's always some sub story-line involving romance. Gosling finds romance in this movie with Rosamund Pike's character, but it doesn't evolve into another story-line. It doesn't take Willy Beachum's (Ryan Gosling) eyes off the price and even when it falls apart, he doesn't appear to care much (it's all about getting Crawford behind bars) or to feel a need to make it right. I like that. I mean, I love romance in films, but this movie shouldn't be about that and it's not.

Also, the fact that Ted Crawford (Hopkins) is in complete control over everything and everyone in this film astonishes me. This man plays roles like these so well! He just keeps you glued to the screen. The way he is in charge of Willy for (almost!) the entire film is just enjoyable to watch, making the end of the film even more enjoyable when the story comes out and the roles change.

Another reason to praise Gosling for the way he portrayed Willy Beachum. Anthony Hopkins is a legend. He is what draws people to theatres and he is one of the most brilliant actors of all times. Plus, he portrays such a strong character here that I can't help but praise Gosling for holding his own in a very strong manner. Scenes with Gosling are entertaining to watch. You feel drawn to him in almost the same way you feel drawn to Hopkins, even though Willy is in a dark place for most of the film and is hardly in control. Gosling's got great timing.

The story-line might be a little thin and fragile, the outcome is worth it. The movie surprises in more than one way, not in the last place because of the pretty much brilliant performances of both actors. Gosling is going to be big.

8/10",1 "This flaccid remake of Hitchcock's excellent thriller 'Dial M For Murder' dumps not only that great title but numerous chunks of the clever plot, and replaces them with twists of its own that are either predictable or old hat. Michael Douglas takes over from Ray Milland as a slimy rich chap married to unfaithful Gwyneth Paltrow; he blackmails her lover (Viggo Mortenson) into murdering her, but both his scheme and the movie go chronically wrong. The only good bits here are derived from the original play and Hitch's film, but it doesn't make a lot of difference as they're drowned in a stew of padding, unnecessary additional scenes and needless peripheral characters. Possibly the most visible blunder is that the murder set-up is far from perfect, although that's rivalled by silly plot holes like the one in which Douglas goes to Mortenson's apartment to retrieve his wife's wedding ring, thereby removing evidence of a connection between them, but neglects to do anything about the six-foot-wide painting OF HER FACE. An improvement on the original in no way whatsoever.",0 "In my opinion, this is an excellent holiday special which is very hip and hilarious. However, I couldn't bear seeing Marcie (voice of Peter Robbins) having to boil all those Easter eggs herself while Peppermint Patty yelled at her so she would do it right. In addition, the thing that really makes this special worth watching is the score, especially ""Linus And Lucy."" When that song is performed, I always get warm and tingly. I would have to say that's my favorite song of this special. If you ask me, Charles M. Schulz was a really good artist. In conclusion, I highly recommend this excellent Easter special which is very hip and hilarious to everyone, especially all you fans of the comic strip who have not seen it. When you see it, prepare to smile and have a good time.",1 I love this movie!! Has a very concise plot and the most awesome soundtrack and artwork I've ever seen!! Definitely one of my top animes. I've seen hundreds but this one tops them all. Go buy/rent it!! I vote 10.,1 "Although this movie boasts a great cast (including Hugh ""Ward Cleaver"" Beaumont, Alan ""Alfred the Butler"" Napier, Nestor ""Indeterminate Foreign Guy"" Paiva, and John Agar, the patron saint of cheesy '50's sci-fi films), it isn't much of a movie. The real standout, and the guy who really makes the movie is Dr. Frank C. Baxter, Professor of English at the University of Southern California. His tedious and pretentious introduction to the film, complete with halting delivery and awkward gestures gives the movie an element of risibilty that raises it marginally above mediocrity.

What was Dr. Baxter even doing there? He was a professor of English, not a scientist, or even a social scientist. His lone qualification, apart from large bald head and round rimmed glasses, seems to have been a stint as narrator of a series of classroom instructional shorts on science. But whatever may have been the rationale for his being there, I'm just glad he was there. As the good Dr. Baxter himself would say, ""Down, down, down....""",0 "Many years ago this reviewer subscribed to fantasy-horror magazine 'Starburst', then in its infancy and rivalling 'Fangoria' for its lurid colour photos of blood, guts and exploding latex. One such issue covered new release The Monster Club, and to this 10-year-old it looked utterly brilliant, with its gallery of werewolves, vampires and ghouls. There was even a woman with a melty face!

Yet if pre-teens had actually been allowed to see it, they might have found it less impressive. The monster masks alone, fashioned by freelance designer Vic Door, who also worked at a milk processing plant, are laughable when compared with those from the Mos Eisley Cantina just three years before - lending understandable succour to the myth that they were made by producer Milton Subotsky's milkman.

Amicus Studio's death-rattle, and a homage to the 1970s glory years of its portmanteau horrors, if The Monster Club has accrued a certain cult status it's mostly down to its sheer awfulness; yet, bafflingly, The Monster Club, adapted from Chetwynd-Hayes' 1976 novel of the same name, does in fact boast a highly experienced and occasionally impressive pedigree.

In director Roy Ward Baker it had the man behind cult horrors like The Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires, The Vault Of Horror, Asylum - and, most famously, Quatermass And The Pit. As a screenwriter, Amicus co-founder Subotsky had also penned a number of culty items, including I, Monster and Dr Terror's House Of Horrors. Cinematographer Peter Jessop had shot the schlocky likes of Frightmare, Venom and Schizo. But most importantly, it stars a real horror triumvirate of greatness:- Vincent Price, John Carradine and Donald Pleasence - along with veterans from past Amicus films Britt Ekland and Geoffrey Bayldon (here reprising an earlier role as an asylum keeper).

This may have been made in 1980, but tonight they're going to party like it's 1973. To a frightful new wave soundtrack supplied by UB40 and BA Robertson who sings ""I'm just a sucker for your love."" Oh yes, a strange concoction indeed. But ranged against the likes of classic Amicus anthologies such as From Beyond The Grave (another Chetwynd-Hayes miscellany) even its dubious cult status is unwarranted - although the song ""Monsters Rule OK"" is pleasingly jaunty, and you do get to see Vincent Price and John Carradine disco dancing.

In keeping with the Amicus tradition, the film features a handful of not-very-creepy tales, plus a 'comedy' story for light relief, linked by a story-within-a-story - here played out between Price's vampire Eramus (his fangs are retractable when not in use) and horror writer Chetwynd-Hayes himself, played by Carradine. After necking his favourite author, Eramus ferries him to his members club by way of an apology, where they're subjected to forgotten new wave bands (""down at the monster club/a zombie and a ghoul can do the monster dub""), along with ""every kind of monster you could ever imagine... and some far beyond the imagining of mere mortals"" - which is just not true, unless you're actually incapable of imagining a one pound joke shop mask.

Price also inducts him into the arcane mysteries of monster genealogy, handily illustrated on a wall-chart (scroll away at leisure): ""A vampire and a werewolf would produce a werevamp, but a werewolf and a ghoul would produce a weregoo. But a vampire and a ghoul would produce a vamgoo. A weregoo and a werevamp would produce a shaddy. Now, a weregoo and a vamgoo would produce a maddy, but a werevamp and a vamgoo would produce a raddy. Now, if a shaddy were to mate with a raddy or a maddy, the result would be a mock."" Once we've waded through that gibberish (and how it must have pained the eloquent and mellifluous Price to utter it) we sample the delights of a stripper who takes her performance all too literally, and are told three tales, the first and most atmospheric of which is about a 'shadmock' (the lowest on the monster food chain) who possesses a deadly whistle - the Roger Whittaker variety, not the referee's aid.

In the second, a vampire dad foils a vampire killer with... ""a stake-proof vest!"" The final story concerns a remote village of human-munching ghouls. Having convinced the author of the inherent humanity of his kind (""there is nothing sadder than the agonised grief of a tender-hearted monster""), Price counters that the 'real' monsters are humans. And to that we must add, jaded screenwriters.",0 "This is one of Bruce Willis' finest films yet. He plays a tired old cop who is handed the menial task of driving Mos Def, a criminal, who has to testify in court. Little does he know, he winds up running into very much trouble. Although one might think that this movie cannot be suspenseful because it takes place within the radius of 16 blocks, many twists and turns occur which make it very interesting.

Mos Def also delivers an outstanding performance through the use of his accent and his hilarious anecdotes throughout the movie. He adds a lot of depth to his character and to the movie as a whole. Thus, the audience is able to sympathize with him. Overall, this movie was excellent and I would highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys a great fast paced thriller.",1 """Dream Demon"" features some imaginative visuals and clever camera shots, but is doomed by its terribly confusing, almost indecipherable plot. When it's all over, few answers have been given to the viewer and the rules of the dream-vs-reality game are never explained. This picture remains a blurry enigma from beginning to end. (*1/2)",0 "Kelly MacDonald has that quality about her that pulls the male ego into wanting to protect her. I felt it in ""The Girl in the Cafe,"" and I'll never forgive Javier Bardem for keeping his vow in ""No Country for Old Men."" ""The Merry Gentleman"" could be titled ""Who will Protect Kelly?"" Will it be the cop, the hit-man (Keaton) even her ""born-again"" husband?-they all want to protect her. Her husband is insane, and the cop offends her every time he speaks. Cold-blooded murderer Logan (Keaton), seems to win her heart with coughs, wheezing and repeating twice ""I found a girl under a Xmas tree."" Keaton's minimalist dialog even has him wheezing for her to quit talking and leave the hospital. If he charms her with any more silver-tongued devilry than that, it must have been edited out. I thought the ending worked; the part that was missing was 'What did she see in him?'",0 "A 'fun' arcade game it may well have been in it's day, but one cannot play Moonwalker today without feeling dirty or somewhat guilty. Based on the 'movie' of the same name, Moonwalker is just as weird, bizarre and outrageously self-glorifying as Wacko Jacko himself.

You take on the role of a suspected pedo, dressed in a white gangster suit, who must rescue children (hidden in closets, drawers, garbage cans) from the evil Mr. Big. Upon being rescued these kids respond joyously with 'MICHAEL', knowing that they are now safe with the King of Pop. You need to rescue all the little sprogs in every level before you meet the end-level boss. But some children are too well hidden.

And who IS this Mr. Big exactly. The Jacko of 1989 fighting against a child-napper, who's motives for stealing kids is unknown in the game, seems prophetic in a split-personality kind of way. Just like in Thriller where he played a ghoulish, inhuman beast, eerily foreshadowing the future.

The gameplay itself is ludicrous. As you (moon)walk across the various levels (some generic, some inspired by his 'classic' music videos) you'll encounter baddies like gangsters and zombies and your amazing way of killing them is...dancing them do death. Seriously! It's not Jesus Juice, it's Jacko Jamming! You hit the special attack button and Jacko will suddenly yell 'OW!' before strutting his lethal stuff. After which, the baddies will be vanquished somehow. After playing this game you'll be exhilarated and mentally exhausted at Jacko's killer moves. You'll be reduced to a dribbling wreck. He's so good, that even passing-by animals will join in and shake their asses. If you ever wanted to play a game in which even an innocent dog is hypnotised by Jacko into dancing Thriller then this is for you. But I don't want to know you.

The music is no more than low-quality samples of Smooth Criminal and Thriller, as you should know this music follows Jacko everywhere he goes in real life and will change depending on where he is.

In the later levels, if you catch a falling star Jacko will turn into a huge robot. Of course. Like in the film, I just can't get over the feeling that Jacko only included this because he wants to see himself 100 feet high. It's ridiculous and has nothing to do with anything! But in a moronic, hopelessly out-dated video game I suppose it's okay. It was kind of easy to finish too and I never really played it again afterwards. But these days, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth and I can understand why no one would want to play it again.

Graphics C Sound C Gameplay D Lasting Appeal F",0 "Someone once described this recording, the filmic version of Ad Nauseum, as ""Pete and Dud on acid."" This is hilarious. It's crude and shocking and clever and insightful. In years to come, this'll be a profoundly interesting social document. If any ""film"" ought to be blasted off into space for aliens from the planet Z to find and watch, then this is it. I'll bet they'd laugh their socks off at it as well.",1 "I saw this movie years ago at a film festival, and ended up looking it up here after it came up in conversation with friends last night, partly to prove to them that I was not making it up, and partly to see for myself if there was actually any record of the film's existence, or if it had sunk into some kind of merciful oblivion after doing the festival circuit.

In my festival-going days, I sat through a lot of films that cleared virtually the entire theatre, and usually took a certain pleasure in being one of the last few survivors who made it through to the closing credits. This was the film that caused me to reconsider that practice. Of all the cinematic trainwrecks I've sat through, this was far and away the very worst.

I don't even know if I can fully explain why. It's not just that it's essentially two hours of vomiting, disembowelment and cannibalism, interspersed with about the least erotic sex scenes ever committed to film. It's not even just that the above is shot in grainy black and white at torturously slow art-movie pacing (and I couldn't figure out, even at the time, if that made it better or worse). Or the atrociously bad acting. Or the barely existent plot.

I think more than anything it's the sheer pointlessness of it all. Given how much time, money and energy it takes to make a feature-length film, you've got to ask: WHY? Why make a film like this? What on earth is the point? And 15 years after seeing it, I still have no answer to that.",0 "Action, Adventure, Romance, Humor all rolled into one!

I think not. Who in the right mind would watch something like this? It is one thing to go into a bad movie knowing you are going to expect one. I would rate this movie worse than Mortal Kombat II.

The action moves overdone... this is just not the Matrix nor the Crouching Tiger.

Adventure is mediocre at best because it does not make any sense.

Whoever wrote this script needs to get their brains rewired because anyone will puke at the sight of any of the romantic interactions.

Humor? Yeah leave this one for the last because they are all dry. At least Jackie Chan has a funny personality which make his attempt honorable. Michelle on the other hand is like Jean Claude Vandamme making his jokes. And the entire cast is just a joke.

The funniest part is when it premiered in Malaysia, Michelle Yeoh was so adamant about destroying every pirated copy of this movie. I can see why.... This production should pass GO and head to the dumpster.",0 "This is one of the WORST movies I have seen in years! The acting was AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL and the story was BAD. There was no chemistry between the characters at all. I didn't see any real dancing until the very end. There was only ""marking"" or interpretive crap which looked like aerobics throughout the whole movie. I kept wondering if Patrick Swayze and his wife were too old for the stamina real dancing entails so they just ""marked"" the dances throughout until the very end. I suppose the ""one last dance"" was to be the big finale at the end but it didn't work. POORLY POORLY written - are you kidding me with this crap?? Left me feeling nothing and showed me that Lisa Neimi has no talent for writing or acting. I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with such a film. Give it up !!",0 "Te acting is good i have to say... But my god, it is slow, and the script is so pretentious. And too too too much of the kid's speech problem come on. It made me want to slap him like 20 times!! Anyway what sort of film is it? It's pushing too much the witty comedy genre in vogue. Tired of this kind of stuff. Please make intelligent comedies but because they are intelligent. It seems that the point of this was to prove how many fancy words they can write. It is like the characters of Dawson's creek. Mixed with the wonder years, the girl name is even Ginny like Winnie. And what about the stereotypes like the funny intrusive Asian people and the pervert Indian.",0 "Balls of Fury was a poor excuse for a movie. It was not anything near what it was hyped up to be. Character development was crude to say the least, I have no idea where half of the characters came from. The relationship between Randy and Mahogany materialized out of no where, one minute they barely knew each other and the next they're kissing on a river, and Randy has a gun? (I don't have anything against guns-just very random). I felt like this was a Dodgeball rip-off; there was the handicapped trainer, fat and lazy rags to riches character(s), fighting for something barely obtainable, and the gung-ho girl ready to do it all (play dodgeball or pingpong), and some sort of try out where the team/person lost when it appeared to be a sure win. At least Dodgeball had a well written story.

In short, the character development sucked, as did the plot and overall development-everything could have been SO much more planned out. I would have liked to see more of the training, and more pingpong battles-there was hardly any pingpong for a movie that was ABOUT pingpong. More of the relationship between Randy and Mahogany-a date or something, please? Who are half these people, and where did they come from?!

I want $9.00 and 1.5 hours of my life back, please.

--John",0 "At the start, you think that this is going to be a Western with a sense of humor. The latter quickly gets replaced with lots of Peckinpaugh-like bloodshed with a few in-jokes and a smattering of very black humor. Kasdan's direction and writing is too clever by half, and his characters too one-note and wooden. Even Jeff Goldblum is robbed of any humorous affects. Kevin Costner started earning his ""wooden"" reputation on this one, and Berenger is relentless. The plotline is internally inconsistent. Only Linda Hunt provides this mess's saving graces with a magnificent turn as a Pirate-Jenny-of-the West. Overall, one of the most disappointing westerns I have ever sat through.",0 "A bunch of people in a bar are slightly distressed when a blood-covered, shotgun-wielding ""hero"" bursts in and warns them all about ravenous, speedy creatures travelling not far behind him. The patrons are rather disbelieving until one creature gets inside and proceeds to try and eat as many people as it can.

This film starts off quickly and doesn't really let up for it's duration. It's a lot of fun and I loved the mix of humour and nasty gore moments (the brief bios of each person were particularly enjoyable). The editing was a little bit choppy at times but everything else was well done. And kudos to a real mixed-bag cast (including Balthazar Getty, Henry Rollins and Jason Mewes playing . . . Jason Mewes) who embrace the material with gusto and totally go along with the humour of the project. It's a bit of a no-brainer with no comment on our society of today or underlying, deeper story strands. Sometimes, that is just what you need from your horrors. I'd happily recommend this to any horror fan and was glad to see it at last.

See this if you like: Tremors, Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight, Slither.

NB, this review was adapted from the original written under my old RockySchlockyRobot ID that I have long forgotten how to access.",1 "This is one of those films that the ""artsy"" crowd loves - a film that is just too ""deep"" for the average moviegoer to understand or appreciate. It appeals to the same crowd that calls a jar of urine with a cross in it ""art."" Cryptic numbers, odd eclectic characters, and fantastic settings substitute for any character development or cohesive story line. Any criticism, however, can be dismissed by the movie's handful of fans with derisive rolling of the eyes. You must just be too thick to get it, and obviously you're far too uneducated for them to even try to explain it to you.

If you have a PhD in philosophy and drink tea from a little china cup with your pinkie finger extended, this film might appeal to you. For the rest of us...well, watch something else. Better yet, stop by the local fast food restaurant and allow one of those pseudo-intellectual fans of this film to serve you a tasty lunch.",0 "I saw Hellbent at the San Francisco Frameline Film Festival. The Castro Theatre was packed with applauding, foot-stomping enthusiasts. And I was one of them. Hellbent is a great ride, even for people who don't ordinarily go for the horror/thriller genre. It isn't content to simply deliver our expectations of the genre. It surprises us as well. The characters (a group of young gay men celebrating Halloween in West Hollywood)are well-drawn and likable. It serves up plenty of scares, but it also has a sense of humor which keeps the tone light and fun. The guys look great, the soundtrack rocks, the pace never falters, and the climax--lame in so many horror/thrillers--is a real edge-of-your-seat thrill.",1 """Upper World"" is almost unknown today, but is an interesting and enjoyable movie with a high powered cast and a well constructed story.

A plutocratic railroad tycoon (Warren William) is drifting away from his social-climbing wife (Mary Astor) and begins a liaison with a good-natured showgirl (Ginger Rogers). The showgirl has a sleazy, opportunistic protector (J. Carroll Naish) who plans a little blackmail. When he springs his shakedown, guns go off and two people fall dead, leaving the tycoon in a situation which will ruin his reputation.

Made in the early 1930s, the film is very discreet about the nature of the showgirl's relationship with the two men in her life, but this does not damage the narrative flow. (If remade today, of course, the sex angle would be graphic and blatant.) The film does however have two weaknesses. First, although he had genuine screen presence, Warren William had no talent for close-ups, where his wolfish smile is alienating and undoes his good work in medium shot. Second, the ending is a cheat and an evasion of the dramatic issues the film has raised. Later movies like ""A Place In The Sun"" and several directed by Fritz Lang were much more resolute in following the drama through to a plausible conclusion.

""Upper World"" presents a young Ginger Rogers who was just beginning her partnership with Fred Astaire. Katharine Hepburn's famous remark that Ginger gave Fred sex-appeal while he gave her class is relevant here, because Ginger is much sexier in this movie than in any of her musicals. (In her one musical number in ""Upper World"", Ginger wears a revealing dress which flatters her legs while the camera ogles her at thigh height.) Mary Astor, as always, is excellent, and brings out her character's craving for social status while keeping her human. The audience does understand why the tycoon married her in the first place. Both John Qualen's performance as a corruptible janitor and J. Carroll Naish's as the aspiring blackmailer make interesting contrasts with their work in John Ford movies.

""Upper World"" is a minor movie, but should certainly be sought out by fans of Ginger Rogers and Mary Astor.",1 "I saw this when it first came out and didn't know quite what to make of it. 14 years later, I still don't. A sort of lesbian Victorian bodice-ripper* with a gay sensibility and two men of very different attractiveness (one brooding sultry hunk - the late and very much lamented Kevin Smith - one lowlife with a good body, Cliff Curtis), the film is operatic, over the top, and somewhat camp. It takes place almost entirely indoors at night in sets of varying degrees of surreality, so that the New Zealand it is set is not one that any New Zealander will recognise, nor ever would have. (There is a town of Hope in New Zealand, in Nelson province, but 5km from the sea. The town seems to be based on Russell {Kororareka} but Russell never ran to grand opera.) The designers are very fond of the colour red, and everyone is very careless of the rubies at the centre of the plot - nobody even bothering to count them. The music relies heavily on the overture to ""La Forza del Destino"" - which must be annoying to people who know the opera. While these particular elements of plot, character and location have probably never been brought together before, there is nothing particularly novel about any of them. Watch it mainly for curiosity about vintage NZ film.

*No bodices were actually ripped in the making of this film.",0 "Sometimes it's as if we can forgive the most trying stretches of believability, just because a film was made in an era like the 50's with a shoestring budget. I don't like that. Good, believable films were made at this time as well as clinkers. This has some things going for it, but the way these nasty characters behave is beyond imagination. They wave their guns around, threaten, but don't seem to want to act. Hostages are left to wander all over the place. There is tension among the thieves, but it is dealt with in such a silly, haphazard way, it doesn't work. A slip up of any kind, and their whole project is down the chute. If we are to believe the whole business about being locked up in the woods in the winter, it seems at some point, someone would begin to make realistic plans to get on their way. Are they already murderers? I don't know, but they could have certainly done a better job of getting on with their plot. Then there is the ending (I'm not going to do any spoilers). This is the most ho-hum, contrived mess I've ever seen. It's as if they ran out of time and just decided to create this ending. Judge for yourself. The bottom line is, people just don't act this way--they just don't.",0 "This movie is just plain awesome! i gave it 9 because Its one of those action packed thrillers where your dad goes "" Oh it was him ! he did it!"" gets really cocky about it and it was someone so unexpected. This is because most people cannot guess what will happen because the movie is ingeniously clever. The action sequences are very well handled. Many people say that they got very bored watching the explosion again and again , but i found this interesting as each time you see it from a different view point and each time it gives something else away and leaves you on a cliffhanger, wondering what will happen next. This stylish action packed thriller is great for all the family!

YOU'LL LOVE IT - unless you don't ?!:P",1 "There are precious few films of the silent screen superstar Mae Murray known to exist these days and when a new one emerges it's a cause for celebration. DELICIOUS LITTLE DEVIL is particularly valuable in that it's the first of her silent comedies to rise from the archives and costars the legendary Rudolph Valentino as her beau. Mae stars as a poor girl supporting her parents and a no account uncle who passes herself off as the notorious showgirl mistress of a Duke and becomes a sensation in a New York nightclub. Among Mae's most ardent admirers is young millionaire heir Valentino who vows to marry her. Rudy's father is not amused and plans a lavish party in Mae's honor hoping she will reveal her true colors with the booze flowing. To make matters worse, the infamous Duke crashes the party. This delightful little comedy is a fascinating glimpse of the first days of the Jazz Age with a never more charming Mae Murray who practically cannot stand still and gives a sweet, amusing performance and then there's the stunningly handsome Valentino, then not yet a star but certainly showing star charisma in spades. An additional bonus is the fantastic musical score and some wonderful title cards with vintage artwork that really brings back the art deco era.",1 "SPOILERS AHEAD:

There are many, many movies about WWII, both about the battles and about the condition of life for the people involved, especially the situation of the Jews in Europe. When someone makes a movie on this latter subject, it is very difficult for anyone to criticize it. 1998's _Life is Beautiful_ received some criticism, but mainly because it contained comic elements where people felt there should be only tragedy. But if the film is a drama, then it is basically untouchable by critics and viewers. And as for this film itself, it was directed by an old master who had been out of it for a while. Even if the film was terrible, there was no way, when it came out in the early 70s, that anyone was going to call it less than a masterpiece, an instant classic, if you will.

Well, this film is in no way terrible. In fact, it is very good. It affected me enough where I did tear up a bit. I was touched at certain points. But I also was acutely aware of some of the film's shortcomings as I watched.

First off, the reason why I teared up, i.e., what I did like about the film especially: the relationship between Georgio and Micol. I connected with it instantly because I have been through similar circumstances. It is rather painful, let me tell you. I longed for Micol right along side with Georgio, and felt utterly rejected simultaneously with him. This is the way one should experience a great film. There were two more relationships that were really well developed and deeply felt by me, both involving Georgio: Georgio and his father, a very good character played by a marvelous actor, and Georgio and Malnate.

The rest of the characters were very sloppily made. Did Alberto Finzi-Contini exist for any other reason than to create that great funeral procession scene? He was barely in the movie at all. I had thought they had forgotten him for a long time, then they finally came back to him, and he was next to death. The Finzi-Contini family was hardly existent. I thought the father was a butler until very near the end of the film. A cheap joke is made about the centegenarian grandmother's inability to hear well (although this character had a very poignant scene at the very end of the film).

Possibly the biggest problem of the film is that the scenes dealing with anti-Semitism and the onset of war never really coalesced with the problems surrounding Micol's and Georgio's relationship. The latter theme dominated the film, while the former only appeared in the background. This structure would have been fine, but the background section of the film never seemed to influence much the foreground. Georgio could have just as easily have fallen in love with Micol without the war going on. This is not what puts stress on their relationship. Possibly the main theme that de Sica was trying to get through in the film was that our personal lives do not naturally care about what is happening in society, but society keeps trying to push its way into our personal lives. Unfortunately, it only works to a certain extent. The film was too short for its subject matter. It is only 94 minutes long. If it had been two hours or even two and a half, the two parts would have fit together better and the main theme would have been a lot more potent. One of my very favorite films has the exact same theme: _The Unbearable Lightness of Being_, where people attempt to love each other in Czechoslovakia while the Soviets oppress them. It is three hours long, and it works on every level. In _The Garden of the Finzi-Contini_, there is not even time for a proper conclusion. Micol's story is finished, or at least as finished as it needs to be, but what happened to Georgio? His father just informs us that he left. Why can't we see him leave? We don't need an enormous explanation from him, but just a subtle scene, as is the film's style, where he packs and talks to his mother maybe. Surely he hasn't gotten Micol out of his mind that quickly. I realize it was in his best interests to get the heck out of Italy right away, but I can't believe he doesn't at least think for a moment whether or not he should do something on Micol's behalf. I'm fine that he doesn't. I would bet that in the novel, this sort of scene appears. It should have also been in the film. I give the film an 8/10, mostly for the true-to-life pain it caused me concerning the one-sided love.",1 "Whether it be epic-scale cinema like Cry Freedom or a tourettes-sufferer in the Big Brother house, certain media events can create a huge shift in attitude. While, sadly, I doubt Keane will reach anywhere near the size audiences of the aforementioned, it did have a similar effect, making this viewer sit up and take notice of the very real issue of mental illness.

The film follows titular character, William Keane (Damian Lewis) around a cold, uncaring New York as he searches for his missing daughter. He says she was abducted but, with it clear from the outset that he is not of healthy mind, this is not clear. Shot hand-held in the gloomiest of locations, Lodge Kerrigan's unromantic portrait of New York is very real but, conversely, since the sequence of events occur through Keane's eyes, it's uncertain as to quite what is reality. The camera rarely strays from Damian Lewis. His performance drags you into his reality, and once you're there, he breaks your heart. The simple ""day to day"" is so difficult for him that life becomes increasingly painful and complex. This polarised look at one man makes me hungry for more cinema that eschews large casts instead to home in on a single person. While the film is built around Lewis, there is strong support from Amy Ryan and Abigail Breslin (a wonderful child actress who can be seen in Little Miss Sunshine).

What makes this such an important film is that there's no glossing-over of Keane's flaws. One still can't help but empathise with him thanks to a bravura performance from Lewis that doesn't descend into thespy showboating. Rain Man this ain't.",1 In this movie joey Garza was very sexy. i watched the movie over and over to see him. thats how hot he is. I especially liked his role in the movie even though he was a train robber and killed nearly everyone he met. i loved his horse. It was a shame he did not like any woman on the movie. I loved his cheesy grin whenever he shot someone or teased his sister. I thought it was cruel how he tried to kill his brother and sister though. But he was the hottest guy on the movie and i loved him and his accent. I know nearly all his lines on the movie cause i have seen it nearly 50 times. He is the best train robber i have ever seen on a movie.,1 "Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss is one of two sequels to 'A Christmas Story,' a timeless holiday cult classic. Jerry O'Connel plays a slightly older, much different looking Ralphie Parker and his failed attempt to rush into ""manhood,"" by getting himself a respectable job which might jeopardize his attendance at the annual family vacation to Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss, which is basically a campground.

Ralphie, and his loyal friends, Schwartz and Flick, don't exactly go for the ideal job, moving heavy furniture around for a crummy boss that takes pride in yelling at his eager, idealistic new employees. The even less interesting subplot involves Ralphie's parents, who go looking for their family dog.

The story is not nearly as exciting as the first movie, probably because Ralphie Parker, fourteen-years old in this movie, has moved beyond the crisp imagination that he possessed as a grade school student in the first movie, which produced a film mostly from his childish perspective, and one that many could enjoy. Ralphie Parker in this story is just too old to entertain things from that childish, but imaginative perspective. If they wanted to entertain children, they should've used a younger character. Someone might've recognized this, as the sequel that follows it is about a second-grade Ralphie Parker in ""My Summer Story.""

The movie is not very interesting and is hardly funny. It is, as one viewer previously wrote, like something so real it's not even entertaining. And that's the problem with this movie. There is nothing in the story particularly catching, and the characters themselves are not as likeable as those of ""A Christmas Story."" Especially, Randy Parker, who is exceptionally whiny in this movie. Of the two sequels, ""My Summer Story"" was much better, though neither could ever be better than the first. ""A Christmas Story"" is a great classic.",0 "...........This contains a spoiler or two................. Alex, a mug on the run, is duped by Felix and finds himself wanted for murder, again. to escape the law he climbs into Arquettes cleavage, sorry, make that convertible, and along with her very annoying husband Lithgow, hits the road. this movie seems to be nothing more than a vehicle for Miss Arquette to parade her body and considerable charms at every opportunity. Lithgow is awful - just plain unbelievable with the mood swings of a metronome. Alex is one dimensional and as blank as his suit. his vision does not extend beyond the end of his nose, or Miss Arquette's cleavage, whichever is closer at the time. for all that, it is strangely watchable until the end, which is laughably so. the getaway vehicle is a train pulling out of the station with the speed of the road roller in Austin Powers. three old ladies with zimmer frames would have time to get on or off without breaking sweat, let alone a limb. yet to the mexican police it is a challenge. ludicrously funny.",0 "So you are in this movie-rental place with a horror section that is just miles wide and furlongs in length, and you are, just imagine, scanning the rows for anything that catches your rather jaded (maybe from too many low-budget or low-brow horror flicks, too much mockery, or stilted dialogue, too many effects or musical stings) eye in that special way that only a truly mongoloid flick can do--and what do you see? of course, a really chintzy colored pencil and pastel picture of this tree/man graft that has women trapped (mayhaps metaphorically) in his ""roots,"" but the really bad part is the complete physiological inaccuracy of the picture (witness, in your mind's eye, the nipples of this bare-chested ""evil"" tree/man placed in the exact (okay, semi-exact) orthocenter of his pectoral muscles--just plain zaniness from look one!), and it has this tag on it that reads, ""He does bad things to them...in the Garden!!"" and what can you do or say (except fall in love with it on the spot and say ""I love you,"" respectively associated, right there in the orchard of neon horror that is the movie rental place)--and then so imagine your heartbreak when you get home, undress it from its plastic case and discover to yourself the fact that it is completely: affectless, toneless, actionless, heartless, penniless, paceless, plotless, heartless, and, perhaps most horribly, humorless--you and your best bud cannot, for the glory that the world holds, come up with a single joke to combat the ceaseless waves of offense to your senses and sensibilities that this offers--not to mention devoid of a) evil and b)seeds of said evil...there are no effects: it features untold minutes of floral footage, which cause the actors to expire at completely surreal and random moments--with which occasional happening you can utterly sympathize...I went looking for a movie too bad to be believed, and I found it. It broke my heart. It has the power to tear yours out and lay it bleeding on the table before you, and it won't even give you a maniacal chuckle to which to expire. This is the worst movie I have ever seen with maybe the sole exception of ""'Manos':The Hands of Fate."" But, hey, you're the one in the horror section--you roll the dice.",0 "UGH... As an adorer of the James Bond character, I have to call Timothy Dalton a sacrilege! And apparently, this movie was his satanic shrine. YUCK! This film has nothing of the appeal of the great old bond films nor any of the thrills of the new ones. It was nothing but scene upon scene of 80's superficiality with nothing underneath. There were none of the fantastically witty Bond lines nor of his legendary charm. Dalton drained him completely. And what was with that horrible wedding scene?? It was like a bad remake of The Godfather. Really, I couldn't stomach the thing, it was all just too awful. As for those who credit this as being a great Bond film because of its likeness to Ian Flemings work... so what? If you want to read the book, go to the library. This is a fictional movie and one that, in my opinion, could have been done A LOT better.",0 "Out of all the Species movies series, this one takes the cake! After the offspring of Sil, this new breed of alien was doing the same thing: finding a mate for her offspring. Then there's another alien who wants to cause trouble by killing everyone in her path. Going to different places for some answers, someone gets offed. Who to trust, who to avoid it's hard to say there. The reason why I don't like this movie is because it's way oversexed, the plot was rather pointless, it was weak, decadent, and played out period. The cast of the movie was fine the only one I thought helped was the guy from the first Species movie as the motel manager who was indeed the original one. Everyone else just didn't sell me. Species 1, 2, and 3 gave out promises: 1 was subtle, 2 was slightly intense, 3 was hardcore and extreme. The 4 one is NOT a keeper in my book! SORRY! 1 STAR!",0 "After seeing `Down To You,' you might wonder whether Freddie Prinze, Jr. even has more than one facial expression. His one puppy-dog like expression seemed endearing in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, but later translated to simply bad acting. In his new movie, Prinze plays Al Connelly, a college student searching for love, among other things.

When he meets freshman Imogen, played by the lovely Julia Stiles, he is immediately fascinated by her. Unfortunately, the audience doesn't get to revel in this too long, because ten minutes later they were sleeping together, and soon after that, acting like an old married couple. The movie chronicles their tale of first love, along with every obstacle in between, such as Al's friend who directs porn movies, and his father, who wants to start with a Cops -like cooking show with his son.

At the beginning, this seemed like a wonderful idea for a movie. The first fifteen minutes were a sweet, almost realistic account of first love, which many people could relate to. A particularly endearing moment was when Al tells the camera, `I thought this would last forever,' after describing a romantic moment shared by the couple. However, all of the potential of this movie was shattered when all of a sudden, in a moment of 90210 like melodrama, Imogen thinks she's pregnant. Of course, this event is the beginning of their problems for the rest of the movie.

The film continues its downward spiral, culminating an unrealistic and contrived ending. Prinze and Stiles simply had no chemistry on screen, and by the end, the audience was simply not interested in whether they got together or not. Prinze seemed incapable of showing any emotion, making his character extremely boring and just annoying. On the other hand, Stiles (of 10 Things I Hate About You) was charming as usual, but unfortunately stuck in a bad movie, with no place to show off her talent. Additionally, the supporting cast was no help, awkwardly put in scenes to make badly acted sex jokes, and having no relevant or even interesting purpose.

Written and directed by Kris Isacsson, the movie had some good ideas, but those were quickly overshadowed by too much melodrama and contrived storylines. What could've been an earnest and sweet romance, turned into a boring story with annoying characters.",0 "Between the surreal dystopia of Eraserhead and the artistic immobility of Dune, and before critics labeled him as the auteur of Weird America with permanent marker, David Lynch directed this strange but true story set in London, England during the late 1800's. Being one of only two films of his to be based on fact it is far less of a personal work than those generated by the director himself. Despite his sensibilities being contained in a more formal framework his unique aural and visual style (like the sound of blowing wind or the peculiar emphasis of the industrial machinery of the period)clearly comes across, although it's a far cry from the narrative conundrums that comprise Eraserhead, Lost Highway, or Mulholland Dr.

The year before this film was released Bernard Pomerance's play opened on Broadway. This film is not based upon the former work and the latter takes a dramatically divergent path with its namesake subject. One of the most substantial is Merrick's role in his adoptive society once his carnival career is truncated. Pomerance's tale is a tragic one showing us how Merrick becomes caught in the machinery of the repressive and hypocritical society that cultivates him, tempting him with the illusion of normality with the artificial world they erect around him, but ultimately imprisoning him within it. The film depicts Victorian society as a benevolent sanctuary for a man, who while given the props to model himself after the normality he aspires to, is never deceived into thinking he can achieve it beyond his imagination. Merrick's own realization of this is clear in a scene (hauntingly scored by composer John Morris)where he asks his caretaker Treeves if he can cure him. Treeves' reply is no. Merrick's response is of a man who knew the answer all along but still allows himself the indulgence to dream.

Treeves' struggles are similarly reduced. The closest he comes in the film to questioning his motives concerning Merrick is a brief scene where he asks his wife (and audience) if his seemingly charitable act of taking Merrick from his sideshow squalor was possibly something other than altruistic. Pomerance has Treeves questioning the artificial social fabric that's been woven around Merrick and his undeniable complicity in it. The screenwriters seem less concerned with tackling these Victorian dilemmas than focusing on the beauty in the beast theme. Considering Lynch's fascination with organic phenomena this focus seems much more up his alley. In his words Lynch has stated that the eponymous title character is ""this beautiful soul trapped in this horrible body and that's what the whole film is about."" Yes siree Bob.

Much less effective in the film is the role of the actress Madge Kendall who's really nothing more than a walk on by Anne Bancroft. There is some(even subtly sexual)awkwardness between Merrick and Kendall at the beginning of their meeting together but it ultimately winds up with a scene that feels patronizing towards Merrick and mawkish. It doesn't fit with the earlier tension and Kendall never becomes anything more than a well acted cameo. Much more effective is Merrick's ability to retain the power to disturb the bourgeois society that flocks to see him once he becomes that season's fashionable curiosity. His transformation into a gentrified version of his erstwhile sawdust and calliope music carnival persona still has the same effect on others. In one scene he is serving tea to a noticeably unnerved aristocratic couple who are guests of his. Their cups rattle against their saucers in barely restrained horror as he discusses his mother's beauty in the context of his own deformity. His cherished portrait of his mother becomes an eerily recurring visual motif. She remains a mysterious presence frozen in time. The conflation of Merrick and his mother recalls a line heard early in the film that ""life is full of surprises.""

Merrick's background remains equally enigmatic. The only glimpse we see of his past are some creepily abstract images during one of his nightmares. Even his beginnings are fictionalized as part of the sideshow spiel recited by his owner Bytes. Treeves' first view of the elephant man is in a private showing by Bytes. He is led down a dark corridor to a room where the terrible freak is kept concealed behind a curtain. Only the flames of a gas lamp illuminate the darkness. Bytes spins a tale of a terrifying encounter between woman and elephant while Treeves stares, mouth agape. The scene has a strange Lynchian spookiness about it.

The costume and production design authentically breathe life into the Victorian era while Freddie Francis' expressionistic monochrome adds both verisimilitude and a sense of an alternative world. These elements together with Lynch's use of both nightmarish and chimerical images, an other worldly atmosphere, pathos and sentiment, make the film a sort of Charles Dickens tale wrapped inside The Twilight Zone with the ethereal touch of a haunting dream. The past a la Lynch.",1 "3 types of people in this world: 1st, try to explain this world, and got the good/right/bad/wrong answer. 2nd, not trying to explain this world, just live in it. The first type, we call them intellectuals, they use their intelligence and logic to explain this world, maybe they got a totally wrong answer, but at least they used the right way(reason) to explain it. The second type of people are common humans, are most of us, maybe they know their abilities, so they don't try to, or they just don't eager to explain it. AND... there is the third type of people, who have no much wisdom, but still wanna show their ""wisdom"" to others, try to explain the world with their stupid way... These kind of people made this movie: Running On Karma

I thought this is a Kung fu/Comedy. I was totally wrong, it's nothing, it gots no laughing( or got some cheap ones), no real actions, fake romance, and a lot of disgusting scenes(with only commercial purpose)... And, all of these are ok, i've seen too many movie got these elements, and i still enjoyed them. (I never expect too much on movies, any kind of cheap movies, if it has any kind of spark, i will still watch it to the end). But, Running on Karma, it got more than these...

The movie tried to tell you a truth about the world... a Buddhism concept: Karma. I really love to listen to a philosopher talking about it, but I really really hate to hear it from a crazy writer/director who knows nothing or little about it then filmed a movie tell their nonsense ""idea"" and ""truth""... Please, show some respect to human intelligence, not only others, your own too!

Sorry, maybe i used too much bad words, but i think any modern educated human will feel what i felt when they watched this movie. Sick, disordered, stupid...

Worst movie this year.

1/10...",0 "Watching Ghosts of the Abyss on the big screen simply took my breath away. The photography was simply majestic, and will leave you in awe. If you are a hard core Titanic buff, you will recognize a little of the footage from another documentary that Cameron did at the same time as Ghosts. The 3-d effect is pretty interesting, but probably a bit overrated. This would have still been a fantastic documentary on the big screen even without the 3-d effect. It does make it very interesting though. They go into parts of the ship never seen before so it was very good. I left wishing it would have lasted about 2 hours longer. Even 90 years later the ship still has the power to take your breath away. I would rate this a 10 for people that truly love the Titanic, but maybe only a 7 for those do not. I left this movie feeling that James Cameron really has a love for the ship and really believes in what he is doing, and not that he just did it to make a buck like some have suggested. A must see for any fan of the Great ship.",1 "ONE LAST DANCE appears to be a film for dancers, either active or retired, wannabees or romanticists. There is some terrific Brazilian influenced music from Stacy Widelitz that enhances much of the corps dancing and some beautiful moments of cinematography making the most of a bare ballet studio rehearsal hall - both of which add what dreaminess this low budget film has to offer.

Written and directed and produced and acted by Lisa Niemi the story involves the return to the boards by three retired dancers (Lisa Niemi, Patrick Swayze, George de la Pena - all three are dancers in real life) to pay homage to the gifts of a highly regarded yet now dead choreographer. The three left dancing seven years prior to the story for personal reasons, mostly involving lack of confidence and personal issues that affected each tangentially. They return to a company to perform a dance by the dead choreographer and the rest of the slim story is how these out of shape hoofers regain the healing magic of dancing.

The corps of ballet dancers assembled for this film is exceptionally fine for a pickup group: Rasta Thomas, Desmond Richardson, Kathryn Bradney, Tai Jiminez, Bambi Swayze, Jamie Bishton, Stephanie Slater, Heather Thompson, Dwight Rhoden and Yosuke Mino deserve special mention. The scenes of dancing vary depending on the choreography of each of four artists - Alonzo King, Dwight Rhoden, Patsy Swayze, and Doug Varone. But in the end to be less than a documentary about the rigors and rewards of dancing there must be a well-acted story based on a sensitive script and that is where the film is shaky and a bit self indulgent. Swayze, Niemi, de la Pena take the roles as far as they go, but in the end the story is much ado about very little.

Yet there is some gorgeous dance work well filmed that will satisfy even the most particular critic. The DVD added features include some insights into the difficulty and final rewards of bringing ONE LAST DANCE to the screen, and in these comments there is more story than that found in the script. Grady Harp",1 "As a piece of drama this offered absolutely nothing in terms of interest or entertainment. Actors all did a fairly solid job but the script and the narrative where derivative, unexciting and dull. Let's face it, the public perception of Craddock was what made her interesting, the reality was that she was just a ghastly old drag queen who really isn't worth the time this film invests in her.

To add to this because I have to write at least ten lines of waffle, her cooking was pretty gruesome too. It was the stench of the upper middle classes offering advice to the great unwashed that was the Craddock-style (and the BBC at the time) and an hour and a half remembrance of a thoroughly dislikable and untalented Daily Telegraph writer is a total waste of British taxpayers money. ( Paid for by the licence fee which of course is a flat tax on all British households). The BBC should find better things to waste our money on.",0 "I was completely disgusted by this movie. It is just another example of how they butchered what used to be a great tv show. I loved the first movie, but this one is so horrible, you couldn't pay me to sit through it. The story line was dreadfully cheesy, the acting was worse than usual, and the ""special effects"" were definitely something to be laughed at. Take my advice, and don't waste your time.",0 "Definitely it's not a movie for everyone! You need to have a strong stomach to see this film until the end!

The plot is about a Hungarian family and the way it develops over three generations; and what crazy family I must say! From the first to the last generation all we see is a bunch of foolish people doing foolish things! The guy from the first generation is a sexual maniac soldier that even does a sexual act with a dead pig imagining he's doing it with a fat old lady… The guy of the second generation is a fat (but a really big one!) champion of food contests that eats kilos of food in few minutes to throw up it all a bit later in order to eat some more kilos again! The third guy, son of the last one, irony of destiny, doesn't seems at all to his father (and his mother too), because he's thin as a bone... He works as an embalmer and he's the only person who keeps seeing his father, now a vegetative mount of fat flesh…

We can see by these short examples that this movie is actually a little bit mad, but that's exactly its most valuable feature! We can feel the irony since the first to the last minute of the movie, and its dark humour mixed with some gore scenes makes it a really dark comedy! It's almost unique by its madness since we can't find many movies with this kind of roughness. One in which we can find some similarity, about the dysfunctional family's feature, is probably ""Amarcord"", but there aren't too many we can compare to this one!",1 "This is an all-time favourite of mine. Yes, it's got its flaws but it is what it is - a rip-roaring, blundering, comedy classic. I must have seen it at least 6 times. The late Richard Pryor was a comedy genius and gelled brilliantly with Gene Wilder. It is a sad, sad shame that he deteriorated in health with the onset of MS, culminating in his tragic passing yesterday (December 10th 2005). Stir Crazy was the 2nd greatest movie of 1980 in my opinion (true movie buffs will know which was the greatest of that year). Fans of the movie should also view the inferior, but still funny See No Evil, Hear No Evil which sees the partnership of Wilder and Pryor re-ignited for a third time, following on from Stir Crazy and Silver Streak before that.",1 "A shuttle craft crew gets stranded on a hostile planet, and they must find a way to lift off again while dangerous creatures lay siege. Meanwhile, Kirk races desperately against the clock to find them before he is forced to abandon the search to pursue a priority mission.

On the plus side, ""The Galileo Seven"" is a superbly tense, suspenseful episode, including excellent character development of coolly logical, emotionally remote Mr. Spock. His conflict with his human shipmates is solid, thought-provoking drama. The secondary guest characters of Boma, Gaetano, and Farris all work very well: they are good examples of efficient characterization with little screen time. The creatures are genuinely menacing and scary, all the more so because the filmmakers wisely keep the viewer from seeing too much of them. And the death of Mr. Latimer is an excellent stakes-raising jolt.

On the downside, the exposition and denouement just stink. The exposition is plain awkward: there is a plague to go deal with on some planet but coincidentally they stop to send a shuttle craft to look at a space anomaly, and the shuttle crew just happens to include the doctor, engineer, and some expendable secondary characters? Too contrived. But the denouement is even worse: after a tension-filled, engrossing near-hour of drama, they wrap it up with a lame humor scene where the ship's captain publicly embarrasses the guy who just pulled his comrades through a horrible experience. A quiet, introspective scene where Spock acknowledges to his friends that command is harder than he thought would have been so much more satisfying. And why was there no wrap-up of the development of the interesting Boma character? So the episode was worthwhile and I liked it, but somebody should have spent more time polishing the script.",1 "Captain Hickock (David Beecroft) is sent to investigate a strange death resulting from experiments conducted in seclusion in the desert. The scientists in charge, Van Fleet (ever wonderful character veteran James Hong) and Erhardt (Louise Fletcher) are experimenting with advanced stages of sleep and this has caused an opening in an alternate dimension through which a violent, shape-shifting creature emerges and starts decimating the hapless crew.

""Shadowzone"" is noticeably better than other movies of its ilk. It's actually fairly well done; writer / director J.S. Cardone establishes a dead serious tone, begins his movie on an ominous note, and creates some reasonable suspense throughout. Never does this intriguing tale get too cheesy or laughable at any point; it's easy to get caught up in the story and be immersed in the dingy and claustrophobic atmosphere. Calling to mind past sci-fi / horror favorites like ""Alien"" and ""The Thing"", it has great sets, superb music by Richard Band, and decent splatter by Mark Shostrom.

The cast is also better than usual for this sort of thing, with Fletcher given the best part as the too-dedicated scientist. Miguel Nunez, whom genre fans will recognize from ""Friday the 13th: A New Beginning"" and ""The Return of the Living Dead"", is good as computer technician Wiley, with the late character actress Lu Leonard stealing her scenes as the crusty cook.

Those interested can also take note that there's a dose of both female and male nudity on display here.

""Shadowzone"" is an entertaining little movie worth checking out. In fact, I think it deserves to be better known.

8/10",1 "This is one cool goth movie. It's better done than the first one, because the first one had to be sown together a la Frankenstein when the lead actor really did die. God bless his soul. It's also better because it recycles footage from the first two. This movie is one great leftist movie about recycling, the memories of a schoolbus, and anti-death penalty. The end is hilarious. Let me just say that someone had a fetiche for female facial hair in this movie. It's also cruel to a step beyond the first two--Brandon Lee grieved, Vincent Perez went masochist, but William Atherton smiles like a killer clown. You can disagree with me and say the whole budget went to an illogically cool explosion and a trip to vegas for everyone, or ignore the crow's original bad acting--he's got a smirk on his face when he walks back in his cell, and take a trip downtown with the crow, way downtown.",1 "I really liked the first movie. It was cool, it was violent and the twist was really fun and unexpected. This movie is nothing like it. Fact is that this movie just stinks. Please do me a favor, if you're thinking of renting this movie, think again. The very uncool camera angles and quotes like ""Come here you sexy bitch"" just makes you think that the movie is made by some sort of primate with the brain the size of a peanut.",0 "Now where on earth did this movie come from? Why was there no warning? Shouldn't we have seen it coming somehow? Like PISTOL OPERA, TEARS OF THE BLACK TIGER boldly paints itself across the screen in bold bright colours as if to say to the rest of the movie making world ""Are you so fresh out of ideas already?"". Unlike PO though, TOTBT is not just utterly removed from filmic convention - it's just in utterly the wrong time and place.

The movie is basically a 1950's Hollywood Western/Melodrama... made in 21st Century Thailand (and with tongue firmly in cheek). The clothes, the hairstyles, the sets, the camerawork, the soundtrack, the acting, the script... all spot on for 50's America. The movie has even been bizarrely colourised in a way reminiscent of very early colour film stock, but obviously done digitally and deliberately, with an eye to the exact shifting of colours that best suits each shot. Hues are shifted to colours the world is not meant to be, and saturation is selectively ramped up to 1000 to create lurid pinks and shocking yellows and an absolutely unique look to the film. It looks weird, but fantastic.

TEARS OF THE BLACK TIGER has two major advantages over PISTOL OPERA. Firstly, they remembered to include a story. And it's a really good one... a melodrama in the finest tradition, featuring love and loss and friendship and rivalry and hatred and sorrow and jealousy and heroism and good and evil and all the finest things in life. The script is very well thought out, full of lots of details that are woven together in a way that keeps you on your toes.

The mood is definitely spoof, and absolutely pitch perfect. I haven't laughed out loud so much since SHAOLIN SOCCER, yet secretly really caring about what was going to happen to the characters. Acting is as over the top as the soundtrack, in permanent crescendo, delivered with a straight face and sincerity that would make the most melancholy of viewers at least giggle a bit.

I enjoyed this movie so much - so utterly out of nowhere, inexplicable, funny, sweet, moving,... where did these ideas come from? It all fits together and makes so much sense you think perhaps the idea was obvious all along, but I'm pretty sure that it was in exactly one persons head ever before he put it on film. And then there are few curveballs that are *definitely* ideas of an insane but brilliant mind .

Very highly recommended!",1 "This was such a great little movie. Peter O'Tool was perfect in what was to become one of his last great roles. I wonder why more people haven't seen this movie. I wonder why O'Tool doesn't get more interesting parts these days. This year O'Tool was just fine in ""Troy"" however, that wasn't a very special film. ""My Favorite Year"" was though. It wonderfully recreated 1954 and was filled with many touching and funny moments. For some reason this movie reminds me of some of th period Woody Allen movies from this time such as Radio Days, Purlple Rose of Ciro, ect. I just wish Woody would make another movie w/ the great O'Tool visa vie- ""What's new Pussycat"", but I sappose that's a pipe dream. Maybe Woody and or O'Tool read this and get an idea. God knows they both need to boost their movie hype....come on guys get this guy into a good movie before it's too late.",1 "Dead Life is without a doubt the saddest attempt at film-making I have ever witnessed.

From a technical viewpoint, this film is a mess. The image quality varies greatly throughout the entire movie, sometimes switching to black and white for no apparent reason. The computer graphic scene is reminiscent of an early Atari game.

The soundtrack is out of sync during much of the film, and it's quality fluctuates.

The plot is thin and hard to follow. It is often impossible to understand the motivation for the actors actions.

The skill of the actors makes it painfully clear that they were chosen for their ability to arrive on the set, rather than talent.

This film is full of inconsistencies, hair length and clothing change inexplicably, the same extras appear in two consecutive scenes, supposedly miles away...

The list could go on, but I'm getting bored with this review, just as I was when watching this poor excuse for entertainment.

After watching Dead Life, I was surprised to find that it wasn't made as a middle school drama class project.

I'm a big fan of B movies, but Dead Life is an F at best.",0 "Oh, I remember it well. The hemlines had shot up from the ankles to the thighs in a few short years. The girls were sexy but aloof, but in love with their male teachers. The boys hormones were raging more than ever and we were wondering if we would get laid before we died in VietNam, and we were hoping that that oh so sexy teacher would be willing to give us some ""extracurricular instruction"". Charles Manson had been convicted of the Tate-Bianca murders. The atmosphere was so sexually charged you could cut it with a knife.

This movie almost perfectly captured this mood--As good a documentary as you can get in a fiction film and some of the most gorgeous soon to be ""B"" movie queens were showing us their bodies (including Angie Dickinson--at age 40!)

",1 After hearing what a great movie this was I was looking forward to watching it. Not only did the movie fall far short of what the critics promised I found most of it to be unwatchable. We ended up fast forwarding through the movie to find out what happened. Definitely a movie to be skipped.,0 "Hasn't this been done a hundred times? You'd think after Margaret Thatcher this wouldn't be such a shocking premise. I found the whole thing silly and irritating.

I dislike prejudice in any form so it offends me to hear statements like, ""Women are better at politics because they can admit when they've made a mistake."" I don't think work has a gender, I don't think women are better at politics any more than men are better at engineering. I also dislike seeing women treat their husbands like children and their children like adults.

This might make a nice ""follow your dream"" film for school girls except for the fact that the film teaches that self-esteem is a more useful career preparation than education or experience.",0 "Non Ho Sonno, or Sleepless as it's commonly known to English speaking audiences, starts in 'Turin, 1983' where a young boy named Giacomo (Daniele Angius) has just witnessed his mother (Francesca Vettori) being brutally murdered by an unseen assailant, Chief Inspector Ulisse Moretti (Max von Sydow) promises Giacomo that he will find his mother's killer even if it takes him the rest of his life. It's now' Turin, Today' & a prostitute named Angela (Barbara Lerici) refuses to comply with her clients disgusting demands & in her hurry to leave their apartment knocks over a table out of which falls some large dangerous looking knives & a blue folder which she accidentally puts into her bag in her rush. On the train home Angela looks inside the folder & finds evidence that her client is a murder & somehow connected to the 'dwarf murders' back in '83. Angela phones her friend Amanda (Conchita Puglisi) to pick her up at the train station but Angela is brutally murdered before the train arrives, outside the station Amanda is also murdered. The current Chief Inspector, Manni (Paolo Maria Scalondro) is on the case, he talks with the now retired Moretti about the dwarf murders but finds out little except that the man thought responsible Vincenzo De Fabritiis (Luca Faglioli) committed suicide. A dancer at the 'Zoo' club named Mel (Elena Marchesini) is the next to be murdered. Giacomo (Stefano Dionisi) now lives in Rome but receives a phone call from an old friend named Lorenzo (Roberto Zibetti) who tells him that the dwarf murders may have started again. With the possibility of his mother's killer striking again Giacomo travels back to Turin where he teams up with Moretti & a friend named Gloria (Chiara Caselli) to try & solve the dwarf murders once & for all...

This Italian production was co-written, produced & directed by Dario Argento I must admit in my humble opinion this is his worst film to date that I've seen. Many hailed it as a return to form, well I'm not having any of that as this can't compare to Argento's best. The script by Argento & Franco Ferrini while Carlo Lucarelli has a 'collaboration' credit has all the classic Argento ingredients like the black gloved killer, the ultra shiny selection of knives & blades, a ridiculous plot & a few glimpses of his unique style. Unfortunately Non Ho Sonno came in a lull in Argento's career coming after his widely panned Phantom of the Opera (1998) remake. Non Ho Sonno feels like a commercial attempt at making a film that utilises what Argento is best known for but at the same time he was under pressure to make it a success, while this is undeniably a Giallo I felt that it tried to incorporate elements from American teen horror that was proving very successful at the time like Scream (1996), I know What You Did Last Summer (1997), Urban Legend (1998), Final Destination (2000) & their various sequels & imitators. The largely teenage cast that populate the film, would Tenebre (1982) been as good if it featured a cast of teens? The hip locations including a rave & local pub where one of the teens even drinks non alcoholic drink. The good looking teen hero & his girlfriend who becomes the damsel in distress & who both manage to solve the murders even though the combined efforts of the Italian police can't & check out the 'crowd pleasing' comedy scene with the dwarfs in the police station. The eventual & obligatory twist ending is flat & had little impact as far as I was concerned. Non Ho Sonno is far too slow at almost 2 hours, there are few murders & none really stay in the memory. There are brief glimpses of Argento's class, the nicely lit blue tones as Mel is killed, or the sequence when Argento's camera pans across the floor for what seems like an eternity with lots of people walking past to come to rest on the killers & their victims feet by which a few seconds later her decapitated head lands but these scenes are few & far between as although technically Non Ho Sonno is good it's all pretty bland & forgettable for most of it's duration. I even found the gore disappointing, a few cut off fingers, a graphic bullet through someones head, someone being gorily killed with an English horn, a decapitation, a pen stuck in someones temple, someone has their face bashed in & a few quick stabbings. It all sounds better than it actually is, it's very spread out & isn't particularly graphic. There is some brief full frontal nudity but nothing to get too excited about. The acting is OK but the dubbing doesn't help, Max von Sydow adds a touch of elegance & class Non Ho Sonno definitely doesn't deserve. Overall a very disappointing effort from Argento, there is very little I can recommend in this film. Watch Tenebre, The Stendahl Syndrome (1996), Opera (1987), Suspiria (1977) or Deep Red (1975) again instead & remember the good times which don't look like they'll return anytime soon...",0 "This movie got my attention because its producer claimed it'd compete for Oscar foreign language film along with the Banquet and Curse of the Golden Flower, another two big budget Chinese films. But this small budget movie fails to stand out both for story line and performance. Its setting is basically within an apartment building. With twisted love among an unfaithful husband, a heartbroken wife and of course, the lover, a salon owner, the story seemingly is trying to tell how the mystery can evolve into something to grab peoples' heart. Unfortunately, it rapidly runs into mediocre with basically no surprise at all. Its acting can't score anything either. Carina Lau has some shining moments, yet with an emotionless(trying to be sophisticated?)Jun Hu, there is really not much to tell. Its supporting roles are also weird and unconvincing. Well, it is an ordinary story. Maybe it happens everyday in China nowadays. If you are interested in peeking into the changing society, you might find something intriguing. Otherwise, turn on your TV.",0 "After disposing of the fact that this film was significantly under budgeted, and, in spots, more than a bit overacted, what remains is a realistically cold and existential account of the first day of the American Revolution. While the principal characters have decided to take a stand against British domination, most are a bit vague in their feelings and haven't judged exactly how far they are willing to go. Yet, the events of the Day assume a life of their own and sweep everyone along.

I was most impressed by the way the film depicts the confusion of war and the mostly improvised pattern of resistance against the redcoats. Firing is heard all around, though no one is exactly sure from where or by whom. Men move through the woods with their guns, forming ad hoc groups to ambush the roadbound British columns---whose primary mission was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. The tactics are historically accurate. They fire, and retreat to concealed positions to reload. Most of these men are reluctant warriors, resigned to an unpleasant task, yet resolved to carry it through. A fine illustration of the ultimate Check and Balance of an armed citizenry; a concept enshrined in our Constitution yet too readily dismissed by many who claim to believe in democratic principles.

Another interesting and rather rare touch is the fact that the scriptwriters made a real effort to have the characters speak as people of the time would have. I have found that in many ""historical"" films the actors use words, sentence structure and alliterative devices from modern times. In some instances, well intentioned editors concerned with realism overcompensate to the point where the dialogue is overly formalized, archaic, and stilted. Not so here. The actors really sound like what one would read in contemporary, primary sources describing the event. This by itself gives the film considerable educational value.

A good ""war is hell"" movie still suitable for younger viewers due to its lack of gratuitous gore, and a memorable portrayal of ordinary people facing up to the bold task of confronting tyranny.",1 "I like Salma Hayek, I like Russell Crowe.. I had never heard of this movie until I noticed it on the TV guide, but seeing who were starring in it, I was expecting some entertainment.. How wrong was I!! :O It turned out to be really, Really bad! Forced dialogue all through the movie, plus I felt the director had been playing with as many different camera techniques as he could think of - ending up making a big mess of waste. Such disappointment..

The only potential bit was the scene where he was taking a bath, getting a mental image of the bodybuilder type she described on the phone.. But it wasn't funny enough to save the movie.

This one's best avoided..",0 "I guess if you're a fan of Westerns, you'll be more inclined to forgive this movie's many flaws. However, seeing as I enjoy Westerns, but I'm not particularly a fan of them, I didn't forgive a single one of them.

From the opening sequence I was thoroughly disappointed with the acting. Everyone except Ed Harris sounded like they were reading from cue cards off screen, so I became annoyed early on and the movie did nothing at all to redeem itself. The story moved along at a snails pace and, except for one part, was very very predictable. Also, for a Western movie, there was very little action. Appaloosa's does have some good points though. The action sequences they did have were brilliant and realistic (which I really appreciated). There were no drawn out gun sequences, they were quick and packed full of shooting, which makes perfect sense, since everyone in the gunfights are supposed to be well trained gunman. And the acting did gradually get better, all the way up until the last few lines, which were, again, delivered like being read from cue cards.

Like I said before, if you are a fan of Westerns, you'll probably be a lot more forgiving than I am being, so you should probably go ahead and see this movie. If you're like me, and can enjoy a Western but not particularly a fan, then ignore it. Yeah, it's watchable and you won't feel like you completely wasted your time, but there's a lot of times when you'll be thinking ""Okay, someone either needs to get shot or this movie needs to end.""",0 "This is an excellent movie. I had to hunt it down while visiting LA, but Judy Berlin is definitely worth catching. Eddie Falco, Barbara Barrie, and Madeline Kahn are excellent leading ladies. Kahn especially makes an impact as a worrisome and somewhat philosophical housewife who goes on a long walk during the eclipse. Beautifully shot in black and white, Judy Berlin is wonderful, definitely one of my favorite movies. Too bad it didn't get a wider release.",1 "I must confess to liking giant monster movies, but this film is really just plain awful! Bad special effects, even worse acting, silly premise. By the way that big snake would be considered a monster! Anyway painful as it was I made it through to the end. I chuckled a few times while watching this mess, just not believing what I'm seeing or hearing.

1 out of 10, for bad movies beware 5 out of 10. Suffer with me.",0 "I was so disappointed with this movie. After reading reviews and user comments here and elsewhere, comments mentioning the ""dream-like"" qualities of this movie, the surprise ending, the colorful imagery - the name ""Columbo"" was even mentioned - I was expecting an eerie, thought-provoking who-dunnit giallo crossing Dario Argento with Poirot. Wrong. This is a stupid body count movie that easily could have been a made-for-American-TV creepshow crap film if some of the graphic violence was removed. The only thoughts you'll be provoked into are thoughts about exactly what method will be used to kill the next victim. The imagery isn't all that colorful, either, certainly not matching Dario's worst movies. The surprise ending is extremely brief, less than 3 minutes, and utterly stupid. Can you tell I hated this movie?",0 "I was so embarrassed watching this film - I couldn't even manage to stay until the end. I was looking forward to a nice surprise: films made in and about Sardinia do not come out every day. Sadly my expectations withered slowly away since the very beginning. This movie has no pace, no acting, no plot, no breathtaking scenery, no likable character, not even the urchins in the first episode. It simply appeals to your ""gut"" feeling. Everybody - kids included - is appallingly repulsive, performs incoherent deeds, appears to be some subhuman being in desperate need of a shower. I could catch no underlying humour, probably my fault.

The first scene shows some dire, deserted interior, with piles of rotting material scattered everywhere, the most attractive fixture being an overweight sewer rat gorging itself on some unidentified revolting substance. In the second episode we are treated to a candid camera-like take of a cross/eyed shepherd milking the flock and making cheese while feeding his pig. If this is supposed to look realistic, the Sardinian cheese industry is going to lose a good portion of its revenues. We follow the sheperd's trip from his ""idyllic"" hideout in the mountains to a ""trendy"" eatery on the coast, whose cheesy owner performs a series of senseless actions and feeds his customers the aforesaid cheese, and so on and so forth. I really could not take much more of that.

I left the cinema feeling queasy, wondering if my indigestion had been caused by what I had viewed.

1 out of 4.",0 "There is nothing worse than a dull serial killer thriller, but somehow ""The Mean Season"" manages not only to be dull but redundant as well. Phone call after phone call to Kurt Russell, with little or no forward movement of the storyline. There are absolutely zero creative moments in this movie, and the cast seems uninspired to say the least. Special mention must be made of Mariel Hemingway's performance, which can only be described as dreadful. The ending is especially weak, with some totally unacceptable police work, not to mention the killer's unbelievable good fortune. Even for Kurt Russell fans, this will be a disappointment. - MERK",0 "I love this film. It shows the very human struggle to survive after they've been knocked from the top of the food chain. It blends medieval mythology with a modern era breathlessly. Definitely an original take on Man vs Dragon. Now to get this straight, this is a film about Humans, not about Dragons. The dragons merely supply the unique reason for the apocalypse. This is a film about the post-apocalypse, not the apocalypse. It's not about skies full of Dragons turning worldwide armed forces into ash on an epic scale. It's not about Dragons setting the world, quite literally, on fire. It's about after all that's happened.

Which is a shame this was advertised as a film about Dragons burning all life as we know it. Of course, everyone goes in expecting to see 90 minutes of Dragons destroying everything. If this had been advertised as a more human film about after these Dragons have completely wasted everything, I really think this could've been seen as a good film. It unfortunately set expectations high in the wrong sort of viewers by a mind-blowingly epic trailer.

Christian Bale, Gerard Butler and Matthew McConaughey all deliver their role superbly, and the script isn't as bad as it's made out to be either. The effects were great and the Dragons do look pretty realistic, to the point I almost believed this was a documentary. Okay, so there are some plot holes, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to fill those in yourself. I mean, does everything have to be explained so obviously? The only reason this film gets 4 stars and not 5 is because, being a film about human struggle, it could've done with a bit more character development. Other than that, it's a deeply entertaining, well-acted, suspenseful film.

Don't knock it before you see it for yourself.",1 "I saw this at the Museum of Radio and Television (don't think it's available on DVD). I had first seen it as what now called a ""questioning"" young man in 1972 (the son's character was 14, I was 13 at the time) and remembered it being very important to me as the first sensitive, non- judgmental portrayal of gay men on television. I particularly remembered the poise of a very young Martin Sheen. Viewing it again after 35 years it was almost as affecting, with wonderful acting by a very strong ensemble cast, with Hope Lange a stand-out as the mother/ex-wife. I enjoyed the early-70s touches (shag carpeting in the bathroom, 8-track cassettes) but realized that -- despite so many advances in gay rights over the years -- it could almost be re-made today and still make sense. Cross your fingers that this someday is available on DVD.",1 "The actual fact of the matter is that production was so fast and furious for Warners, ""Termite Terrace"" animators, that they decided to do it as a parody of the Tom and Jerry cartoon, Concerto Cat"" that had won the academy award earlier that year. Warners released there parody later that same year. In my opinion, the animators at Warners were light years ahead of Hanna Barbara. Yes there is a charm to the H-B characters and the gags are solid but the Tex Avery stuff at MGM was superior and no one could make something look and move funny like the ""Termite Terrace"" gang over at Warners. This also explains why the scenario for Bugs was so odd - to be the tormented instead of the tormentor.",1 "John Galsworthy's sometimes ponderous but very interesting social drama ""The Forsyte Saga"" has been attempted as a TV-mini series since this production of a feature film, based on the earlier books of the series, was issued by MGM Studios' heads. The film they produced turned out to be an absolutely-gorgeous color offering, by anyone's standards, featuring costumes by Walter Plunkett and Valles, cinematography by talented Joseph Ruttenberg, and art direction by Daniel B. Cathcart and Cedric Gibbons. The interesting original music for the film was composed by Bronislau Kaper, and Edwin B. Willis produced lovely set decorations. The script for the piece was furnished by Jan Lustig, Ivan Tors and James B. Williams, drawing the events largely from ""The Man of Property"" by John Galsworthy. In the cast were lovely red- haired Greer Garson as Irene Forsyte, and Errol Flynn as Soames Forsyte, the eponymous new-money tycoon of the ""The Man of property""s"" original title. Walter Pigeon played young Jolyon Forsyte, whom the family has disowned for following an artistic career, among other complaints. Robert Young was architect Philip Bossinney and respected British actors played the delightfully and frighteningly stuffy Forsyte family including Halliwell Hobbes, Lumsden Hare, Aubrey Mather and more. Janet Leigh played young June Forsyte and Harry Davenport the elder Jolyon Forsyte. With all this talent, the film which is quite good could perhaps have been made even better. Compton Bennett's direction is angular, always interesting and more-than-competent at all points by my standards. The story-line, for those who have never seen it, involves a loveless marriage between Soames Forsyte, who regards his wife as an article of property and Irene, a 19th-century woman who has to marry, being without profession, who grows to despise his miserly nouveau riche pretensions, controlling behavior, and bullyings. She takes up with an excitingly-imaginative architect, who has been hired by Soames to build their new home. Finding out about their attachment, Soames uses his financial power against Bossinney, who grows distraught and then is killed in a street accident. Irene turns to the black-sheep of the family, who had married for love, the artist Jolyon, leaving Soames to confront the colossal failure of his pretensions. The classically-trained Garson and Pigeon are wonderful and memorable in their parts. Flynn tries hard, but lacks a bit of the vocal power he developed soon after this film as released; nevertheless he is more-than-adequate and intelligent in his role. The entire supporting cast ranges from very good to even better by my standards; but their parts seldom allow them to stand out for very long in this look at an entire social class. As a writer, I must suggest that the only loss of power in this strong film appears to stem from MGM's studio heads asking for a script that stressed Soames's emotional coldness; the strongest line of development appeared to have been to stress the tyranny aspect of Soames as versus the regard for individual dignity and rights-- regardless of the wealth owned by any man--on the part of Irene and Jolyon and the other ethical sorts in the work. The film has quite a bit to say about the misuses of power, I suggest; it depicts the imperial side of Britain and the postmodernist unethicals it spawned, folk who never noticed that they were acquisitive types who seemed to admire piracy more than honesty. ""That Forsyte Woman"" I find to be a very absorbing, beautiful and sobering cinematic production.",1 "I own all eight of them. I've played at least part of every Final Fantasy game of the series. And you know what?

I still have a special place in my heart for that very first Final Fantasy game to ever hit the world of Nintendo (once THE hottest game system around).

It was the game that I never owned as a kid, but always wanted to play. I played it sometimes when I visited friends that owned it. Now I have it and all seven of the others.

Not to brag. But it is an excellent series. And I sound like I'm 13. But that's ok. Because Final Fantasy is simply cool.

",1 "I saw this movie after reading about it in a magazine 4 years ago. It seems like a documentary in every way, and I think if I would not have known it was a mockumentary I would have believed it. It has a lot of funny moments.

I must admit I am not a fan of Peter Jackson, I really hated The Frighteners and LOTR and Kong was bad in every way but the technical, but this one was quite entertaining and(fortunately) short. It looks as if it would have been a 60 minute documentary and those archive films are very realistic.

All in all it is a great mockumentary and I can understand why people got angry.",1 "I only watched this film on MST3K so I could bare watching the whole thing, but watching it on that show didn't take my attention away from the film itself. I could still notice the sadness and the general rubbish of the movie. It looked more like a music video for a 80s rock band than a actual movie.

There's a lot of bad points to this, such as the acting. It was boring, plain and it didn't make me react at all, just made me want to go to sleep more than anything. Also the acting of the mentally handicapped character was pretty unconvincing as well, and slightly offensive. I mean he was portrayed as somewhat of an idiot and someone who doesn't get anything, even the part when he was eating the dog food was completely wrong for the character he was supposed to play. It's not how it works and how the character should've been portrayed. I don't mean to make out that this movie is rubbish just because of this, it's rubbish for many reasons.

The action was like watching paint dry, I just couldn't get into it because it was just so corn. The fighting scenes for one was very slow, it seemed like they were both scared of injuring each other when they were fighting, even though they were wearing god knows what inches thick. It's all staged of course, but you have to make it seem like it isn't, which wasn't very well pulled off here, that along with the other forms of action within this movie such as the bike riding and carnage etc.

The only thing that was least unbearable about this movie was the theme. I mean an apocalyptic world is a good setting for a movie I've found with watching others such as Children of Men or The Matrix, but the difference between those movies and this one, is that they were very well written and everything about them was great and provoked the right reactions out of you when you watched them. But this, the only reason I didn't fall into a trance-like state was the fact I was watching it on MST3K, which is where it is only worth watching.

In short, boring, corny and generally you'd just rather go to sleep than watch it.",0 "I've always loved Annie Oakley. I've always loved Barbara Stanwyck too. I'm sure one is related to the other. This used to be one of those old, mid-morning movies that was shown fairly often. If you stayed home from school, (ahem) SICK, you got to see it. Cowboys, Indians, Buffalo Bill, his Wild West Show, sharpshooting, a (yucky) love story, and the charming and beautiful Barbara Stanwyck. Hmmm, what a way to recover enough to return to school!!! Barbara Stanwyck was a liberated woman playing liberated roles long before it was in vogue.

Great license is taken with history, but this film was made when heroes were bigger than life and legend ruled. It's a nicely told story, tracing the life of a young girl, from the backwoods to a life of world-wide celebrity (yes, and love too). ""Annie's"" skills were real, but she had lots of help learning ""showmanship"". There are a lot of funny moments, warm moments, and selfless (O Henry type) acts. These ""flesh"" out the story and lead you right into a joyous ending. (AIN'T LOVE GRAND!)

Very nicely done, it will please ""new"" audiences and old-timers alike. The younger crowd should especially like ""Annie Oakley"". They don't make movies like this anymore. It's a fitting tribute to Annie Oakley, American legend, and folk hero.....

PS--- I gave this a 9 out of 10 rating. I was tempted to give it a 10, after all, it was made in 1935 and is still good....",1 "A pretty decent drama/thriller. I watched it because of Samuel L. Jackson. In this one, as usual, he plays his role with a quiet, understated charisma. Milla Jovovich was beautiful, more so than I have seen her before. She had a brief nude scene in this film. She shows some measure of courage going topless with her quite small breasts. I say more power to her. To all the aspiring actresses out there getting advice, let this show that if you have some talent, you don't have to mutilate yourselves with implants. Just say no! But I digress. The supporting cast did well, also. Stellan Skarsgard was suitably menacing, Joss Ackland was suitably eccentric, Doug Hutchison was suitably psychotic. The plot, with a small number of characters, could as well have come from a play as a Hammett story. Bob Rafelson's direction was unobjectionable. Overall, I'd say check it out.",1 """Witness to Murder"" is a small but interesting film starring Barbara Stanwyck, George Sanders, and Gary Merrill. By 1954, Stanwyck was 47 and no longer considered leading lady material. However, because she was such a great star and actress, she could still get good roles in big films, ""Titanic"" and ""Executive Suite"" being two that leap to mind. She could also, like Loretta Young, get stuck in B movies like this one and ""Jeopardy."" ""Witness to Murder"" isn't so much a B movie as it is closer to what one was seeing on television by 1954. And it's not a B cast.

Stanwyck plays a career woman, Cheryl, of a certain age who sees a woman murdered in the apartment across from hers. The apartment belongs to an author, Albert Richter, who emigrated to America after the war. Cheryl reports the murder but no one believes her. Richter is too smooth and always one step ahead of her with the police. Cheryl is considered an hysterical single woman who has delusions because she isn't married and probably going through menopause, though this isn't out and out stated. Completely outrageous and no doubt what actually went on at the time. These assumptions were just taken for granted in the '50s. There was something really wrong with a woman who never married. Read LOSER. A woman's goal in life was marriage; the career was just a stopgap until the ring was on the finger. What must it have been like for an intelligent woman to have that mantle put on her. In this film, the police detective (Gary Merrill) is interested enough in her to at least follow the case.

All of the acting is very good, with Stanwyck really shining as someone determined to get the truth out, even if she has to do a little detective work herself. Sanders is very effective as the villainous Richter, and he's pretty scary at the end of the film. The last 15 minutes or so are exciting and will have you on the edge of your seat.

This is actually a fairly derivative film bolstered by its stars. And you can't beat the opportunity to see the attitudes toward women played out in a realistic manner. Alas, there are still touches of it today.",1 "Honestly, by the time the cult members were drinking poisoned kool-aid, I was mixing up a batch of my own to put myself out of my freaking misery. Honestly, what were they thinking? Mulder discovering a past life where he was a Jewish woman during the Holocaust?!?! Seriously!! Oh, and he finds his soul mate from multiple past lives, never to be heard from again. And am I really supposed to believe that people get to choose with whom they return, and Cancer Man follows Mulder across the ages to torture him. Really? He can't find someone else to bug every other lifetime or so. I think Scully ought to get a medal for putting up with Mulder's crap. She lets him waste their precious time (time that ended up resulting in dozens of people chugging the red kool-aid) to go into his past lives, and he doesn't even stinking remember where the other bunkers are!!!! Wasn't that the whole point? I love Mulder and Scully, and the acting was passable, but I think I'll go ahead and pretend that this episode never happened. I get the idea that that's what the creators, writers, and directors did, since the supposed ""insight"" into Mulder's character is completely irrelevant for the rest an otherwise excellent series.

muldernscully - I'm with you",0 "I remember how excited I was to see Ram Jaane, I was thinking to myself ""This movie is definitely going to rock like all of Shahrukh and Juhi's other films; I can't wait to see it!"" But I was WRONG... Ram Jaane ended up falling way below my expectations. The story itself isn't really that exciting or on the other hand that boring, you could say it's about average.

Also, Shahrukh and Juhi weren't even together at all in this film! I know that SRK was in love with Juhi in Ram Jaane, but she was interested in some other guy which practically took out all the fun of the film itself! As for the acting, I'd have to say that Shahrukh had done a fabulous job playing his role and Juhi did a fairly good job at playing the role of Bela.

I, myself as a fan of Shahrukh-Juhi was really disappointed after watching Ram Jaane and I know that many of the other SRK-Juhi fans were let down as well.

All in all, Ram Jaane deserved a 4/10!",0 "Mike Leigh makes this movie as a sociological study because he wants us to be confronted with the state of mind of the working class of now. There is more poverty in the slums nowadays than say twenty years ago! Family-life is disrupted and children have many problems: overweight, sexual harassment, abortion (?). How will the rent be paid? And the loan of the taxi? What is going on in the mind of our son who does only look television and eat until he becomes fat? Why is my woman unhappy, do we still talk to each other? We are proud of our daughter who is a nurse for elderly people, but what is happening with our son? Even the dialogues in the taxi are splendid!",1 "Jeff Wincott stars as Harlan Quinn a hit-man who wakes up to find that he's been declared dead and that he's been recruited to work for the CIA in killing anybody who's a threat to the government, this has all been set up by the mysterious Mr.Green (Michael Ironside) and his first targets include a homosexual advocate, a muckraking journalist and a female professor with information that the AIDs virus was manufactured. Dr.Ann Kendall (Terri Hawkes) is the last one of Wincott's list but he finds himself falling for his prey and when the time comes for the kill, Quinn ends up protecting Kendall from the assassins now gunning for them both in this intense thriller. Jeff Wincott gives an impressive performance and Ironside makes for a great villain which elevates this far above the usual output of this worn out hit-man genre.

4/5 Matt Bronson",1 "First off no offense to anyone that did the movie, actors rocked and other things. And secondly, this is my opinion of the movie, as opinions are ALWAYS different please keep an open mind when reading this review, thank you. I have nothing against the actors, nor do I have anything against the crew, I think they did an amazing job. BUT... I just can't get over how bad the writing was, don't get me wrong, the writing was great the dialogue at least, but the plot lacked. You think a movie being about the Dark Prince would have more of him in it, well it didn't. There was little. Your imagination could do better than what this movie did. So if you wanna add more to #2 and don't really wanna see #3 I suggest get a paper and pen and then write down what you think would've happened, what you would've done differently in either #3 or both of the movies. Maybe what they should've done was had it through Draculas' eyes. Would've been better that way. I suggest also for people who like the story of Dracula to read Bram Stokers' novel, ""Dracula"" and read anything else you can about vampires, please also read Kim Harrison, Anne Rice, and Laurell K. Hamilton. Like I said my opinion on the movie, and some suggestions, the plot really did lack. But thank you for reading, I really do appreciate it. Gave it a 4 'cause I thought the acting was good, but other than that... you know the rest.",0 "I most enjoyed this movie. I viewed it years ago, and found myself enjoying it all over again. I couldn't quite remember who did it, but during the 'gather all the suspects in one room please' scene, I suddenly remembered. Ustinov looks to be having the time of his life here, and being paired with David Niven, who wouldn't? The rest of the cast are mostly hit and miss, the hits are Bette Davis, Olivia Hussey, Simon Mccorkindale and Mia Farrow. The misses are the spectacular ""what WERE they thinking?"" miscasting of Jack Warden as a Swedish doctor (""Vaht, you accuse me?"") Peter Finch as a communist sympathiser, and Angela Lansbury just chewing the scenery up as a booze swigging romance novelist. The who-dunit is actually presented in an entertaining (and surprisingly violent) way, and makes for an entertaining time.",1 "The problem that I had with this movie is that the doctor laughed like a little girl. It was just as the title suggested and it made the movie more of a bad comedy than a horror movie. I couldn't stand the way he giggled. It was so cheesy but what did I expect? Then he makes all of these doctor jokes such as: ""Is there a doctor in the house?"" I think that I have heard jokes like this before and they were snowman jokes in Jack Frost. Freddy Kruger also makes jokes like that so they were nothing new. This is a bad movie that was meant to be a horror movie but just turned into a comedy. It isn't even that great of a comedy. If I were flipping by and saw this again, I would just keep on going. Giggle. Giggle. Giggle.",0 "Story of Three circus daredevils who take on the evil 39013 an escaped convict who seeks to destroy the possessions of Horace Granville the man responsible for sending him to jail.

Considered by man to be one of Republics Finest hours it certainly has a sterling cast that includes Charles Quigley, Herman Brix, Miles Mander and Charles Middleton in one of his best villain roles. Frankly the cast alone is reason enough to see this. The action in the serial is top notch and most if not all of the cliffhangers were reused several times by the studio in serials that followed this one. The action is balanced by a good story which doesn't really repeat itself again and again.

Actually the problem with the serial is not so much the plot being repeated but the locations. My lack of love for the serial (I'm not a lover of it, I like it) comes from the fact that the film is constantly using industrial locations for its cliffhangers. It seems to be that most of the locations seem to be warehouses or factories or something industry related. Its in keeping with the plot, but at the same time I'd have liked to see something else.

That said this is a really good action serial that should be seen if you want to see one thats near the top of the pile.",1 "Western have always been a popular stable of American culture, from pulp fiction stories, to films like The Searchers, the Man With No Name Trilogy, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Unforgiven and The Assassination of Jesse James. HBO has also produced some of the best television ever made, The Sopranos, Oz, Rome. Deadwood is a fine addition to that list.

Set in the years 1876 to 1878, Deadwood is set in the town of Deadwood, South Dakota. Deadwood starts off as a small camp and slowly becomes a town through the course of the show. Deadwood is a growing town with gold prospers and becomes a area of interest for businesses, politicians and criminals. The show focuses on a number of characters, the town sheriff Seth Bullock (Timothy Olyphant), his deputy Sol Star (John Hawkes), salon owner Al Swearengen (Ian McShane) and prospector/mine owner Alma Garret (Molly Parker), as well as many key supporting characters throughout the series. The series focuses conflicts within the town. In the first series the main focus the conflict between Swearengen and Bullock over Garret's gold claim, one wants to protect her, the other wants to take it off her. The second is about Deadwood's attempt to become a part of South Deadwood and with outside interests wanting to take over people's gold claims from under them. The final series is about the conflict between Deadwood's citizens with the evil George Hearst (Gerald McRaney) who wants to take control of the town, using his thugs to gain it.

The show is bold, focusing on themes about growth of law and order, the Untied States and Democracy in a small time. Deadwood and people change with the wider world. They are looks at industrialization process with minor themes about trade unionism, the growth of politics and the benefits and disadvantages of joining the union. The show also takes an new look of the west, it was not a glamorous world, but also looks at the influence of big business and not just individuals. The show looks at crime within the town, looking at drug dealing, prostitution, gambling and gang wars. This makes for interesting and entertaining viewing. This is a refreshing look at the west, almost like the Sopranos of the nineteenth century. There are subplots, from youth crime, to homosexuality to a very good one about a psychopathic serial killer. Deadwood is the closer America has come to making a costumer drama.

The series has excellent characters and actors playing them. Swearengen is easily the best and Ian McShane made the role and Powers Boothe as his rival. There are good guest stars like Brain Cox who plays an over the top characters and Gerald McRaney as the quiet villain. I really like Garret Dillahunt as the villainous psycho. There are good supporting characters such as Mr. Wu, the leader of the Chinese and has some great comical moments with Swearengen and Joanne Stubbs, a prostitute who questions herself.

The show is good for the most part but it is not perfect. The first is that in the show there are so many subplots that they end up unresolved and sometimes hard to follow. It takes away a compelling viewing. The second is the main character Bullock and the actor who plays him. The character is stiff and wooden compared to most of the other characters in the series and he is too righteous for his own good. He isn't interesting. Timothy Olyphant is a very wooden, a very dull actor. The character Alma also suffer from a similar problem, but Molly Parker is a pretty decent actress.",1 "While I found it ultimately disappointing, it was a nice attempt at being different. The movie had nice costumes,make up and some humor. But it was too uneven. I'm not sure the film makers truly decided what type of movie this was going to be. I disliked the music that was used for background music and I really disliked the live music scenes. The background music was largely responsible for giving the mixed messages about what type of ""feel"" a scene was supposed to have. i just didn't feel like the scenes that were shot, and what was put together in editing and post-production matched.

But for B-movie, Video Nasty people I think its worth one watch.",0 "What a misguided translation of what was on stage an absolute jewel. Watching this mess, one wonders what anyone ever saw in the orginal stage production. Utterly charmless, even if it is all in three/four time.",0 "So I finally got around to watching ""Waiting to Exhale"" on Encore the other night and I don't understand why this became a hit.

(Note: spoilers ahead) As far as I can tell, the basic premise of this film is that all men are insensitive, callous and unfeeling; especially towards women.

Okay, well and good. That is the storyline? Fine. Men suck, got it.

But there is a huge double standard here; two of the women are dating married men and clearly, we are meant to be sympathetic about their plight as they whine and cry about not having ""their"" man with them at night in bed.

How about this? STOP DATING MARRIED MEN! Maybe that's your problem in the first place.

Now, on the flip side, Angela Basset's character is abandoned by her husband for another woman. Yet, if you pay attention, even this character is not completely innocent. When her husband informs her he is leaving, the things she says makes it clear she's known about his lover(s) for years but ignored his infidelities. Why? Obviously, because he's so wealthy.

She liked all the ""stuff"" a little too much to have confronted him about it. Again, she's made her bed here, not as completely as the two who are actively cheating, but still. She spends the rest of the movie being so angry that he left her you never really grow to like her. Strangest of all is the man whose wife is dying of cancer; he sleeps with the Angela Basset character after they run into each other at a bar. With their clothes on, which apparently means it's oh-so-platonic and sweet. Then he writes her a letter months later, thanking her for that night and leading the viewer to believe that when his wife kicks off, he'll contact her again.

Did anyone else think this was more than a little sleazy? I would hope if I were dying of breast cancer that my husband wasn't out sleeping around (and I do mean just sleeping) with other women. Sweet, platonic, whatever; I think it's pretty horrible.

Bottom line; the characters you're supposed to connect to are unlikable and the ones you're supposed to hate are just pathetic. Not very enjoyable. However, I did give it three stars for the music, which didn't suck too badly and the clothes and style. It's a nice little snapshot of how things looked in '95. And the print wasn't very faded.

That's about it, though.",0 "I ordered this movie from amazon.com and wasn't disappointed. It isn't wonderful, but it's thoroughly entertaining, pretty scary, and Adrian Brody's character was fascinating. He and Maura Tierney both did excellent jobs in this film, although Maura Tierney's character was slightly less developed. The plot is well crafted and the movie is engaging. I recommend this movie.",1 "A very different movie than any other...the closest thing you can compare it to is Tarentino's ""Pulp Fiction"" but only because of it's multi-linear story.

The cinematography rocked. The acting was superb. The sound went unnoticed, so good work guys! But...

Usually in a movie like this, the multi-linear loose ends will cleverly tie together in the end showing why these particular characters were being followed. But it never did this. Bill Paxton and Orlando Blooms timelines ran almost totally autonomous from one another; crossing paths but never changing the outcome of the other. It was merely a gimmick. The first rule of film making...everything has to have a GOOD reason.",0 "Excellent film dealing with a group of unhappy people who drown their sorrows in booze, powder, and sex. The chief sorrowmeister, Tommy, was a pathetic loser who spent inordinate amounts of time swilling beer and shots in a shabby bar which boasted a temperamental barkeep, a postage stamp sized men's room, and one table. When not turning his liver into plywood Tommy halfheartedly attempts to find work as a mechanic but winds up driving his uncle's ice cream wagon and getting in over his head with a troubled teen on the verge of bolting from daddy's violent household. A sad picture for sure, but I couldn't help laughing out loud at some of these characters' antics. A very fine movie depicting a realistic looking slice of the ugly side of our human existence.",1 "I was a little hesitant to rent this movie after seeing ""Trembling Before G-D"", which was a real eye-opener to me. I guess we go around with our heads in the clouds, not thinking what other homosexuals have to go thru for their religion.... But , the two movies had nothing in common except they were made in Isreal. Yossi and Jagger is a bittersweet love affair between two Isreali soldiers, very well played by Yehuda Levi , and Ohad Knoller, you could feel the love they had for each other and the hurt Jagger was going thru because they had to be so careful as they were officers. Its hard to get a real grip on the characters as its only 67 min long and leaves you grasping for more. But Eytan Fox did a splendid job with the time he had. The song that Jagger sings is haunting in the extra video on the disc. I felt that these men brought back to Isreal some hope that you can have same sex love without the terrible angst they had in Trembling Before God . I give this great little flick 41/2 of 5 8/10 and will be looking forward to seeing Eytan Foxs' new movie ""Walking On Water"". By the way you can get the words in English of the song Your Soul on the message boards for Yossi and Jagger on IMDb.",1 "saw this movie in the theater when it came out in 86 just a fun to watch romp set in ww1 that the whole family can watch is it full of state of the art special effects? no but they did use real planes and pilots. you get a glimpse of what it was like during that time period. throw in a dash of irreverent comedy. a spoon of slapstick,and and a wacky cast as they set out to fight Germany . if you like the older movies operation petticoat, wackiest ship in the army

or up periscope. then this is your kind of movie. as the title says 2 bank robbers escape the law by joining the army and follows them on their adventure as they stumble through WWI",1 "For me, ""Blood Simple"", ""Fargo"" and ""No Country..."" live in a special Coen stratosphere. Then ""Barton Fink"", ""Raising Arizona"", ""the Big Lebowski"" and ""the Man Who Wasn't There"" belong in the next class. I'd have to put ""Burn After Reading"" somewhere in the lower to mid second-class group, but above ""Intolerable Cruelty"" and ""Oh Brother"".

I think that after making a such a serious and dramatic effort last year, they're just goofing off this year, and that's fine, they're allowed to do that. They've earned it. But it's not like this movie is really that good or anything. It's screwy and fun, sometimes works, sometimes doesn't quite. I especially liked Brad Pitt, probably because he's the only one showing some new colors here. It's like he started from scratch and built this guy from experiences he once had in high school.

""Burn After Reading"" passes the time, but don't build this up too much, because it's mostly just a whole lot of goofing around that just holds itself together because of the talents of the Coens.",1 "Powder Keg concludes the BMW short film series ""The Hire"" by adding a very human element to the enigmatic and elusive series title character played by Clive Owen. Director/co-writer Alejandro González Iñárritu departs from the pattern established by the previous 4 directors and makes the driver more of a background character, focusing instead on a war photographer who, after snapping a shocking series of photographs, is on the run and grievously injured. He takes the time to reflect on his life and what he's done-or not done-with it, and why he started taking pictures in the first place.

Stellan Skarsgård does a wonderful job as the photographer, and manages to communicate volumes just as much with what he doesn't say as with what he does. Clive Owen has the opportunity to portray a different side to the driver then in the previous films, allowing his normally unflappable character to have an emotional moment beyond what we've seen. The moment at the end of the film between himself and the woman played by Lois Smith is made more pronounced by his inability to effectively communicate his thoughts and feelings, and his abrupt exit punctuates that perfectly.

Iñárritu directs this short perfectly, using hand-held 16MM cameras to capture a grainy, almost documentary-like feel to the film, and over-exposure for certain shots adds the right amount of dramatic flair to the film.

All in all, my only regret with this film is that it's the last one in this excellent series. BMW should be highly commended for allowing what could have been little more than overblown and expensive commercials to be short films in which the centerpiece vehicles sometimes took a back-seat to the characters and their stories instead. I hope to see another series like this again soon.",1 "I thought that Adrian Paul could improve his chances at the movies since he did a superb job of acting in the Highlander Series, unfortunately I was wrong. I do mean wrong. This movie is the worst thing I've seen since I watched Barney. I couldn't find a single thing to like about it. The plot could've been written better by a child of six years. The entire movie screamed for help. The amount of real dialogue could've been crammed into the first five minutes, anything else said was either cursing of strange things questions on the part of Paul's character. The only good scene in the entire film is the shot of the woman and her daughter laying dead in the snow, for a moment you get a glimpse of an actual movie. Of course it's the scene where everyone is quiet and no one is moving, and Adrian Paul's doing voice overs. I couldn't even stomach thirty minutes of the film with out feeling as if I could cry. It's a shame anyone was allowed to make such a movie. Please do not watch this. Of course I am mostly complaining about Adrian's shift to bad acting, we want more Highlander, but no more movies like Breed.",0 "This story is supposed to be very engaging and seríous, and the subject and dilemma (sexual addicition) may very well be just one. However, the way the characters are portrayed here is quite strange and too often become ridiculous - perhaps from trying too tell too much in too little time. I suppose the intention is to explain the background of the sex addicts and the way they can be treated (in very much a US-style therapy manner), but it all becomes too shallow and 1-dimensional, almost like a 40s comic book series. And the lie-detector scenes - these could be an insult to anyone intelligence! Albeit the ludicrous dialogue the film is packed with a very much sympathetic intention and that´s why this is such a cute little piece of melodrama.",0 "Steel mill owner Lionel Atwill (as John ""Flint"" Dawson) is derailed by evil associate Jamieson Thomas (as James ""Jim"" Marley). After Mr. Thomas costs Mr. Atwell the loss of his legs, he seizes control of the business. Before Atwell is even out of the hospital, Thomas convinces Atwell's wife to take their daughter, and move to England. Now a pauper, Atwell moves from his private hospital room to recover with blind beggar Henry B. Walthall (as Marchant).

Mr. Walthall helps Atwell, who assumes the name ""John Daniels"", back on his feet (a figure of speech). With Walthall's help, Atwell organizes a ""Union"" for beggars. Their beggar ""Union"" makes Atwell wealthier than ever. After fifteen years, he decides to return to the old steel mill, and seek revenge against Thomas. But, Atwell doesn't know his pretty long lost daughter, Betty Furness (as Joyce Dawson), has returned to America, and is being romanced by his old enemy's son, James Bush (as Lee Marley)…

The cast is a treat, but the production and story become increasingly mediocre.

**** Beggars in Ermine (1934) Phil Rosen ~ Lionel Atwell, Jamieson Thomas, Henry B. Walthall",0 "Very cute and very funny film, in French with English subtitles, though I doubt any of the females will be reading them, since the ""visuals"" in this movie are not to be missed. As he always is, Roy Dupuis is beautiful and charismatic, and Patrick Huard is just hysterical. This movie is just fun to watch on a gloomy day.",1 "Reasons Jason Goes to Hell is the worst in a pretty good series of slasher films:

1) Jason is not scary when he's on ""American Casefiles"" (I think that's what the ""America's Most Wanted""-like TV show was called. The whole reason he was scary was because he was this backwoods, crazy type of character that was based soley in legend and newspaper writings. Putting him on TV sucks. So does having the FBI go after him.

2) He looks stupid in this one. That skin bubbling over the hockey mask is just dumb.

3) They try to put too much plot in it. Come on, it's a Friday the 13th movie (isn't it?)! Forget this body-hopping and ""Hellbaby"" garbage and get the hell back in the woods, Jason!",0 "Have to agree with ""Monumental's"" rave out of Blighty, but the consensual 9.3, in view of much more ""substantial"" flicks and maybe even some teleseries, seems to me effusive. This David Milch oeuvre merits same, certainly, for setting and costume and the casting and acting are nonpareil throughout. But, at heart, this too is a ""fable"" of unrelenting stance and style and occasionally eyebrow-raising discomfitures of character and/or situation. The cussing becomes ho-hum, as intended?, but it's the facile morphings of Swearingen and Bullock from scary villain to almost-lovable reprobate and stalwart no-nonsense hero to acquiescent second-banana. In this view, Brad Dourif's ""Doc"" is the most consistent and audience-friendly of the lot, even if he's almost too worldly and wise, it would seem, for both period and locale. At bottom, the series is a direct peel-off from the late, great ""Hill Street Blues"" template, from ensemble characterizations to the true-blue ""realisms"" of the respective subjects and themes. Still, none of this takes away from the incredibly maintained mise-en-scene that would do credit to any filmmaker, much less mere teleseries wonks. What?, the latter are making monkeys out of the former nowadays. Oh, minor quibbles: meseems poor Calamity Jane has been overworked for comic relief sometimes, and, I would be curious for the historic citations for the likes of Mr. Wu and his pigpen. Nice designated pinch hitter though, for exotic ""color""? The game's underfoot, Watson.

Addendum: After turning cartwheels for the likes of Season 1, and even extending into Season 2, I, personally, revise my reactions halfway through the Season 3 episodes. There can be no question about the polished savvy of the creators here, indeed, their accomplishments seem all that more astonishing. But, to me, the fact of the matter is that by Season 3, ""Deadwood"" had become almost a parody of itself, which is to say, ""high camp."" I can't quite take seriously the evolutions herein, including the Earp brothers as Blackwater types, even as seasoned vets like Gerald McRaney and Brian Cox, and even Gale Harold, make you sit up and take notice despite your askance. ALL sustaining members of the ensemble cast continue to maintain their individual ""roles,"" even Robin Weigard's? late-blooming lesbian, albeit the writers and directors have a hard time making it convincing. Someone has posted here the claim that this ""Deadwood"" is a dead ringer for the historic one, coming from a resident there it should matter, but, skeptic that I remain, I have to believe that it can only be ""half"" the ""tale,"" entertaining and theatrical as it is. And, finally, I personally find two ""racial"" elements that fail to ring my bell, to wit, the characterizations of the Negro mama and stable owner, and, more to the point, that of Wu. In that last case, the writers DID ring in the verity of ""heng-dai,"" but assembled 150 ""Chinese"" between Cheyenne and Deadwood? Oh, well, this IS a fable, no? And a damnably satisfying one at that. But, to me, its ""history""city falls considerably short of that of its fellow stablemate telesries, ""Rome,"" which evinces ALL the strengths and glories and less of the stagings and asides.",1 "Acting - Diabolical Plot, _ Diabolical Dialogue, - Diabolical Lighting - Diabolical, Continuity - you guessed it Diabolical.

Need I go on?? How this ever made it straight to DVD is beyond me. It is jaw droppingly awful.

I had to watch it all the way through just to see what new depths would be plummeted.

The plot jumps around all over the place, for some reason all the ""undead"" just disappear out of the film at some point for reasons unknown. The lighting looks like its been done by some bloke with a torch (flashlight). I just haven't enough space to express how awful this was. I recommend that EVERYONE watches this film so that they can say they have watched the worst film of all time. And i thought one I saw in Singapore about a skateboarding monkey was the worst ever....how wrong i was.",0 """Double Agent 73"" is an amateurish and inept movie, yet there is an honesty about its amateurishness and ineptness: you get the feeling that the people involved didn't want to cheat you, they really did try to make an espionage / action movie, they just lacked the talent and budget required. Sure, you could complain all day long about the pointlessly long shots of, say, horse-racing, or the sped-up ""car chase"", or the lack of logic in the story, but you also have to give credit to the film's creativity: it's not every day you can see a punch with the breast replacing the fist, or death via ice cubes stuffed into the victim's mouth! Chesty Morgan gives a somewhat catatonic performance (she's no worse than anyone else in the cast, mind you), and there can be little argument that her breasts are unerotic (bigger is not always better), however she does have a pretty face and nice legs. (*1/2)",1 "I have seen two of the three episodes and I have to tell you that this miniseries has me watching every second in awe and wonder. Two hours speed by and I'm watching the encore to make sure I didn't miss anything. I thought Miss Fannings performance was a little weak; but that may only be because her sister is just so talented. The other characters rock however; well written and acted. You care about what happens to them; one way or the other...

It is rare for a movie to be written that I can't guess what the writers are thinking, but this one keeps the mystery surrounding it. The last movie to do this for me was ""Identity"" with John Cusack. In fact, there are a few similarities, but they are not intentional. If you enjoyed one, however, you will thoroughly enjoy the other.

Great stuff so far. If you missed it the first time; don't pass it by a second. It is worth the watch!",1 "A leprechaun is accidentally freed from his crate and from this moment onwards he terrorizes a household while searching for his gold that was stolen from him. He punishes any unlucky individual who hinders his relentless search of his gold and it up to some teens/kids, Tori, Nathan, Ozzie and Alex to survive to the devastation that this pest is causing them and find the only weapon that can protect them from this malevolent nightmare.

Straight to the point you want? Stupid and unfunny! Yeah 'Leprechaun' is a woefully dull horror flick that leads to spiteful violence with an underbelly of hokey humour, which is unbearably painful. Well, it was for me! I was thinking to myself while watching it, why am I putting myself through a second viewing. Simple, I thought maybe during my first viewing I took it the wrong way, but honestly this time it wasn't any better. Maybe I need to be drinking a lot and I MEAN a lot of alcohol, to find something amusing about it. Because this could have been a great twisted fairy tale nightmare, but it's a nightmare for all the wrong reasons! You might call it more a black comedy than horror, but I believe it didn't work either way. Actually, I thought it opens rather well, but then not too long it falls away quickly. Becoming nothing but a one-idea joke that's filled with too many awful one-liners and wise cracks, which was an uphill struggle to sit through. Sadly all the effort went into the nasty side of the effects, which isn't too bad as the makeup of the leprechaun was excellent and the gore didn't disappoint. But I was just having a hard time with the supposed humour (more like childish), lousy thrills, annoying editing and uninteresting characters. These things bothered me more than the obvious horror clichés, predictability, no frights and that there's not even a real story backing all this up. The acting was average to say the least, though Jennifer Aniston's presence shows and keeps one watching. Warwick Davis as the Leprechaun was obviously enjoying himself by pulling out countless bad-lines. While, the dialogue was just plain nonsense. Almost everything misses the point. Maybe it was a missed opportunity, or I'm just fooling myself. The more I think of it, it felt like I was watching a more nasty version of 'Critters', from the people being under siege in their house… and how much do I hate those films, maybe with the exception of the original.

What were the distributors of the DVD I own were thinking? The thing is they got a pretty recent picture of Aniston from her 'Friends' days and stuck it on the original poster art for the DVD cover. Gosh, I don't remember her being on the original cover art. Who's the actual star of the show? Were they thinking that putting Aniston on the front that it would sell by the truckload? *Hmm* I guess that would help, as there would be more fans out there of Jennifer Aniston who might be a tad interested and who most likely skip it not knowing she was in it. I might be talking crap and moved totally off the point, but I just found it an interesting side-note.

It's definitely not worth its weight in gold!",0 "Even though I've seen many of Tex Avery's Warner Bros. cartoons and know what sorts of things to expect in them, ""Dangerous Dan McFoo"" was still a hoot. Set in a bar in the arctic, this one portrays a dog with Elmer Fudd's voice taking on an opponent who hones in on the dog's Katherine Hepburn-imitating hubby. Of course, the whole thing is an excuse for a series of gags, the same way that a Leslie Nielsen movie is.

However, there is one scene in this cartoon that I am surprised got past the censors: at one point when the opponent punches Dan, Dan puts his hand over his face, and it looks as though Dan is shooting his opponent the bird! I know that the people behind these cartoons liked the push the limits, but that one just blew my mind! Anyway, a really funny one. It appears on the website Daily Motion...and has French subtitles! The things that we see in life.

Note: this was one of the many WB cartoons released before 1948 that got stripped of its opening credits in the Blue Ribbon reissue.",1 "I saw this in Pittsburgh PA in a small theater there. This movie was a lot of fun with tons of B movie stars and references. A total blast from start to finish with everything you'd expect from a low budget movie. Brinke Stevens, Robert Z'Dar, Edwin Neal, and Tom Savini are especially good. This is by far the most fun I've had at the movies in years!",1 "Disney's truly bad side is their habit of churning out cheaply made straight-to-video sequels and spin-offs. And this is no exception to that rule. This short and lifeless offering is an extension to the original Aladdin with the original's charisma and energy sucked right out - the good jokes and interesting moments are almost non-existent in this very obviously hastily put-together film.

The film's most obvious loss is Robin William's genie. Dan Castellaneta does his very best, but he just can't whip up the energy which was so wonderful in the original. He doesn't do motor-mouthed wisecracks and another of his weaknesses is at the heart of the film's biggest downfall: he can't carry off a song.

The songs in The Return of Jafar are basically abysmal. The Genie's song - ""There's Nothing in the World (Quite Like a Friend)"" - completely pales in comparison to the original film's ""Friend Like Me"". Also, this time, even Jafar - rather tragically - joins in the singing and dancing and the originally great but now tortuously irritating Iago gets not one but two songs. Both of them are dreadful.

Whilst any of the film's sparse good points are drowned amongst the embarrassing dialogue and plot, the animation is always distracting. That is, because it is hideous! The vivid animation and fluid movement in the original two years previously seems to be a world away from The Return of Jafar's clumsy and simple production. Action sequences, song routines and the Genie's whirlwind magic are limp and the film suffers terribly from jerky movement and screaming continuity errors. One of the saddest results of this is The Return of Jafar's Magic Carpet. The Magic Carpet in Aladdin is its own character, moving with genuine life and comedy. This time round it is reduced to being an inelegant purple rectangle.

4/10",0 Why!!! It has to be illegal to do this with one of Robert E. Howards characters. This movie is totally crappy. It's even too bad to laugh at. Do not see this movie.,0 "I was under the impression that being the victim of rape was just about the worst thing that can happen to a woman , a horrific violent ordeal that I can barely imagine , but when the lead character Billie is raped by an unseen attacker it seems all that rape involves is a woman getting her face rubbed gently on the ground . Worse than that when Billie finds out she`s pregnant by the rape she hardly bats an eyelid . I don`t think I have to hammer home to you how ridiculous this appears on screen . I know it`s a TVM so there`s broadcasting standards to observe and I suppose this prissy attitude is slightly more preferable than the full throttle stomach churning exploitation of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE but to treat such a serious subject in such a light manner comes close to being offensive . As the story continues it gets even more depressing plot wise but SIN AND REDEMPTION still failed to hold my attention except to make ask how can one woman be so unlucky in life ? It`s like watching an American version of EASTENDERS and just as realistic",0 "In the wake of every race there lies a place and a person that will be missed. Hellman's existential fable about a driver, a mechanic, a girl and a square becomes the amalgamation of the American Dream and its boundaries. Ultimately it's about the places you never saw and the people you've never met.

""Two-Lane Blacktop"" is a benchmark film in every possible way. Beautifully shot and edited it hurtles towards an incredible anti-climax. Singer James Taylor, Beach Boys-Drummer Dennis Wilson and the wonderful Warren Oates (who was Tommy Lee Jones before Tommy Lee Jones) race and pine through the American vastness in search of, well, that's anybody's guess.

I doubt a single Hollywood Studio would finance a movie like this today. Which is all the same, since Hellman has already made it, and with the Criterion release the road-dreamers of this and the last century can cherish it, before they get into their 55 Chevy to head out again.

See you out there...with the shut down strangers and hot rod angels.",1 "I've been a fan of Kirsten for quite a while. Her acting is always excellent though the scripts are usually failing. Not this time. This movie is probably one of the better movies about the holocaust targetted at youths. The movie starts of weak, with a silly ""timetravel"" only to become so much more. I touched me as much as Schindler's list did. See it.",1 "This movie is horrendous. If you ever have the opportunity to see it, run for your very sanity. Courtney Cox makes millions per year from Friends...what the hell ever possessed her to create this monstrosity. Not only are the acting and writing atrocious but her character is so completely unlikable and immoral in so many ways that I just wanted her to be hit by a truck or be slaughtered with an axe wielded by the David Arquette character. Never let your 14 year old go to the movie rental place by herself to pick the movie. Now, please excuse me while I go rinse my eyes out with bleach to try and cleanse myself of the festering tripe I just watched.",0 "Loving ""Ginger Snaps"", a film which if you're like me felt left too many unanswered questions, coming into ""Ginger Snaps 2"" I was eager to see not only how they answered the unanswered questions, but seeing if they could keep the name Ginger Snaps still alive. Well I suppose they did but only in spirit, but it could have been worse. If you're reading this I'm assuming you've seen ""Ginger Snaps 1"" if not, goodbye thanks for reading. Anyways, I loved how the film was pretty much all about Bridgette, not that hated Ginger it's just I really didn't want to deal with one of the problems with Ginger Snaps 1 again which was the constant deal of: I'm okay, no I'm a wolf, No I'm okay, I hate you, now I don't, Now I do! You know, it gets old fast, so therefore having a on woman show with Bridgette I liked. Overall Ginger Snaps 2 isn't exactly a bad sequel, it's just an attempt that was just a little too safe. Ginger Snaps took a risk, after just recovering from the Columbine Massacre and other uproars in teen violence, Ginger Snaps 1 could have been more appropriate, but they weren't and it worked. Here with Ginger Snaps 2 there is no risk visible, and in the end this is probably how Ginger Snap 1 would have been if it had been safe. Sure I'll admit a sequel to a cult classics like Ginger Snaps is a challenge enough, but as a sequel I think it should want to be better, but here it feels more like they don't want to offend anybody (being the fans) so they play it safe. I loved how for the beginning they truly focus on the aftermath of part 1 (which is the funnest part of sequels, just getting to say ""Hey I was there I saw that with you!"" is fun), because it's fun to continue with the story from part 1. However as it descends from that it just becomes boring, and just like any other face in the crowd, and doesn't really have anything newer or anything to make it stand out like Ginger Snaps did. Perhaps the main thing is how they make certain characters bigger characters than they truly need to be. Ghost being the biggest example, she was annoying, to desperate, and honestly needed to die. Pretty much after Bridgette and Ghost escape the hospital is where it gets bad. All in all it's not exactly a bad movie it's just it's nothing special, even if it weren't a preceded sequel to Ginger Snaps, and like I said it's very safe. Besides even still as a sequel there are still too many unanswered questions, and don't even get me started on that ending. If you're a fan of Ginger Snaps, I'd see this one only too say you saw it.",0 "I'm a huge fan of ""B"" movies. Especially ""B"" horror movies from the 80's but this one simply has nothing to offer. A complete waste of time. The story is lack luster and very unbelievable. The lack of a story line usually does not pose a serious problem for most ""B"" movie fans as long as there are other components of the film that make it fun to watch. This movie comes up short in almost every aspect of what I consider to be ""B"" movie magic. The only value I was able to find in this title was the numerous continuity issues. They gave me something to do while I was waiting for this movie to end. Don't waste your time on this one.",0 "I was initially sucked in by the cover of this movie. It promised 'gang warfare'. It was apparently somewhat futuristic. There was a review on the cover that described it at 'funny, sexy, clever slice of British action.' 24 Hours in London was neither. The characters were so typical and the acting was so poor I wasn't sure if it was meant to be satire. I guess it was kind-of funny due to the fact that it was so bad.

Not to mention the outrageous story. A bad guy that bombs heaps of other buildings (including the millennium dome) in order to create a police distraction. Why didn't he just bomb the hotel? I guess the story at base level is OK, and there's a semi-OK twist, but it's all let down by poor acting, 2D characters and some failed attempts at humor.

Don't waste your money.",0 "Loved it! I hope the upbeat feel of the film will attract audiences away from so much of the downer energy out there. People can get so jaded and cynical about feel-good fairy-tale romances. The story-line was fantastically unraveled and handled. This was a refreshing change.

Its a film that represents many people's lives (family, culture, sex and religion). So many films that deal with gay culture build on a huge foundation of shame. This kind of film helps ethnic minorities feel more comfortable about their sexuality. Its pioneering films like this that turn the concept of shame-about-sexuality, upside down. Easily on par with Bend It Like Beckham, yet so different from other East/West films. Cooking and food theme was wonderful - very cleverly done. It did capture the Bollywood escapism and the feel good factor. And the acting was superb! Really enjoyed Suman.

And our family belted out singing along to the soundtrack which we are looking forward to buying.",1 "Many people find John Waters' early films endearing and funny. I find them rather sad in a way. The acting is so bad, the story is worse, and the famed lobster scene I have heard about for years was not worth the wait. Give me ""Cry Baby"" anyday. Space Maggot writhes in agony and vomits a 2.",0 "Is this the same Akhtar guy that directed Dil Chahta Hai ?!! If so, I suppose he began ingesting brain numbing substances after the success of his first movie.

The storyline is non-existent and the dialogues are weak. The desperate attempt at character-development leaves one yawning through the first half, and the direction seemed amateurish at best. In one scene, when Karan (Hrithik) sees the LOC for the first time, he claims being overcome by a feeling of belonging (to India). Nothing in the shot or the music imparts that feeling to the audience. This is a common thread through out the movie where the actors mouth lines that are either totally disconnected with the scene, or they are so obvious that the audience is left feeling spoon-fed.

The battle scenes are very poorly shot. I don't know how they compare with other bollywood movies but to someone who's seen Saving Private Ryan or the Band of Brothers, they look like laser tag. I think the best part of the movie was the location. The visuals were stunning and nothing like I had seen in other bollywood movies. Even there I think Farhan took the audience for granted. In one of the penultimate scenes, Indian soldiers are shown crossing a dense wooded area to get to the base of the peak 5179. The only problem is that such trees do not grow at elevations of 16000 feet. Just nitpicking in a movie filled with stupidities :)",0 "

Oft-remarkable, the lone flaw here is its' energy level - with very impressive performances, and through great use of shadows and silences, CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES often generates an unforgettable tension, but this isn't sustained effectively 100% of the time. Aside from this complaint, this is a fantastic film - subtle in its' story, the characters reveal themselves slowly, and come across as real people, with some very real dysfunctions. Eric Byler's direction is careful, measured and free of gimmicks; and the story is notable as a story with an Asian-American cast that isn't about ethnicity, but instead zeroes in on general human dilemmas. A striking and strong debut (and a GREAT model for non-white American filmmakers), this film is worth seeking out.",1 "I saw this movie yesterday,even after reading some comments on this site. I found it pretty good.it's certainly not the movie of the year,but since when a comedy is?The movie is light and there are some funny moments. If you're looking for something light to watch, something just for not thinking for 90 minutes, then it's that kind of movie. I don't know what people here were awaiting for this movie?Something that would make your brain working?If yes, well they were wrong go seeing this movie. It's not Davinci Code. This movie is about two young girls dreaming of a wedding in a hotel in particular. I think the movie just shows what some little girls, when kids, were dreaming of.I think, few or many years ago, it was common to see little girls dreaming of it and maybe the movie just shows the audience what was once a dream and now with the society,well the wedding is getting a bit something people forget about,the true goal of it maybe.There might be parts of the movie that married people would find funny as maybe it was their case. I'm not talking about all the bi***y parts of it between the two girls of the movie!Yes there are some cruels pranks and some are like ""come on!idiot!""and you're starting a bit to think that it's a bit over exaggerated about all the pranks.But it also showed, above all these cruel and stupid pranks, what even best friend can do to the other one. I didn't think the acting was bad. In fact,it's a C-O-M-E-D-Y!Not a big drama or action movie or something like that!I think the acting was good and I personally don't really look at the acting when I watch a movie,I'm more interested about the movie and what's happening than the acting,except if it's a really bad acting like in some movies I saw and forgot the tittle. So I think, to have a clear opinion on that movie,you should go and see it by yourself and make you own opinion than making your own only by reading the comments. It's not a big theater movie and it will probably stay a long time so maybe wait for it to come on DVD if you're not sure about seeing it or not.",1 "I really thought this was a great comedy. It gave a great slap in the face to rich white kids who want to be thugs. It had a great cast,and a lot of funny cameo's. I think the writing was brilliant and Taye Digs and Anthony Anderson stole the movie. Too funny!",1 "this movie did more than any other Italian film i've seen to interest me in italy itself--the people, the land, the culture. it also opened my mind to the intelligence of the uneducated among us--i loved that guilia was so real and right-n and so full of peasant superstition that in no way interfered with her ability to ""get it."" i have begun to travel in italy and having seen this film i am driven to see the south and visit the carlo levi house and museum. his paintings see into the object, to me, like a quality black and white study which i find the most expressive medium. as soon as i see the faces in the beginning of this film, i am drawn in. i found the melancholy music somewhat sentimental (like the music in truffaut's films) but a necessary comfort.",1 "SIDE EFFECTS is a film about a young man who volunteers to be a guinea pig for a drug study. The mood set for this study was great and you wondered why this guy and the others would allow themselves to be so severely abused by the researchers. That's because there are so many negative side effects of the drug--nausea, illness and weird hallucinations by some. In addition, the food appears barely edible and the subjects are kept confined--almost like in prison. However, the hero of the film manages to do well for a while thanks to the help of another participant--a very pretty and sweet young lady. They hit it off well and it's only with her help that he manages to hold on as long as he does. However, he doesn't realize that despite their blossoming love, their relationship is totally doomed.

I am a compulsive film reviewer and one of my favorite genres are independent short films. I have probably reviewed at least 500-1000 of them, so I am a pretty good judge of a quality short. Well, this one is simply terrific--with quality and intelligent writing, directing and acting throughout. I can't say enough positive about the film and sure hope you get a chance to see it.",1 "The self-absorption of today's independent film industry continues with Japanese Story. So many comment-givers cited this film's departure from convention as a reason for loving it so much. Well, in my opinion, it follows convention with great fealty -- the independent film twist on love stories. You begin two people who at first don't like each other, but then grow close, but never quite fall in love. Generally, the feel is that of a romantic comedy. Then, two-thirds way into the movie, everything suddenly takes a bizarre twist. In Lost In Translation, it is Bill Murray's affair with the otherwise anonymous band singer despite refusing overtures from Scarlett Johanssen. In The Shape Of Things and Kissing Jessica Stein, one of the partners had another agenda from the start. In Chasing Amy, it's that Ben Affleck is an obsessive jerk.

In Japanese story, a playful Toni Colette yells out ""Last One In Is a rotten egg, then jumps in the water"", her Japanese friend pursues her, jumps into the water, and promptly has a fatal accident. The last 35 minutes are about the mechanics she endures and the guilt and grief she feels about making arrangements for the friend's wife that she had just had an affair with to pick up the body and bring it back to Japan. That's 35 of the most dragged-out minutes in film history detailing every trivial aspect involved in getting a dead body back to Queensland, then her interaction with fellow co-workers, family, and necessary outsiders.

This is also typical of the pretentiousness of today's independent films. Showing the mundane and seemingly inconsequential becomes the focus and is seen as genius because any hack director can have a plot written, then tell a story. After all, it takes a great independent Director to have complete disdain for storytelling in favor of glorifying either something bizarre or something mundane.",0 "I've heard alot of bad things about this, but being a fan of the Highlander film and TV series, I had to check this out. That was a mistake. This movie has almost nothing to do with the first movie, and even by itself sits on laughable premises. The writing is terrible, the characters are one-dimensional (at best), the effects look like they were done out of someone's garage. Hey, let's summon back dead characters for no apparent reason. Hey! Let's pretend everyone's from another planet! You know what? Let's through in a conspiracy for the hell of it! This movie seems like it didn't leave the script-writing process until they finished shooting, and then they skipped editing. I shudder to think the horrors I would have witnessed had I not been watching the directors cut.",0 "THANK YOU,Tarzan for ruining my 13 year streak of never seeing a bad movie in the theatre. Wow..this one just SUCKED. With the exception of a few well done action sequences this one had no hope of being good at all. Awful acting and just a generally dumb plot really ruined the name of Tarzan for me..",0 "I used to LOVE this movie, and I remember I got the soundtrack for Easter when I was like, 11 or something. It really is a crummy movie, but oddly engaging... mainly because it is so incredibly surreal and laughable in how it takes itself so seriously.

*Possible Spoilers*

I remember even as a kid, I thought ""Holy cow, for a town that didn't allow dancing and music for years, these kids sure can dance well."" What are even funnier are the people who are in it - Lithgow did this film two years after Garp. Did he think that this was going to be a meaty role? But then again, he did willingly star in Third Rock from the Sun. And Dianne Wiest - Woody Allen staple and Oscar winner, who has about 4 lines in the movie. Her job is to pretty much look pensive and pious. I don't think I even need to bring up Mr. Kevin Bacon and his goofy dance through the grain mill.

While this film is not as inherently horrible as say, Xanadu, it's also not nearly as hilarious because it takes itself waaaaaaay too seriously. Of course, it has its moments, especially the part where the dance is beginning and no one is dancing. Why? Let's pretend it's not because Kevin Bacon isn't there in his stupid outfit to scream ""Let's Daaaaaaaance!!!!!!!!"", (rather, is outside getting his ass beat down by the head redneck until he somehow manages to pull out of it and kick said redneck's ass. How the hell did THAT happen?) But in reality because the song playing is the Loverboy guy and Ann Wilson's ""Almost Paradise."" I think that as kids if we were sexually oppressed and sheltered and that song came on we wouldn't have danced to that crap song either. Yes, this was the 80's, and mid-80's to boot so the clothes, dancing and dialogue are hilariously dated. These kids must have somehow obtained pirate copies of Radio Free Solid Gold Dancers or something, especially the skinny white kid doing ""The Robot"".

This movie is up there with 80's `classics' like `Flashdance' where we find that while most of us loved the movie as kids, we see it through adult eyes twenty years later and realize what our parents probably thought: `What a crap movie.' The difference being, our nostalgia sometimes compels us to avoid averting our eyes, like a train wreck.

--Shelly",0 "Dil Chahata Hai is a wonderfully crafted film with an exceptional work in cinematography by Ravi Chandran. I can't think of one moment in the film in which I was dissatisfied with the framing and the pixelation. Also, I must call special attention to the song ""Tanhayee."" It is wonderfully filmed. Kudos to Chandran's craft. Dil Chahata Hai also has an incredible storyline of interweaving 3 different storylines into one big picture of life in progression. This films gets you away from Bollywood because it is not focussing on some stupid love story. This film is not quite Hollywood because it has some principles of independent films going on within itself. Although, love is not the strongest thought expressed in the film, it is definitely the motivation of the story's progression, or else the film would have ended at the intermission. Also, the story of Sid is kept on the sidelines, while in the true essence of the film, that is the story which is the most honest and strongest one. The film's sound design is incredible. It is probably the only film in Indian Cinema with SyncSound in it. Also, Ehsaan, Loy, and Shankar's music is always a strong underscoring factor that triggers a heightening of emotions at the exact appropriate times. The soundtrack is definitely worth buying thanks to this somewhat renaissance music in Indian Cinema by the trio. Aamir Khan's work is exceptional. Saif Ali Khan and Akshaye Khanna have reinvented themselves in this film which is totally worth watching. Although, a little old to play their parts, I let out a suspension of disbelief because the film is just so much fun!",1 "Benny Hill was a true comedy great, evident in this fitting tribute of him, shown here as a compilation of his very best shorts. His comedy is admittedly quite bawdy, as Benny makes men look like idiots and lectures mangling the English language, but I like bawdy and particularly it suits Benny to a tee. The quality is a little grainy and washed out, but the shorts are still a lot of fun, Tuppertime especially is priceless particularly with the vicar who comes on the air with his flies undone, and Benny is as wonderful as ever. Jackie Wright and Bob Todd do their usual selfless stooging to perfection, and Patricia Hayes is delightful in her appearances. The scripting is also top notch and the music is well done. Overall, I truly enjoyed myself, a really nice 83 or so minutes to spend your afternoon. 9/10 Bethany Cox",1 "Director Karl Francis once again totally fails to distinguish himself with this clumsily directed drama about McCarthy blacklisted writer-director, Herbert Biberman. Subtle and intelligent performances from Jeff Goldblum and Greta Scacchi are totally wasted in this otherwise uninspiring little film. The cinematography is fine; the editing makes the best of what it has to work with, which is not much. The problem lies entirely with the direction, which fails to pack even the slightest emotional punch, which is quite a feat considering the source material. What's worse is that it is liberally sprinkled with the kind of sickly B-movie idealism that I thought mainstream cinema had grown out of in the mid-seventies. The results come over as amateurish and basically unintelligent, not even worth a straight to video. This movie is a master class in how to ruin a great idea with incompetent direction. Please Mr Francis, just stop making films - nobody is interested.",0 "Dan Chupong, the star of DYNAMITE WARRIOR, would give even Tony Jaa a run for his money (and a film featuring the two of them together would no doubt rival Bruce Lee's showdown with Chuck Norris in WAY OF THE DRAGON for one-on-one action). Chupong, as the rocket-riding hero, has outstanding direction by Chalerm Wongpim to thank for making him look so good. Leo Putt as Lord Wang brings some much-appreciated comic relief to what in lesser hands could've been an overly-grim slug fest of the ""mechanical martial arts"" variety (wherein the standard katas are performed by actors whose expressions never change). DYNAMITE WARRIOR is a superlative blend of super-heroic feats, Thai martial arts techniques, and magic. There's a schizo sorcerer, a monstrous, man-eating henchman, jumping monkey and leaping tiger underlings, spectacular stunts that need to be seen to be believed (Jackie Chan would be impressed) and rocket-riding. This one more than lives up to the promise of the trailer. A ten-plus. We may very well be seeing a new Golden Age of Action Films.",1 "MADMAN is a pretty anemic horror film that copies everything from Friday THE 13th except for suspense and believability. Even if it takes place in a forested area, the movie is extremely claustrophobic. It almost feels like it was shot in a forest that was built inside a studio. The camera is always in tight close-ups. The whole film occurs at night. We never get to see the natural splendors of the area. The forest just serves as a backdrop to the extremely derivative action. So, the camera never sweeps around the area to give us an idea of the place. The camera is very static and dull. MADMAN almost feels like it was shot on video even if it wasn't. The actors are all forgettable, as are the killings. Nothing really works here. There's one word to describe MADMAN: clunky!

Even the killer, who was sorta formidable looking from a distance during the first part of the movie, becomes ludicrous when we finally see him up close. He looks like a Morlock from THE TIME MACHINE movie starring Rod Taylor. When the camera remains more than one second on the killer's face we can clearly see the haphazard makeup effects. All in all, MADMAN is pretty much terrible and dull. The only good thing is the title and the original movie poster.",0 "So this is the infamous Troll 3. Would you look at that? Nothing's happening! No trolls anywhere to be seen here! That's only one reason why this film SUCKS!

It's not one you can watch alone because part of the fun would come from joking about it with someone else. Watching by yourself is just torture! TOR-CHAR!

Maybe this movie should have been called ""The Living Dead who Refuse to Rot"" because the majority of the ""actors"" talk like zombies! Like the Sheriff character. Oh my goodness! Here's probably one of the worst actors to ever be in a non-porn movie. And I thought the mother in Troll 2 was bad! But he's not the only one! The boss in the power plant and just about everyone here is terrible!

Worst line delivery: ""Ok, doctor we'll just evacuate the entire country before you can say Jack Robinson"". Actually anything said by the sheriff makes you want to kill him. He's amazing in the sense that every single line he says sounds exactly the same!

There are no little creatures here, no trolls, no goblins, no nothing. Whoever renamed this movie to ""The Crawlers"" and removed the ""Troll 3"" name shows me there is hope for the world after all. Because this movie HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TROLLS!

They must've saved a lot of money by using killer roots instead of creatures.

Who finances this kind of c**p and why? I can only think that the targeted audience is that of non-english speaking countries where the people are used to dubbing.

I bought this (for $3.75) expecting at least the fun I had with Troll 2 because in spite of that movie's long list of shortcomings it had some very funny elements. None of those elements are present in Troll 3. There is however a hysterical scene where the killer roots kill a man in a suit who's chasing the ""hero"" with a gun. The guy takes forever and a day to die and he screams pathetically through it all.

Troll 2 had a little boy and a monster on the video cover, neither of which were in the movie. Troll 3 has a sexy girl on the ""Crawlers"" cover who, you've guessed it, is nowhere to be seen in the movie.

Troll 3 just plain sucks.",0 "I don't think I have ever seen a worse ensemble cast. I have seen many a high school play with better acting. All the most basic mistakes are made. It should only be shown to young aspiring actors as a training video in what not to do. Students: note the grossly ineffective vocal inflections, the myopic combinations of fake-English-lord and California slurring, the twitching rather than walking, the gesticulating wildly while raising shoulders and rocking back and forth and jerking the head. Note with what genius the actor begins in the high register and marches upward every higher toward what someone in rehearsal must have underlined as the key word. Ahhh and the key word turns out to always be an adjective and always ""but-no-cigar"" close to a word Oscar surely worried over a bit more.

Clearly the whole budget was spent on hiring the locations and nothing was left over to hire any talent to stand in front of them...

Horror is definitely the right genre for this picture but I doubt it was the horror that the Director intended.",0 "OK things I liked about Stargate: The Ark of Truth: + Nice intro. + Nice ending.

Things I didn't like about Stargate: The Ark of Truth: - Poor corny acting with inappropriate comedy I found an issue throughout the entire show(s) Apart from Universe which remain to be seen.

- Low resolution Visual Effects: Low model texturing on that spaceship. Poor weapon effects on the Ori spaceships. Poor giant Stargate models. * Didn't have the money to do better? lacked creativity? *

- Mediocre Script: What's the point of telling a story if it adds nothing to the show credibility. * Quick cash that's the answer. * - Poor props: Super clean village, anyone? Shiny clean million year old artifacts? - Poor customs: * Same team as power rangers? *

- Bad camera work: On sets that clearly were made in one day. Ie that super clean village, dudes if you don't have the money to make something good, hide it with camera angles. * 101 stuff. *

Goodbye SG1, maybe goodbye Atlantis.. All hopes rest with Universe.",0 "I went onto IMDb, saw the 10 star ratings and read the vast amount of reviews in which people described this film as 'heart warming'. So obviously I expected a decent film. This film turned out to be an illusive teen flick about a bunch of people and their silly lives. The movie is full of stereotypical characters with bothersome personalities.

The story line and plot were appalling at the best!

I give this movie two stars for the actor Jensen Ackles who plays Priestly. He's the only genuinely good actor in this film, he was the one that added a bit of life to this dreary film. One more star for the laughs I received from the terrible ending!

I wasn't happy at the end of it, I wondered why I watched it. It was lacking in good script, characters and actors, who were supposed to bring them to life. Don't believe the hype because you'll end up disappointed.",0 "The first movie, The Ambush, delivered good action and I thought was good enough to start off the film series. Ang Lee's second short film was less than good with mediocre action scenes and a story that did not make much sense. He said he was going for the comedic approach, my advise to Mr. Lee, don't do comedy again.

The third installment was the best so far, intriguing story and beautiful filming style. Then there was Guy Ritchie's film Star. It was, I thought, quite funny and the second best. Then we have the last one: Powder Keg by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, (remember that name), director of the critically acclaimed Amores Perros. His movie is inspired on the actual event of the massacre of Aguas Blancas which happened in Mexico's guerilla zone. The rest of the story is enitrely fictional and concerns a photographer who captures the event and becomes wounded when he is discovered by the militia. Clive Owen's driver character is sent to get him out of the war zone. Alejandro's script manages to create a story far more deep than all previous BMW films. The photographer's character starts to develop when he says he would like to have time to play with his kids, which he doesn't have because the life of a war photographer is very demanding and he hasn't had the chance to start a family which he regrets. He then laments what he has witnessed in the 15 wars he is covered by telling of the dying people that have that died at his feet begging for help. He is unable to help them and all he can do is take their picture as all he is after all is a witness. He then says he wishes on of his pictures would help change something so all the time he has dedicated to his career are worth something. Then we learn about his mother who influenced him to become a photographer by telling him 'to see'. We later learn the mother is blind. All this in about five minutes in the most natural way. The film is shot with energy and the style alone can evoke emotion even with the little dialogue it has. 'This is not a political movie but a movie about love between a man and his mother' says director Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu and it is true. Even if the characters never are in the same scene together. Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu is a genius, the other four directors have a chance here to learn a thing or two about movie-making.",1 "Jesus Christ!! what a rotten movie. Of course I started watching it not expecting more than a predictably bad movie(aren't most bollywood movies, nowadays?!?). But this surpassed all my expectations. Come on Abhishek I know your dad is famous but that should not be the only reason for being in the movies. When they put you in front of a camera you are expected to emote not regurgitate your stupid lines with a dumb struck face.

Admittedly Ash is no better but at least she is divinely beautiful that we can completely forgive all her transgressions. The same unfortunately cannot be said about Aby B as he seems to have inherited all the wrong genes from his progenitors.

The script is horrible and apart from Satish Shah the acting was horribly cruel to the people watching. Some bearable songs(note: I have stretched my definition of bearable for this case).

rating: -*(minus should be allowed.. as I would like my money back and some, for the torture doled out to me)

Run far away or watch Glitter/Gigli instead, unless you are an Ash fan or an Abhishek B fan (god have mercy on your sense of preference)",0 "Michael Wadleigh's Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace And Music to me, is more then just an ordinary run of the mill music documentary, it was a record of the hippie culture of 1969, the youth of America trying to make a difference, a spectacular experience of one of America's greatest rock festivals before the days of the original MTV (Music Television) & VH1 before they became sleezy reality TV networks. It was more about the kids, It marked the turning point careers of the future Academy Award Winning team of Director Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull, The Departed) & Editor Thelma Schoonmaker. It was definitely a challenge filming into a feature length film, real provocative documenting from beginning to end, with outstanding performances from Joan Baez, Janis Joplin, The Who, Joe Cocker & The Grease Band, Crosby, Stills & Nash, Sly And The Family Stone, Ten Years After, Sha Na Na, Canned Heat, Richie Havens, Jimi Hendrix, Country Joe McDonald & The Fish, John Sebastian, Arlo Guthrie, Jefferson Airplane, Santana and many others as well as interviews with Producer & Woodstock Founder Michael Lang, many of the locals in & out of the festival. The only music documentary of it's kind to win the 1971 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. There will never be a Woodstock like this again, Woodstock 1999 destroyed that tradition & to finally see this film on the 40th Anniversary Director's Cut DVD in all it's widescreen glory is a special treat. If you are into Classic Music or Music Documentaries, this is one of them, along with No Direction Home: Bob Dylan & Gimme Shelter.

Woodstock: 3 Days Of Peace And Music is Rated R for Drug Content, Nudity & Language.",1 "The original pre-cert videotape of this changes hands for crazy money these days, it's very very rare. I was 'fortunate' enough to get hold of a DVD-R of this, as it sounded right up my street...

And the verdict?.....Jeeez! As noted previously, this is definitely ""inspired"" by 'Last House On The Left"" but the tone is totally different. It's proper early-70s rough-ass grindhouse business, sexist as hell, dumb, with sub-porno standard acting. It's not disturbing in the slightest however, and whilst the subject matter (rape rape and more rape) is nasty, the way it's done is just funny. The soundtrack is absolutely wild - incoherent hippy wailing over acoustic guitar meandering, you couldn't make it up, honestly. Has to be heard to be believed.

This is a great period piece...the work of anonymous drunken old hacks exploiting the hippy counterculture. God knows who any of the people involved in this are, but hell, I'd be fascinated to know how and why a movie like this came about. Worth seeing to sate your curiosity...this film is one of a kind. It is DEFINITELY bad though.",1 I saw Danika's world premiere at the CineVegas film festival this past weekend. It was an excellent psychological thriller with many twists and turns. Marisa Tomei is exceptionally convincing in the lead role as a soccer mom tortured by visions which could be premonitions or hallucinations. The action in the movie intersperses tension-building dialog and dramatically shocking visuals with tremendous effectiveness. The supporting cast is also exceptional in the roles and convince you of the impact that Danika's visions are having upon them. Regina Hall is especially impressive as Danika's psychologist.

I would highly recommend seeking this movie out if it comes to a festival or theater near you!,1 "I watched this movie tonight on the Sundance Channel and could not believe how absolutely pedestrian this film truly is. I mean come on, who can really care about whether these two guys find true love or not? I felt like I was watching a very mediocre version of an attempt at The Brothers McMullen and all of a sudden, I found myself appreciating Ed Burns alot more than I ever thought I would.

The film centers around two brothers who live together in L.A. played by the Martini brothers. From the outset, we see that their lives seem to revolve around the women they're dating. But that's about where the movie stops. There doesn't seem to be any driving force for their quest for meaningful relationships, there doesn't seem to be any back history between the two - besides from the V.O. at the beginning that explains that their grandmother gave them the nicknames of Goat on Fire and Smiling Fish. And we also realize that their parents are deceased. But no family issues are ever bought up in the film, nor for that matter is any direction of any type.

I'm utterly amazed that this went to Toronto and won an award. What is happening to the top festivals? Are they all being run by who you know? Because for this film to have gone to Toronto someone had to have been pulling strings. Or perhaps having ""Martin Scorcese presents"" is all you need. Needless to say, I would not recommend this movie to anyone. If you're interested in this kind of film, there are so many out there that blow this one out of the water. Smiling Fish? They should be swimming with the fish.",0 "This 1997 TV production is called ""Jane Eyre"", but except for a similarity to the plot of the novel there is preciously little in this film to remind you that you are indeed watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's literary masterpiece. How they managed to get every single character of the novel wrong - except for Pilot, who is well cast - is a complete mystery to me, but they did. This is the more a pity because with Samantha Morton and Ciaràn Hinds they had two good actors, who even physically fit their roles well, but, alas, the greatest talent is of no avail when the concept of the characters is as wrong as in this adaptation. Samantha Morton - young, delicate and plain enough - looks like Jane Eyre, but does not play Jane Eyre. Her Jane is far too bold, even disrespectful at times, self-confident and self-satisfied, bossy and pert. Gone is the interesting duality of Jane's character in the novel, her outward shyness, guardedness and modesty on the one hand and her fire and passion on the other. Morton's Jane speaks her mind boldly right from the beginning and never stops doing so throughout the film. There is no subtlety in her performance, her Jane undergoes no change and no development. The same is sadly also true for the character of Mr. Rochester. Believe it or not, but they indeed managed to turn one of the most interesting and complex figures of English literature into a brute and a bully. Luckily Ciaràn Hinds possesses some charisma, but otherwise nothing links him to the eloquent and fascinating character of the novel. Not the slightest attempt was made to explore the depths of Rochester's character, his many contradicting facets, his moodiness, his inner struggle, his humour and his tenderness. The Rochester of the novel is admittedly insolent and harsh at times, but never the unrefined, snarling brute Ciaràn Hinds makes him. Yet Hinds is even worse at playing the loving Rochester, and the only feeling he manages to convey is lust.

Unfortunately the misrepresentation of the characters is not limited to the leading roles: Blanche, besides being blonde, is not in the least haughty enough, not to mention the fact that she is nice to Adèle, St. John is all smiles and kindness, and the role of Mrs. Fairfax has been unnecessarily puffed up, probably due to the fact that she is played by dear Gemma Jones. Yet some scenes less with Mrs. Fairfax fussing around and some scenes more between Jane and Rochester would have been very helpful to make the audience understand why the two latter fall in love in the first place.

As far as language is concerned this production is another victim of the delusion of some scriptwriters who either think that they can improve on Charlotte Brontë's brilliant language or that her 19th century English has to be simplified to become digestible for a modern audience. The result is that the dialogues are severely changed or replaced by the scriptwriter's own banal lines. In either case they have lost all the charm, sparkle and brilliance of the dialogues in the novel. Poor misguided scriptwriter Richard Hawley even deemed it necessary to make Rochester introduce one of his most famous lines - the line about the string that inextricably binds Jane and him together - with the words: ""I know it may sound silly but...."" No, Mr. Hawley, if somebody sounds silly here, it is definitely NOT Charlotte Brontë! Another capital error of judgement - and unfortunately also an insult to good taste - is the way they rewrote the farewell scene between Jane and Rochester after the aborted wedding, a scene, by the by, which in all the modern adaptations has received a particularly brutal treatment. Whereas in the latest Jane Eyre production of 2006 that scene was an outrage to Charlotte Brontë's Jane, the way the scene is handled in this adaptation is an outrage to Charlotte Brontë's Rochester. What? Rochester insulting Jane when she intends to leave him, bullying her, throwing her suitcase over the banister and telling her to go if she does not love him enough to stay? Absolutely ridiculous! It is hard to imagine what has gotten into the filmmakers to produce such rubbish as this.

This is the worst, but there are many others scenes which are similarly absurd and ludicrous: the first scene of Rochester galloping in slow motion through the mist before he falls into a brook, Grace Poole coming out of the lunatic's room to sniff at Mason's wounds like a wild beast, Rochester sitting on the top of an archway of Thornfield as if he were the court jester and Mason jumping on horseback over the church fence to prevent a marriage of which he has heard only heavens knows how.

Equally lamentable is the filmmakers' inability to represent the correct social behaviour of the 1850ies. Rochester and Jane are far too disrespectful to each other at first and later far too hot. Sentences like ""I feel that your passions are aroused"" are appropriate for ""Sex in the City"", but not for a costume drama, let alone Jane Eyre. Obviously the filmmakers decided not to bother at all - neither about being true to the novel, nor about portraying the novel's era accurately. The result is a sad failure - both as a film and an adaptation of Jane Eyre. The only fact with which the makers of this Jane Eyre can console themselves is that the BBC failed even worse in the subsequent production of Jane Eyre in 2006.",0 "I saw this movie a few times in the theater in 1980, when I was 12, and at the time it was pretty much utterly awesome. However, as we are forced to face again and again, what is awesome when one is 12 is not the same as what is awesome when one is over 30.

This movie forces us to look inside ourselves and ask: ""What would happen if a state-of-the-art (for 1980) aircraft carrier were transported back in time to the eve of Pearl Harbor?"" Then there are all the regular questions about the Prime Directive, the ethics of using advance knowledge and advanced technology, blah blah blah. The situation is the hook of the movie, a pretty good one. Unfortunately, it's also the only thing the movie has to offer.

After some exposition that gets top military whiner Martin Sheen on the boat, and some unrelated techo-fetishism about the way those sweet F-14s land, a mysterious storm that looks a lot like a laser and a fog machine appears in the sky and causes the sailors to hold their heads. When it goes away, they are in 1941 (the year, not the movie), and they have to grapple with many philosophical questions about whether they should whup the Japs' asses but good.

A good 35% of the movie is just flat-out recruiting-film military techno fetishism. It's kind of cool for a while, as you watch planes swoosh and dive, and it reminds you of the days when the prospect of going into the military meant you were going to fly cool planes and do cool things instead of simply being sent to a desert to be killed. But it gets tiresome after awhile, though it does remain quite visible, so you can fast-forward without fear of missing anything.

There's a small bit of derisive laughter as the crew (during the LONG period in which they are coming to accept that they have traveled back in time) compare a photo that was apparently taken an hour ago by one of their planes to a photo that was taken 40 years previously by another plane. The cast bravely pretends not to notice that they are THE EXACT SAME PHOTO. Amazing coincidence! There's another movie right there.

The performances fit the material. Kirk Douglas is actually quite charming as the captain. He projects authority, yet is warm and approachable, and isn't afraid to say he doesn't know what's going on. Martin Sheen appears to be on hand simply to deliver speeches about how very morally complex it all is. Former Superfly Ron O'Neal is around as eye candy for me. Katherine Ross is in full ""do I have to do anything except stand around and be dewy?"" mode, but she will always get props from me for ensnaring gravelly man-hunk Sam Elliott in her wicked web.

This movie is a bit like those alternative history novels, which are usually about ""what if the South won the Civil War,"" which translates as;""what if we'd kept the blacks in their place."" This one, I think, is about redressing the perceived imbalance that occurred when the US was caught unawares. But how could we be caught unawares… we're the United States! I think the enjoyment of this movie for some people is in floating the fantasy that we could show them Japs once and for all.

This movie is also notable as a likely influence on 80s rock group Europe's cheesy hit of the same title.

SPOILERS>>> The end of this movie cops out by having the mysterious storm appear at the PRECISE moment that the US is just about to attack the Japanese fleet. The aircraft carrier is transported back to the same time it left, everyone shrugs and goes ""Huh,"" and they go about their average workday. It makes the movie somewhat unsatisfying at the end, but you know… not any more unsatisfying than it was up until that point.

--- Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website devoted to bad and cheesy movies. You can get the url from my email address above...",0 "He's hairy crude and he's a big bad wolf, and he'll be your monster for the duration of this movie.

Plots barely worth going over for this its your typical 'group of friends go to a cabin to spend a wild weekend blah blah...'

It's been done so many times but if you go into this film with the sole aim of being entertained, you'll easily get your moneys worth. Even though it's not got an original bone in its hairy body you'll laugh so much you'll forgive it that.

Its got a wicked sense of humour with lots of tits'n'ass and blood'n'gore a plenty, and a very retro 80s feel.

""Lets go to the cabin, and get in a little beastiality"" a furtastic 7/10 from me. Would be awesome if the people involved came back quick with more comic/horror gold.",1 "I was lucky enough to see 59 out of 89 minutes of this tv film and would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the culture of Avant Garde Germany in the 1920's, the link between Weill and the American musicals genre, opera, the relationship between Weill, Bertolt Brecht and Lotte Lenya. It is a film that explores Weill's movement from Germany to America and extracts of the music he wrote in both countries from the 20's to 1950. The film shows an eclectic cast interpreting his music and in the process revealing the atmosphere of his work and allowing the viewer to discover the relationship between the cabaret scene of Berlin in the 20's and 30's and the birth of the American musical and a connection to modern opera. Nick Cave sings his most famous song written for the ""Threepenny Opera"", Mack the Knife(a favourite of Frank Sinatra and many others). Lou Reed does one number,Teresa Stratas sings Youkali and another number beautifully, Elvis Costello sings ""Lost in the Stars"" and William S. Burroughs gives a spoken/sung rendition of ""What Keeps Mankind Alive"" which is pretty amazing in itself. The songs in this programme created an atmosphere that was unmistakable and I found the treatment totally sympathetic to Weill and his music. There are a number of voice overs of Lotte Lenya(Weill's wife)singing well known songs from his back catalogue and even Bertolt Brecht singing a number. It is intercut with industrial and military images from Hitler's Germany and goes on to show early footage of America. I thought the film lovingly produced and enjoyed every second of it, my only disappointment being that I did not manage to catch the whole film. The music is as compelling as you would imagine from a man was considered the equal of and collaborated with Langston Hughes, Moss Hart, Maxwell Anderson, Ira Gershwin, Bertolt Brecht and made a reputation blending classical opera, folk music and dissonant jazz. Despite the previous reviewers lack of familiarity with Weill his work has attracted interpretation by well known artists of the past and continues to do so e.g. Rise Stevens, Beatrice Arthur, Adolph Green, Gertrude Lawrence, Danny Kaye, Chita Rivera, Ann Miller, Sting, Tom Waits, Marianne Faithful, Marc Almond, The Doors, Dagmar Krause, David Bowie, Ute Lemper and so on.

This is a film that uses a montage of images, voice overs, songs and music to create an understanding, it isn't a linear narrative throughout although it does explore his life in a linear representation of his movements and works. It is fascinating and poignant and is not just a film, it transcends the category and at points becomes art. The presentation on tv was accompanied by subtitles for the occasional number sung in German. The decision to do this gives the viewer the advantage of listening to the expressive qualities of the words and music with a translation to aid understanding. I cannot recommend this film highly enough.",1 "Hello fellow Harsh Realm fans. Have you heard the good news ? The short lived T.V. series from the creative mind of Chris Carter ( X-Files fame ) is finally out officially on DVD ! For those those of you out there reading this not familiar with the short lived Fox network television program let me fill you in. The government is running a covert computer program known as ""Harsh Realm"" People's minds are ""transported"" into this computer program without there knowledge. Here everything seems real but in this reality America is a post nuclear wasteland. Here it is survival is a daily struggle. It is in this computer program where a former highly decorated soldier known as ""Santiago"" rules with an iron fist. A soldier is sent in to ""win"" the game by killing Santiago. The soldier is not told by the government that in the computer program if you die there, you die in the real world. The Fox network recently released this short lived but innovative T.V. show on DVD. Only nine episodes are on it but it is well worth it. You can find used sets of this TV show for sale on E-bay for a reasonable price. You can also purchase it new from National store chain Best Buy for about $30.00 I hope my description helped you in deciding if you wanted to purchase or view this show. I gave it 8 out of a possible 10 stars only because they show did not have enough time to develop the characters and plot of the show. The show is well worth the money.",1 "I liked this movie a lot, in many ways much more that than the original Mimic. In particular, Alix Koromzay is great playing the slightly flaky, completely adorable bug-nut scientist/teacher. She is much more interesting than Mira Sorvino, who wasn't bad in the first movie. The story here is simpler, not a bad thing in a horror flick, as the plot stays on a straight course with good effect. For those looking for big-time special effects, Mimic 2 might not satisfy. But for some good campy fun and scares, check this one out.",1 "I cannot comprehend how films this bad get made, what with all the time, money and effort that goes into film-making. Didn't anyone (the director, the producer, the editors) WATCH the film??? Couldn't they SEE how bad it was??? It contains some of the WORST acting I have ever seen. Reminded me of one of those ""adult"" films that Showtime broadcasts late at night. Just simply awful. I still can't believe that Nastassja Kinski agreed to be a part of this. Fortunately for us, David Bailey hasn't directed another feature-length film since! Avoid this piece of crap at ALL COSTS. Better yet, BUY every copy you can find, both the VHS and the DVD (I guarantee you this will be in the El Cheapo Clearance Dump Bins all over the world), and destroy them to spare the rest of humanity from this atrocity...",0 "Alex Kingston stars in the gritty dram about the formidable Iceni queen Boudica.

No longer being able to bear the pain of seeing the woman he loves with another man Dervalloc sets off across the waters away from his passionate Queen, convinced she is content with her King and two children But Boudica has a lot to be unhappy about. As wife to King Prasutagus of the Iceni tribe, she sees her fierce husband shamed before Rome's greedy onslaught. Prasutagus accepts a treaty that preserves his tribe's independence but at the cost of high taxes. When he dies mysteriously, Boudica becomes the Iceni leader but allegiance to her is not all one sided. Depraved Roman captain Catus shows the spirited queen a copy of her husbands will which leave half of his kingdom to the roman empire.

Convinced the will is a forgery Boudica battles to bring her people away from the slavery that is Rome and attempts to conquer the very powerful roman empire with tragic consequences.",1 "Search for any kind of movie in the video stores and you'll discover that somebody had to accomplish something in the motion picture industry. THE PLUMBER is the perfect example, coming from a man who may win special honors for THE TRUMAN SHOW. Calling it a horror movie is an exaggeration on its own, but the plot is nerve-tingling as a plumber disrupts an Aussie woman's life through his wild behavior. It all adds to the panic of suspense. To make a political statement about this film, it shows that social and moral values decay in this global community we live and breathe by. Peter Weir must be given a big hand on his films, and this one needs not to be left behind in the abyss of forgotten movies.",1 "I didn't get this movie, even after the end. This movie is about a lady that lives with her rich father and hates him because of the way he treats her and the fact that he doesn't understand her. She then is kidnapped by two lovers and a Japanese man that listen in on her conversations and look through her window. Why they kidnapped her I have no idea except for the fact that her father is rich. She is tortured and soon becomes brainwashed into believeing the fact that her father does not care if she is missing even after viewing news coverage about him looking for her and offering a reward for her return. As time passes, the lady cares less and less of her chances of returning home and desides to stay and live with the kidnappers and falls in love with the Japanese man. they teach her how to rob banks and kill. This part becomes corney to the sight of seeing her from being rich to robbing banks. Eventually the police come looking for them and she is then caught and put into prison for two years. Her father tries to frre her and takes her back home but she still does not love him. I will not reviel the ending but it leaves you with a ""oh, thats it"". sence of feeling. This movie is boring, dull and slow.",0 "A curiosity of a film, 'Storm Warning' is both a typical and unusual Ronald Reagan vehicle during the latter part of his film career. Typical in that the Reagan character, in this case District Attorney Burt Rainey, is a bland straight-arrow; unusual in its subject matter, the Ku Klux Klan. What perhaps started out as an expose' of that organization ends up portraying it as a sort of corrupt men's club whose chief vice is stealing the members' dues. Rainey investigates the murder of a news reporter and finds no one will admit to witnessing it, intimidated as they are by the KKK (one of whom killed the man). A woman from out of town, Marsha Mitchell (Ginger Rogers), did see it and is unaware of the situation in the small community, where locals kowtow to the Klan. At first she offers to testify, then withdraws after learning her sister (Doris Day) is married to one of the Klansmen (Steve Cochran, in a wonderfully loutish performance as the murderer). Finally, justice prevails, and the Klan is discredited. Viewers with even a passing knowledge of the KKK will find it almost unrecognizable in 'Storm Warning.' There is no mention of the group's hatred and persecution of blacks, Catholics, Jews, foreigners, etc. In fact, there's not a single black character in the entire film. The heavyset head Klansman might as well be the corrupt head of a labor union or a crooked politician. The very things which distinguish the KKK from other groups are not glossed over, they simply don't exist in this film. And what criticism is leveled against the Klan is of the 'one size fits all' variety; again, they may as well be talking about a poorly run hunting lodge. It's not until the final scene that we see a real Ku Klux Klan gathering that approximates, at least visually, what we might expect. Members wearing white robes, a big cross burning, and Marsha Mitchell being whipped for threatening to go to the DA with what she knows. I daresay this is the only film in history where you can see Ginger Rogers being treated in such a manner. It's tamer than it sounds though and some of the dialogue is laughable. The head Klansman sits on high as the whip comes down, taunting Mitchell with 'epithets' such as ""Outsider! Busybody!"" Hey buddy, watch your language. Then District Attorney Rainey shows up, showing all the indignation and righteous anger he might display when breaking up a back-alley poker game. (He goes up to one Klanswoman who has her daughter with her and says, ""She should be home in bed."") There is panic in the Klan's ranks and Cochran's character is shot and killed just before the ensuing mêlée. Reagan's final speech to the crowd is not exactly ringing or riveting- ""You're a bunch of mean-spirited little people... here desecrating the cross."" But it's enough to send them all home, ashamed. Kind of like we feel for sitting through this mess.",0 "My partner and I won tickets to see the Sydney sneak preview so off we went last night (Monday 16th October)

Let me begin by saying 'that is 88 minutes of my life that I will never get back""

I was set to see a great Aussie flick; instead I found it mind numbingly boring, predictable 'comedy' (and I use that term lightly)

It was more of a reflection on a horde of has been 'comedians' (and I use that term lightly also) who have unceremoniously used their names and positions on radio stations around Australia to tout the movie as being the best thing since sliced bread…

Suggest you spend 88 minutes watching the grass grow than see this movie…

I think I would have enjoyed having my fingernails ripped off one by one followed by an acid bath more than that ghastly piece of 'Australian Film making'",0 "I hated this movie. First of all, because Susan Sarandon is so unattractive in this film (yes, I know she's supposed to be unattractive) I had no rooting interest in seeing these two characters get together. This movie's plot line can be summed up in one line: 'Rich guy falls for white trash woman for no reason.' Completely unappealing.",0 "Okay, Okay, this is a shocker, especially considering who the producer was, but Drive is a wonderfully entertaining film. The action set pieces are great, the pacing is tight (well, with two small exceptions), and the special effects aren't asked to do too much. The plot is thin, the characters thinly written, and the end seems a little rushed. BUT, that's okay. Dacascos and Hardison do a great job of fleshing out their characters and adding zip to the dialog. Pyper-Ferguson transcends the limitations of his role and Tracey Walter is, well, as quirky as ever. Also surprisingly good was Brittany Murphy as Deliverance, the nutty hotel clerk.

While no awards will ever be sent its way, it is well worth a rental and, maybe, a re-viewing.",1 """Filme da Treta"" is inspired in a previous work called ""Conversa da Treta"", which can be translated as ""Blather"" or ""Foolish Talk"". In fact it all begun with a radio show (with that name) where two friends, ""Toni"" and ""Zezé"", talk about their lives and their neighbourhood (located somewhere in a typical district of Lisbon!). Because of the colloquial and comic language it used to be funny. Then it passed to the stage (kind of a dialog play) and later to a TV-show. As you can see it was a success here in Portugal and the audiences applauded it…

Now, the film! ""Filme da Treta"" is, then, just an adaptation to the movies of this succeeded show, but it was, at least in my point of view, a regression! To be honest it was a disappointment, as I expected a lot more from it. I used to appreciate ""Conversa da Treta"", but now with the movie it lost all the fun!

The film pretends to be funny using all the clichés and the same kind of language used in the previous shows, but it has no plot at all, and the new characters that were supposed to add something to Toni and Zeze's adventures almost don't appear! It's almost all the movie the characters ""Toni"" and ""Zezé"" having the same blather, but this time without fun (excepting a few jokes)! This film doesn't add anything to the previous works; worse, in a certain way it can even spoil some of the work done, because it should have had some evolution in order to keep it interesting and funny!

This film is poor, very poor; I really expected more from it!",0 "One of the all-time greats, A Star Is Born (1937) is a classic Hollywood story of power and love and the fickleness of fame. Janet Gaynor has her great talkie role and Fredric March has one of his best as the star-cross lovers, Esther Blodgett and Norman Maine. Both had already won Oscars, but both were worthy of wins here. Gaynor is wonderful as the country girl who yearns for Hollywood fame. She is a great comic actress, doing impressions of Hepburn, Garbo, and West while serving snacks at a party and trying to get noticed. She is also heartbreaking in her famous finale, ""This is MRS. Norman Maine."" March, who had a tendency to be hammy, strikes just the right balance between Norman's vulnerability and his pomposity. You never doubt that he loves Esther. The supporting cast is peerless, with Adolphe Menjou, May Robson (one of her best roles), Andy Devine, Lionel Stander, and Edgar Kennedy all good. The color photography is, although maybe a tad washed out now, still striking in its use of shadows. Great script and direction. One of the best. Gaynor and March deserved their Oscar nomination, but May Robson was robbed by not being nominated. Her character was left out of the 1954 remake, but she is the anchor of the 1937 version. A Star Is Born is a must for all film buffs, especially for those who have only see Gaynor is silent films, including the great Sunrise (1927).",1 "This movie is most certainly in my top three of all time movies. I can surely understand why people wouldn't appreciate it but you have to watch it with some understanding and you have to realize its dramatic touch. Winterbottom, did a fantastic job with this movie and it's outstanding soundtrack. Honestly, you have to say that this ost. is absolutely amazing and touching Please go on making more movies which are unique in its kind",1 "I really wanted this movie to succeed, but it didn't. What started out as a mildly interesting premise grew into a disturbing and strange movie about a prep school drop-out making his way in a regular school by treating and prescribing for the mental health of his fellow students. It was not funny nor amusing nor entertaining. The acting struggled in several scenes, but the most obvious deficit is the lack of emotional connection between the characters. Our lead, Charlie, has a romantic interlude with the lead female character, the principal's daughter, and I couldn't imagine a more sterile, unromantic joining. They barely seem connected or interested in each other, and yet we're led to believe that they've made love. It's strange and pathetic. I felt like I was watching a movie trying to be a play trying to be significant, and it just wasn't. I'm sorely disappointed and wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.",0 "Steve Martin finally found a vehicle to show-case his talents. No silliness; just good, straight comedy. The meringue dance sequence is fantastic. Good directing had a lot to do with the quality of ""My Blue Heaven"".",1 "Kamchatka is a terrible film. I believe what seems to pass for ""understated"" is its plain dullness, and the main character (a kid whose POV is nominally carrying the movie) doesn't show a single instance of child-like perception - save for a couple of commonplace animal shots, the kid sees the world exactly as the rest of Piñeyro's characters; a polite, well-framed shot by Alfredo Mayo.

Since ""Caballos Salvajes"" I've been trying to figure out who the bad guys are in Piñeyro's films (back then, bullets always came from outside the frame). I'm sad to report things have gotten even worse, since now we need to resource to _our_ (external) knowledge of the period to understand what's going on. He seems to get away with it because, sadly, not that much happens in the movie, anyway.

Kamchatka might be worth seeing, however, if you're interested in recent developments in the political genre. It was interesting to me how, by trying to detach itself from the political movie tradition, it achieves the complete opposite: this is a film that couldn't possibly make sense unless you are not only aware of the external circumstances that affect the characters but also have already a clear position on the political conflict in case.

As justified as the generic, elegiac tone of the movie may be in the real world, its fictional consequences are devastating. It leaves us with no real characters and not a single dramatic scene proper.

Characters here are archetypes and, most of the time, it's not entirely clear of what. It doesn't help that the movie looks often derivative of other films that have successfully portrayed the specifics of perception in children (the soundtrack mimicking Thomas Newman is particularly painful in that respect).

Piñeyro's former writer (Aida Bortnik, who also wrote The Official Story) used to be quite annoying to me, but at least she seemed to know and like drama as a tool.",0 "This movie is total fiction! The big problem is that it has been researched and shown that there were no plane phones on UA 93. Upon research, it has also been shown that it was virtually impossible to use cell phones in 2001 at that height & speed.

Also, no plane parts were found at the supposed impact point. There were parts found up to eight miles away from the impact point. This would mean that UA 93 either exploded in air by a bomb or was shoot down by a fighter jet.

Finally, there were no passengers with Arab names on the flight manifest for UA 93.

Wake up and do some research (911blogger.com)-- we won't be fooled again.",0 "I saw this film for rent and although it's not the sort of film I'd usually go for, being a Dolph Lundgren movie, I was intrigued by the cool looking front cover. I read up some reviews, courtesy of IMDb, the only ones I could find. It did seem a popular movie.

Anyways I hired it and I must say the IMDb rating doesn't do this film justice. It is really a surprise because it has some great little moments in it. Also it packs a punch in the more violent scenes and doesn't hold back, and I mean I was really wincing in some moments.

It didn't occur to me until the film opened and credited Lundgren himself as director. He did a fantastic job and his portrayal of violence really hits home like my favorite director Mr Paul Verhoeven. Lundgren I know is someone critics always mock, like Schwarzenegger, but Lundgren really shows talent as a director. I will have to watch his other film the Defender. In regards to the acting, Lundgren also did a good job. Ben Cross is a good actor too and he does well in this film.

This is overall a quality piece, well worth watching.",1 "I don't know but a magician who kills a person in a murder-mystery has some formulaic sound over it. The whole killing and story approach of this movie however still give it an overall original touch.

For the third time in his career Jack Cassidy starred in a Columbo movie. Also in the this movie he plays the killer, like he did as well 2 and 5 years before in the Columbo movies ""Columbo: Publish or Perish"" and the Steven Spielberg directed ""Columbo: Murder by the Book"". He starred in this Columbo movie in the same year as his early sudden death. He died when his couch caught fire after falling asleep with a lit cigarette on December 12th of the same year. He was only 49 at the time, despite looking much older than that though. That's also the reason why he throughout his career played characters who were much older than him, as was also the case in this movie, in which he plays an ex-Nazi, who gets uncovered by his employee and therefor kills him.

Harvey Hart seemed to be a director who provided the Columbo movies with the right type of comedy. He directed a total of 4 Columbo movies, of which this one was the last. His Columbo movies are just a tad bit more entertaining to watch than the average usual Columbo entries. Funny thing in this movie is that Lt. Columbo has a new and much better looking raincoat, who he constantly keeps forgetting to take back with him after visiting a place. Of course in the end he gets his usual trademark raincoat back and voilà, he solves the murder.

The movie its story is good and foremost entertaining. It doesn't make this one of the best written or most intelligent Columbo movies out there but the overall entertainment value of the movie compensates for this all. The movie also features some good interaction between the Peter Falk and Jack Cassidy characters. Besides those two, the movie also features Robert Loggia, before his days of fame.

A real enjoyable Columbo entry.

8/10",1 "This is one of a series of vintage AIP horror titles released some time ago as part of an R2 DVD collection entitled ""The Arkoff Library"", though the copy I watched was actually culled from an AMC TV broadcast (with constant streaming advertisements of upcoming shows and pictures!); others include THE SHE-CREATURE (1956), BLOOD OF Dracula (1957) and HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER (1958) – all of which I have acquired in time for my ongoing Halloween challenge. Thematically, the film is a variation on the classic INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956) with a small town gradually taken over (though not by an alien organism but rather a vanished – and, typically, superior – civilization); despite the sensationalistic title, the creatures – 'possessing' their victims through small punctures at the back of the neck – are never actually seen, leading to a wonderful POV shot (perhaps the film's highlight) depicting an attack on the hero's girlfriend. The leader of the 'invaders' is actually a bearded old man – only ever shown in silhouette – residing in a cone-shaped rocket! The end result is not too bad though hardly a classic of its familiar kind or genre and obviously cramped by the low budget and necessary compactness (running a mere 56 minutes); interestingly, the film's director is the burly Orson Welles-lookalike sleazeball from DEMENTIA (1955).",1 "The problem with any belief (an abstract), dependent on faith (an abstract), is that no concrete evidence is provided. Choosing the belief of any cult, versus one's own belief, is a quandary. An atheist does not believe in any God, whether it be a cult's God or anyone else's concept (an abstract) of God. A concept (which, again, is an abstract) may be confusing or difficult to understand. An agnostic will not accept God, without concrete evidence, but faith-based religious and spiritual systems require an acceptance based on the abstract (such persons believe that their concept of God is rooted in a higher power). God is invisible. Yet, some say that they feel, hear and see God in the nature, the rain and the wind. But, what is the formula? This remains a mystery, in this film, because it is never completely revealed. And, will our world soon end?

""Believers"" (2007) promotes critical analysis, divergent thinking, introspection, and reflection. Set in a dark, creepy and furtive realm, one can be hypnotized by the bewitching mood and musical score. In Myrick style, this film becomes a masterfully-crafted thriller, effectively supplying anxiety, fear, menace, suspense, and tension. The cult represented, in this film, seems to promote life. Yet, is there life within the shroud of the death scent of Hitler's control and manipulation, his experimentation, coercion, and force?

The riveting performance by Daniel Benzali, who plays the Teacher, is at his insidious, evil best. His spellbinding, measured, and haunting tone of voice brilliantly captures the cult's intended mission, fails to reveal--until the end of the film--just how it will carry out. But, the actors and director are faithful to the script, and they do become masters of horror, without most of the blood and all of the gore. The film, beautifully counterbalanced and integrated, seems to show (at least on the surface) pratfalls of blind faith and misdirected trust. All people are born. All people will die. But, what is the eagerness for death, if we never have lived?

Because the film asks questions that our finite minds are unable to answer, I rate this film an 8 out of 10. It is entertaining, and the film is good because it makes one infinitely think. The film expands one's horizons beyond earth, heaven, and hell.",1 "I'd definitely rather clean the cat box than see this again.

By my definition of horror, i.e. not unrelenting gore, this was a disappointment. In fact, the first time that I tried to watch it, the two guys in the room revolted within the first 15 minutes and refused to watch any more.

Foolishly, I decided to rent it again and watch it alone. Yes, there is a twist and it is a surprise. Otherwise, from the opening scenes, this film is relentlessly nasty, gory, and really not very interesting--I fast forwarded through most of it so that I did not have to hear (or watch) the screaming. So, unless it is a free rental and/or you get off on human-on-human violence, expect to pay a rental fee to see the beginning and then fast forward through to the surprise ending.",0 "There is a lot of criticism, mostly negative, on this board about this film, which I can't understand. I have never seen the original film version with Norma Shearer, but it appears not to be bowdlerized like this one. But bowdlerized or not, this is a very good film.

It has a first rate cast led by Crawford (who was capable of comedy but opted for dramatic intense roles like Mildred Pierce). As the role calls for her to be compromised by her actions (she has masqueraded as a socialite to be accepted by the jaded aristocrats in order to pull off a jewel robbery) the role is not a slap happy funny part like say Rosalind Russell's Hildy Johnson, but a tonier style of sophisticated comedy. As such it is perfectly fitted to Crawford's screen persona.

As for the jaded aristocrats: Frank Morgan may not do a British accent at all, but his fumbling is pretty good here - he is the richest man in England, and could give an intelligent talk on industrial output or tariffs, but cannot open up his heart to Crawford; Nigel Bruce is another nobleman, who has a randy set of eyes for pretty ladies, and cannot see his wife (Benita Hume) is far too close to her ""cousin"" (Ralph Forbes). The splendid Jessie Ralph is an aging dowager who befriends Crawford (it is her pearl necklace that Crawford is seeking to steal). She is a lively and likable old lady, and one with a scandalous past (as we eventually learn). But if none of the aristocrats are spotless in character (except possibly the boring Morgan), the other members of the gang are not wonderful. Melville Cooper (pretending to be Crawford's chauffeur) is constantly ready to whip out his handy knife and cut the throat of anyone he thinks is double crossing them.

But the most interesting thing about the casting were the two leading men: Robert Montgomery and William Powell. The two most sophisticated and suave leading men of the golden age of movies only appeared in this one film together. They share only four scenes, but it is remarkable about how smooth the scenes are - like a perfect set of volleyball games with no shots and counter shots missed by either party (and when Crawford joins them she is equally smooth in responding to both her leading men). She had made other films with Montgomery but there were no others after this one. As for Powell, this was there only film together. As such it should be seen for the bright chemistry between the three leads alone, but it is a good comedy on its own.",1 "This Movies is fantastic!

Joe Dante's ""Gremlins"" is a fun and enjoyable film, but it is scary at times, but I still love it. It really is the best little monster attack type film, and you even root for the Gremlins themselves, because of their enjoyable pranks, stupidity and by far their laughs, it just sticks in your head.

This movie even spawned a sequel ""Gremlins 2: The New Batch"", which is also filmed by Joe Dante, it is great as well, but it isn't as good as it's predecessor. If you haven't seen this film then, go rent it, buy it, you just have to see ""Gremlins"".",1 "Kill Bill is a fraud. Terrible, terrible movie! SPOILERS

Spoilers within this post. Enter at your own risk!

I just got back from the noon showing of Kill Bill in which the theater was half full (for a noon showing, that is huge. The theater is one of the bigger ones at the Queensway in Toronto, so it will do well this weekend). What I witnessed in that 100 minutes in the theater can only be described as Tarantino's flipping of the bird to all of us as he looks in the mirror and congratulates himself on being the smartest man in the world. Straight up, Kill Bill is one of the biggest disappointments I have seen in my life. After masterpieces like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction and other greats like True Romance, you would think that Kill Bill would live up to those lofty expectations bestowed upon it by virtue and name recognition alone. But not only has Tarantino told us all to **** off, he he has done it while laughing in our faces.

Kill Bill has all of Tarantino's quirky and weird trademarks in it. And it contains strange techniques that at first you think is simply an homage to a film genre. But in reality, what QT did here was get too cute and at the expense of artistic integrity. What we are left with is more Matrix style garbage, a 10 minute anime introduction to Lucy Lui's character, black and white photography for no reason and the bleeping out of the bride's name just because he can. All of this is looked at as being brilliant by the critics and those in similar circles because Tarantino has a free pass right now. His films have enamoured critics for 10 years now and this one is no different even though it is a shadow of the opulence that we are used to from him. To sum it up, this film is all style and has no substance. The style is there, but for what purpose? Why does he choose to do the things that he does? Is it just because he can? Or is it because he thinks he is so much more clever than the rest of us? You guys thought Matrix Reloaded was pretentious, this film might as well be the Architect meets Socrates meets Locke, meets Rouseau meets Japanese smart guy meets Marx. That is how it comes across. Pretentious doesn't even begin to describe it. There is even a blatant rip off of the burly brawl in this film right down to beings jumping up a flight of steps to come and meet the heroine.

I knew I was in trouble five minutes into the film when it just didn't feel right. You know how in Pulp you just knew you were in for something special? You just felt it with the dialogue, the acting, the soundtrack and everything that encompassed the film. Well Kill Bill has the opposite feel to it. None of that magic is present and it is just a bunch of people getting sliced and diced and maimed. There is no snappy dialogue and that is what QT is good at. Tarantino is a lyrical genius and he abandons that here and goes Wachowski Brothers on us and it just doesn't work.

I despised this film with every fibre of my body and it left me in a p***ed off and foul mood. Shame on you QT. Shame on you for starting to believe everything that was said about you. Now wipe that stupid smile off your face and go clean Harvey's shoes and polish his golf clubs. There is a lot of sychophantic baloney going on here and I thought you were bigger than that.

F or a 1 out of 10.",0 "THE FOX AND THE CHILD is the latest film from MARCH OF THE PENGUINS filmmaker Frenchman Luc Jacquet. The movie, which boasts just one human being in its cast, young actress Bertille Noël-Bruneau, tells the story of the rather rare, though seemingly believable relationship between a child and a wild fox.

Part-nature documentary, and part-fairy tale, the film focuses on L'Infant, the child, who on her way to school one day comes across the path of a wild fox in a picturesque setting, possibly France, though the exact location is never mentioned. Over the coming weeks the child revisits the place where she found her fox hopeful that one of said days she will see said fox, who she begins to call Lily, once again. And so it goes on. Days turn to weeks, and then the summer disappears, turning to fall and then winter, promting some superb cinematography of the sweeping, white winter landscape. Eventually, spring comes around again, and the young child finds her fox, and indeed does strike up a friendship with the animal. And so on.

I had little to no expectation for THE FOX AND THE CHILD. I had seen MARCH OF THE PENGUINS and was simply in awe at the film-making contained in that movie. Luc Jacquet is a hugely talented, and indeed rare film-maker, and I was expecting some superb, breathtaking cinematography, sweeping vistas and brilliant footage of the wildlife. This was delivered in spades. But here Jacquet has a screen writing credit, and not knowing anything about the movie prior to the screening, I expected something a little different than what had previously been seen in 'March'. A fictional story.

The child and the fox And the story is simple. A young, seemingly lonely child lives in a house in the middle of nowhere and walks to school, seemingly on her own, every day, seemingly without a care in the a seemingly perfect world. Without the hint of an adult in sight. Brilliant. So she strikes up a friendship with a fox.

With a film like this, you have to dismiss your own opinion of the movie and put yourselves in the shoes of the target audience. This is a film which is aimed directly at children from the age of, I'd say, six and up. Or to families who fancy a trip to the cinema with their breed one wet Sunday afternoon. Not a 31-year-old male who gets his kicks from films like the recent, brilliant WANTED and the like. But, me being the newbie London critic, I put myself in the shoes of an excited eight-year old girl for the 95 or so minutes of THE FOX AND THE CHILD. Now, I have a few problems with this film. As a 31-year-old lad, and loyal lover of all things cinematic, I loved the wildlife and landscape photography. It's visually stunning. The direction of the animal characters is brilliantly executed -- as good as you will find on any of Attenborough's efforts. As an impressionable, short attention spanning eight year old, I loved about the first half hour -- then I lost interest. It's a little repetitive and in places quite harrowing and bloody scary for a younger child, particularly the rather dark ending. As a 31-year-old male -- I was a little frightened in places. Wuss.

So, it's not a child's film. It's not really an adult film and I felt a little let down. Is it a good family film. Depends. It's educational maybe, and the film carries a message. It's definitely not a film I would pay the hard earned green to go see and I'm racking my brains to try and recommend it to a certain type of film goer. It's hard, but I know some will go see and fall in love this film. It's very European in feel and certainly if you are a fan of wildlife themed flicks, give it a try. Unsure? Well I'd wait for the DVD for a wet Sunday afternoon in then. -- Paul Heath, http://www.thehollywoodnews.com, July 2008.",0 "Hav Plenty is immediately engaging and funny. Without the marketing power of a major distributor, and lacking a catchy name (Hav is short for Havolin, and Plenty is the last name of the main character)this film must be recommended through the backyard fence network.

The dialog is smart and REAL, and the acting is superb. Lost in a sea of movies, this one is worth the search.",1 "I found this little gem on the video rack under the title of ""The House On Tombstone Hill"". It sounded interesting enough - a group of people get trapped in a old house with something nasty, which is usually a sign that I might see some cool gore. However, when I read on the video box that this was a Troma movie, I almost passed on it. I was kinda burnt out on Troma's cheesy approach to horror. This movie has it's share of cheese too, but this film was acquired by Troma, not produced by Troma, so there's not as much of it. Actually, I was quite surprised by this film. It's very low-budget, but like most horror films, the low-budget adds to the creepiness of the film. Good gore effects, some decent acting, a cool location (kinda reminded me of Night of the Demons) and a warped sense of humor adds up to one bizarre little film. It's got some boring parts, but for a Troma movie, it was very enjoyable!

",1 "The first third of this film was promising, but it got so badly out of hand by the end that I can't seriously recommend anyone bother watching it. I found it really difficulty to be sympathetic to this main character who didn't seem to be affected by the death of a policeman--even if she wasn't responsible. Her main concern during her confinement seems to be how to foil the ankle device, not thinking about her screwed-up life, or how to clear her name.

Worst of all, there is so little motivation for many of her actions that the whole thing just falls apart. The ending made me furious--she goes through a thoroughly unbelievable search for the guy who got her into this mess, uncovers plenty of evidence to clear herself then breaks her own foot to escape! That's not just stupid, that's insulting. Maybe they were bending over backwards not to have her just fall into the arms of her rescuer, but that could have been a far more satisfying scenario.

I really loved ""Dream with the Fishes"" but after seeing this I won't be so quick to seek out another film by this director. The guy clearly has some issues with stalking women. This COULD have been a really good film, but it ended up just pissing me off.",0 "I was truly moved by this movie even though there are many parts that are simply unbelievable. One rarely is hitchhiking and gets picked up by a van full of really famous regional and perhaps international musicians. One cannot smuggle someone across the border under the rear seat of a van. Not going to happen. Not now. Not if you are driving and do not look 100% gringo. The INS would never allow someone to simply drive away from a raid in a truck with compadres scrambling in the back to get away. Even though there are these ""errors"" one must realize that this a work of fiction and these sort of incongruencies do not detract from the overall power of the film.

Here in California there are thousands of women from Mexico and Central America trying to make some money to get ahead in the world. They are often away from their children. Opportunities are rare where they are from. This reality is true and that is where the movie's force comes from - the reality of these illegal immigrants.

The acting is excellent and the pace of the story is perfect. The transformation of Enrique played by Eugenio Derbez is marvelous. The young Adrian Alonso as Carlitos is great. I would highly recommend this movie. Compared to all the pure rubbish out there I was surprised this movie did not get a ton of promotion.",1 "I saw Keane at the 42nd annual New York Film Festival and was quite pleasantly surprised. I'm really not an indy film buff, well, I wasn't until this trip into the city. I was absolutely captivated and completely engrossed in this film. This is one of those films that keeps you on the edge of your seat and easily wraps you into the story. You really feel like your are with William Keane, you can feel what he's thinking. Then the story will take an unexpected turn...see, I told you it keeps you on the edge of your seat. This film is definitely thought provoking and sensitive to all facets of the human being. It's one of those films that you can see repeatedly and get something new from it each time. I think the only thing I don't like about it is that I can't see it again easily or purchase it on DVD. I would LOVE to have this film in my personal movie collection.",1 "...this movie no doubt severely disappointed most Forsyth fans. It had very little to do with the book. It seems that (as usual) some Hollywood wonk, noting that the novel was a best-seller, gave some hack the basic premise from the back-cover blurb and got him to make something up that would appeal to Joe Sixpack and his girlfriend. The result? A cliché-ridden B-movie. Forsyth must have been livid.

It's competently handled (for such an old film it holds up amazingly well), but what presumption! The original story was just fine. What made them think that their version would be better?

Pity they didn't have the sense to hire Kenneth Ross to do the screenplay. He'd already done two of Forsyth's other books (Day of the Jackal and Odessa File), and at least made the effort to be faithful to the originals.",0 "There is so much greatness in this unexpected Hollywood comedy that the cheap shots are really cheap and, quite frankly, unbearable. Buried somewhere between the special effects (extraordinary by the way) is one the wittiest satires to come out of Hollywood in many, many moons. Meryl Streep is sensational and Bruce Willis is, I swear, unrecognizable in the best possible way. The movie hits the highest moments when, for instance, Meryl asks Isabella Rossellini how much the magic potion costs and Isabella replays: ""Oh the sordid topic of coin"" sublime, exquisite, funny but with enormous regard for its audience. But when Bruce calls Goldie Hawn to explain the ""incident"" at home he goes through a TV style monologue that seems to belong to a sit-com and not to the elegant vulgarity of this three sad, magnificent wannabees. The dialog, for the most part, is the best in any American serious comedy since Billy Wilder. The structure of the script is flawless and inventive. The costumes are atrocious and certain scenes seem directed by a 3rd assistant. I don't know how to explain it. However, I have it, I own it and sometimes I put it on with my finger in the fast forward. What's good is so good that makes the whole thing really worth it.",1 "This film is still haunting me, even long after watching it for the first time. It depicts a rare insight into the exclusivity of sibling relationships and utilises a neutral tone that ironically intensifies every second of the story. Although the movie skims slightly upon cliches, that only helps to familiarise the audience with the plot so that they don't feel too alienated by the mystery of the twins. This most certainly is a treasured oddity in the video store.",1 "For a while, I had (blessedly) forgotten this movie, and then for some reason, I was reminded of it. And then I remembered that I couldn't stand this movie. When I went to see this movie, it was a ""nothing good is playing right now, so let's just watch this"" kind of decision. Well, the point still stood at the conclusion of the film.

I think it could have been funny in a twisted, morbid, sort of way, but a bunch of prissy, ""evil"", dingy Valley Girl stereotypes, plus the one girl who ""is really a good girl and has a conscience"" didn't add to a creative or interesting story. It was campy in a way that just made me groan over the fact that I was wasting time in seeing this, and I just kept staring at my watch, hoping to this film would mercifully end.

Honestly, it felt like a bad ""Saved By the Bell"" episode, and I would have probably welcomed some commercial breaks to give me a breather from the monotony. I couldn't even enjoy the cliched silliness of this, and I love(d) Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Here's the best way to sum this film experience up for me: Marilyn Manson with a moustache. I think that says more than enough.",0 "So this guy named Morgan plays football and that has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this movie. Him and his friend end up on this island where the wasps, rats and chickens are gigantic. The rats, chickens and wasps are so fake looking that it's hilarious. The acting is so terrible that I couldn't help but burst out laughing. I could act better if I had been in a coma. Then this lady has this baby and the other lady who is a bacteria expert knows just how to deliver a baby. That was strange and it didn't seem to hurt without any drugs. Plus the baby was fake looking too and it's just the icing on the cake. I had to back it up just to see the giant plastic chicken because it was so funny. Other than that it's just a bunch of drown rats and a kid drinking some milk.",0 "Hilarious.

Not the film, but the review by RAROME when he calls the film, ""One of the funniest Latino Exploitation films ever."" He WOULD think that. He's the star of the film.

Rarome posts elsewhere: ""yes I'm Richard Azurdia and everyone can know it. I have nothing to hide."" http://imdb.com/title/tt0452703/board/thread/19924618?d= 29238104#29238104

Has anyone out there, NOT related to the filmmakers/not crew, cast, friends, or family of this film seen it and care to comment on it?",0 "Four snotty rich kids at a prep school in England want to get out of a field trip to Wales, where they would have to eat ""fish paste sandwiches"" and be otherwise uncomfortable. They also don't want to get out of the trip by just returning home over the school break. Two are male friends, Mike Steel (Desmond Harrington), son of a rock star, and Geoff Bingham (Laurence Fox), and two are female friends, Elizabeth Dunn (Thora Birch) and Frances Almond Smith (Keira Knightley). Frances and Geoff have had an intimate relationship, although any relationship between them seems very tenuous, and Elizabeth has had a crush on Mike for a long time; Mike was otherwise going out with another girl, but she had just dumped him. One of them knows, or knows someone who knows, the perfect ""getaway"" spot, secluded and private, just right for promoting an intimate, extended weekend of partying--an old war bunker deep underground in the middle of a forest. The bunker is accessed via a circular, thick steel door, and is lined with thick reinforced concrete. The four end up trapped in the bunker, with the door locked and no way to get out, for at least 10 days. Who locked them in and why? How will they get out?

If you're someone who only likes straightforward plots, traditionally happy endings and films depicting ""facts"" that are close to what you believe to be true about the actual world, you're best advised to avoid The Hole. If you instead do not mind, or even prefer, circuitous, twisted tales with strong fantasy elements (in this case primarily to enable what amounts to a parable) and fairly nihilistic endings, you may find much to love here. Reflecting the film's overall ambiguity, The Hole resides in a gray genre area between thriller, psychological horror and a straight-ahead drama. The first half hour or so is much more straightforward, and for me, the film was cruising along at about an 8 for at least that length of time. But as it progressed and things became much more bizarre and ""evil"", my score gradually rose, with the extended climax being a firm 10 for me. So my rating on this one is more of an average.

The plot, from a screenplay by first time (and only time so far) scripters Ben Court and Caroline Ip, based on a novel by Guy Burt, is unusual for being told primarily from unreliable characters' perspectives. We learn most of the story through the testimony of a victim--Elizabeth, and a primary suspect, Martyn Taylor (Daniel Brocklebank), who may in fact be a friend of Elizabeth's. Their accounts change as the film progresses, often framing different characters as victims and perpetrators, and the bulk of what we see on screen are depictions of these changing accounts. Thus we see some ""repeating"" material. It's important to show parts of the story again as the supposed facts about the story change.

Stemming from this, it's easy to see that the performances are quite good. Most characters undergo subtle alterations for the different instantiations of the story, and the four principals--Birch, Harrington, Fox and Knightley--adeptly transform themselves, aided also by their clothing, hair and makeup.

Court and Ip cleverly do not change the scenario as much as you might expect after the first couple variations. It keeps you on your toes as to just who the perpetrator was, but also enables a surprising and in-depth exploration of the psychotic personality and motivation behind the ""lock-in""--whoever the perpetrator was (and I certainly won't reveal the film's answer here), they were clearly somewhat insane. We're also led to be skeptical about the material that's relayed from an ostensibly third-person point of view. It's never clear for most events just what is meant to be ""objective"" and true versus what is still the potential fantasy of the storyteller. Personally, I love that kind of ambiguity. Some others do not like it so much.

The Hole is also a bit of an exploration of spoiled kids. All of the main characters are manipulators who are used to getting whatever they want. They all seem to have an attitude that their intellect is far superior to almost every one else, and thus they're entitled to whatever they desire, as well as justified in whatever it takes to get it--that's a classic disposition of many criminals, and not a few business leaders, politicians, Internet geeks and so on. It's notable that when the students' parents appear (which is very seldom), they are distant and mostly dissociated from their offspring, who have come to rule the roost as far as we can tell. The investigators trying to piece together the case come to know this, although they never directly state as much, but the performers give very subtle clues to their complex realizations as the story goes on. We can see them also gradually losing hope that they'll be able to properly sort the events out and reveal the truth.

The Hole can be seen as a parable about how far some may go to get what they want, as well as how far co-conspirators may go before they try to divorce themselves from events gone wrong (there are clues throughout the film that other characters had various levels of knowledge and involvement). It's also an exploration of what makes some go as far as they do and what makes conspirators play along. At the same time it comments on the bewilderment of ""outsiders"" trying to figure out how some horrific event developed. A lot of the answers are appropriately ambiguous. Under the guises of the subtexts, as well as on a more visceral surface level, the film is a great success.",1 "Battle Creek, Michigan is hometown to me and several generations of my family. So, maybe I appreciated 'The Road to Wellville' more than most. After all, anyone living in Battle Creek either works for the Kellogg Company or is close to someone who does. Kellogg's and Post cereal companies have affected nearly every level of Battle Creek's evolution for 100 years or more.

The great cereal boom of the early 1900s is still talked about today. And tales of the legendary Dr. Harvey Kellogg (artfully played by Anthony Hopkins), Seventh Day Adventists, and the famous (or infamous) Battle Creek 'San' are fondly retold by some of the town's elder residents. The health regimens practiced at the B.C. Sanitarium led to a host of other health-related businesses in Battle Creek which made everything from dubious exercise equipment to nearly tasteless all-veggie soybean burgers.

This film is a lively, tongue-in-cheek rendition of the intriguing story about an era when entrepreneurship in the U.S. was at its peak. The cast, featuring Matthew Broderick, John Cusack, Bridget Fonda and Dana Carvey, is excellent and the humor as wacky as it gets.

Bon appetit!

",1 "I saw this film today in the Cinema. The film critics gave it the bottom grade. But I didn't listen to them. Do I ever? This third entry is not really as good as the two other films, but well worth seeing. I was really a lot better than I thought. Paul Hogan is as funny and charming as ever. If you're a fan like me. Four words: GO AND SEE IT! For everyone else. I recomend it. I give it 7/10.",1 "I watched both the first and second pilots on youtube (go to youtube.com and type in Red Dwarf pilot). The first one was utter garbage, the only saving graces were the captain, Tau (played by a woman, she was very good). And, of course Holly. The actors playing Lister and Rimmer looked like they were choking on lines wrapped in painful barbed wire. The actor playing the Cat was utterly, unbelievably bad. And, poor Kryten (the original British actor), though good, looked bored with the whole affair. The sets looked OK, but the special effects were stock British Dwarf. Now on the other hand, the second pilot looked much better. My favorite there was Terry Farrel (later to play Dax on Star Trek Deep Space Nine) playing the Cat. She was fantastic. The actor playing Lister was pretty good in this one, guess he did a bit of practicing between pilots. But, the actor playing Rimmer was stumbling dreadfully on the character. Holly was very good in this one as well. American television has been guilty of stealing British sitcoms for decades. Three's Company, All in the Family, even Sanford and Son started out as British comedies, though translated well for American audiences. But, Red Dwarf is one of those shows that lose's everything it is in translation. This project was doomed from the start. It might have been promising if it was not translated, just imported. I give the first pilot a 1 out of 10. But,the second pilot I'll be nice and give a 4, if not just for Holly and The Cat.",0 "Unutterably boring dialogue, completely silly story, but lovely scenery. I kept waiting for something to happen, but all that ever went on was a group of folks kept burying and digging up a dead guy. Two of the people thought they were responsible for the death and were trying to hide the evidence and circumstances continued to require that they keep shuffling the body around. Very tedious. I would rather watch a red oak grow that waste my time watching this drivel.",0 "This is Bela Lugosi's only starring feature in color. That's about all it has going for it, really; the schtick of having a corpse narrate the movie (Which would be done quite a bit better a few years later by Sunset Blvd.) isn't well executed, anyway.

Laura Van Ee (Mary Lamont) is a nervous, tension-ridden ex-dancer who thinks she's imprisoned in her room by her husband Ward and her father in law Dr. Josef (George Zucco). She's mad, mad I tell you! Since it's her corpse that narrates, I think we can assume we know what happens to Mrs. Van Ee right from the get-go.

Why is she so anxious? She's not sure - no one is - but everyone suspects it all has something to do with her past, and something to do with a handkerchief. Enter Bela Lugosi and a midget - no, wait, Professor Leonide and his faithful companion, Indigo. And a wisecracking, tough-guy reporter (Douglas Fowley) and his dim-bulb dame (Joyce Compton). Add in a bumbling ex-cop who overtly desires a murder so he can solve it and get back to ""real"" policework (Nat Pendelton), and you have all the ingredients for One Crappy Low Budget Movie.

Every now and then the director remembers this is supposed to be a horror film, not a crime caper, so you hear this loopy pseudospooky music that's probably supposed to portend doom, or something. Which makes some sort of sense, but there's nothing creepy going on at the time, so it's hardly effective.

I've heard tell that Lamont, as the haunted Mrs. Ee (love the surname) is the only actor with any kind of spirit (ha, ha) in the movie - but please, hammy isn't the same as being spirited. Lugosi plays Lugosi, the midget disappears halfway through the picture, there's a supposedly disembodied head, and that's about it. It's all over in an hour or so.",0 "I'm prompted to write this review because my cable company is promoting this... feature film... as a PAY PER VIEW. I kid you not.

Let me open by saying that it's not the worst film I've even seen. That honour goes to US Seals. It's not even the worst horror; there's a dubbed Swedish monstrosity involving terrified cats being thrown at bored actors that just (JUST) edges out Crawlers.

Let's count our blessings though. The production company that ""funded"" this movie is an Italian outfit that thankfully hasn't managed to branch out beyond the likes of ""Troll 2"" and ""Quest For The Mighty Sword (aka Ator III: The Hobgoblin)"". And both of the writers had never written anything before - and haven't written anything since. Let's be thankful for that.",0 "This is a must film for fans who want to know if the world's secrets can be acquired through theft. The answer may surprise many including Officials who believe our Government is secure. This film is entitled "" Sneakers "" and is about a group of Cyber-specialists who advertise themselves as computer security experts. Their job is to test the encryption systems of various electronic based companies. In their youth, two college students (Jo Marr and Gary Hershberger) seeking to right the world's financial problems, break into a University system as a prank. Unfortunately they are detected and Marr is sent to prison. It is years later and Bishop (Robert Redford) is a legitimate security consultant who is kidnapped because he has stolen a 'Black Box' which can hack into the most secure and sensitive centers of the world. His team consists of other specialists like Donald Crease (Sidney Poitier) Erwin Emory (David Strathairn) 'Mother' (Dan Aykroyd) and River Phoenix as Carl. They have decided to take on the Government agents who are holding Bishop. The problem multiples when the C.I.A. takes an active interest as does Bishop's former friend who seeks his own bit of revenge. The movie is interesting and lively as the level of danger grows until everyone is in danger including the real U.S. government. Easily recommended as a wonderful, but serious film. ****",1 "The senior Dumas' novel is turned into a knockoff of THE PRISONER OF ZENDA -- although as I have never read this Dumas novel, it may simply be returning the compliment.

Director Karlson is not able to raise much of a performance from anyone except from Anthony Quinn, who plays his slimily villainous role with the appropriate cool aplomb. Still and all, besides the pleasures of Anthony-Quinn-watching, Karlson does manage to shoot the entire procedure with a goodly amount of visual beauty, with an MGM-style sumptuousness well displayed. Aside from these two point, however, this one is pretty much a washout.",0 "Yes, yes, it's an early gay film and it's a film about AIDS. But beyond that, it's just a so-so film. It's just not very fun to watching people dying... and that's just about what the movie is about. Gay men dying of AIDS. On the subject, I would much prefer AND THE BAND PLAYED ON and other notable documentaries which are more effective.",0 "This is an excellent thriller. It's balancing finely between a modest genre psycho thriller and a drama about shrinks, traumas, suicide, guilt and the like. The acting of Vincent Kartheiser steals the show, as his character comes out as real and believable. Don't expect it to ge a 'great movie' though, you will have to endure formulaic elements and shallow psychological insights. Best watched without former knowledge of plot.",1 "A leak of radioactive gas is Resurecting a girl that´s been dead for some time. Getting up she starts to kill of everyone in her way, as she finds her way back to her lesbian lover in a remote castle.

A dark erotic and tragic tale of love and lust by the legendary Jean Rollin is very sad and does really get to you in the ending scenes.

I Can´t compare it to any other movie I´ve ever seen because it´s so damn good and unusual.

Highly recommended!",1 "I remember this TV production well. Even in black and white, it was a magical show. The cast was perfect. The songs are all outstanding. The duet with Patrice Munsell and Vic Damone of ""It Might Have Been"" is really terrific. The whole cast was just right. There have been other musical versions of ""Christmas Carol"" but this is definitely the best. The story was narrated by the Four Lads as a group of carolers with the excellent song, ""Stingest Man In Town"".I am lucky to have the cast recording on an LP and also the stage script with the music. Both are real treasures for me. Many of the old TV shows are making their way to DVD now and this is one that definitely should be released on disc. While the cartoon is nice, it just does not hold the magic of the original live broadcast. This is one of my fondest memories of Christmases long ago.",1 "Reading all the comments about how funny and amazing and ""true"" this film is, I hope that the world has progressed a LOT since it was made or that the people who commented didn't actually see the vast majority of this film. When I first saw it as a child, I thought it was great too.

I recently had the chance to see it again, and I cannot believe how awful it actually is. This film is racist, sexist, classist and homophobic and not in a satirical way. It casually condones and glorifies rape (yes, having sex with someone who is too drunk to even know who you are is actually rape).

The only good thing about this film is the soundtrack.",0 "I'm getting really tired of movies that portray a Ghost as a modern-day ""The Riddler"" from the Batman TV series! Like The Riddler, the Ghost in ""What Lies Beneath"" has all the answers that you're looking for -- but you're only going to get pieces to the puzzle one incoherent piece at a time.

Let's all get on the same page here for a minute. We know, having watched the movie in full, that the ghost has these powers/abilities: 1) Can TYPE ON A COMPUTER KEYBOARD (or, at the very least, get words to appear on a computer screen)!! 2) Can write easy-to-read English on a fogged-up mirror, as if you were using your finger. 3) Can appear to numerous people (as the ghost appeared, in one way or another, to both the main stars in the movie). 4) Can open closed doors. 5) I'm not entirely sure about this one, but it seemed as if the ghost ""took over"" Claire's body and/or mind at one point (and mysteriously began acting sexually towards her murderer of all people, Mr. Ford).

Why would a ghost, with the abilities outlined above, give you vague clues in pieces and not simply tell you what the hell is going on?! As a Ghost, if you can get words to appear on a computer screen, WHY IN THE HELL wouldn't you just write ""Your husband is a murderer, you can find my body at the end of your dock, my name is..."". Why would you simply type your initials hundreds of times over and over?! Again, are we dealing with The Riddler here?! If that wouldn't work, how about just writing to Claire on the mirror after every shower each day?? If you were a Ghost, and all you COULD DO is leave messy clues to somebody you hope will help solve your murder, would you, upon getting screamed at from the top of your helper's lungs ""What do you want?!?!"" -- really write back a simple ""You Know!""???? Obviously she didn't know yet, she was still gathering clues and thought she was going insane!! Wouldn't you have used that moment to write something just a bit more profound?! Like, maybe, ""I need your help!"". Wow.

And at one point the Ghost ""took over"" Claire's body and/or mind -- don't even get me started on how she could have easily killed her murderer -- so shouldn't she have tried killing Harrison Ford's character, her murderer, instead of just getting him horny?! I could go on and on, but at this point, I'm fatigued over this plot-hole-filled tripe. I just want to emphasize -- I hate when Ghosts are portrayed as The Riddler's character in the Batman series - as simple clue-givers.

:)

JD",0 "A kidnapper is apprehended by the police, but the young girl he abducted is still missing. The police bring a medium onto the case to see if she can contact the girl's spirit, or at least determine whether the girl is still alive. However, the medium is going through a sort of mid-life crisis and believes that she and her husband can turn the case to their advantage. Of course, in simple minds bad ideas breed like rabbits, and soon this witless couple find themselves working against the police.

""Seance"" is a fundamentally flawed film, cursed from the very start by an inept script. The film's plot rests on a mammoth coincidence, and the central characters become utterly unsympathetic as soon as they begin covering up for a crime they didn't commit. Stupidity does not attract empathy, nor do cheap scares. Granted, the ghosts in the film are fairly creepy; director Kiyoshi Kurosawa takes advantage of many shadowy halls and ominous doorways, teaching his audience to fear open spaces. Unfortunately, when neither the plot nor the characters give us a reason to care, thrills alone cannot carry a film. Cliches abound here as well, including the requisite psychology expert who--at the very beginning of the story--primes us with information about a certain type of psychic manifestation which is key to a scene late in the film.

Perhaps ""The Sixth Sense"" was not the most sophisticated horror film of recent years, but the quality of this knock-off is nothing less than ghastly.",0 "Without comparing this to any other zombie film out there, this was one of the worst movies I've ever watched. The acting was bad, and that could be attributed to this being the actors first film ever. The lighting was very very bad, it appears throughout the movie that they are trying to use natural lighting, if that's the case, why shoot the film in shady areas or late in the day? Most of the time you can't see the actors expressions or faces because of the shadows. The special effects are horrible in most places, sometimes the blood is red, sometimes it's black. You see a lot of blood that looks black and congealed running out of one wound while there's fresh red blood running out of another wound (This being on the same body at the same time). The story doesn't run very smoothly at all with dialog being forced to move the plot along. One or two of these things in an independent movie isn't enough to kill it, IF the remaining factors are strong enough to carry the weak points of the film. When you have all negative points in one movie, the movie sucks.

If you do compare this to other low budget zombie movies out there (Braindead or Dead And Breakfast to name two), it doesn't even begin to compare and ends up looking like a High School students weekend project that is paid for with his allowance.

Bottom Line: Don't Rent, Don't Buy, If it's on cable late at night watch an infomercial instead.",0 "I picked up Jane Austen's book Pride & Prejudice while in high school and I couldn't make myself get past the first chapter... that and the fact that I don't typically like period dramas (they usually aren't done too well), I was hesitant when a friend casually mentioned that it was good, though long.

I checked it out from the library and over the next week I probably watched it half a dozen times! I could not get enough of it! It is definitely the best movie I've ever seen and I pop it into the DVD player at least once a week now that I own it!!

The complete cast was wonderful but I'd like to say that Mr. Collins was extra terrific- I don't think he's been given enough credit for the wonderful job he did! Though I've seen the movie dozens of times, he makes me laugh every time I see it!

I've seen the new one and it isn't near as good..... and you can get it cheaper than $40, as I've seen mentioned a few times.... you can get it from Target for $30 or at Amazon.com for $20 on sale.... AND WORTH EVERY PENNY!!",1 "This film is a really enjoyable experience. It is extremely stylish from the beautiful cinematography too the superb acting. It is ferociously character driven and basically spends it's length just enjoying the presence of it's three fascinating main characters, Anais Nin (Madeiros) and Henry Miller (Ward) and his wife June (Thurman).

All three actors are extremely good, especially Thurman who makes one of the most impressive uses of limited screen time (about 50min) that I've ever seen.

Thurman exudes the sexuality and screen presence of Dietrich and Garbo combined, and goes through an entire gamut of emotions from high melodrama to subtle tender moments, such is the nature of June Miller. The range shown in one role is astonishing. I have always thought Uma Thurman was a good actress, but I didn't realise she was THIS good. Nothing prepared me for what I saw here. It is a performance everyone should see before they comment on her as it leads me to believe she has been largely wasted in the rest of her career.

The film is worth seeing for Thurman's performance alone, but also for the cinematograhy and the fine work of other cast members. The much publicised erotic element only really rears its head for a torrid 25 minute period in the middle of the film when Anais goes from one lover to the next.",1 "The elaborate, carefully planned comedy - even in the opening credits, in which nothing moves - must have been maddeningly difficult to shoot. It's a pity Jeunet and Caro sought to top their efforts when they made ""The City of Lost Children"" five years later. The result was lifeless and over-elaborate; here, the level of elaboration is just right, with no sequence allowed to be more complicated than it is clever. And even the most gratuitous fantasia - like the montage with the creaking bedsprings, the ceiling repair, the cellist and the metronome, the knitting, the drilling, and the bicycle pump - grows naturally out of the story, like a flower on a vine.

But the biggest surprise to someone expecting another ""City of Lost Children"" is how real the sentiment is. Both films are populated chiefly by grotesques; the difference with the earlier one is that we're allowed to see the human beings underneath, without being invited to laugh ironically. It's worth noting that in the later film all finer human feelings were given to the mentally deficient - a retarded loner, a complete madman, and a child - as if sanity and intelligence precluded the possibility of any other admirable trait. But in ""Delicatessen"", Louison, however naïve he may be, is no fool; the enchanting Juliet, even as she fumbles her way through a disastrous date because she feel embarrassed wearing glasses, is no object of ridicule. Nobody, in fact, is completely an object of ridicule. Even the butcher is allowed a moment or two when he is neither a joke nor a threat but a human being, one who finds he regrets the life he now leads but is not persuaded to abandon it.

Even if ""Delicatessen"" had been recommended to me I doubt I'd have seen it in its original release. The fact that it was being praised as black comedy would have scared me off. It is indeed black comedy, but I urge you not to be scared: there's nothing nasty about the taste, and the dominant tone is one of optimism. We don't know the nature of the calamity that has struck this world. (It's not, as some people have mistakenly thought, anything so mundane or so easily comprehensible as nuclear war.) We don't know if the plants will ever grow back. But there's so much genuine hope it's hard to believe they won't.",1 "What a mess! Almost everything about Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is a complete and total disaster. In the movie, Quatermain puts a group together to search for his brother in the wilds of Africa. After facing several dangerous and near-death obstacles, Quatermain finds his brother living in the seemingly idyllic and Utopian Lost City of Gold. But appearances can be deceiving as the city is really under the control of a ruthless warlord intent on making the citizens his slaves to mine the gold he is taking out. Can Quatermain and his band of adventurers save these people?

If I were to just make a list of everything that doesn't work in Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold, my list would go on for pages. I'll begin with the acting. To put it bluntly, it's terrible. I've never thought much of Richard Chamberlain as an actor and this movie does nothing to change that. As for Sharon Stone, I'm sure she would like to see this thing buried. I doubt she considers it a highlight on her resume. James Earl Jones is an actor you can usually count on to give a quality performance regardless of the material. Here, he just comes across as embarrassed to be associated with this drivel.

Technically, the movie is train wreck. Direction, editing, and everything else you can come up with are as bad as I've seen. But the special effects take Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold to a new low. The blue screen effects are as bad as I've ever seen. The rear projection used in the 1930s is 10X more realistic than the blue haloed actors on a bad looking backgrounds seen in this movie. The puppet snakes make Kermit look like a real frog. And, wires, harnesses, and the like are readily evident. Like I said when I started, it's a mess.

I haven't even gotten to the plot, but why bother? It's as poorly written as you can imagine.

The only thing that keeps me from rating this movie a 1/10 are the groovy outfits worn by Cassandra Peterson. It's too bad she's only got 10 or so minutes of screen time because I dig some of those costumes.",0 "Before I begin, let me remind you not to take all of the comments written above %100 seriously. This movie has a very special, very niche target audience. And I BELONG TO THAT GROUP. For all my life, very ezoteric people laughed at my jokes, and accepted me as a true friend. I, in turn, worked damn hard through all my life and have been eraning six figure income for 3 years now. Yes, I am alone, but I have the money. So I know what rich people laugh at. This magnificent piece of art is offering the audience such level of sophisticated material that only a niche group that I belong can appreciate. I menioned my income level before, and don't think that I am high or whatever and what I say don't make sense. I am one of the most important customers of #2(in revenue) casino in Vegas, so I can appreciate all the ironic messages and can get the insights communicated in this briiant masterpiece. This movie has love, this movie has fear, this movie has the what it takes to stimulate your most inner forces to move the world around. Just see it and your life will change. But first visit Vegas and work hard enough to earn a 6 figure annual income. and also don't forget to thank to God who give people courage and faith to shoot this movie.",1 "I have to give this movie very high marks because it maintained an incredibly high level of suspense, surprise and novelty through most of its 4.4 hour (without commercials) run-time. This is very unusual for the sci-fi genre - most ideas and plots are very well-known.

I won't give anything away about the story because the unusual plot is is part of the wonderful experience you'll get from watching this movie. Suffice it to say that the story follows a detective who comes across a very unusual key to a very unusual hotel room. Admittedly, it sounds like the movie is going to be a bomb (what I thought), but it is anything but that.

Once you start watching - you'll be hard pressed to stop. The pace is excellent: something interesting is always going on - hardly a moment is wasted during the multi-hour runtime.

This movie could not have been as good without a good strong lead character. Peter Krause does a great job - he presents a well-balanced, intelligent and easy to like character. The supporting characters are pretty well done - even though some of them are a bit wacky. Everything seems to work.

One thing I really appreciated in the movie was the intelligence of its characters. There aren't any ridiculous decisions that are made to advance the plot (or remove characters). In fact, they are mostly very smart ones - so you don't feel shortchanged by the story or the filmmakers. Applaud them in this case. It really makes a story go from interesting to fascinating.

Is it perfect? I can squabble about a few things towards the end - but it doesn't matter. What matters is that I was strongly entertained for 4.4 hours and am going to watch it again.

I could go on, but you'd be better served by watching the movie. This level of film-making will appeal to all moviegoers. Strongly recommended for all.",1 "American Graffiti is a movie, set in the 50's, about a group of friends that spend their last night together riding around the town. Most of them will still be together, bu they have to say goodbye to a good friend who is going off to a distant college. This friend also has only one more night together with his beloved girlfriend. During their drive they run into several antagonists. They challenge some of these antagonist to race them. These scenes are pretty unrealistic but only make the movie more appealing and fun. This movie has great characters, and a great soundtrack. I loved all of the songs they played in the movie. Those old doo wop songs created the perfect score for the film.",1 "A plague has wiped out cats and dogs, so instead of turning to turtles and hamsters as pets, mankind obviously chooses apes.

The apes are unhappy from the start. As if it weren't bad enough that they are not being allowed to pleasure themselves as they constantly do in the wild, they were given dog and cat food which - it turns out - gave them non-stop diarrhoea. Add to that the fact many Belgian perverts switched from pedophilia to monkey-sex and you can certainly appreciate why the chimps started a revolution against the humans.

The revolution is started by none other than Ceasar, Sean Penn's son (a striking resemblance: those eyes), who one day finds ""Das Kapital"" in the library of its owner, Tim Robbins.

The rest is history. Ape history.

Please someone lobotomize me so I can finally forget this dumb movie: I can't stop laughing!",1 "I had high hopes for what I believe to be the only movie about the 10 Tigers of Canton. I've heard the 10 Tigers of Canton mentioned in passing in kung fu films about Wong Fei-Hung. Fei-Hung was not one of the 10 Tigers, he was known as ""the Tiger after 10"". However Wong Fei-Hung's father Wong Kei-Ying was on of these 10 Tigers. Being a fan of Iron Monkey which featured Wong Kei-Ying as a main character I was looking to find similar movies featuring Wong Kei-Ying as a central character. I've also seen movies featuring another of the 10 Tigers, Beggar Su, as a minor character. I was quite intrigued to learn more about the 10 Tigers through this film, and to come to an understanding of the aura of mystique and legend that surrounds them.

As a tool for gaining insight into the back-story, lives, and importance of these 10 Tigers this Shaw Brothers movie fails miserably. Wong Kei-Ying is a very minor character in this film. Rarely seen on-screen, he and fellow Tiger Wong Chin Ho are simply referred to in passing as ""The Wong Masters"". Beggar Su has a more prominent role in the film, but he does not look, dress, nor act the part of a beggar. Instead we're treated to ""Acrobat Su"". While novel and fresh to use actor Philip Kowk's talent as an acrobat in Five Deadly Venoms, the portrayal of Beggar Su as an acrobat as opposed to a filthy rag-clad beggar left a sour taste in my mouth.

This film fails to provide background information on each of the 10 Tigers and hence doesn't deliver on explaining who each Tiger is and what made each one such a standout in the world of martial arts.

While the costumes, sets, and martial arts action are all phenomenal and top-notch for a 1979 kung fu movie, The lack of character development really hurts this film as it could have been so much more, missing out on making THE one-and-only classic masterpiece about the 10 Tigers of Canton.

I can only hope that someday soon a contemporary Hong Kong director will come out with a film that does justice to the 10 Tigers of Canton, because this Shaw Brothers movie fails miserably at doing such.",0 "I avoided this movie for the longest time because of the video box, which prominently features Jamie Kennedy and Freddie Prinze Jr. Ugh. However, upon renting it, I was pleasantly surprised. It's actually a unexpectedly entertaining, well-written and acted indie film about a trailer trash chick who dumps her loutish husband and searches for independence. Along the way, she meets up with the before-mentioned teen hearthrobs and acts as a catalyst for their own personal growing experiences. The director imbues his material with a caustic, cynical edge which is refreshingly unique for this type of film, and thankfully prevents it from degenerating into sappy, maudlin Oprah-style ""I am woman hear me roar!"" melodrama. Park Overall is excellent in the title role, but the real surprise here is Veronica Cartright - who demonstrates more of the comic genius she displayed in ""The Witches of Eastwick."" Some of her lines had me rolling on the floor.",1 "At times feeling like Airport '77 without the plane or the all-star cast, 1978's Gray Lady Down came out in the dog days of the disaster genre when Charlton Heston's career as a big screen leading man was on its last legs, and there's a sense of tired routine to this tale of a sub stranded on an unstable ocean ledge after a collision with a fishing vessel. The last major submarine movie until The Hunt for Red October, it suffers the problems of most peacetime submarine movies. Without the standard can't fail wartime dramatics of the genre – depth charges, torpedoes, silent running et al – it's a pretty static affair with Heston and his crew spending most of the film sitting around waiting to be rescued while Stacy Keach hovers around the rescue ship's control room and David Carradine and Ned Beatty sit around watching from their prototype mini-sub in murky model shots.

A lot of money has been spent, but to little effect. David Greene's flat direction doesn't disguise the fact that there's little in the way of tension while at times you can't help wondering if the price of the Navy's co-operation was eliminating any possible drama from the script in the fear it might make them look bad. The film does briefly raise the possibility of conflict between Heston and Ronny Cox's ExO over responsibility for the accident only to quickly let the matter drop lest anyone get the impression that not all of the navy's sub commanders are at the top of their game.

Christopher Reeve has a couple of lines in a bit part and it's nice to briefly see Heston's War Lord co-star Rosemary Forsyth as his wife even if all but one of her scenes ended up on the cutting room floor, but the film remains a pedestrian time-filler. Even Jerry Fielding adds nothing much to the proceedings with his TV movie-style score, bizarrely built around the Carol of the Bells.",0 "This is just amazing, quite unlike any other ""american"" film I ever saw; a gentle, bittersweet tale of frustrated dreams and artistic integrity, an hilarious comedy of manners performed by an outstanding international cast, a touching blend of awkward romance and the central relationship between the two brothers, brilliantly portrayed by co-creator Tucci and Hollywood's ""every-foreigner"", the sublime Tony Shalhoub. Big Night dragged me through wider range of emotions than any other movie, it made me want to dance and sing during the party scene (Mambo Italiano), made me laugh out loud at the wacky characters sprinkled throughout, made me angry with the philistines and money-grabbing capitalists who spoil the brothers' dream, made me want to hug Shalhoub's shy gastronomic genius Primo as he tried so clumsily to chat up his flower-girl; the food looked simply amazing, Minnie Driver splashing around in the sea was at her most gorgeous, every actor played their brilliantly scripted part to perfection and the scene at the end with the omelette is the most beautiful and poignant ending I could ever hope to see. All in all this film is one of the best ever made and everyone in the world and especially in Hollywood should be forced to watch it every week until they get some humanity back in them. But not on an empty stomache, get some snacks in first eh.",1 "This is the best anime I have ever seen. I have been frantically looking for the manga of the same title, but none have been published to date in English.

This story entwines the deepest of human (and not so human) emotions in a cruel yet truthful way. The ideas of amnesia, revenge, abuse, love, hate, trauma, racism and so on are cleverly mixed to produce a masterpiece.

This anime has the fault of having a rather... shocking first scene, and this would discourage sensitive people from watching it. On the other hand, it made me want to continue watching it more eagerly.

Another aspect I loved of this was the sceneries. You know those 'blank' cuts which are shown before any of the story occur, and serve to set the setting? Those are gorgeous in Elfen Lied. The tranquillity is astounding. I would hang one up on my wall if I could.

I also really like the music. The theme song ""Lilium"", sung in Latin still sends chills down my spine, even after hearing it so many times.

All in all, Elfen lied is the best anime to date in all aspects of it. 10/10. As a final note, I must confess that this is the one and only video I actually cried to at the end. Literally.",1 "'Renegade' belongs to the classic series, a original story that is well carried out by fine actors who really are fit to do so, Reno Raines/ aka Vince Black is a great character, always looking for justice with his own unique style...

This series really represents something, it's a pity it's so hard to come by these days, it's certainly under-valued, it's actually a great series, but the most people doesn't realize that.

Over here in The Netherlands 'Renegade' was on TV for only a short while, but it has appealed many people here...

There is only one thing i don't like about this series, Reno's deep voice is getting one-sided after some time if you mix it with that overdone good and bad talk of him (example):'Yeah, but we must get the bastard, i can't allow that he gets away with this, we must stop him' (really deep voice)

But that's the only thing i can think of, besides that, it's a real cool series, the way he escapes again and again and the way he figures things out and takes matters into his own hands, is great too watch.

Renegade has good stories, but all of them fit into the overall story. the action is well worth watching, if there was a 'Renegade' Box that i could buy here i would buy it instantly.

I give it a 8 out of 10 star rating for it and that is entirely justified, no matter what others say...",1 "I have never had the experience of seeing a 3-D movie before on the cinema, the only experience I have had with a 3-d film, only courtesy of some 3-d glasses coming free with a DVD, was Spy Kids 3-D, a movie while mildly entertaining isn't exactly the best film every to display the greatness of 3-d. So Beowulf today was my first 3-d experience, I went in expecting something good because of the 3-d, but I didn't expect the movie itself to be superb. Part of my reasoning behind this was because of the one and only experience I had had with Zemeckis and his new way of making movies. That movie was unfortunately the Polar Express, a supposedly happy tail that actually freaked me out more than most horror movies! So what an absolute delight to say that Beowulf not only works because of it being in 3-D (more on that brilliant factor later) but also the movie is a genuinely brilliant movie anyway. The motion capture isn't remotely creepy this time round and actually it seemed to make sense in some bizarre way as to why they did the movie like this. The actors surprised me big time, Ray Winstone delivering actually one of his best performances in a long while, Angelina Jolie playing the slinky seductress to perfection and Anthony Hopkins being a joy to watch on screen. Beowulf is an action packed, well written and entertaining piece of popcorn cinema. Just watch the dragon sequence near the end, every single person in my cinema was on the edges of their seat and looked in awe. The action sequences just amaze, and the dialogue sequences surprisingly really work as well. Unfortunately however if you see this movie in 2-D then you will not be experiencing Beowulf in my eyes, take off the 3-D this is a 9/10 movie, with the 3-D it gets the 10/10 rating with a blink of an eye.

As I've previously said the acting in the movie really caught me off guard. Ray Winston obviously is not the first actor who comes to mind when playing an ancient warrior. However when you see the movie and see the performance you understand why Winstone was cast. Sure his cockney acting at first seems a bit bizarre coming from the character, but after a while you see the subtlety of the performance and come the final half hour you realise he's quite possibly the best thing in the movie. He delivers a heartfelt and genuinely brilliant performance. Anthony Hopkins not only looks real in the movie, but he too delivers a performance truly worthy of Anthony Hopkins. Sometimes Hopkins can do a role for a sake of a role (see Mission Impossible 2), but here he seems to be having a blast as Hrothgar and he has some superb moments in the movie. Angelina Jolie plays the most interesting character of the movie, Grendell's Mother, alas she appears very briefly. But her few scenes stick firmly in memory, and her entry scene is one of the most beautifully pieces of cinema I have seen when watched in 3-D. Crispin Glover too has brief screen time as Grendell, but he delivers a heartfelt performance, in fact I felt genuine sympathy with Grendell. Glover might not be recognisable, but his performance shines through in the early scenes. John Malkovich and Robin Wright Penn too deserve considerably praise, as does a brilliant cast Brendan Gleeson.

So as I've said the 3-D really makes the movie have a cherry on top of an already beautiful cake. After they filmmaker get over the gimmick of chucking things at the screen the 3-D is used less prominently, until any action sequences, and when the action sequences begin I doubt you will draw a single breath. Grendell's attack on a beer hall is the opening action sequence, and it is surprisingly violent for a 12a and also amazing to behold. But its the dragon sequence and late battle sequence that stick firmly in mind. I shall not spoil them, but those sequences really did make me wish that every action movie ever made from now will be in 3-D. The problem with the 3-D being so good is that the 2-D version seems like a cash in, in fact the movie relies so much on the 3-D at times that I doubt the 2-D version is worth watching. Swords pointed at screens, the camera pans through trees, the multi layered effect it gives off, in 2-d it just won't work as well, so my advice is to find a cinema that does play it in 3-d, you'll get much more for your money if you do. The storyline and film making is also extremely effective. The subtle dialogue scenes, especially the stuff between Winstone and Jolie really are some of the highlights. Also the relationship between Beowulf and his queen is touching.

So are their any faults? As I've mentioned the 2-D version just won't be as good, but also the movie doesn't seem like it'll be that good at the start. In fact at the beginning, for five minutes, I was expecting to be bitterly disappointed. Thankfully that little slouch at the beginning is livened up with the arrival of Grendell, and from that point onwards you will adore the movie. This is Zemeckis' best movie since Back to the Future and definitely one of my favourite films of the year. Go and watch in 3-D and pray that more movies will be made like this in the near future.",1 "Is all I could think about during the first 20 min (that's all I could do) is how much wasted money and energy went into this horrendous film. I know there are good screenplays out there being shelved...and yet we have this dog! It did have humor though..Like how they used every previous avalanche ever filmed and combined the footage. Different lighting...different mountain, different snow, but what does it matter when you get a good chuckle. I have three more lines but cannot think of anymore to say about this film. Awful Awful Awful. Oh, the little village is quaint until it gets hit by what seems to be a large cloud of talcum powder and tapioca. This mystery snow does not effect the trees though, they don't move?",0 "Perhaps it's because I'm not over 40, but I did not enjoy ""Something's Gotta Give"". I cannot fathom ever, and I mean EVER actually CHOOSING Jack over Keanu. I mean COME ON!!! So besides this movie's wildly ludicrous ending and setting it is also not a comment on what women think or feel, but what men believe they should think and feel. So I guess with that view it's hardly surprising that a lecherous fat old man who had dated her daughter, messed up her house, and insulted her in her own home was Diane Keaton's pick of the heap. I don't know where writer Nancy Meyers gets these ideas. Wouldn't it be nice to see a movie where the women ends up with a young handsome man who treats her well and adores her? I don't see how laughing over being unable to see the time on a wrist watch without your glasses constitutes finding one's soul mate. Was I on crack or was it Keanu's character who had seen all Diane's plays and loved her work? Clearly Diane's work is almost biographical so isn't it actually Keanu who ""gets"" her? And why is Diane so uncomfortable kissing a man who is 20 years younger than she, but Jack has no problems having sex with a woman 40 years his junior in her mother's home. Anyway, this film is just not what I thought it would be. It had some funny moments sure, but I still left the theater feeling empty. I certainly do not believe it is in any way a good take on romance in old age.",0 "As always, this film occurs in Paris, there happen a murders series. One the night of the killing a butcher is the suspect, detective Maigret(the great Jean Gavin) becomes involved into investigation and pulls off a cat and mouse game with the killer. Maigret leaving false clues and a false murderer. Meanwhile is developed a pursuit through the Paris slums, in order to chase the killer, getting a button. Appear new suspects, as a strange woman(Annie Girardot, one of the most known French actress of the 60s) and her spouse(Jean Desailly, recently deceased). Maigret is helped by his underlings(Lino Ventura, in very secondary role , among them). The obstinate inspector winds up pitting rival against each other in order to destroy him in a stirring interrogation.

The picture displays thriller,tension, twists plots and is quite entertaining , though some moments is slow moving. Interesting and exciting battle of wits between intelligent detective and quirky villain. The story explores the dynamics of pathological behaviour and very much in the style of psychoanalytic descriptions fitting fairly to George Simenon novels. Casting is frankly outstanding. Jean Gavin as stubborn detective is top-notch, Jean Desailly as maniac-depressive husband is magnificent, he's tremendously affected into the deeps of human desperation. Annie Girardot as a predatory and manipulating beauty woman and Lino Ventura who was one of the best French actors from the 60s and 70s. Awesome cinematography by Page who reflects splendidly the Paris streets, though mostly made in studios. The motion picture is rightly directed by Jean Delannoy. The film is based on George Simenon legendary detective who is adapted at several cinematic rendition and TV series. As Maigret was played by Basil Sidney( The lost life,TV, 59) Gino Cervi(Maigret in Pigalle,67), Rupert Davies(series from 60s), Richard Harris(TV, 1988), Michael Gambon(TV,1993), Sergio Castellitto(2004). But specially by Jean Gavin who also played 'Maigret and the St Fiacre case(59)'. In Hollywood(1949) was realized by Burguess Meredith 'The man on the Eiffel tower'with Charles Laughton as Maigret. Rating : Good and worth watch checking out. The movie will like to Jean Gabin fans and intrigue lovers but contains a highly suspenseful.",1 "270 years ago in Salem, a witch and her father were burned at the the stake by a New England Puritan, who is cursed along with all his descendants by black magic and will never find happiness in romance; jump ahead to the present day (circa 1942), the witches are released from their holding spot and the bewitching lass discovers the latest descendant is a handsome politician with a shrew for a fiancée (the witch's father tells her men always marry the wrong woman--it's the girls who get away who cause the real unhappiness). From the story ""The Passionate Witch"" by Thorne Smith and Norman Matson comes a teasing, silly romantic comedy which begins brightly but flags sometime after that. Fredric March is appropriately befuddled, but Veronica Lake (despite her famous peek-a-boo tresses) has very little charisma (and her sing-songy delivery is a nuisance). The plot is so thin it doesn't even count as a contrivance--sequences (like a disastrous wedding or a hotel fire) start and stop like sketches, and nothing in it is very memorable. ** from ****",0 "I can remember watching this movie multiple times with my father. As a young black girl I got it!!! I've read opinions that criticize the fact that the movie didn't focus on the music or the other artist of the time. The point is. . .get ready. It was an autobiographical account of Billie's life.

I can remember seeing the movie and actually being moved to go to the library to check out a book to find out who this lady really was. I think Diana did a damn good job putting her artistic touch to portraying Billie's life, her struggles, vices, love and yes, her music. The fact is, is that the movie wasn't about Billie's making of jazz as it was about the struggles of a young black woman with a passion for singing moved by segregation and Jim crow and having to constantly adjust and reinvent herself to cope in a society that loved and hated her all at the same time.

Heavy. I'm not partial to Diana Ross one way or another. But the lady's got skills. And if the emotion she put into playing this role wasn't enough to tug at your heartstrings, then you ain't human.

Some say the film lacked non continuity. Such is life. I get it. We were made to reflect on where she had been in order to know how she got to be who she was. This movie while of course jazz inspired and musical, was a deeper reflection into the cracks and fissures that shaped a life. Billie Holiday.

I thank my father for his love of good movies and for sharing movies like, ""Lady Sings the Blues"" with me.

I'm out! Peace.",1 "As a Native American I hate movies that play out the old ""cowboys and Indians"" theme, which severely limited the ""indian"" movies I would watch. I am SO GLAD to FINALLY see a movie that shows Native Americans as we are in real life rather than the traditional depiction as scalp-seeking-savages, tells our stories, and shows how life on the reservation truly is today. This movie (to me,) breaks down a lot of the negative stereotypes made on our people, which are generally fueled by movies. I think it is very important to have movies like this to help dissolve a lot of racial stereotypes, and share our legends with the newer generation. I was amazed when I saw the depictions of stories I had actually heard as a child, growing up in Tahlequah Oklahoma, the Cherokee Nation Capitol. I wish all movies could be like this... as a matter of fact, I think i am going to watch it again right now!!!",1 "I barely feel qualified to write a comment on this forgotten Disney live-action film from the mid-1980s, since I've only seen it once, and that was back when it first came out. But I do remember liking it, and it's probably worth a re-watch for those who saw it back in the day, and a first watch for those who've never seen it.

It's notable for featuring a very young John Cusack, before anyone knew who he was. It seems to me that Disney had a pretty good track record of live action films during that decade (""Never Cry Wolf"" is another forgotten one) but that few of them have had any staying power.

Grade: B+",1 "If you liked 'Ringu' and 'Carrie', you're gonna love this. I just saw it and I think I like it even better than Ringu (but it would be close). It's moodier and sadder than Ringu, but that 'bone cracking' sequence near the end crawled so deep under my skin that it makes me shiver just thinking about it! Great acting (the lead actress is as great as she is cute), great music, great direction.",1 "Marc decides, before he and his wife Agnes go to dinner at friends, to shave his mustache. He says nothing about it, expecting Agnes to comment on it, but she doesn't seem to notice. And neither do their friends. And neither do his co-workers. And Marc is quietly freaking out. Finally, he breaks down & says something to Agnes, who says he never HAD a mustache, and every one else that he's expected to notice tells him the same thing. Marc, however, becomes somewhat obsessed with proving that he DID have a mustache, which worries those around him until he's asked to seek help. He's even produced pictures of them on vacation with him with his mustache, but Agnes never really looks at them & later they've disappeared to, and Agnes denies they ever vacationed in that place to begin with.

But things get even stranger as Marc is to have lunch with Agnes at his parents the next day, & his father has called to remind him, only to have Agnes tell him that his father's been dead for some time. And their friends that they had dinner with recently? Where'd they go? Did they never exist? Marc, of course, is getting more & more agitated & Agnes drugs him when he goes to lie down for a while...Marc comes to just in time to hear Agnes & his boss, Bruno, talking about ""the men in the white coats"" that are coming to take Marc away, and using all his conscience strength to dress himself & make ready, he manages to bolt & impulsively takes a flight to Hong Kong, where he rides the ferries and wanders, eventually taking a room.

And the film gets weirder from there. I don't quite know how to categorize this film...a dark comedy/psychological thriller? Maybe..it is very interesting and pretty darn good though, even though you never really know what you've just witnessed. Is it a conspiracy? Is Marc losing his mind? Or is it just a strange dream? Can't tell you, don't know, but it's well worth seeing. 7 out of 10.",1 "Most of the films I really like are art-house fare and seldom appear on the box-office top-ten lists. That said, I found ""Northfork"" utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what it was even about. Writing in the New York Times about a different film, Stephen Holden once observed that some people seem to think they can throw just anything up on the screen and have it work as a fairy tale. I thought of that review several times while watching ""Northfork"".

On a scale of one to ten, I gave it a two.",0 "Before 'Another 48 Hours' was released, things were already in an uproar. Nick Nolte and others involved with the movie, vowed never to work with Eddie Murphy again. There were constant spats on the set with the biggest complaint that Murphy would arrive three hours late for filming while everyone would have to set around and wait for him to show up. If the above was true, Murphy is not the one to blame for the movies failure. 'Another 48 Hours' offers no surprises, originality and a ""plot"" that has been recycled over and over again.

Co-written by the director of the first installment, Walter Hill, (who had years to come up with something good) gives the fans of the original a HUGE letdown. The opening scene has three bikers cruising all over the country blowing innocent people away and apparently they work for a major drug dealer known as Iceman that Jack Cates (Nick Nolte)has been trying to track down for years. The Iceman wants Reggie Hammond (Eddie Murphy) dead for reasons that go unexplained throughout most of the movie.

Cates job goes on the line when he kills a suspect who's gun cannot be found after the shooting. The suspect is burned to a crisp in a gasoline fire but the one important clue is unbelievably sparred.

So Cate calls on Murphy to assist in saving the day and while the chemistry between the two was so good in the original '48 Hours,' something is now wrong. Nolte and Murphy don't seem to be enjoying themselves. They are not having fun. And either am I.

The routine plot becomes more routine as the writers seem to know that the movie is not funny and try their best to distract the audience with endless car chases, shootouts, and the likes. One unintentional laugh I got was watching a bus roll over a dozen times at 50 miles an hour with Murphy in it but later seeing him walk away without a scratch. And the so called surprise when the identity of the Iceman is revealed is about as believable as Frosty The Snowman. (Perhaps the Iceman would be a better bad guy in Spider Man 3).

Eddie, come back to us. We miss you.

",0 "If would have been a travesty if Marisa Tomei hadn't won the suppoting actress Oscar for her role as the funniest, best character in a funny great movie. And is My Cousin Vinny hilarious!! Vinny Gambini, a budding lawyer from the Bronx comes to handle is first murder case in the South-with one of the defendants being his relative. Cousin, to be exact.

While a murder trial may not seem like the premise for a rollicking comedy, the way it is set up may make you bust a gut. Honestly, you made need a doctor after this movie. This is, in essence, not a courtroom movie as much as it is a fish out of water story. Gambini's cluelessness involving the entire scenario, as well as the aforementioned Tomei's acting are what make this movie.

The dialog between Joe Pesci's Gambini and Tomei's Mona Lisa Vito is so well written, I began to wonder if the writer was actually drawing on conversations had with a spouse. These conversations seem like a parody, and a very good one at that, involving both the happiness and anger involved in a marriage, or engagement.

The only thing I have to say against My Cousin Vinny, is that I least, think it loses something in multiple viewings. It'll still make you laugh continuously, but not as hard as the first time you saw it, when what was coming was a surprise. This can't really be held against the movie, though. Almost all comedies have this flaw.

All in all, this is definitely a movie to watch. On first viewing, it gets a 10/10. I couldn't stop laughing. The 8/10 is for what was lost in repeat viewings. If you haven't yet seen My Cousin Vinny, I absolutely recommend. This is a fabulous, hilarious, quirky comedy. If only all comedies were like this. Most are too busy trying to write risqué jokes that they leave out what really matters: the wit.",1 "I've always hated Campion films. They're overrated and tedious beyond belief. This is no exception. She takes an interesting premiss and a talented actress, and makes an awful film.

It's attempts at humour were awful. The supporting cast were pointless and dumb beyond belief. No sexual chemistry existed between the leads. And what is it with Keitel, everytime he either strips or acts or Campion he's awful. It's only saving grace is that it's not as bad as ""The Avengers"".",0 "How can you fix a film that has... -too much opera for horror fans, -too creepy ending for opera fans, -too little action for Karloff fans, -too much Karloff for melodrama fans, -and a director who seems content with showcasing his lavish sets and the relatively new Technicolor process?

After giving the question quite a bit of thought, I don't think you can fix a project like ""The Climax"". It was ill-conceived from the start and the film they made was probably as good as could be made with the story they had to work with. But ultimately, the film is unsatisfying for all of the reasons listed above.

Watch it if you must,... but you've been warned.",0 "This is the most crappy film I've seen in a long time. The bones of a creature is found in a jungle and they turned in to a creature of malice(I can't remember how, the movies was so bad). The creature starts killing people. The visuals of the monster is a history of it's own. Sometimes it's a man in a costume, sometimes it's animated. The differance is like the one between a wookie and a fish. The special effects are... hard to describe without crying. They are horrible. Some events in the movie are just odd, like when a grenadelauncher, or some sort of big mega gun is thrown in the water and floats ashore.

I'd say you should see the movie though, just to get a laughter. We laught/cried in the end, we had rented it for some money, and, well...",0 "Many people did not question what they were told by the Media and the Government, regarding the terrible events on September 11th 2001 (911). The official story was just accepted with out question in all the chaos and terrible loss of life that day. Now, clearer heads have prevailed, and further investigation by noted and highly trained professionals, scientists, and academics, and many concerned people, has raised serious questions as too what we were told, as to what really happened that fateful day on September 11th 2001. It is now very evident, from research, investigation, and peer review, that the official story is not only wrong; but that nefarious actions by Israel and the United States Government were at the center of the September 11th 2001 events, which had been planned for months in advance. Now a group of people, called the Truth Seekers, have been systematically and diligently looking into the facts of September 11th 2001, and as a result, have, and are, exposing large numbers of false information about this event, and exposing the real Truth behind September 11th 2001. What the real Truth is, has yet been fully exposed or agreed on; but it is now very clear that what America and the World was told about the events of September 11th 2001 are not only not True at all, but has a sinister twist to it that involves secret involvement of Israel and the United States Government in a preplanned plot to stage this event for nefarious purposes and for political manipulation of the American People, and the World. This documentary is hard hitting, and raises serious concerns and questions as to the Truth of the events of September 11th 2001. Every American should see this documentary, as should Citizens Globally. America and the World were deceived in one of the most nefarious events in modern history. Learn the Real Truth behind this most diabolical and evil event of modern human history. Now learn the TRUTH, and see this great Documentary. You will be very glad you did! More information about this information and the Truth Seekers can be found at: http://www.loosechange911.com -and- http://www.infowars.com Think, Question, and Seek Truth! God Bless America!",0 "I only bought this video to hear the voice of Bradley Cole who does Will, but to my surprise, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. They are the most interesting little animated characters I've ever seen. It was easy to forget that they were animated at all. Sci-fi is not on my priority list but I've already watched this video 4 times.",1 "the only reason i watched this movie is because of the rate it was given. In the end this was a dumb movie, actors trying to be funny, a very poor plot etc.

after seeing The Forsaken, this is the worst vampire movie so far

",0 "For those people in the US who want to see Tenko again (or even for the first time as I don't know if it was ever on PBS), you can simply order it from Amazon.co.uk and have it sent over. It will take about a week to arrive. Make sure that you have a multi-region DVD player though! I have almost finished with the last season, and it is as good as I remember - perhaps even better. For those new to this series, the first episode of season 1 is a bit clunky, but give it time and space.

The story and characters evolve through 3 prison camps in seasons 1 and 2. I still get chills down my spine remembering the revelation of how Rose was betrayed in season 2.

Season 3 records the end of the war and the difficulties adjusting to a new life of freedom (??).

The third season DVD set also includes the reunion, set in 1950.

I think each season of Tenko is best seen continuously - say over a weekend. It is like reading a good book. But give it time between seasons. In many ways, each season is self-contained. Best to give it at least a few days between them.

Invest in this series. You will be ever grateful that you did.",1 "The Hollywood movers and shakers who decide which scripts are given the green light ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The actors who signed up for this debacle should have known better.

The behind-the-scenes crew must've kept their mouths shut while filming the Irwin Allen production, knowing that the final product was going to be garbage.

There must have been a conspiracy within the Costume Design branch of the Academy Awards for nominating this and ""The Swarm"" two years earlier for the bland clothing right off the store shelves from Sears or K-Mart (or whatever store that was close to the Warner Brothers' Burbank studios lot or on location in Hawaii).

And I'm not going to discuss the poor blue screen effects, the cheap miniature effects or the actor's laughable reaction shots.

While writing this review, I realized that ""When Time Ran Out"" and ""Airplane!"" were both released in 1980. I guess it speaks volumes when a silly but unintentionally funny disaster movie was a flop and a silly but intentionally funny disaster spoof was a hit.",0 """23"" is one of the best german movies for a long time. It is based on the story of the life of Karl Koch (August Diehl: excellent) who was one of the best hackers of his time. 23 is the number of the Illuminators, the members of a worldwide secret society in the book ""Illuminatus"" by Robert Anton Wilson (who has a short guest appearance). On his high point of hacking Koch broke into the computers of US government arms control and delivered the data to the KGB. The film is a trip back to the 80's: The cold war, Olof Palme's assassination, Gadhaffi and Tschernobyl - most of the viewers will remember those things which dominated policy and influenced the all day life. The film shows the development of Karl Koch from his teenage years to his death as a person destroyed by his cocaine abuse and the extreme pressure he experienced in the wheels of eatern/western policy. This is a very good movie with very good actors-don't miss it!",1 "Because we live in an age of excess, modern moviemakers seem obliged to reflect this in their overblown remakes of old films. ""A Perfect Murder"" is an excellent example of this, as the number of devious characters is increased and the body count is higher, and the denouement which in the original saw a wily police detective resolve matters now has one of those endings in which the heroine puts herself in danger. DO NOT BOTHER WITH THIS. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME.",0 "The book and previous film aside.. this is just plain dreadful. It's slow, tired, wooden with nothing of real interest cropping up anywhere in the film. I'm sorry to say that I watched all of it - but I was in continual hope that there was going to be something better happen any second.

The premise seemed interesting, it's just a shame that what was such a good idea is closer to having nails pulled when watched. There's just no reason for anyone to feel anything for the characters, there's nothing there to give someone chance to identify with them. All in all it presents itself as a very sterile film, with each seprate scene seeming so forced as to jar the nerves. The hero of the piece, if you can call him that, just mopes around looking miserable and inefectual, and all in all it just bites.

There's no real reason for anyone to want the characters to succeed or fail.. and in general there's not a lot of interest in the whole film. There are no scenes that are just good to look at, no memorable pieces of dialouge or memerable characters... fairly pointless all around in fact.

Avoid.",0 "I watched The Insider last night on video for the second time. I have to say that it is one of the best movies I have ever seen, nearly flawless, with Mann's superb direction, frenetic camerawork, brilliant music score, and a phenomenal performance from Crowe as the whistleblower of a tobacco company, defining him as a promising future star. He is always convincing and a joy to watch. Al Pacino is in his typical fiery form as a 60 minutes producer, and it all combines to make this exceptional masterpiece, a great work of genius. 10/10.",1 "Charlie Chaplin is a film-maker who isn't given enough credit, in my opinion: sure, people think he's funny, but few seem to recognize the underlying melancholy of his work. In The Circus, our favorite little tramp is running from the law and stumbles upon a carnival, unwittingly becoming the center act and falling in love with a beautiful trapeze artist (Merna Kennedy). Even though this seems like the recipe for a feel-good romantic comedy, in Chaplin's vision, the guy doesn't get the girl. We essentially find ourselves laughing at an unemployed homeless man who needs to make an ass out of himself in order to escape the police -- which is nothing worth laughing at, when you really think about it. Nevertheless, Chaplin created some of the most uproarious scenes in movie history, combining his ingenious slapstick with a genuine humanity that made his character feel like more than just an object of humiliation. The Circus is certainly one of his most under-rated features, showing a darker sense of love and longing than any of his other work: the film opens with a repeated shot of his object of desire swinging on the rings with a forlorn gaze drifting into space. The final shot has the little tramp walking away from the woman he loves, alone: never before (or since) have we so sensed Chaplin's true gloominess. But if I'm making The Circus sound like a serious film, then I've been deceiving you, for it is a very funny movie indeed: Chaplin's gags are innovative and perfectly timed, and he always managed to keep his running time perfectly suited to the audience's interest. Yet in spite of how funny this movie truly is, the parts I remember most are still those that reached a deeper level of human emotion: the scenes between Chaplin and his lover are meant to be comical, but I couldn't help but notice the honesty and poignancy he injected into each vignette. This is as much a romance as it is a comedy -- and a drama, for that matter. It has been said that, two thirds during the shoot of the film, Chaplin had a nervous breakdown; considering the mostly morose tone of the film, that doesn't surprise me. But when film-makers have personal struggles, it typically only increases the authenticity and greatness of their work (just look at Woody Allen's career). Quite simply, The Circus is an American classic: Chaplin not only directed and starred in, but he produced, edited, and even composed original music for his films. His direction is superb -- not only from a comical standpoint, but from a cinematic one as well; one particular scene comes to mind that takes place in a house of mirrors, in which Chaplin uses a repeated set-up to convey a feeling of simultaneous order and confusion. His acting is plain brilliant -- if you can call it acting: he's one of those performers that you watch and smack your head in awe of how extraordinary he is. In a way, The Circus isn't a masterpiece, nor a perfect film, nor even a particularly great one -- but in another way, it is all those things and more. It is a splendid example of just how much can be done within a simple genre movie, and modern film-makers would do themselves a favor by learning from it.

Grade: A",1 "Okay,let me start by saying ""God has a rap sheet"" was a flawed movie in many respects. I can point out several moments when the film took unnecessary turns or took unnecessary liberties with character development,but the honesty that comes from the written word along with the honesty in which the actors portrayed their characters made me absolutely love this movie. In fact,I realized how many things in the movie made me think for a moment (which made me watch it immediately again)and also made me feel what a true herculean effort writer/director Kamal Ahmed put into this almost,under-the-radar indie. After a few days of watching ""God has a rap sheet"",I wondered why I never caught this on the IFC or Sundance channel so I called both stations to see if they heard of this title and to my puzzlement,both replied ""We past on that film."" I was totally blown away,considering this movie is EXACTLY what those tired so-called indie cable channels have become. I said that they should reconsider,but both again replied- ""Once we past on something,that's kinda it for the movie."" Wow.",1 "This is probably one of the best films ever made in Norway! It contains great dialog and effects. If you come from outside of Norway and yet haven't seen it, I will recommend Flåklypa! I'm sure that the translation is bad, but it's still worth seeing!",1 "Dear me, I think I was not very happy when I saw this sequel! What can I say kindly? Although the movie was funny, slapstick, and lighthearted, it felt like it lacked much depth of feeling and lacked the more timeless quality of the careful acting and writing and siting of the first version. It was too hurried, and unrealistic; a number of the characters were ""plastic"" and lacked depth in their development. It's as if someone took the characters in the first movie and put them on a faster time machine, with all that fast talk. It just didn't seem real.

The ultimate anguished moment for me was that the end was too hurried in parts it should not have been, crazy and simply not believable - especially the muted, smiling ""parents"" - who lacked the depth of the original parents - the kind you can really relate to, not the wax-faced figures that seemed to ""appear"". The characters were not developed well, although the father in this movie did seem to be a very good actor in his expression of words.

How did the plot evolve? The depth of the characters (except for Luke), clarity of the scenes and plot and the acting was all off-key to me. I apologize for having to be negative, as I like to encourage, but it was just so disappointing! Upon reflection, I think I was shocked and made quite angry to find most of the original cast gone, so great to the first movie. When the original actors are not reused - the immediate thing that happens in my mind is comparing and trying to figure out if this character is really supposed to be the one I saw before - and realizing how different they are, and not in a good way....which takes away from the movie and its plot. I think it must be a reflexive action to do so, and had the original actors been used, it might have had a small chance...

I kept wanting to see the real Soren (although his replacement was good - but too hurried)- what a great character and actor the original Soren is! as well as Julia Stiles and her parents and brothers and his real mother, the Queen (she played it so beautifully, timing was there in her words and actions, as were all the actors in the original cast) and where was the Prince's sweet sister????? It was so sadly not there.....they were so great together in the original movie, so well written and so in-depth with serious issues and real love....you could feel the chemistry betwenn all the actors in the first one.

Had this second movie been done on its own and not as a sequel, it would have happily landed on its feet as a funny farce. But it went into the mud with the Norwegian ""Princess"", in my book! What happened? Is there any way, any way at all to redo the movie with the original writers, staff, actors, etc? It needs to be done - I would really like to see this plot modified and redone - a really well-done, in-depth romance! Thank you for listening!",0 "The Material Girl returns for another dvd/vhs collection of her greatest hits in this answer to ""The Immaculate Collection"". Possibly the best video here is ""Fever"". Some of the videos are somewhat dumb especially ""Nothing Really Matters"" but the songs are good. ""Ray of Light"", ""Frozen"", ""Rain"", ""Fever"" and ""Secret"" show her talent for dramatic gestures and effect. The downside is the omission of ""This Used to Be My Playground"", ""Deeper and Deeper"", ""You Must Love Me"" and ""I'll Remember"". Those were her really good songs and it would've been nice to see the videos. Maybe they'll be on the next one. This is a dvd/vhs worth getting if you're a Madonna fan or a fan of 90's dance.",1 "I was excited that now, with CGI, a great epic tale like Beowulf might be successfully made into a movie. I will keep waiting for a responsible screenwriter and director to try this again. First of all, I thought there would be more live action/acting. Since this had such a lovely cast list, I assumed they would really act. The stilted phrasing and wall to wall sexual innuendos made this one of the worst scripts I have encountered and brought to the screen. Beowulf, the great epic is full of magnificent epic poem, richly enhanced with kennings and alliteration that bring power and dignity to all of the characters. There was no dignity here. Instead, Beowulf was enveloped in shame (and given this script it was, unintentionally, the only thing they got right.) Please people,READ THE BOOK! The only thing this movie had in common with Beowulf were the names of the characters. Say no to bastard children, naked mommies of monsters, and lips that do not match up with the dialog. The only thing I got out of this was true/false test material for my British Literature students who think they can get away with watching the movie instead of reading our text.",0 "The Earl of Dorincourt, lonely in his great castle, has grown old. Now, with the death of both of his sons, he sends for his only grandchild to be with him. This is an innocent boy living in New York City with his American mother. Sweet-tempered and beloved, the earnest young child knows nothing of the crusty, fierce old lord in England, or of the wonderful changes about to happen in his own life, now that he is LITTLE LORD FAUNTLEROY.

This is David O. Selznick's wonderful & lavish retelling of the classic children's story by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Much effort was put into getting the details just right. Sentimental? Yes, but honest sentiment, with emotions straight from the heart.

Freddie Bartholomew & marvelous Sir C. Aubrey Smith are picture perfect in their roles as young Fauntleroy & his grandfather. There may never be a finer male child actor than Master Bartholomew and Sir C. was the epitome of the English aristocratic tradition. Two champion scene-stealers, they work together beautifully.

The rest of the cast is both extensive & uniformly excellent: Dolores Costello Barrymore, Henry Stephenson, Guy Kibbee, Jessie Ralph, Una O'Connor, Constance Collier, E. E. Clive, Lionel Belmore, Eily Maylon & Mickey Rooney. Film mavens will spot uncredited appearances by Mary Gordon as a churchgoing villager & Leonard Kibrick as one of Fauntleroy's Brooklyn tormentors.

Sir Hugh Walpole, the celebrated English novelist, wrote the screen adaptation.",1 "Twins of Destiny is probably the only show I have ever watched, live to air, each and every week, and been so gripped by that I never missed an episode. Factor in that I was in primary school at the time, and this is something special. I remember being conflicted by the ending - not because it was bad, but because it was so (for me, at that age) adult that I really had to sit down and think about what it meant for all the characters. Now, I can only remember little snippets of the show, and I really wish - like the few other people I've ever met who've seen it - that it was available on DVD. It's a travesty to think of it mouldering away on celluloid somewhere, unwatched and unloved. If the technology and audience exists to put old children's shows like She-Ra and Tintin onto DVD, then surely Twins of Destiny deserves the same treatment.

Anyway - this show had a profound impact on me as a kid, and I absolutely loved it. I'd love to recommend it to people, but seeing as how it's next to impossible to lay hands on, I'll have to settle with pleading quietly for its re-release.",1 "This movie had a very good storyline. It was just executed poorly. The actors were OK, but I thought Gosselaar was kind of annoying. The funniest part was one of the mental guys they brought in who thought Bill Gates was trying to kill him. He was pretty funny, but they didn't have him in a lot of scenes. I didn't think it was close to Animal House, but then again, it is just my opinion. I thought the ending was pretty clever and kind of funny. That's about it for me though. I won't say it's overrated like many other people, because it's just my point of view, someone else might think this is the best movie ever. I wish they would have executed it a little bit better, it may have turned out kind of like Superbad. As I said, the plot was very good. Just some better dialogue, and maybe different actors. It would be kind of cool to see something like a remake. But that usually only happens with famous movies. Anyways, pretty boring.3/10.",0 "This has got to be one of the lowest budget films ever produced in Britain , and considering it`s a British film that is indeed saying a lot . In fact it`s somewhat insulting to consider NOT NOW COMRADE a "" film "" since as one contributer mentioned it`s a stage play . It`s like someone has gone into the local theartre with a film camera and started filming . The interiors resemble those you`d see in a theartre and you can clearly hear the CLUMP CLUMP CLUMP as the actors run around the wooden floors like you would in an auditorium . I guess some people might be pretentious pseudo-intellectuals and say the film has a self referential marxist theme because of the title and therefore that`s why there`s been no money spent but I`d say correctly that even in 1976 it would have been an outdated British B movie with limited appeal hence no one would want to invest money into it",0 "It's really hard to describe this movie, there is something about it that cannot be explained with the script, acting, or directing. It must be just magic. Few movies got it, this one has it. Not everyone get's it, but if you do, you will love it. The characters, the story, everything.

After a while I entirely forgot I was watching a film and just got totally absorbed by the screenplay while developing a deep sympathy for each and everyone of the characters. It must be ages ago when I watched a movie that touched me so deeply like this one and I was surprised when I saw the low rating on IMDb. It's a shame, this masterpiece has really deserved more.

For viewer who look for something that is nicely polished, Catwalk Actors and Popcorn Feeling, don't bother. This isn't it.

But if you like films with a strong emotional/melancholic atmosphere that are touching your heart without any of the ingredients that are used for ""Hollywood Mass Production Romantics"" then the chances are good that ""Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself"" will give you a wonderful experience beyond words and you might loose so many tears that you become almost dehydrated in the last part of it. So incredibly touching and powerful I probably haven't seen it before...I was blown away.

Before you watch this be prepared to go into the deep deep river. A beautiful one. Thank you for making this masterpiece.",1 "Akshay Kumar and Ritesh Deshmukh sounds a good combination for a comedy movie and that is the reason I went for the movie (promos also looked promising). But it turned out to be a great disaster in all departments be it acting, direction (extremely idiotic) or screenplay.

The way characters of 3 stars in the movie was developed was bad. The director had really no script in mind and comedy was really forced. I think Sajid Khan needs to see Bheja Fry to understand that by doing stupid actions and creating childish situation, you cannot make someone laugh (though there will be people who will enjoy it). Vidya Balan, Bomman Irani were a complete waste in the movie.

This proves a point that if you are a star kid or from the industry it is easy to make a movie, get number of actors/actresses to do friendly appearances (which again was a waste) and boast on TV as if you are making the best movie ever seen. But Mr. director, please grow up and try to make a sensible comedy. Yes, we can still leave our mind at home to watch a movie but there should be some sense and element in your work.

Overall this movie deserves 1 out of 10 star (some points deducted because of hyped expectation which it fails to meet).

Thanks, Saurabh",0 "'The Fox and the Child' is the new film by French director Luc Jacquet, who brought us the Oscar-winning documentary 'March of the Penguins.' It focuses around a young girl (wonderfully played by Bertille Noël-Bruneau) and her blooming friendship with a fox.

There are some truly mesmerizing moments here; badgers mucking about, a lynx chasing the fox through a snow-littered forest; one scene in particular when the fox is being tormented by a pack of wolves is quite intense and even frightening at times. However, there's simply not quite enough of them.

Beautifully shot; the cinematography is dazzling. The bubbly kind of look of the film is wonderful. It's undeniably a very lush production.

The English version is narrated by Kate Winslet, but what little dialogue there already is has been very poorly dubbed. The score is also far too fluffy, or at least it is for my liking; and the screenplay, while subtle, seemingly jumps from one scenario to another, ultimately leaving me almost baffled.

While there's a nice moral at the heart of the film, and the rather quiet performance from Noël-Bruneau is quite lovely, the real star is the fox. Those captivating moments focusing solely around our furry little friend are tremendous. However, again, there's simply not nearly enough of them.

- To keep up to date with all the latest in film, including reviews, news, discussions and more, be sure to visit www.mybluray.com.au",1 "I grew up watching this stuff as a Saturday afternoon matinee 30 years ago & now, it's still as much fun to watch.

Hercules, now married to Ioli, is returning to Thebes to help sort out a dispute over who has the rights to the throne of Thebes. Along the way, Hercules loses his memory & is seduced by the evil Amphale who goes through husbands like Elizabeth Taylor, however, Amphale is something of a black widow & uses a few Egyptians to preserve her ex-husbands in the family crypt.

However, one look at the rugged carved from granite Steve Reeves & all her black widow tendencies fly out the window, but she still wants him for good.

Of course it all ends up in a good ruckus with sword fights, chariot duels, Hercules throwing tables & coffins at rushing troops, 2 insane brothers with a hatred for each other (& their father) & inevitably the faithful sidekick who chimes in with a few vital day-saving moments.

Clint Eastwood may have been the king of the Spaghetti Western, but Steve Reeves was the king of the Spaghetti Swords & Sandals. So if that's your cup of tea, I recommend this movie as an excellent addition to your collection.",1 "I had to watch this movie in a medieval literature class I am taking in college, and to be quite frank, it was one of the worst films I have seen in the course of my life. The plot mixes both the story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Countess of The Fountain(a.k.a. Owein) but seems to leave out the whole meaning and message of each work of literature. To someone watching this movie, who has not read these works before may not be as...repulsed...by it as one who has.However, even someone with no knowledge of the texts will still not enjoy this movie.Really the only good thing about it is Sean Connery. I don't like giving bad reviews, but I just can't recommend this movie to anyone.",0 "Writer/director Wes Anderson (""Rushmore,"" ""The Royal Tenanbaums"") has always produced strange films with rich characters and a little bit of heart. His fourth and latest adventure, ""The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou,"" is no exception, but it is his worst to date.

We begin at a European film festival where Steve Zissou (Bill Murray), a washed up leader of sea-faring documentary filmmakers, is showing off his latest film, ""The Jaguar Shark Pt. 1."" The film looks like an old documentary you'd watch in elementary school because the teacher was feeling lazy.

Zissou is on his last leg as a professional and is desperate for revenge. While shooting his latest film, his best friend was killed by a mythological shark. To exact his revenge, he plans to take his diverse crew out once again and film the shark's demise.

Meanwhile, Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), is a young pilot for Air Kentucky that approaches Zissou with the notion that he may be his son. Ned's mother has recently passed away and he only has rumors that have guided him to Zissou.

The motley crew is comprised of several fine actors, including William Defoe as a German ""engineer,"" and Angelica Houston as Zissou's brilliant wife. Jane (Cate Blanchett), a reporter, also joins the trip so she can write a cover story on Zissou and provide a love interest for Steve and Ned.

Overall, the film is a slow-moving oddity that immerses us into another world. Rather than attempting any realism, Anderson and co-writer Noah Baumbach, have created an alternate universe where pirates are still attacking ships and the fanciful fish on display are computer animated. I enjoyed the unique sets and inventive atmosphere, but I did not care much for the thin story.

For much of the first half, the audience is given the idea that a deeper plot might bubble up, but it never comes. The film treads water for the last half, slowly sinking into its shallow waters. In compensation, the audience is provided with developed characters.

Anderson decided not to focus on story so much as developing his leading man. Zissou is an ambitious asshole who always has a frown on his face. Like many other Anderson characters, Zissou is a flawed protagonist who learns a lesson or two about life.

Thankfully, Murray's great performance makes the film better. Murray characterizes Zissou so well that we feel like we actually know him at the film's end. If 2004 had not been so saturated with good acting performances, Murray would likely be up for an Oscar.

Wilson also provides a notable performance, where he's not allowed to be the smart aleck he usually plays. Ned is a quiet side-kick who thinks before he speaks and somehow Wilson manages to pull it off.

Also enhancing the movie is the great soundtrack. Anderson has always had a knack for selecting pop songs that match his movies' moods. In ""Life,"" many David Bowie songs are sung in Portuguese, providing dreamy music that cannot be completely understood.

""Life"" is a full-fledged Anderson movie and anyone who has enjoyed his previous efforts will likely like this one. Anyone who hasn't liked Anderson's films should stay far, far away. The film requires a lot of patience, but sticking around until the end makes the movie more than the sum of its parts.

It appears that Anderson is so hell-bent on being different from his predecessors that he has lost some of his magnificent charm. He used to have his head in the clouds, but now he's lost in outer space. Let's hope Anderson can come back down before Hollywood makes him walk the plank.",0 "Todd Solondz seems to specialise in hating everybody. From ""Welcome to the Dollhouse"", through ""Happiness"" to this film, he seems to thrive in misanthropy, delving into the worst aspects of human nature.

""Storytelling"" has two separate segments: ""Fiction"" deals with a college student (Selma Blair) who breaks up with her disabled boyfriend and has a brutal one-night stand with her creative writing professor. ""Non-Fiction"" describes the attempt of an aspiring documentarian (the always good Paul Giamatti) to make a film about a typical high-school loser and his wealthy family.

As always the film is savage and bitter and is bound to have something to offend almost anyone, and yet it is very funny. In a way the laughs are almost shocked out of you by the casual cruelty on display. In my opinion ""Storytelling"" is better than the over-rated ""Happiness"" (which just went too far at times).

When you want something to make you feel good about life and humanity, don't watch this film.",1 "This is an awfully slow movie and it's Ingmar Bergman so of course be prepared to bored rigid with endless celluloid lectures about the strain and awkwardness of (an already uninteresting ) middle class life for 2 hours. Most of Bergman's films always seem to go on and on seeming longer than they actually are.

Absolutely nothing happens throughout this film up until like the last 15 minutes when it FINALLY becomes watchable. Watching a man and his wife walk around in a depressive mood for half a movie is not my idea of a good film,. If anything, just fast forward to the final parts of the film as it's the only time something interesting occurs.",0 "this is really a Bruce Willis or Arnie film, not a Bond film at all.

The pre-credit sequence is boring with zero humour or panache in Craig's delivery of the punch line.

Judy Dench is looking old and completely out of place in a film that is supposed to go back to the beginnings of Bond. And we have the oldest cliché in the book of Bond at odds with his superior, blah blah, done in every cop film since the dawn of time.

The Sony product placement is just crass throughout for a Sony/Columbia picture. Is this a movie or an advert? The title song is instantly forgettable with lyrics mumbled.

The cartoon credit sequence is the poorest graphics since Dr No, simply boring with no imagination or wow factor. It looks cheap compared to the great graphics we have come to expect and makes the whole film look cheap compared to greater Cubby Brocolli efforts.

Craig is not debonair, tall, dark or handsome and has no wit or class, totally miscast as Bond. He would be better as the villain's No 2 henchman rather than Bond.

The idea that the world's terrorists depend on a legitimate casino game to fund their activities is as ludicrous as Moonraker's laser guns or Die Another's invisible car, but this is the whole plot of the film.

There are 3 good action sequences and the rest is FAR too long. The love story bit dialogue between Bond and Vesper particularly is yawn inducing with no chemistry between the actors on screen, and Vesper's suicide at the end particularly contrived and unbelievable. The whole end sequence of destroying a Venician building shows no imagination and is obviously just tagged on as an afterthought.

In conclusion it's just another formula action film with none of the class and features that make a good Bond film. The hero could have been any cop/agent/private investigator so the whole has none of the distinctive and memorable scenes that always went into a Bond film.

A big disappointment.",0 "If you are a die-hard Andrew Lloyd Webber fan like myself, this is an absolute must-have for the permanent collection. I loved every minute of it. Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber's 50th Birthday Celebration was the night to remember.

Sarah Brightman sang beautifully, as she soared into the stratosphere in the ""Phantom of the Opera"" duet with Antonio Banderas. Donny Osmond offered clean phrasing and vocalism in his selection from ""Joseph and the Technicolored Amazing Dreamcoat."" Glenn Close brought Hollywood style and charisma to her selections from ""Sunset Boulevard."" Julian Lloyd Webber brought technical mastery and pitch-perfect intonation to the ""Varations for Cello and Orchestra"" piece.

And then, almost towards the very end, Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber himself came out and personally introduced Dame Kiri Te Kanawa to the audience. Dame Kiri, a few moments later, sang the world premiere of his new song, ""The Heart is Slow to Learn,"" intended for the sequel to his magnum opus, ""The Phantom of the Opera."" Well, it was in a word, stunning. Te Kanawa sang passionately, and with the sincerity a famous classical performer would bring to Wagner or Puccini. Absolutely breathtaking.

And then, the entire cast came out to sing ""Happy Birthday"" to Sir Andrew, with Kiri Te Kanawa and Sarah Brightman soaring above the entire orchestra and chorus. There was no dry eye in the audience.

An absolutely wonderful performance!",1 "This is a very loosely biographical based movie on Vlad Dracula, and it was a very refreshing change.

Roger Daltrey is the weakest actor, and he is pretty good.

Rudolf Martin was perfect for the role of Dracula, what a mix of passion, and vanity.

The story is fact based and if you know your history you can see it weaved though-out this tale. The sets are amazing for a fairly low budget movie.The fight scenes are fair to slightly above average, but this movie is so strongly written you can forgive the weaker fight scenes.

One of the Best Dracula movies I have seen, and by far the best low budget historical(ish) Vlad movie I have seen.",1 "I loved this film even though im not familiar with the first two. I had no idea of what was in store before watching this, except that the title itself projects a sense of violence. I love gangster movies and after seeing this i even loved it more. It's different than the average gangster genre given that it has quite a lot of comedy interplay with the story. The actors aren't familiar to me except Qi shu which portrayed the role in a hardcore tough yet so fine and sexy way.

The comedy was very funny at times see for yourself. I liked the car chase scene it's something new, fresh, comic and a very sensual idea(you'll understand when you see it). It's cool to see interesting movies once in a while and this one is certainly the one you can't miss. Truly entertaining, overall funny, cool action scenes and a bit of that comic romance. Watch it, its worthwhile.",1 "The film was certainly interesting with its use of camera work, funky shots and general creativity, but more often than not, that 'funkiness' was used to excess. Cropped images linked together, lens tricks, and so on distracted from the picture more than aiding it.

(Minor spoilers may follow.)

The story itself has very little to do with the plot outline as listed on the main details page for this film. The Japanese anime-watching character (Adam Goldberg) was minor in this film. The picture revolved around a metalhead-type loser (Jake Busey) whose dream of being with a porn star (Jennifer Tilly) leads him on a strange road trip after he is dismissed by his girlfriend (Natasha Lyonne). Along the way, he picks up Jules (Crispin Glover, in another obscure yet excellent performance), a bird-loving, awkward man.

The writing was at best mediocre. Many portions of the plot which should have been expanded upon were summarily discarded. This is the first thing I have seen from Salome Breziner; if this is any indication of Breziner's style of writing/direction, then I'm not in any rush to see anything else.

This was based on a book by Bruce Craven, and perhaps it was just a poor adaptation. Not having read the book beforehand, I just don't know what the main culprit was in this film's set of problems. Regardless, this was not a film I would consider overly enjoyable.

*1/2 of ***** for some good work by Eric Roberts, Jennifer Tilly and Crispin Glover.",0 "This movie is going to make the world wake up in so many ways. Excellent!!! Everybody should see it! I recommend with all my heart! The prejudice all over the world needs so much more of this kind of knowledge. Here in Brazil I hope it helps to start for sure the fight to assure everybody the same rights, cause we all have the same duties and it is not fair to have this mistake for homosexuals. One day in a near future some people will see how much we struggle to be equal in all matters. Looking back having this work done to help future generations how was hard and tough to change societies and rules created by human beings who use the name of God in vain. I hope tomorrow will be a better place for my son and grandsons. This movie is for the present and the future. Great Work!!! These are some words from a human being touched so deep by this piece of images putted together to make history come through and help to make everybody understand everybody. Some dream! Uh! However, it can come through anytime we just need to want. As Jesus said everyone should love your brothers and sisters cause we all are! Truly yours, Lucy from Brazil",1 "I am really amazed how bad acting can really be, I guess that is an art too... You could not make it worse with the old form of Russian synchronization in movies, where every role is spoken by one (male) person and every sentence begins with ""he sais"" or ""she sais""... Or wait a minute, is it maybe a new form of comedy? Is there a secret award for the worst movies - this would certainly make it to the top. I still really have no clue what it is about, a bomb attack on what by who and what for and... ugh, what is the matter with all the dialogs in the movie? Even first graders have a better vocabulary. But one has to admit, it is really hard to forget such a movie and you couldn't stop watching it either because you just can't believe what you see.",0 "After reading many reviews from people who said Scary Movie 4 was crap, I was reluctant to go and see it. But I did, and take my word for it, it was well worth it.

Scary Movie 4 was hilarious. I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard. Its parodies of films such as ""The Grudge"", ""War of the Worlds"", ""Brokeback Mountain"", ""Saw I and II"", and ""The Village"" and many others work well to make an entertaining 80 minute movie. And lets not forget the parodies of celebrities, which includes Tom Cruise and Micheal Jackson.

The Plot Basically goes like this: The dumb witted Cindy Campbell (Anna Farris) has taken up a job as a house caretaker for a old lady that is said to be cursed. While she is doing her job she discovers that the house is haunted by a ghostly little boy. But thats not all. Giant Tripods are coming out of the ground and killing everyone, and aliens are taking over the world. With the help of newly befriended neighbor and failed father Tom Ryan, Cindy sets out to get some answers on a long hilarious journey...

Scary Movie 4 is a silly movie. If want a deep, thoughtful film that makes you think, this is definitely not for you. If you want a few good laughs then this is what you're looking for. Just empty out your brain and enter the cinema or put in the DVD. I almost didn't see it, and if I had I would have unknowingly regretted it.",1 "Ahhhhhh! This is really cute, especially the cousins. Its message is subtle and not laid too thick. The evil spirit is really scary. Her voice drips with pure poison and you have to admit that the world would be terrible if nobody cared. The good characters have plenty of charm and personality. They're not cloying. You really care about what happens to them and that's what makes a good movie. 8/10",1 "How can a film that contains so much rape and sleaze be so damn boring??? That is the question I asked myself numerous times while watching this mess of an exploit film. I typically love sleazy/trashy films, and budget-constraints don't usually bother me - but WRONG WAY really had about nothing going for it. Nothing new was brought to the table and is nothing that the serious exploit fan hasn't seen before - but WAY better done...

The story concerns two girls whose car breaks down in the middle of nowhere. Two scumbags come along playing the ""heroes"" - but they take the girls back to their camp where they, and two of their other buddies rape the girls for what seems like an hour. They eventually let the girls go, who then stumble upon a group of killer hippies who rape them some more. Then, for some unknown reason - a completely unrelated plot is introduced totally out of left field about two drug-runner/slave-traders on their way to Mexico who stop off in an abandoned shack to bone their newest ""acquisition"". Eventually the cops catch on and justice is served...

Now, from the above description - this probably sounds like an exploit-lover's dream-cum-true, right? WRONG!!!! Almost EVERYTHING about this film is garbage. The rape scenes are protracted and boring, and show more pasty white man-asses and dongs than any female flesh - and this gets old REAL fast. The women in the film are attractive enough - too bad you don't see more of THEM. The production is horrible and reminded me of the 70's XXX-roughie films, minus any of the hard-core content. The only person in the whole film who could act even a shred, is the hippie-cult leader - but he's only in the film for about 5 minutes. Honestly - WRONG WAY is low-budget exploit film-making at it's worst. The only credit I can give it is for it's sleazy and relatively ""graphic"" exploration of rough subject matter for the timeframe. I guess it would be worth a look to the exploit completist, as it's a pretty rare film to get ahold of - but everyone else, and even semi-serious exploit fans should probably not bother with this one...3/10",0 "Secret Rivals doesn't have a great storyline, but the actors know their kung fu! The movie features a good deal of fighting, and some excellent practice sessions.

The version I saw had very poor picture quality and not all of the subtitles were visible. This is of course a shame, and contributed a great deal to the fact that I only enjoyed this movie moderately. But if it was available in DVD quality, with a clear and crisp picture and sound, it would be a great experience.

This is the kind of movie that Bruce Lee SHOULD have done. His presence here would have elevated this to a world-famous classic.

My rating: 7 out of 10.",1 "FINALLY! April 20 in NY and then it moves around the country. It's about time that this movie gets played in movie theaters.

Tilda Swinton, Amber Tamblyn, Timothy Hutton, Melissa Leo, et al turn in very special performances. Amber won Best Actress at Locarno, was nominated for a Film Independent Spirit Award and it was well-deserved. The screenplay won at Sundance.

It's a tragic story, but one that needs to be told, so that people talk about this issue and how to deal with the education and support of young girls who have similar experiences.

Don't miss this. Also, note that it will only go out to a few screens at first and those who don't go on opening weekends will miss the chance to see it the second weekend. Small indie films like this rely totally on word-of-mouth and opening weekends.

If you want to see it in your town, you MUST ask your local art house theater owner to request it from the distributor.

Unfortunately, this seems to be so under marketed that there is no website yet, so you must go to Regent Releasing, http://www.regentreleasing.com for any information.",1 "Just when you thought I liked nothing more then ""shoot-em up"" or 'slap-stick' comedies.. Yes folks, this is one of my favorite movies of all times

There are some people who may dislike this movie (because the truth hurts OR whatever sick reason they have for their hatred). But those capable of enjoying a well made film - will JUST LOVE this flick.

",1 "I finally got to see this movie, and pretty glad I did. I know Lepage a bit because of works he did in theater (and the fact that he usually does plays is pretty obvious in the way the film is made, if you pay attention, specially the way he uses the background in many scenes).

I first have to warn a few people who are thinking about seeing this movie. Although the magic of it, by the way Lepage plays with scenery, background and various imaginative, non-realistic shots, is pretty accessible to everyone (like say Big Fish is), some people might discard the plot as simplistic and unworthy. If it is hard to actually say the opposite, the point is that to make a plot that's original or particularly thrilling wasn't the goal. It's basically just the day to day life of a dreamer who isn't quite successful in any aspect of his life (would it be on a professional or social basis). But the movie wants to show that despite theses lacks, the main character (I forgot the name) is still an original person, with imagination et interesting thoughts. To make that point, I might take the various imaginary scenes where Lepage take us, or simply the video the guy shots fort the SETI program. You'll notice that most of the interesting commentary and clever interventions by the main character are made while shooting this movie, and that he is alone doing so. It just emphasis the fact that he's apparently quite boring, but actually an interesting person.

Another clever idea in the movie is that there actually isn't many differences between the shots taken during the children hood of the guy (in the 70's) and the on taken in 2000, while he's 40. Besides, many transitions take place from 2000 to the 70's or the other way around without any warning. This is to show that the character didn't really evolved much. He was a dreamer when younger, and unlike many he didn't change when he grew up.

About transitions, they all are very very smooth, and you end up at the end of the movie not so sure if it wasn't only one long shot. Any viewer able to appreciate a movie for anything else but it's plot should see this one. The soundtrack, mostly Beethoven songs, is also quite fit.",1 "AND THE ANGELS SING is a utterly entertaining comedy/musical starring Dorothy Lamour and Fred MacMurray with rising young actresses Betty Hutton and Diana Lynn in featured roles. This movie doesn't have much of a reputation thanks to the fact it curiously has been seldom seen in recent decades. It has never aired on any major national cable channel to my knowledge yet it was a major Paramount film and a big hit at the time.

Lamour and Hutton are the main attractions in a sister singing quartet who get the shaft from sneaky band leader Fred MacMurray. Eventually Betty pursues Fred - and Fred pursues Dorothy. The songs in this film are sensational - Lamour croons the lovely ""It Could Happen to You"", Hutton stops the show with the outrageous ""My Rocking Horse Ran Away"", and the sister act sings a lot of songs in best Andrew Sisters harmony including the very charming ""The First Hundred Years"" and the sassy ""Knocking On Your Own Front Door"".

Too bad TCM didn't get this for their retrospective on Hutton films a few years ago - it's one of her best even if she does play second fiddle to Lamour (though she holds her own). And Dorothy Lamour gives one of her best performances, she can handle comedy and music with equal ease and of course is one of the best lookers ever in movies as icing on the cake.",1 "I read an other comment on this film about the life of Lon Chaney and I agree that it is a terrible biography about the great actor, but what was neglected was to say that this film was a showcase for James Cagney. Cagney had become typecast in his gangster roles and wanted to show his other talents and that is exactly what this film does. Although the acting is undeniably Cagney it still shows a range not possible in his hoodlum roles. Like some of his other ""breakout"" films like Yankee Doodle Dandy, Cagney shows his range of emotion, mimicry and skill.

I originally saw this as a kid who was in love with the old horror classics of my day and this film did inspire me to search out and see the older films. The black and white silent films where actors had to act to convey the story. They had to overplay their parts to make up for the lack of words. That is what you see from Cagney in the short sequences meant to recreate the filming of those great silent Chaney films. I highly recommend it to any film lover.",1 "Quentin Tarantino has made some great movies, most of which are highly over rated. So this fits the bill perfectly, ho ho ho. Virtually every scene has the usual cheese soaked dialogue, the macho one liners, the stereotypical characters; including my favourite - the Japanese school girl assassin! Oh the sheer mundane, cheesy crap of it makes me want to hurl. I'm really not sure what Tarantino was on when he made this but it surely must have been hallucinogenic and must have caused brain damage. This movie sucked. The absolutely comic amount of severed limbs, heads and fountains of blood were like something out of a bad B movie horror from the mid 80s. Virtually every character has been lifted, no scratch that, STOLEN from anime movies. It's like a bad kung fu movie - oh wait it IS a bad kung fu movie.

Do not watch this, it is a waste of your time. If you want to see a good Tarrantino movie do not look to this one, if you want to see a good anime movie do not go here, if you want to see a decent kung fu movie simply watch a Bruce Lee movie - since most of the ideas were blatantly taken from these things anyway.

Now onto the 'quirky' direction in Kill Bill. First off - anime mixed in with real actors is not a new idea so that's one more idea that QT robbed. Then we get the oh so original 'black and white' moment where an entire fight scene, one which contained so many fountains of blood they should have been swimming at the end, suddenly losses colour then for no apparent reason comes back? I mean really Mr Tarantino what was the point? You used to make decent movies but frankly I think in this one you were just seeing how many dumb ideas you could put into a movie without people noticing. Do yourself a favour QT and go back to the drawing board. Mr Tarantino has proved himself far, far better than this and frankly it is a waste of a perfectly good budget to produce something this awful.

So why did I give it a 3 and not a 0? Well there were a few good moments, the plot was relatively interesting, the soundtrack went from great to annoying and, lets face it, you've got to give it a couple of points simply for the sheer amount of blood and violence for no reason other than the director had got a load of fake blood on the cheap.

If you like this movie you need your head examining since it is by far the worst movie I have seen all year.",0 "The only other reviewer at the time of my posting states that the quality of his VHS transfer was excellent, while my 'remastered' DVD print is about as second rate as they come. A lot of jump cuts and missed dialog however doesn't hurt the flow of the story all that much, but even so, what you're left with it are some of the most over the top melodramatic performances you'll find coming out of the era. All in service to the melodramatic nature of the story, as an undercover investigator attempts to expose the ring leaders of an escort bureau. Drake Hamilton's (Robert Kellard) mission becomes complicated when his fiancée is set up to make a call on him as a 'date' from the escort service, but the arrangement is so awkward you'll wonder why June (Margaret Marquis) just didn't explain the whole story when she got to his room.

I'm always amazed at the way times have progressed when it comes to how expensive things are today. The fee for an escort back then - ten dollars plus expenses while on the date!!! That didn't include any business the gals did on the side, I guess that's where entrepreneurial ability came in.

There are some genuinely laughable scenes here, not all of which were meant to be I'm sure. One which had a lush (Arthur Houseman) walking into a fern a couple of times, making this viewer wonder which of the two was more potted. And gee, I wonder how many drinks it would take to make a high roller like Snuggles (Isabel La Mal) look good. But the scene that will have you sit up and take notice is the dancing stripper, didn't she have a nice pair of ... legs?

The grand finale really goes for the gusto, and I for one actually wondered how investigator Hamilton was going to explain the whole thing to the authorities. Now that would have made for a great sequel!",1 "I no longer live in Florida, having decided to move to California after the death of my long-time companion/partner -- a life altering event. Having never heard about or seen this movie before, I wish Bill could have viewed this film before he left me! We were pre-Stonewall (I am now in my 80's)and, in fact, living just around the corner from The Stonewall in the NYC Village on the night of that famous explosive event -- another life altering event. A Very Natural Thing is an amazing film that everyone (gay or straight) should (must?)see. It tells a simple story in a very simple manner: expressive of a time when gay men and women were watchful and fearful of exposure. I confess tears streamed down my face -- partially because of the beauty of the film and partially grieving for lost youth. I hope younger homosexuals will not disparage the old-fashion-ness or the lack of modern day cinematic sophistication of this outstanding piece of film work: indeed a thing of beauty and a joy forever.",1 "While there were some very good episodes during the last season of Star Trek, there were probably just as many disappointments--probably because they knew the series was on its last legs and no one in charge really seemed to care. While a score of 4 looks almost average, for Star Trek it is not and the episode was completely forgettable due to poor writing--and an abundance of plot holes.

Kirk is beamed down to a planet to negotiate some sort of treaty or something but instead arrives in an exact duplicate. He's all alone until later a lady appears and says she, too, has no idea how she got there. At the same time, the crew of the Enterprise is worried since they lost contact with Kirk and the officials on the planet say they have no idea where he is but also obviously hinder the investigation.

I'll jump ahead and explain the why, as you shouldn't have to watch this episode--it's that dumb. It seems that the planet is actually so overwhelmingly overpopulated because they have no natural disease that they wanted to kidnap Kirk and take germs from him and introduce them to the woman--making her sort of like a ""Typhoid Mary"" who will help reduce the population through illness instead of instituting reasonable birth control. Huh?! This makes no sense on so many levels. First, why the ruse? They could have gotten germs from almost anywhere--why spend a fortune duplicating the Enterprise down to every minute detail and kidnap the Captain?! Second, if the believe so strongly against birth control, maybe they should consider celibacy or pushing each other in front of buses! Third, if the planet is absolutely choked with people, why build the Enterprise--where will you put it? Fourth, why not start a war and kill of some people like we humans would have done?",0 "If you're tired of romantic comedies with happy endings where the two lovers walk off into the sunset, then ""Sidewalks of New York"" will be a relief. The characters are perfectly realistic, and so are their situations. There's no scenes where characters fall in love in 2 minutes and break up in 2 minutes. The dialogue is very interesting, but it's not flashy. They talk the way real people talk. The movie is a voyeuristic glimpse into the lives of these real New Yorkers (they're really actors, but they seem completely real). The humor is funny, but not forced. There's even a good deal of sex jokes, but they're all done in good taste. The acting is terrific. Rosario Dawson is beautiful. David Krumholtz is the most entertaining of the bunch. Dennis Farina provides great comic relief. Stanley Tucci delivers one of his best performances. And being that I'm an aspiring independent filmmaker, this movie really inspires me. I watch a lot of mainstream films, watch a certain scene or shot and say, ""That's really cool!"" Yet I think to myself, that's impossible to do on a low-budget. This movie was made on a very low budget and it's absolutely terrific! It's not one of these pretentious, ""Blair Witch""-type projects where we're watching a big old mess, but we're supposed to give it acclaim because it costed below a million bucks. The only thing I have to criticize is the overuse of the jump-cuts. I have nothing against the jump-cut, but the jump-cuts in this film get a bit jarring at times. Much Kudos to Edward Burns for writing and directing this wonderful, inspiring little film.

My score: 9 (out of 10)",1 Hey do any of you know where i can watch this online.

if you do know i would greatly appreciate it if you would let me know. i started watching b.h.90210 on the soap-net after the new one just came out and i haven't been able to stop watching it. its a really good show for the 90's. i get a little tired of it but thats cause i watch it twice a day 5 days a week. i haven't missed an episode. i don't like that you have to type 10 lines i really didn't want to i just wanted to ask where i could watch this episode online. once again it would be greatly appreciated if you would let me know.

Please help.

thanks :],1