Datasets:

---

AlignmentResearch

/

IMDB

like 0

Follow

FAR AI 20

[ "Johny To makes here one of his best style exercises, making a strong film with a good Yakuza's story. The election of the new Yakuza's boss is the beginning of a war inside the organization.<br /><br />In my opinion the violence is wise used in the context, making a very strong gangs film. I specially love the way he tells the history, moving around all the roles inside the Yakuza's family, and making that we see the violence, like the only way they have to solve their problems...<br /><br />Talking about, the technical aspects, the film is a good example of paused, rythmic and planified way of shooting a film. One of the Hong Kong Films of the year. Is like Infernal affairs, but without the easy action-violence scenes, and the confused storyline. Strongly recommended to all Asian films lovers.<br /><br />(sorry for my English, better do in Spanish lol)" ]

[ "I anticipated this movie to be decent and possibly cliché, but I was completely wrong! Charlie Cox (I had never heard of him until now) played an incredibly good leading man; he was so earnest and romantic, me and my friend that saw the movie with me totally fell in love with him.<br /><br />Claire Danes, who I did like before (LOVED her in Romeo and Juliet), made me enjoy her even more. Her acting was fantastic, I couldn't even tell that she was American. The chemistry between her and Charlie Cox was extremely good, the casting was quite perfect.<br /><br />Robert DeNiro and Michelle Pfeiffer were equally well-casted; DeNiro as that gay pirate...priceless, priceless. I laughed so hard at that one scene where Septimus comes on the ship...oh my god, wow. Pfeiffer played a decent villain, I liked her as the snippy mother in Hairspray. But she had the right amount of melodrama and snide comments throughout the movie. <br /><br />Overall, it was funny (but not slap-stick at all!), romantic, the special effects weren't totally frequent but when they were, they were great; the cameos from Ricky Gervais and Peter O'Toole were also well-placed. <br /><br />I totally recommend this movie to anyone who likes fantasy movies like the Princess Bride or even Lord of the Rings. It kept my interest the entire time and I will be buying the DVD when it comes out!" ]

[ "Richard Chamberlain is David Burton, a tax lawyer living in Sydney, Australia who is drawn into a murder trial defending five Aboriginal men accused of murdering a fellow native in Peter Weir's apocalyptic 1977 thriller The Last Wave. Taking up where Picnic at Hanging Rock left off, the film goes deeper into exploring the unknown and, in the process, shows the gulf between two cultures who live side by side but lack understanding of each others culture and traditions. Weir shows how white society considers the native beliefs to be primitive superstitions and believes that since they are living in the cities and have been \"domesticated\", their tribal laws and culture no longer apply. <br /><br />From the start, Burton is drawn deeper and deeper into a strange web of visions and symbols where the line between real time and \"dream time\" evaporates. Water plays an important symbolic role in the film from the opening sequence in which a sudden thunder and hailstorm interrupts a peaceful school recess to Burton's discovery that his bathtub is overflowing and water is pouring down his steps. As violent and unusual weather continue with episodes of black rain and mud falling from the sky, the contrast between the facile scientific explanations of the phenomenon and the intuitive understanding of the natives is made clear. Burton and his wife Annie (Olivia Hamnet) study books about the Aborigines and learn about the role of dreams in the tribal traditions. When he invites one of his clients Chris Lee (David Gulpilil) to his home for dinner, he is disturbed to find that he is the subject of an inquiry by Chris and his friend Charlie (Nadjiwarra Amagula), an enigmatic Aborigine sorcerer involved with the defendants. As Burton's investigation continues, his clients make his work difficult by refusing to disclose the true events surrounding the murder.<br /><br />After Chris starts to appear in his dreams, Burton is convinced that the Aborigine was killed in a tribal ritual because \"he saw too much\", though Chris refuses to acknowledge this in court. Burton, becoming more and more troubled by a mystery he cannot unravel, says to his stepfather priest, \"Why didn't you tell me there were mysteries?\" This is a legitimate question but, according to the reverend, the Church answers all mysteries. Burton knows now that he must discover the truth for himself and enters the tribal underground caves. Though we do not know for certain what is real and what is a dream, he comes face to face with his deepest fears in a haunting climax that will leave you pondering its meaning into the wee hours of the morning.<br /><br />In this period of history in which native Hopi and Mayan prophecies predict the \"end of history\" and the purification of man leading to the Fifth World, The Last Wave, though 25 years old, is still timely. The Aborigines are portrayed as a vibrant culture, not one completely subjugated by the white man, yet I am troubled by the gnawing feeling that we are looking in but not quite seeing. Weir has opened our eyes to the mystery that lies beyond our consensual view of reality, but he perpetuates the doom-orientation that sees possibility only in terms of fear, showing nature as a dark and uncontrollable power without a hint of the spiritual beauty that lives on both sides of time." ]

[ "okay, but just plain dumb. Not bad for a horror/comedy film. I was reading how people switched it with the Michael version and that is a good trick in my opinion because some grown ups hate horrors and when they see this one it will get them interested in horror films like this one or maybe (never seen it) the horror (possibly comedy) uncle Sam, i'll have to see about renting or buying that film but the 2nd is way better then this one but i bought this one on VHS of Amazon and got it November 21, the day before thanksgiving. worth the four bucks, l.o.l. at this film.<br /><br />9/10" ]

[ "To all the miserable people who have done everything from complain about the dialogue, the budget, the this and the that....who wants to hear it? IF you missed the point of this beyond-beautiful movie, that's your loss. The rest of us who deeply love this movie do not care what you think. I am a thirthysomething guy who has seen thousands of movies in my life, and this one stands in its own entity, in my book. It was not supposed to be a documentary, or a completely factual account of what happened that night. It is the most amazing love story ever attempted. I know that it is the cynical 90's and the millennium has everyone in a tizzy, but come on. Someone on this comments board complained that it made too much money! How lame is that? It made bundles of money in every civilized country on the planet, and is the top grossing film in the planet. I will gladly side with the majority this time around. Okay, cynics, time to crawl back under your rock, I am done." ]

[ "I found \"The Arab Conspiracy\" in a bargain bin and thought I'd uncovered a lost treasure. Folks, there's a reason why you don't hear much about this film. The plot is muddy, the pacing is slow, Cornelia Sharpe is about as vivacious as plain, cold tofu, and the ending leaves you flat. Not even Sean Connery can save this one." ]

[ "An excellent documentry. I personally remember this growing up in NYC in the early 80's. This movie is for anyone that wasn't around during that time period.This shows the one thing the African American Gay Underclass felt was solely theirs and the love and camadrie you see is real. The people are real and sadly few are still alive as this is being written. The balls are still held but not to the extent that they were in the the nineteen eighties. That time is gone forever. This is a good pre \"homo thug\" movie. When Queens were really proud to be extroverts. Goodbye to Storyville this is another era gone but greatly documented all hail film!" ]

[ "I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0)" ]

[ "A pre-code stunner with Stanwyck playing a speakeasy whore who sleeps her way to the top. These pre-code flicks really let it all go with nothing left to the imagination. Stanwyck is outstanding as Lilly the daughter of a speakeasy owner/father who sold more than booze to his patrons(johns).After the old man dies(good!) Barb heads for the big city for better things.She uses her female attributes to sleep her way to the top. John Wayne makes a poor \"cameo\" and proves that actors get better with age and an acting coach. I loved the banter and strong lines between the actors. I highly recommend this film to all film buffs and to watch Stanwyck who is great and beautiful as Lilly." ]

[ "The story idea is excellent. Unfortunately, the execution lets it down.<br /><br />The movie lacks pace, for one thing. It should be an exciting ride, but it is slow and more than a little boring.<br /><br />I think the problem's mainly in the screenplay and editing. There aren't enough obstacles and reversals to ratchet up suspense, and there are scenes which don't really move the story along very effectively.<br /><br />The producers should have seen this in the screenplay and insisted upon a major rewrite. Unfortunately, when the producer is also the writer and the director, this evidently ain't gonna happen.<br /><br />Much of the acting seems kind of flat, and that is down to the director - all the actors have been quite competent in other projects.<br /><br />It's a shame, because with better writing, editing and direction, this could have been a really good thriller." ]

[ "Bogdonovich's (mostly) unheralded classic is a film unlike just about any other. A film that has the feel of a fairy tale, but has a solid grounding in reality due to its use of authentic Manhattan locations and \"true\" geography, perhaps the best location filming in NYC I've ever seen. John Ritter reminds us that with good directors (Bogdanovich, Blake Edwards, Billy Bob) he can be brilliant, and the entire ensemble is a group you'll wish truly existed so you could spend time with `em. One of the few romantic comedies of the last 20 years that doesn't seem to be a rip-off of something else, this is the high point of Bogdanovich's fertile after- \"success\" career, when his best work was truly done (\"saint jack\", \"at long last...\", \"noises off\"." ]

[ "This piece of filth is virtually impossible to follow. The sound is crap the picture quality goes from bad to worse to good to bad again! Things happen for no apparent reason characters appear and disappear. Was the director suffering from a massive brain injury during its production?<br /><br />Poor film making aside, the story is vile just sick evil sh*t If you like rape, murder and self harm this is right up your alley. And if simulated scenes of murder are not enough you can enjoy clips of actual people being executed. I watched almost all of it but had to turn off after I seen someones brains blown out. Never before have I seen a film that left me feeling so ashamed and dirty." ]

[ "Young, handsome, muscular Joe Buck (Jon Voight) moves from Texas to New York thinking he'll make a living by being a stud. He gets there and finds out quickly that it isn't going to be easy--he goes through one degrading experience after another. At the end of his rope he hooks up with crippled, sleazy Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). Together they try to survive and get out of the city and move to Florida. But will they make it?<br /><br />Very dark, disturbing yet fascinating movie. Director John Schelsinger paints a very grimy portrait of NYC and its inhabitants. In that way it's dated--the city may have been this bad in 1969 but it's cleaned up considerably by now. He also uses every camera trick in the book--color turning to black & white; trippy dream sequences; flash forwards; flash backs (especially involving a rape); shock cuts; weird sound effects...you name it. It keeps you disoriented and off center--but I couldn't stop watching.<br /><br />There isn't much of a story--it basically centers on the friendship between Rizzo and Buck. There is an implication that they may have been lovers (the final shot sort of shows that). It's just a portrait of two damaged characters trying to survive in a cold, cruel, urban jungle.<br /><br />This was originally rated X in 1969--the only reason being that the MPAA didn't think that parents would want their children to see this. Nevertheless, it was a big hit with high schoolers (back then X meant no one under 17). It also has been the only X rated film ever to win an Academy Award as Best Picture. Hoffman and Voight were up for acting awards as was (mysteriously) Sylvia Miles who was in the picture for a total of (maybe) 5 minutes! It was eventually lowered to an R (with no cuts) when it was reissued in 1980.<br /><br />Also the excellent song \"Everybody's Talkin'\" was introduced in this film--and became a big hit.<br /><br />A great film---but very dark. I'm giving it a 10. DON'T see it on commercial TV--it's cut to ribbons and incomprehensible." ]

[ "I am a big Beatles fan. My favorite Beatle is Paul and my least favorite is John. I already knew quite a bit about the Beatles music and the truth behind the breakup, as well as things like John Lennon's family and Paul's band Wings. I was curious to see how this movie would handle the relationship between John and Paul so many years after the breakup.<br /><br />I was not disappointed by this movie. Although the story itself is fiction, many of the references that the two musicians used were very accurate. These included how Yoko Ono would always be with John wherever he went, the Wings song \"Silly Love Songs\" being the number one hit that year and the concert on the roof of Apple Studios playing music from the album \"Let It Be.\"<br /><br />The actors did a very good job in playing John and Paul. The accents could had used maybe a bit more work, but they seemed to act a lot like I've read the two former-Beatles used to act like. I also liked the dialogue between them, which was basically what the entire movie was.<br /><br />The ending at first disappointed me, but the more you think about it the more you will appreciate it, especially since this was how it really went in real life. They also show the fantastic skit from \"Saturday Night Live\" in which the Beatles are offered $3,000 to perform on the show. (as compared to the $220 million others were offering them) Overall, I was not disappointed with this movie. It does really give you more of a feel for why the Beatles broke up and why they never got back together." ]

[ "I loved KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER since I saw it on the night it premiered on September 13, 1974. I loved the monsters which seemed scary at the time and the cool music by Gil Melle (hey, where's the soundtrack guys?) and have often thought about what makes this show work for me so completely and have finally concluded that the reason it endures when many others do not is one simple, important element it has that almost no other scary show seems to have and that is a main character that most people can relate to on an everyday level. When Darren McGavin's Carl Kolchak starts to discover odd situations, he reacts like most people would. He finds them odd and as he gets closer to danger, he is frightened, even if he knows he must move forward to try to defeat whichever menace is being showcased in that episode. It's rare that he is brave enough to stand up against some superior supernatural force. He's usually set a trap and is hiding or waiting in the wings to see if it works. Sometimes, he seems as surprised that he managed to defeat a foe as we are. In one episode, he goes to find a monster in a sewer but when he first sees it, he runs to get out of there but is trapped so reluctantly, he must go back and defend himself. He's heroic because he is willing to do things most of us probably wouldn't do but that doesn't mean he probably wouldn't much rather someone else did it instead of him. He's a regular guy, doing a job, trying to make a buck, not a monster-hunter. He just gets wrapped up in things involving the supernatural, which he has an interest in but he doesn't want to be hurt or killed anymore than any of the rest of us do. If his plan to defeat the creature didn't work, you will often see him running for his life to get away from it, which is of course what I would do in the situation. That's why I was often watching the climax of the shows through my fingers as a kid. Kolchak was likable and you cared if something bad happened to him. You were scared for him and for the other characters too. The producers and writers obviously knew that anyone can create a monster suit, scary music and direct a suspenseful scene but it's all for naught if you don't care about the characters. Darren McGavin said that the reason why the show only lasted on season was because he got tired of doing a \"monster of the week\" show and he decided not to continue. I can tell you I mourned when this show was canceled when I was a kid but, as an adult, I can see why it couldn't go on in that formula for very long. I still love the 20 episodes and two movies that starred McGavin as the bumbling, determined and brusk but good-hearted reporter for the INS, known as Carl Kolchak. I seriously doubt anyone who makes shows or movies will ever really understand why I loved the show. It's not the monsters, darkly-lit sets, creepy music or goofy guest stars, although they are all vital ingredients. The secret to it's success is right there in the title - \"Kolchak: The Night Stalker\". Without McGavin's lovable, bumbling Carl Kolchak to root for and to care for, then it just ain't a Night Stalker." ]

[ "This is indeed a funny show, done in a creepy sort of way, much like a Tim Burton film. It's worth a look, as it's far more creative than most of the shows this season. Best of all, it's not a \"reality\" show. I'm wondering why the viewing public is so ready to accept shows like that (which lack creativity) and ignore wonderful shows like this that actually have a creative bent.<br /><br />While some decry the premise, I think it's really unusual. Much more enjoyable than \"Ghost Whisperer\" and \"Medium\". I think it's the funniest thing on the tube since \"My Name is Earl\".<br /><br />Oh, and the narration and music are wonderful. If you enjoy shows that are a bit off the beaten path, I'd recommend it. It's not as strange as Twin Peaks was, but it's got a serious kink to it." ]

[ "Less self-conscious and much less pretentious than GUTS OF A BEAUTY, this Kazuo Komizu gore flick is worth a look (at least once).<br /><br />Sleazy snapshotters escort wanna-be actresses/models to a remote house in the woods in order to sexually molest them. Unfortunately (for the horny boys), a long-schlonged demon, who lives in the woods, has already targeted the girls for fun.<br /><br />The thing even ends up having fun with the boys -- that's IF you consider beheadings, dismemberment and masturbation with severed limbs \"fun\".<br /><br />Once again, it all sounds better on paper than it looks and sounds on film.<br /><br />Just as Komizu mangled LIVING DEAD AT TOKYO BAY with his ineptitude, he also mangles this effort and is only saved by some audacious violence and some great white panty shots.<br /><br />Don't buy the hype, though, or you'll be sorely disappointed." ]

[ "I imagine that the young people involved in the making of \"Necromancy\" (aka \"The Witching\" plus a bunch of other titles) must have felt a little weird being on the set of a horror movie with the man who: participated with John Houseman in the production of a proletarian play (\"The Cradle Will Rock\"); scared people into thinking that aliens were invading (\"The War of the Worlds\"); and directed and starred in the greatest movie of all time (\"Citizen Kane\"). And now Orson Welles was starring in a third-rate flick about a satanic cult.<br /><br />There's basically nothing creative about this movie. Lots of nudity, but the background music always proves really distracting. Even if the movie wasn't particularly predictable, it still wasn't worth seeing. How low Welles had sunk. Fortunately, over the final thirteen years of his life, he narrated the documentary \"Bugs Bunny Superstar\" (about the Warner Bros. cartoons of the 1940s) and hosted the documentary \"The Man who Saw Tomorrow\" (about Nostradamus). I recommend those two, but not this one. Just avoid it.<br /><br />Also starring Pamela Franklin and Michael Ontkean." ]

[ "Inventor Wayne Szalinsky (Rick Moranis) is preparing to donate his problematic shrinking/expanding machine to the Smithsonian Institution as he and his wife Diane (Eve Gordon) get ready for a long weekend away from their son Adam (Bug Hall). Wayne's brother Gordon (Stuart Pankin), his wife Patty (Robin Bartlett), and his kids Jenny (Allison Mack) and Mitch (Jake Richardson) volunteer to look after Adam while his parents are away, but as luck would have it (and the title would lead you to expect), the grown-ups are accidentally zapped by Wayne's shrinking ray. As the kids run amok, their miniaturized folks must contend with monstrously huge insects, wrinkles in the carpet that look like canyons, and other threats to them. This was bad, like most straight to video sequels are, Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves was sort of laughable. I had to laugh at that movie \"roach\" Stuart Pankin and the party bullies were even more ridiculous, view at own risk!" ]

[ "This movie is more deceiving than ever, using a suspenseful looking actor like Walken to play in this piece of junk made it look like he had nothing better to do than play a boring role like this one! And the fact that the movie was supposed to be about some witch and you really don't see that until almost the end of the movie but meanwhile you have to sit and watch this boring film while it gets, or tries to get to the meaning of the point and you have to go through this whole trail of boring actors and actresses thinking the whole time of how you passed off another movie and decided on this one and how you have just waisted your money just makes the whole point of time useless sitting there. I'd rather watch cartoons for goodness sakes. Leave this one alone,please!" ]

[ "Richard Dreyfuss is, indeed, in this flick, but in a rather small part. He is NOT the \"obsessed\" filmmaker - he's the group's business manager/accountant. Even the box describes the film inaccurately. There are no erotic scenes with Sondra Locke, as advertised, unless one uses the term \"erotic\" quite loosely. I would not have considered viewing the film without Richard Dreyfuss being in it as a major character. I might have, however, had I realized that the famous 60's anthem, Leonard Cohen's \"Suzanne,\" was an artistic influence. Other than the brief recitation of lines from the end of James Joyce's \"Ulysses\", and an interesting visual reference to the end of Ingmar Bergman's \"The Seventh Seal,\" I found it a poor attempt to meld symbolic elements and moods immortalized in films like \"Last Year at Marianbad\" and \"Un Chien Andalou.\" If you like the idea of the eccentric artistic troupe, there are many superior films, ranging from \"Bye, Bye, Brasil\" to \"Cecil B. Demented.\"" ]

[ "Based on fact, this is the story of a teenager named Homer Hickam (Jake Gyllenhaal), growing up in a coal town in West Virginia where a boy's usual destiny was to \"end up in the mines.\" But Homer had his eye on the sky and a love for flying rockets, to the dismay of his mine-foreman father, and the consternation of the townsfolk generally. A misfit for sure, he and three of his equally outcast buddies begin making rockets, which they fly from a patch of barren land eight miles out of town, so as to no longer terrorize the community with their oft-times errant rockets. Unfortunately, most of the town and especially Homer's father (Chris Cooper) thinks that they are wasting their time. However, the people become intrigued and soon start coming out in droves to watch the 'Rocketboys' send off their homemade missiles. Only one teacher (Laura Dern) in the high school understands their efforts and lets them know that they could become contenders in the national science fair with college scholarships being the prize. Now the gang must learn to perfect their craft and overcome the many problems facing them as they shoot for the stars. Director Joe Johnston has always been a famous name for his movies such as Jumanji & Jurassic Park 3 & \"October Sky\" surely stands above all of his other films. Without any doubts, \"October Sky\" is his best effort & obviously his best film. It's not only a true story filmed extremely well, but even as a movie, it has every single thing, which is required for a top level cinema. And along with Johnston's extra-ordinary direction, are some exceptional performances. Jake Gyllenhaal was around 19, when this movie was released & he gives a beautiful & natural performance. He is a perfect actor. Chris Cooper as his father, also gives a very fine performance. The same goes for Laura Dern & also she looks beautiful. Even the rest of the performances are extremely well. The background score was fine. Highly inspiring movie, which lifts up your spirit sky high. One of those movies which definitely inspires you for all of your life. An amazing inspiring movie along with loads of entertainment. Not to be missed." ]

[ "Totally ridiculous. If you know anything about poker, you will find it absolutely appalling but also entertaining because it is so clueless. The nerd who made this movie is obviously very religious and knows slightly about the game of poker, but I doubt he's ever played above 3-6. (I think he also knows nothing of golf.) Where to start. I've seen better productions in the Intro to Film class I took freshmen year of film school. The actors to watch in this movie are Queen Momma, Scotty Nguyen, and the loser who can never win at poker. Everyone else is as wooden as they come, like bad porn actors.<br /><br />*Spoiler* The man the movie starts with in the opening sequence is the only reason the film got made. He is a railbird who doesn't play poker and never has a line of dialogue, but the actor is the man who obviously paid for the movie. I can't think of a more useless waste of money than this man shelling out for this pointless production. It's fitting that he had such a useless role.<br /><br />There's very little poker in this movie. Most of the time is spent on useless side characters whose plots aren't resolved in the slightest. Queen Momma does have a show-stealing scene where she throws her loser boyfriend through a window and tries to shoot his brains out. Also the nameless Arabs in the convenience store also give brilliant performances when they debate whether to beat up or kill an older lady who robs them. Their subtle performances are easily among the film's highlights. It makes you wonder why they bothered getting all these white people to play the leads.<br /><br />In conclusion, complete nonsense. Plan 9 from Outer Space has slightly more coherency. If you play poker though you might want to have a laugh. Also if you're Christian you might enjoy some of the heavy-handed religious conversation that pepper the movie like pointless pepper. I hate movies made by religious people. Especially ones who think they know something about things they know nothing about. It's sad that Jennifer Harman and Scotty Nguyen got involved in this travesty as I can't help but think less of them. They must be envious of Johnny Chan for getting in Rounders." ]

[ "Bill Maher's Religulous is not an attack on organized religion. It's an attack on Christianity and Islam. Apart from ridiculing a bunch of Rabbis inventing warped machines to get around Sabbath regulations, he really doesn't attack Judaism and seems enraged when a Rabbi actually challenges the existence of the State of Israel. If Bill Maher followed his hypothesis to its logical conclusion, he would realize that the very creation of Israel in the Palestinian Territories is based on the so called 'holy books' of organized religion. This is evidence of his complete and utter lack of objectivity or focus in the creation of this film.<br /><br />I find it really hard to believe that the man is atheist or even all that intelligent. Anyone can go up to a religious person and laugh at them and call them stupid for their beliefs but what do you have to offer them in return? Nowhere does he actually tell them why he thinks they're stupid. What makes him the \"rational\" person in the room? In a way it reflects how he really isn't and in the process ends up looking just as stupid as those people.<br /><br />If you want to watch a good movie/documentary about the actual evils of religion and how religion can actually be detrimental to the human civilization, watch Richard Dawkins' 'Root of All Evil?'. It is a brilliantly researched documentary, clearly outlining what it hopes to achieve and how.<br /><br />Bill Maher's Religulous is not funny, poses no interesting questions nor does it provide any insight on so controversial a topic. It seems to be the rantings and ravings of an old man disgruntled with his Catholic upbringing. I almost feel sorry for him." ]

[ "As a veteran of many, many pretentious French films I thought I'd taken the worst the industry had to offer and was able to stomach anything. But not this. Pointless, relentless, violent, unpleasant, meaningless ... The film has nothing to offer and is random hatred and aggression dressed up as pretentious art. Avoid at all costs." ]

[ "The adaptation of Will Eisner's SPIRIT to the TV screen followed many other offerings developed from comic strip pages or comic books. (Remember, the two aren't exactly the same medium) It is indeed ironic that this is the one and only adaptation (as of the time of this writing)of Eisner's smart alec, wise cracking, tongue-in-cheek super hero.<br /><br />Story has it that Republic Pictures was interested in doing a film version and was in negotiation with the copyright owner in the mid '40's, but they were never able to close the deal. The left over screen play became the serial, THE MASKED MARVEL, one of Republic's best. Perhaps that it was just as well, for that studio had a penchant for tinkering with material adapted from the comic strips, pulp mags, radio and the comic books.<br /><br />As for this 1987 made for TV movie, it's pretty obvious that it was a failed pilot for a proposed television series. Whereas an old, long time comic reader,like myself, can be a little harsh in criticism of an adaptation, a viewer unfamiliar with the character may be able to give some fresh observations, clear of any preconceived notions of what this screen version should look like.<br /><br />Well, while sitting and watching the story unfold, with the characters interacting amid some crime wave, the Little Lady (my wife, Mrs. Ryan) nailed it with one statement. \"This can't make up its mind if it's serious or not!\" That pretty well describes both THE SPIRIT and his creator, Mr. Will Eisner, the true creative genius in the comics.<br /><br />The film is a sincere attempt to put Eisner's world on the screen. The casting of Denny Colt/The Spirit, Commissioner Dolan and Ellen was really quite well done. Though in a contemporary setting, it was still in the tradition of \"the good old days\" as far as the costuming goes, you know, when men and women still wore hats! That brings up this one final (and meandering) point, and that is that the director and the production made a conscious effort and succeeded in giving the characters a Will Eisner look as far as facial expressions and body language. We say,Kudos to them for their efforts.<br /><br />It's just too bad that no series followed! Oh, well in today's motion picture world, comic adaptations seem to be a hot item. Maybe some big timer producer and director could do a really 1st class SPIRIT production for the Big Screen. We can only hope.<br /><br />UPDATE: Dateline, Chicago, Illinois. 6/4/2008. By now, everyone who goes to the Movies at the Shopping Centre Multiplexes has seen the poster advertising the new film of THE SPIRIT, (subtitled, MY CITY SCREAMS); which is to be released Christmas Day, 2008. Well, we'll see then just what we've been talking about. Just keep your fingers crossed! TO BE CONTINUED.............<br /><br />UPDATE II: We saw the new film, Writer-Director Frank Miller's rendition of THE SPIRIT a couple of days ago. Well, we got our wish; but is this a good thing or another case of \"Be careful what you ask for; because you may get it?\" Please read our write-up elsewhere in IMDb.com. THANX!" ]

[ "Australian Fred Schepisi (A Cry in the Dark) directs this comedy/ romance that is fun, relaxing, and set in the spring. You will laugh while watching this movie. Tim Robbins (Shawshank Redemption, Dead Man Walking) is an auto mechanic, Ed Walters, with a high IQ, which gets higher with the help of Albert Einstein, Walter Matthau (Grumpy Old Men) and his academic friends Nathan, Kurt and Boris. You can tell them by their preppie shoes. Meg Ryan (Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail) is Catherine Boyd, Einstein's niece who is a competent, but not so confident mathematician. Perhaps it is because she is surrounded by all that genius. She thinks that if she marries someone with a high I.Q. her kids will have a high I.Q. as well, but she does not knows what she wants. Between Tim Robbins cute smile and Meg's cuteness this is a refreshing movie. I love sweet stories. People all ages should enjoy this movie. Catherine is engaged to the jerk James Moreland, who works in animal behavior, but is very stuffy. This is a love a first sight type situation, between the mechanic and the mathematician. Witty lines and subliminal lines! The cinematography is nice. Princeton, New Jersey is beautiful in the Spring. With much help from all those brilliant men Catherine falls for Ed, without knowing that he is an automobile mechanic.<br /><br />Favorite Scenes: Ed taking a multiple choice test in front of a crowd with the help of Einstein, Nathan, Kurt, and Boris. Ed and Einstein riding on the motorcycle. Nathan, Kurt and Boris letting all the research animals free!<br /><br />Favorite Quotes: Albert Einstein: \"Don't let your brain interfere with your heart\". Ed Walters: \"When was the last time he said \"Wahoo\"\"? Catherine Boyd: \"Well I'm sure I don't know\". This is a refreshing movie, I recommend it. I have the tape and every once and awhile I will watch it again." ]

[ "The only reason I give this movie an 8 out of 10 is because there are few movies, in my opinion, that are perfect. This little B picture is a taut story, well told. I've always been intrigued by Alexander Knox, but have seen him very few movies. Here he plays Wilhelm Grimm, a sad little man who turns into a monster. He betrays everything and everybody without an ounce of remorse. The performance is one of the most chilling performances I've ever seen. Since World War 2, actors who played Nazis or other evil types in films have occasionally been nominated for Oscars. I imagine that since this was made during the war, the Academy felt like honoring a performance like this would have been like honoring evil. But Knox puts in that kind of performance--a man so bitter and consumed by guilt that he thinks nothing of making others suffer. I still can't get over it.<br /><br />Marsha Hunt, who usually plays the filbert gibbet or social butterfly, is cast against type in probably the best performance I've ever seen her give, too. Maybe not Oscar worthy, but the best of her career. Nothing against her; I have enjoyed her in those \"slight\" roles she often played. But here she proves she up to the task of heavier drama.<br /><br />If you like human drama stories, or stories about the fates of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, I highly recommend this fine little film." ]

[ "I had high hopes for it when I heard that it was being made back in 2001 because I read \"The Devil and Daniel Webster\" when I was a kid and I found it very interesting. They made some changes to the story that don't make much sense to me. Daniel Webster in the story was a famous lawyer from New Hampshire in the story. In the movie he is an editor. A lawyer makes more sense since he ends up representing Jabez Stone against the devil him/herself (he was a man in the story, but was a woman in the movie) in a trial where both of their souls are on the line. As an editor, it doesn't seem likely that Daniel Webster would have the skill to do this.<br /><br />The acting was decent by all except for Alec Baldwin and Dan Aykroyd. These are two actors that I like, they just did an awful job in this movie. It was as though they thought they were acting in a comedy, but the movie was more a serious one than a comedy. This might be partly due to the fact that the movie was filmed with a particular vision in mind, and was then re-edited by somebody else. Given this fact, it's surprising that it was at all coherent. I was surprised to see a fair amount of SNL cast members in the movie, which further leads me to believe it may have originally been filmed with the intention of it being more of a comedy.<br /><br />All in all I would have to say it wasn't completely awful, but it wasn't much good. If I could get the hour and a half back and do something else with it, I would. The ending was especially disappointing. As in the original story, Daniel Webster defeats the devil in the trial. Jabez then starts out again at the beginning of the movie...literally, we are just brought back to the first scene with Jabez, and then the movie abruptly ends. It actually looked as though they just replayed Jabez' first scene over and called it the end. There is no indication that Jabez has the benefit of any of the knowledge or experience he gained, so who is to say he didn't just repeat his mistakes over again, and perhaps over and over in an endless loop? It was an extremely disappointing end and did not make a lot of sense. The decent cast, and the acting of everyone except for Baldwin and Aykroyd are the only things that keep this from being a complete and total crap sandwich." ]

[ "In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old." ]

[ "The first look on the cover of this picture, it looks like a good rock n roll movie. But don't let the cover fool you, or the fact that Alice Cooper and Blondie is in it. The storyline is just horrible, and so is the acting. Plain and simple: BAD<br /><br />It's not a movie about a roadie, its just a thin love story, so awful that you see right through it. The only good thing about this movie, is the soundtrack.Some good songs, and that is why I give 2 out of 10. If it wasn't for the music, it would of been 0 out of 10. Meat Loaf is a horrible actor(at least he was in 1980), and the girl who plays the groupie isn't even good looking! This movie was a huge disappointment for me, because it makes a lot of good promises." ]

[ "Why didn't the producers give that show a chance Of all the junk on TV, why didn't the producers give Six Degrees a chance? Will the series go on video? I would love to see how it ends. Put season one on video and sell it. I was a loyal fan of Six Degrees and waited for it's return. I set my recorder to tape all of the shows. Thank God for that. I just found out that the show was canceled and I'm heart broken. I wish I knew it was going to be canceled, why didn't they tell us? I thought the show was just developing some depth in the characters. The writing was pretty good also. Steven (Campbell Scott) is my all time favorite. I am SO sorry to see it go!" ]

[ "i just saw this movie on TV..<br /><br />i've lost my dad when i was young and this movie surely did touch me..<br /><br />i can feel the lost that the little girl Desi felt..<br /><br />the feeling of wanting to see her father again..<br /><br />wanting to talk to him..<br /><br />or at least given the chance to say goodbye..<br /><br />and i'm so touched with the letter that was wrote back to her..<br /><br />saying that her father read her letter, and sent it back to someone to reply her and buy her a present because there isn't a shop in heaven..<br /><br />it just lets me feel that miracles do exist.." ]

[ "Mardi Gras: Made in China provides a wonderful, intricate connection between popular culture, nudity, and globalization through the making and tossing of beads. I saw this film at the International Film Festival of Boston, and was expecting a dry introduction to globalization, but what I got was a riveting visual display of shocking footage from both China and the United States. The eye-opening film is humorous, in-depth, serious, non-patronizing, and it leaves you wanting more as the credits role. It is worth comparing to Murderball -- it's simply that well done. The young women workers in China have various points of view, and the owner is amazingly open about the discipline. The revelers during Carnival are the highlight, but only because this excellent film provides in-depth context inside the factory in China without narration. Bravo to the filmmaker for getting inside and finishing the film! I would have never thought about the connection between beads, China, and New Orleans; now I think about the human connection between almost every object, but also the role of globalization, inequality, and fun. More importantly, I can make these connections without feeling a sense of guilt after watching this film, unlike other films on globalization that I've seen." ]

[ "I can understand after watching this again for the first time in many years how it is considered one of the worst Laurel & Hardy's. For me, it isn't as close to as bad as \"Air Raid Wardens\" and \"The Bullfighters\", but there are some definite huge flaws in it. The film is set up to show Laurel and Hardy as the owners and instructors of the dance studio. Hardy is funny as the prancing lead of a \"London Bridge\" dance, surrounded by 20th Century Fox starlets, while in the next room, Laurel teaches the beginners ballet while wearing a ballerina outfit. A clumsy carpenter spills glue on the floor, leading to a predicable gag where Hardy ends up the looser. Then, in come the racketeers, now selling insurance covering up their protection racket. One of them is a very young and handsome Robert Mitchum. But no sooner do they bully the boys into buying insurance, they are arrested.<br /><br />This is the end of the gangsters and the last time we see the dance studio. The rest of the film is devoted to Laurel and Hardy's support of wealthy patron Trudy Marshall and her inventor boyfriend, Robert Bailey. They first try to help them hide their relationship from her disapproving parents (Matt Briggs and Margaret Dumont) and hopeful suitor Allan Lane, whom we can tell right off is a no-good swine. This leads to Briggs' hidden bar being revealed to tea-totaling Dumont, and a gag where a rug is literally pulled out from the wealthy patriarch which crashes his bed into a pond below. When Bailey uses the boys to help display his ray gun, pandemonium ensues. The dead-pan butler announces to Case and Dumont that their house is on fire.<br /><br />Later, Hardy wants to use the insurance policy to gain money to pay their dance studio rent and hopes to get Laurel to break a leg to do so. There is no reference to the fact that the insurance salesmen were gangsters and that the policy would probably be invalid. (Even if they were to have become legitimate insurance salesman, after being arrested, their licenses would have been revoked). Laurel ends up getting off a bus which had been abandoned by the driver over a supposedly rabid dog (only a frosting covered, cake devouring Toto look-alike, or possibly the actual pooch), causing Oliver to end up on a huge beach roller-coaster that somehow the bus has ended up on, perfectly fitting its wheels onto the tracks. Roller-coaster gags can be exciting, as evidenced in \"Abbott and Costello Go to Hollywood\", and this one is amusing but anticlimactic.<br /><br />As the story wraps up, all of these gags seem to have no point, giving the impression that this was simply a series of one-reelers put together to make a full-length feature, hopefully part of a double bill. L&H, as I've mentioned in other reviews of their later films, had lost much of their luster after leaving Hal Roach's employ, but surprisingly here, they do not come off as old and tired looking as they had in films made in the same year. Had the gags not been as amusing, as was the case with some of their other films, this surely would have ranked a \"2\" as opposed to a \"3\"." ]

[ "If you liked watching Mel Gibson in Million Dollar Hotel then you might enjoy watching Burt Reynolds in yet another film so bad it could never be distributed. I can only attest to the DVD version so maybe the VHS version is better quality wise but the movies night and dark scenes have been so poorly done that everythings seems red. I first thought my DVD players was messed up. It wasn't. If you insist on watching it I recommend you adjust the color on your TV until it is black and white. If you don't you will never be able to get through the film. If you do it will simply remind you of a poor film students attempt to revist the style of Pulp Fiction." ]

[ "i wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. Porretta was good looking but resembled like a Mexican porn star not an English outlaw. costumes? what costumes? a t-shirt with strips of black leather on it. it was Marion's clothes--or lack of them--that really got me. do the 'fans' of this stinker really believe women dressed like that in medieval england. the Mongols and vikings were inaccurate and stupid, but the episode with an ALIEN was worst of all. Especially as his make up mainly consisted of oatmeal on his face--an old trick.The hedgehog monster was pretty funny, as was climbing up the side of a castle on a ladder of arrows--as if. the US accents grated as did the initial drawling voice over' RAW-bin Hood and LIDDLE John'.the second robin and Marion were really quite minging in looks and what was left of the show went totally down the pan..." ]

[ "\"One shot, one kill, no exceptions.\" A must see if you are into marines or snipers. two big thumbs up! Great overall storyline, great camera work, good drama, action, details, and more. Pretty close to the real thing. But this isn't a film to breakdown and pick out the editing faults. this is to sit back and have a good 99 mins. The plot has some depth but this movie isn't really about making you think. its about enjoying the sniper lifestyle and action. sniper 2 and 3 are pretty good follow ups but the first is still the best overall movie. Tom Berenger does a great job playing his character and showing the hidden side of the sniper life. the plain of dealing with all of the death. Must see for sniper fans." ]

[ "I absolutely fail to see what is funny in this film. The humor seems to be destined for corpses. It's slow. The story is too simple to be true. The characters do not raise much sympathy, a few non-important characters aside. Nothing surprising happens. What did the writers of this script think? \"Oooo funny! Let's make some old lady's high on pot! Let's make them.... giggle! Let's make them... behave like little children!! Oooo, yes, that's absolutely brilliant and original!\"<br /><br />This film has irritated me most from all the films I've seen in the last five years." ]

[ "9/11 is a classic example of cinema verite, a sort of realist documentary, in this case of New York firemen as they battle against one of the most extraordinary events of world history. It's all tiny, unobtrusive, hand-held video cameras, often betrayed by the poor quality of most of the filming (and by the director, Naudet's hand frequently wiping the screen).<br /><br />In this film, you get to know most of the firemen - Tony Benatatos, the rookie (or 'probie', in NY fireman vernacular), the Fire Chief Joseph Pfeiffer (who finds he's lost his brother later on) and a few others. There are studio interviews with most of these people throughout the film, just to emphasise the personal, reflexive nature of the events. The build-up is quite dramatic and well-done, particularly the passing-out ceremony at the Fire Department, with a few useful swish-pans and a sort of dialectical editing of the rather limited filmwork (just like Rob Reiner's A Few Good Men). Tony looks proud.<br /><br />The viewpoint and camera angle is usually from amidst the firemen, which is interesting and there is some excellent footage from inside the lobby of WTC1 while Pfeiffer and his team plan what to do next - this is classic cinema verite. There is also the eery, haunting sound of the occasional human body crashing against the portico outside. It is then that an increasingly forlorn Fire Chief Pfeiffer realises that his task is desperate and probably hopeless - and this is before WTC2 collapses. You have to give credit to Naudet for knowing which faces to film and at which moment.<br /><br />The sound of the neighbouring WTC2 collapsing is so awfully sad, poignant and terrifying that you realise what an ordeal this is for the firemen. From the lobby, it looks, feels and sounds like the end of the world and the poor firemen look so utterly bewildered and frightened. You hear an enormous rumbling, trembling maelstrom - like that of a giant, monolithic beast slowly falling to the ground after being so mortally wounded - the neighbouring tower has collapsed yet the fire team remaining in WTC1 are oblivious to this event. Where is the communication?<br /><br />This film is captivating yet the narration is amateurish and should have been avoided - cues like 'this really was a day like no other' or Naudet's frequently banal pronouncements like 'you could see fear in everybody's eyes' and 'I knew Tony was freaking out'! The film is really just one long video diary. There are no pictures from higher up the building where some of the firemen have gone. Imagine this film blended with CCTV footage from some of the rooms higher up or some of the news coverage from the day. The effect would be greater. You could even combine this story with that of Mayor Giuliani and, perhaps, the famous Cornishman Rick Riscorla who literally was many floors up acting the hero.<br /><br />I don't see much of a propaganda element in this film, as some reviewers suggest. This film is no Triumph of the Will, by Riefenstahl. Some time later the firemen drape the American flag over a nearby, surviving building overlooking what has become Ground Zero. So what?<br /><br />There are also some moments of dubious camerawork; for example, who is holding the camera when the two Naudet brothers are reunited back at the fire station? Is it staged?<br /><br />There is an excellent finish, very much in the traditon of the excellent French director Alain Resnais (Hiroshima mon amour), with two strips of light reflected in the water, shimmying." ]

[ "I thought that this film was very well made, Heath Leger was very convincing and his Irish accent was flawless. Orlando Bloom and Naomi Watts were also really good and believable. How true it is to what really happened I have no idea, but it did portray why people sometimes become what they do. Maybe those in authority have always been corrupt and I did find it interesting that over 30,000 signed a petition for Ned Kelly NOT to be hanged, so maybe there was more truth in this film than at first thought? In many ways it reminded me of Cold Mountain which was another good historical film. All in all I would highly recommend this film and I am somewhat baffled why it didn't do better in the cinemas." ]

[ "I was blown away by the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, a show that always kept me guessing and brought me to tears on more than one occasion. A hardened sci-fi fan, I like to think I can pick out the good stuff from the BS, and this was good stuff.<br /><br />As such, when I first heard about the prospect of a prequel series some months ago I got a sick feeling in my gut. I was afraid that the formula that made Battlestar so successful would be reused in Caprica, which wouldn't work at all. BSG's story, of a mournful ragged band of survivors, trapped aboard decaying star ships and guided by prophetic vision and a sequence of pseudo-miracles, was perfectly complimented by extraordinary music and a better cast of actors.<br /><br />Caprica feels different. Where BSG takes place after the fall of a great civilization, Caprica portrays that civilization in it's cold and decadent heyday. The overall vibe I got from Caprica was similar to that of Minority Report, minus excessive and counterproductive theatricality. In true BSG form, Caprica has in it's first few hours of programming already tackled the issues of religious freedom, racism, the morality of playing God and the nature of the human soul.<br /><br />The casting for Caprica is also excellent. Each character is unique and deep, from the obsessive and distant scientist-turned-entrepreneur, to his troubled and willful daughter, each actor and actress throws themselves into their respective roles.<br /><br />Music, which was used so powerfully in BSG, also plays a significant role in Caprica. Battlestar's powerful rolling drums and mournful duduks served it's themes very well. Caprica uses a more orchestral sound, which gives the show it's own feeling quite distinct from either of it's predecessors. <br /><br />The new Caprica is definitely it's own show, pulling from the Battlestar franchise only as much as it needs. I look forward to the full series." ]

[ "Peter M. Cohen has a winner satire on the mating game, twisted around and turned inside out. The critical bashing of the movie in mainstream media publications as \"offensive\" and \"raunchy\" only serves to underscore its intensity as a refreshing and concentrated dissection of people's sexual pursuits and passions. It is in the tradition of what I call \"reality based\" satire following in the footsteps of \"In The Company of Men,\" \"Chasing Amy\", \"Your Friends and Neighbors\" and \"Two Girls and a Guy\". Cohen's dialogue is hilarious and I was continually intrigued by how perfectly he captured the real pace of today's conversations. Brian Van Holt, Zorie Barber, and Jonathan Abrahams are three distinct, unrelenting sex-obsessed predators who along with the foil of their recently married buddy (superbly played by Judah Domke) are turned upside down on their own terms by a female predator (Amanda Peet). Underneath the satiric surface lurks a romantic comedy far more satisfying than most sugar-coated studio products." ]

[ "This ensemble piece about adults who return to the formulative Summer camp of their youth was a very quiet entrant and exiter to the cinemas in the Autumn of 1993. I'd say that was a shame,but then again,some of the better movies ARE quiet releases that don't get much hype or praise.<br /><br />Diane LAne,Kevin Pollack,Elizabeth Perkins,Vincent Spano,Julie Warner,Bill Paxton,Kimberly Williams,Matt Craven and Alan Arkin(who is painfully good here) are the group of actors who flesh out these roles as people who have grown old with good,bad and funny memories of summers gone past. This film covers the gambit of emotions,mostly pleasant,and the film never hammers away at the viewer to feel what the characters are feeling,preferring to allow the viewer to enter into the memories on their own. Since I am a movie viewer who bristles at bluntly,brazen manipulation in films,this is something that I appreciate from writer/director Mike Binder.<br /><br />This film's a great cheap rent,a good main rent and even a pretty sit in a theater flick. You might run across this on TV,and I would definitely suggest a look-see." ]

[ "I had a personal interest in this movie. When I was 17 and just out of high school I got a job at 20th Century Fox as a member of the Laborers and Hod Carriers Union. At the end of my first day (sweeping the deck of an aircraft carrier) I was told to bring a suitcase the next morning with enough clothes etc. for one or two weeks. When I arrived the next morning a bus was waiting and about 20 of us headed south toward San Diego. Just short of there we stopped at an army base called either Camp Callan or Camp Hahn. Once we were bunked in we went north a few miles into Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base. There, on the beach, we started building what was supposed to be a Japanese Pacific island base. It took us about a week or ten days to complete the installation, which included a water tank, gun entrenchments, sand-bagged trenches and living quarters. All this was at very high pay, sometimes 'golden time', which was triple our regular hourly wage. Our food was also first rate = prime rib at lunch, etc. - which was amazing because it was wartime and very hard to get good meat at home.<br /><br />Once the job was finished I waited eagerly for the movie to come out, which was about eight or ten months later. Then I waited eagerly through two hours of the movie before my handiwork finally came on screen. Then it was no more than three or four minutes (maybe less) of the movie's heroes dive bombing the base and blowing it to smithereens. A bit disappointing, but still fun. <br /><br />In spite of the disappointment I enjoyed the movie and have not seen it since. I learned later that this movie was underwritten by the government and Fox was paid on a cost plus basis, which maybe accounts for our extravagant pay and lifestyle down there. Bob Weverka" ]

[ "Not so many people like the movies of Bertrand blier simply because they don't understand them. Simply because they are different kinds of people.<br /><br />If you have not been living under a deep desperation intertwined with great personal hope it may be hard for you to enjoy the humor blier shown here.<br /><br />And also the film of blier cannot be classified easily as black-comedy or cult etc. like those of pulp fiction etc. Because there is this delicacy which the audience of north-america frequently fail to appreciate.<br /><br />When I looked at these two `hooligans' dining with Jeanne moreau in the seaside restaurant, I felt they were more gentil than any gentleman can have been.<br /><br />The urge to make love wildly like these is the normal reaction we feel under the unbearable pressure of meaningless being-symbolized by the camion suddenly emerges at the Carrefour.<br /><br />SO, les valseuses is much better a name than going places. To dance a valse you need to be elegant, but going places you don't." ]

[ "I caught this movie on the Sundance Channel on cable one late afternoon. You might say \"Who Loves the Sun\" is a perfect leisurely pastime of a story, why ever not. You get to hang out with the trio: Lukas Haas is Will (returning after abruptly leaving everyone years ago), Molly Parker is Maggie (we learn she's very much part of the family Bloom), and Adam Scott is Daniel (is he friend or foe or fiancé), by the scenic Falcon Lake, Manitoba, Canada, captured in graphic compositions juxtaposed in vivid summer colors against sunshine and shadows. And supporting the trio are two more family members in the revealing mix: Wendy Crewson is Mom Mary Bloom, and R.H. Thomson is Dad Arthur Bloom. Writer-director Matt Bissonnette has delivered an ingenious unfolding of story-line and its various tentacle links - worry not, Haas may have a 'listless' face, but humor will come as Parker and Scott enter the circle of friends reunited, wry smiles will break and knowing delights stir. Dialogs may be terse or even nil, yet we'd get the flavor of what's cooking, bemused or wondering.<br /><br />Yes, \"Who Loves the Sun\" can very well be categorized as a sleeper gem. The chemistry between all five principals sure gels and 'combusts', giving an energetic ensemble performance. After all, it's all in the family, and the film sure doesn't take itself too seriously.<br /><br />Looks like the official site is still available at \"wholovesthesun.com\" and there are information on the soundtrack by Mac McCaughan (Portastatic with guitar tunes and strings) where score excerpts are being played, and behind the scenes production notes, interview with writer-director-producer Bissonnette on how the movie and concept came about, the casting and more. Have always appreciate Molly Parker since her spare yet mesmerizing performance in 1996 Lynne Stopkewich's 'Kissed', and she's married to Bissonnette, who \"wrote the Maggie part for Molly.\"" ]

[ "The story is being told fluidly. There are no interruptions. The flash backs are woven into the present seamlessly. Casting was superb. Young Ya'ara looked very much like Ya'ara would have looked at that age. Her portrayal of a blind person was done convincingly. Director Daniel Syrkin have done a superb job in getting the various actors to work together in this story. The Cinematography is very good. You feel like you are with Ya'ara and Talia walking toward the ocean to the edge of the cliff. The English subtitles follow the Hebrew script very closely. It is interesting to note that even though \"Out of sight\" is not a direct translation of \"Lemarit Ayin\" Both names are very appropriate to the story." ]

[ "This film was just absolutly brilliant. It actually made me think. During the whole movie I was confused as hell. I loved everything about it...it was just so confusing and so twisted and weird, it was hard not to love it. All of the actors were phenominal, and no one could have done a better job...This is one of my favorites of the year...it deserves an ocar." ]

[ "I rated this a 3. The dubbing was as bad as I have seen. The plot - yuck. I'm not sure which ruined the movie more. Jet Li is definitely a great martial artist, but I'll stick to Jackie Chan movies until somebody tells me Jet's English is up to par." ]

[ "I, like many people, saw this film in the theatre when it first came out in '97. It was a below average film at best, defiantly not the \"masterpiece\" that all these \"Titanic\" fanboys like to make it out as. First off, DiCaprio is a terrible actor no matter which way you look at it. People just like him because of his looks. His acting \"skills\" essentially consist of saying a lot of cheesy lines and trying to act sexy. Second, the film itself had a rather boring and simple plot: girl falls in love with guy, ship they're on sinks, lots of crappy love scenes thereafter. Anyone with an IQ above 50 will realize this isn't ingenious in any way whatsoever. Nor is it original. Plus the director felt the need to drag it out for 3+ hours. I could compress it into a 1 hour block without losing any of the plot. In conclusion, \"Titanic\" is the most overrated movie to date. Why it got so much attention and money is beyond me." ]

[ "This is the best series of its type I've seen all year. I can't help thinking it's just my luck - a series I love gets 6 episodes (and more next year) and the constant stream of cookie-cutter cop shows get never ending episodes.<br /><br />I think the reasons New Tricks succeeds are many. The scripts are good, and the mix of characters superb, The acting is top flight, and the blend of comedy and drama works a treat. The stories aren't all that memorable, but that's not the reason I watch shows like this one. <br /><br />The theme song is a favourite, and we were disappointed to find it isn't available in any published edition. Great stuff, BBC- a triumph of sense over sex-appeal (aside from the young constable nobody's there as eye-lolly, and even if he IS, he can still act!)." ]

[ "This movie was an attempt to go into places most don't and perhaps shouldn't venture into. It was a similar trial at the bizarre, head-case perspective given to us in The Cell, although not near as in-depth and well portrayed. The plot is constructed simply with an initial campy feel to it. Then, as the movie takes its supposed \"dramatic\" turn, the plot falls apart on what few legs it had to stand on in the first place. <br /><br />Basically the idea is that of a kid (Chris McKenna) who needs money. He takes on the role of a hit man, killing a city accountant. Then he doesn't get paid for his work but instead gets tortured for several days because he dreamed up the \"brilliant\" idea of trying to use a backup file he had as leverage for payment. This idiotic move at trying to force them to pay him backfires as he is horribly and endlessly abused. He begins to go crazy (some very disturbing scenes). Then, thinking he has paid for his sins and can start over, he visits the wife (Kari Wuhrer) of the man who he killed and wins her affections. Soon after she discovers who he is, tragedy strikes, and revenge sweeps through the air as the boy goes after his torturers (Daniel Baldwin, George Wendt, Vernon Wells) for their previous \"kindness\".<br /><br />I got to ask though, what is it with Kari Wuhrer and horror/gore type films?<br /><br />It seems everything she has put out lately has been in this genre. Granted, I liked her in \"Eight-Legged Freaks\" and she was okay in \"Anaconda\". But despite all her obvious cuteness and allure (wow, she's hot!), she can act much better and chose better roles. Or maybe, I'm wrong and that is just a misconception. For all you guys out there, you get to see the \"fully monty\" of her in this film, although it's rather bizarre and short-lived. I almost felt like she did some soft-porn after watching this film (something not foreign to Kari's career). The sex-simulation is such that it has to make you wonder what things really go on during filming. <br /><br />Anyway, I will say there is some good acting. Just don't expect much of it from Daniel Balwin, whose career seems forever destined to second his brother Alex's. The film did bring out a few old greats though, George Wendt (Norm from Cheers) and Vernon Wells (Commando, Weird Science). Above all, Chris McKenna does the best job in playing the main character, Sean Crawley. His little acting experience and yet his believable nature as a naive youth, bring some elements of substance to the film. <br /><br />I wouldn't go out of my way for this one. If you're bored and are tired of the same old episodes of \"The Hitchhiker\", then I might advise watching this.<br /><br />And Kari, please start acting in some better films!" ]

[ "I can appreciate what Barney is trying to achieve, but after sitting through this last night at a college movie house, I couldn't help but think...when is this gonna end? A very long and ponderous two hours and fifteen minutes. I had only seen a part of Cremaster 3 on DVD and thought I knew what to expect. That said, experimental films such as this are better digested in small increments. There are a couple of beautiful/horrible images...including the title sequence (no kidding), but if you go into this expecting any kind of plot or meaning, then you are in for a long, snooze-inducing ride. I managed to stay awake for the whole thing (if that's a compliment) but more often than not, I was waiting for some kind of meaning or narrative...big mistake. Among the collection of images are a very ornate gift-wrapping ceremony, the creation of a disgusting dish of what appears to be petroleum jelly slabs formed with a cookie cutter and sprinkled with shrimp (this is served to the crew of the ship which is shown throughout the film), a large blubber cheesecake with a large tentacle turd placed in the center of it, and the mutual evisceration of Bjork and director Matthew Barney which eventually culminates in some bizarre kind of communion, followed by their transformation into whale-like creatures. The soundtrack is at times beautiful and annoying...sometimes even maddening. At one time, there is a song being sung by Bjork to go along with the ephemeral rituals being played before us, and at other times there is just a constant droning of a high-pitched instrument, which we see a mysterious woman playing at the beginning and end of the movie. If this sounds like it doesn't make sense, that is because is DOESN'T! If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you will absolutely LOVE it! If this sounds like something that you probably won't like, then stay far away from it, because you will most likely walk out of the theater during the halfway mark like several people at the screening I attended. This is the very definition of an art film. You get from it what you take from it. But otherwise, there really isn't much there, other than a few oddities and constant construction and deconstruction rituals. I'm glad that there is a place for films such as this, but I can't say I would want to sit through it again. However, I can't say I wouldn't want to see one of Barney Cremaster films from start to finish and compare it with this. I think, perhaps now that I know what to expect I might enjoy something like this more. To give you an idea of what kind of comprehension factor this film has, I probably would've liked it better if I had gotten stoned. Then again, it could've felt twice as long as it was, and then it would've REALLY gotten ponderous. Definitely not for everyone." ]

[ "I will say that at least the movie makes sense, but it's bad. The acting for the most part is not good (I think only Sky showed any promise) and you feel awkward watching it. All of the scenes that should be meaningful are really shallow, like when Ng comes out to her parents. There are a lot of corny details, like the kanji tattoo on the Sky's shoulder, the magnets on the girls' refrigerator and the god awful decor at the sets...and the music...and clothes..and everything. Real life has never been like this movie. The boy says at one point \"I'm gay, not corny.\" And not aware. Even the commentary is awful, I turned it off after Ng talks about how she was weirded out playing a lesbian." ]

[ "Lisa Baumer (Ida Galli) is the adulteress wife of a big businessman who inherits $1million life insurance when her husband is killed in a plane crash while on a business trip….initially she is suspected of being responsible as her husbands will had recently been changed and so she has an insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton)and an Interpol agent on her tail just to be sure. Baumer travels to Athens, Greece to cash in her inheritance, but insists on having it in cash...a dangerous turn of events. Lynch who's identity is now known to Baumer tries to protect her against a lover of her husband Lara Florakis who nevertheless along with her henchman Sharif tries to kill them both for a share of the money that she deems she is entitled to. And this is where our Masked killer starts his/her brutal killings. Lynch as is customary with our hero is at first suspected by the Greek Police and is warned not to leave Athens by Police Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli a familiar face in Giallo and Spaghettis). Lynch is then aided by the gorgeous Cléo Dupont (Anita Strindberg) a local journalist who helps him investigate the killings.To say any more could ruin the film for anyone who has not seen it, so suffice to say there are enough red herrings and most of them plausible to keep Mystery/Thriller fans happy in this story driven Giallo.The No Shame DVD has a superb transfer with both English and Italian soundtrack. It also has a very catchy score just for good measure by Bruno Nicolai that will stay in your head for a while....all in all a first rate Giallo." ]

[ "Larry Burrows has the distinct feeling he's missing out on something. Ever since he missed a crucial baseball shot at school that cost the championship, he's been convinced his life would have turned out better had he made that shot. Then one night his car breaks down again. Walking into the nearest bar to wait for the tow truck, Larry happens upon barman Mike, who unbeknown to Larry is about to change his life for ever.......<br /><br />The alternate life premise in cinema is hardly a new thing, stretching back to the likes of It's A Wonderful Life and showing no signs of abating with the quite recent Sandler vehicle that was Click. It's a genre that has produced very mixed results. Back in 1990 was this James Belushi led production, rarely mentioned when the said topic arises, it appears that it has largely been forgotten. Which is a shame since it oozes charm and is not short in the humour department. We know that we are being led to its ultimate message come the end, but it's a fun and enjoyable path to be led down. The film also serves notice to what a fine comedy actor James Belushi was. I mean if his style of smart quipping and larking exasperation isn't your thing,? then chances are you would avoid this film anyway. But for those engaged by the likes of Red Heat, K-9 and Taking Care of Business, well Mr. Destiny is right up your street. Along for the ride are Linda Hamilton, Michael Caine, Jon Lovitz, Hart Bochner, Jay O. Sanders, Rene Russo and Courteney Cox.<br /><br />Mr. Destiny, pure escapist fun with a kicker of a message at its heart. 7/10" ]

[ "I think you would have to be from the USA to get a lot of the jokes. But if you liked Princess Bride and Forest Gump, You would like this movie. You can't compare the quality of the filming to those of course, but having the cameraman trip was obviously done on purpose. Killer Tomatoes is a hundred times better than Nepolean Dynamite. Just my opinion. I'm sure that people from France would not appreciate the caricatures of the French. So this film isn't for a world audience. And while I am not a trained film critic, I know what I like. I couldn't stop laughing through the whole movie. My sides and my jaws were hurting at the end of the movie." ]

[ "Page 3 is a great movie. The story is so refreshing and interesting. Not once throughout the movie did i find myself staring off into space. Konkana Sen did a good job in the movie, although i think someone with more glamour or enthusiasm would have been better, but she did do a great job. All the supporting actors were also very good and helped the movie along. Boman Irani did a great job. There is one thing that stands out in this movie THE STORY it is great, and very realistic, it doesn't beat around the bush it is very straight forward in sending out its message. I think more movie like this should be made, i am sick of watching the same candy floss movies over and over, they are getting hard to digest now. Everyone should watch Page 3, it is a great film. -Just my 2 cents :)" ]

[ "and this movie has crossed it. I have never seen such a terrible movie in my life! I mean, a kid's head getting cut off from the force of an empty sled? A snowman with a costume that has the seams clearly visible? This was a pitiful excuse for a movie." ]

[ "The London Underground has something inherently creepy about it, with its long winding tunnels, the escalators taking you deeper and deeper underground, and of course the rats roaming the tracks.It a source of wonder that it is not used in horror films more often. It was used in the seventies horror Deathline aka Raw Meat, featuring a cannibalistic tribe living in a disused tunnel, and the celebrated chase sequence in American Werewolf in London. So I was pleased to see that someone else had tried to capitalise on the atmosphere of the tube at night with the recent UK production Creep.<br /><br />I thought the film started off well, with a highly effective credit sequence that was genuinely unnerving, followed by a scene in the sewers that sets up the premise of there being something evil lurking below the streets of London. However, Creep went downhill from here, and I found myself wishing that I'd switched it off after this opening scene, leaving me with a favourable impression of the film. All the characters become unsympathetic and unlikable, even Potente herself, and the director felt the need to hit us over the head with social commentary about homelessness. he also made the mistake of showing the \"monster\" in full lighting, where he ceases to become remotely scary, and reveals his name to be Craig. How can you have a monster called Craig? It turns into an X Files-type thing, and reminds one of the episode Tombs. In fact, I was wishing Mulder and Scully would turn up and sort them all out for me.<br /><br />As for the infamous sexualised violence, it is very graphic, disturbing and totally unnecessary. It seems to be there merely to shock the audience rather than for any intrinsic plot value. The trouble is it is so over the top and horrific that it actually numbs you to the rest of the horror, which is a mistake as it's only halfway through the film.<br /><br />So there you go. The only redeeming feature of the film for me was a rare appearance from Ken Campbell, one of my favourite occasional actors. You don't see him very often, but when he's on screen he acts everyone else into a corner. Casting him as a sewer inspector was a stroke of genius, unfortunately the only one evident in the film." ]

[ "I absolutely love all of Tom Robbins books, so I was very excited and interested to see a movie made after one of his books. I knew that there would be no way that the movie would capture even half of Robbins' magic, but after seeing the movie, it made me never want to read the book again. The movie Even Cowgirls Get the Blues doesn't include an eighth of the content in the book, and it seems to focus more on the love connection between Bonanza Jellybean and Sissy than anything else. Along with the incredibly weak plot line in the movie, I think that better actors definitely could have been chosen to play the characters. The only actors in the movie that I thought played their roles fit to Robbins' descriptions in the book were Julian's friends, in their five minute clip in the beginning of the movie. Those who haven't read the book might enjoy the movie, but as a huge Tom Robbins fan, this movie was nothing but a disappointment." ]

[ "For a film that got little publicity, and few people have heard about, this was pretty good. It's another one of these modern-day British crime films that are quirky (\"Snatch,\" \"Sexy Beast,\" etc.). It's not wild like \"Snatch\" but it's interesting and it has some rough characters.<br /><br />It also has a corny and somewhat predictable ending but early in the show - not late - has some neat twists to make it very interesting for the first-time viewer. Basically, it's about a low-key British male who sends away for a Russian \"mail order bride\" who winds up, with the aid of two Russian male friends, providing a couple of big surprises.<br /><br />Ben Chapin and Nicole Kidman co-star, and are very good as are Vincent Cassel and Matthieu Kassovitz as Kidman's Russian cohorts. This is a different kind of film and well-acted. Kidman once again proves she's far more than just a beautiful face." ]

[ "This movie had a IMDB rating of 8.1 so I expected much more from it. It starts out funny and endearing with an energy that feels spontaneous. But before the movie is half-way through, it begins to drag and everything becomes sickingly predictable. The characters in the office were delightful in the first third of the movie, but we get to know them a little too well; they become caricatures, not real people at all. This is the same story I've seen hundreds of times, only told here with slightly different circumstances. The thing is, I could stomach another predictable love story if only the dialog weren't so stale!<br /><br />The only thing that could be worse is if the characters had inconsistent and unbelievable motivations, and unfortunately that was also the case with Dead Letter Office. Hopefully this movie will end up in the Dead Movie Office soon." ]

[ "If you have beloved actors, Peter Falk, Rip Torn, George Segal, and Bill Cobbs, you don't need Billy Burke, Coolio, or any other distractions. Massive talent is totally wasted in \"Three Days to Vegas\", with the blame falling squarely on the script. My neighbor's vacation films are about as interesting as this misguided road movie. If you want to see how to utilize a veteran cast with a good script, check out \"The Crew\". There really are no redeeming factors here, and watching these wonderful actors struggling with such weak material is a crime. I wanted to like it, but the shallow script cheats the audience, by essentially giving the actors nothing to work with. - MERK" ]

[ "I am at a distinct disadvantage here. I have not seen the first two movies in this series, although I have seen a lot of Larry Cohen films. Fans of the series seem to think this is a good film. Judging it on it's own, it was pretty boring.<br /><br />You never get a real good look at the maniac cop's (Robert Z'Dar) face, but what I did see was pretty grim. The death scenes seem to be staged to eat up the most film, not to give any thrills. Maybe if I saw the NC-17 Director's Cut, I may be more impressed.<br /><br />The ending with the car chase with Z'Dar, Caitlin Dulany, and Robert Davi was pretty intense. best part of the movie." ]

[ "Typical thriller, has been done many times before. Simple plot outline; cop Liotta becomes obsessed with Russell's wife, and he tries to bump off good ol' Kurt so he can have her. This is beyond predictable, it doesn't even try to make you guess, the plot is the plot and there's no thinking outside the box here. I guess then the only reason to watch it is to see how it develops, but nothing is done originally or interestingly. There's not really anything to say about this film, it's not particularly bad, but there's no good points either. Russell plays Russell and you know what you're gonna get when you see him in a film. Ditto Liotta. Stowe has an annoying Cher-esque voice. I read the plot outline and I could see the film in my head, it was so obvious and basic. I watched it and it rolled out in front of my eyes exactly as I had imagined. I felt not a drop of emotion throughout. I have no feeling towards this film, it's as if I never even watched it. Considering this, it's a pretty pointless film isn't it? Still, I'll give it 3/10 for some reason." ]

[ "This movie consists of such great emotion especially with its outstanding soundtrack that coincides with the film. Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors because of his enthusiasm to make films and to entertain. This movie was not the best the first time I watched it, but after about 3 more times I decided that this is one of the best films that I have ever seen. It takes place in New York, and progresses on through his lifestyle. He discovers a delimma in his life with his girlfriend (Diaz). He goes through a state of depression and then an outgoing blend of imagination. This film was beyond my expectations, and is one of Cruise's best films ever!" ]

[ "\"Thieves and Liars\" presents us with a very naturalistic depiction of the levels of corruption that affect many Puerto Ricans and force them to make difficult if not impossible choices about their and their loved ones' lives. The cast is excellent, considering that some are non-professional actors; an excellent choice that augments the level of reality in the film. The photography propels the story without intrusion, as it should be in this type of film. The script captures the idiosyncrasies and attitudes of the \"Boricuas\" in a very deep way. Sometimes it feels like you're watching a documentary! Watching this film you feel as if you've secretly entered the real Puerto Rican society and stand invisibly watching it implode. I loved it!" ]

[ "\"Midnight Cowboy\" was never a great movie to start with but it is a classic. You know it's a classic the moment its insistent theme song, 'Everybody's Talking' starts up on the soundtrack, (actually not written for the film), and the way the camera introduces us to Joe Buck, (naked and in the shower). We had seen Jon Voight before but had never really noticed him but when he tells us he's 'one helluva stud' who's to doubt him? This was a great performance that had iconic star status as well as a complete grasp of the character and if Voight had never done anything else, his performance here would still be legendary. As it is Voight has seldom disappointed on screen; even a piece of ham as well cured as his performance in that glorious rubbish \"Anaconda\" is a source of pleasure).<br /><br />The film became famous and infamous almost overnight. It was a crowd-pleaser, (even with its downbeat ending), funny and sexy and recognizably 'real'; (it was the tail-end of the sixties and all the characters rang true). It was also the first 'X' rated film to win the Oscar as the year's Best Picture. Adapted, (brilliantly), by Waldo Salt from a James Leo Herlihy novel it was probably the first main-stream commercial American movie to deal with 'taboo' subjects such as homosexuality and drug-taking in a matter-of-fact manner. Everyone is recognizably human, warts and all, and everyone is treated sympathetically. Voight's Joe Buck is an innocent abroad, a Candide who comes to New York to seek his fortune as a hustler, (a profession he sees as glamorous and not seedy; he's a cross between a gigolo and a social worker). But when he himself is hustled by a scraggy, wormy little con-man called 'Ratso' Rizzo, (Dustin Hoffman, fresh from \"The Graduate\" and he's a revelation), he realizes that perhaps the reality is a little different from the pipe-dream.<br /><br />Essentially it's a male love story, (though totally platonic), between these two not so unlikely bedfellows. Both totally alone, both totally needy each becomes the protector of the other, (Voight with his physical prowess, Hoffman with his street-wise savvy). They are misfits adrift from the mainstream, tolerant of their own peculiarities and the deviances of others. Though 'straight' Voight isn't beyond a homosexual encounter in a 42nd street cinema with a boy even lonelier than himself. (The whole film posits a strangely 'Christian' attitude).<br /><br />It's also magnificently acted. While Voight and Hoffman hold the screen throughout there are superb vignettes from the likes of Brenda Vaccaro and Sylvia Miles as well as John McGiver, Bob Balaban and Bernard Hughes as sundry customers and hangers-on, beautifully delineated little character studies that seem to transcend acting altogether while John Schlesinger's direction gives the film the feel of a documentary as well as an alien's totally detached eye-view of the American under-belly without rancor and without criticism. On second thoughts, maybe it is a great movie after all." ]

[ "Well then. I just watched an crap-load of movies--all with varying degrees of quality. I wasn't too sure about which one I wanted to review first. Then it hit me like a sack-a-rats: Rodentz. Warn people about Rodentz. This monstrosity stars nobody and is painfully dull to sit through. And it's about mutant rats killing people. Yeah... real freaking' original. \"Food of the Gods,\" or \"Willard\" anyone? Those were better than this, and that doesn't say much...<br /><br />**POSSIBLE SPOILER**Okay here's the story: Inna laboratory the scientist and his plucky assistant are experimenting on rats and their laboratory is in a crappy neighborhood and crappy building and the plucky assistant's moronic friends show up drunk and everyone becomes food for the crazed rats and just about everybody dies and, oh yeah, there's one giant rat that looks crappy, but it gets killed, the end. There, all in once sentence! Spoiler, you say? Ppfff!! I beg to differ! The second we all realize that there's a giant rat, we all know it's gonna die eventually!!**END SPOILER**<br /><br />Here's the breakdown:<br /><br />The Good: <br /><br />--Well, I watched it for free, but for everyone else... hmmm, no. There's nothing good here. <br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help: <br /><br />--Um... well. the gore was decent. --Very average cinematography. <br /><br />--CG rats not as bad as they could've been in some shots...<br /><br />The Bad: <br /><br />--...and in other shots, the CG rats were pathetically cheap-looking. Look, if your film has a low budget, maybe you shouldn't rely on CG. Lesson to take to heart. <br /><br />--The acting is extremely poor.<br /><br />--The characters are beyond uninteresting--we have a mish-mash of clichés and none of them are even done that well. <br /><br />--Booooooooooooring.<br /><br />--Been done before--plenty of times. <br /><br />--Stupid story, just stupid.<br /><br />--Giant rat looks like fat man in poorly conceived bear costume--that was kind of funny--but not funny enough to give this film any worth.<br /><br />--Retarded, unrealistic, and boring dialog. <br /><br />--All the college student rat chow people are drinking Tequila from huge plastic milk jugs--and yet they don't appear to be drunk for anything longer than a few seconds. Way to stick with continuity, guys.<br /><br />The Ugly: <br /><br />--This film is bad. Simply terrible. Worse than you might imagine. It's not even laughably bad like, for instance, \"Scarecrow\" (2002) or \"House of the Dead.\" Now those movies are crap you can enjoy. Even if they do make you stupider.<br /><br />Memorable Scene: <br /><br />--The lame action-movie ending, complete with uninjured heroes and explosion. Because it didn't feel at all like the rest of this monstrosity--but still sucked.<br /><br />Acting: 2/10 Story: 1/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 0/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (I was tending to my son occasionally during the film, so I may have missed it, but was supposedly in there) Violence/Gore: 4/10 Dialogue: 2/10 Music: 1/10 (average for the time) Writing: 1/10 Direction: 2/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 1/10<br /><br />Watch it only if you love rat and vermin-based horror films. Wait... Check that. Don't watch it. It's crap.<br /><br />(www.ResidentHazard.com)" ]

[ "I have walked out of very few movies before they end, but I couldn't finish this piece of garbage. This was the biggest load of racism trying to pass as legitimate film since \"Birth of a Nation\". The characters were little more than cardboard cutouts. I don't see how any actor would want their name associated with this film. Lee must have better things to do that put out garbage like this. I know that I and anyone with a brain have better things to do.... like watching paint dry. I wish that someone would make a film about interracial relationships that dealt with the topic realistically. There is a lot more depth to this subject the shallow ranting of a bitter director like Lee." ]

[ "Time for a rant, eh: I thought Spirit was a great movie to watch. However, there were a few things that stop me from rating it higher than a 6 or 7 (I'm being a little bit generous with the 7).<br /><br />Point #1: Matt Damon aggravates me. I was thinking, 'what a dicky voice they got for the main character,' when I first heard him narrate - and then I realized it is Matt Damon. The man bugs me so very bad - his performance in \"The Departed\" was terrible and ruined the movie for me (before the movie got a chance to ruin itself, but that's another story for some other time), as it almost did \"Spirit\". I was able to get past this fact because of how little narration there actually was... thankfully.<br /><br />Point #2: Brian Adams sucks... The whole score was terrible... The songs were unoriginal, generic, and poorly executed; not once did I find the music to fit; and the lyrics were terrible. Every time one of the lame songs came on, I was turned off. I almost thought I'd start hearing some patriotic propaganda slipped into the super-American freedom style lyrics (I couldn't help but be reminded of those terrible patriotic songs that played on the radio constantly after 9/11). In light of the native American aspects of the film, they should have gone with fitting music using right instruments, not petty radio-hit, teen-bop, 14-year-old-girl crap. I thought I was back in junior high school. I can't believe no better could have been done--I refuse to. Had it not have been for this, I'd rank the film up more with Disney, which knows a thing or two about originality (ok, don't bother saying what I know some of you are probably thinking ;). Too bad, it's a shame they couldn't have hired better musicians.<br /><br />I liked the art and animation, except for some things here and there... like sometimes the angles appear too sharp on the face and the lines too thick or dark on the body (thick/dark lines mainly near the end). There were often times when I thought they _tried too hard_ on the emotion and facial expressions and failed at drawing any real emotion. But there were also times when the emotion ran thick. Anyhow, many scenes were lazy and the layers were apparent.<br /><br />OK, I'm falling asleep here so I'll sum it up before I start making less sense...<br /><br />Nice try on an epic film... it turned out mediocre though. Matt Damon, you suck!" ]

[ "We stumbled upon the documentary, Grey Gardens, last Sunday and got \"sucked in\" without warning. Everyone who entered the room became transfixed on the television and the haunting images of Edith and Edie who seemed to be living out their lives in practically one room of a large filthy mansion on the beach, eating ice cream and corn on the cob (which was cooked on the bedside table)--and the cat urinating on edith's bed and her unbelievable words, \"i thrive on it [the smell].\" We had not seen the beginning and wondered what we were watching and how these aristocratic women managed to get in the position they were in. Spellbinding! a must see!!!!" ]

[ "A must see for anyone who loves photography. stunning and breathtaking,leaves you in ore. seen it twice once in a cinema and now on DVD. it holds up well on DVD but on the big screen this was something else.<br /><br />Took my two daughters to see this and they loved it, my oldest cried at the end.but she was the one who wanted to see it again tonight when she saw it at the video shop. its simple telling of a child's love for nature and in particular a fox is told well. in some ways it reminded me of the bear in its telling a story not documentary formate. which works for children very well. not being preached to is very important, you make your own mind up.<br /><br />But the star of this film is the cinematographers, how did they do what they did. amazing just amazing." ]

[ "All this talk about this being a bad movie is nonsense. As a matter of fact this is the best movie I've ever seen. It's an excellent story and the actors in the movie are some of the best. I would not give criticism to any of the actors. That movie is the best and it will always stay that way." ]

[ "This TV film tells the story of extrovert Frannie suddenly returning to Silk Hope to visit friends and family, but unaware of her mother's death. Her sister runs the family home, but is intending to sell it and move away with her new husband. Frannie strongly objects to the idea, and vows to keep the family heirloom as it were, by getting a job and maintaining responsibility.<br /><br />In comes handsome Ruben and the two soon fall in love (as you do), and it's from this point that I sort of lost interest....<br /><br />There is more to Farrah Fawcett than just the blonde hair and looks, she can portray a character extremely convincingly when she puts her mind to it - and it is certainly proved here as well as some of her previous efforts like Extremities and Small Sacrificies - a great performance from the legendary Charlie's Angel.<br /><br />Silk Hope is the type of film that never shies away from its cheap and cheerful TV image, and you know there was a limit to the budget, but it's not the worst film ever made. The positive aspects are there; you just have to find them." ]

[ "I'm not sure quite why I clicked \"contains spoiler\", because quite honestly there is not enough explanation ever given in the movie to know enough of what is supposed to be going on to spoil it.<br /><br />Visually it mostly delivers. Well, apart from some 80's throwback rubber-mask monsters. I'll say now that before watching this I had never seen the band Lordi, nor knew anything about them bar that they won Eurovision. Apparently the monsters in this are members of the band, pretty much in their stage personas. Whatever. Anyway, I didn't know this while watching. I just thought the monsters/demons were mostly passable. Just about.<br /><br />I'm almost sure there is a semi-coherent explanation behind what we see on-screen, but it may actually be better not to know it. It probably would actually have been incredibly lame come to think on it. The action keeps it rolling along pretty much well enough to keep the viewer mostly entertained, even if half the entertainment factor is joking about wtf is supposed to be happening in this movie exactly.<br /><br />I gave it a four mainly because I got a good laugh out of it, especially out of how it explains pretty much nothing. Must have been the mood I was in, but I found that hella funny for some reason. Then I look up the movie on the internet and find out that NOBODY knows what the hell it's supposed to be about. That amused me further, and raised my score an extra half point to a 4/10.<br /><br />It's not scary, or particularly coherent, but it's pretty nice visually and sonically. Overall, far from essential, but watchable. Don't expect too much and don't expect it to make any sense and it might entertain you if you are in the right mood." ]

[ "There is no greater disservice to do to history than to misrepresent it. This takes the easiest and most shallow route, simply portraying him as a monster. Only showing his negative sides, and exaggerating them. \"Those who are ignorant of the past doom us to repeat it\". He was a human being. That may prove tough to some people to accept, but an important part of life is facing that which we don't want to. Rather than demonizing the man, we ought to try to understand him. Otherwise, we stand little chance of preventing anyone similar in the future, or possibly even the present, from succeeding at anything of remotely comparable scope, as far as damage and misery goes. Hate him and what he did, don't make him into something mythical, intentionally or otherwise. Frankly, far too much of this mini-series could play \"dumb dumb *duuum*!\" after or during scenes. The whole thing nods, nudges and winks at the audience, with a clear message of \"was this guy evil or what\", incorporating every single bad trait(as well as making up several that go directly against who and what he was), letting them appear more or less out of nowhere, and having them be constant throughout his life, not something he came to believe or claimed to. This should never be used to educate. Use Der Untergang(Downfall, in English), and maybe point out the few inaccuracies of that, instead. This, this is disrespectful to the actual events that took place, and to any and all survivors, not to mention those who died. The cinematic quality? Top-notch. It's well-done, through and through, excellent production values, a solid arc to the well-told plot, what characterization does occur is strong and credible, dialog and script are great, all acting performances are masterful(Carlyle looks and behaves the role... as it was written... perfectly), the music is well-composed, cinematography and editing are flawless and creative, and this is definitely dramatic, entertaining and riveting. They get dates and many occurrences, and do them justice. If I had been offered to work on this, and did not feel I could be objective enough to have Hitler appear as a fully fleshed-out person, I would have declined, citing that as the reason. I don't blame anyone for loathing him. How can you forgive what he did, and are we sure that we should? That is not what I am suggesting. Finally, let me point out that, as I write this, we are in a world-wide economic crisis that has lasted for about two years, and that is not terribly dissimilar to the stock market crash of 1929. The two reasons it hasn't led to a depression of the new millennium are as follows: governments are giving money to the banks to keep the market going, and the majority of the countries is now friendly towards one another. Apart from that, the lesson hadn't been learned. Hopefully, it has now. Back to this... my suggestion? Read a book, non-fiction, dealing with the subject. There are plenty of informative, smart ones. The DVD holds a trailer. I recommend this only to those who know better, and vehemently urge anyone who has watched it, to seek out the truth. 8/10" ]

[ "I have always been somewhat underwhelmed by Joe Dante's original THE HOWLING (1981) – so I wasn't particularly interested in checking out any of its sequels; some time ago, I did catch HOWLING III: THE MARSUPIALS (1987) – by the same director as this one – and found it to be watchable but nothing special.<br /><br />The second instalment, however, has quite a bad rep and I knew I'd have a good time watching it – if mainly to wallow in the sight of dear but pompous horror icon Christopher Lee squirming in the midst of it all (the gracefully-aged star has pathetically asserted a number of times in interviews that he hasn't appeared in horror-oriented fare since his last picture for Hammer Films back in 1976!). Anyway, this film should have borne the subtitle \"Your Movie Is A Turd\" – being astoundingly inept in all departments (beginning with the all-important werewolf make-up)! <br /><br />The plot (and dialogue) is not only terrible, but it has the limpest connection with Dante's film – strangely enough, the author of the original novel Gary Brandner co-wrote this himself! Still, one of the undeniable highlights (er...low points) of the film is the pointless elliptical editing – which tries to give the whole a semblance of style, but only serves to accentuate its embarrassment factor! Similarly phoney (and grating) are the hokey transitions between scenes, the inane punk-rock theme song, and the cheapjack special-effects at the climax! <br /><br />What about the characters, then?: Lee is the werewolf expert, naturally, whom everybody thinks a crackpot – until they come into contact with the monsters, that is; at the very least, though, one has to admire the makers' ingenuity (or gall) in devising a stupid subtitle with a dual meaning! Incidentally, Sybil Danning (as Stirba, Werewolf Bitch – the subtitle by which this is known in the U.K.!) is quite fetching in an assortment of outrageous S&M outfits...but her character is virtually given nothing to do (except preside over her brood of followers and engage in the occasional hilarious three-way lycanthrope sex!); her two snarling lieutenants (one of them a sluttish black girl) are especially irritating.<br /><br />Aiding Lee on the side of good are the two yuppie heroes (he being the brother of the Dee Wallace character from the first film and she a colleague of hers) and a ragged guerrilla-type band of Transylvians (still, they generally manage to effortlessly overcome Danning's rather dumb werewolves!). Notable among them is a knife-throwing dwarf who gets a particularly nasty (but, at the same time, side-splitting) demise; he's later revived, under Stirba's control, in order to lure Lee (by making childish taunts at him all through the village streets) into a trap. The latter scene has to be a career nadir for the distinguished and imposing actor – well, either this or the early sequence in a discotheque where Lee is made to don a pair of ultra-cool sunglasses so as to appear inconspicuous among the partying youngsters!<br /><br />In the end, if I were forced to mention elements in this which weren't entirely displeasing, I guess I could say that the ossuary set (in which the heroine is to be sacrificed) is interesting, or that the hybrid werewolf/bat creature (Danning's pet who likes to 'inhabit' the body of its victims) is just too weird to be despised..." ]

[ "Trapped: buried alive brings us to a resort that has just opened, and is soon to close.<br /><br />We start with a guy in gear blowing up drifts, to avoid the possibility of avalanches. somehow, that doesn't make sense. anyways, he's about to blow away one particularly big one, when he notices the resort is open. despite his best efforts, higher authority tells him his day is over.<br /><br />soon, as everyone expects, an avalanche hits.<br /><br />Look, i'm not gonna reveal any more, all i can say is this was a B-movie designed for the family channel (which i just saw it on, and the fact it had no commercials proves it's a B-movie) anyways, it's a pretty decent film, but it's partially unreal.<br /><br />firsthand, when people are buried by ice and snow, they're buried. not just traced by powder. or, what about a CD for a screwdriver? it's not possible. and finally, what i can't stress enough, is that an explosion cannot stop a avalanche, guaranteed.<br /><br />furthermore, it's worth a rental or a TV viewing, but not owning. 7/10.<br /><br />The movie is rated PG, but maybe it should have received something a little more strong. a boy nearly loses his foot in an elevator, but his leg is cut around the ankle, a guy is toasted by electricity and diesel, and in the weight room, dead people are laying around.<br /><br />enjoy." ]

[ "If there was some weird inversed Oscar Academy awards festival this flick would win it all. It has all the gods, excellent plot, extreme special effects coupled with extremely good acting skills and of course in every role there is a celebrity superstar. Well, this could be the scenario if the world was inversed, but it's not. Instead it's the worst horror flick ever made, not only bad actors that seem to read the scripts from a teleprinter with bad dyslexia, but also extremely low on special effects. For example the devil costume (which by the way is a must-see), is something of the most hilarious I've ever seen. Whenever I saw that red-black so called monster on screen I couldn't hold my laugh back. And to top of things it looked like the funny creature was transported by a conveyor-belt.<br /><br />Do not do the same mistake as I did. Checking IMDB seeing that the movie was released in 2003, had less than five votes and thinking: -\"Well, it's worth a shot, can't be that bad\".<br /><br />Yes it could.<br /><br />I'm not even going to waste more words on this movie." ]

[ "an very good storyline, good thrill to it ... but the 10 last seconds destroyed the whole movie... what happened? extremely well made and an good story destroyed in the last seconds... sorry to say but a 1 in vote... thats what it it deserve, i would think that Chris Shadley could come up with a better end... but maybe next time : ) all this meaningless blood gore for nothing? the end would lift the story to close to a 10, but it didn't.... the end destroyed the whole story, i think most people aren't lame and when they goes a movie thy want a good end, even if it is intricate ... but the only lame here is the end... sorry" ]

[ "This is the worst show. Buntch of grown up acting like kids no humor nothing. Even Sesame Street has better humor and more adult than friends \"Friends\" may be the worst thing I've ever seen on television and I've been sitting in front of the tube observing Friends\" simply does not stack up well to other, contemporary series. It lacks the smartness of \"Seinfeld\" and the wonderful self-ridicule of pomposity that is the hallmark of \"Frasier\". The characters in \"Friends\" seem designed to make them repellant dullards. This incestuous group of neighbors makes my flesh crawl.<br /><br />The unintelligent show is completely without an edge of any sort. The characters are caricatures of caricatures and the writing is sophomoric -- though intentionally so. (It might be interesting to observe a writing session since the writers may have to slave to aim lower than their capabilities so as not to confuse the loyal friends of \"Friends\".)" ]

[ "I have just finished watching this film and I can honestly say that this is a work of art. I was very surprised to see the overall rating as 5.2.<br /><br />Not only does Guy bring together a b list(ish) movie cast and make them into such glorious characters, he has given us a movie with a fantastically diverse story line with much left to the imagination.<br /><br />Far too many people are wanting movies with a plot that can be understood and handed to them on a plate...yet these are the films that get poor reviews because they are far too predictable.<br /><br />This film is special. Get it, now!" ]

[ "This is a typical example of technically highly skilled directors of video clips/commercials trying to do their first full feature length movie. On one hand the imagery, camera, lighting, CGI and even the sound are highly polished and have a truly \"expensive\" look and feel. Even the actors show a certain amount of potential - unto the point where even the best acting could not hide a bad plot.<br /><br />In this case it is not a bad plot but hardly a plot at all.<br /><br />So 50% of the dialog consists of \"What the hell was that ?\", \"What was that ?\" and \"What the hell was that ?\". In none of the cases any of the characters nor the audience is provided with the slightest hint of an answer though. In most of the other dialogues one gets the feeling that there never was any form of dialogue book and the actors had to freely improvise to a plot that wasn't ever explained to them.<br /><br />The only reason why Skye Bennet's performance could be so good is that her character as an autistic girl didn't allow giving her these tragically horrible dialogue lines the other actors had to deal with. That way she was able to just show her acting talent which the rest of the cast couldn't even get close to. I mean there's not one actor in the world that could make up for a dialogue like this:<br /><br />Ben: Is this real, huh ? Emily: Stop it. Ben: A mass psychosis, huh ? Jon: Somebody has to take control of this situation. Ben: This situation can't be controlled. Not by you, not by anybody. Emily: Not by you either. Ben: No<br /><br />Got me goosebumps. But not for horror, more for the horrible attempt. In some moments I felt ashamed for the actors to have added this to their vita.<br /><br />2 stars for the excellent technical work." ]

[ "This is an abysmal piece of story-telling. It is about an hour into the movie before we have much idea of what it is supposed to be about; the characters often mumble inaudibly; actions frequently seem to have no relation to each other; nobody seems to be concerned about who actually murdered the girl; a pair of spooky kids go swimming in waters that seem threatening but nothing happens; the Irishman gets punched in the face by one of his buddies for no apparent reason ... to continue would be as boring as the movie itself. The only half-entertaining element is the landscape photography; but anyone could point a camera at the Australian outback a get memorable shots. Overall - dreary, incoherent, pretentious - and downright annoying for wasting so much of the viewer's time." ]

[ "Soldier may not have academy acting or Lucas special effects but it definitely does it for me. I won't tell you what its about, I'm sure you already read the summary. This is a great doomed futureistic action/science fiction movie. Kurt Russell doesn't say much, he usually has an eerie or drone look on his face but it fits the character. There are great action and fight scenes; some of the scenes are unrealistic, but thats Hollywood make believe land that we should have to escape our normal lives. I have not seen Soldier 2 but this one it one of my favorites. I'm lucky enough to have a wife that digs on guy movies; we both love this movie and recommend it to anyone who likes tough guy/sci-fi movies." ]

[ "The most bizarre of the cinematic sub-genres is the so called \"The Great Ladies of the Grand Guignol\": camp horror films which combined over-the-top melodrama with gothic thrills and always starred by seasoned and almost forgotten actress from hollywood golden age in unflattering roles of either long suffering victims or screeching evil harpies. This genre provided them with an unusual acting showcase that allowed strut their stuff on the screen once again and win new generations of fans at expense of their glamorous images from yesterday.<br /><br />\"What's the matter with Helen\" is the last drop of this sub-genre with stunning performances of both Debbie Reynolds and Shelley Winters as the troubled mothers of two convicted criminals who run away from their past to the sunny California in the 1930s to open a talent school to milk out the eagerly mothers who want their daughters to be the next Shirley Temple. In California, Debbie gets happiness, clients, tango, tap dancing and a new love interest (Dennis Weaver meanwhile Shelley gets wacko with horrible flashbacks, menacing anonymous calls, menacing strangers, menacing Agnes Moorehead as a radio evangelist, cute little rabbits (!) and an unfortunate encounter with an electric fan (ouch!).<br /><br />The sloppy script (penned by Henry Farrell, the man who started all this genre with \"Whatever Happened to Baby Jane\" along with master director Robert Aldrich, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis) is full of plot holes, red herrings and wasted opportunities that could had made this movie great: the underlying themes of twisted motherhood (with Debbie and Shelley's characters as \"failed mothers\" and the overbearing mommies of the child stars) and obsessive female bonding (Debbie and Shelley relationship and the fact that the few male characters of this movie are either sinister or sleazy even Dennis Weaver dream boat Texan) are wasted. Instead we get Debbie Reynolds musicals interludes and dancing tots, although fun to watch take too much screen time of what is supposedly to be a psychological chiller. But still this movie is highly entertaining. The two stars and Curtis Harrington stylish direction easily overcomes its flaws. The movie recreation of the 1930's is colorful and elegant (look at Debbie's clothes!) made with a very tight budget. The increasing atmosphere of madness and hysteria is genuinely creepy with a shocking finale that will haunt you for days. And you wouldn't easily forget that silly \"Goody, goody\" song that runs through the movie either. And seeing an increasingly mad Shelley Winters screw every one of Debbie Reynolds' chances at happiness is a hoot to watch!<br /><br />8 out of 10." ]

[ "Another cult strikes again. This isn't a spoiler, because the REAL ending comes after you research the folks who brought this overly-long, pseudo-scientific infomercial...Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.<br /><br />When any religion/philosophy needs to hide behind an OZ-like screen of deceit, I walk away. Thank Ramtha I watched a borrowed copy of this movie on the recommendation of a \"friend\"...to have wasted precious resources on this New-Age lobotomizer would have been tragic. I can only hope that they \"truly believe they can walk on water\" enough to take that guidance to it's \"logical\" conclusion...in other words; walk, drown...or shut up :-) As a movie...it deserves a strong \"1\" on it's entertainment value, especially for creating the most dislikable character in film history (the photographer's roommate...eeeeeek!). If you must see this film, borrow it from one of the brainwashed folks who recommended it." ]

[ "I first see this film almost 21 years ago when it was an ITV (before the days of cable and satellite) Matinée. i was off School with the Mumps and i was totally wrapped in the film. i have had it on bought video for about 10 years and i want to obtain a DVD copy of it. David Niven is my all time favourite actor and i think it is a travesty that he was over looked so many times when the Oscars came around. i also think that the queen should have knighted him as he easily did as much for the movie industry if not more than Sean Connery or Anthony Hopkins. the way the film switches from black and white to colour and back again is well done and the film has such stellar actors as Roger Livesy, Marius Goring and an early appearance from Richard Attenborough." ]

[ "i know technically this isn't the greatest TV show ever,i mean it was shot on video and its limitations show in both the audio and visual aspect of it.the acting can at time be also a little crumby.but,i love this show so much.it scared the hell out of me when it first aired in 1988.of course it would i was 5 years old.but i recently purchased the DVD of the first 3 episodes,which unfortunately i hear is now deleted.and i also heard warner's aren't going to release any more due to the first DVD's bad sales.also the TV show didn't have the same feel as the movies,in fact i thought it had a more sinister tone.even though the colour palette is similar to nightmare on elm street 4(both that film and the TV show were made the same year),this has more of a serious tone whereas the fims were progressively getting more and more sardonic and jokey.not a bad thing,i like freddy as the clown wise cracker.but i think that was the strenght of this TV show,you didn't have freddy popping up every minutes cracking a joke before and after he kills somebody.in fact this has more of a dream feel to it,reinforced by the soft focus of the lense.im not sure if its deliberate on the part of the shows creators or just to the limitations of being shot on video. i love this show,and taken not as a companion piece to the movies can be very enjoyable.much better than anything on TV today." ]

[ "TYSON <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />Reverent - though scrupulously fair - account of the life and times of champion boxer Mike Tyson. Given his conviction on a rape charge, the film is careful not to portray him as hero or villain, but paints a warts-and-all portrait of his rise to fame, the pressures of success, and the people who shaped his destiny for good or bad. Constrained by time limits, the script gallops through a succession of relevant details, alighting briefly on significant events, culminating with Tyson's (temporary) downfall in 1995. Novices will be enlightened by the chronology, while boxing fans will be entertained by director Uli Edel's straight-arrow approach to the material. He portrays Tyson's life as a circus in which he was ultimately led astray by the circumstances of his own success. In fact, the script reserves most of its venom for Tyson's ex-wife Robin Givens, characterising her as an ungrateful gold-digger who took advantage of his naivety. Production values are uniformly solid and the cast is superb: Michael Jai White does a fair imitation of the title character; George C. Scott plays Tyson's mentor Cus D'Amato through acres of gritted teeth; and Paul Winfield was surely born to play Don King!" ]

[ "CONTAINS SPOILER With the possible exception of John Wayne, no other actor sat taller in the saddle in Westerns than James Stewart, and this movie proves it. This superb tale of revenge centered around a Winchester rifle,has only one weak spot I can think of: the casting of Will Geer as a very unEarp-like Wyatt Earp. The casting of the villains was good:Stephen McNally, as surly Dutch Henry,Dan Duryea as Waco Johnny Dean, and John McIntire(versatile at playing both good guys and bad guys) as a slick gun runner. The showdown between Stewart and McNally on the cliffs is great! I'd stack this Western against the whole crop of Westerns made today. They wouldn't stand a chance!" ]

[ "This installment of Masters of Horror was terrible. Apparently, Mr. Carpenter needs to learn a thing or two about pacing and decent, plausible dialog. There were times when I literally shouted at the TV for something to happen. Maybe he thinks he building suspense, but Carpenter needs to trim back that overdone, over-simplified musical score of his (or his son's) and advance the action a little bit. How many times did the girl say, \"Oh no, I can't have this baby!\" and \"Oh, no here it comes\"? Carpenter takes elements from much, much better films (Assault on Precinct 13 and The Thing) and throws them in here as if we are supposed to acknowledge and appreciate his trademark style. What is lacking here is genuine suspense and energy. It's as though he's sleepwalking through the process of movie making. <br /><br />For better Carpenter films, stick to the tried and true classics-- The Thing, Halloween, and They Live. For better masters of horror episodes, check out my personal favorites: Family, Jenifer, and Dreams in the Witch House." ]

[ "A milestone in Eastern European film making and an outstanding example of Serbian mentality. A group of completely different people are doomed to die because of their discord. With \"Maratonci trce pocasni krug\" makes two mythological movies everyone here knows word by word." ]

[ "When I heard that the Dukes of Hazzard was going to be remade with current actors and a solid script, I was like, \"alright, I'll give it a chance, it's not going to be better than the first, but we'll see what happens.\" Well, I saw what happened. I saw a great late 70's/80's show that was a classic, basically humiliated by Hollywood. It's so sad to see that Hollywood scriptwriters cannot come up with something original these days. They are seeming to take a great show that had a great target audience, and try to \"REMAKE\" the classic show. HEADS UP Hollywood... IT AIN'T WORKIN!!!! Anyway, more about the show. I think they could have casted a better actor than Sean William Scott (Stiffler from American Pie) to play Bo. I'm sure that John Schneider is definitely disappointed with how his character was portrayed and taken advantage of. Also, Get for real, Johnny Knoxville, as Luke Duke. How low can you go?? A crappy jackass actor to play lovable Luke. This sickens me. Also, I'll give Jessica Simpson is a beautiful woman, but her acting sucks. Catherine Bach who played the original Daisy, was smart, sexy, strong, opinionated and a good IL' southern girl. She was every little girls role model growing up! (I owned the doll and the Jeep - thank you very much!!!) Anyway, Jessica Simpson played a smart ass, 2-bit slut as Daisy Duke. Daisy never was blonde. Why did they have to cast her. Jessica Alba would have played a great Daisy Duke. She can speak with a great southern accent, and she is gorgeous, and would have done a wonderful job. Anyway, I'd like to say that this movie blew something fierce. I feel like I got ripped off by paying $8.50 for tickets, and they should refund my money. If you like the Dukes of Hazzard (the original series) don't see this movie. It'll just upset you. CMT (country music television) plays the reruns of the Dukes all the time later at night. So set your TIVO's and go with the real thing, not the imitation on the big screen in Hollywood." ]

[ "Its plain to see why the makers of Scary Movie found it so easy to spoof these 'teen slasher' movies. They are so unbelievably formulaic. And if Valentine had been released a year or so earlier, I'm sure they would have been spoofing this film too - that's if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the Screams, I know what you did last summers, and Urban Legends.<br /><br />Valentine offers nothing new to this genre, except a better than usual ending which, of course, leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel. As always, a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women, killing the main character's friends, one by one, in typically over the top style. Lots of T&A on display, no character development, bad acting, and overly elaborate bloodshed.<br /><br />The thing I can't stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as 'who done its?'. The thing is that they aren't because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked, and tells the main character who's friends have now all been murdered. Usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg. main character's mother's uncle's fishing partner kicked his friend's father's dog). Everybody still left alive throughout the film is a 'suspect', but they are more 'Red Herrings' than suspects. As we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed.<br /><br />Valentine followed this formula almost to the letter. ***************SPOILER!!!!!! (mini spoiler anyway)*************** In Valentine the motive was not revealed, but more, left for you to think about given that the film didn't quite conclude in the typical 'teen slash' way. The issue is only part resolved, and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody. Will the killer want more, or were the demons truly vanquished?<br /><br />This still didn't make Valentine a good film, instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual, which still doesn't count for much. To anybody thinking of making another film along these lines, please don't. Originality is so important, and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre." ]

[ "This movie is a Gem because it moves with soft, but firm resolution.<br /><br />I caution viewers that although it is billed as a Corporate Spy thriller and Ms Liu is there, it moves at a deftly purposeful yet sedate pace. It's NOT about explosions, car chases, or flying bullets. You must be patient and instead, note the details here. It's sedate because that's what the Main Character is. The viewer has to WATCH him and Think as this story unfolds.<br /><br />I will not give spoilers-- because that destroys the point of watching. The plot is what you've read from the other postings: an average white-collar guy, seeking change and adventure, signs on for a corporate spy job. Just go somewhere and secretly record and transmit inside data. <br /><br />Take it from there.<br /><br />This movie starts at a surreal walk-- with a background tang of corporate disillusionment that entwines itself with quintessential, underlying suburban paranoia.<br /><br />Then it begins to accelerate.<br /><br />The acting on all parts is superb-- and yes, some of the acts are caricature characters. But they all fit, and they entertain. And the light piano rhyme in the background is just perfect as the soft, soft key sinister theme: All is not right at the beginning.<br /><br />And at the end: All is not what it seems.<br /><br />Get comfortable and turn the lights down to watch this one-- and turn up the sound: This movie wants you to LISTEN." ]

[ "Evil Breed is a very strange slasher flick that is unfortunately no good.The beginning of the film seems promising but overall it's a disaster.The dialogue is pretty bad but not near as bad as the acting.The acting is brutal and unbearable.Most of the characters deliver there lines horribly and even if that is on purpose the method doesn't work because the characters become annoying.Some of the kills are innovative but it took far too long to get to them.After about a half hour through the movie we get the first death (other than in the beginning)and then almost every other character is smoked within the next five minutes.The movie then turned into sort of a spoof with ridiculous looking characters,unrealistic karate like fights,and a scene in which a man gets his intestines pulled out of his a*sscrack.None of it is funny it's just plain ridiculous.The film then becomes ultra gory and ultra pointless.Most of the characters are clichéd even for slasher standards and are as solid as butter left on the counter for 5 days.Evil Breed isn't even laughably bad therefore it fails in it's main task.Watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre,Just Before Dawn,or See No Evil for a real slasher." ]