Datasets:

AlignmentResearch

/

IMDB

like 0

Follow

FAR AI 9

[ "This is not so much film as big budget children's television. As far as I can tell, the villain is a giant swarm of chocolate covered espresso beans. This theory seems to be verified by the fact that the subtitles refer to it as 'Insomnia'. When it's first mentioned that a civilization had been wiped out by insomnia, I thought \"Wow! A nihilistic martial arts film!\" but no such luck. Although you have to consider it experimental cinema when the villain is strangled by an old man's long, white eyebrows. Zu Warriors makes exactly the same amount of sense whether the subtitles are on or off. That's not a good sign. I found the special effects to be somewhere between Ray Harryhausen and Xena: Warrior Princess. Primitive." ]

[ "The part where Meg visits the mechanic and he says - \"Is the piston firing short?\" (implying poor sexual energy on the part of her fiancée) was hilarious. I love Meg Ryan and she is as sweet as ever in this wonderful movie. Very lovable and very intelligent too. Her innocent indignant expressions have you wishing she was yours. The hero handles the garage mechanic to physicist transformation well. Einstein had a romantic side to his psyche? The puzzle round in front of the press and audience was done well. It's awfully underrated and deserves accolades and attempts at a revival. It loses out one vote for including the highly improbable far fetched theory being bought by the US Govt. I don't see why it doesn't figure in the top 20 romantic comedies of the century. Great Movie, it has the presidential seal of approval on it!" ]

[ "Supposedly a \"social commentary\" on racism and prison conditions in the rural South of the 1970's, \"Nightmare\" is full of bad Southern stereotypes, complete with phoney accents. Not only would it be offensive to the sensibilities of most American Southerners, this tawdry piece of work comes off as just a thinly-disguised \"babe in prison\" movie--especially in its uncut original version. Nevertheless, acting is generally above average and the late Chuck Connors, in particular, does a good job of making viewers hate him--even though he looks somewhat uncomfortable in several scenes. There's also a change-of-pace role for the late Robert Reed, who appears as the lecherous warden, and Tina Louise (previously Ginger of \"Gilligan's Island\") made a rather believable sadistic prison guard. My grade: D. <br /><br />" ]

[ "I was very excited about seeing this film, anticipating a visual excursus on the relation of artistic beauty and nature, containing the kinds of wisdom the likes of \"Rivers and Tides.\" However, that's not what I received. Instead, I get a fairly uninspired film about how human industry is bad for nature. Which is clearly a quite unorthodox claim.<br /><br />The photographer seems conflicted about the aesthetic qualities of his images and the supposed \"ethical\" duty he has to the workers occasionally peopling the images, along the periphery. And frankly, the images were not generally that impressive. And according to this \"artist,\" scale is the basis for what makes something beautiful.<br /><br />In all respects, a stupid film. For people who'd like to feel better about their environmental consciousness ... but not for any one who would like to think about the complexities of the issues surrounding it." ]

[ "This movie is not only boring, it is also really badly done. The graphics are so bad, they are not even second rate - they are dreadful. The characters do not show any facial expresssions, the voice acting is empty and without any soul, and the plot absolutely lacks .... well... anything and everything. My 5 year old likes it - but thinks it's a bit boring. I agree with him." ]

[ "This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.<br /><br />The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!" ]

[ "It has been 16 years since it's original run, I would have hoped by now some \"marketing wizard\" would have promoted a live actor version of this classic by now, or at least sought to re-release the original 65 episodes. I can't fathom why the sci-fi or cartoon network haven't snapped this up. Galaxy Rangers actually had well thought out plots, and even better scripts.The animation was above average quality for it's time, and excellent when compared to the talking slide show Japanese animation of today. It predated the heavy toon-toy tie in market, this may have sealed it's doom too. I would willingly spend cash on a DVD of GR if available." ]

[ "Because of all the negative reviews of this film I almost didn't watch it. However, I was pleasantly surprised that it was a fairly enjoyable horror movie. The acting wasn't great - apart from the wonderful Alice Krige - but some of the dialogue (\"Just consider yourself lunch.\") was quite amusing.<br /><br />On the whole an above average Stephen King effort - 7/10." ]

[ "It's a strange feeling to sit alone in a theater occupied by parents and their rollicking kids. I felt like instead of a movie ticket, I should have been given a NAMBLA membership.<br /><br />Based upon Thomas Rockwell's respected Book, How To Eat Fried Worms starts like any children's story: moving to a new town. The new kid, fifth grader Billy Forrester was once popular, but has to start anew. Making friends is never easy, especially when the only prospect is Poindexter Adam. Or Erica, who at 4 1/2 feet, is a giant.<br /><br />Further complicating things is Joe the bully. His freckled face and sleeveless shirts are daunting. He antagonizes kids with the Death Ring: a Crackerjack ring that is rumored to kill you if you're punched with it. But not immediately. No, the death ring unleashes a poison that kills you in the eight grade.<br /><br />Joe and his axis of evil welcome Billy by smuggling a handful of slimy worms into his thermos. Once discovered, Billy plays it cool, swearing that he eats worms all the time. Then he throws them at Joe's face. Ewww! To win them over, Billy reluctantly bets that he can eat 10 worms. Fried, boiled, marinated in hot sauce, squashed and spread on a peanut butter sandwich. Each meal is dubbed an exotic name like the \"Radioactive Slime Delight,\" in which the kids finally live out their dream of microwaving a living organism.<br /><br />If you've ever met me, you'll know that I have an uncontrollably hearty laugh. I felt like a creep erupting at a toddler whining that his \"dilly dick\" hurts. But Fried Worms is wonderfully disgusting. Like a G-rated Farrelly brothers film, it is both vomitous and delightful.<br /><br />Writer/director Bob Dolman is also a savvy storyteller. To raise the stakes the worms must be consumed by 7 pm. In addition Billy holds a dark secret: he has an ultra-sensitive stomach.<br /><br />Dolman also has a keen sense of perspective. With such accuracy, he draws on children's insecurities and tendency to exaggerate mundane dilemmas.<br /><br />If you were to hyperbolize this movie the way kids do their quandaries, you will see that it is essentially about war. Freedom-fighter and freedom-hater use pubescent boys as pawns in proxy wars, only to learn a valuable lesson in unity. International leaders can learn a thing or two about global peacekeeping from Fried Worms.<br /><br />At the end of the film, I was comforted when two chaperoning mothers behind me, looked at each other with befuddlement and agreed, \"That was a great movie.\" Great, now I won't have to register myself in any lawful databases." ]

[ "You already know how painful to watch this movie is. But I wonder why one of the worst movies ever should include one the most beautiful cars. Why the cars should be not only the victim of violation, but also the only true actors and performers in it. So how on Earth you Porsche, Lamborghini or whatever could allow those people to get in touch with your cars and ruin you reputation for which you give millions.Stop the getting an advantage of the cars and earn money on their chests. It is painful for those who love cars. It is painful for those who love movies.<br /><br />I want my money back !!!" ]

[ "The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.<br /><br />It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel \"occupys\" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.<br /><br />The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.<br /><br />Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.<br /><br />All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.<br /><br />All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer." ]

[ "I actually liked this movie until the end. Sure, it was cheesy and pretty unlikely but still it kept my attention on a rainy afternoon. Until the end, that is. For her final performance at the prestigious classical conservatory where she has struggled to catch-up to the other classically trained students, what does the main character do? Wow them with her grasp and execution of this time honored musical tradition? No. She tortures and butchers the great sensuous Habanera from Carmen and turns it into an utterly forgettable Brittany Spears-wannabe pop song. My ears bled! And, in the supreme moment of horror, her teachers gave her a standing ovation! Any teacher not in a Spears-induced fantasy would have failed her on the spot. Save your time, save your ears - skip this movie!" ]

[ "This is a rip-roaring British comedy movie and one that i could watch over and over again without growing tired. Peter Ustinov has never performed in a bad role and this is no exception, particularly with his dry wit but very clever master plan. Karl Malden has always been an admirer of mine since he starred in 'Streets of San Francisco'. I believe that Maggie Smith is the real star of this film though, appearing to be so inept at everything she tries to do but in truth is so switched on, particularly at the end when she informs everyone that she has invested so much money that she has discovered whilst laundering his clothes. One thing does concern me though, could someone please tell me why i cannot purchase this on either DVD or VHS format in the UK, could someone please assist?" ]

[ "Of all the movies I have seen, and that's most of them, this is by far the best one made that is primarily about the U.S. Naval Airships (Blimps) during the WW-II era. Yes there are other good LTA related movies, but most use special effects more than any real-time shots. This Man's Navy has considerably more real-time footage of blimps etc. True, lots of corny dialog but that's what makes more interesting Hollywood movies, even today. P.S. I spent 10 years(out of 20) and have over 5,000 hours in Navy Airships of all types, from 1949 through 1959. Proud member of the Naval Airship Association etc. [ATC(LA/AC) USN Retired]" ]

[ "La Maman et la Putain has to be watched as a movie that is both related to the time it was released (post-68) and eternal in many respects. True, the actors don't \"act\" ... True, they talk a lot... But what they talk about is just what makes life worth living... or dying. The very long monologue spoken by Françoise Lebrun is perhaps the most accurate and moving text that was ever written about womanhood, manhood and love. Not easy to translate accurately, though. This movie is a statement about the difficulty of being a man and a woman (or two women in this case). And IMHO, Jean Pierre Léaud is one of the greatest French actors." ]

[ "Just bought the VHS on this film for two bucks, Did I waste my money! Hey, I dig Adam \"Batman\" West and Tina \"Giligan's Island\" Louise, but hello! This third rate production is a rehash of a dozen other biker films; crazed bunch of bikers psychos ride into a hick town, beat up everybody and everything, and then are defeated in the man by a dashing hero. Adam West looks the part as a hero, but he's missing cape, and his Batman uniform. Sorry, just isn't the same. Tina L. looks really nervous and frightened the whole show, but at least we know what happened to \"Ginger\" once she was rescued from the island...LOL! The bikers are a motley group, and known of them ever acted again or at least shouldn't have. Hell Riders is Hell to Watch!" ]

[ "This movie was like \"The Disney Channel after Dark.\" Take out the \"aren't we naughty\" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe \"Saved by the Bell\" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished." ]

[ "Welcome back Kiefer Sutherland. it's been too long since you've appeared in a movie,, and what a movie this was, was it 24 no,, but very intriguing, especially with a pro like Michael Douglas in the lead as the embattled Secret Service Agent. Kiefer's character is the one chasing Michael Douglas the whole movie,, Kiefer's partner,, is Eva Longoria,, the Desperate houswife. wow she can actually act besides flirt all day and look good,, i wish though that Kim Bassinger had a bigger role,, but other than that, i really think the whole movie was a blast from start to finish. This movie is what i consider to b e a political thriller, everybody played their part to the hilt. nothing was revealed to sooon in the movie,, so as to keep you guessing at all times. and i really think that Kiefer did one heck of a job here in this movie,, but in my opinion Michael Douglas had the besxt performance of the day,, thumbs up." ]

[ "Probably the worst film I've ever seen, the acting and story were terrible and I almost fell asleep. The only good actor was Colm Meaney. I had the impression to see the same scenes again and again until the end, no emotion, no charisma...nothing !" ]

[ "Images are great and reflect well the landscapes of Canada. The story was, on the other side, quite boring; To my eyes it was a love story in the woods just like Titanic was a love story on a boat. I did not feel that Grey Owl was great environmentalist. I usually like Lord Attenborough but this one was ... bad." ]

[ "Although it has been remade several times, this movie is a classic if you are seeing it for the first time. Creative dialog, unique genius in the final scene, it deserves more credit than critics have given it. Highly recommended, one of the best comedies of recent years" ]

[ "**SPOILERS**<br /><br />This is one BAD movie. Seriously. Acting in absolutely horrible, the FX are dreadfull and the plot is down right awful. But hey, its so bad that its fun watching! The script is SO bad that its enjoyable! You just have to cringe and laugh at lines such as \"I guess thats what you call CROCTEASING.\" as the women flash their breasts at the crocodile. I mean COME ON thats funny cause its so bad! It has such horrible jokes that they're funny! But after a while it just becomes to much as the movie turns into crap. I really started to fall asleep. Trust me though, the plastic croc foot stamping on the leaves and the constant swishes of a crock tail well keep you laughing for a long time. Though I have to say it had one cool part when the croc ripped that dude in half and he just hung there for a while figuring out what to do. Heh heh mindless movie, which HAS to be nominated for the MST3K line!!" ]

[ "\"Hey everybody! I've got an idea, we found this egg-shaped thingie from outer space so why don't we thaw it out and open it up?\" \"Yes, I know that would be the dumbest thing a scientist could do, and it could be filled with contaminating bacteria or viruses unknown to earth and could potentially wipe out the human race, but hey, I want to know what's in it\". \"And nobody tell NASA, they might take it away from us\". \"Wow this thingie gives off vibes!\" \"Yes,really strong ones on contact so don't touch it but it's okay to cut it open\". \"Hi there handsome, check out my nips\". (Later that day); \"DO NOT OPEN\"!!!!! Uh oh, we have to run all the way to the lab and tell them not to open it because we don't have phones or radios or intercoms even though we have a gazillion dollars worth of other equipment here. \"I've never seen such organic technology!\" \"Yeah, lemme take this stick and stab it.\". \"I'm getting out of here, I don't care if I do kill the other 6 billion people on Earth, nobody's nukkin' me!\" \"Look! it's the friendly aliens from \"The Abyss\"! They want us to come with them\". THE END" ]

[ "Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female \"inmates\".<br /><br />Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.<br /><br />15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****" ]

[ "New York I Love You is full of love and power. Not for everybody, however, but is a beautiful movie.<br /><br />It has the likes of Shia LaBeouf (seen in Transformers, Disturbia, Charlies Angels, I Robot, Indiana Jones, and many more), Maggie Q, Kevin Bacon, Blake Lively, Natalie Portman, and many more. With a star-studded cast, this movie is without a doubt, brilliant.<br /><br />From many top-notch directors around the world, it does not fail to impress. The diversity from one story to another is creative and unique.<br /><br />It is safe to say that New York I Love You is a popcorn movie, and should be watched on a BIG TV! This time, trust the IMDb rating, because it is an excellent film.<br /><br />Eagerly waiting Shanghai I Love You in 2010. <br /><br />Watch NY ILY, you won't be disappointed." ]

[ "Otto Preminger's Dana Andrews cycle of films noirs are among the (largely) unsung jewels of the genre. Because they lack paranoia, misogyny or hysteria, they may have seemed out of place at the time, but the clear-eyed imagery, the complex play with identity, masculinity and representation, the subversion of traditional psychological tenets, the austere, geometrical style all seem startlingly modern today, and very similar to Melville. The lucid ironies of this film are so loaded, brutal and ironic that the 'happy' ending is one of the cruellest in Hollywood history. Brilliant on the level of entertaining thriller as well, tense, and packed with double-edged dialogue." ]

[ "You've never seen anything like it. Once the coup begins, it's the most dazzling, edge-of-your-seat thriller you'll ever see -- even though you know the outcome. And it's all real, because it's a documentary -- amazing. <br /><br />By the time it was over, it was on my Top 10 list of All Time Great Movies.<br /><br />Disregard the slobbering right-wing fanatics. Everyone I know who has seen this film gives it the 4-star rating. Even if you don't care about politics or about Venezuelan politics, you will find yourself nerve-racked and -- believe it -- on the edge of your seat.<br /><br />It's a roller-coaster ride." ]

[ "I'm not sure if this is some kind of masterpiece or just sleazy fluff elevated by the performances and visuals. Whatever the case, I'm sure I loved it. From the wonderfully twisted, lurid, intertwining stories, to the deliciously sinister performances from Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone, to the vivid, gaudy colour with which it's all captured, this is high-class trash and it's great fun. Not to mention the amusingly sly and thinly veiled sexual subtexts which permeate the entire film, always threatening to escape from the image into the dialogue but never doing so. I'd be lying if I said that the film's sheer entertainment value didn't contribute to my love for it, but there's some sort of bizarre artistry behind the unintentional (or was it?) comedy and I really, really dug that. I could really get into this melodrama stuff." ]

[ "This could be a strong candidate for \"The Worst Flick Ever\". Perhaps without the presence of John Hurt, it could be tolerated as a kid-film. However, the TRAGEDY of this entire endeavor, is that John Hurt, one of the screen's greatest actors, diminishes himself in this....I gave it two points just because Mr. Hurt SHOWED UP...I take AWAY 8 points, because he didn't run from it fast enough. As far as the rest of the cast, they are, simply, terrible. Janine Turner, as pretty as she might be, cannot act to save her soul. And the lead actor is, for all intents and purposes, AWFUL. If you can spare yourself this embarrassment, please do so. It's so bad, it almost HURTS." ]

[ "I'm a Don Johnson fan, but this is undoubtedly the WORST movie, done by anybody, that I've ever seen. The acting was bad, as was the cinematography. Don should stick to doing action, because as The King, he just didn't cut it." ]

[ "bad acting, bad southern accents, inconsistent cinematography, horrible script...<br /><br />I was looking forward to this film at a recent film festival and was so discouraged after seeing it. It contains quote/unquote name talent, but they do not deliver. Of course the basis for this is the uneven and uninteresting story that is told.<br /><br />don't bother" ]

[ "This Is Pretty Funny. \"Saturday The 12th\", a?... Great Work... I Laughed Every Minute of the movie... This Is Like \"Scary Movie\" for the 1980's. great STUDENT BODIES-styled gags...<br /><br />Too Bad This Isn't On Video... But You Can Still Watch It on FLIX..." ]

[ "Movie had some good acting and good moments (though obviously pretty low budget), but bad rating due to basic premise being badly developed. The main point of conflict between the two leads doesn't play out in a realistic manner at all. There are a few scenes where they disagree because of it, but no discussions of any great depth that would explain how they can be together while seeing the world so differently, especially since the employment of Glenn is so wound up in this part of his life (and Adam is active enough with his that he supports it with time and money.) Also, several times Glenn is portrayed negatively for being the way he is (apologizing to Adam for his past) while Adam is shown to be upstanding and \"traditional,\" which the film proclaims to be the \"good\" way in the end. I don't like being preached to like that. I attended a discussion session with the director after viewing LTR, and he said that he presented this conflict between them because, if he was in Glenn's shoes (and he said he does in real life relate to Glenn's view) that he could never date someone with Adam's views. Well, then, I think he should have done a much better job explaining how Glenn could do it in the film. Also, director said he directed this, his first movie, only after reading (Directing For Dummies.) Directing was not that bad, but far from a top notch effort. I've seen worse, but I rarely leave films feeling this frustrated." ]

[ "This film is a flagrant rip-off of one of the best novels of all time, Silas Marner by George Eliot.<br /><br />The details of the film shown on IMDb do give acknowledgement to the original authoress but I did not see this at the beginning of the film, only a credit at the end of it saying \"suggested by the book Silas Marner\". Suggested? It was nothing but a complete rip- off of all the essential elements of the story:<br /><br />A wronged and sad old man, an artisan, poor and lonely, has all his money stolen. One night a child wanders up to his door as her mother lies dying in the snow outside. The man takes her in and brings her up until one day the local squire (or rich politician here) demands to adopt the child. It is he who has fathered the child during an illicit affair years before. The battle then ensues as to who should have legal custody of the child.<br /><br />In this and every other aspect of the film, the story is exactly the same. In only one can I find a difference. Silas Marner had epilepsy - but perhaps that would have strained the acting abilities of Mr Martin too far. On top of that he has his hair dyed in some carrot juice concoction (presumably to make him look younger, but actually making him look more the clown that he is)! There is also the addition of meaningless jokes, that this offbeat comedian cannot resist bringing into the story which have no part in it and only detract from the profoundness of the story. Like when the child cries in the courthouse declaring she can only be happy with the man who has fathered her all these years. This is conveyed in the film by the girl applying nasal decongestant to the bridge of her nose to make her tearful!<br /><br />I am surprised that legalities and integrity within the film industry permit such a film to be made. If I was a trustee of George Eliot's I would insist on reparation. If I was Steve Martin I would send the profits to that estate, or to the poor. At the very least it should be entitled Silas Marner - adapted by S Martin. Or better still removed from the archives!<br /><br />If you are interested in this story - and I hope you are - dismiss this completely and watch Silas Marner. Or read the book! The BBC made an excellent adaptation of it in the 1980's." ]

[ "Now I love American Pie 1 and 2 while 3 was great just for Seann William Scott's performance as Stifler but after that the quality has dropped. Band Camp kept the standard reasonably high with characters you actually cared about but Naked Mile was the same joke and plot- lines recycled (Erik Stifler's sex problem is like Jim's). It had some amusing moments like the Football game against the midgets and the 'punishment' of Coozeman but on the whole it lacked originality and the 'Mile' was just stupid and moronic. Not to mention the irritating girlfriend who doesn't want to have sex. <br /><br />Anyway enough about the Naked Mile. I watched Beta House with apprehension as I thought it could take the series to a new low but I was pleasantly surprised. To be honest there is no real plot but it's filled with hot girls (Ashley is incredible) and sex jokes aplenty. Yes it is formulaic and the jokes are old but Dwight Stifler (Steve Talley) raises the bar with an exuberant performance. The Greek Olympiad is entertaining especially the penultimate and final events while Christopher McDonald's cameo is hilarious. There are weak points though. Coozeman is as irritating as he was in the first, I'm still baffled to as how he ever got a part. <br /><br />While Coozeman is bad Erik Stifler is worse. John White made Naked Mile a pain to watch but in Beta House he takes his performance to a whole new low. First and foremost he lacks charisma, a Stifler prerequisite. You really can't care less about him. The only reason I was bothered about his relationship was so Ashley could be on screen! She shines above him as does the rest of the cast. Seriously John White is the ultimate in bad acting and has about as much charisma as a dead fish. <br /><br />Saying that the film does entertain and Coozeman's fear that his girl is not exactly a girl is brilliantly funny. <br /><br />Overall this film is worth renting, get a few of your mates in and have a laugh at the vomit-fest event and vent your anger at Erik 'loser' Stifler." ]

[ "Why do people who do not know what a particular time in the past was like feel the need to try to define that time for others? Replace Woodstock with the Civil War and the Apollo moon-landing with the Titanic sinking and you've got as realistic a flick as this formulaic soap opera populated entirely by low-life trash. Is this what kids who were too young to be allowed to go to Woodstock and who failed grade school composition do? \"I'll show those old meanies, I'll put out my own movie and prove that you don't have to know nuttin about your topic to still make money!\" Yeah, we already know that. The one thing watching this film did for me was to give me a little insight into underclass thinking. The next time I see a slut in a bar who looks like Diane Lane, I'm running the other way. It's child abuse to let parents that worthless raise kids. It's audience abuse to simply stick Woodstock and the moonlanding into a flick as if that ipso facto means the film portrays 1969." ]

[ "An excellent depiction of one of the more unwholesome aspects of that era. I loved the visuals--very fitting for a story connected to a graphic novel.<br /><br />I thought Tom Hanks was really great in this, he came across very well as someone who has been hardened by his work (which he didn't fully choose for himself) but still wants to have a normal life for his family. He does the best he can to see that happen. DOn't want to spoil the plot--but YOU HAVE TO SEE this movie if you are a person who wants more from a movie than the usual shoot 'em up action/gangster format. (It is violent though.)" ]

[ "Certain DVD's possess me until I just have to go out and buy it. This was one of those movies. Like many on here, I remember seeing it as a child and loved it. I never knew there were scenes and musical numbers that were cut, so I was intrigued to see what they might be. I will agree that the \"Portabellow Road\" sequence is now a tad long (as is the soccer game) but other than that, I found no qualms with the remaining scenes that were put back in their respectful place. Perhaps Disney should have had the original version (which IS the restored version) on one side with the restored version on the flip side, then people could choose what they wanted to view. All in all, it's still an entertaining movie that still manages to recapture some of my childhood memories." ]

[ "Italian-born Eleonora has inherited from her deceased lover Karl, an ultra-modern and isolated house in the middle of the woods. It's winter and she meets the mysterious caretaker Leslie, who eventually ends up not only just looking after the house, but also that of Eleonora, as she tries to adapt to her new surroundings and a growing attraction between the pair.<br /><br />What was I expecting? A thriller indeed, but it wasn't quite so. That's just the advertising on the package for ya! I'm quite perplex about everything. The title, the story and the motivation. So how to classify it? Well, this wooden character drama is more a enigmatically moody romance bound-story of alienation, possession and dependence twisted into a complicatedly passionate relationship of two masked individuals. Co-writer (along with William Dafoe) and director Giada Colagrande's art-house film is just too clinical, distant and calculated with its mysteriously metaphoric story, which it leaves you questioning what does it all really mean… although when its sudden conclusion materialises, you'll thinking why should I actually care. What we go through feels aimless with ponderous exposition of dead air that focuses of insignificant details and images. Sterile dialogues can contributed to many awkward developments, but more so make for an leaden experience, as it never delves deep enough. Like it believes it does. The sexually salty activities filtered in just never convince and are far from erotic. They are kind of a bump in the already sluggish flow. The base of the plot makes for something interesting and fresh, but it's never fulfilling and I thought there'll be more to it then all of this dreary lingering. Colagrande's direction is professionally stylish and suitably gloomy to want she imagines, but everything feels like it's in slow motion and can get caught up admiring the same views. Most of the action stays at the one location… the house. Camera-work is potently taut, but the sullen musical score can get a bit ridiculous when it goes for some dramatically stabbing music cues that served little sense and purpose to the scenes. Giada Colagrande plays it sensually and William Dafoe sleep walks the part. He looks dog tired! While Seymour Cassel, pokes his head in now and then.<br /><br />Just where is it heading, is anyone's guess. Well, that's if you can wait around for it. I think I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, as it's definitely not what I was expecting from this Indie film." ]

[ "What can I say about this film other than \"don't see it\". I waited and waited and WAITED for someting (or anything) to happen and it just didn't come. Watch amazingly as two people walk around while setting the record for most filler screen time in a single movie. What are they doing? Are they solving a mystery? Are they gathering clues? Possibly, it's just hard to tell. At the end of the movie, after a lot of radio signals are decoded (illegibly on some sort of PET monitor) and this guy gives some lectures, the plot is finally revealed and tossed aside as quickly as possible. Some aliens want to get back to their home world utopia and are so happy there that they want to blow up the earth (I guess they don't like sharing the wealth). My guess is they finished filming and saw their 35 minute work or art (garbage!) and decided that they'd let the editing crew turn it into an 88 minute feature film. Watch at your own peril, it's not even funny because it's so bad, it's just bad." ]

[ "In Iran, women are not admitted to soccer games. Officially it's because they are to be spared from the vulgar language and behavior of the male audience. But of course it is about sexism. Women are lower forms of human beings.<br /><br />Some brave girls oppose this and try to get into the stadium by using different tricks. They are caught by soldiers and hold in a kind of cage, until the police will come and pick them up.<br /><br />Despite the insane situation, this is a film with lots of humor. It's also encouraging to see how people always find different ways of fighting oppression. You'll get touched at the same time as you have lots of laughs. Good job by director Jafar Panahi. This is in many ways a heroic comedy." ]

[ "I hated the first episode of this show ( 'Protesting Hippies' ) so much in 1999 that I shunned the rest. However, when it came on 'The Paramount Comedy Channel' I watched it in full and, to my surprise, found it absolutely hilarious ( Motto: never judge a comedy series in its first week )! <br /><br />Set in 1969, 'Hippies' stars Simon Pegg as 'Ray Purbbs', editor of an 'Oz'-like underground magazine called 'Mouth'. His friends are the feminist Jill, laid-back Alex, and the half-wit Hugo. Back in the late '60's, there was a feeling of incredible optimism amongst the young, that they could change the world through the printing of magazines nobody read. Rather than sneering at the hippies' naivety, 'Hippies' is affectionate towards it. Arthur Mathews' scripts cheekily parody a number of that era's icons - 'Hair', 'Woodstock', 'The Graduate', even the infamous 'Oz' obscenity trial of the early '70's. Excellent performances from the cast; Julian Rhind-Tutt's 'Alex' strangely put me in mind of the Richard O'Sullivan character from 'Man About The House'. Its a shame that there was never a second series, possibly because of people like me. If you missed 'Hippies', give it a try. Once you get past the dire opener, you're in for a treat!" ]

[ "The character of Tarzan has been subjected to so many clichés, and so many bad interpretations, that those who are hoping for a different kind of version (people like me, I mean, who liked the Tarzan books as a kid and have always wished for a movie version that followed the books just a little) ought to know how the recent renditions stack up. Some of the IMDb reviews address this point, but here's my $.02<br /><br />I am aware of only two--count 'em--cinema depictions of Tarzan, namely Greystoke with Christopher Lambert and the Disney animated version, that try to depict Edgar Rice Burrough's rather interesting character (the son of a marooned English noble couple, picked up after their death by a tribe of apes who raise him as one of themselves, and who becomes \"lord of the jungle\" because of his superior human intellect before making it back to England and claiming his other identity) rather than the usual Hollywood jungle-man whose origin remains obscure and whose trademarks are his famous yell, his mysterious inability to speak proper English despite long exposure to people who know the language, his habit of swinging on vines, his strength, heroism, etc. About the only thing these two characters have in common are the name Tarzan and the fact that they both have a wife named Jane. Ron Ely's TV version is something of a compromise: Like Burroughs' character, he speaks good English and is adept and suave in both cultures in a sort of JamesBondish way, but he's no Lord Greystoke and there's no Jane.<br /><br />Well, this film is in a third category of Tarzan films, and I hope it remains a category of one because it's awful. This category uses the character as a vehicle for, of all things, soft porn. Jane, played by legendarily bad actress Bo Derek is in Africa looking for her dad the absent-minded professor who is combing the jungle looking for something which is never specified. Though her dad is supposed to have been missing for a long time, she finds him effortlessly. Richard Harris as the dad is the best thing here; he sees the film is stupid so he has fun overacting and hamming in a way that reminds me of Peter O'Toole's deliberately silly performance in What's New Pussycat. Dad explains the legend of Tarzan (\"some sort of ghost or spirit\" he says--either a steal from, or an inartistic attempt at homage to, King Kong) to his daughter, who is at this point unfamiliar with the ape-man. Shortly afterward, we hear the infamous cliché of the Tarzan yell. Dad dies, which oddly doesn't seem to faze his devoted daughter very much. And then.....<br /><br />Then Tarzan appears, but says nothing. Indeed, he says nothing during the entire film. He and Jane fall in love, and they romp around wearing almost nothing as she recites doggerel love-poetry off-screen. The End. That's the plot. <br /><br />Well, not exactly; there's also a scene where Tarzan wrestles unrealistically with a boa constrictor--a most unusual boa, since it's the only poisonous one ever seen. Jane treats the bite with the aid of a chimp who helps by wringing out the garment she tears off to bind the wound with (I'm not making this up!), and this is only one of many excuses for her to take her clothes off.<br /><br />I always like to conclude a review by saying something positive, but this time it's hard. Let's see... well, it's unfair to criticize this film for featuring an orangutan, even though we all know orangutans don't live in Africa; after all, the classic Tarzan movies all used Indian elephants, did they not? Also, you have to admit that Bo Derek is pretty in face and form. (But in that case why the hell didn't she just make a career as an art model? What does it say about a movie when it becomes plain boring to look at a pretty woman? I actually haven't decided whether it's a positive or a negative that they never showed her crotch.) But now I realize: try as I may, I can't end on a positive note. <br /><br />See this film if you're a bad film buff. I'm outa here." ]

[ "Antonioni was aiming for another hip masterpiece, this time on the other side of the Atlantic than \"Blow up\". It wasn´t the success with critics and youth like the former though. Why? Maybe because it was a European´s view of America filled with clichés that didn´t work then and that have not aged well. (The revolutionary students at the beginning is embarrassing.)<br /><br />Maybe when it was released big blockbuster movies and those aimed specifically at the youth market seemed dated. If it had been released a year before maybe hippes in deserts would have seemed fresh... It´s a very interesting film tho, very beautifully shot with some brilliant and Antonionian scenes in between, like the love-making in the desert, the stillness of the desert mansion and the explosive ending... That the leads were two amateurs didn´t help. They were beautiful but inexperienced. Mark Freshette is slightly better than Daria Halprin. It would have been so much better with proper actors! Maybe Michelle Phillips or a young Jessica Lange... The dialog is actually quite funny and poignant at times, tho you wouldn´t know the way the lines are delivered...<br /><br />A very intersting document of the late sixties definitely worth a look for the photography and the soundtrack...." ]

[ "Don't waste your time on this dreck. As portrayed, the characters have no redeeming values and watching them interact is sheer torture. \"Gothic\" was entertainment at least, this is crap. If you like watching pretentious and spoiled poets straining to outwit each other, this may be right up your alley. Lord Byron is portrayed as a complete jerk, and why the others would choose to spend more than five minutes with him is truly bewildering. Mary Shelly appears to be the only character with any spine whatsoever, but even she comes out of the whole ordeal without an ounce of respect. What a waste of time. See Gothic instead. I also remember seeing another superior movie based on the same subject matter, but didn't catch the title. I was hoping this was it, but no such luck. Not recommended." ]

[ "I wondered why John Wood was not playing Dr. Falken until I watched the film. BAD plot, bad science, bad acting and overall a bad film. Please don't watch this film. Rent the original \"War Games\" if you are feeling nostalgic.<br /><br />I didn't like the bending of the plot to beat-the-terrorist-threat idea either. In the first film W.O.P.R was built because Russia had 1000s of warheads pointed at the U.S.A. In this film the idea behind the computer was to kill terrorist in training before they are a threat. Politics aside, one of the good thing about the first film was the highlighting that even a stupid computer could grasp the idea of the pointlessness of war in the end. No such insight is offered in this film." ]

[ "I dont know about you, but I've always felt drawn to 'ART' cinema. The first 'art' film I managed to get a hold of was Peter Greenaway's \"The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover\", which blew my mind and creative spiret into overdrive. The film was the ultimate paradox, both beautiful and grotesque...this is what 'art cinema' was about, exploring intellectual ideas and bringing the visceral to the screen with purpose. Life, real life, can be like living in a madhouse, and art expressed shows it for what it is. I love movies of all types, but especially those that both entertain and have something to say, whether I agree with it's stance or no...<br /><br />\"8 1/2 WOMEN\", is a dry, clinical 'comedy' where a father and son gather a harem to fufill their many sexual fantasies. There is only a very brief allusion to Fellini in the film, unlike what the previews have suggested. The main focus of the film falls on the 'close' relationship between father and son, brought together after the mothers' death. In the early scenes of the film the fathers' sadness is believable, you can feel his pain. What happens afterwards is plain by Greenaway standards, the gathering of the harem, observations on love and death, and flesh displayed for the sake of flesh...One could argue this, but I feel the movie to be shallow and pointless. And the idea that this could be a comedy is perplexing to me. The acting for the most part if fine,...especially good are Polly Walker and Amanda Plummer(though poor Mandy should put her clothes back on) What the film lacks is a compelling story, and the usual Greenaway touches of excess that made his other films so wonderful to watch. <br /><br />While filled with moments of insight, and the occasional taboo, \"8 1/2 Women\" is too cut and paste to be considered art, too bland to considered 'funny', and simply too dull to be considered worthwhile.<br /><br />Save your money...I can only recommend this film as a sleeping aid.<br /><br />4 out of 10" ]

[ "Okay this movie fine like I said but you surely need to watch it as its worth a watch . It's about two boys Mac and Sam who are great friends and work as fashion photographers and the laughing time starts when Mac ( Akshay Kumar ) starts dating with 3 air hostesses at the same time leaving his wife suspicious . Sam attains fortune and almost forgets his friend but not completely . But Mac thinks so and so he starts dating with air hostesses . there's garam masala at every step of the movie , songs rock but somethings lacking . The comedy's not up to the mark and deserves an award . Its nice but not all that excellent . Some people laughed till their stomaches ached but it didn't deserve that many laughs . But of course everyone's opinion is different . So if you wanna watch the movie you're welcome to do so ." ]

[ "\"In 1955, Tobias Schneerbaum disappeared in the Peruvian Amazon. One year later he walked out of the jungle...naked. It took him 45 years to go back.\" Supposedly, \"Keep the River On your Right\" is \"a modern cannibal tale\". In reality, anyone looking for some insight into cannibalism will be sadly disappointed. The first half of the movie is more like a travel log of New Ginuea, mostly touting the native art. The second half relies on still photos of a Peruvian cannibal tribe, but really that's about it. Unless of course, you are interested in home movies of a Jewish wedding, or Schneerbaum introducing his former male lovers. I give up. Big disappointment and not really \"a modern cannibal tale.\" - MERK" ]

[ "Wracked with guilt after a lot of things felt apart on that ledge, an ace mountain rescue climber Gabriel Walker (Stallone) comes back for his girlfriend Jessie (Janine Turner), while over the cloudy skies where the weather looks a bit threatening, a spectacularly precarious mid-air hijacking goes wrong and $100 million taken from a Treasury Department plane get lost in the middle of nowhere followed by a crash landing… <br /><br />Stranded off the snowy peaks, and needing mountain guides to win back the stolen cash, the high-trained hikers make an emergency call asking the help of a rescue unit… <br /><br />Unfortunately, Gab and Hall (Michael Rooker) have to team up to arrive at the scene of the crash unaware that the distress call was a fake, and a bunch of merciless terrorists led by a psychotic (John Lithgow),are waiting for them only to find out a way off the stormy mountain with the dumped cases of money… <br /><br />With breathtaking shots, vertiginous scenery, dizzying heights, perilous climbs, freezing temperatures, \"Cliffhanger\" is definitely Stallone's best action adventure movie…" ]

[ "Clint Eastwood is Bronco Billy, the leader of a Wild West troupe, one of six regular misfits who comprise a struggling-to-break-even touring show. The seventh member of the bunch is a woman, Billy's assistant, but such women never last long, and the position is chronically open. Enter Antoinette Lilly (Sandra Locke – Eastwood's girlfriend at the time). It seems Miss Lilly, as Doc (Scatman Crothers) calls her, is a would-be heiress who will only receive her long-deceased father's estate if she's married by the time she turns 30, so on the eve of that birthday she gets hitched to the cartoonish Geoffrey Lewis.<br /><br />So, what's the plot of this film? It's hard to say. There's the romantic tension between Billy and Miss Lilly, but the problem is that for the first half of the movie she's so haughtily insipid and detestable that when she suddenly becomes 'one of the troupe' halfway through the film, it's not only unbelievable, but the audience is well past caring about her. There's the chronic lack of funds behind the Wild West show, but this topic isn't touched upon enough to really be the raison d'etre of the film. There's Miss Lilly's predicament of being stranded in the rural west, cut off from the funds that fuel her spoiled life of luxury (she's mistakenly believed to be dead by her family and the press). But are we really supposed to believe that she couldn't get back to New York and her waiting fortune if she gave it a bit of effort?<br /><br />No, the point of this film seems to be that Billy is the leader of a family, a lovable bunch of losers who hang together through thick and thin. This is a warm, fuzzy film – or at least tries to be. <br /><br />Along the way, Clint shows us his skills with a gun, even foiling a bank robbery in a shooting that is grotesquely out of place in an otherwise relatively non-violent film. One of the gang is arrested on an old draft evasion charge; Billy bribes the local sheriff. The show's tent burns down; an orphanage makes them a new one. But numerous mundane pitfalls do not a plot make.<br /><br />Compounding the problem is the acting, or lack thereof. Aside from Scatman Crothers, the supporting cast is quite amateurish. Eastwood isn't on top of his game either, though he looks better simply by virtue of being surrounded by such a lackluster bunch.<br /><br />And for all this, the film plods on for 116 minutes. To what point? Good question … <br /><br />4 out of 10" ]

[ "- Having grown tired of the rat race and cramped living conditions of New York City, Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) finds a property in the country for his wife and children. He's hoping to find the simple life. But, building a house proves to be anything but simple. As the headaches and the bills start piling up, so do the laughs. Will Mr. Blanding's ever get his dream house? <br /><br />- What makes this movie so special is the three main actors - Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas. Any of three are capable of carrying a movie on their own, so when you combine their talents, almost every scene is special. Grant has always been a favorite of mine in this type of role. He is so good at playing the put upon husband. Loy is a always a joy to watch. The Thin Man films she made with William Powell are near perfect. And Douglas has become a favorite of mine over the last two or three years. Douglas also appeared in The Old Dark House, a particular favorite of mine.<br /><br />- The movie is definitely a product of its time. I get a kick out of imagining a time when you could build a two-story, three bedroom, four bathroom house on $15,000 income a year. Throw in the fact that your two children attend private school and you have a live-in maid and it becomes almost fanciful.<br /><br />- However, for anyone who has bought or built a house, many of the situations and predicaments the Blanding's find themselves in are easily relatable to today. And that's where the comedy comes in. How many people have done some of the stupid things the couple does in this movie only to end up costing more money than expected? - The biggest complaint I have about Mr. Blandings is the whole \"wife in love with best friend\" subplot. It's really not necessary to the plot and feels out-of-place and very uncomfortable as presented." ]

[ "I didn't even want to watch this movie after reading Maltin's review and 1 1/2 star rating. I watched it anyway on the advice of my son and found it much better than I expected. I would give it 2 1/2 stars out of a 4 star system. You have to watch the movie more than once to understand it all. If you don't know much about religion, you will miss a lot. I graduated from high school the year the movie was made, so maybe I can relate to it better. Yes, there is some pretension in the movie and it's weird to some extent, but that was the 70s so what do you expect. I can see why people might not like the movie; however, I cannot understand people saying it is boring. The movie is anything but boring. You will either hate it or love it. If you find it boring, you are probably brain dead." ]

[ "William Lustig's followup to \"Maniac\" proves conclusively that, without Tom Savini's spectacular effects and Spinell's convincing performance, \"Maniac\" would never have become the cult hit that it did. \"Vigilante\" is badly directed, with a simple-minded script that spells everything out for you and is predictable at every turn, and also mediocre performances by all the actors. Judging from the sense of \"deja vu\" this film gave me, Lustig had watched \"Death Wish\" several times too many before making this! (*1/2)" ]

[ "This movie has its ups and downs, but to me the good stuff in this movie very much outweighs the bads...<br /><br />What's not so good about the movie are indeed sometimes the dialogue, the sounds, the lighting(am I the only one who noticed the way the sets were lighted was amateur, and the acting....<br /><br />What is very good are the highly original storyline, the very intense atmosphere, the gore factor which is very high, and the effects which are done supremely.<br /><br />So, definitely worth watching, or maybe even a must-see for all you horror and gore fans...." ]

[ "The movie had a good concept, but the execution just didn't live up to it.<br /><br />What is this concept? Well, story-wise, it's \"Dirty Harry\" meets \"M\". A child killer has begun terrorizing a city. The lead detectives (Dennis Hopper and Frederic Forest) have never dealt with a serial killer before. The Mayor and the Police Chief, in desperation, secretly hire the local mob to speed things up...to go places and do things that the police wouldn't be able to in order to bring an end to this mess as soon as possible.<br /><br />To be fair, this film DOES genuinely have some good things to offer.<br /><br />Besides the concept, I liked the look of the killer's hideout. Norman Bates has his basement. This guy has an eerie sewer. In some of the shots, the light bounces off the water and creates rippling reflections on the walls; often giving these scenes a creepy, dreamlike quality.<br /><br />The acting was good too. Dennis Hopper is one of those actors who gets better with age.<br /><br />Once you get past that, however, it more-or-less goes downhill.<br /><br />The film is paced way too fast. The actual investigation process from both teams feels very rushed as opposed to feeling intricate and fascinating. This could have been fixed in two ways: either make the film longer or cut out some of the many subplots. Either of these would have allowed the crew to devote more time to the actual mystery.<br /><br />For an example of how bad this is, one of the crucial clues that helps them zero in on just the right suspect is this: at one point in his life, the suspect went to a pet shop...That's right...I'm being totally serious here. It's like they went from point A (the first clue) to point Z (the suspect) and skipped over all the \"in-between\" steps.<br /><br />Then there's the characters. The only ones I actually liked were two pick-pockets you meet about half-way through the movie. Considering that they're minor characters, I'd call that a bad sign.<br /><br />Finally, there's the mob angle. This is the one that gets me the most because THIS is why I coughed up the $3 to buy the DVD in the first place. I mean, what a hook! There's been an absolute glut of serial killer flicks in the last 10-15 years. The mob angle was a gimmick that COULD have helped it rise above the rest..., but it didn't.<br /><br />I figured the gangsters's methods would be brutal, but fun and thrilling at the same time; kind of like a vigilante movie or something...maybe they'd even throw in some heist movie elements too. We ARE talking about criminals, after all. Instead, we're given some of the most repulsive protagonists committed to celluloid. The detectives question witnesses. What does the mob do? They interrogate and kill them. It's not even like these witnesses are really even that bad either. I actually found the criminals less likable than the killer they're hunting.<br /><br />Unless the good points I mentioned are enough to get your interest, I'd say give this one a miss. Maybe some day, they'll reuse the same story idea and do it RIGHT. I hope so. I hate to see such a good concept go to waste." ]

[ "\"The Domino Principle\" is, without question, one of the worst thrillers ever made. Hardly any sense can be made of the convoluted plot and by the halfway point you'll want to throw your arms up in frustration and scream \"I give up!!!\"<br /><br />How Gene Hackman and director Stanley Kramer ever got involved in this mess must only be summed up by their paychecks.<br /><br />I hope they spent their money well." ]

[ "\"Rock 'n' Roll High School\" will probably have to go down in history as the ultimate rebellious party flick. Portraying a bunch of high school students using the Ramones' music as inspiration to rise up against their despotic principal (Mary Woronov, of \"Eating Raoul\" fame), the whole movie is a mile a minute. It's basically a big excuse to have fun, and I'm sure that you will. Bullied freshmen? Check. A dorky music teacher (Paul Bartel, also from \"Eating Raoul\"*)? Check. Exploding mice? Checkmate.<br /><br />Anyway, this is the sort of stuff that makes life worth living. Even for someone like me who doesn't know the Ramones' music, it's pure pleasure. With Roger Corman executive producing and Joe Dante co-directing, how could we expect anything less? Too bad that director Allan Arkush later degenerated into fare such as \"Caddyshack II\".<br /><br />Also starring P.J. Soles, Vincent Van Patten, Clint Howard, Dey Young, Dick Miller (who has appeared in every one of Joe Dante's movies, and many of Roger Corman's), Don Steele, and of course the Ramones. A real treat.<br /><br />*It seems like Bartel and Woronov always co-starred. They also co-starred in Joe Dante's \"Hollywood Boulevard\" and the slasher flick \"Chopping Mall\" (also starring Dick Miller)...in which they reprised their roles from \"Eating Raoul\"." ]

[ "There is certainly emotion between the two main characters as they explore their relationship--one based primarily on physical attraction from the beginning. And there is also emotion in the inner-workings of Mathieu's family dealing w/ his mother's problems--and how that comes to bear on their relationship. But the problem is it leaves a lot of things unanswered (unless I'm just too dumb to pick up on them). Why is Mathieu in a mental hospital? What led to the boys' break-up? And the flashing back between present and past is a little hard to follow at first. It seems like the main reason to rent this movie is to enjoy some homoerotic vicarious thrills, or some male nudity. But as a love story or character study it is lacking and unsatisfying." ]

[ "An excellent interpretation of Jim Thompson's novel, this neo-noir thriller has all the requisite elements--deranged ex-boxer turned drifter, alcoholic widow with sinister desires, ex-cop turned small-time crook, and a kidnap plot destined for doom. Yet, the film never crosses into cliche country, but remains fresh and intriguing. The performances are all superb, particularly Bruce Dern's role as the wicked sleazeball, Uncle Bud. There is a tense uncertainty to the film's movement which, intentional or not, adds to the grim proceedings. Highly recommended." ]

[ "This show is so incredibly hilarious that I couldn't stop watching the marathon on Comedy Central tonight (despite the fact that I've seen all the episodes previously). I've always regarded Silverman as a huge talent and this is finally a vehicle for that talent to be enjoyed by a wide audience. I watch this show and I laugh a very large percentage of the time... I can't say that about many TV shows... can you? This show is finally something new and interesting and (most importantly) funny! This is a show I will never miss and it is one I will buy on DVD as soon as it comes out. You owe it to yourself to watch this show... I predict a long run for this series... And just to be clear, the people who are offended by this show just don't get it... perhaps they lack the intelligence to comprehend it... they should stop making fools of themselves by attacking something they don't understand. Anyone who uses the word \"bigot\" in reference to Silverman, or who claims that she only aims to \"shock\"... is way off the mark... She's exactly the opposite; just Google her and you'll quickly see that she's a huge proponent of civil rights, etc. If you don't know that she's ironically embracing all of these outrageous viewpoints, you don't get it. And if you don't get it, do the rest of us a favor and be quiet about it so we can all enjoy the hilarity..." ]

[ "The documentary revolves around Eva Mozes Kor, a holocaust survivor, part of Mengele's experiments on twins, consisting primarily her version of what happened at Auschwitz, and a comparison of the emotions of the other survivors of the twin experiments. The movie obviously had great reviews. It's one of those topics that no one dares to voice a contrary opinion about.<br /><br />I too, for a large part of the movie, got sucked into the emotion that the movie-maker so obviously wanted the viewer to concentrate on. One of the user reviews on IMDb by Eric Monder (obviously having nothing critical to say about the issue on a public forum) could only find the sweetest nectar. \"In one of the many dramatic sequences, as a group of Jews argue with Kor at a Jewish center, the meaning of the word \"forgive\" is even debated, but the isolated and outnumbered Kor holds her own\" But by this time, the sappy hold that the movie had on my dormant emotional repertoire had let loose enough that I could see clearly once more. After the \"strong-willed\" Eva Kor forgives her \"Nazi captors\" the movie begins to delve into what forgiving is all about, at least from the viewpoint of Kor. The movie goes about following her, past her public statement forgiving the Nazis and into new territory. To me, this was the meat of the movie, surrounded by inedible fat of her \"act of forgiveness\". Obviously, it was a very sick cow.<br /><br />On a mission to test her theory of forgiveness, in order to heal wounds of the past, she makes her way to the \"promised land\" to meet with some Arabs, to discuss with them the issues that they face and to see if dialogue cannot lead to a better understanding of the situation and heavily interspersed with debates and discussions with Jews in the US on her act of forgiving the Nazis, including one at a Jewish center in Chicago. From then on, anyone not so teary eyed that they can't see the screen will find it hard-pressed to miss the obvious contradiction in her statements.<br /><br />Firstly, you immediately notice her body language, defensive and unwilling to listen in a room full of Arab scholars and teachers. Her comments about how she feared that they might kidnap her shows how much of a waste of time, effort and money the entire act was. A rather annoyed Dr Sami Advan (Professor of education at Bethlehem University) gets it just right when he tells Kor off for a statement she makes about how she would rather be asleep in her apartment.<br /><br />Finally, the debate at the Jewish center in Chicago, where she is \"grilled\" on the meaning of forgiveness and her right to do so, in the wake of those that continue suffering through the trauma of the acts.<br /><br />I will cut to the chase. By the end of the movie, I was hoping I hadn't chosen to watch the movie. The movie was badly made, failing to delve deeper into anything about Auschwitz apart from the purely trivial, just sufficient to make sure the holocaust is refreshed in the viewers memory and to incite a barrage of tears. It showed that Kor, the subject of the documentary was unable to engage in fair discussion. Her discussion abilities were limited to parroting her stance on forgiveness (at best) to a complete unwillingness to listen or participate.<br /><br />Lastly, is everyone so retarded today that they can't notice the difference between making peace and forgiving? Quoting another IMDb user, \"I don't see her forgiveness as being weak- quite the contrary, she just wanted to relieve its hold from her soul, she wanted the suffering to be over, so she let it go.\" That would be the perfect layman's definition of MAKING PEACE.<br /><br />I guess, in a world of propaganda, blind faith and political correctness, there is no room to question those that have \"gone through more than the human mind can fathom\".<br /><br />P.S. The dictionary certainly should go into all those Books-to-buy lists everyone keeps making." ]

[ "Mmm, doesn't a big stack of pancakes sound good? Maple syrup and fruit preserves on top. Take a bite. Mmmmmmm. Take another bite. Another. Another. EAT. EAT it, you!!! Keep shoveling it down your throat until your face turns green with nausea. You have just had the Ally McBeal experience.<br /><br />I stumbled on this show in the winter of '98 and was instantly hooked. Like that stack of pancakes, I gorged myself on it. But the enjoyment soon wore off, because the Ally McBeal character (whom we see to be cute & endearing at first sight) soon becomes the most annoying, insecure, whining complainer you've ever met. (Call me a feminist, but I prefer my female leads to have a spine.) The gags & gimmicks of the show also become hackneyed, the music of Vonda Shepherd (which is really shoved in your face) becomes grating, and the incessant character changes & rewrites make the show into a damn soap opera.<br /><br />My advice to you is to take this show in small doses, and quit as soon as it becomes bothersome (and it will). I made it through 2.5 seasons before my enjoyment had totally soured. It was good while it lasted, but like a crazy, neurotic ex-girlfriend it just turned ugly after it had overstayed its welcome.<br /><br />And next time you go to IHOP, skip the pancakes. Order something healthy like the fruit cup. It'll sit with you much better." ]

[ "Wow, what a great cast! Julia Roberts, John Cusack, Christopher Walken, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hank Azaria...what's that? A script, you say? Now you're just being greedy! Surely such a charismatic bunch of thespians will weave such fetching tapestries of cinematic wonder that a script will be unnecessary? You'd think so, but no. America's Sweethearts is one missed opportunity after another. It's like everyone involved woke up before each day's writing/shooting/editing and though \"You know what? I've been working pretty hard lately, and this is guaranteed to be a hit with all these big names, right? I'm just gonna cruise along and let somebody else carry the can.\" So much potential, yet so painful to sit through. There isn't a single aspect of this thing that doesn't suck. Even Julia's fat suit is lame." ]

[ "If this had been done earlier in the Zatoichi series it could have been one of the best. It is good enough, as most of them are, but the plot and the characters seem too complicated for the series at this point. The situation is unusually intriguing: the farmers in the province have two champions, a benevolent boss (for once) and a philosopher-samurai who starts a sort of Grange; both run afoul of the usual local gangsters, who want the crops to fail because it increases their gambling revenues and their chances to snap up some land; their chief or powerful ally is a seeming puritan who is death on drinking and gambling but secretly indulges his own perverse appetites. (He also resembles Dracula, as the villains in the later Zatoichi movies tend increasingly to do.) These characters have enough meaning so that they deserved to be set against Zatoichi as he was drawn originally, but by now he has lost many of his nuances, and the changes in some of the characters, such as the good boss and the angry sister of a man Zatoichi has killed, need more time then the movie has to give, so that the story seems choppy, as if some scenes were missing. Other than that, the movie shows the virtues of most of the others in the series: good acting, sometimes lyrical photography, the creation of a vivid, believable, and uniquely recognizable landscape (the absence of which is obvious in the occasional episode where the director just misses it), and a technical quality that of its nature disguises itself: the imaginatively varied use of limited sets so their limitations seem not to exist. And of course there is the keynote actor, whose presence, as much as his performance, makes it all work. This must be one of the best-sustained series in movie history." ]

[ "Definitely one of my favourite movies. The story is good, acting is great, all technicals (especially cinematography) are sharp and the script is clever.<br /><br />Heath Ledger is terrific as Edward ''Ned'' Kelly. He is gripping as the legendary outlaw, and is supported well by Geoffrey Rush, Naomi Watts and Orlando Bloom. All action sequences are on point<br /><br />The film is edge-of-your seat stuff right up to to the end. One of my favourite films from the late legend Heath Ledger, who has been the highlight of every film he has starred in. And makes no mistake here.<br /><br />An excellent film all round." ]

[ "Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn! :=8O<br /><br />ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.<br /><br />Oh, um excuse me, sorry, fell asleep there for a mooment. Now where was I? Oh yes, \"The Projected Man\", yes... ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.<br /><br />Ooops, sorry. Yes, \"The Projected Man\". Well, it's a British sci-fi yawnfest about nothing. Some orange-headed guy projects himself on a laser, gets the touch of death. At last he vanishes, the end. Actually, the film's not even that interesting. Dull, droning, starchy, stiff, and back-breakingly boring, \"The Projected Man\" is 77 solid minutes of nothing, starring nobody. Dull as dishwater. Dull as doorknob dust. Dull as Ethan Hawke - we're talking really DULL here, people! But wait, in respect to our dull cousins from across the puddle, the MooCow will now do a proper review for \"The Projected Man\":<br /><br />ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. <=8." ]

[ "Another comment about this film made it sound lousy. Given talking pictures were so new - I think the script and acting were good. Davis was so young and fresh. She had not yet found her own style that we had grown to expect. Yet it is great to see her this way - still learning the craft.<br /><br />So many clichés came from this film and it seems, this film blazed some trails for the next 70 years. My vote is see it and remember how young this type of film was. Keep and open mind and you maybe shocked at how troubled the characters were in this picture, for being 1934 and how we view the early part of last century as uptight.. I love it and hope you make up your own mind about it not influenced by others negative and one note comments." ]

[ "Is this the same Kim Ki Duk who directed the poignant, life-spanning testimonial of \"Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring\"? The same Kim Ki Duk who directed the exquisite, nearly silent, heartbreaking longing of \"3 Iron\"? The same Kim Ki Duk who dazzled us with the staggering tragedy of \"The Coast Guard\" and made us squirm about the ugliness of nonchalant teenage prostitution before returning to his almost patented nature motif to allow us all (characters and viewers alike) to experience redemption in \"Samaritan Girl\"? I just cannot seem to find him in this film.<br /><br />Oh, sure, Kim's nature motif is still present. The film takes place entirely on a lake surrounded by mountains and on fishing floats resting placidly on the surface of calm waters. Yes, it's Kim Ki Duk, all right. Kim even describes the film as \"beautiful\" in an interview included in the DVD's special features. But I'm not sure anymore what that means after viewing this putrescent presentation.<br /><br />What is beautiful about angry, potty-mouthed prostitutes, lustful, violent and potty-mouthed fishermen, a covetous mute merchant, explicit animal torture, sequences of self-mutilation and a pace that swings nauseatingly between bestial carnality and mindless brutality? These are the only elements of humanity that present themselves in this utterly confounding and ultimately pointless film. If it is based on a fable or intended as a parable or is meant to be symbolic of something greater, this reviewer is unfamiliar with the source material. It has been favorably compared to \"Audition\" by Japanese director Takashi Miike (much to Kim's satisfaction), but aside from some astonishingly good performances, especially given what they had to work with, by lead actors Seo Jung and Kim Yoo Suk, I find little reason to recommend this film. I have not seen \"Audition,\" but I doubt it would alter in any way my view of \"The Isle.\" Its violence is pornographic and senselessly sadistic. Its sex is not pornographic, but passionless and masochistic. Characters behave on irritating impulse because there is no plot. Its point is either non-existent or, I will admit, lost amidst Korean cultural quirks that I fail to understand.<br /><br />The only beauty is in the cinematography, which is classic Kim: fog-shrouded boats lapping slowly across a serene lake, mountainous terrain dominating the background, and an imaginative and playful use of color. At times it seems as if viewers are locked in a big Kim Ki Duk romper room. Some touches, like the mysterious and seductive mute merchant played by Jung and the pleasantly odd use of motorbikes, are intriguing. But as a film, this effort is downright confusing and, in the end, offensive to the senses, not necessarily to sensibilities. One hopes that Kim will leave this kind of film-making in the trash heap of his past, for we know he is capable of so much more." ]

[ "Boring, long, pretentious, repetitive, self-involved – this move felt like a bad date. Worse, the tedious art-school direction -- with a heavy-handed use of the whirling shot that gets so overdone it almost made me throw up –- is constantly screaming to be noticed. Add the thinnest of plots and virtually no dialogue, and the film begins to feel like a four hour epic about 30 minutes in. It gets worse: instead of dialogue there are poorly written voice-overs AND quotes and songs that comment all too obviously on the characters. Really loud opera music too. Blame it all on the director.<br /><br />The actors are all quite good. The lead actor Miguel Angel Hoppe is particularly suited for film stardom. He and the other actors have some tender erotic moments. Even these start to get boring after 5 minutes however, and one wonders if the director is auditioning for a Bel Ami porn job. The stunning college campus architecture as a location in Mexico City is inspiring. How come universities in the US are so bland (SFSU, UC, etc.)? But wait for the DVD on this film. You'll want to use the fast scan button – a lot." ]

[ "Scott Henderson, the engineer that employs Carol Richman, as his assistant, makes a point to call her \"Kansas\", whenever he speaks to her. It shows us that Carol, effectively played by Ella Raines, is supposed to be a babe in the woods, as far as the Manhattan of the 40s was concerned. Only a woman, from out of town, would follow the shady bartender to a solitary elevated subway. Even then, only a naive girl could undertake such an adventure.<br /><br />Robert Siodmak directed this film noir very well. He shows a flair for infusing the story with a lot of raw sex that was surprising for those days. How else could we justify the way the drummer in the orchestra of the musical, where Scott takes the mysterious woman with an unusual hat, makes such an overt pass at a lady on a date? The drummer played with high voltage by Elisha Cook Jr. doesn't hide his desires for any of the ladies who sat in the front row of the hit musical where he plays. It was a real explicit invitation, first to the \"phantom woman\" of the story, Fay Helm; afterward, Cliff the drummer, insinuates himself very openly to Ella Raines who goes to the theater disguised as the mystery dame her boss had taken originally.<br /><br />This is a film that will hook any viewer from the beginning. There are things not explained in it, but it holds the one's interest throughout. The killer is not revealed until the end. <br /><br />Ella Raines with her expressive eyes was an under estimated actress. She holds her own against much more experienced actors. Franchot Tone, a New York stage actor, working in Hollywood, never found in this medium the fame he deserved. He is effective as the accused man's best friend. On the other hand, Alan Curtis, comes across as a man, who when framed, accepts his fate and is saved only by the tenacity of the woman who secretly loved him. Thomas Gomez, as the inspector Burgess, is an asset to the film as a detective who has his doubts the police had caught the man who committed the crime.<br /><br />This movie will not disappoint." ]

[ "I bought the DVD of Before Sunset and saw it for the first time a week ago. Having saw it twice, I couldn't help but missing Before Sunrise, not because the sequel was not as great, but I felt that these two movies completed each other like no other sequels ever did, every time I finished watching one of them, I feel the need and yearning to see the other. So, I ended up spending the weeks watching both of them repeatedly, I will be quite embarrassed to mention how many times exactly. The most remarkable thing about Before Sunrise is how you feel the development of the feelings of their characters towards each other. It sounds so simple, the growing of the chemistry, I think other romantic films might think that they succeed to track the development, but to me - who doesn't believe in Nora Ephron - Before Sunrise is the first film to really gives the viewers chance to feel it. When I saw it for the first time, about 8 year ago when I was 20, I already liked it. But, I didn't rate it as a \"great film\", it still seemed to me like another thinking persons' feel good movie, Linklater was too smart to make it more realistic, it was 10 minutes too long, the characters was too well fabricated, I thought I liked it because it was like a dream and because I enjoyed their conversations, etc. etc.. But now, thanks to Before Sunset, I feel that's more to Before Sunrise than what I felt for it before. I saw the elements more clearly: Jesse, Celine, Vienna, their conversations, everything. How each of them are separated element by itself, and they have a chance to mix, the story is just a frame of time, I am no longer feel manipulated. And the freedom that every scene has, as well as its refusal to be overly efficient, how blind I was that those qualities didn't strike me as exceptional when I first saw it! Now, 8 year have passed, the more movies I've seen, the more I realize that many movies are just collections of ordered scenes that only exist for the sake of its ending, even movies like Pulp Fiction or Linklaters's own Slackers included. The Jesse and Celine tale avoid that, maybe Before Sunset is a better example in this case, but Before Sunrise is also one of few films that its ending is just a consequence of time, not a destination, every single scene has its own life. I don't know whether Linklater or anyone else had a sequel in mind when they made Before Sunrise, but to me, one of the most amazing things about these sequels are how these two films visually contrast each other. Before Sunrise which I think employs more static angels and brighter color schemes, seems to try to capture the smallest atoms of liveliness surrounding Jesse and Celine, the world is always full of hope whether or not the characters feel it. Meanwhile, I enter the vision of boredom as Jesse stuck talking to the journalists in Before Sunset, and Celine's first smile from behind the shelves are the most heartbreaking smile I've seen in a beginning of a film, and the many moving shots after that takes me to a place I don't know with a sadness in me, no matter how beautiful Paris is, and no matter how happy I am that they meet again. I'm sorry that I go on this long with my limited English, Before Sunrise is already an extraordinary film without me pouring my scattered thoughts, and it gets even better with an equally great sequel following it." ]

[ "Classic drama/action western with incredible cinematography that is well ahead of it's time(1954). The production is very good and you can tell that it was done with pride and love.Unique peek into the American NORTHT WEST pioneers is very educational and entertaining.This movie is very under rated because most people do not like to see the reality that many \"lawmen\" during this particular time and place were very crooked/corrupt much like most developing countries today.The action sequences could have been more realistic though but still,this movie really covers most of the essentials.Not for an audience who wants only pure testoterone type westerns for this movie is more for those who have a sense of history and philosophy......." ]

[ "Where to start... If this movie had been a dark comedy, I would say it was FANNN-TASTIC! Unfortunately for me, and anyone else with free time and a buck to spare (mind you that was the price I paid, got it from Wal-Mart), this movie was meant to be a thriller. The only THRILL I got was watching Kirkland's lousy rendition of Anne Wilkes from Misery sans snowy woodland area. If you want a good laugh, on a rainy Friday night with some friends, then I highly recommend this movie. But if you want to watch something at least half way decent, then don't even bother.<br /><br />I for one enjoy crappy films, the worse the better in most cases. But Wow... I Meant WOW!! The only person in the entire film that didn't stink it up was the little boy, played by Vincent Berry. The only reason why I even give it 3 stars is because it gave me something to do." ]

[ "Most people, especially young people, may not understand this film. It looks like a story of loss, when it is actually a story about being alone. Some people may never feel loneliness at this level.<br /><br />Cheadles character Johnson reflected the total opposite of Sandlers character Fineman. Where Johnson felt trapped by his blessings, Fineman was trying to forget his life in the same perspective. Jada is a wonderful additive to the cast and Sandler pulls tears. Cheadle had the comic role and was a great supporter for Sandler.<br /><br />I see Oscars somewhere here. A very fine film. If you have ever lost and felt alone, this film will assure you that you're not alone.<br /><br />Jerry" ]

[ "Such energy and vitality. You just can't go wrong with Busby Berkley films and this certainly must be his best. Of course the choreography is wonderful, but also the banter between Cagney and Blondell is so colorful and such a delight. Don't miss this one." ]

[ "Eddie Murphy spends his time looking for lost children, so when a very special magical child is kidnapped in Tibet, the sexy Charlotte Lewis asks for his help to rescue this child from the clutches of evil itself.<br /><br />Although the story is a bit silly, it never quite feels corny, despite the hilarity of the comedy throughout the film; Charles Dance off-sets the comedy with his very serious and dark characterisation of the evil that holds the child hostage.<br /><br />The Golden Child is very funny, action packed and really quite compelling in a charming, almost magical way.<br /><br />7/10 Great for all generations." ]

[ "This is a very rare example of a movie about transvestitism (of heterosexuals). The film treats the taboo theme so that even a general audience not knowing of transvestitism at all will strongly sympathize with its main character. Adrian Pasdar is very believable as Gerald/Geraldine and shall not be forgot for this brillant acting. The directing of Christopher Monger is very sensitively, treating such a difficult issue quite excellently, packed into a good story. Not a big movie, neither an \"art\" film, but a little, lovely motion picture!" ]

[ "This movie contains one of Richard Dreyfuss's greatest performances, as an actor who plays a dictator and does it so convincingly that his own mother does not detect the impostor. Also, this movie is funny, yet has a serious side as well. What is especially intriguing about this movie is the character Madonna, who is the dictator's mistress, but eventually becomes the leader of the country. Madonna's evolution from mistress to political leader added greatly to the quality of the story and to the movie's entertainment value. And the main character, who at the start of the movie is a struggling actor and somewhat of a buffoon, evolves too and by the end of the movie commands respect. I liked this movie." ]

[ "I couldn't hold back the tears when I watched this beautiful documentary. It was heart-breaking, disturbing, and inspiring all in one. I recommend this documentary to anyone seeking something that will make them think about what they are doing with their own lives. Or simply, something that will make you think. You watch as John lives through the last couple months of his life. You watch as he goes through his days with a positive attitude. At one point you begin to see that he is truly an amazing individual. You begin to understand that he has something to teach all of us. His life and struggles will make you cry, laugh, and find that life's a lot easier to live if you just take it one day at a time." ]

[ "This movie makes Peter an elf in Robin Hood costume instead of a human boy in probably-not-Robin-Hood-costume and ignores all the persona features in him that really matter. This movie makes Wendy a babbling idiot. And poor Captain Hook a TOTAL clown. And of course as every Disney cartoon must have a character which has had too many hits in the head, they made one of the Lost Boys that one. The only character that has not been disgraced in this film is Tink. The only star is for her.<br /><br />The story itself then? The Darling parents don't even get the time to notice their kids are gone!!! Probably one of the most significant point in the original story and they ruined it! Also the famous nursery scene between Peter Pan and Wendy is a stunning piece of- There are no thimbles and no acorns - one of the little things that makes the original story such a unique one. It's a wonder he even had lost his shadow and she helped him stick it. (Even though to his shoes and it makes no sense to me.)<br /><br />Ruining a great story like this just to amuse children should be illegal. So know now if you haven't known it before - this Disney version does not have anything significant in common with the original story - which is not really a children's story but just a great, great story.<br /><br />This just annoys me to no end." ]

[ "If derivative and predictable rape-revenge thrillers are your thing, then you're in for a rare treat... They don't really appeal to me, so I couldn't find any single thing to redeem this peculiar tale. It seems like something straight out of the 1980s, a different age when this would have gone straight to video. Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer do OK work with a weak script and a tedious scenario. But what is Gillian Anderson doing getting involved with a film like this after the brilliance of her performance as Lady Deadlock in the BBC TV adaptation of Bleak House last year? The director is said to have been influenced by witnessing a near-rape and by his work on documentaries, but even that's not an excuse for the bizarre scene where a pack of rural hounds beat up Dyer. I don't think I was the only person in the cinema laughing. What I can't understand is the involvement of the companies behind this film - FilmFour and Verve Pictures. Both have been involved in some great independent British films in recent years. Verve distributed Bullet Boy, Code 46 and Red Road - Straightheads doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. FilmFour and Verve take note: is this really the best you can do? What are independent British filmmakers going to make of your artistic judgement? It's a big blot on both of your reputations. Listen carefully: can you hear the thousands of fans of independent British films crying in despair?" ]

[ "A great movie. Lansbury and Tomlinson are perfect, the songs are wonderful, the dances, with a particular mention for the \"Portobello Ballet\" are gorgeous. As for the animated section, the match between animals has become an instant classic; the climax with the attack of the armatures is chilling and fascinating. I recommend to see the restored 134 minutes version or at least the 112 minutes video. Here in Italy we have only the 98 minutes version, although the film was presented in its original release at the running of 117 minutes. If possible, watch also the German videocassette: it was generated from the 98 minutes running but it's missing of every refer to World War II and of all the scenes between English people and their Nazi invaders!" ]

[ "*Contains spoilers due to me having to describe some film techniques, so read at your own risk!*<br /><br />I loved this film. The use of tinting in some of the scenes makes it seem like an old photograph come to life. I also enjoyed the projection of people on a back screen. For instance, in one scene, Leopold calls his wife and she is projected behind him rather than in a typical split screen. Her face is huge in the back and Leo's is in the foreground.<br /><br />One of the best uses of this is when the young boys kill the Ravensteins on the train, a scene shot in an almost political poster style, with facial close ups. It reminded me of Battleship Potemkin, that intense constant style coupled with the spray of red to convey tons of horror without much gore. Same with the scene when Katharina finds her father dead in the bathtub...you can only see the red water on the side. It is one of the things I love about Von Trier, his understatement of horror, which ends up making it all the more creepy.<br /><br />The use of text in the film was unique, like when Leo's character is pushed by the word, \"Werewolf.\" I have never seen anything like that in a film.<br /><br />The use of black comedy in this film was well done. Ernst-Hugo Järegård is great as Leo's uncle. It brings up the snickers I got from his role in the Kingdom (Riget.) This humor makes the plotline of absurd anal retentiveness of train conductors against the terrible backdrop of WW2 and all the chaos, easier to take. It reminds me of Riget in the way the hospital administrator is trying to maintain a normalcy at the end of part one when everything is going crazy. It shows that some people are truly oblivious to the awful things happening around them. Yet some people, like Leo, are tuned in, but do nothing positive about it.<br /><br />The voice over, done expertly well by Max von Sydow, is amusing too. It draws you into the story and makes you jump into Leo's head, which at times is a scary place to be.<br /><br />The movie brings up the point that one is a coward if they don't choose a side. I see the same idea used in Dancer in the Dark, where Bjork's character doesn't speak up for herself and ends up being her own destruction. Actually, at one time, Von Trier seemed anti-woman to me, by making Breaking the Waves and Dancer, but now I know his male characters don't fare well either! I found myself at the same place during the end of Dancer, when you seriously want the main character to rethink their actions, but of course, they never do!" ]

[ "The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.<br /><br />Rating: 6/10" ]

[ "This film is horribly acted, written, directed and produced. But it's so campy it's actually semi-watchable. That's SEMI watchable.<br /><br />The storyline (what little there is) makes virtually no sense whatsoever. The Barney Drum character is the only real comic relief in the movie and that gets tired after about 30 seconds. <br /><br />Many of the Canadian supporting cast can be found in TV commercials.. None of them went on to anything else that I'm aware of. And of course Sly Stallone's even less talented brother well..... =\\<br /><br />Trivia: It was filmed almost entirely in and around the little village of Claremont, Ont. (about 20 miles N.east of Toronto) I recognized many local landmarks/intersections/buildings. I think the Drive-in scene was filmed at the now demolished \"Oshawa Drive-in\" just before it was torn down." ]

[ "A sweet little movie which would not even offend your Grandmother, \"Saving Grace\" seems cut from the same cloth as a half-dozen other British comedies over the past two years...underdog is faced with adversity, finds the strength to challenge and learns something about him/herself in the process.<br /><br />Widowed and thus broke, Grace is a master gardener, and is enlisted to help her friend/employee Matthew grow his pot plant. He's been doing it all wrong, so Grace helps him out. They realize that she is the perfect person to harvest pot, which they can both benefit from. He enjoys smoking, she needs to raise funds to pay her mortgage. <br /><br />Highlight is Grace travelling to London to deal some of her merchandise, dressed in what looks like the white suit John Travolta wore in \"Saturday Night Fever\" and therefore sticking out like a sore thumb. <br /><br />Blethyn is always watchable, and you can't say that about a lot of people..well, I can't, anyway. Ferguson is very good, and Tcheky Karyo, who I liked in \"La Femme Nikita\", is memorable. <br /><br />Not profoundly moving or insightful, but immensely entertaining, and at a brisk 90 minutes, feels like a walk with friends. 8/10." ]

[ "This is certainly one of the most bizarre films ever made - even for Fellini. About the only one more bizarre is his SATYRICON. This is a two and a half hour romp through a strange nightmarish world of decadence, opulence and sexual challenge. Sutherland makes a curiously unappealing Casanova and the odd goings on in a series of unrelated vignettes taken from the great lover's autobiography fail to engage the viewer. The art direction and costume design are however OUTSTANDING. The Academy missed on not even nominating the former but did itself justice by rewarding an OSCAR for the latter. Also nominated (oddly) was the disjointed, pointless and almost inacessible screenplay. Go figure!! The film on video is only 150 minutes, 16 minutes short of the original running time. This viewer was grateful." ]

[ "Late, great Grade Z drive-in exploitation filmmaker par excellence Al Adamson really outdoes himself with this gloriously ghastly sci-fi soft-core musical comedy atrocity which plumbs deliciously dismal and dopey depths in sheer celluloid silliness and jaw-dropping stupidity. In the grim totalitarian future of 2047 sex has been deemed an illegal act by the Big Brother-like impotent bumbling idiot the Controller (an amusingly goofy Erwin Fuller). However, sweet'n'sexy Cinderella (radiant blonde cutie pie Catherine Erhardt) remains determined to change things for the better. With the help of her effeminate Fairy Godfather (a flamboyantly campy Jay B. Larson), Cinderella attends a grand gala ball with the specific plan of seducing handsome stud Tom Prince (the dorky Vaughn Armstrong) and teaching everyone that making love is a positive, pleasurable and wholly acceptable activity.<br /><br />Adamson directs this ridiculous yarn with his customary all-thumbs incompetence, staging the incredibly awful'n'inept song and dance sequences with a totally sidesplitting lack of skill and flair. The uproariously abysmal \"We All Need Love\" number with people in absurd animal costumes awkwardly prancing about the forest is a hilariously horrendous marvel; ditto the equally abominable \"Mechnical Man\" routine featuring a bunch of clumsily cavorting robots. Louis Horvarth's crude, static cinematography, the tacky plastic miniatures, Sparky Sugerman's groovy throbbing disco score, the copious gratuitous nudity (ravishing brunette hottie Sherri Coyle warrants special praise in this particular department), the brain-numbingly puerile attempts at leering lowbrow humor (Roscoe the Robot law enforcer is especially irritating), and the uniformly terrible performances (Renee Harmon's outrageously hammy portrayal of Cinderella's wicked overbearing stepmother cops the big booby prize here) further enhance the strikingly abundant cheesiness to be savored in this delectably dreadful doozy." ]

[ "While essentially a remake of the original Chinese Ghost Story, this third installment has higher production values and greater subtlety in both the acting and the story. Tony Leung is particularly good. CGS III is a gorgeous, moving film." ]

[ "This 1939 film tried to capitalize on the much better Michael Curtiz's film \"Angels with Dirty Faces\". As directed by Ray Enright, the only interesting thing is how tamed these kids were in comparison with what's going on with the youth in America's inner cities today.<br /><br />The film is only worth seeing because of the presence of Ann Sheridan and Ronald Reagan, who showed they were well paired together. The Dead End kids have larger parts as the plot concentrates on them rather than in the older folks.<br /><br />In a way it's curious how arson was used in the same way some scrupulous landlords did in later years right here in New York. It was the quickest way to turn a property around never considering the social problems it created. In today's climate with so many guns around there is a new reality. The young kids of the story seemed mere pranksters rather than criminals. How times change!" ]

[ "(BIG SPOILERS) I've seen one other Takashi Miike film, and that was the very disturbing and brutal 'Audition', which was an examination of the Japanese ideals of femininity! In 'Visitor Q'- which I think means 'Visitor Question'- he examines, in a very disturbingly gross way, the family unit. Miike's surreal vision of a dysfunctional family almost tries to be Lynchian in terms of confusion and film-making, but ultimately lacks the style and intrigue. We, the audience, are introduced to a bizarre array of scenarios from the opening scene with the father figure (Kenichi Endo- who was actually quite good) paying for sex with his displaced daughter (Fujiko). Then, as the father returns home, he is struck on the head by \"the visitor\" (Kazushi Watanabe) wielding a fairly sizeable rock, and for some reason, they both end up back at the family home. The mother (Shungiku Uchida) is beaten and bullied by her son (Jun Muto) who is also beaten and bullied by his school peers. When the visitor enters the home, he somewhat menacingly establishes himself as part of the unit. Eventually, the family begin to improve their relationship, with assistance from the visitor, through milking breasts, murder and retaining a sense of family pride.<br /><br />And there are other crazy scenes that somehow bring the family closer together. It's has uncomfortable humour, but is equally frustratingly silly, and over-the-top in its weirdness. There is a necrophiliac scene that is utterly disgusting, but ends up being ridiculously funny as the scene progresses. Partly because of the situation itself, and partly because you can't believe the filmmakers and the actors are actually doing this! The style of the film is poor to say the least, and the plot is stupid and unbelievably weak. The characters themselves are all over the place, and while I understand this is not meant to be realistic, there is hardly any interest in these confronting characters and situations as all of them border on the absurd! The camera-work is sloppy, and doesn't have that cinematic feel that Lynch's work entails. It's hard to take this film seriously on a surrealist level, or on an interpretation of examining the family unit in Japan. It just seems that Miike was out to shock, and the film seems self-aware that it's \"trying\" to be shocking, and it becomes almost comical to be taken seriously. All in all, I would say that this film is a bizarrely dark comedy, but it looks and feels amateurish, and seems to unnecessarily want to shock. Miike's previous film, Audition, was finely balanced between disgusting horror, character development and technique- which established more intrigue in the way the film was crafted to allow the viewer to become engrossed with the plot. 'Visitor Q' is a step down as it tries too hard to be outlandishly bizarre and intentionally confronting, without really having much to say in the process! <br /><br />** out of *****!" ]

[ "I love ghost stories in general, but I PARTICULARLY LOVE chilly, atmospheric and elegantly creepy British period-style ghost stories. This one qualifies on all counts. A naive young lawyer (\"solicitor\" in Britspeak) is sent to a small village near the seaside to settle an elderly, deceased woman's estate. It's the 1920s, a time when many middle-class Brits go to the seaside on vacation for \"their health.\" Well, guess what, there's nothing \"healthy\" about the village of Crythin Gifford, the creepy site of the elderly woman's hulking, brooding Victorian estate, which is located on the fringes of a fog-swathed salt marsh. When the lawyer saves the life of a small girl (none of the locals will help the endangered tot -- you find out why later on in the film), he inadvertently incurs the wrath of a malevolent spirit, the woman in black. She is no filmy, gauzy wraith, but a solid black silhouette of malice and evil. The viewer only sees her a few times, but you feel her malevolent presence in every frame. As the camera creeps up on the lawyer while he's reading through legal papers, you expect to see the woman in black at any moment. When the lawyer goes out to the generator shed to turn on the electricity for the creepy old house, the camera snakes in on him and you think she'll pop up there, too. Waiting for the woman in black to show up is nail-bitingly suspenseful. We've seen many elements of this story before(the locked room that no one enters, the fog, the naive outsider who ignores the locals' warnings) but the director somehow manages to combine them all into a completely new-seeming and compelling ghost story. Watch it with a buddy so you can have someone warm to grab onto while waiting for the woman in black. . ." ]

[ "This is the sort of thing that only now thrills the film eggheads. After all, Feierstein's Flex Crush will have you know that Real Men don't watch anything by Truffaut. <br /><br />It might have been interesting if Truffaut had anything to -say- here. The camera-as-voyeur motif was nothing new. Have we all forgotten De Sica's \"Bicycle Thief\"? Or anything by Hitchcock?<br /><br />So all we get is the extended metaphor of the juvenile as Truffaut, who spends all his free time 'screwing up his eyes' at the movies, who wrecks schoolroom discipline, gets accused of plagiarism(the many petty thefts), and ultimately escapes societal confines to make 'his own movie'. Sorry...been there, done that too many times for this to matter." ]

[ "This was probably one of the most well-made films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very height of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his finest achievement - gorgeous compositions and lighting with delicate shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most complex and beautiful scores - the epitome of his classical leit motif method. The music adds great emotion and excitement to the plot and is exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make \"Now, Voyager\" later that year - a fine film which won honors and awards and went down as a historical favorite, ciefly because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, \"The Gay Sisters\" is a much better film - better made in all departments, and more interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so childish and totally missing the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions an day of the week!" ]

[ "Let me make one thing clear….for the most part, the mentality of those who run the show in Hollywood frankly p*sses me right off in general and even more specifically in relation to its treatment of much loved, iconic characters from the pages of comic books. Why? Well let's take a typical Hollywood executive board meeting scenario to illustrate shall we…..<br /><br />Executive no.1 'Hey there's lots of dollars to be gleaned from superhero flicks these days.' <br /><br />Executive no.2 'Good point, let's make one with haste then! – We'll do a lucky dip in a hat and pick out a superhero at random to base a film upon!' (The dip takes place and a famous superheroes name is pulled out) <br /><br />Executive no.1 'Great! Now who can we get to play the part?' <br /><br />Executive no.2 'Who's a big box office star at the moment?' <br /><br />Executive no.1 '*name of big actor* is the in thing this week.' <br /><br />Executive no.2 'But does he really suit the role? I mean he doesn't resemble the character whatsoever.' <br /><br />Executive no.1 'Who cares?! He's a big name; We'll make the film with him in it anyway.' <br /><br />Executive no.2 'You're quite right! And besides we'll fill the entire film so chock full of glitzy special effects to appease the moronic masses that no one will ever question it anyway!'<br /><br />The above scenario clearly illustrates one of the reasons I generally loath most modern superhero movies. All style, no substance and simply pathetic casting of the iconic leads. Of course to be equitable, there are exceptions to the above rule; when Hollywood does get it right – take the casting of the original (and still easily the best!) Superman; Christopher Reeve and more recently Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen in the X-Men films.<br /><br />But back to the general negative traits displayed by Hollywood today…..wouldn't it be wonderful if our studio executives were to ALWAYS choose actors who actually suited the roles? Well in this less than ideal world, one filmmaker does just this believe it or not, by casting actors based upon their genuine resemblance to their comic book counterparts. His name is Sandy Collora. Sadly (but typically) Hollywood has not as of yet allowed Collora to direct a full length film but luckily for us, he has given us tantalizing glimpses of what the finished outcome would likely look like in the form of two (as of yet) famous super hero short features. One is the superb Batman:Dead End and the other is this mock trailer for an entirely fictitious film called Worlds Finest.<br /><br />Well, let's not mince our words here – this is absolutely awesome stuff!<br /><br />The casting of Mr. Universe winner and male model Michael O'Hearn, (who looked similarly awesome but was utterly wasted in the lackluster Barbarian) makes for the most perfect choice to play the iconic man of steel. In fact, in terms of physical resemblance, there has undoubtedly never been a closer approximation to the comic character.<br /><br />Added to this Clark Bartram is back fresh from his splendid portrayal as the Dark Knight in Batman:Dead End; Again, yet another hugely judicious piece of casting!<br /><br />What can I say? – If only this was indeed a real, full length film! Hollywood studio executives – take note! THIS is how it should be done!<br /><br />As a final note, I am once again intrigued by the vastly split reactions this short film has evoked from fans. Tellingly, the most acerbic and vehemently adverse reactions against it clearly come once more (as similarly with Batman: Dead End) from a younger, less cinematically experienced audience; a fact betrayed by their somewhat grammatically primitive rants and liberal usage of base diction. Such an unfortunate state of closed mindedness is indeed a sad phenomenon albeit one that our aforementioned studio executives in Hollywood, will no doubt derive great satisfaction from. After all, these very same misguided individuals are in all probability the exact same sort of CGI addicted, popcorn stuffing imbeciles that revel in the majority of crap that Hollywood churns out by the deluge these days." ]

[ "Previously, I wrote that I loved \"Titanic\", cried at its ending (many times over), and I'm a guy in his 60's. I also wondered about why this great movie, which won so many awards and was applauded by so many critics, was given only a 7.0 rating by imdb.com users.<br /><br />Well, I looked at the breakdown of the user ratings. While 29.0% of all votes gave it a 10 rating, 10.7% gave it a 1 rating. These 10.7% of these irrational imdb users, in effect, pulled the overall rating down to 7.0. <br /><br />In my previous comments, I blamed this very unusual voting pattern (a sudden surge in 1 ratings, with a high 10 rating, dropping only gradually and then suddenly reversing course and jumping at the 1 rating level) on only one thing: hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio. Believe me, I've tuned into enough chat rooms to see the banter by young people (young men, mostly), who defame him left and right. They absolutely hate the man, and they will have no part in giving him any credit in \"Titanic\". (To answer one other user: I am NOT talking about someone who just really doesn't like the movie that much, and gave it a 5 or a 6, etc. Everyone has, and is entitled to, his/her own taste. But no one can convince me that the imdb rating of only 7.0 overall for \"Titanic\", pulled to that level by an inordinate number of ridiculous 1 ratings, is a fair reflection of the overall motion picture.)<br /><br />Let me demonstrate my point by comparing the imdb user voting pattern of \"Titanic\" to 5 randomly chosen box office and critical \"bombs\" (there are many more, but these 5 will prove my point). \"Heaven's Gate\" (1980) was pulled from the theaters quickly after a very poor box office showing, and imdb voters' ratings were: 23.2% 10 ratings and 9.2% 1 ratings (overall rating of 6.1). \"Big Top Pee-wee\" (1988) got 4.3% 10 ratings and 9.9% 1 ratings (overall rating of 4.5). \"Cat People\" (1982) got 6.1% 10 ratings and 2.6% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.8). \"Blind Date\" (1987) got 3.0% 10 ratings and 2.8% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.3). \"Jumpin' Jack Flash\" (1986) got 4.4% 10 ratings and 3.7% 1 ratings (overall rating of 5.2). WHAT DO ALL OF THESE FILMS HAVE IN COMMON WITH \"TITANIC\"? ALL OF THE PERCENTAGES OF THEIR 1 RATINGS ARE LOWER !!!! THAN \"TITANIC\", AND NONE OF THESE STINKERS EVER WAS NOMINATED FOR A SINGLE AWARD. Again, \"Titanic\" got 10.7% 1 ratings! Compare that to the other 5 movies I just mentioned.<br /><br />Can there be any explanation other than the hatred of Leo factor?<br /><br />" ]

[ "With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements." ]

[ "After 30 seconds, you already realize that there was no real budget for this cheap knock-off. The story is taken from great movies like \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre\" and \"Hills have Eyes\". I like those kind of movies, even if they're duplicated well (Wrong Turn, Timber Falls, Carver). <br /><br />But \"Side Sho\" is hard to watch: the actors are really bad, the dialogue is cheesy and the music is stupid and totally misplaced. You do not care at all what happens to the characters. The so-called bad guys are also not interesting at all and rather stereotypical. So how about the blood and gore ? Well there is some, although it is rather cheap and the action is executed very poorly. 2 Points, just for the gore and blood but do understand that this is hardly worth a look, even for the gore-hounds.." ]

[ "If you really want to know how most of the actors and directors in the Hollywood scene \"made it\" to where they are, the vast majority will tell you (assuming they will tell) that a strange coincidence took place. They happened to meet the right people at the right time and get into the right project which led to other connections and other projects. Quinten Tarrantino took an acting class whose instructor knew Harvey Keitel. Kevin Spacey lifted a back stage pass from a sleeping old woman at the lecture of a famous playwright who helped him land an important role. And Robin Williams credits his career to Gary Marshall's son who, after having seen \"Star Wars\", suggested to his father that an alien should visit the Cunninghams of \"Happy Days\". These coincidences, many times viewed as pure luck, shapes many of the careers in Hollywood today. Or is it pure luck? Is possible something else is going on? \"Grand Canyon\" written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan, proposes an altogether different explanation for the inexplicable, aka the strange miraculous coincidence. The movie concerns several different characters whose lives intersect because of positive and yet inexplicable happenstance.<br /><br />Kevin Kline, a middle-aged father, experiences a break-down in one of the more dangerous areas of LA. After he phones a tow truck, a young gang accosts him. They threaten violence if he doesn't leave his car. Just before the confrontation can escalate, Danny Glover appears as the tow truck driver and dampens the intentions of the gang. Although Glover denies it later, he probably saved Kline's life. A producer (Steve Martin) of cheap violent films gets shot in the leg and after wards has a spiritual experience. He then announces retirement from producing blood and gore entertainment. And Kline's wife, Clair (Mary McDonnell), while on a morning jog, finds a baby hidden in some foliage. She claims the baby cried for her and that her \"rescue\" of the infant was preordained.<br /><br />The movie explores further the results of these strange connections that lead to further relationships, end to relationships, and new beginnings. And all the while, a strange homeless man appears throughout the movie as if somehow he is also connected to everything that is going on.<br /><br />It is very rare in Hollywood, or for film in general, to explore such a purely esoteric subject. There are a few moments that seem somewhat unbelievable, but maybe that's the point. What makes the film work is the superb acting by the cast. Although the miracles and coincidences may seem far-fetched, the actors make you believe they are experiencing these new realities. Maybe this is a subject we should explore more often." ]