Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

I was told Jon was for awhile on spiritual experiences. I guessed the film will be interesting.In fact isn't at all. Not so much profound for a such subject. "eternity" never-ending life. Experiences after death and "dejavu". The film is not as a comedy but isn't funny at all, at least not express yet. It's so naive. Charming film but naive film. A must to avoid. The Middle ages sequences seems coming directly from fairy tales and it's not the matter at all. Eileen Davidson is so charming and Voight is doing his best. Normal is a co producer and screenwriter of this movie. The film was launched straight on video so i discovered it on a video store. It's a pity 'cause I well know Voight was seriously involved with spirituality and the film isn't so much profound about it.

I won't try to speculate as to what Brando was attempting. At his best he turns in such oddball performances, insinuating so many things at once, that it doesn't seem he does anything so much as play by unfailing instinct. Often it seems he is calling attention to some favored aspect of his character over all others, a concentration which, if followed, turns out something of a red herring, as he turns out subtler, craftier than at first appeared. This is a mastery of artifice, not naturalism, as might be associated with the Method. The role of Sky Masterson, as Mankiewicz so wonderfully realized, seems tailored for him, which is to begin with odd, and odd still at the end, because whatever it is Brando has done, he has managed a grace maybe all his own, but a consummate grace nonetheless -- again, odd, coming from an actor with limited musical ability, not ever before or after associated with the musical comedy. Jean Simmons, also oddly cast, is not quite as impressive, but certainly above just-adequate, really delightful in the Havana sequence, and never less than enjoyable throughout. <br /><br />And yet...perhaps because actors are both so concentrated on what it is they are doing, and characters on what it is they intend of each other, there doesn't seem to be the lovers' "chemistry" brought up so insistently more than once. Brando/Sky Masterson and Simmons/Sister Sarah respectively feed off one another well enough, but I for one don't see more beyond that. In a movie this outrightly dazzling and entertaining (and most everything about it, craft-wise, is just that -- dazzling), that lack would seem something tactfully and easily overlooked, but so much would depend upon true chemistry! An, at least partial, transformation of the characters through such chemistry, would lend something positively moving to the final scene. As it is, one leaves this film certainly delighted, but not really moved, except in a way as to negate the trueness of the union. Note Sister Sarah marries in her missionary's uniform, Sky Masterson in his same natty man-about-town duds rather than wedding tux. And they have changed back to those from their previous scene!<br /><br />Funnily enough (that is, insightfully), the most touching, and most serious, scene is, I think, between Brando and Vivian Blaine, as Sinatra/Nathan Detroit's doll, Adelaide, the only scene where these two are exclusively together, not least because there is just no hint of flirtation between them even though it takes place in Adelaide's dressing-room while Adelaide is about to change. Though one may submit there is no place for that, Sky really is the type to "check out" Adelaide in this sort of circumstance. He is even there to tell Adelaide Nathan will not be meeting her to elope. Adelaide and Sky are both true in their respective ways to Nathan, even piteous of him, as is demonstrated through a tone in their exchange. Adelaide is of course also frustrated and disappointed, but her anger is mitigated by her deeper feeling for Nathan, as Sky is admonishing her that she can't love a man and then wish him to be someone else.<br /><br />Guys and Dolls is another turn at the battle of the sexes, around the themes of gambling and salvation. Since both the compulsive gambler and the salvation seeker are more or less unconsciously courting despair, there just may be a dark secret deliberately behind Brando's and Simmons' lack of chemistry. After all, that lack may well denote an excess of narcissistic preoccupation (echoed by the Sinatra/Blaine pairing, though with considerably less self-deception involved), which might explain Brando's and Simmons' odd, rather provoking, interpretations of Sky Masterson and Sister Sarah. I realize Simmons may be mostly depicting coldness and skepticism, but Brando, though playing to confront her, isn't exactly heated and eager, and is more than keeping his distance -- he's also assimilating it, keeping his balance through it. His boldness consists in merely playing against her -- the trip to Cuba, a kiss, whatever it takes -- but he is not actually set on winning through seducing her so much as beating her then in her own turf. This may be shrewd, as playing to zeal may be the only way to get to the missionary, and through. But it makes Sky's transition from merely trying to win a bet to actually wanting Sarah Brown a little less than persuasive. Yet why does he want her? What does falling in love mean to Sky? I find the only way to get around this is by indeed accepting his humanity has kicked in, and that he does not want to end up a mere cad toward Sister Sarah, so he does, as he's promised her, need to deliver the sinners to her prayer meeting, make good by his "marker," as he puts it, as a way of winning her back when it seems he had already won only to lose her. But this still denotes self-concern more than anything. However, it also allows for Sarah Brown's own self-concern, as Sky will placate the missionary in her in order to get back the lover. Neither, at least it seems, will change much by their union, except perhaps in the acceptance of the other. Yet that would seem an all but fatally uneasy proposition: acceptance of is still quite a cry away from achieving happiness in the other, let alone the transcendence they each seem to imply by "chemistry." And behind all this, I suspect is Mankiewicz's full knowing.<br /><br />For all those who might say, in defense of Guys and Dolls yet, that not much can be expected from musicals by way of depth, I need only remind them Cabaret, The Three-penny Opera, Carousel, A Star is Born, even The Sound of Music, which I don't care for as much (and one can keep adding to this list without even reaching forward toward post-Cabaret musicals), all wrap gorgeous music and dance around dire anxieties.

A most recommendable masterpiece, not only for the underlying themes of the story but also for the unmatchably brilliant and ingenious picture work of Angelopoulos, not to mention the acting of giants, Mastroianni and Moreau, and the remarkable character play by Ilias Logothethis. Gregory Karr's performance may seem overshadowed by his "tough" partners' at first stance but in fact he perfectly plays his character, which is revealed in his very last scene with the girl (Khrysikou) and the man (Mastroianni), albeit hinted beforehand. (Hence the spoiler.)<br /><br />Get your expectations straight! It's an "art movie" in whatever meaning that phrase has to offer and requires attention. Not for spending free time, but for watching an artwork with the necessary concentration as in reading a book or attending a concert. Due to the overall photographic style, large screen viewing is recommended.<br /><br />Dialogues are used sparingly. But the film includes -in addition to the standard Greek and English speaking- fragments spoken in Albanian, Kurdish and Turkish, which will be attractive for those who are charmed by the beauty in hearing various languages.

Yikes did this movie blow. The characters were weak, the plot weaker. I figured this couldn't be too bad because it has Christoper Walken, oops. He must have done this because he was bored and needed the money. The characters were supposed to be Irish but noone had an Irish accent. I am desperately trying to find something nice about this, I can't except Walken did a fine job with a wooden character. Find something to read, or watch discovery, don't ever see this movie.

After high-school graduation, best friends Alice and Darlene, decide to take a trip to Thailand. Whilst they are there, they meet a charming Australian guy named Nick. After spending some time with Nick, he asks them if they want to take a weekend trip to Hong Kong with him. They agree. At the airport though, they are get busted for smuggling drugs and then get convicted for 33 years in a Thai prison for something they say they haven't done. Not really knowing what to do they end contacting Yankee Hank, an American lawyer who lives in Thailand with his wife. Word has it that if you have the money he can help you. Things start of well, but they still can't get out.<br /><br />The movie is really good because it doesn't let on what's going to happen and it's interesting all the time. I couldn't believe the ending though. It was one of those endings where you don't know the 100% truth, but you still kind of know what really happened with Nick and the drug smuggling because of the 'owning up' etc. <br /><br />Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale both give quite good performances here. Beckinsales performance was a little weak though. Both Danes and Beckinsales characters friendship is good but could of seemed stronger. Paul Walker even has a small uncredited role here. ;)<br /><br />Anyway, I thought Brokedown Palace was a good movie and I give it a 7/10.

This film is more about how children make sense of the world around them, and how they (and we) use myth to make sense of it all. I think it's been misperceived, everyone going in expecting a stalkfest won't enjoy it but if you want a deeper story, it's here.......

This is very much overrated. I guess it carries some nostalgic value for many people. It has its moments, but every scene is heavily overacted and the plot is quite shallow. With this cast it could have been much better.

I saw Marigold at a preview showing a few days ago, and found it to be a thoroughly engrossing and enjoyable film. The film is about a not-so-successful American actress who goes to India to act in a low budget film, only to find herself stranded there when she finds on arrival that the film's financing has vanished, along with the producers and investors. A chance encounter with an Indian film shooting nearby leads her to be hired for a small dancer role in that. Since Indian films incorporate a significant amount of singing and dancing, this is a problem for Marigold, who has two left feet, not to mention a personality so tightly wound-up and thorny that she can hardly hear the music, let alone feel it, as Prem, the choreographer of the film, advices her to do.<br /><br />But "prem" -- the word, not the person -- means "love", and Prem -- the person, not the word -- seems to embody that emotion in the way he deals with all around him, whether it be his production assistant friends who introduced Marigold to the shoot, the narcissistic and arrogant leads of the film, or the bitchy and uptight Marigold herself. Soon, under his expert tutelage and endearing treatment, Marigold finds her feet -- literally and figuratively.<br /><br />I must say a word for those not familiar with the use of song and dance in Indian films. Unlike American musicals, the story progresses through these dance numbers, as plot developments unfold, and character transformations occur in parallel with the dancing. It should also be pointed out that Indian dance is about a lot more than mere movement. An essential part of it is the enactment of the dancer's feelings and emotions while telling the story of the dance. This is the main purpose of the dance and the dancer.<br /><br />That Marigold reaches this stage of accomplishment is demonstrated in a stunning dance number about midway through, when Marigold, while performing the dance she is required to do for the film-within-the-film, also expresses her love for Prem. It is an amazing performance by Ali Larter, especially when one considers that she is not used to dancing in her films, or emoting her character's feelings via dance. It shows her skill as an actress, as well as how much hard work she has put into the role.<br /><br />Of course no romantic film can work without a credible Prince Charming. Salman Khan, who plays the role of Prem, fits the role to a T. Even when it turns out that he is a Prince not so charming, he does not lose the audience's sympathy. Salman has been ruling Hindi cinema (sometimes called Bollywood) for many years now, and it is worth remembering that his first leading role was also as Prem. He is completely charming, sweet, adorable, sexy, and vulnerable. For those who have never encountered him on screen before, be prepared to be hit with mega doses of sheer magnetism! He and Ali Larter make a lovely pair, and are as well matched in their acting as in their appearance.<br /><br />Will they manage to work out their problems? It doesn't seem possible as we hear the last song of the film, a lovely blending of fact and fantasy, reality and metaphor. The ending certainly took some of the audience I saw it with by surprise, but they were left satisfied. The songs are used very cleverly. They are in Hindi, unsubtitled, for the film-within-the-film sequences, and in English for other occasions. But their meaning is always clear from the context and choreography.<br /><br />Marigold is a very satisfying romantic comedy -- yes, there is quite a bit of humor as well in it. The Indian locations and costumes give it a fairy tale quality, befitting a story which can be likened to a modern fairy tale.<br /><br />If you are or have been curious about Indian cinema, but were hesitant to try it, this is an excellent introduction. It captures the color and vibrancy of Indian films, not only in the costumes and jewelry (which are quite impressive), but also in the lively dances and world sound music.<br /><br />If you are a fan of Ali Larter, you should watch it for her excellent acting in portraying a selfish, demanding, "high-maintanance" woman who nevertheless has an inner attraction that inspires the love of two men. If you are a girl, you will enjoy admiring Ali's lovely costumes and ogling her hunk of a leading man. If you are a guy, you can not only admire Ali in her sexy costumes, but learn from Salman Khan what it takes to bring out the loving heart even from someone as edgy as Marigold.

Pre-adolescent humor is present in large quantities. The acting and story are wonderful if you can stomach the concept. Those with weak constitutions will have some difficulty since the "worms" are realistic enough to cause churning of more than a few in the audience.<br /><br />Tom Cavanagh and Hallie Kate Eisenberg stole the spotlight, but the young Ty Panitz could get some serious time on screen over the next few years.<br /><br />Miss Eisenberg has developed from a cute face into a strong young actress with charm and wonderful comic delivery. <br /><br />The story does a spectacular job in dealing with bullying, friendship, and fairness. It creates an opportunity to discuss these topics in an open and frank manner while recalling some "gross" scene from the film.

This is to the Zatoichi movies as the "Star Trek" movies were to "Star Trek"--except that in this case every one of the originals was more entertaining and interesting than this big, shiny re-do, and also better made, if substance is more important than surface. Had I never seen them, I would have thought this good-looking but empty; since I had, I thought its style inappropriate and its content insufficient. The idea of reviving the character in a bigger, slicker production must have sounded good, but there was no point in it, other than the hope of making money; it's just a show, which mostly fails to capture the atmosphere of the character's world and wholly fails to take the character anywhere he hasn't been already (also, the actor wasn't at his best). I'd been hoping to see Ichi at a late stage of life, in a story that would see him out gracefully and draw some conclusion from his experience overall; this just rehashes bits and pieces from the other movies, seasoned with more sex and sfx violence. Not the same experience at all.

This is a film that is far more enjoyable than its rating of 7 would suggest. In many ways, it's like a 50s version of VALLEY OF THE DOLLS--with much of the excesses and sleaziness of VALLEY polished up a bit for the audiences of 1959. Like this later film, both are about three young ladies who are on the fast-track to success--though this time it's in the publishing world instead of the entertainment industry (though one of the ladies in THE BEST OF EVERYTHING does have aspirations of Broadway).<br /><br />The film begins with Hope Lange coming into the company for her first day of work. She's assigned to tough-as-nails boss, Joan Crawford, who is appearing in her first supporting role in decades. Despite how nasty Crawford seems, Lange is determined not to give in--to make it in this job. And, over time, she quickly moves up the ranks from secretary to editor. At the same time, her two new roommates also try to move up the ranks--one through the stage and one through a relationship with a rich playboy. Like VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, all of them have their ups and downs (mostly downs) but by the end of the film there is some hope that at least some of them will make it--battered and bruised, nevertheless.<br /><br />In this film, men are mostly pigs. The only guy who seems decent is played by Stephen Boyd, so naturally Hope Lange neglects him for a ne'er do well ex-boyfriend. As for the guys played by veteran character actor Brian Ahern and the rest, they are sexist scum and eventually you understand how Crawford became so bitter and nasty.<br /><br />This film has it all--adultery, premarital sex, abortion, etc. and is certainly NOT an artistic triumph. However, thanks to excellent production values and a juicy script, this one is a joy to watch. Just don't expect Shakespeare!!

Wow, I loved this movie, this film was filled with plot twists, good acting, great story, and a surprising ending. To be completely honest this movie wasn't overly gory, it does contain some gore, though, but was more on the psychological side. I read it on the Internet: the film cost 3000 dollars and was shoot in 8 days. Amazing!!! This is for someone that wants to think and loves great film making. What starts out as a terrorizing thriller slowly transforms into something a bit more twisted, even a bit more sinister. Not much I can say without giving away plot points only that this movie went beyond my expectations

My one-line summary hints that this is not a good film, but this is not true. I did enjoy the movie, but was probably expecting too much.<br /><br />Adele, who is solidly portrayed by Susan Sarandon, did not come off as a very likable character. She is flighty and irresponsible to what would be an unforgivable degree were it not for the tremendous love she has for her daughter. This is the one thing she knows how to do without fail. Adele's daughter, Anna, is a sad girl who is so busy making up for her mother's shortcomings that she does not seem to be only 14-17 years old. This, of course, makes Natalie Portman the perfect choice to play Anna since she never seems to be 14- 17 years old either. Portman pulls this role off with such ease that you almost forget that she has not been making movies for 20 years. Yet, even with the two solid leads, Wayne Wang never seems to quite draw the audience in as he did with The Joy Luck Luck and even more so with Smoke. Though I have not read the book, the film feels as if it has made necessary changes to the story to bring it to the big screen, changes which may drain the emotional pungency of the story. I enjoyed the film for the fun of watching two wonderful actresses do their work, but I never got lost in the experience and I never related to their plight.

This one of the best and funniest comedy series i have ever seen! All characters are brilliant.<br /><br />Mr. Slatt (David Bamber) is a very very irritated man, irritated by everything and anyone.<br /><br />He wants to do things and handle situations as best as he possibly can, but he never gets it right and only gets himself deeper and deeper in trouble. Not supported by his wife Janet, who only tries to get him deeper and deeper into the trouble he is getting himself into (and really does not need the help at all!).<br /><br />All characters are played/portrayed brilliantly. Just imagine sending your kid(s) to a school like this.<br /><br />It is unbelievable that people do not like it (maybe some don not get the many many plays on words, that are featured many times per episode).<br /><br />It is also unbelievable that there is still no DVD release of it. There are only 2 series!<br /><br />So please, release it, let it go! So the fans can and will enjoy it!<br /><br />Try it, you might just like it!!!<br /><br />Just some names & words from the series: Pumpman, Man Helmet, Hot Bitch, Mount Suzy, Travis Fellatio, Cockfoster, Arshead (and many many more).

This movie is not worth the time it takes to put it in the VCR or DVD player! Michael Dudikoff and Lisa Howard are two bounty hunters in love, yet they are total opposites. She is ambitious and organized, while he is laid back and totally scatter brained.<br /><br />In this movie, bad guys are chasing Jersey Bellini (Dudikoff's character). This opens the door to bad Godfather impressions, ludicrous fight scenes, and Tony Curtis playing the most effeminate looking mob boss I have ever seen! The ending has to be the most...unbelievable scene I have seen in a movie in quite some time. I would believe the Terminator, even the Matrix, has a better chance of possibly being true than this ending! This movie just reeks of cheapness. The script had to have hit someone as being totally ridiculous. Yet, the green light was given for this piece of dung to be made and let loose on on unsuspecting public. I watched this movie with several other people who all agreed that we had been cheated. No one in the group could say anything good about the film except that it was over.

The only thing remarkable about this movie? is that all the actors could bomb at the same time. Idiocy. I want my money back...and I got it free from the library. Sheesh. I would rather chew on tin fool and shave my head with a cheese grater then watch this again.

This is where the term "classic film" comes from. This is a wonderful story of a woman's bravery, courage and extreme loyalty. Poor Olan got sold to her uncaring husband, who through the years learned to appreciate her. (Yeah right, A PEARL!!) <br /><br />Luise Rainer was the beautiful star who had won the Best Actress Oscar the year before for her small role (and what a waste of an oscar) in "The Great Zigfield". It really didn't show what, if any, talent she had other than her exotic beauty. But in "Good Earth" she shows that she can really act! Her beauty was erased and she had no great costumes either. People say that she didn't show any real emotions in this film. Like hell. Her character Olan is a shy and timid woman, with inner strength. She is quiet during parts of the film with only her eyes and body to convey her emotions. Example: those scenes during the fall of the city and when looters were being shot. If you people are saying that she doesn't act well in this film, you are NOT looking!<br /><br />Paul Muni shows that he can act as well. His character is not a likeable one to me. He never sees her for what she is, until the very end of the story. A sweet loving and dedicated wife and mother, with her own special beauty. The greatest one of all, the beauty from within, like a pearl.<br /><br />If you get a chance to see this film, watch it. You will see one of the best films that the golden age of Hollywood created.

Råzone is an awful movie! It is so simple. It seems they tried to make a movie to show the reel life. Just like Zappa did many years ago. But unfortunately Denmark lacks good young actors. Leon are by many still the little girl in "krummernes Jul", and Laura is simply not good enough to play such an important role. several times in the movie she plays with out soul and this is destroying the movie!<br /><br />Even though i consider it a movie you ought to see. I do not agree that the youth are behaving like this, but i think it can show how it can end, if you are letting your child down. Also it is important to support danish movies and new companies like "Film folket"!<br /><br />all in all I think people should see Råzone. Not because it is a great film, but because it is a movies which is dealing with important themes. I also think it is important to point out that there are some violent scenes in it, and actually it is in these scenes, Laura is acting best. - like the ending where she is holding the gun!

I can't stand people who comment on this program or other HBO programs as "too graphic" or "unnecessarily graphic" or that they contain "gratuitous nudity/violence/sodomy etc".<br /><br />Guess what? Prison life isn't PG-13. The "gratuitous" graphic content is TRUE TO LIFE of this situation. Prison contains inmate rape/killings/drug deals and showers. If you don't like it, then don't watch the program. I'm certainly no fan of prison rape, but if it was left out of the show I'd be surprised and lend the show less credibility. If the prisoners didn't curse, it would just be silly. Sure it's gratuitous language, but that is REALISTIC.<br /><br />The show is good, some of the viewers....not so much, I guess.

A very bad attempt at a young spinal tap. At least the music in spinal tap was good.<br /><br />This is really a very sad case of Hollywood nepotism at it's worst. A bunch of Hollywood execs, bad musicians and producers create some "poopie" show so their kids can be in the spotlight. Oh please!!! The potty humor was even bad. I hate this stuff when there is really incredibly talented kids (musicians, actors and artists) out there busting their butts to have success and this crap comes along.<br /><br />Help u all!!!! Why wasn't Gene Simmons in it??? Ameriac's taste in entertainment is going down the toilet.

A dedicated fan to the TLK movies, with the first one being a milestone and the second probably the best sequel Disney has produced, along comes this film... Now I'm not arguing with animation, voice work, music, but this is no more than a Timon/Pumbaa screwloose in the TLK atmosphere. Although it isn't bad, it doesn't add anything. Basically this movie is one big joke... and that's about all that saves it. Make a real TLK3, Disney! The potential is there.<br /><br />4/10

This feels very stilted and patronizing to a great extent. The whole plot is extremely forced - especially the "gallant" effort to save the college from ruin, and the moralistic overtone (especially by the leading lady) grates a bit.<br /><br />But there are one or two comic moments that do help relieve the boredom, and the dancing is quite fun (especially for alleged amateurs - ha, ha!)<br /><br />The shop proprietor and the young guy doing spectacular tap dancing were particular highlights. And I liked Peter Hayes impressions of Charles Laughton and Ronald Coleman as well.

I love this movie. As a kid, this was one of the first movies I saw that made me flinch. Sure, it is mild now, but back in the day, it was awesome. Dentists are one thing so many people fear, so why not do a movie about a killer dentist? It's cheesy, it's fun, sometimes it's scary, but it is awesome. And I have always had a love for medical horror. And Corbin Bernsen plays Dr. Feinstone perfectly, no one could have done it better. And for a low budget horror film, the effects and such are quite good. And I also love the theme music, it goes well with the film. Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead) is also in this one playing a nosy cop, and does a fine job. There is a fair amount of blood, and some really cool torture/death scenes. Check this one out!

This movie is very cool. If you're a fan of Tsui Hark and Chinese fantasy films, you should love this. This film is the Asian Lord of the rings: A high fantasy story, based in actual Chinese mythology. (I realize many critics have called this film plot-less, I think they probably have zero knowledge of Chinese mythology.) If you liked Stormriders or Warriors of Heaven & Earth, this one should be right up your alley. This film is still very difficult to find in the U.S., even though it was purchased for U.S. distribution along with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Iron Monkey. Well worth the search!!! This DVD is also worthy of owning.

I must begin by saying that this is one of the most annoying films I have seen in my entire life! Annoying factor number one: Never seeing the "son's" face (for the entire movie). And the infinitely more annoying factor: That incessantly ringing phone..nothing but listening to the phone ring over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...you get my point. The old man was being harassed but the VIEWER was too! At first the film was interesting to me but it deteriorated VERY quickly. The film may possibly have been good as a short but was definitely not enough to maintain anything approaching feature film length. I guess what I am trying to say is that the message about racism (which finally put in an appearance during the last two scenes of the movie) is secondary to this old mans being harassed. Who cares to sit and watch what is really nothing more than an old man spouting obscenities at someone prank calling him?? If you've never seen a movie that just gets under your skin and drives you CRAZY...check this one out!

I loved this movie! It's the finest parody of Russian cinema to date. Who else but Sokurov could lampoon Tarkovsky so brilliantly. You thought "Stalker" was slow? Well, step up to the plate. "Mat i Syn" makes "Stalker" look like "Raiders of the Lost Ark". By no means should you miss this film! There's no excuse - even if you live a busy life, you can still enjoy this film to its fullest by holding down the fast-forward button on your VCR. Sokurov has given us the first feature length film that can be appreciated in 12 minutes.<br /><br />I suppose the next great masterpiece of the form will come when someone has the vision and courage to exhibit a film that consists of no sound or image at all - 45 minutes of a black, silent screen (wasn't this already explored in "In The Soup"?).<br /><br />Apparently the filmmaker (and fans) have forgotten that "motion" is the first word of "motion picture".<br /><br />!!!MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!<br /><br />Want to reach the heights of genius that this film achieved? Here's a step by step guide:<br /><br />1. Find a talented photographer.<br /><br />2. Find some subjects and a suitably picturesque landscape (think Tuscany!). If you need inspiration, watch some luxury car or perfume commercials.<br /><br />3. Shoot about 3 rolls of film.<br /><br />4. Photoshop the results to play around with saturation, blur & aspect ratio.<br /><br />5. Now just get out your movie camera, film 40 of the best pictures and have your "actors" mumble their lines off-screen. Don't worry about writing it ahead of time - just let the actors say whatever they want (lines like "Do you want a drink?" and "Let's get something to eat" are really all you need to fill up 8 minutes or so). If you can't think of enough dialog - no problem! Just have them repeat what they say a few times. If that still isn't enough, just let the camera run anyway.<br /><br />Congratulations, another masterpiece! As a bonus, if you want to distribute it over the internet, no problem! The static images will compress down to nothing with standard mpeg encoding - a 73 minute movie would probably be about 2-3 megabytes, even at the highest quality levels.

(Contains really bad Spoilers) So what can I say about this....It's a really HORRIBLE and AWFUL movie!!.Too much CGI and special effects....you could tell how fake the ridiculous baby is!!.PLEASE at least go watch "Dungeons and Dragons" which is another terrible pile of TRASH.Son of the Mask makes Dungeons and Dragons way better!!! Uggg!!!!!!!!!!!! Pure Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!I Hate this Trash!! I would also like to say that "Superbabies:BabyGeniuses 2" was also a really stupid movie.Probably just as stupid as "Son of the Mask"."BabyGeniuses 2 was just as fake as"Son of the Mask" and also contains way too much CGI!!<br /><br />Anyway Yeah...this was a BAD BAD REALLY BAD movie....just please avoid it....Do NOT recommend this to no one...please its just way too ridiculous....makes no sense and really bad plot.The baby peing on his dad was just lame!

Director/writer Andrés Waissbluth worked seven years to complete this two hour film about the crime underground in Santiago, Chile, and perhaps that is one of the reasons the resultant film seems episodic and in need of editing. OR, maybe this is the technique of a director who shows a fine sense of film noir storytelling.<br /><br />Two brothers - Silvio the elder (Néstor Cantillana) and Victor the younger (Juan Pablo Miranda) - have moved to Santiago from their home in Temuco after their parents' death and Silvio works to support Victor's education. On Victor's seventeenth birthday Silvio takes the virgin out to the clubs where he encourages Victor to lose his virginity with one of the club's stripper/prostitutes. In a tender scene Victor must face his nascent impotency while Silvio is out on the club floor impressing the 'owners' with his potential for hire.<br /><br />Silvio goes to work for the 'gang' as a bodyguard/henchman and makes good money to support Victor's schooling. But Victor has eyes for one of the dancers at the club named Gracia (Antonella Ríos) and begins to woo her, dropping out of school incurring Silvio's angry disappointment. Gracia just happens to be the squeeze of the club gang's leader Don Pascual (Alejandro Trejo) who is Silvio's boss! Gracia is the glue that holds this tale together as she is the paramour of Victor, Silvio, and Don Pascual and the consequences of this bizarre ménage a trois has deadly results. Through a means of re-telling the story through the eyes of Victor, Silvio, and Gracia we grow to understand the vulnerabilities and the cracks in each character that allow for the downfall that results.<br /><br />Sound like a Chilean Pulp Fiction? Well, it is and it is filmed in a brutally colorful, dark manner that includes a lot of frontal nudity (both female and male) and provocative sexual encounters. But in the end the sensual aspect of the director's vision is what drives this film, playing on the debutante virginal psyche against the hardcore professional sex worker with success. The cast is fairly strong, especially Antonella Ríos in the demanding role of Gracia. There are enough twists and turns and replays of incidents you think you understood the first viewing but that change dramatically in impact when told through the eyes of a different character. Bordering on two hours, some judicious editing would have helped the impact of the film. In Spanish with English subtitles. Recommended for those who like the edgy film noir style and the art of South American cinema. Grady Harp

Released as KING BOXER in the U.K.<br /><br />This film was essentially the FIRST kung fu film to go on general release in the U.K. Many of us had ratcheted through Kurosawa's astonishingly gritty and involving dramas and were used to oriental film being beautifully shot and lit, with somewhat restrained pacing, all in all like leafing through an album of very fine still photographs that just happened to be moving.<br /><br />Along come Run Run Shaw and co. with their widescreen "home movie" production values, and astonishing ripe-for-parody dubbing and all the rules have changed. KIng Boxer was the first in through the door, leaving a clearly marked trail for others to follow with their feet planted firmly on top of the blazed footsteps.<br /><br />In spite of hokey plots, pantomime acting, cheesy jump-cuts and spaghetti western style snap-stepped zooms, this film was marvellous. Gorgeous without being opulent and with the most brilliant fight choreography ever to grace a screen. We loved the sickening violence, the anguish, the testosterone. The martial artists among us found some of the techniques fascinating, if flamboyant and oftentimes silly. It was so very different from the Japanese stuff we all knew, and it had lovely acrobatic grace that perfectly complemented the sickening violence and bloodstained floors. Delightful.<br /><br />The "KIng Lear" scene was, at the time, quite a milestone in schlock "You cruel bastards.. My **** !!" Now it's rather less shocking, but still a bit of a gut-churner<br /><br />We didn't notice that any females in sight were absolutely one-dimensional. After seeing more films of the genre, it now stands out like a sore thumb, but at the time it didn't matter<br /><br />This film defined what would rapidly become the kung-fu movie clichés. All of them. Watch it and remember that until this burst onto the western screens, there was no genre for it to slot into. It was unique and awesome. It was the first kung fu movie and it still is, for me and many others, the best.

Saw this movie last night. I don't usually comment good or bad, as I think movies are like books in that there is something for everyone and everyone is different, tastes vary, yadda yadda. This movie was bad. By the end I thought, oh my, this is testing my patience. How many women really look and live like this when they hit "rock bottom" and if I could just borrow some cash from mum and carry out to live my fashion designing dreams - gosh, life would be great! I was out for a nice chick-date flick with my girl (my darling hubby likes watching movies together and I knew this wouldn't be his thing), something light and easy on the senses, but this was one bad movie. We are intelligent and interesting movie watchers and this movie wasn't that. Annette Benning is a great actress, she held her own. Bad. Bad.

I thought they should have called this movie "Whites" instead of "Heights". Godawful...the kind of film that makes people hate New Yorkers. People who are so self obsessed and think their lives are so important...give me a break. Such a lily white cast that Glenn Close was the most ethnic character in it, this film was crying out for someone real to come in and steal it...and so they introduce, get this, a character even whiter than the rest of the cast (I thought he was an albino at first)who's supposed to be Welsh!I'm still trying to decipher that accent! Intellectually dishonest...this movie is the kind of film that's able to fool so many people into thinking it's worthwhile because it has the trappings of something more ambitious. Better to fill the theaters with MI5-10 than with this pretentious crap...must have been a better play because you can't fall off the floor.

I felt compelled to comment on this film because it's listed as the fourth lowest-rated sci-film of all time on the IMDb. WHAT!?!? Sure, this movie is crappy, but it's HILARIOUS! It's not awful on an Ed Wood level, it's more surreal and uneven.<br /><br />There are some classic moments in the film. The brain surgery is gross and great- and even nuttier when you consider that the film was rated PG! Gor chasing after his dolly before getting battery acid dumped on his face- "Mine! Gimmee!" Zandor Vorkoff's speeches at the beginning of the film- "Before Amir, Kali was but another weak nation struggling to break free from centuries of stagnant feudalism!" Angelo Rossito also has some great lines- "No, Gor! No!" "You want these keys, don't you, my pretties?" It is absolutely wrong that this is the 4th lowest-rated sci-film on the IMDb because it is ENTERTAINING. No matter how bad a film is, if it still manages to be weird, quirky, unsettling, or entertaining, it has merit and doesn't deserve to be dumped on and dismissed. I won't defend most of Al Adamson's films, but this one, along with Dracula VS. FRANKENSTEIN and BLOOD OF GHASTLY HORROR, are entertaining enough to make up for their awfulness.

I'll say it again... one of the worst films ever made and it was made by the director that made one of my most, favorite films - "Excalibur". I was floored to see it got a grade of over six. This movie sucks. It looked terrible. It looked like it was shot in 18 days and Boorman must've been sleeping when he directed this. Arquette didn't do anything. Just plain terrible, rotten, unbearable and probably the only blemish in Boorman's celebrated career.<br /><br />1/10!!!!!

I have seen three other movies that are worse than this one, "Plan 9 from Outerspace", "Side Hackers" and the dreaded "Blair Witch Project" There are so many technical errors in this movie that regardless of a decent plot the movie just isn't believable.<br /><br />Let's start with an AMTRAK train with no skirts or handrails between cars. The killer walks up behind his victim as she moves from car to car and just pushes her off the train.<br /><br />In one scene a killer sneaks into a woman's apartment. He wants to sneak up on the woman to kill her, so what does he do? He turns up her stereo! If I heard my stereo suddenly get louder I'd be concerned. He kills the women by throwing an electric hair curler into the tub. I was amazed to see that an electric hair curler with a five foot cord could be tossed ten feet and remain plugged in. Plus the apartment looked modern enough to have ground fault outlets in the bathroom and the victim was still electrocuted.<br /><br />The Boeing 747 is one of the most well known commercial airliners on the planet so this part really amazed me. First the cockpit was not even close to a real 747 and second it wasn't on the top deck of the plane. I watched in utter amazement as the pilot and co-pilot (Where was the flight engineer?) walked right past the spiral staircase and headed forward toward's the nose of the airplane.<br /><br />I was also amazed that bullets wouldn't penetrate an aluminum serving cart (good thing for our hero), or bathroom doors, but would penetrate the ceiling causing a fuel leak that exited through a small hole in the fuselage. Huh? Watching three guys lengthen a runway by 100 yards in less than a week was pretty amazing as well.<br /><br />I didn't check, was this a movie of the week or something? It was terrible.

I remember seeing this movie a long time ago on television. I remember the premise of the movie being about a bunch of hotel occupants being attacked by man-eating ants. What I didn't remember was HOW AWFUL IT WAS!!!<br /><br />I recently caught this movie on television late at night. I'm sure it must have been a mistake because movies like this usually disappear from existance and are never to be found again! Suzanne Somers (at the pinnacle of her career playing Chrissy on 'Three's Company') plays a vacationer at Lakewood Manor. Constructions workers are installing a swimming pool outside and accidentally disturb an ants' nest. Or should I say, a *MAN-EATING ANTS' NEST*!! One of the workers actually gets attacked by the ants. One minute he's picking them off his clothes one by one, the next minute he's covered in them. The next scene shows a skeleton in the dirt.<br /><br />If you thought that was pretty far-fetched, you should see Myrna Loy playing a wheel-chair bound resident who gets airlifted out of the Manor via helicopter! I could almost picture her thinking in relief that she was getting airlifted out of the movie!<br /><br />The final scenes depict Suzanne, Robert Foxworth and a third guy sitting on the floor of a hotel room with their backs to each other, blowing through straws and covered in ants.<br /><br />That's basically the movie. There's really no "disaster" appeal or "big-star" draw to the film. It was intended to be a 'grand-scale' television event at the time. Now, it's lucky if it gets dumped in a 4:00am timeslot on your local television station.<br /><br />If you want to catch Suzanne Somers at her best, then watch an episode of Three's Company. If you want to see Myrna Loy doing anything to put bread on the table and pay the bills, then watch this movie.<br /><br />0/10

I didn't know a lot about this film going into it but I did find out that Kane was a wrestler, which didn't exactly thrill me but hey, I liked "Santa's Slay" and that had a wrestler in it, so what the hell. The story begins very strangely and promisingly but after a while becomes not much more than your typical teen terror slasher flick, although the settings helped some. A bunch of criminal young folks get rounded up and taken to an old hotel that used to be a luxury palace but is now a dump, to clean it up to prepare it as a homeless shelter. The driver is a man with a prosthetic arm, being a veteran of the opening scene of this movie wherein he encounters this big galoot that had just killed his partner and blinded another woman. The teens, all being punk smart-asses, all of course object to having to do any real work, but they're part of some unique co-ed work program, yep, what a great idea that is, of course. Little does anyone suspect that there is someone lurking there in the hotel that in his own little way will save the tax payers of that state some money. Of course, it's the guy that likes to collect eyeballs, and he's got quite a collection going. There won't be a lot here that horror fans haven't seen before but there's a few brutal scenes and sufficient gore to satisfy the hard-core fan. The setting of the old hotel makes a perfect spot for a slasher flick too, and there's little sub-stories, like the search for an alleged safe full of money and the search for babes, since this co-ed work crew is evenly matched. Most of the teens are deservingly killable too so that works well. Not great but far better than Silent Hill or When A Stranger calls, and perhaps better than some of the other crap that I wouldn't bother to see. 7 out of 10.

As someone else mentioned, it begins with a bizarre prologue about a little blond girl killing a cat. Then the main story: a photographer (Gaffari) and a writer (Shepard) meet by chance and take a trip into the mountains. First they spend the night at an inn where the slightly deaf landlord gets hollered at, with increasing irritation to the audience, by Gaffari. Once in the mountains they seek shelter again and are invited in by a kindly old lady who seems overly hospitable to strangers (Hansel and Gretel, anyone?) What happens next I will leave for the bold viewer to sort out because I most assuredly couldn't. Now, I like Eurohorror, and this woulda been better if only Artigot (writer AND director) had made some attempt at logical story telling. The backdrop (Pyrenees?) makes an excellent and intriguing location for mysterious and occult occurrences. The verdant peaks could easily obscure supernatural forces and those who command them. The photography is nice. Just wish the whole thing made sense. You can view this film at archive.org.

Although this film never attained commercial notoriety, my experience has led me to conclude that many well-done pieces of artistic expression often do not gain mass appeal. The story line depicts a young boy stealing a car and embarking on a surreal, dream-like adventure with very little basis in our conceptualization of time and space. Therefore, anyone who attempts to view this film from the perspective of its conformity to reality will likely be disappointed; it is not intended to be "realistic." It is, however, intended to be metaphoric with extensive symbolism apparent to those with superb attention to detail. In addition, the symbolic representations are left open for interpretation, which can be said of much great artwork. Don't be fooled by the cover (if you happen to rent or buy this film)-- the movie is not what it might seem to be on the surface.

OK, if I was in the rental store and someone asked me if the movie was worth the three bucks for the rental, I'd have to say no. The plot was implausible. I've come to the conclusion that Keanu Reeves can not act. He can, at times, be painful to watch (though my wife thinks he's cute). Dan Aykroyd (who is usually great) was even a little disappointing as the crooked cop. On the plus side, the plot (because it is far-fetched) is unpredictable. Cameron Diaz was good.

This is an amazing film, both for the incredibly energy evoked from the frenetic flamenco dancing, and from the unique way that the filmmakers interweave the story of the stage production with the lives of the characters preparing for it. Spellbinding is the only word I can use to describe the experience. This is not 'Bizet's Carmen' by any usual standard. This is not a usual film by any standard. Every nuanced glance, every stomp of the foot, every piece of the music is intertwined so captivatingly that you can't take your eyes off the screen. You don't need to love opera or flamenco(I don't)to be captured, enraptured, enthralled by this film. Subtle and direct; loud and still; One of, if not the best, movies of it's kind, because there are so few like it.

I only bought this DVD because it was dirt cheap and it seemed interesting in its own special way ("special" meaning "retarded"). The movie turned out to be quite uninteresting - boring camera work, nothing really driving the story, and of course the acting is horrible. It wasn't even "bad" in a campy way - it was just plain bad. There are actually a handful of great lines of dialogue but for the most part its awkward and weak. All I could think about while watching this was that this could actually be a good movie if the script was given a major overhaul (if it were written by someone who actually understood drug culture) and if some decent actors were cast. I wouldn't recommend "Weekend With the Babysitter" unless if you plan on a career in film and want to learn what not to do in a movie.

I have yet to read a negative professional review of this movie. I guess I must have missed something. The beginning is intriguing, the three main characters meet late at night in an otherwise empty bar and entertain each other with invented stories. That's the best part. After the three go their separate ways, the film splits into three threads. That's when boredom sets in. Certainly, the thread with the Felliniesque babushkas who make dolls out of chewed bread is at first an eye opening curiosity. Unfortunately, the director beat this one to death, even injecting a wild plot line that leads nowhere in particular. Bottom line: a two-hour plot-thin listlessness. If you suffer from insomnia, view it in bed and you will have a good night sleep.

Okay... it seems like so far, only the Barman fans have commented on this film - time for a counterpoint. Beware, this writeup is *LONG*.<br /><br />For those not in the knowing (mostly the non-Belgians) : Tom Barman, director of this film, is the frontman of dEUS, one of the better known rock bands of the late 90's here in Belgium. Basically, they made a couple of very adventurous and innovative albums and quickly rose to fame on the national scale. Then, egos started hurting and the band basically fell apart, with Barman and a couple of others remaining to go on making albums under the dEUS-monicker. The way it always happens in such cases, the post-breakdown dEUS was a lot tamer and less interesting than the original. They tried to go for an international breakthrough with their album "The Ideal Crash" in 1999, presenting a much diluted form of their earlier style of songwriting. They didn't quite make it. However, egos were still pretty big it seems : big enough for Barman to consider himself enough of an artist to try on movies.<br /><br />More often than not this sort of thing is a VERY big mistake, and this film does not make the exception. And Barman clearly went for *art* on this one, another very big mistake. For one thing, he's a musician, not a movie director. For another, dEUS at it's best made fun and provoking music, but never anything close to what I would consider *art*. It shows.<br /><br />So, what's this movie about? Basically, it tells the story of a bunch of completely uninteresting people, doing equally uninteresting things over the course of a totally uninteresting friday in Antwerp, as even more uninteresting stuff happens to them in the act of being uninteresting. The characters are shallow, the plot totally pointless and the film just doesn't have any other redeeming qualities to make up for these shortcomings. Humor? The whole film made me smile (slightly) about 3 times, and actually managed to provoke a single 5-second laugh (not quite loud). Mood? The film just doesn't seem to show any kind of emotion or feeling at all. Mystery? Well, (*MINOR SPOILER*)the idea of the "wind-man", inspiring the name of the film, is as enthralling as a banana pepper pizza - not very, and has been done a thousand times before (anyone remember Johny Destiny - one of Tarantino's worst appearances on film to date)(*END MINOR SPOILER*). And well, its *artistic*, so don't expect any kind of real action to make up for all the previous. In other words, except for the few smiles, it bored me out of my shorts.<br /><br />So what remains? Well, the soundtrack is pretty good, though it suffers from some of the same problems that other OST's have shown lately : first, it makes the movie seem like nothing more than a commercial for the CD. Second, it gives the impression that Barman is trying to hide the weaknesses and lack of emotional content in the film behind the content quality of the songs, which simply doesn't work. In the end, it makes the film look like nothing more than an illustration to the songs. And sadly, it's Barmans own contribution to the soundtrack which gets the most attention, though it is the weakest part of the whole soundtrack as far as I'm concerned. All in all, it just stands to show that Barman knows more about music than movies. Camera work is okay as well, though not anything that would make you scream out with joy.<br /><br />The only thing about this movie that kept me watching was the sight-seeing factor. Since I originate from Antwerp, it was fun to play a kind of "guess-the-location" game. I would hardly consider this as a quality though.<br /><br />All in all, another chance lost for Flemmish film. I keep on noticing that lately, the best Belgian movies have been coming from the French part of the country. This is mostly because at least, they have something to tell and manage to tell it in way that is both sharp and emotional (the brothers Daerden come to mind). Maybe the Flemmish art-house filmmakers should try that too.

Egads.<br /><br />I used to think Keannu Reeves was the worst actor in Hollywood. I not so sure anymore, Willy gives Keannu some stiff competition with his "I'm made of plaster" performance in this movie.<br /><br />Combine that with the fact that there is almost no plot, and not a single likable character, and it's pretty hard to recommend this turkey.<br /><br />Natasha tries her best, but even Julia Roberts couldn't save this flick from obscurity.<br /><br />Avoid it unless it's really late and there's nothing else on. -Oh heck, in that case just read a book.

"Tamara" just felt like another teen oriented knock-off of the "I Know What You Did Last Summer" trend and is painfully dull. A high school outcast, who is heavily into witchcraft and black magic, is accidentally killed during a cruel prank carried out by a group of bullies who secretly bury her in the woods, vowing to tell no one. The next day, the supposedly "dead" Tamara, arrives at school with a completely new image and seduces her would-be killers and has a little revenge... This is basically a combination of "Carrie", "The Craft", and every other straight-to-video, teeny bopper turkey that hits the shelves these days. The actors are absolutely atrocious and look about ten years too old to pass off as high schoolers. There IS some gore, which is actually nothing all that interesting since the movie is so boring and I couldn't wait for it to end. If you like modern garbage than I insist you seek this one out, otherwise don't bother...

Talk about creepy. If you really want to sit down and watch this episode where the girl who was in Firefly later on gets kidnapped there's entertainment for you, but only if you like this sort of thing. I don't so I thought, to be frank, this episode was appalling. Thankfully it's one of a few duff episodes in Season 3, and the only Charles Grant Craig episode, so you don't get much of this sort of thing in Season 3. So, overall verdict? Just read the summary at the top. This is a strong contender (Hell Money says hi!) for worst episode of Season 3. To be honest though, I hadn't really expected much. I wish I could Oubliette this episode altogether. That's one thing they got right: the title.

After nearly getting killed by a big dog, a stray cat thinks to herself, "Why can't I be a skunk? Then everyone would leave me alone." She looks around the junkyard and gets an idea: white paint, black paint and some Limburger cheese and some garlic......hmmmm. The next thing you know, we have the forerunner to "Pepe Le Pew," although in this cartoon, she's still a cat, she's a she, and just a skunk in disguise. <br /><br />The cat also is enjoying and taking full advantage of her new status as a smelly skunk. He's a happy, content guy now.....until a real skunk (with the Charles Boyer imitation voice) shows up! <br /><br />I did appreciate the cat putting on a Bugs Bunny outfit. However, overall I never cared for these French-takeoff characters, finding the stereotypical dialog overdone and not really funny, so I only rate this as "fair." I do this a point, however, for the moral at the end of the story.

Remember Ralph Bakshi? The guy that was an animator on Terrytoons, then on Paramount Cartoon Studios, after that, he was a director on Fritz the Cat 1 & 2 and Heavy Traffic? Well, this is Coonskin. And it's actually pretty good. Racist, but good. The movie takes place in Harlem Nights (No, duh, it was a working title.) but with a twist that becomes a lampoon of a Disney movie, Song of the South.<br /><br />It's about Sampson (Barry White) and the Preacherman (Charles Gordone) rush to help their friend, Randy (Philip Michael Thomas) escape from prison, but are stopped by a roadblock and wind up in a shootout with the police. While waiting for them, Randy unwillingly listens to fellow escapee Pappy (Scatman Crothers), as he begins to tell Randy a story about "three guys, I used to know, just like you and your friends". Pappy's story is told in animation set against live-action background photos and footage.<br /><br />Brother Rabbit (voice of Thomas), Brother Bear (voice of White), and Preacher Fox (voice of Gordone) decide to pack up and leave their Southern settings after the bank mortgages their home and sells it to a man who turns it into a brothel. Arriving in Harlem, Rabbit, Bear, and Fox find that it isn't all that it's made out to be. They encounter a con man named Simple Savior, a phony revolutionary leader who purports to be the "cousin" of Black Jesus, and that he gives his followers "the strength to kill whites". In a flashy stage performance in his "church", Savior acts out being brutalized by symbols of black oppression—represented by images of John Wayne, Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon, before asking his parishioners for "donations".<br /><br />Rabbit first goes up against Madigan, a virulently racist and homophobic white police officer and the bag man for the Mafia, who demonstrates his contempt for African Americans in various ways, including a refusal to bathe before an anticipated encounter with them (he believes they're not worth it). When Madigan finds out that Rabbit has been taking his payoffs, he and his cohorts, Ruby and Bobby, are led to a nightclub called "The Cottontail".<br /><br />A black stripper distracts him while an LSD sugar cube is dropped into his drink. Madigan, while under the influence of his spiked drink, is then maneuvered into a sexual liaison with a stereotypically effeminate gay man, and then shoved into clothes that women were representative of the racist archetype, adorned in something racist, and finally shoved out the back of the club where he discovers that Ruby and Bobby are dead.<br /><br />Then, while recovering from his delirium of being drugged, shoots his gun around randomly, and is shot to death by the police after shooting one of them.<br /><br />Rabbit, Bear, Fox and the opponent boxer rush out of the boxing arena as it blows up. The live-action story ends with Randy and Pappy escaping while being shot at by various white cops, but managing to make it out alive.<br /><br />This movie was controversial at that time of release, and was re-edited by the director several times under the title, Street Fight, which is obvious, since Street Fight is a 2005 documentary about racism in the streets. In fact, this movie has the same subject as the documentary.<br /><br />That caused Bryanston Pictures, the distributor of this film and the original Tobe Hopper classic, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, to go out of business. Because Paramount wanted to produce and distribute this film, but due to racism, Bryanston took over Bakshi's production.<br /><br />Despite the controversy, it was worth the entertainment. The animation was awesome at that time, the plot makes sense, and it's actually funny too.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: 9/10

The Robin Cook novel "Coma" had already been turned into a pretty successful movie in 1978. A couple of years later it was the turn of another Robin Cook bestseller to get the big screen treatment , but in the case of "Sphinx" virtually everything that could go wrong does go wrong. This is a dreadful adventure flick consisting of wooden performances, stupid dialogue, unconvincing characters and leaden pacing. The only reason it escapes a 1-out-of-10 rating is that the Egyptian backdrop provides infinitely more fascination than the story itself. Hard to believe Franklin J. Schaffner (of "Patton" and "Planet Of The Apes") is the director behind this debacle.<br /><br />Pretty Egyptologist Erica Baron (Lesley Anne-Down) is on a working vacation in Cairo when she stumbles across the shop of antiques dealer Abdu-Hamdi (John Gielgud). Hamdi befriends Erica and is impressed by her enthusiasm and knowledge. Consequently, he shows her a beautiful and incredibly rare statue of Pharoah Seti I that he is keeping secretly in his shop. The very existence of the statue arouses intense excitement in Erica, for it could provide vital clues in locating Seti I's long-lost tomb, a prize as great as the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922. Before Hamdi can tell Erica any more he is brutally murdered in his shop, with Erica watching in silent terror as he meets his grisly end. Afraid yet tantalised by what she has seen, Erica attempts to track down the treasure. She finds herself helped and hindered in her quest by various other parties, none of whom are truly trustworthy. For one there is Yvon (Maurice Ronet), seemingly a friend but perhaps a man with sinister ulterior motives? Then there is Akmed Khazzan (Frank Langella), an Egyptian for whom Erica feels a certain attraction but who may also be hiding dangerous secrets from her.<br /><br />The biggest problems with "Sphinx" generally result from its total disregard for plausibility. Down couldn't be less convincing as a female Egyptologist – one assumes she would be quite well-educated and resourceful, yet she spends the entire film screaming helplessly like some busty bimbo from a teen slasher flick. On those rare occasions that she actually isn't running from a potential villain, she does other brainless things such as taking Polaroid flash photos in a 4,000 year old tomb! The plot twists are heavy-handed to say the least, mainly comprising of revelations and double-crosses that can be predicted well in advance. One can't even try to enjoy the film on the level of dumb but entertaining action fare, because the pacing is awfully sluggish. What little action can be found is separated by long stretches of tedium. A famous review of the movie declared: "Sphinx stinks!" Never before has a 2-hour film been so aptly summed up in 2 words.

I suppose I can see why critics give this film two out five stars, it isn't fantastic, but I think it is worth a look, from director Shawn Levy (Cheaper by the Dozen, Night at the Museum). Basically 14-year-old Jason Shepherd (Malcolm in the Middle's Frankie Muniz) is often lying to his parents and teachers, and his teacher warns him that if he doesn't do his creative writing, he will fail his whole semester and have to repeat the grade during summer. So he completes his work, but getting a lift from Hollywood producer Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti), who hit him on the way to school, he manages to leave his paper with the story "Big Fat Liar" in the car. He finds out from a movie trailer that Marty stole his paper and is turning it into a major movie, so he and his best friend Kaylee (She's the Man's Amanda Bynes) are on a mission to prove Jason is for once telling the truth. Marty of course is too nasty and smug to give Jason's father Harry (Michael Bryan French) a phone call, and he evens burns the "Big Fat Liar" paper. So now Jason and Kaylee are determined to make Marty's life as hellish as possible, until he agrees to call Jason's Dad. They put blue dye in his swimming pool, and orange hair dye in his shampoo, and much more naughty pranks creating chaos for Marty's career. There is the obvious point when Jason looks like he wants to give up, but don't worry, all characters that despise Marty help out in the final operation, and with Jason's parents coming, he wants to finally prove his truthfulness, and boy does he deliver, big style. Also starring Amanda Detmer as Monty Kirkham, Lee Majors as Vince, Donald Adeosun Faison as Frank Jackson, Sandra Oh as Mrs. Phyllis Caldwell, Russell Hornsby as Marcus Duncan, Christine Tucci as Carol Shepherd and American Pie's John Cho as Dustin 'Dusty' Wong. Muniz is likable, Byrnes proves a very surprisingly talented support, and even though he is wasting his time and talent a little, Giamatti is great at being nasty. It is a kids film, so if it seems corny, cheesy or predictable, just keep that in mind, and try to enjoy the performances and slapstick. Okay!

This must be one of the most annoying, arrogant, poser films I've ever seen. What a waste of budget and actors. Angelopoulos has reached new levels of pretentiousness. It is clear there is virtually no plot, even if this part of Greek history is material for great movies. He simply had some supposedly symbolic (actually shambolic) scenes in his mind and he built a whole movie around them. Death is the main theme and is repeated ad nauseam, along with litanies, processions and the like, which should only be a vehicle for the movie but unfortunately it is the movie itself. A totally incoherent result, which can only leave you saying "huh?" or "oh dear" every two minutes. <br /><br />There is no character development at all, nada, zilch. I'm usually complaining about some movies having two-dimensional characters, but oh boy, he managed to create one-dimensional characters. This is irritating for us and degrading for some of the actors. He even managed to make one of my favourite Greek actors, Giorgos Armenis, seem wooden. <br /><br />And going to the core of Angelopoulos film-making: No we're not idiots. We do not want chewed food. Please someone tell this guy symbolism has to be subtle. Theo do you really underestimate your audience so much or you're simply incompetent? Personally, I think he tried to make a Greek "Underground". No matter how he tries, he can't reach Kusturica.<br /><br />Only saving grace: Photography, costumes and the music.

I, like so many others on here, bought this movie at my local WM in the "Two for $11.00" cheap-o bin. I love cheesy B horror and sci-fi movies, and this one definitely fits in that category. Pretty much what everyone else on here said is dead on. Yes it was bad, but that was to be expected. The "main" problem I had with this movie is that it was just basically BORING. I mean serious yawn-o-rama. The acting was bad, the costumes (K Mart Skeletor outfit circa 1982) were worse, and the editing was awful. No continuity whatsoever. Mr Skeletor ultimately dies in an explosion of sorts...uh, although he encountered multiple explosion throughout this move. I guess the last one just took its toll on him. Apparently earlier encounters with this "military" group (cough) took its toll on his horse....it would change from red to black throughout this crap fest. Even for a B movie, do yourself a favor and skip it. The only good it serves me now it to add to my DVD collection. Hopefully no one will recognize it when they look through my movie collection. Thumbs down, big time.

I can't believe this movie was made as recently as 1984. It's got some laughable acting, not to mention one of the stupidest plots ever. Who would ever ask fat Texas sheriff Joe Don Baker to escort an Italian he illegally arrested in Mexico back to Italy? Not to mention that the title of the movie tells you pretty much nothing about it - in fact, it's about as generic a title for a wannabe action/cop film as I can think of.<br /><br />I'm glad I only saw this on MST3K with Mike and the bots as a shield. They remark on the female lead's resemblance to Elaine from Seinfeld ("None of them are spongeworthy") and riff non-stop on Baker's weight. This movie probably isn't worse than "Mitchell," but Baker's reputation definitely precedes him here: when his title comes up at the beginning of the film, Tom says, "I wish I was illiterate so I wouldn't have to read that."

Some people say this is the best film that PRC ever released, I'm not too sure about that since I have a fond place in my heart for some of their mysteries. I will say that this is probably one of the most unique films they, or any other studio, major or minor, ever released.<br /><br />The plot is simple. The ghost of a wrongly executed ferryman has returned to the swamp to kill all those who lynched him as well as all of their off spring. Into this mix comes the granddaughter of one ghosts victims, the current ferryman. She takes over the ferry business as the ghost closes in on the man she loves.<br /><br />Shrouded in dense fog and set primarily on the single swamp set this is more musical poem than regular feature film.Listen to the rhythms of the dialog, especially in the early scenes, their is poetical cadence to them. Likewise there is a similar cadence to the camera work as it travels back and forth across the swamp as if crossing back and forth across the door way between life and death, innocence and guilt. The film reminds me of an opera or oratorio or musical object lesson more than a normal horror film. Its an amazing piece of film making that is probably unique in film history.<br /><br />This isn't to guild the Lilly. This is a low budget horror/mystery that tells you a neat little story that will keep you entertained. Its tale of love and revenge is what matters here, not the poetical film making and it holds you attention first and foremost (the technical aspects just being window dressing.) If there is any real flaw its the cheapness of the production. The fog does create a mood but it also hides the fact that this swamp is entirely on dry land. The constant back and forth across it is okay for a while but even after 58 minutes you do wish that we could see something else.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong I do like the film a great deal. Its a good little film that I some how wish was slightly less poverty stricken. Its definitely worth a look if you can come across it.

I really liked this film when it was released, and I still do, because the storyline makes you feel hopeful about life in general, and people too...one of the things I like about the films of Lawrence Kasdan. In addition to the positive vibes from the film, there are other reasons to like Grand Canyon. For one thing, it has an outstanding cast...Kevin Kline and Danny Glover, for example. In my opinion, Crash, the highly acclaimed film that won the Oscar for best picture, was very similar to this film. The difference is that Grand Canyon leaves you feeling positive. Crash had the opposite effect with me; it was very dark. I would choose Grand Canyon over Crash any day.

Ocean's 12 starts off on annoying and gets worse from there on. Like a celebrity awards presentation, each major actor/actress is introduced in short 60-second scenarios that seem to stop just short having a blinking "applaud now" sign. The first 60 minutes of the film are incredibly disjointed, poorly edited, and at times, utterly unrelated to the story and confusing. Speaking of the story,...there is one, kinda,...but its barely visible for all the "look at me" shots and cameos. Only Matt Damon seemed to actually "act" during this film...the rest of the cast appeared to only be there to participate in a rat-pack-wanna-be session. As for the heist, the action, the drama....it was put into the last 8-10 minutes of the movie and was pathetic and anticlimactic. Horrible! Horrible! Horrible!

it MIGHT have been a good movie if it had explored something more interesting rather than just the surface of a lesbian relationship if this was the meaning of the movie...it is quite predictable not mentioning that the two girls resemble the Russian group t.A.T.u....coincidence? i don't think so. There is nothing original in this movie to support it so they had to use something which is already famous.You know the recipe. The other actors...well,i just don't know what their role is supposed to be. Most of them are well - known people in Romania and i must mention some of them are not even actors(e.g.Mihaela Radulescu).SO to summarize it: "girl band tatty"+desperate/publicity needing "actors"+ a non-existing plot+ the occasion to use bad language in order to shock= Love sick....too bad...the idea was good,though...and i am seriously holding myself from commenting the title...

Sure, he became rapidly uneven after this film, but from "Knife In the Water" up till "The Tenant", Roman Polanski could always be counted on to deliver something fascinating and unique. Despite many running themes (alienation, paranoia), no two of his films are really alike. The story of this is somewhat similar to his own "Repulsion" from ten years earlier, but the tone is completely different. "The Tenant" manages to balance darker than dark absurdity (I'm a bit hesitant on calling it humor, even though the protagonists bizarre behavior and dialog was occasionally funny) with some truly suspenseful paranoia. Polanski was always a master at building unease, and moments in this film are almost unbearably creepy. The overall weirdness of the film is also a plus.<br /><br />In addition to Polanski's exquisite as usual direction, the rest of the cast and crew offer great contributions. Polanski the actor is often overshadowed by Polanski the director, but his performance here truly captures his characters awkwardness and sense of being an outcast. The themes of social discrimination make this film more than just strangeness for the sake of being strange. The rest of the cast offers strong performances also, especially Isabelle Adjani's sympathetic turn, and Melyvn Douglas and Shelley Winters' appropriately annoying ones. "The Tenant" is often underrated because of how ready people are to heap praise on both "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby", but its just as brilliant as either of those classics. (9/10)

This film differentiates itself from the run-of-the-mill "wonder of the human body" documentaries by bravely, if bizarrely, opting to elicit disgust in the viewer. In one scene, the camera closes in on a gigantic 50-foot zit as a teenager squeezes pus and fluid out of it. In another, the camera is semisubmerged in a swamp of half digested food and stomach acid as parts of a pasta salad drop in from the esophagus and plop into the goo. In a final tour de force, the camera takes the viewer on a harrowing ride through a forest of...teenage armpit hair. Unfortunately, I'm not making any of this up. See this film if you must, but: bring your vomit bag, and don't have pasta salad beforehand.

I have to say this is an awful movie, for the mere fact that when you see this movie on the guide, it is listed as a documentary. As I watched it, I started laughing, thinking to myself, does this guy actually expect me to believe this is real? So I had to look it up, and now see that it is a movie, but now since it isn't a documentary, it is now a movie with bad acting. SO, either way, it is pretty bad. I actually didn't make it to the end. I had to shut it off. I am a NYC Police Officer, and felt that someone was trying to mislead people into thinking this is a documentary, with the intentions of making money off of a terrible day for me and my coworkers. So, I took it a little personal. Maybe I was blinded by that, and it isn't as bad as I personally think it is. Everyone has their own opinion.

I desperately want to give this movie a 10...I really do. Some movies, especially horror movies are so budget that they are good. A wise-cracking ninja scarecrow who can implement corn cobs as lethal weaponry...definitely fits this 'budget to brilliance' system. The depth of the movie is definitely its strong point and the twists and turns it implements, keeping the audience at the edge of their seats really drives the creepy...ninja... puberty-stricken... pre-thirty year old student...non-cowboy drawing...wise-cracking...son-of-a-bitch scarecrow into the limelight as the creepiest horror icon of the year. All I can really say is, 'can you dig it' and recommend watching movies such as Frankenfish if you enjoy this sort of hilarious horror.<br /><br />(WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY SMOKING!?'

I swear I could watch this movie every weekend of my life and never get sick of it! Every aspect of human emotion is captured so magically by the acting, the script, the direction, and the general feeling of this movie. It's been a long time since I saw a movie that actually made me choke from laughter, reflect from sadness, and feel each intended feeling that comes through in this most excellent work! We need MORE MOVIES like this!!! Mike Binder: are you listening???

I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.<br /><br />Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.<br /><br />There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom. <br /><br />The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian "roughing it." These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.<br /><br />And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.<br /><br />There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more! <br /><br />It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else.

It seems whenever a mainstream film company wants to make a movies for teens it concentrates on only one thing: sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude but the fact that these people seem to think getting my rocks off is all I'm interested in is highly offensive. Take The Convenant, a film that relies so heavily on you finding the main characters attractive it thinks it can get away without a plot and/or a script that wasn't written by a six year old. This is essentially The Craft with (supposedly) hot guys. And, yeah, that's it. It bored me to tears. Even my friend, who usually laps us crap films, hated it. It is really stunningly bad, to the extent where it can actually be funny. I would have laughed if it wasn't for the fact that several other females in cinema attendance seemed to be enjoying it. They were accompanied by several shifty looking guys who positively curled up and died when the (really cliché) boy on boy kiss happened towards the end. Watching them squirm really was the highlight of the film. I don't think mainstream, Hollywood cinema will ever put out good films for teenagers (or, indeed, for anyone) so I think I'll give up. Unless you're a teen who likes The Pussycat Dolls, thinks Paris Hilton is "hot" and watches MTV it's like some sort of wasteland. Life's hard when you're a fifteen year old who likes art house. :( P.S. Someone should have told the Director that not all teenage girls find would be boy band members "totally HAWT LOL!!!111!!"

Some guy gets whacked. Right out in plain sight this other guy shoots him. He's got some bodyguards and they whack the killer, but a reporter gets interested. She goes to the hospital where they took the guy who got whacked. She walks in, and corners one bodyguard, but he doesn't feel like talking. I can't figure out why. It's not like anyone else is interested. She's the only reporter there. Anyway, her editor discourages her from working on this lame story. But hey, she does anyway. She goes to see the killer's sister & mom. A few minutes after she leaves they get whacked big time-- somebody blows up their trailer-- huge ball of fire. Then she searches out the bodyguard from the hospital. She finds him hungover on his boat, but a minute later they're both underwater sucking on a scuba tank 'cause three guys are trying to whack them (and have blown up the boat big time-- huge ball of fire). The reporter and the bodyguard whack two of the guys who are trying to whack them. <br /><br />In the course of the next hour another guy gets whacked crossing the street, there's a shootout with several stiffs in a warehouse, some car chases with wreckage & death, a fake suicide, etc. etc. Lotsa stiffs, all kindsa carnage. <br /><br />Great stuff, but what the reporter and the bodyguard can't figure is: why in hell the original guy got whacked. What's the motivation? Of course, it might help us to figure out why the reporter's even interested. Through almost all of this she's the only reporter on the story. Nobody else in the media cares. Not even with all the big fireballs and dead bodies. True, the original guy who got whacked wasn't exactly a celebrity. His job was a little bit dull. He was just the President. Yeah, the one who lives in the White House. Oh, and the bodyguard is a Secret Service agent.<br /><br />Is that the spoiler?<br /><br />It should be. After all there are no TV cameras, no other print reporters, no bloggers... just another one of those police blotter crimes...<br /><br />So what's the spoiler?<br /><br />Lemme think...<br /><br />No! Wait! The spoiler is that his wife did it! Yeah... the First Lady. She was p---ed because the President was fooling around. And she gets away with it. She's really sharp, huh? But how the hell could anybody ever figure that out? Why would anyone bother? After all, only one reporter is even interested. <br /><br />I give this move a "1". It was so dumb I just had to keep watching. And it only got dumber! That's the real spoiler! But even though I've told you, you've got to see it to believe it!

Wallace and Gromit are the main characters in some of the best cartoons ever crafted. The excellent mix of visual humor and claymation makes "A Grand Day Out," "The Wrong Trousers," and also "A Close Shave" some of the best animated footage ever put on television. Winning several Oscars and also countless other awards, Nick Park became quite the popular man in the U.K., yet his impact on the United States has not been big. After the third Wallace and Gromit short, there was all this speculation about a full-length Wallace and Gromit movie, yet for years nothing had happened. Then in 2000 instead of a full-length Wallace and Gromit film, we get another brilliant claymation film from Nick Park, which was Chicken Run, which almost got nominated for best picture in the Academy Awards. Perhaps it was the success of this film that ultimately drove Park to finally work on a Wallace and Gromit project.<br /><br />5 years later (these kinds of films do take long you know) and a lot of anticipation, Wallace and Gromit finally hits the big screen. Despite the rather weak trailers and marketing campaign, this movie delivers in so many ways. This film will be a delight for both kids and parents. With tons of adult humor hidden beneath the brilliant animation, Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit is one of the few films that perfectly manages to equally appeal to both kids and adults. This rather difficult technique is one that only Pixar has already perfected and DreamWorks has had a lot of trouble doing lately. Despite the DreamWorks logo slapped onto the poster, this film is mainly from the very creative staff of Aardman Animations.<br /><br />Wallace and Gromit are first seen running a business that protects the townspeople's crops from being ruined by rabbits, which apparently had been running around wild and in great numbers lately. Their business has gotten them plenty of respect from the others living in the town because a gigantic vegetable contest was rapidly approaching and the crops needed protection. Complications arise when Wallace attempts to manipulate the rabbits into not liking vegetables and then a great eating machine is unleashed on the area. It is up to Wallace and Gromit to find the gigantic animal and stop it from eating away through gardens and also their approval from the townspeople. To add to that, Wallace wants to impress Lady Tottington, which also captured the attention of a snobby suitor by the name of Victor. Simple plot yes, but there is more than meets the eye, be prepared for a few fun surprises along the way, kind of like in the other Wallace and Gromit cartoons.<br /><br />In animated films with little dialogue, it is the animation that has to set the pacing and the mood of the film. Despite requiring 5 years to produce only 85 minutes of footage, the payoff is fantastic. There is a massive amount of detail that requires more than one viewing to truly notice. Even more incredible than the detailed and nearly flawless animation is the truly unspeakable amount of visual humor put into the film. Whether it is a creatively placed shot or normal labels put into the funniest position possible, or it is the oh-so-adorable rabbits that is constantly shown in the film, most Curse of the Were-Rabbit's humor comes strictly from just watching the movie itself and catching all the references before it is too late. Just picture the movie Madagascar, except funnier much fewer pop culture references, and better animation.<br /><br />Casting was great, even though in a film with not much dialogue, it was not that important. Peter Sallis yet again does a wonderful job as Wallace, even though in this movie there was no stand-out quote that can be used anytime (The Wrong Trousers: "It's the wrong trousers Gromit, and they've gone wrong!"). Ralph Fiennes does a superb job as the lead villain Victor and also Helena Bonham Carter (known as the crazy female lead in the cult hit "Fight Club") lends her lovely voice as she plays Wallace's love interest. Even though nothing could top the final chase in "The Wrong Trousers," Curse of the Ware-Rabbit did have plenty of action scenes, including one fantastically done chase scene between Gromit and Victor's evil dog. Last but not least, the rabbits really steal the show at some moments. Whether it is their cute expressions, their funny movements, or their howling, the rabbits in the film even take some of the glory from the main stars. The funniest rabbit in the movie is the "cursed" rabbit himself, to the very end of the movie he had the audience rolling in laughter.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Despite not being as memorable as "The Wrong Trousers", this film is just as good and entertaining as Chicken Run. Unlike almost every movie to come out this year, the movie does not drag at all, clocking in at a short 85 minutes yet containing so much joy and fun, it will leave everyone watching it asking for more. There is very little wrong with the film; it was a pure delight to watch. This film is a total contrast of the decent yet vulgar, uncut, raw movies that have made a surprising amount of money earlier this year (40-Year-Old Virgin, Wedding Crashers, and Sin City) and for families and those who want harmless entertainment; that is a good thing. Highly recommend, this is the top animated movie to come out this year and among the best we have seen this decade. Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit: totally harmless fun from second 1 to second 5,100.

Well. Astronaut Steve West sits in a plastic space capsule, commenting that "you haven't lived until you've seen the sun through the rings of Saturn", all the while the obvious mid-day sunlight is streaming through the window, when suddenly he has a nose bleed. Next, West is back home in some secret hospital, a melting gelatinous mass who goes berserk and causes a chunky nurse to run through a fake glass door. Apparently, West "gets stronger as he melts", which makes about as much sense as anything in this hopelessly purile, adle-brained moovie. Then this dopey "Army Brass", who looks kind of like Coleman Francis (director of many bad moovies) tries to cover the info up, but goo man runs around killing everyone he sees because he is melting. He attacks a bickering old couple because he is melting. He makes one terrible actress scream and moan helplessly for about 10 minutes because he is melting. He is melting because he is melting. The fx by the slumming Rick Baker are supposed to be the star here, but they just look hokey. The film is poorly shot and everything looks so dark and muddled that it's very difficult making out what's what - not that it would help any. MooCow says who cut the cheese with this one?? :=8P ps - "Didn't you get any crackers?"

"Dutch Schultz", AKA Arthur Fleggenheimer, was a real person and his rather nasty life is fairly well documented. This movie which purports to depict his life should have used a fictional character, because the overdramatized events are too strong a departure from the facts and the chronology. Not only that, it ignores some interesting details which other versions have included such as the public relations fiasco in upstate N.Y. and his religious conversion. It is true that he was executed by Luciano, Lansky, et. al. but that's as far as it goes. The exploding plate scene which represents Luciano carrying out the execution of Bo Weinberg in his own home, assisted by his own mother is rediculous. Also, there is the scene in which Dutch approaches his own mother to pay protection to Legs Diamond. It just doesn't work. The character of Mrs. Fleggenheimer doesn't work either. This movie does not need a doting Jewish mother for comic relief. The lame representation of Legs Diamond was humorous enough. I'm sure the man is turning in his grave. And, by the way, Dutch did in fact personally kill people, but, he was not Rambo or 007. The scene in which he wipes out the brewery is absurd. I don't know. Maybe it was supposed to be a comedy and I just didn't get it.

I am not a big fan of horror films, and have only seen a handful of them (and none of the "Halloween"s or "Friday the Thirteenth"s) - but I can appreciate a frightening horror film not because of gore. And I'm pretty sure this isn't scary.<br /><br /> What's so spooky about a little plastic skull that pops up everywhere? In all of its appearances there are faraway establishing shots, so there's no real surprise in any of this film. (Not that a skull in of itself is that scary anyway, but . . .)<br /><br /> The plot concerns Claus Von Bulow's third cousin (John Hudson), who marries a Donna-reed look-a-like (Peggey Webber, giving one of the worst performances ever) who begins seeing skulls and hearing the mysterious screams of a group of peacocks on her husband's mansion. Did I mention that her husband lost her first wife in a mysterious drowning incident? OOOOH!!!! Wonder who did it!!!!<br /><br /> This is the same old plot about a rich boy trying to kill and/or drive their wife insane. If you want to see a well-done version of this stuff, try "Reversal of Fortune". And BTW, Jeremy Irons is one hundred times more talented than John Hudson.<br /><br /> The MSTing was okay but nothing special; paired with the "Gumby" short, however, it makes for good viewing.<br /><br /> Two stars for "The Screaming Skull"; eight stars for the MST3K version.<br /><br /> And now, to paraphrase Mr. Von Bulow himself: "How bad is this film?" "You have no idea!"

No doubt, when Madonna and Guy Ritchie married, it was because they both thought it would help their movie careers. If you've been through the ordeal of watching "Swept Away," then you know at that level it was a match made in hell. After nearly 20 years of trying to become a respected actress (or "octress" as she might have pronounced it in "The Next Best Thing"), she still can't get out of herself long enough to turn in a performance that anyone with taste could even call decent. And that's the thing that makes people dislike her so much on the screen: that gut feeling that her ego is so inflated that it prevents her from being able to just let go and connect with her audience. If there's any justice in this universe, she just blew her last chance.

The casting (and direction) in Undercurrent is more insipid than inspired in this noir clunker that fails from the outset to get off the ground. Robert Taylor's wooden style poses a roadblock almost immediately for the highly affected Kate Hepburn and it's bad chemistry from the outset.<br /><br />Naive and innocent Ann Hamilton (Hepburn) falls for handsome airplane manufacturer Alan Garroway (Taylor) and rushes to the altar with him. She soon finds out there is a lot she does not know about him. As Alan becomes more remote she delves further into the murky past and Ann soon finds herself living a nightmare instead of the American dream.<br /><br />Undercurrent resembles a few Hitchcock plots but Vincent Minnelli rapidly establishes he is no master of suspense. Hepburn is no shrinking violet and she is a hard sell for a character more suited to the reticent styles of Teresa Wright or Joan Fontaine. Minnelli never really succeeds in getting Kate to defer in desperate fashion to Taylor's limited abilities as an actor. Her attempts come across as silent Gish while Taylor's wide descent into madness takes on restrained Bela Lugosi. Robert Mitchum completes the miscasting as the sensitive brother. Talk about piling on.<br /><br />Cinematographer Karl Freund provides some highly stylized noir interiors but Minnelli and cast utilize the atmospherics meekly and the tension remains tepid. With Minnelli far from his forte (musicals) and Hepburn's victim role fitting her like a bad suit Undercurrent drowns all involved.

Plunkett & Macleane falls into my favourite genre of film (historical action adventure with comedy) which is probably why I rate it so highly.<br /><br />The action centres around a highwayman (Plunkett) and a layabout 'gentleman' who gets entangled with him and his schemes (Macleane). This leads to all sorts of escapades and adventures which are all tinged with comedy. There is also, of course, a love interest.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is made up of a number of vibrant, larger than life characters who add to the atmosphere of the film and show the excesses of the wealthy at this time.<br /><br />This is an enjoyable film with a fairly simple but worthwhile plot that provides plenty of entertainment.

I thought this was a beautiful movie- very brave. Such beautiful imagery-and I liked the use of breaking glasses w/ applause. Also how the best friend repeated the line about "..and she's one year older than me.." showed that their friendship has rekindled and grown, but maybe some competition is left...i loved the footage of hands feeling the fabric. The dance concert was beautiful. The beginning seemed slow, though..it took awhile to feel for the characters-the husband could have been more abusive-he just seemed absent so when other characters talked about him-it didn't really fit. The affair btwn. the best friend and husband seemed random..the doctors meeting seemed to hint that there was not much time left(to live..) so when the infidelity was revealed, I didn't feel as much sympathy for the character-more like relief! the ending was so great- the lines btwn. her and the husband, and the scene where she is pulled over is brilliant!

The tunes are the best aspect of this television film which has admittedly better-than-average production values, but very surface and slightly altered biography. Dramatizes Richard's discovery of "We've Only Just Begun" and Karen's marriage troubles admirably (the "Superstar" montage was a nice touch), yet notably leaves out the disagreement with Neil Sedaka, the contribution of Tony Peluso's guitar solos, etc. Gibb is sweet in her Karen persona, but it doesn't include the tomboyish and gutsier sides of the real Carpenter's personality. Anderson is in fine form as the creative and take-charge Richard, and Fletcher makes her mark as the loving but overbearing Agnes. The most haunting moment of the original broadcast is the use of "Goodbye to Love" in the background of a commercial displaying an anorexia hotline.

Really, average is the only word that comes to my mind when you see this.<br /><br />The acting was average (maybe a bit above average), the camera usage was average (actually below average. The picture was so shaky and the colors were grainy and blurry.) The plot was a good one but moved at such a slow pace and wasn't put to good use.<br /><br />This could've been so much more if it didn't go at a snail pace and we saw more into the characters backgrounds.<br /><br />All we see are flashbacks here and there of Alice and how her home life is so "bad" (her mother is a working class woman trying to make end meet for her and her daughter.) We see a flashback of her of when she was in high school and her friend says to her "tell your Mom to make some better food" and "everybody says it's your mom." Yeah that's embarrassing but why would you run away from it. <br /><br />I could definitely see if her Mom was a drunk or somebody was abusing her but nothing was wrongwith her home except she was embarrassed by it. How immature! <br /><br />We're not even given a glimpse of what the couple's lives have been like (except that they've been prostituting for awhile and the woman, forgot her name, gave her baby up when it was 9 months old.) This really could've been so much more. It could've had Alice who was abused by her drunk mom go down to Florida with her friend but then becomes a prostitute. Or something along the lines of that other then the real plot of this movie (that is) Alice, a girl with a home life of probably 90% of America's population (WORKING CLASS) runaways to Florida but then gets sidetracked by turning into a prostitute.<br /><br />I don't see why it won an award at Sundance (it must've been up against some really weak competition to have won that one award.) <br /><br />Also to me, Alice's Boston/New England accent seemed forced. It didn't seem genuine. (I should know, I was born and raised in Boston, but now live in Georgia.) <br /><br />4/10 Not really worth your time in my opinion.

Trust the excellent and accurate Junagadh75 review! This film is compelling and moving in that roughest, most brutally beautiful film-masterpiece "way". File under UNFORGETTABLE STRONG MEAT. Or FILMS THAT HOWL AT THE MOON. Pixote gets into your nervous system and elevates you despite the pain on the screen. Here's an unrelated list of films that did the same thing for me, i.e. "engaged, destroyed, transformed,inspired, resonated... this category transcends nerdy film top ten lists that seek film perfection. "A Woman Under the Influence" , "Wiseblood", "Wages of Fear" "Saint Jack" "Funny Bones" "Out of the Blue".

You know sometimes you just gotta have it? That's how this movie is with me. I am almost embarrassed to admit that I like it, it is so goofy in some parts, but I find myself reaching for it when I'm down and just need a good laugh...and trust me, I am just not a "goofy movie" kinda guy.<br /><br />You can read the synopsis so I don't have to bore you with that, just rest assured, if you like Kelsey Grammer you will probably like this movie.<br /><br />One more thing, be SURE to watch the end credits. You don't need to read them, just watch them and catch the performance of "In the Navy" by the Village People...and friends.

Compared to the recent gore flick HOSTEL, which this movie reminded me a lot of-- I would say that See No Evil is slightly better but not by much. The very complex plot involves a handful of delinquents who are sent to clean up a rundown hotel for a shorter jail sentence. The kids soon end up being killed off by a lumbering religious psychopath who is cleansing them of their sins (I guess). The one thing I dreaded most prior to seeing this was the fact that it stared a WWE wrestler, Kane. He ended up doing a decent job considering he only had 2 one-word lines in the movie. There are a couple fairly gory moments, mainly involving eye-gouging and a quite memorable scene in which a girl gets a cellphone shoved down her throat-- probably the most effective demise in the movie.<br /><br />I can't say that this movie really shows us anything new and is definitely far from great. Can't recommend it.

When I began watching I thought I was watching some pro-Koresh amateur documentary. However, I had never seen 3/4 of the footage they used. They interviewed people saying that the FBI/ATF instigated all these things, which sounded so far fetched, but then followed in up with FBI video and testimony. I was amazed. The documentary followed up with the senate investigation after the fire, and after seeing the interview and video footage you will be shocked at how the Senate and Attorney General turn their backs on Davidians basically to cover up the aggression by the FBI/ATF. If you start watching this you must finish it. Otherwise you will think it is propaganda of something like that.

There's plenty to appreciate here: spectacular locations and flying sequences; period costumes, props and sets; and competent writing and acting. However, to enjoy a drama, we need at least one principal who exhibits some qualities that we can like or admire. In this bunch of catty snobs, we found only one character who is at all likable — a hapless enlisted man in a fleeting peripheral role as their helpless victim. From the reviews here, it is clear that we are completely out of step, but we did not find their malicious-schoolgirl behavior amusing or entertaining. Even the dog is detestable. We threw in the towel after two of the six episodes, so you should discount these observations accordingly, but what I could find written about this mini-series gave us no cause to expect character transformation or redemption.

Yes, even as a fan of shows like survivor and the apprentice, this show is pretty bad. I didn't mind the first couple of shows, but then realizing how pathetic everyone was to actually go on the show in the first place.The antics of Alex and Aaron giving men a bad name at the way they cheated on or dumped their choice at the first opportunity really was not a good look for the show.<br /><br />Ryan, you can have Trista. She had the most annoying voice I've ever heard on television, and she definitely wasn't the smartest girl around (very media savvy, but I doubt there's much more there).<br /><br />I haven't really watched any of the shows since, apart from the occastional re-run on daytime TV. I think the point of reality TV is to treat it as "entertaining trash". View it as something you can laugh over, and don't have to think too hard about ( I don't watch CSI its like reality TV-tired and clichéd, but you have to think too much anyway while watching).<br /><br />A couple of thoughts on some reasons fro going on the show. At the very first 'the woman tell all" Woman such as Amy ( who had a lot of class about her) commented that she had tried every scene aka the bar and club scene to meet a guy and it wasn't happening for her. Hey Amy, how about joining a club? getting a hobby? doing charity work? changing your job to one where you meet more guys? gees, all I know is that going to a bar is not the ideal place to meet a future partner.<br /><br />Amy and many of the other girls seemed to be obsessed with the idea of meeting "the perfect man'. Clue to ladies: he doesn't exist. There are, however, many great guys out there that would make great husbands, some who may be right for you! they may not earn six figures a year or be a JFK junior look alike, but they are great guys all the same. The shallowness of woman on this show is quite unbelievable. Im still a youngster, at was lead to believe that woman gradually grew out of their shallowness as they got older and more realistic about their future partner. This show is proving otherwise.<br /><br />Overall this show does a lot to confirm many stereotypes of how woman view men in society. It really is a terrible show and I think all of these types of shows should just stop being made. The best dating shows by a country mile are Blind Date and The Fifth Wheel because they are fun. Nothing is manned more between the "couples" than a simple night out. the bachelor, sadly takes itself way too seriously.

In an early scene, Luca (David Pasquesi) and James (Jeff Garlin) are walking down a neighborhood street in Chicago, admiring the bucolic architecture, when a woman, angrily arguing in French on a cell phone, passes by them, prompting James to remark, "There's nothing hotter than an angry French woman." A few blocks later, they pass an old Filipino woman, also angry, also arguing on a cell phone, and Luca remarks, for referential effect, "There's nothing hotter than an angry, elderly Filipino woman."<br /><br />The humor in Jeff Garlin's I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With is best characterized by the word quotidian. The film is a conversation. We might as well be eavesdropping. Rather than go for antics, the film relies on character flaws and human curiosity to deliver laughs. While it's not innovative, it is far from banal, and even if James views himself as being rather jejune, we know that he is fairly average, and this endears him.<br /><br />Self-betterment is the primary theme of the movie. Sarah Silverman, who plays Beth, is excellent as the catalyst of change; she revitalizes James, and so reminds him to live a better life. Even so, achieving some idyllic dream is not the end of these characters, but rather something simpler: that they might pick up what pieces there are of the life they love, just to keep for themselves at least enough to carry on.<br /><br />A movie about life lessons can be overwrought, as it can forget to connect with its audience. I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With is subtle and winsome, and while its moral may not be inspiring, it is still resonant. This is low-key comedy, but it will stick with you.

I first watched this movie back in the mid/late 80's, when I was a kid. We couldn't even get all the way through it. The dialog, the acting, everything about it was just beyond lame.<br /><br />Here are a few examples... imagine these spoken real dramatically, way over-acted: "Oreegon? You're going to Oreegon? Why would anyone want to go to Oreegon?"<br /><br />"Survivalists? Nobody ever told us about any survivalists!"<br /><br />This movie was SO bad, my sister and I rented it again for her 16th birthday party, just so our friends could sit around and laugh at how awful it was. I don't think we were able to finish it then either!

If your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then "House of Games" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.<br /><br />"House of Games" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.<br /><br />The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).<br /><br />"House of Games" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards.

the guy who wrote, directed and stared in this shocking piece of trash should really consider a carer change. Yes Rob Stefaniuk, i mean you! Seriously, who funded this crap? there are so many talented writers out there whom money could be better spent on. I think the idea is great but the acting, script and directing is just plain awful! The jokes are so not funny, I understand that they are supposed to be taking the mickey. BUT do it with style, this movie is screaming 1995 Saturday night live skits. Why, I say again why do studios give money to hacks like Rob Stefaniuk - NEVER GIVE A COMEDIAN THE Opportunity TO WRITE DIRECT AND STAR IN HIS OWN MOVIE. DUH!

I saw this movie Sunday afternoon. I absolutely loved this movie. I loved everything about it, from the sappy moments of mothers and daughters to the scenes where Mamie Gummer (Lila) is crying because of her poor decision in marrying a man for her parents and not because she is truly in love. I loved these moments because they were just so real. At first I was seriously scared because I was hoping that it would not end up like Bobby, which was a great cast but a poorly written movie with no real meat to it. But during the middle of the movie i felt completely different. You will laugh and you will cry but in the end you will want to see Evening one more time. Trust me when i say GO SEE IT!

Dialogue: stilted, clichéd; Acting: hammy, clichéd; Plot: predictable, clichéd.<br /><br />Just what are Christopher Plummer Nastassia Kinski doing in this "B" rubbish? Plummer was well established decades before this movie was made, Kinski had masterpieces like "Tess" and "Cat People" behind her... Must have been desperate.<br /><br />The bad guys all have bad-guy accents - *bad* bad-guy accents! (Plummer especially! Where *did* he learn to do "German"?) and most of them have bad-guy sneers as well. The innocent bystanders all overdo their panicking enough to make you laugh. The good guy survives, amongst other things: * a 5" throwing knife buried hilt-deep in his shoulder - just pulls it out and seconds later is using the arm with no difficulty at all; * marines' machine-gun fire (I think someone referred to a .50) in the leg which he sorts out by tying a bandage around his pants leg and thereafter he barely has a limp; * several fist-fights in which he sustains multiple punches to the face as well as being run cranium-first into a door frame; * a fall, backwards, from what looks like the third floor, onto paving, without the slightest sign of a twisted ankle or any other such trifling inconvenience. The script has exactly 3 clever lines, the rest of the time it's all so dull and boring.<br /><br />OK it's not all bad. Plummer does bring a certain class to his part, and is undoubtedly the best actor in this flick. Of course that doesn't say much, but he can do the callous villain without resorting to the ham techniques most of the villains use here. He delivers his "Ve haff vays and meance" type lines with some menace, but you are always aware you are watching Christopher Plummer acting the villain.<br /><br />This movie is truly an awful waste of time. The acting, such as it is, is sort of 70's 007 movies wooden line delivery meets Bruce Lee's very obviously faked fight scenes, but it's not even anywhere near as good as either a Roger Moore 007 or a Bruce Lee film. Don't bother.

*This comment may technically contain "spoilers" but it sure doesn't contain surprises*<br /><br />My cousin and I rented this the other day hoping to get a good laugh at a typical amateur crappy excuse for a horror movie. Unfortunately, we didn't get too many laughs, and we certainly didn't get too many scares either.<br /><br />Plot outline: A plane containing a company head's daughter and some weird piece of technology crashes in an area where our furry friend lives, so the company head assembles a team of personalities, rather than skilled hunters, to recover it.<br /><br />For the first 3/4's of the movie, things get pretty boring. It mostly consists of shots of Big Foot lurking in the trees with the party members occasionally hearing him, and passing it off as nothing. We also see several shots of the party through Big Foot's point of view, and he apparently sees in thermal vision.<br /><br />To set up the plot, we have to watch sequences of the group sitting around the campfire talking about possibilities to justify the sasquatches existence and actions. "maybe he can dodge bullets...if he sees them coming". Sure enough, we later see he can. "There are many uncharted lands that the sasquatch may live in. Maybe this is one of them that was over-looked". And obviously it is. "Maybe the Sasquatch is angry because the plane hit one of his family members". And sure enough, thats the case. Along with those scenes, there are a couple of "Oh my god its the sasquatch oh wait its just you!" scenes, and sadly, they are among the scariest.<br /><br />Then, finally, people start dying. Well, 2 people at least. Plus, the bodies of past victims are discovered. The death scenes are pretty lame. It mostly just leaves it to our imagination by showing the Sasquatch grabbing them, then cutting to a different scene, but first, we are treated to some horrible screams off camera.<br /><br />Then at last, we get to see the protagonist's final showdown with the monster. I gotta admit, I found it pretty exciting while it lasted. But alas, it's pretty short lived, and after we are treated to an ending that makes a half assed effort to seem cryptic. Then, some closing text with a rather boring conclusion.<br /><br />I can't say I recommend this movie. It's not quite bad enough to give the Mystery Science Theatre 3000, and its definitely not scary enough and boring to enjoy as a horror movie. Just don't bother with it.

It seems as if in Science Fiction you have this periodic throwback to perform an odd phenomenon that appears in long serial novels. It's where the first novel (Dune, Ender's Game) blows you away with an actionpacked revolutionary story. The sequels however take that universe and lead you down the garden path to whatever new little social or political commentary the author wants to make. The Matrix is finally the film equivalent. The Matrix stands tall, alone, as an interesting film with an odd twist in the middle. Seeing this cash cow just sitting there, and wanting to explore other aspects of society, the writers and directors then lead you through what has to be some of the most painful monologues and non-action sequences in SciFi. While the visuals remain as stunning from the first movies, the new explorations of the characters falls terrible flat in the sequel. Watch for eye candy, not for deep thought.<br /><br />4 out of 10, as registered by this fine website.

Often laugh out loud, sometimes sad story of 2 working divorced guys -- Lemmon a neurotic clean "house husband" and Matthau a slob sportswriter -- who decide to live together to cut down on expenses. <br /><br />Nicely photographed and directed. The script is very barbed -- that is, there's always more than one side to almost every line. Particularly funny scene involves 2 british sisters (Evans and Shelley) who seem amused by everything anyone says, but when Lemmon busts out his photos of kids and, yes, ex-wife-to-be, he has the girls sobbing along with him before Matthau can show up with the promised drinks!<br /><br />Very entertaining.

I actually saw this movie in the theater back in it's original release. It was painful to watch Peter Sellers embarrass himself so badly. The story was incredibly lame and difficult to follow, and the ending was ridiculous. It was just sad to see how the mighty had fallen. I won't say that I'm a huge Peter Sellers fan, but I did thoroughly enjoy the Pink Panther series and I felt that he gave a strong performance in Being There. But this film should never have been made. From what I've read, he pursued producing this film against the advice of the people around him. Fine, but that still doesn't excuse the studio actually releasing the film.

OMG what has Disney done lately..most of their new shows really suck. Suite life of Zach and Cody are pretty good but other shows like Cory in the house, Wizards of Waverly Place suck and are unwatchable.<br /><br />Naturally Sadie is just beyond stupid and dumb. Its about a teenager named Sadie who likes science and grows up and goes through her everyday life. There are her friends Margaret and Rain and her older annoying brother Hal. There all annoying and stupid. Especially Margaret who thinks she's the most popular girl in school and thinks she's soo pretty...its just beyond awful. I hate all the seasons of this show, its just terrible in every way (the first season was better though).<br /><br />If you value your life, you wouldn't watch this crap, its painful and stupid

The Stooges are back and funnier than ever. "Brideless Groom" in my opinion was probably the best Shemp flick.<br /><br />Shemp has the opportunity to inherit $500,000(which was probably more than a million dollars compared to today) from his dead uncle. BUT! There is a catch. He has to marry someone that day by 6 o'clock. Shemp is a bachelor with not too many admirers, except for one high pitched aggressive annoying singing student of his. But he doesn't want her, he wants someone a little more on the Victoria's Secret model type of women. But obviously he has no choice since he's no Collin Ferrel himself. But when it is printed in the papers that he is to inherit all that money if married, his ex girlfriends are on the "I want my man back" attack! <br /><br />What a great stooge flick! This is up there with thewinners of all stooge flicks! <br /><br />9/10

I started watching this because I was looking for a nice 'background' comedy for my Sunday morning. Then I noticed that this was going to be a road-movie and I decided to actually watch this.<br /><br />First 15 minutes were awful, but I wanted to give this a chance, because I never judge a movie without watching it throughly. Then things started to get little better. This seemed like a nice road-movie about friendship.. But then the movie started to get horrible predictable cliché-twists and when the movie was over it left you feeling like you had wasted your time. Did this have anything to say? Why did they even make a movie like this? And I wasn't expecting a modern Citizen Kane, but still, I have several ideas how this movie could have been improved.<br /><br />So take my piece of advice; leave this alone and go watch a real road-movie. There are many of those. I won't make the directors of those movies seem bad by putting their names on this review.<br /><br />1/10

"Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" is always being trotted out as a masterpiece of Australian cinema. I found it quite disappointing. The lead actors are great - Terence Stamp is aging beautifully, Guy Pearce should do more comedy instead of the dour roles he chooses and I've been a fan of Hugo Weaving since I saw him play Oberon eons ago. The cinematography is great, but if you've ever been to the Australian outback, you'd know that the air is so clear and the light so brilliant that they could have shot it on the movie equivalent of a Box Brownie and it still would have looked spectacular.<br /><br />So what's my problem? Well, three things. First, there is not a sympathetic female character in the whole film. A woman who has to earn her living shooting ping pong balls out of her privates in a roadside pub deserves our sympathy. Tick's wife doesn't get much better treatment.<br /><br />Second, the scene when they sing "I Will Survive" to a group of Aboriginals is offensive. To try to draw any sort of parallel between the struggles of drag queens and trannies and the almost total destruction of Aboriginal culture, which is what I assume the scene is supposed to do, shows a level of historical understanding worthy of Paris Hilton.<br /><br />Last of all, and the greatest defect of the film is that it just isn't funny enough. Did Stephan Elliott actually talk to any drag queens when writing the film? Anyone who knows a drag queen (or three or four) knows that most of them have rapier-like wits and they're not afraid to use them. Now, I can understand that a lot of drag queen banter probably would have got the film refused classification but Elliott should have been able to gather enough "fit for the kiddies" material to complete his film.<br /><br />So, all in all, a waste of a good idea and a great cast.

A day in the life of a dimwitted cab driver sometime around Christmas: The cab driver picks up a fare...they have a 'really insightful' interlude...he drops off the fare...he picks up another fare...another interlude...and so it goes on like this for 90 friggin' minutes...none of it convincing (or interesting) for even one minute...SKIP IT!

Without doubt a great all round show that if shown today would attract a huge following.Bodyguards was only 6 episodes and a trailer,but deserved a few more series to really bring it up-to speed.With outstanding performances from the highly talented and versatile Sean Pertwee and the dynamic Louise Lombard,it really did put it up with the likes of the Proffesionals,The Sweeney and Thief Takers.The story lines are based on the Diplomatic Protection Services and with great filming and story lines and scene locations,it stood out from some of the junk that gets churned by other TV production companies.I do not think that it has been shown on terrestrial TV either,such as Sky or Freeview,witch is a shame as if it were to be shown nowadays,i am sure it would get a large viewing audience.So i hope one day the guys at Carlton TV decide to release it on DVD,cheers,Nick.

A very strong movie. Bruce is good and Brad also.<br /><br />As I think there are two cities missed in the receptionist list from the list Bruce remembered.<br /><br />That means the woman was a real insurance and she did her job.<br /><br />Well, Novikov property seems to me work in this movie. However, I do believe in Back to the future theory of worlds' multiplicity.<br /><br />So Bruce could save the world, but not his world.<br /><br />In the theory of parallel worlds the man can meet himself.<br /><br />And I do believe there is no problem in that. Here I disagree with Dr. Brown from Back...<br /><br />But the story pf 12 Monkeys has its own beauty. Inspite of all these theories of one world or many or continuum one can believe that he is really insane and the doctor - his girlfriend was just lost.<br /><br />A sequence of events which may lead her to believe that he is from the future. The bullet - well it might be some mistake, some falsification.<br /><br />Well I like this movie - has to buy a DVD.<br /><br />Best.

Purported documentary that tries to examine sci-fi films of the 1950s and how they affected (and REflected) America. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Ridley Scott and James Cameron are interviewed and Mark Hamill narrates.<br /><br />Pretty terrible. The "insights" that are given are nothing new--for instance--the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war affected a whole generation of children. Well-duh! They try to cover all of the different sub genres of sci-fi films of the 1950s--the big bug movies, invaders from space movies etc etc. That's good but they choose the most obvious films and they've been over analyzed to death already. It was cool seeing clips from "Rocketship X-M", "Destination Moon", "Forbidden Planet", "The Thing" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" but everything the directors said was so incredibly obvious to any viewer that it's insulting. Even though it's under an hour I was thoroughly bored 30 minutes in. This gets a 2 for some of the clips but nothing else.

Utterly ridiculous movie which makes fun of the college admission process. While it is true that the SAT's is not everything in evaluating a student for admission to college, what the movie talks about is utterly ridiculous and not worth repeating nor viewing.<br /><br />College admissions officials are made to look like stupid people who have an extremely narrow view of the entire process. The film is an insult to hard-working high school students who work hard and then have to suffer through a long process until they receive that letter of acceptance or rejection from the schools they have applied for. <br /><br />This movie certainly deserves rejection on all levels.