Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

The acting may be okay, the more u watch this movie, the more u wish you weren't, this movie is so horrible, that if I could get a hold of every copy, I would burn them all and not look back, this movie is terrible!!

This film could have been great- but wasn't. Amongst the cesspool of talentless no-hopers and friends of the film makers who wanted to help out there are some mild inklings of talent. The main star of the film plays a good lead role. He is convincing and has those scary Italian eyes. However, he is teamed up with the worst rejects of actors anyone has ever come across. The opening scenes of the film are among the worst and most embarrassing. It looks like Gay Porno. Fortunately no one stripped off. The rape scene that keeps being mentioned is rubbish. The prison sequence was the best part of the film- although irrelevant. The movies soundtrack (if you can call it that) sounds like a teenage boys first attempt at using cooledit and some sample cds. It is boring, repetitive and extremely lame. In fact the whole film is lame. Get out while you still can!

Three Stooges - Have Rocket, Will Travel - 1959 This was the first feature length film to star the Stooges and it is pretty bad. It makes THE THREE STOOGES GO AROUND THE WORLD IN A DAZE (from 1963) look like a masterpiece.<br /><br />The Stooges are janitors at a rocket place. They climb into a rocket and it goes to Venus. They meet some stuff there including a talking unicorn they call "Uni" which they bring back to Earth with them. "Uni" speaks like an average, pleasant person - 'Oh, hello. How are you? Lovely planet here. Hope you like it.' Hilarious.<br /><br />Very few gags and so many of the scenes just go on and on and on.<br /><br />The Stooges arrive back from space and the film is over as far as the story goes, but no one told that to the film makers for the picture continues for another 10 minutes or so at a party where nothing much happens. The Stooges leave the party and then the film is almost over.<br /><br />High point of the film - the end where the Stooges sing a dapper little song about their journey. The Larry and Curly Joe hit Moe in the face with two pies. Brutal.<br /><br />Another writer mentioned the fine musical score. Huh? The only music I even noticed were two classic tunes - I'LL TAKE ROMANCE and THERE GOES THAT SONG AGAIN, both of which are played at the party. And *that* really is the high point of the picture - music from old Columbia films.<br /><br />The tall sexy blonde was nice.<br /><br />Awful - a brand new VHS video from the 99 Cents Only store.

The best thing about Shrieker is the dialogue. Like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie is cognizant of the conventions of this type of horror movie and manages to come up with a few good lines and scenes that play on those conventions. Unfortunately, Shrieker is just boring. The plot is your basic Ten Little Indians whodunnit with a monster controlled by one of the suspects/victims. You know from the beginning that each of the characters will get bumped off until only the hero(ine) is left to defeat the evil. And this is exactly what happens. Absolutely no surprises and no tension. Production values and acting were ok, but I had no motivation to watch to the end (although I did) because I already knew how the end scene would play out. The ending did surprise me a bit, because it managed to fizzle out, literally, instead of throwing out a bucket of special effects. Maybe the special effects budget had been spent up by the end.

Sometimes you need to see a bad movie just to appreciate the good ones. Well, that's my opinion anyway. This one will always be in the bad movie category, simply because all but Shu Qi's performance was terrible.<br /><br />Martial Angel tells of Cat (Shu Qi), a professional thief turned straight after leaving her lover, Chi Lam (Julian Cheung), two years before. But her past returns to haunt her as Chi Lam is kidnapped for the ransom of security software belonging to the company Cat works for. In order to rescue him, she calls on her old friends from her orphanage days, six other feisty women, to save the day...<br /><br />I may have told the synopsis cheesily, but this is a cheesy story. In fact, the whole script and direction lacked any quality at all. Much of the dialogue was meaningless and coupled with a plot that was as thin as rice-paper in water. If I could sum it up, take a bad Jackie Chan movie, remove the comedy, remove the choreography, throw away the budget, and you have Martial Angels: a formulaic piece of work with no imagination at all.<br /><br />Mind you, I do have to give credit where credit's due, and Shu Qi was probably the only person to emerge unscathed from the terrible action, as it was her performance that shone through. Okay, you can't say she was excellent - after all she had absolutely nothing to work with - but she did manage to dig some character out from her role. Other than that, only Sandra Ng and Kelly Lin made any other impression - although these were mostly glimmers and very brief.<br /><br />Elsewhere, the film just fell to pieces. Scenes and dialogue were completely unnatural and unbelievable, special effects were obviously done on the cheap with no attempt to clean up edges between persons and the mask of the blue screen, poor editing involving numerous discontinuities in fight scenes, camera angles that were elementary and unflattering, and direction I've seen better from a lost dog.<br /><br />I guess this film was a too many cooks affair. Most probably, the budget was blown away on the over-enthusiasm to have seven babes on the same silver screen. That didn't leave much else.<br /><br />Frankly, the way this film was made was like a cheap porn movie without the porn. Charlie's Angels, it ain't. In fact, while sisters can do it for themselves, none of that was really that apparent here.<br /><br />Definitely one to forget.

Julie Waters is always marvelous but Adrian Pasdar is a positive revelation in this wry gender-bent comedy about a transvestite who cannot suppress his obsession, and the changes he goes through when he's discovered. Unerringly eschews the vulgar, raucous easy jokes for genuine wit and true insight, and has an absolute ball while doing it. A very nice, low-key, feel-good, comedy

This movie was excellent from start-to-finish. I was riveted by the action, the black humour and the incredibly bad luck our hero encountered at every turn. Thomas Jane is a great actor and I hope to see him in many more movies to come. Reading through other people's comments, I have to admit I never once thought about Tarrantino while watching "Thursday" but now that I think about it I guess there are some similarities. I guess I don't spend much time trying to relate everything to everything else. The rape scene between Porizkova and Thomas Jane is one for the record books - sexiest scene ever.

Lexi befriends Jennifer, a thin, intelligent girl at her new school. Lexi's parents have just split up. Soon, Jen tells Lexi of her eating disorder, and the two begin dieting and exercising together. They both are in the school's volley ball team. Lexi's mum becomes aware of her daughter's illness, as she is losing lots of weight. Lexi is admitted to hospital. She is diagnosed with Anorexia nervosa, and is made to gain weight. Her father visits her in hospital, and orders a feeding tube. She is better and is allowed out of hospital and she tells her mum that Jen has bulimia. This leads to the two falling out, as Lexi's mum tells Jen's mum her suspicions.<br /><br />At a party Jen is hit by a car, and because her heart is weak it kills her. Lexi's condition worsens, as she blames herself for her best friend's death...

The writers missed so many opportunities and created so many plot holes.<br /><br />Example: When Dave retrieved his keyboard from the rain, I was eagerly anticipating the funny sounds that were going to come out of it. Nothing! Are you kidding me? A truly witty writer would have not only had a field day with that, but it would have eliminated the major problem of the entire audience wondering how a digital keyboard can become completely soaked but then work perfectly.<br /><br />There were at least 10 other similar situations. Overall, small children will enjoy this, parents will endure it without too much complaining.

Bad plot, bad acting, bad direction.<br /><br />It had possibilities but just didn't achieve anything.<br /><br />This film looks like someone started with an idea, googled a bit of info and then tried to flesh an hour and a half with lots of night shots and bad suspense music.<br /><br />Others had to stop watching because they were scared 2/3 of the way through - I had to take a break purely because I just didn't care anymore.<br /><br />Reminded me of an episode of Days of our Lives with marginally more suspense.<br /><br />Just bad.

Its one of those stereotypical mtv generation dance movies, and I do not see where all this 'its not that bad' rubbish is coming from. The acting is terrible, it follows exactly the same storyline as all the other 'dancing' movies out there. Its terrible! The name should scream don't watch. 'How she move.' Since when can movie titles ignore grammar? At least some dance movies had half decent dance scenes, these ones don't even deserve a watch. I give it a 1 out of 10, just because there is no zero. I seriously implore anyone with an IQ of over 60 not to watch this, and not to waste your money. The 1.6/10 should tell it all. This movie should not have even be made.

Forget everything that you have ever read about the Mallachi Brothers' straight-to-video release "Snakes on a Train," especially if it was a negative review. This movie is way more fun than the movie that it obviously rips off: "Snakes on a Plane." Frankly, I am surprised that more people aren't rhapsodizing about this low-budget Asylum Release. Instead, most reviews that I've read have nothing kind or critically worthwhile to say except the usual stupid herd mentality idiocy, such as the acting was amateurish, the action didn't numerically live up to the advertising, and the entire thing amounted to a hideous waste of time. Of course, it doesn't help that the title is a tip-off to the obvious rip-off nature of this film. Actually, I felt that "Snakes on a Train" surpassed "Snakes on a Plane" for a number of reasons.<br /><br />First, the producers used real, genuine snakes until the last fifteen minutes when they substituted either giant fake snake heads or computer generated a super-giant snake that consumed an entire Amtrak like train. How many movies have a snake gobble a train? As a result, "Snakes on a Train" ranks as the first movie to scale that height.<br /><br />Second, this low-budget movie employs some grisly gross-out effects. The woman who coughs up baby snakes--real ones--was fantastic! The special effects of her forearms getting tore up later in the movie were visually enticing! Also, you get to see a little white girl get eaten alive by a snake. She was as cute as she could be, no more than 10 years old or thereabouts, and she died screaming all the way as nasty olé giant mister snake head swallows her. Not only kids in jeopardy but kid eaten! This is exactly the kind of graphic material that you won't find in 99 % of all theatrical Hollywood releases. Of course, she wasn't eaten by a real snake, but it's the subversive thought that counts.<br /><br />Third, it is one of those cursed upon movies where Alma (Julia Ruiz of "That Guy"), the chief female character--no heroine--has a curse placed on her by her parents because she didn't marry the man that they recommended. As a result, she is filled with snakes, coughs up quantities of green radiator fluid slop then chucks up a baby snake. Imagine Medusa, the mythical characters that had snakes for hair, only with the snakes in her belly. Her psycho-shaman type boyfriend collects all the snakes that come out of her because they are heading to L.A. on a train to see a relative of his who can put all the snakes back inside of her and return her to normal. Talk about a whacked out character performing stomach churning routines. Prepare yourself for lots of slime, blood, and gore. <br /><br />Fourth, the train had only about twenty or so passengers, not hundreds. Nevertheless, it looked like the Mallachi Brothers filmed this above-average horror flick on-board a real train with real snakes and they played up the swaying motion of the train on the tracks.<br /><br />Fifth, the snakes slither around for the first hour, quietly infiltrating the train before they turn weird and attack everybody. In other words, it's suspense, suspense, suspense, before people start dying from snake bites.<br /><br />Up until the last five minutes when the snake grows bigger than the runaway train and swallows it, "Snakes on a Train" is warped, wonderful, and way-out. It doesn't have the Attention Deficit editing of a big league Hollywood movie. It's a fantasy about an unfortunate Hispanic women victimized because of her feminist, at-odds-with-society attitude. <br /><br />Altogether, you've got gory fantasy type stuff; suspenseful snakes slithering around the train, and am over-the-top gigantic snake at the end. Incidentally, they get on board the train because a bunch of other Mexicans have bribed a train employee and the Mexicans on board think that the girl is so cute that they let her and her boyfriend on free.<br /><br />I think it's better than "Snakes on a Plane" if you want a tough, little, independently produced horror movie.

The show is at least partially Faked (So is not reality, just pretending to be reality), which makes me believe at least anyone without face blurred out is a Fake episode.<br /><br />Proof in the episode where he pretends to be stabbed There is already camera crew on the boat, before he gets there, can been seen as his boat approaches.<br /><br />The actors playing "ambulance officers" didn't remove his shirt or expose the wound in anyway so they work on it, which would never happen in reality.<br /><br />They also parked the ambulance in the car park and did not drive up to the Emergency entrance (Which does not make any sense, unless its fake and they would not be allowed to go there)

An old vaudeville team of Willy Clark (Walter Matthau) and Al Lewis (George Burns) were one of the best known but they broke up hating each other. Over 20 years later they agree to get together for a TV special...but find out they STILL hate each other. Willy's nephew/agent (Richard Benjamin) tries to get them to work together.<br /><br />A big hit in its day and it won George Burns an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. I (somewhat) liked it. It was written by Neil Simon so its non-stop one-liners. Some of it was funny but making jokes of Willy and Al's senility was NOT. Also I never liked Matthau. I never thought he was a good actor and something about him just rubbed me the wrong way. Also his character here is so caustic you get sick of him quickly. All that aside this was fun. Burns is just great tossing off one-liners with ease and even Matthau was good matching him. Their verbal battles are the best sequences in the movie. Also Benjamin is very good as Willy's nephew trying to get the two of them to work with each other. For me it's worth seeing for Burns alone. This jump started his career in a big way and two years later he had ANOTHER hit with "Oh God". So, this is good. Just good--not great. Matthau's character really makes this hard to love. I give it a 7.

SPOILER ALERT In this generic and forgettable action movie, Lorenzo Lamas does his usual tough guy/pretty boy act, and his future real life ex Kathleen Kinmont is ass kicking hot chick Alexa. OJ Simpson is a detective, coasting by on his since vanished genial public persona. Translation: cable TV filler. There isn't enough skin to qualify this as a Guilty Pleasure.<br /><br />The script has some gaping holes. Best/Worst Moment: In one jarring scene, OJ's partner expresses his aversion to the morgue. OJ responds that some of the bodies are pretty hot, or words to that effect. This vague necrophilia reference is offensive enough; but in light of the murders committed shortly after this movie was released, it is truly appalling, and therefore entertaining in an unintentional, horrible way. I was so startled that I laughed until champagne came out of my nose. Now THAT'S a Guilty Pleasure. BC

Chances are if I watched this again I might get physically sick, the film is so annoying.....unless you believe in psychics, re-incarnation and the other hocus- pocus which this promotes big-time. The "re-cycling of souls," they call it here. Puh-leeze.<br /><br />This story has been done several times before with such films as "Heaven Can Wait." It's also been done a lot better. Too bad they had to waste the talents of Robert Downey Jr., Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal and Mary Stuart Masterson.<br /><br />At least it's a pretty tame film, language-wise. That's about the only redeeming quality of this movie.

Some of the reviewers here have foolishly judged this silent film by political-correctness standards of today. <br /><br />"Battle" was an excellent film for several reasons, correctly noted by more rational reviewers: Superb cast, lots of action, innovative editing and photography. <br /><br />Its stars were in effect the D.W. Griffith stock company and to this silent movie fan, that is inducement enough to watch it and to enjoy it. <br /><br />I saw it many years ago and just watched it again at YouTube; that was a very poor quality print, but coupled with my memory of a good print in a real theater, I can justifiably recommend this to reasonable people and film historians.

I am the kind of person who can enjoy a good B Movie if it has some kind of redeeming value to it, but Dead Space has nothing to redeem it! This is the kind of film that will make you frustrated, restless and sick to your stomach. <br /><br />Bad acting. Lame story. Terrible effects. Horrible, excruciating dialogue. Dead Space has it all!

I went to see this because I'd never seen Tel-Aviv, where the story is set. I was disappointed, since it doesn't offer many views of Israel's largest metropolis. It's also pretentious—one of those movies that leaves you guessing at its meaning until you ultimately give up with a shrug of the shoulders.<br /><br />The main protagonist is Batya, a woman in her twenties' who works as a waitress at catered weddings. Her parents evidently don't care about her very much, and when a little girl walks out of the sea with an inflatable ring around her, Batya feels compelled to take care of her. The little girl doesn't speak, and Batya can't give her to social services because it's the weekend and the agency is closed. So she takes her back to her apartment with the leaky roof, and when it comes time to work in the evening, she has to take the little girl with her. The boss is very unhappy about this and other shortcomings in Batya's work performance.<br /><br />Another main character is Keren, who is getting married. At her wedding party (where Batya is of course working), she breaks her leg climbing out of a ladies' room cubicle whose door won't open, and so she and her new husband cannot take the Caribbean vacation they've planned. They end up in a dingy hotel on the seafront without a view. It smells bad, there is noise from the traffic, and Keren is complaining all the time. Her husband meets a strangely attractive older woman – a writer – who is also staying in the hotel, and Keren worries that he has slept with this stranger.<br /><br />The third main character is a Filipino woman named Joy who looks after old people. The old woman she is hired to care for is very crabby and speaks no English, only German and Hebrew. Joy speaks English but no Hebrew or German. Joy is mostly concerned with how her son is doing back in the Philippines, and wants to buy him a toy boat, as he has asked. She finds the perfect boat in a store and plans to buy it. The daughter of the old woman, who hired Joy, is an actress appearing in some sort of post-modern "physical theater" adaptation of Hamlet, and does not get along with her mother.<br /><br />The way in which these three stories—which intersect momentarily—resolve themselves is presumably supposed to mean something profound. I didn't get it. There is a fantasy element to Batya's relationship with the little girl, and maybe Batya's non-existent relationship with her parents is somehow inverted in this relationship. When Joy sees the toy boat in the shop window, there is a strange effect used where the little sails billow as if blown by the wind, and they do this as if they are on the scale of a real-life ship. Keren draws the outline of a bottle around a ship that is on a brochure cover in the hotel room, and a narration of the strange woman's poetry mentions a ship in a bottle. But what does all this mean? I thought about it for a while and realized I wasn't going to lose any sleep in the process. If anyone out there has a clear idea of what it's all about, maybe they can fill me in.

OK, so in any Wile E. Coyote-Road Runner cartoons, we know that WEC is going to set up all sorts of traps for RR, but always maim himself in various ways. That certainly happens in "Beep, Beep". Predictable? I guess that it is, but when you think about it, these cartoons show how the more you try to harm someone else, the more you get harmed; sort of like how Daffy Duck always tries to undermine Bugs Bunny's integrity but Bugs sees around it.<br /><br />Overall, this is another classic from the Termite Terrace crowd. Sometimes, I think that if we really had wanted to ease Cold War tensions, we could have just let the Soviet Union see Looney Tunes cartoons; I'm sure that they would have loved them. Another great one.<br /><br />PS: I learned on "Jeopardy!" that Wile E. Coyote's middle name is Ethelbert.

This is a gem, a real piece of Americana for all that this implies. If you are self programed to resist "life-afirming" stories, just stay away and leave the pleasure to the rest of us who still believe. And what makes the frosting on the cake truly delectable is that it is fact based on a real rags to riches story, no need to nit-pick what details were changed to make a compact story. Chris Cooper is one of the greatest living actors, and the complex, self-conflicted, bottom-line good at the core father he portrayed could only be pulled off successfully by someone with his skill and insight. The simple minded comments, refusing to accept a father who tries to lay down the law all the while sensing that he may possibly be off-track, expose the limitation of the commentator, not the writers or the acting. This is not for the cynical, or the simple minded.

At what point does a film become so bad it's good? Compelling in it's awfulness, Darkhunters stands out as a shining example of c**p cinematography and for that alone, probably deserves some kind of award.<br /><br />The plot revolves around the age old battle of Heaven and Hell for the unclaimed souls of the recently dead. In the case of Darkhunters, the representatives of good and evil manifest themselves variously as a herd of cats, a hooded Grim Reaper figure with a face of flickering flames similar to a coal effect electric fire, a Philip Marlowe-a-like with a seriously bad manicure and a female psychologist who appears to be on day-release from Kwik-Save.<br /><br />The protagonists are competing for the soul of a newly dead teacher who spends most of the film running around a foggy field and bizarrely, a boarding kennels in an attempt to evade his pursuers.<br /><br />The plot is spread thinner than a dieter's sandwich with no character development or attempt to build suspense. The acting is laughable, comparable to a school play - although that would be an insult to many educational establishments. And the dialogue .......... oh, how my sides ached! With the unclaimed souls of the dead being described as "life's unwanted gherkins" by the flame-glow demon, you wonder whether Hell really is a McDonalds.<br /><br />But is is bizarrely compelling, you find yourself watching just to see how bad it can get - at just over 80 minutes, it's worth the time spent for the unintentional giggles.

This movie is one of my all-time favorites. I think that Sean Penn did a great job acting. It is one of the few true stories that made it to film that I really like. It is in my top 10 films of all-time. I watch it over and over and never get tired of it. Great movie!

There are numerous films relating to WW2, but Mother Night is quite distinctive among them: In this film, we are introduced to Howard Campbell (Nolte), an American living in Berlin and married to a German, Helga Noth (Lee), who decides to accept the role of a spy: More specifically, a CIA agent Major Wirtanen (Goodman) recruits Campbell who becomes a Nazi propagandist in order to enter the highest echelons of the Hitler regime. However, the deal is that the US Government will never acknowledge Campbell's role in the war for national security reasons, and so Campbell becomes a hated figure across the US. After the war, he tries to conceal his identity, but the past comes back and haunts him. His only "friend" is Wirtanen, but even he cannot do much for the avalanche of events that fall upon poor Campbell...<br /><br />The story is deeply touching, as we watch the tragedy of Campbell who although a great patriot, is treated by disdain by everybody who surrounds him. Not only that, but he also gradually realizes that even the persons who are most close to him, have many secrets of their own. Vonnegut provides us with a moving atmosphere, with Campbell's despair building up and almost choking the viewer.<br /><br />Nolte plays the role of his life, in my opinion; he is even better than in "Affliction", although in both roles he plays tragic figures who are destined to self-destruction. Sheryl Lee is also excellent, and the same can be said for the whole cast in general.<br /><br />I haven't read the book, so I cannot appraise how the film compares to it. In any case, this is something of no importance here: My critique is upon the film per se, and the film wholeheartedly deserves a 9/10.

'Doppleganger', ( or 'Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun' as it is more commonly known ) was written ( with input by the late Donald James ) and produced by Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, best known for their 'Supermarionation' television shows such as 'Thunderbirds'.<br /><br />The international space agency Eurosec discovers the existence of a mysterious planet on the other side of the sun, and proposes a manned flight be sent there. The committee balk at the exhorbitant cost, and shelve the project. But when a security leak at the agency is discovered, fearing that the Russians might get there first, the project gets the green light.<br /><br />American astronaut Glenn Ross ( Roy Thinnes ) is teamed with British scientist John Kane ( Ian Hendry ). After weeks of gruelling training, the Phoenix blasts off, heading for the unknown.<br /><br />Three weeks later, their ship crashes in what appears to be a bleak, mountainous landscape. Ross survives, but Kane is badly injured. A light is seen moving towards them...<br /><br />I will leave the synopsis here. Until this point, the film has been gripping, with excellent special effects ( by Derek Meddings ) and music by Anderson's resident composer Barry Gray ( why it has not been issued on C.D. is a mystery ). But when Ross and Kane crash land, and we discover the secret of the alien world - it is a duplicate of our own, everyone on it is the same, the only major difference is that things are reversed - it becomes less interesting, and ends with a shattering anti-climax. I think the cinema was the wrong place to do this idea, in fact Gerry & Sylvia later did something similar on their 'Space: 1999' show. Ross risks ( and ultimately loses ) his life in an effort to return to Earth - his Earth. But why? The new Earth is so similar he might as well not have bothered.<br /><br />Roy Thinnes had recently done 'The Invaders' television series, and gives a competent performance ( pity there weren't more scenes like the one where he rows with his wife ). Ian Hendry is good as 'Kane', but vanishes from the story too soon. Several actors went on to appear in the Andersons' 'U.F.O.' such as Ed Bishop and George Sewell. Blink and you will miss Nicholas Courtney ( 'The Brigadier' from 'Dr.Who' in a tiny role ). But the acting honours go to the late Patrick Wymark as 'Jason Webb', head of Eurosec. The character is not far removed from 'Sir John Wilder', the one he played in A.T.V.'s 'The Power Game'. Webb is such a devious character he is marvellous to watch. Herbert Lom's contribution ( as a spy with a camera hidden in a false eye ) amounts to little more than a cameo.<br /><br />Like I said, the special effects are marvellous, as are the sets. So the film is worth watching, but do not expect very much to happen once the action moves to the mirror planet. With a stronger script, this could have been another 'Planet Of The Apes' or - dare I say it - '2001: A Space Odyssey'.<br /><br />In Anderson's productions, he made the future seem like a great place, an adventure playground where science was cool, everyone had swank cars whose doors opened vertically, sexy women, and absolutely no suggestion that anything is seriously wrong with the world. We are in the future now and people are still watching 'Coronation Street' every other night. How disappointing. If a mirror Earth really exists somewhere, one hopes that is a better place than this one. If all the women there look like Lynn Loring or Loni von Friedl, I will be on the next flight!

Kevin Spacey is my favorite actor of all time, he is without a doubt on other's lists as well when it comes to great actors. He even pulled off a good Irish accent in Ordinary Decent Criminal as well. But Kevin Spacey, as a Mafia leader? Or even a burglar? I'm not so sure he could go that far. The movie to me just didn't make any sense and the some of the story just didn't feel solved to me.<br /><br />I know once again that IMDb is going to make me write ten more lines. But I'm not so sure on what I could say about this movie because I am still trying to figure it out. Silly, isn't it? But I'm pretty sure that more than a few of you IMDb users have been in the same predicament as I am in right now where you just want to say a line or two about a movie, but now you have to do ten lines? Wow, that should do it. :D <br /><br />3/10

This movie documents the Harlem ball circuit of the mid eighties. Much more fun than than Palazzo Volpi, though just as diseased, this movie is a true gem of squalor. One cannot help but sympathize with the characters because of their freakness . The sole purpose of middle class intellectuals is to document the phenomenons of the trash and the glitz. Here the most genius of trash is extremely well documented and duly glamorized. The characters' penchant for idolatry of all that is glamorous inspires even more adoration of the characters themselves on part of the viewer, creating a "phenomenon of a phenomenon" effect which makes this movie a piece of art.

Well. Where to begin. Let's just say this; avoid this movie at all<br /><br />costs. It's based on a cartoon series. The movie makes the cartoon look<br /><br />like Hamlet. Filled with emasculated actors who seem embarrassed to be<br /><br />here, lousy camera work, terrible music, and enough product placement to<br /><br />make you want to never visit Yahoo! again, this movie is really the<br /><br />bottom of the barrel. To quote the New Yorker, Matthew Broderick and<br /><br />Rupert Everett mug their way through this picture with the gay abandon<br /><br />of men who have spotted a rare species of paycheck in the distance."<br /><br />They should pay us some of the millions they earned for watching it.<br /><br />Awful.

I blow hot and cold over Carné. He really can be a puzzle for me. I think perhaps his inspiration left him a little earlier than it did for other directors of his generation. Certainly a man who came to maturity in the Thirties with the Popular Front seems ill at ease in the France of the Fifties, with its rampant commercialism and heavy American influence. He is almost thirty years older than his young stars, and it shows. The party scenes go on much longer than they should, as if he were trying to buy time for the anemic scenario to work. Roland Lesaffre's character--he plays Pascale Petit's older brother--seems to exist only to reassure the director that his old-style ideas are still sound.<br /><br />At two hours, this picture is far too long. Still, let me praise Pascale Petit for her game performance; she was a natural who should have challenged Brigitte Bardot for sexpot supremacy, but somehow lost her way. Andrea Parisy is excellent too as the girl who gets pregnant and wants Charrier to marry her and make her baby legitimate (yes, they still thought that way in the Fifties). Laurent Terzieff is the only French actor who could play an anarchist convincingly: he is great here as he rescues a cat from death, then remarks he can't stand cats. Jacques Charrier only reminds me how mediocre he was as an actor, with that constant little grin and those blank eyes.

Why did I waste 1.5 hours of my life watching this? Why was this film even made? Why am I even commenting on this film?<br /><br />One reviewer said this film took patience to watch and it was n't for everybody. I cannot figure out who this movie is for. maybe after dropping a hit of acid, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE could watch this and make some sense out of it. It is incoherent, it isn't experimental, it's plain and simple garbage. The film follows no plot line whatsoever, just when you think you have something, well.....you don't. <br /><br />I think the ending brought some finality to the film (no pun intended), the viewer gets a glimpse of what might have been going on. I don't think I put a spoiler in here, not that it would matter. This film is another must miss in the world of filmdom.

For fans of Chris Farley, this is probably his best film. David Spade plays the perfect cynical, sarcastic yin to Farley's "Baby Huey" yang. Farley achieves strokes of comic genius in his monologues, like the "Let's say you're driving along the road with your family..." bit, the "Jo-Jo the Idiot Circus Boy with a pretty new pet, (his possible sale)" speech, or the "Glue-sniffing Guarantee fairy" brake pad sale. The sappy moments in the film contrast sharply with Farley and Spade's shenanigans. Even after many viewings, it's still fun to see Farley pour everything he had into the role. "Richard, what's HAPPENING to me?!?!"

So lets say you are a producer, you have some money, and you somehow got Richard gear and Bruce Willis, so now all you need is a script...but , why bother? see, this movie is really terrible, the acting is pretty good, but the casting is awful gear and Willis did their best to play these characters they simply cant play. now, this movie has no plot, or rather, there's something that tries to pass off as a plot: there's a mean hit-man (Willis) who is cool dangerous and sophisticated (actually he's none of those things, but from some dialog between the other characters, you are supposed to get this impression), so this hit-man is on a mission to kill someone, now there's an ex-IRA prisoner who is kind and nice and very likable (gear) who the FBI release from prison so he will help them. so now the FBI is "investigating" to find this hit-man, the investigation consists of a series of unlikely information - like some random person lost his wallet and someone used his name to buy a car - which is always right on the money. since there's no real plot and the script is so crappy, you cant expect any real character development, or tension, so instead of creating them through the story, they simply add some disconnected dramatic music, which signals you that something very dramatic is going on , instead of actually creating something dramatic..<br /><br />the bottom line is that this is a very bad movie, and a complete waste of time which somehow got an incredibly high score for its level, probably because of the cast - and this is exactly what the producers where counting on.

I won't reiterate what so many others have said about this film; I'll try to add a few new points. The Coolio-as-vampire bit is a nod to fans who are familiar with his turn on the Blondie song "No Exit" in which he assumes the role of a rapping vampire (it actually works as a musical concept and is in fact a great song). Casper Van Dien is no worse than Brad Pitt and is actually more handsome. And really what does anyone go to a Brad Pitt movie for other than eye candy? Same here, although this is poorly filmed (check out "Starship Troopers" instead). And of course Udo Kier, after having played Dracula in the Morrissey/Warhol film, has little more than a cameo. Enjoy it if you can.

I have been feeling a little disappointed by Tarantino ever since death proof. But i insist it was only a little, because i can appreciate the amount of work in producing such an homage to stunts people. Inglorious Basterds has definitely propelled Tarantino to the top ranks in my universe. This movie can be summed up (albeit inadequately) in one word : "RAW". <br /><br />There is an intense emotion in every scene. Revenge and justice seem to be the main themes, From the start of the movie one feels compassion towards the victims of the Nazis, and is placed in Tarantino's fictional dimension of the WW2 historical context. <br /><br />Characters are unpredictiable, fun, scary, brutal, sexy, and other adjectives i am sure are escaping my mind that are just as fitting and positive. I won't go in to an appreciation of each character, but the other comments by fellow users sum up the appreciation of the various performances. <br /><br />Dialogue has evolved from the classic Tarantino "bad ass" provocative style as seen in Pulp Fiction and Death Proof. One can feel in the dialogues that Tarantino is making more open references to other movies. Indeed, many dialogues were near lessons in cinema to the audience, the setting partly takes place at a movie premiere ; a reference to a movie is close around every corner. <br /><br />It is nice to see that each language presented (German, French, and English) is employed rather equally and naturally. I speak both French and English very fluently, and am frequently disappointed in how English speaking characters in french movies act poorly, and how french speaking characters in English/American movies act poorly. Amazingly enough, Tarantino managed to make his actors pull off a natural and graceful performance from his actors. It helps put the audience in context of the historical context. Indeed ; soldiers, spies and civilans rarely understood soldiers/spies/civilians from other countries.<br /><br />The visuals/photography are beautiful, with sceneries convincingly conveying a 1940s WWII Europe. The outfits are perfect, and the violence orgasmically/realistically conveyed. No punches are held back, and the Nazis are often shown being tortured. This makes the movie not open to all audiences ; the graphic violence can shock the more sensitive demographic. <br /><br />volumes can be written about this movie. But the movie is so good, that during the North American Inglorious Basterds premiere at the Fantasia Festival in Montreal, i had to pee, but refused to go so as to not miss one single scene. I hope that image conveys how strongly i feel about this movie, and i'm a hard audience to please.

Don't believe the hype. If you have high hopes or have anticipated this movie to any degree, you may be disappointed. Even the hilarious and talented Steve Carrell can't save this poorly written, over-long silly spy flick. For the purists (fans of the original TV series), this movie bears little resemblance to the original characters and influence. Agent 99 and Maxwell (except for their names) are simply not the same characters. There are several isolated references to the original, but not enough to convince this fan that it is anything more than a poor shadow of the TV version. For those not familiar with the original TV series, you may not be disappointed but chances are you will be bored. There are a few cheap Hollywood political shots as well (really pathetic and oh so typical for an election year). We left after the first hour and weren't alone. Some left after 20 minutes.

The past few months I have collected Voyager seasons 4 to 7 on DVD (I only had 1 to 3 on video before that, because Kes is my favourite character) and have just reached the end. I saw them when they were originally shown on TV here in the UK but had forgotten most of it. Am I satisfied with the ending? I think I am. Naturally as I fan I would have liked to have seen more about what happened to the characters when they got home but that's left to our imagination. In many ways "Endgame" is similar to Next Gen's "All Good Things…" The involvement of the crew in the future, but mainly the captain. A new romance starting in the finale (Troi and Worf in Next Gen and Seven of Nine and Chakotay here), which results in death in the future. I truly loved "Endgame," fair to all characters, Neelix appears although he left the ship two episodes earlier. B'elanna gives birth to her daughter with loving husband Tom. Tuvok is ill but returning home means he can be cured. Harry has always been the most anxious and determined but admits the journey is important. The Doctor, in the future, is well respected by all and finally chooses the name Joe! But of course the Captain has the largest role, meeting her future self who wants to get the crew home earlier to prevent casualties. The Borg are involved, as they have played a massive part in this period of Voyager. Alice Krige plays the Borg Queen again fantastically, just her voice and acting method are magnificent. I feel sorry for Susanna Thompson though, the TV Borg queen replaced by the movie Borg queen. Maybe she wasn't available though. The special effects are fantastic, the Borg sub space hub and the Borg queen falling apart! It's very tense. Especially when they come out of the Borg subspace corridor and say their location is right where they thought they'd be after they'd said they'd have to go in a corridor that leads back to the delta quadrant. And what a wonderful idea to get inside a Borg sphere for protection, on the DVD special features they say it was like the Trojan horse. Voyager could have continued. If it was more popular they would have stuck with their original idea of the crew realising the ship is their home, like in Harry's speech and what Tom said because his wife and child are there. And then they could have got home in a film!<br /><br />Overall, Voyager was a bit hit and miss. The sixth season seemed to be one good one followed by one less than good one. The two episodes set in the Holographic Irish village are horrible! My perception of Seven of Nine was that she took over, it all revolved around her, which wasn't true. When she first appeared, season 4 was focused on her for too many of the episodes but it evened out after that. And her character is ingenious at times, 20 years as a Borg drone gradually rediscovering her humanity. I like her, especially in "Someone to Watch Over Me," "Imperfection," and "Human Error." When Naomi Wildman was scared of her initially but then became her friend often by her side, that was lovely. Chakotay became my least favourite character. Gone was the chemistry with Janeway (will they/won't they?) and you'd never think he was first officer, he's completely pushed aside most of the time. I loved seeing Tom and B'elanna's relationship blossom against the odds. I always liked Neelix a lot. Tuvok was good at times, especially when he lost his logic, gained emotion and was friends with Neelix. Harry was annoying at times but a okay character at other times. The Doctor is probably my favourite, seeing how far he comes and comedy situations he creates ("Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy" is fantastic!). Janeway is my favourite Captain of any series and you can tell Kate Mulgrew is really enjoying it. <br /><br />I wish there was more, I love Voyager!

I have never seen this movie on its own, but like many others who have already commented, I saw it as an episode of MST3K. Really terrible 70s television schlock. But someone saw its potential because it's just been turned into a $125 million flop called The Island.<br /><br />And to the person who asked whether there were ANY good movies made in the 70s, I want to remind her that it was a golden age for American film with directors like Robert Altman and Martin Scorcese first coming into their own. Not to mention little things like Star Wars (1977). Just a reminder that the 70s were far more creative than the 21st century has been so far.

Very good drama although it appeared to have a few blank areas leaving the viewers to fill in the action for themselves. I can imagine life being this way for someone who can neither read nor write. This film simply smacked of the real world: the wife who is suddenly the sole supporter, the live-in relatives and their quarrels, the troubled child who gets knocked up and then, typically, drops out of school, a jackass husband who takes the nest egg and buys beer with it. 2 thumbs up.

So I got this from the rental store where I work before it was released (release is 8/21), just watched it today, and now I'm speechless. They could have had a decent movie here, but they screwed it up in some painfully obvious ways.<br /><br />First of all, the parts with John Krasinski were funny, and are the only reason I gave it above a 3, but they are broken up by bad acting and terrible "serious" reflections on life between the main character (Andrew Keegan) and his girlfriend (the annoying Lacy Chabert). It would have been much, much better as a straight comedy ala Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.<br /><br />I wanted to like it, because I think Krasinski is funny and want to see him do well. The story wasn't bad either, just not very original. But the directing (and a lot of the acting) was terrible. I swear they had trouble keeping peoples faces in the shot and just went with it anyway.<br /><br />Their carelessness is showcased when the gun expert corrects another character and says that a "Dirty Harry" gun is not a .357 magnum but a .45 (it was, as everyone knows, a .44 magnum).<br /><br />So see this if you 1- really like John Krasinski 2- like to watch low-budget (and poorly-directed) movies or 3- Have too much time on your hands (this is me!)

A cast of 1980's TV movie and TV series guest stars (Misty Rowe, Pamela Hemsley,Clevon Little, Seymour Cassel among several others)in the story of a photographer who has dreams about killing his models. Of course the models and other people start turning up dead causing all sorts of complications.<br /><br />Over done not very good thriller has enough nudity and violence to get an R rating but not enough good material to engender any real interest. This is best described as the sort of movie that gave the cable channel Cinemax the alternate name of Skinamax. I really can't see the point of watching this unless you need to see every sleazy thriller out there. (I also have to comment that this film is filled with smoking, to the point that it becomes laughable when anyone lights up)

Flashdance is one of those awful, stupid movies that you actually kind-of enjoy, just because they're so crap. I just watched it on TV & my friend and I were amazed at how dopey it was. It's true that Don Simpson and the other producers came up with the idea of a fairly cheap, lowbrow flick with lots of sweaty bodies to help sell a soundtrack of (admitedly catchy) pop, so Flashdance is an odd sort of pioneer: the first MTV movie. Adrian Lyne started out in advertising and it shows because Flashdance is almost a commercial for itself. You've already decided to watch it but the movie has this weird, panicky undercurrent, as though it's frightened that you might change your mind at any moment. It keeps selling itself to you over and over, all the way through, using slick commercial-style editing and glossy close-ups of jiggling breasts. The story is wafer thin (I honestly can't think of another film I've seen with less plot) and it never makes much sense, but its a very contrived, calculating movie, so it feels consistent. People say it's dated but Flashdance was always rubbish. Viewers in the early 80's knew it was just cheesy T&A but it does work in its own silly fashion. There's soppy romance for the chick-flick crowd and stacks of oily, writhing female bodies for their dates, all set to a pumping disco beat. How could it fail? It helps that the dialogue is pointless, so you can grab a popcorn without missing anything major and, if this sort of thing isn't your cup of tea, you can always laugh at the 'interpretive dance' on display. The scene where a stand-in for Jennifer Beals convulses/'dances' on stage in front of a TV with a fan in it and a face full of white clown make-up had us in stitches. A genuine guilty pleasure.

When my now college age daughter was in preschool, this miniseries appeared on A&E from 8-9 each morning. My neighbor and I made a pact that we wouldn't miss a minute of Jane Eyre and our kids were late for preschool every morning for the whole week. Good choice.<br /><br />I'd forgotten how much I loved this movie until I got out my old VHS copy recently. Timothy Dalton is very handsome, but still perfect as Rochester. The dark, craggy face, the imperious demeanor tempered with humor and tenderness were straight from the pages of the book. Although Dalton eats a little scenery, I couldn't sit through an adaptation starring wimpy William Hurt or grumpy Ciaran Hinds. The magic here is that women love Dalton and get caught up in the romance.<br /><br />I would love to know what's become of Zelah Clarke. She is dead on as Jane, quiet, formal, saying volumes with but a look. The sparkle in her eyes gives viewers a glimpse of the strength and spirited nature that helped Jane survive the mistreatment she endured in youth. Criticism of her performance as "wooden" is misplaced. A servant in a proper English household would have maintained just such a demeanor, but she speaks passionately when overcome with emotion. Unlike many other screen Janes, she appears plain enough to be Jane yet pretty enough to allow the audience to buy Rochester's attraction to her.<br /><br />Bronte's dialog is a large part of why the book endures the script keeps much of it intact. Dalton and Clarke capture the interplay between Jane and Rochester with wit and quiet intensity. Although Jane appears as plain and sweet as vanilla custard, she refuses to be cowed by the dark, blustery Rochester. The two leads play off each other beautifully. <br /><br />This is the most perfect adaptation of the best romance novel ever.

Not too good a movie. Sure, it contains action, but the effects aren't all that good for a '08 movie. Gunshot effects are downright horrible. Acting is "meh" <br /><br />It is nothing like Far Cry, other than names and the very basics of the story (genetically enhanced super soldiers going amok). The super soldiers are very different, the mercenaries are different, the setting are completely different (tropical island in the pacific in the game, island in northern-ish America in the movie).<br /><br />I loved playing Far Cry. I loved the story and setting. I hated the movie.

This documentary about the life and comedy of Bill Hicks features bits from Hicks' "Revelations" and other stand-up gigs. It also features interviews with fellow comedians and people in the industry who knew him, as well as reporters and journalists who talk about how his political commentary was raw and brutal.<br /><br />I enjoyed it very much. I had already seen "Revelations" but the comedy clips were still refreshing. It's a nice balance of comedy and documentary that will explain Hicks' popularity to non-fans and please those who are already familiar with him.<br /><br />I rated it a ten.

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

If you like films that are totally bizarre, then this one is for you! Abdullah is one mean mother, with a passion for strangling people and eating ham. You should check this film out, just for a laugh. It is a low budget sci-fi, musical, comedy, cannibalistic, classic. If you get bored of the film half way through you should persevere, just for the sake of seeing the aliens, which are nothing more than little toy robots, but in my opinion are the films highlight. "I'm the Big Meat Eater, pass me

I went to see this movie with the most positive expectations. I had seen Jacquet's previous movie (march of the penguins) and had heard a very positive review of this one on the radio. However, I was severely disappointed. Most of all, this movie is terribly boring. Literally NOTHING happens. I tried to describe the content of the movie to a friend, and we both ended up laughing because I could only stammer things like "well then the winter comes, and then spring, and then there's an eagle, and a river, and one time it is dark, and the girl goes into a cave, and another time the fox has babies" and so on. After about half an hour I began sighing, yawning, rolling my eyes, cursing the reviewer at the radio station, and hoping that it would be over soon. But the movie went on and on. When it finally ended I had sunken so deep into my chair that I must have looked somewhat similar to Stephen Hawking. The most annoying parts of the movie are (a) The girl, who is obviously there to give children someone to identify with. She wears the same clothes throughout the entire movie (one year), and shows exactly two facial expressions: Joy and Seriousness. She is cute, no question about that. However, a movie about the beauty of nature like this one would have done better without her all-too-human presence. I found myself constantly hoping that she might get eaten by a bear, drown in the river, or something similarly terrible. (b) The commentary by the girl's adult voice, which tells us nothing but negligible, obvious, boring, redundant things. (c) The music, which is desperately lacking subtlety. When the girl is happily jumping around, the music jumps around, too. When the fox is threatened by an eagle, the music becomes threatening, too. It reminded me of the very early days of film-making, and was just too predictable to enjoy. Admittedly, many of the children who saw the movie with me did obviously like it, at least they got somehow involved. Thus, my warning concerns adults only: If you are over ten years old, avoid this movie. You can get a better (and cheaper) sleep in most other places.

My 2 year old likes the Doodlebops show, it seems to keep his attention for awhile. The characters are interesting, vibrant with primary colours and all. There's not much educational content that the intended target audience could benefit from, but they do seem to have a theme each show and try to teach kids about sharing and respect and other basics, so I like it for that. It's well produced with high production values. But it's really just an average show like most of the shows on TV these days. We don't buy into the merchandise angle and have our son wearing everything Dooblebop. I don't think we'd spend money to go to a live show, if they ever came to town. Going to The Zoo or the Science Centre is a far better experience for everyone involved and in my opinion is money better spent.

The movie is a really well made one, which is great and looking and passionately directed. You can tell that every shot is thought over and executed to perfection. For the lovers of cinema this is especially a great watch and they especially should be able to appreciate the beauty of it and the passion for cinema that is being put into it.<br /><br />It's hard to place this movie under one label. It's not really a drama, it's not really a thriller and it's not really a comedy. Instead its more a movie with its own style, that does things its own way. It doesn't necessarily follow the rules of cinema and features many different elements from many different genres combined.<br /><br />But just like the movie its main character, the movie gets sort of slow and boring in parts. The artistic style of directing tries to conceal that the story is actually a quite simple one and it's more as if the movie relied solely on its style and overall atmosphere created by the movie. It doesn't make the movie horrible or anything but it just prevents it from being a true absolute must-see. In parts the movie also feels as if it's trying to be too poetic and tries to let the images speak too much for itself. It just feels a bit overdone in parts, though for most part of the movie it still works out beautifully.<br /><br />It features some great camera-work and some unique storytelling, which makes this an original as well as a great film to watch.<br /><br />7/10

In Sudan, the Arabs rule and are constantly at war with the Christians and Animists who inhabit the southern portion of this East African country. This film follows a group of of Dinka boys, a tribe of cattle herders, whom were left orphaned after their village was destroyed and their families killed in a brutal attack carried out by the Arab forces. Most of these boys are now teenagers and have been dubbed "The Lost Boys".<br /><br />The filmmaker follows a group of the "Lost Boys" on their journey, as they have been accepted as refugees in the US, where they will land in Houston. Those who've been accepted as refugees gain celebrity status, as they feel (from what they've heard) that America is amazing. Making a trip from Sudan to America is like "making a trip to heaven" says the one young man. A huge party is thrown for their departure, and they are told to do Sudan well, and once they have been educated, to return to Sudan so that they can contribute to Dinka society. They are also warned not to be like "those with the baggy pants" whom are responsible for the negative stereotype of Black men, and also, no matter what happens, not to forget the Dinka culture.<br /><br />You watch as the boys come from a third world country into America and how they attempt to integrate into American society, as they have gone from a place with practically nothing to this plentiful world where everything is massively overproduced and overconsumed. They are taught about cleanliness and how to use all the utilities that we take for granted on a daily basis. It is humorous at times, humbling at others.<br /><br />Listening to the comments they make about Black Americans and American society/culture are quite interesting. As the film progresses you see how American culture begins to corrupt their previously humble ways of thinking.<br /><br />One of the boys, Peter, is not content with working and making just enough to survive, so he up and moves from Houston to Kansas City so that he can pursue an education. When the other boys visit him, they talk about how they cannot get into any schools. The main reason they came to America was to get an education and the media is saying that the boys have been brought from Sudan for an education. This is occurring because the boys were given arbitrary ages, making them older than they actually are, preventing them from being able to enroll in high school.<br /><br />The film juxtaposes images from Houston to Kansas. We watch as Peter enrolls in school, where he befriends a group of Christian conservative kids, and as Santiago attempts driving school(even though he drives without his license anyways), and works at Walmart. We see Peter struggle with high school life as he strives to make his schools basketball team, and as Santiago has trouble keeping up with work, the rent, appeasing tensions back home in Sudan, and most of all, coping with loneliness.<br /><br />It comes to the point where the boys want to return to Sudan, and tell them that everything they are taught about America there is lies. "You must make it alone here, do everything alone" one of the boys says. A damning message to a Liberal Capitalist lifestyle, showing how it causes people to become radical individualists (a trend which led to the creation of both the neo-conservative and radical islamist movements). Their biggest beef with America though, is that there is no time; time is money and we don't waste a second! <br /><br />Despite all this, the boys never lose their sense of Dinka culture. They celebrate Southern Sudan Liberation Day, which marks the day which the SPLA began to fight in Sudan, a fight which continues today. They also meet with other "Lost Boys" on the anniversary of their arrival in America, where they discuss their experience in America as compared to back in Sudan. When asked, one boy says that if he were able to make a living he would much prefer to live in Sudan. It is much too lonely in America he adds. They never lose their sense of community, which has been conditioned into them as part of their culture!<br /><br />This film makes us question the way we live, makes us question the artificial happiness that materialism and the nature of our societies has created within us. It will also change the way I look at refugees, I will never again take for granted how hard they must work and what immigrants mean for a country such as my own, Canada. This is a wonderful film. I laughed, I cried..a very emotional journey, and a very well made documentary. 10 out of 10.

This movie stinks. I don't think I have ever seen a movie so strung up on shock value. The plot was relatively interesting, but the dialog was super flat and the acting was bland. This could have been an a good movie. I think it just relied on it's grotesque visuals. I can usually handle graphic scenes and human taboos, but it felt like Miike shot it for the sake of shooting it. Just one poorly executed film. There just isn't anything to be entertained by watching this film unless you are fascinated by exhausting yourself with explicit scenes of incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, self milking, parental and sibling abuse, and fecal dispersement. I think I just sold the film to many of you, but I meant it when i said this stinks. He has succeeded in other films, but I think you'd be better off watching someone pooping.

This is a great movie. It has a captivating story, an awesome main character, very good acting and killer action. This takes place mostly in the year 2036 but shows scenes that take place in past years to explain the story.<br /><br />The story is very well done and there are no holes. Kurt Russell is a solider named Todd who is trained from birth to kill and like all of the other soldiers have never had normal lives. Eventually the military introduces newer, younger, faster and stronger soldiers. Jason Scott Lee being one of them. As a result they don't have any need for the old soldiers like Todd. They test out the new soldiers by having them fight some of the old soldiers, in the battle Russell is injured and assumed to be dead. The military dumps his body as well as a fewer others assuming they are all dead but what they don't realize is that Russell is alive.<br /><br />Todd finds a camp filled with civilization on this planet that the military dumped him on. For a while he lives there but can't adjust to normal life. He rarely says a word and he is at times very aggressive towards the other people. When they feel he is a danger to them they send him off to the desert.<br /><br />Just as Russell's leaving the planet is attacked by the new soldiers. What the military forgot was to train the soldiers to be smart like Todd and the other old soldiers. So while these new soldiers are faster and stronger than Todd, Todd easily outsmarts them. The military starts realizing this and Todd kills all of their men but one. That one is Jason Scott Lee and in the end you see a classic fight scene between Russell and Scott Lee. Russell obviously comes out on top.<br /><br />This is one of the best action films I've ever seen and I've seen a lot. This has everything you could ask for in a film including some great lines. The writer also didn't forget that Russell had never seen a woman before as he calls even women "sir". There are no holes in this film, every minute has a purpose and it's very entertaining.<br /><br />An awesome one man army action film for fans of Rambo, Commando and Missing In Action. This is highly recommended for all Kurt Russell fans and action/sci-fi fans.

An interesting concept vampirism having something to do with a virus.(but done several times by now) Overall the movie is too long and drags a bit. The editing could have been tighter. I am sorry to hear about the problem with the credits. Maybe the movie was rushed to market. The lighting was too dark in places. But the worst technical problem is the audio. The level was good enough to hear the dialog, but many of the interiors have a echo sound to them, which is very distracting. Either they were not careful in the recording, or the sound mixing could have been better. Also too much background noise got through. The should have gotten someone to do sound effects for the martial arts scenes. The tinny clank of swords hitting together was not the sound of an epic battle. Especially in the combat scenes the editing needed to be tighter.<br /><br />Also the acting was a bit flat. I am sorry, but when I see that the same person writes and stars in a movie, in my experience it is a red flag.<br /><br />But it was a good effort so I gave it a 4.

In the opinion of several of my friends and family members, including myself, this is the finest of the entire gamut of Tarzan movies. Johnny Weissmuller never played the part as well in the following issues in the series. It definitely rates a "10" in my collection of films.

I enjoyed this for a couple of reasons. The emotional tangle was at times confusing and imperfectly resolved, but the blend of newsreel footage with the film's narrative was often compelling. The other element that I appreciated was the depiction of the Werewolves, the fanatical Nazis who continued the fight after the formal surrender. I don't know of another film that deals with them. They assassinated Burgomaster Oppenhoff of Aachen on Palm Sunday, 1945, for example, and did create problems for the occupation. The film, then, challenges the sanitized version of victory and occupation with some gritty realities. The "human issues" are presented not so much through the characters here, but through the historical reality that was gripping those who had survived Hitler -- both conquered and victors.

I was five when the show made its debut in 1958 and at a later point, was a regular viewer. I remember that I really enjoyed the show, along with "Leave It To Beaver", "My Three Sons", "Ozzie and Harriet", "Dick Van Dyke", reruns of "I Love Lucy", "The Real McCoys", etc. I am now enjoying the first season of "Donna Reed" on DVD and have watched the first two episodes. Donna Stone is shown to be an intelligent, well-mannered, problem-solving, serene, stay-at-home mom, similar to June Cleaver and in contrast to Lucy Ricardo. In episode 2, I especially like how Ms. Reed becomes a surrogate dad, trading in her dress for sweats and boxing gloves, while teaching her son how to defend himself physically against a much larger bully. While none of the mothers in the neighborhood I grew up in, including my own, exactly met the idealistic standards portrayed by Ms. Reed, it is refreshing to see good manners and intelligent decision-making prevail at the end of the day, in contrast to today's accepted standards of vulgarity, selfishness and indifference among one's neighbors. I cannot imagine Jeff and Mary Stone being told by their parents that trespassing in their neighbors' yards is okay, leaving a dog outside to bark all day is acceptable, or telling their mother to "shut up" in a supermarket in front of everyone.

This film is supposedly about three young idealistic people, two of whom join the Naxalite movement and blah blah. It is really just another film about some beautiful, rich people trying to decide who they should bed next; the peasants and naxalites and the political struggles of the era merely serve as a picturesque backdrop. Literally, as we don't hear the villagers say a word, never mind learn anyone's name, thus they occupy the same 'role' as the 'natives' in old Hollywood films. The movie is also dull, and the story does not actually get us anywhere - except to various bedrooms. We are apparently supposed to admire the artsiness of it all, which merely means no good song and dance routine, which would not have saved the film of course, but might have at least alleviated the boredom.<br /><br />My friend Japna was annoyed at the immorality of the whole story, not the bedroom bit but the whole pointlessness of the story. The message seems to be that ideals are not worth pursuing.

There are no - NO redeeming qualities to this film. They didn't check a single fact - NOT ONE about... anything. I feel sorry for Larry Miller, and even more sorry for his agent for not being more capable for finding him a more suitable venue.<br /><br />The adults are all idiotic. The effects are cheesy and devoid of any sense of reality. The music is honestly cheesy. The plot is beyond belief.<br /><br />I you want to see something good with your family, see anything else. Take some time and check for mildew in your attic. My ten-year-old is mocking this film as we watch it. He's unfortunately learning that not every movie is worth watching.

Romantic comedies can really go either way, you know? You'll see one that's really sappy, and you'll think you want something more realistic. Then, you'll see one that's realistic, but it might be too dull to keep you interested. Or maybe you'll see one that does everything right, but just fails to make you smile. Romantic comedies are tough movies. You go into them with a lot of expectations, and usually, whether you like it is simply a matter of whether the filmmakes was anticipating your expectations or those of the guy or girl next to you.<br /><br />Of course, if you've got a girl next to you, and you're a guy like me, it probably doesn't matter all that much whether the movie's any good, you've got other things on your mind. For you, I say, "Go get her, Tiger!" For the rest of us, I say, "See _A Guy Thing_." It's a lot of fun.<br /><br />Because _A Guy Thing_ knows you're going in to this movie with expectations, so it doesn't pretend that its "Guy about to get married meets the woman of his dreams, and it's not his wife!" plot is going to make everyone happy. Sure, maybe you like it, but maybe it doesn't ring true, or you think it's cruel. _A Guy Thing_ covers that. What _A Guy Thing_ does is fill the screen with the best supporting cast I've seen in a long time, so if you don't the main plotline, you've still got something to make you smile.<br /><br />Whether we're talking about the seasoned veterans of big and small screen, like Larry Miller (Pretty Woman, Best in Show), James Brolin (Traffic), Julie Hagerty (Airplane!), David Koechner (Saturday Night Live and Conan O'Brien regular, Dirty Work, Austin Powers II) or Thomas Lennon (The State and Viva Variety), or new faces like Shawn Hatosy (The Faculty), or Colin Foo (Saving Silverman), we're talking about a bunch of very talented and skilled actors who know exactly how to take advantage of the film's inspired characterisation, steal the show, time after time, and still frame the piece with an energy and a joy rarely seen in romantic comedies these days.<br /><br />And that's not to detract from the actual romantic throughline and the stars that carry it along, because it's very sweet and terribly well done. Jason Lee (Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, etc.) is touching as the young professional whose life may be spinning out of control, and Selma Blair shows an understated brilliance in portraying the aspiring socialite and sophisticated career woman every guy wants to marry except for the guy who actually is.<br /><br />A lot of the success of the movie, though, falls on Julia Stiles, the right girl in the right place at the wrong time, and she wears it well. Not since, gosh, I don't know when, have I seen an actress in a romantic comedy that has made falling in love with her so easy. Of course, it's all in the closeups, the voice, and the subtle smiles, but it's magical, and it's one of the big reasons why we go to the movies in the first place.<br /><br />But Julie Stiles's slightly offbeat sophistication would be lost were it not for the fact that the rest of the cast is so incredibly dead-on in their classic simplicity. This is a movie that paints a broken world of irreconcilable stock types, makes them fall over each other to make you laugh, and then comes through with a great deal of heart.<br /><br />A Guy Thing is a movie you've definitely seen before, and the filmmakers clearly knew that when they set down to make it. We haven't really seen any new romantic comedies since Shakespeare; the relative success of this one or that one is entirely dependent upon the execution of the classic story of boy meets girl. A Guy Thing does embrace that with a bit of a metacinematic edge, often taking the scenes into the absurd in order to give the audience a chance to acknowledge the powerful emotions and ancient plot devices at play.<br /><br />For the record, it also even manages to poke fun at the rather traditional structural notions of sex and gender that form the center of every romantic comedy, so even the feminists out there might get a kick out of it.<br /><br />And guys, I think we can all agree that we wish our friends are as cool as Jason Lee's friends in this movie. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but when you try to explain to your girlfriend why the pharmacist and the clothing store clerk are among the coolest dudes in cinema, I suggest you just say "It's a Guy Thing," and leave it at that.

A big surprise, probably because I was expecting it to suck. The reviews were pretty dismissive of it, even though they all seemed to agree that the concept was golden: a man finds out his new girlfriend is a super hero, and finds, when he wants to break up with her, that she's kind of a psycho. I kept expecting it to fall apart, but it never really did. Sure, it doesn't make as much of its awesome premise as it could, and chooses to be short when it might have been better to expand the film's universe. But I can't blame it for that. Uma Thurman is great as the bipolar superhero, G-Girl. And I've discovered, after several years of disliking him, that Luke Wilson can be absolutely perfect when cast as a schlub. He's given two of the best comic performances of 2006 (the other in the pretty much unreleased Idiocracy). I absolutely cracked up at the expressions on his face when he and Thurman first have sex. It's one of the funniest sex scenes ever. My only real complaint is that they make G-Girl a bit too much of a psycho, like almost unbelievably so. Maybe with some background I could have accepted it better. I can forgive its flaws, though, because I had a really good time watching it. Underrated, for sure.

It's sad when you can see what a movie was attempting to do, and it is quite obvious that it fell far far short of the mark. Film students should take this as a lesson and a warning. Would be graduate has an idea. He wants total control. So he writes, directs, produces, his cinematic masterpiece all by himself. Usually, his concept is far beyond his budget. Usually he writes an overblown script full of every tag line he can come up with. Usually, he is more interested in the grand sweep of the story rather than on the nitty gritty of working with actors on individual scenes. Usually, he ends up with a movie that is feeble in it's attempt to create miracles on a tiny budget. Usually, he ends up with a series of encounters (we cannot do justice by calling them scenes) that feel like they were written by a 12 year old. And usually he ends up with badly acted scenes that fail to grab the viewer. When you look at Judges from this perspective you can immediately tell it's just the usual fare.

The best romantic comedy I've seen in years. Not the kind of slick over the top Hollywood stuff by Ben Stiller or Adam Sandler and a lot less syrupy than a Hugh Grant epic. Julianne Nicholson and Jay Mohr are perfectly cast and both deliver smoothly professional performances as the engaged couple who decide to spend a little time sowing their sexual oats before marriage. Instead of playing it strictly for laughs the writers and director concocted a nice blend of human feelings and comedic action. Nicholson is just great as the awkward seductress and Mohr does a great job as the man who reluctantly enters into the game but soon finds himself enjoying his flings a little too much. We see just enough of the supporting characters to nicely round out the plot without distracting from the main story. Andy Richter (earnest friend) and Helen Slater (distraught single-mom) are particularly good. There is enough meaning and emotional complexity to make this a lot more than a standard boy-girl farce. Indeed, with just a little better pacing and a tiny bit more cutting this film would be a top ten comedy.

I did have some expectations from this film because 1. It was a Yash raj production 2. When the songs were first shown on TV, they seemed catchy 3. The star(??!) cast was new. Well, I must tell u that I just couldn't sit through this movie. Uday, (with his red lips-what were the make up artists thinking???!) tries hard to look cool but fails miserably. I won't even get started on his acting (if u can call it that). 'Cleavage queen' Tanisha with all her screaming and ranting n raving just makes you want to pull your hair out in frustration. I think Uday was slightly more tolerable than her! She seriously needs to take acting lessons from her sister. The story is pathetic...the same old tried and tested formula. Absolutely no originality. There is nothing worth watching in this movie. Makes me wonder why it was made in the first place!

Plotwise this is a rather silly little whodunnit masquerading as a period drama/biopic.<br /><br />However the only reason I wanted to see it in the first place was because I was curious about what the great Henry Fonda was really like at his peak. I wasn't disappointed - he produces a truly warm and charismatic performance.<br /><br />In addition I can honestly say that I was never really bored at any stage during the film, so a strong ***1/2 Out of *****

I probably saw this movie first in about 1995. Since then I've returned to it many times. It's great! I especially like the first and second clips, "Creation" and "Civilization Rising." Wow! This was so cool back in the glory days of CG animation. CG is way older than I am, as I know the film "Tron" was made 7 years before my time. But this film was a landmark in the early '90s. It was probably the first collaboration of different CG experiments set to music. I like it so much, I think I'll go watch it now. Bye

In Black Mask, Jet Li plays a bio-engineered super-killer turned pacifist, who has to fight against other super-killers. Bad plot, bad sfx(60 million dollar budget), but the fighting scenes were excellent! Jet Li is the greatest martial-arts star alive!

I saw this film prior to joining the British Army. I went through my basic training, at first difficult and then as I progressed much easier. My time was spent during the height of the troubles in NI and the cold war. There was times when I questioned myself on what I had gotten myself into, not for long, as the training would always take over and you would always react instinctively. The voice over used to display what the soldiers are thinking is spot on, though I would have added breathing and heart rate as this seems to pound in your ear drums in given situations. Some years later I was in Canada for a family get together. An Aunty of mine who lives in the USA and is a lecturer at the Columbus Uni Ohio had done a paper on the effects of the British Army in NI. She spent some time out there researching. Although an ex pat she was very anti-British. She made a bee line for me and condemned me for being a British soldier. My only answer was see the film 'A long day's dying'. It's the closest a civilian will get to realise why a soldier does what he does. The answer is right at the end.

Kaige succeeds in this beautifully done film. The pace matches the story, the direction is superb, and the casting/acting is perfect. The only draw back are one or two slight editing errors. I love film and I am a confessed stickler.

Here's a movie with a good cast and nice looking location work but it just don't have it. Director Richard Brooks must have been a little bit tired at this stage of the game; How much better his THE PROFESSIONALS was! The horses and the rest of the action seemed to be in slow motion even during the non-slow motion scenes. This film needed to be sped-up, if anything. That horse lather sure looked awful phony to me and the obvious tire tracks in those desert tracking moments- just lazy. sloppy work. Too bad. The actors did OK, but I've certainly seen all of them do better. Ben Johnson's always a joy, though. I first saw this flick almost 30 years ago; was disappointed then and remained so upon second viewing 30 years later.

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

A film I expected very little from, and only watched to pass a quiet hour - but what an hour it turned out to be. Roll is an excellent if none-too-serious little story of 'country-boy-lost-in-the-big-city-makes-good', it is funny throughout, the characters are endearing and the pace is just right.<br /><br />Toby Malone is the true star of the film with his endearing portrayal of Matt, said country boy and local Aussie Rules football hero come to the big city to try out for one of the big teams. He is supported superbly by John Batchelor as local gangster Tiny. Watch out for these two.<br /><br />Highly recommended.

This might sound weird, but I only got to see the first movie (The Emperor's New Groove, yaddayadda) a week ago and only because of one episode of the TV show. I simply adore Kuzco's character, but Kronk isn't that bad either. Anyway, eventually I decided to watch the second film, just so I would've seen it. Hoped it would be as good as the first one, but... I'm sorry to tell this, but the more the humour got American, the more I yawned. I agreed with Kuzco when he started crying seeing all the cheesy footage.<br /><br />Still, younger kids and probably veterans too will love this movie to bits (if they like the old school moralising Disney that is), but I just had expectations that were an eensy teensy little bit hell of a lot higher than they should've been. Kronk is a lovely character, being good hearted and dumb all at once, but it were Pacha and Kuzco in drag that woke me up at the end of the movie. (I'll ignore Rudy... for as far that's possible).<br /><br />Anyway, great movie, just not my style and as they say, you always have to be true to your groove.

This is a terrible movie, terrible script, bad direction and nonsensical ending. Also, bad performances, except from Clancy Brown who is criminally underused here, and Michael Pollard. Watching this movie was purgatory--you do it to unload enough bad movie karma to actually see a good one further down the line.<br /><br />The movie presents a father and son who look like they couldn't every possibly have been related. The part of the male lead is not well written and seems uncharismatic in this role. You can see the plot points a mile away. The actions of the female lead and that of her brother, the cop, also make no sense. So, a major action on her part at the end of the movie makes no sense script-wise.

Well, I'd be lying if I said that this could easily rival Spiderman or the Batman movies. Still, it was more appealing to me for it's moral value. I first bought the VHS when my son was about 2 years old and it immediately became his favorite. My wife and I are avid supporters of Robert Townsend and have been since he used credit cards to finance his first movie, "Hollywood Shuffle". True, he needs to take advantage of the talents and knowledge of technical advisors to make the films more believable, but his movies are still fun.<br /><br />Meteor Man provides a hero with an Urban Contemporary feel. I always felt that, if there were superheroes, they wouldn't provide the same scenarios as depicted in the comics. Meteor Man is realistic hero with real problems: Car broken into, bad neighborhood, local drug-dealing gangs using children for distribution, etc. The scope of his mission stayed pretty much within the community.<br /><br />What I found to be truly entertaining, outside of James Earl Jones' "young forever" performance, was how the neighborhood responded to his newly discovered powers. It wasn't long before they had a full agenda lined up for him, without his input, of course. It was hilarious to hear them offer to lend him out to other communities where their extended families lived.<br /><br />Yes, the plot was weak, the movie was predictable, there was bad acting and continuity was rotten, but it ranks #1 with my kids. Robert Townsend works to bring movies "home" so to speak. I doubt he'll ever truly be recognized as the talented actor/producer/director he truly is, but there are and will always be, those that love him for his efforts.<br /><br />One point to ponder about the film, which I find amusing: Throughout the entire battle with Simon, no one bothered to call the police???? Also, what mother and father do you know that will watch their son fight from a window? My mother would have been right there, scrapping by my side, toe-to-toe. Dad would be loading his pistol. lol<br /><br />Rent it and check it out. It's worth seeing at least once and good for those of you that are fans of Sinbad, Luther Vandross, Bill Cosby, Big Daddy Kane, etc. Great job with the cameos Robert!

Wow, I just finally managed, after several attempts, to finish watching this god awful movie, only to learn that Rick Sloane and his production team have completed a straight-to-video sequel this year.<br /><br />Of all movies reviewed by MST3K--and they truly dig from the bottom of the barrel, screening the reputationally bad 'Manos,' 'Werewolf,' 'The Incredibly Strange,' and the lesser know disasters like 'Laserblast,' 'Zombie Nightmare,' and 'Time Chasers,'--this certainly has to be the absolute biggest pile of garbage they'd ever shown (which makes it perfect for riffing). Very simple, the movie is about a bunch of Munchies-like gremlins on the loose, exploiting people's desires for fame, fortune, prowess, and of course, sex in ways that end up with people getting killed. But this is the kind of movie where the acting is so ridiculous (a test of machismo, for example, is illustrated by two guys who battle in the front yard with garden tools), the writing is so forced (such as the oft-described scene of a gremlin hanging on the arm of one girl who would notice it, if only she turned her head a quarter to the left... and this isn't the first time in the movie this happens), and the story is so... rarely given attention (hence the MST3K riff about a "law in the future where films have to be made by FILMmakers), that you actually root for the furry puppets to kill off everyone on screen. Worst movie... ever.

Fast Times it ain't. But check this movie out, it has a heart. Pour yourself a drink and enjoy. It's loaded with a slew of just-beginning stars. Sherilyn Fenn has her first on-screen credited cameo. Chris Penn, Lea Thompson, Eric Stotz, Jenny Wright, Rick Moranis, etc.--they all look so young. Oh and if you look closely the cop's wife is Nancy Wilson from the rock band Heart.

The worlds largest inside joke. The world's largest, most exclusive inside joke.<br /><br />Emulating the brash and 'everyman' humor of office space, this film drives the appeal of this film into the ground by making the humor such that it would only be properly appreciated by legal secretaries writing books. The audience is asked to assume the unfamiliar role of a legal secretary, and then empathize with the excruciatingly dumb protagonist.<br /><br />The entire film is centered on the legal secretary finding free time, listening to music and writing a novel while working. These are his goals. You can't imagine the slap in the face it is to the audience when (around halfway through) they find out he has had a job which fit all three of those criteria, but then gives it UP! The director and screenwriter (Jacob Kornbluth and Josh Kornbluth) completely remove the audience's motivation to empathize or even find entertaining a protagonist that has previously thrown away that which he is complaining about the lack thereof.<br /><br />Apart from that major stumbling block, the legal secretary insider humor fails because they must be explained explicitly to the audience each time they happen. Without these asides, the audience wouldn't have noticed anything particularly strange. Humor is only effective if it doesn't need to be thoroughly explained to the audience what is funny.

These days, Asian horror films are among the best in the world, noted for their atmosphere and reflection of contemporary society. This is not one of those films! Instead, "The Record" is a mediocre slasher movie highly derivative of American movies like "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and "Scream". The plot is familiar - 5 teenagers accidently commit a terrible crime, but cover it up swearing to secrecy. One year later, they're being stalked by a knife-wielding maniac (with the decidely unscary disguise of a hospital sterile mask and an orange jumpsuit). It doesn't help that the teenagers are a generally unlikable group (this is one of those movies where the killer's motives seem pretty reasonable) and there are numerous stupid plot setups to keep the story going. The direction of the movie is unsubtle, more influenced by MTV than by current Asian horror films (like "The Ring"). The last third of the movie isn't too bad though, delivering some decent suspense scenes, though there is probably one "twist" too many in the end. 4/10

This is the first feature film from Australian comedian Mick Molloy. Mick wrote the film with his brother Richard with help from John Clarke, another comedian and actor. Mick & John also have starring roles along with several other iconic Australian actors - Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson et al. The basic premise of the movie is that slimy Jack Simpson (Mick Molloy) has become a member of a Lawn Bowls Club for the sole purpose of getting a free car park near his work. The Club is in dire financial straits and calls on Jack to help. John Clarke plays the clubs arch nemesis - he is trying to take the club over and turn it into a "Poker Machine Slum" Jack and the other club members band together to try and save the club with many funny twists and turns and Jacks eventual redemption. This is quite a clever little movie. It is well above Mick Molloys usual gutter humor. It is pretty well written and well acted. The older Aussie actors are brilliant (Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson Monica Maughan and ors) The film meanders along rather then going at break neck pace, but that adds to the charm of the movie. There is low level coarse language.

The hip hop rendition of a mos def performance (according to the film's musical credits)...it is an incredible piece of savage consciousness that slams the violence in your heart with each "snap" if anyone can tell me someplace this song, "Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def from "The Ground Truth", an undeniable duty to see as the Americans who might not support the mission but embrace each soul caught inside this savage miscalculation of purpose...they take on the haunting as so many of us can sit back and be angry...<br /><br />"Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def, where can it be found<br /><br />desperate to find it :<br /><br />medically unable to serve

(There Are Spoilers) Usual slasher film with the story taking place in and around this God-forsaken mine outside the almost deserted town of Sutterille. After receiving a letter map and gold nugget from her brother Jared, Shadrach Smith, Clair and her husband Nick Breman, Carrie Bradac & Sean Hines, drive to the village together with four other friends and armature gold-prospectors Alx & Tori, Steve Wastell & Sangie, and Hayden & Rox Ann, Rick Majeske & Elina to stake their claim. <br /><br />It later turns out that the fact that Jared disturbed the long-forgotten gold mine caused the ghost of the notorious Jeremiah Stone, Vernon Wells, to come back to life and with that restart his reign of terror. Stone, or 49er, is about the most ridicules slasher/killer in motion picture history. Stone looks like he was buried for years under a few tons of coal runs around with this hook slicing people in two. After doing in almost the entire cast local hermit Aunt Nelly, (Karen Black), who's daughter Eve (Alexandra Ford) was also one of Stone's victims, tells those still alive that unless they return the gold back to the Stone mine the crazed miner will never rest until he kills all those who still have it.<br /><br />Aunt Nelly is given just enough time to tell her story before she's turned into a human torch by Stone and ends up jumping into a nearby stream.The movie goes on endlessly with the killer miner on the rampage looking like he's about as scary as burnt toast and just as dark. Even those in the film seemed to show no real fear of him. In one scene when he broke into Aunt Nelly's house everyone inside all charged, instead of running away, him causing the ghost miner to lose his right arm; Stone spent the rest of the movie with a miner's pick attached to his "stump". <br /><br />Besides Actress Karen Black the film "Miners Massacre" also has veteran actors John Phillip Law and Richard Lynch as the town Sheriff Murphy and Old Man Prichard. Passable stuff but nothing special the movie has a predictable ending with the entire gold mine going up in flames. The audience given a hint by the makers of "Miners Massacre" that the end to this mindless lunacy is nowhere in sight and may very well resurface in the very near future in a possible sequel, God help us all!

"Come Undone" appears to elicit a lot of opinions among the contributors to this forum. Granted, it's a film that promises a take on gay life, as most viewers expect and somehow, it gets away from that promise into an introspective view at a young man's soul. The film has a way of staying with us even when it has ended. It is a character study about how a young man gets involved into a love affair with someone so much different than him that, in the end, will leave Mathieu confused, hurt and depressed when things don't go according to what he hoped the relationship would be.<br /><br />If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop reading.<br /><br />Sebastien Lifshitz, the director of the film, has told his story from Mathieu's viewpoint. Most viewers appear to be disoriented by the different times within the film, but there are hints that are not obvious, as one can see, in retrospect. The story is told in flashbacks that might add to the way some people will view the film. This is a story about the doomed the love Mathieu felt for Cedric and the ultimate breakdown of their life together.<br /><br />First of all, Cedric, the handsome young local, pursues Mathieu until he succeeds in convincing him he likes him. Mathieu feels the attraction for Cedric too. We realize how different both young men are by the way Cedric tells Mathieu's family how he feels school is not for him. On the other hand, Mathieu, who wants to be an architect, finds beauty in the abandoned place where Cedric has taken him. We watch as Mathieu, reading from the guide book, wants Cedric's attention.<br /><br />When Mathieu comes out to his mother, she wisely tells him about the importance of continuing his career. She also points out about what future both of them would have together, which proves to be true. Mathieu appears to have learned his lesson, the hard way. He goes on to an uncertain life with Cedric and attempts to take his own life. We watch him in the hospital speaking to a psychiatrist that has treated his wounded soul.<br /><br />The ending might be confusing for most viewers, but there is a moment in the film when Mathieu goes to work in a bar where we see him washing glasses and looking intently to Pierre, the young man who frequents the bar. That is why when Mathieu goes looking for Pierre at his house, appears to be hard to imagine. Yet, we have seen the way Mathieu is obviously interested in Pierre. The last scene at the beach, when Pierre and Mathieu are seen strolling in the sand, has a hopeful sign that things will be better between them as they watch a young boy, apparently lost, but then realizing the father is nearby.<br /><br />Jeremie Elkaim makes Mathieu one of the most complex characters in recent films. This is a young man who is hard to understand on a simple level. Mathieu has suffered a lot, first with the separation of his parents, then with his depressed mother and with losing Cedric. Stephan Rideau, who has been seen on other important French films, is equally good, as the shallow Cedric.<br /><br />While "Come Undone" will divide opinions, the film deserves a viewing because of the complexity and the care Sebastien Lifshitz gives to the story.

An in-name-only sequel to John Carpenter's Vampires, this movie takes place in Thailand and involves a sect of bad vampires, who enjoy killing people, and a sect of good vampires who do not. While it's an interesting idea to set a vampire film in Thailand, the writers don't seem to do a lot with the exotic locale. This film could just as easily have been set in Los Angeles. Which brings me to my next point, which is that this seems a lot like Blade Lite. We've got the rock soundtrack, the martial art battle scenes, a dance club bloodletting and, of course, lots of sharp objects going through vampires. What we don't have is the budget and talent. Yes, the hero is a good martial arts fighter, too bad his acting wasn't as good, and there's plenty of decent wire work, and tons of revved up fight sequences, maybe too many. The problem is they just don't have the same impact as the ones in any of the Blade films. Perhaps it's just that the film has a "been there seen that" feel to it.<br /><br />However, for me the biggest problem was that the filmmakers didn't take enough time to establish the relationship between the lead, played by the buff and bland Colin Egglesfield, and his girlfriend. She gets snatched at the very beginning of the flick after a whiny exchange with her boyfriend. We have no vested interest in her welfare at this point and no reason to believe that her boyfriend would be willing to risk his neck to save her. Now that's a major drawback when that's the major thrust of the plot.<br /><br />In the end, you could do worse than waste 85 minutes of your time with this, but I can think of a lot better things to do with your time, like renting any of the Blade movies.

Thirty pieces of silver and a kiss for luck. This one was another totally unexpected gem. Usually, I'm not even a suspense/thriller fan. This satisfying 100 minutes has more twists than a boardwalk pretzel. It has titillating erotic romance, reminiscent of "Body Heat" in more ways than one; it has cops and crime; political intrigue and just a dash of daytime soap. It has just the right touch of gritty violence that any professional "by-the-numbers" crime job must employ. Emma Thompson, (FBI AIC), delivers her role with grace and humor and gets my vote for best fake southern accent by a Limey. Alan Rickman, (local cop), who always seems to steal the show, is excellent but not overbearing. They work well as a pair. Lots of plot misdirection that never gets out of control and gets coherently reconnected at film's end. And who is this awesome woman, Carla Gugino? I want her to bear my children. Carla, if you're out there, let's do lunch

This cool Marvel superhero game pays proper tribute by staying true to the comics. Of all the Marvel superhero games that have been so lame with weak graphics and gameplay, Spiderman improves in both departments. It also features the voice of Stan Lee, the creator of Spiderman comics.<br /><br />As you'd expect Spiderman does whatever a spider can. He does more than spin webs. In fact, he uses them as weapons and shields. When he's not using web in combat, he punches and kicks as well. Spidey has his hands full as he battles Venom, Rhino, Mysterio, Scorpion, and Dr. Octopus to name a few. Look for Captain America in a cameo.<br /><br />Most of the levels are challenging, but some of them require patience to beat. The only complaint about this game is that it's so short and can be completed in less than three hours. If you're a real Marvel superhero fan, this game is for you but don't expect long gameplay. Better luck in "Spiderman 2." My evaluation: 9 out of 10.

This should not have been made into a movie. Everything about it was idiotic and I don't think I laughed even once. There were bits and pieces that were okay I guess but that's about it. A lot of parts were strikingly similar to a lot of other movies which did them a hell of a lot better. There were some famous actors/actresses in this but no one did a good job, they must've just not cared. This is one of those movies that tries to have a "cute" ending but it was so idiotic that it literally had no redeeming values. Carrot Top is probably the worst comedian out there right now. Do yourself a favor and steer clear of this one!<br /><br />Final Decisions:<br /><br />Movies : NOOOOO!<br /><br />Purchase DVD : Absolutely not!<br /><br />Rental : Only if you've seen EVERYTHING else and have a free coupon but even then it's still not worth your while.

This has got to be a unique twists of two genres of ever seen. The giant monster movie genre with the living mummy movie genre. This unique blend makes for a unique and compelling story. The casts is outstanding, including TOM BOSLEY who as far as I know never has been in a horror movie before, ever. The effects are impressive and the idea of a giant mummy filled with smaller mummies is a cool one. My one complaint, I just wish we saw more of the giant mummy, but other then that I think they did a great job. The dialog, the characters and the story was perfect. The acting was wonderful. This has got to be the best movie to come out of the sci-fi channel. You heard me, the best movie to come out of the sci-fi channel. I give THE FALLEN ONES 9 OUT OF 10.

I'm just quite disappointed with "Soul Survivors". It doesn't worth even a comment in this forum. The script is very poor as well as all the "acting" and for our entertainment it features a pointless plot.<br /><br />Please, do yourselves a favor! Be a real "Survivor"...Don't waste your time in this piece of crap! Someday you'll thank me!

This film was produced by Producers Releasing Corp. (PRC), among the so-called "Poverty Row" film studios of the 1930s and 40s. So you can imagine how little money was spent making it.<br /><br />The music is forgettable. Cast member Gerra Young does exhibit an operatic-quality voice, but is sort of a discount Deanna Durbin. The IMDb database doesn't show any other film appearances for her, so let's hope she was able to move on to some kind of position in Grand Opera.<br /><br />The opening credits for the print recently broadcast by Turner Classic Movies indicates this film has been preserved by the National Film Museum. This immediately begs the question—WHY? <br /><br />Are their resources so plentiful that they can afford to preserve junk? Some low-budget or B musicals of that era have redeeming features which make them worthwhile. This film has none.<br /><br />In my opinion, skip this movie. It REALLY wastes an hour of your time.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings have had a profound influence on my life as a Christian, and I eagerly anticipated watching this movie and finding out more about his life. Words can hardly express my disappointment. This movie was disjointed...it gave no background about his life, no historical context, and nothing about his great writings (except a brief, passing reference to "The Cost of Discipleship" by a colleague at the beginning of the movie.) Instead, we see him enjoying jazz (apparently in the States) and chilling out with his friends before he decides to go back to Germany. Apparently to show his human side. OK, I'm ready for the dramatic part. The part where he stands up for his faith. Instead of emphasizing that, we get a very badly acted romance with a 17-year-old schoolgirl. Whether or not that actually took place, it should not have been a major portion of the movie. Now...still waiting for the dramatic part, or some narration explaining what his writings were all about...or SOMETHING to make us know a little bit of the greatness of this man. drum-roll.....waiting..... ....waiting.....ZIP. Nada. This is the kind of movie that gives "Christian Films" a bad name. All they had to do was set up a structure for the movie to follow, with some background...even some voice-overs, or flashbacks to him preaching from his works...some narrative about who he was and where he had been. But no...this is what we got. Hardly fitting for a hero of the Faith.

I saw the trailer for this movie in the 70's when I was barely 16 while viewing another film. Oh!!!! how excited me and my best friend were. we couldn't wait for the month or so until it would come on. I saw this movie 17 times that year at the theatre. I love,love,love it. Kris is so perfect for the film. He is brash and kinda trashy but also shy and uncertain with Babs and it is so endearing to watch it again. When they sing evergreen at the studio and he chimes in with his raspy voice so very different from the perfect notes coming from her but I always thought this was one of the best scenes in the movie. The way he looks at her and he is so proud.I could watch this movie every day. We tried to dress like est-her I even have the long sweater and cap that was so like the one she wore. this came on TV on time and I got my daughters to watch it they were teens and they loved it to. Maybe its just that I was so caught up into it at an age when everything was extreme don't know. The ending always has me in tears even today.

John Madden's cinematic interpretation of Edith Wharton's Ethan Frome falls short of doing justice to a great literary piece. While the story is maintained the elements that give the novella its soul are skewered and all in all lost in the film. Madden fails to convey the innocence, and overall tragedy of Ethan and Mattie's relationship instead transforming it into a morality tale. The mark is missed and the point lost in added details and poor dialog. Zeena (Zenobia) in the book is almost completely the antagonist, the books least sympathetic figure, where in the movie she can be almost pitied though it's a stretch you kind of feel bad for this sick woman who is being cheated on. The book more accurately describes Zeena's tyrannical control of the house and of Ethan. The movie just ticked me off. The addition of the fox was pointless, as well as the scene with Mattie trying to kill herself. It was just poorly interpreted and done. Film mistakes: Ethan's elusiveness in the church dance scene, interactions with Denis Eady, addition of love scene, fox scene, store scene, saying his plans allowed, lack of displays of Ethan's inner emotions and thoughts, introduction of the priest instead of nameless engineer, let on to much that Zeena knows about the growing relationship where in novel reader never knows what Zeena is thinking or aware of. Just too many flaws and poor directing decisions.

Ooverall, the movie was fairly good, a good action plot with a fair amount of explosions and fight scenes, but Chuck Norris did hardly anything, except for disarm the bomb and shoot a few characters. The movie was very similar to the events of Sept. 11, with a bin laden-like terrorist sending a video to the president (Urich) and threatening to detonate it. Judson Mills had some superb action roles, taking out Rashid's compound and various kick-butt roles but, there was a lack of Chuck Norris. Judson took over most of the action, leaving Joshua (chuck) with Que on her computer. But, overall, it was realistic and didn't lack the action, but only did it on Mr. Norris' part. I gave the film 7/10.

Dutiful wife Norma Shearer (as Katherine "Kitty" Brown) waits on husband Rod La Rocque (as Bob Brown) hand and foot. While making him breakfast in bed, and helping him dress for a Sunday golf outing, Ms. Shearer suggests joining Mr. La Rocque for the day, noting how infrequently the two see each other. But, La Rocque puts her off, saying her presence adversely affects his game. Then, unexpectedly, Shearer meets the real reason for her husband's frequent absences… his pretty blonde mistress!<br /><br />Three years later, Shearer is a glamorous and flirty divorcée. While summering in Paris, she has struck up a friendship with wealthy, older socialite Marie Dressler (as as Mrs. "Boucci" Bouccicault). Ms. Dressler invites Shearer to her Long Island home, to socialize with some friends, and ask a favor. Dressler is worried about her granddaughter's relationship with a suave, worldly man. She wants young Sally Eilers (as Dionne) to marry Raymond Hackett (as Bruce), instead. Aware of Shearer's flirtatious conquests, Dressler asks her to lure the undesirable man away from Ms. Eilers. Shearer is stunned to discover the man is La Rocque, her ex-husband.<br /><br />Shearer and Dressler make this a cute, entertaining play. They are in top form, giving guaranteed-to-be-popular performances, with enthusiasm and professionalism. The story is silly and predictable; yet, in a way which helps the humorous situation. And, the ending is quite clever. In fact, the comic "Let Us be Gay" may have aged better than Shearer's larger-produced, and more serious, "The Divorcée", which was released around the same time. The cast uniformly fine. La Rocque is better than his film with Lilian Gish; but, his role is not at all endearing. Gilbert Emery (as Towney) and Tyrell Davis (as Wallace) are funny supporting suitors.<br /><br />Those not familiar with Norma Shearer may not realize it is she who appears as the dowdy wife in the opening scenes. This is Shearer as "Kitty" before her make-over. Watch the close-ups of Shearer with light, natural make-up, for a good look at an intriguingly beautiful woman.<br /><br />******* Let Us Be Gay (1930) Robert Z. Leonard ~ Norma Shearer, Marie Dressler, Rod La Rocque

Definitely worth renting! Good clean family entertainment. My 4 and 5 year-olds (and I) loved it. Kept them on the edge of their seats. I recommend parents sit with their younger children to watch this, as it can be quite suspenseful for them. It's not too often you can find movies that you can watch with your children, and so this is a rare find. Some of the acting / realism isn't quite there at times, or maybe is a little corny, but children don't seem to notice or care, they love it. Parts are predictable, but other parts are not - like trying to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. The movie doesn't have any really scary/creepy stuff, and so I doubt it will give children nightmares. It does inspire children to dream, which is something we need to encourage and foster more in our children. Rent and be blessed!

Great fun. I went with 8 friends to a sneak preview viewing of this film. We came to see different one but after 10 minutes wondering what the heck we got ourselves into this time the jokes became funny and they stayed funny throughout the movie. In the first part you just keep asking yourself about this 'malinski' and 'bellini' stuff (there are many more examples of this lingo) and because they keep repeating the same jokes (with different twists) they get funnier and funnier. In search for this malinski all the main characters are introduced the first one even wackier than the next. Until half of the film was over we didn't even know the name of this movie because there were no opening credits and we went to this sneak viewing, but we sure had a good time. The house was loaded (appr. 250 people) and I think about half of them didn't like it and the other half loved the film. If you like weird comical movies with great dialogue you will love it. Apart from Clooney This movie deserves a lot better than the 5.6 IMDB rating it has at the time I write this, but when more ppl have seen it I am sure it will go up. 7.0 is reasonable I guess, I would give it an 8 out of 10. (10 out of 10 after a few beers)<br /><br />

I suggest if you have already seen the original American Graffiti, do not see this movie. If you haven't seen the original, I still don't recommend this, but it will be a lot less painful to watch. The characters from the first film are great, and by the end you fell a connection to them. This movie sets out to show how bad their lives have become. It's a chore to watch!<br /><br />Set on New year's eve in 1964, '65, '66 and '67, we have four stories about the characters from the first film. In '64, we have John Milner (Paul Le Mat) who is now a professional drag racer. He meets a foreign girl Eva, and though his plot really goes nowhere, it's the best of the four. In 1965, we have Toad (Charles Martin Smith) who is stuck in Vietnam, and more than anything, he wants out. He tries to find ways to hurt himself or do stupid things to get out. In '66, we have Debbie (Candy Clark), the girl who Toad picked up in the first movie. Now she is a pot smoking hippie, and really I'm not sure what her plot was about. It was her going to a concert...not much of anything happened. Finally, in 1967, Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Bolander (Cindy Williams) are having marriage problems that end in a anti-war rally and police action.<br /><br />None of these stories are very good. The script in some parts features very, very bad dialogue. These poor characters who I enjoyed so much in the first film, ended up where they are here...why? Why was this sequel made? I guess if a sequel was made, it had to feature the Vietnam war, and hippies and police action, but the real thing is that this movie shouldn't have been made.<br /><br />The direction was stylish, but it just amounts in a huge headache. Each story has a different style. Milner's is just a regular (depending on how you watch it) wide screen, and is filmed how the rest of the movie should be. Toad's plot was shot in 16mm, and what it amounts to is a poor looking picture, which is the size of a small box in the middle of the screen. Debbie's plot is shot in multi-screen. At one point there might have been one screen, but for the good majority, it's anywhere from two to twenty screens up at once. Don't bother trying to follow the screens, since there's nothing going on anyways. Steve and Laurie's plot has the weirdest filming style. It's style really doesn't mean anything, and is dumb and pointless. Instead of just a full widescreen, it's a condensed widescreen that looks like a full screen version of widescreen. Though I don't like the others, at least I understand what they were going for, this one just doesn't make sense.<br /><br />The music is this movie's saving grace, not that it could save this! Bob Dylan, Simon and Grafunkel, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye and dozens of others have nice songs featured here. They don't save the feature, they just make it a little better than it is. It's still bad! <br /><br />Overall, this is a pointless sequel. Any fan of the original should avoid this lackluster sequel! <br /><br />My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 110 mins. PG for language, drug use and violence

This movie has made me want to become a director, and Michelle Rodriguez is brilliant. How the hell wasn't she on mtv's top 25 under 25, she beats them all. This film definitely deserved the grand jury prize at sundance, best film i have ever seen.

This film seemed way too long even at only 75 minutes. The problem with jungle horror films is that there is always way too much footage of people walking (through the jungle, up a rocky cliff, near a river or lake) to pad out the running time. The film is worth seeing for the laughable and naked native zombie with big bulging, bloody eyes which is always accompanied on the soundtrack with heavy breathing and lots of reverb. Eurotrash fans will be plenty entertained by the bad English dubbing, gratuitous female flesh and very silly makeup jobs on the monster and native extras. For a zombie/cannibal flick this was pretty light on the gore but then I probably didn't see an uncut version.

Well since seeing part's 1 through 3 I can honestly say that they should have NEVER made part 4. Everything from the tacky, and I DO mean tacky score to the really bad acting, I dare anyone to watch this and not be bored out of their minds.<br /><br />I mean parts 1 to 3 kept the vibe strong on the plot of Damion, but without him around in this one it's just not the same. Sure by the end of part 3 I was getting a little tired of the continued story line's, but it was a good closure at the end of the third one. Again there was no reason for a part 4. Even if there was they could have done a MUCH better job than this sh*t I had to sit through, lol. There goes an hour and a half of my life i'll never see again.